Fox News Lied About Mainstream Media Christian Bias
By: Steve - July 31, 2011 - 10:00am

According to Fox News, the mainstream media has anti-Christian and pro-Muslim bias. Their evidence? The mainstream media reported the fact that the Norway shooter is a Christian, but they seem to be ignoring the fact that the Fort Hood copycat is a Muslim, said Fox host Clayton Morris today, in reference to Naser Jason Abdo, the soldier recently charged with planning an attack on Fort Hood.

Fox not only claimed that news outlets are ignoring Abdo's religious faith, but that they are actually hiding the fact that he is Muslim.

Fox also hosted Tim Groseclose, author of the book "Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind," to discuss this alleged media bias, which Groseclose attributed to political correctness, adding this: "It's not in vogue to be Christian, but it is somewhat in vogue to be sympathetic to Muslims among the far left."

But there is one big problem with all that. I could not find one single mainstream media outlet that did not report the fact that Abdo is Muslim, unless these news outlets are not the mainstream media: The New York Times, The Associated Press, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS.

Every single one of them reported that he is a Muslim. So basically Fox just made it up, I guess the opportunity to combine two of Fox's favorite narratives, the persecution of Christianity and liberal media bias, was too good to let the facts get in the way.

Not to mention, it is a lie to say that the left is sympathetic to Muslims, we simply think it is wrong to label ALL Muslims terrorists because of a few bad apples. That is not being sympathetic to Muslims, it's simply being fair to the Muslims that are not terrorists.

And Last week on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart reported that Fox News responded to the recent Norway shootings with claims of media persecution against Christians. Stewart also pointed out that Fox is quick to distinguish violence in the name of a religion from those who practice that religion, especially O'Reilly, as long as that religion is not Islam.

Big Labor Victory Story O'Reilly Totally Ignored
By: Steve - July 31, 2011 - 9:00am

As O'Reilly and the right claim big labor is dead, they have a big victory, but of course O'Reilly ignored it because that would kill his right-wing spin on labor in America.

Last April home furniture giant IKEA set up a shop at a manufacturing plant in Danville Virginia, for the past three years in order to gain access to a non-unionized pool of labor and avoid Swedish unions. Workers at the Danville plant have faced mandatory overtime, frantic hours, and even some racial discrimination.

But Wednesday, following an intense union organizing drive by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the employees at the Virginia plant voted overwhelmingly to unionize:
Workers at Ikea's U.S. furniture factory voted to form a union, a victory for the labor movement.

Employees at the plant in Danville, Virginia, voted 221-69 today to join the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the National Labor Relations Board said.

The factory, operated by a subsidiary called Swedwood, makes low cost bookcases and coffee tables for sale in Ikea's 37 blue and yellow U.S. big-box stores.
Then IKEA put out a phony statement saying they support the workers right to join a union, which is about the same as O'Reilly saying he is a union man and he supports unions.

"We fully support the right of our co-workers to make this decision," said a spokeswoman for the IKEA subsidiary that operates the plant. "We accept their decision and will work with their union in a mutually cooperative and respectful manner."

The Truth About Debt Ceiling Increases (By President)
By: Steve - July 31, 2011 - 8:00am

I bet you did not know this, especially if you only watch O'Reilly and Fox News. Despite the recent spin from the GOP, Republican presidents have raised the limit on U.S. debt by a much greater percentage than either of the two Democrats elected since 1981.

According an analysis of historical data compiled on the statutory limit by the Office of Management and Budget, former President Ronald Reagan outstrips all other executives to date, increasing the debt ceiling by 199.5 percent during his eight years in office.

He is followed by President George W. Bush, Jr. at a 90.2 percent increase over eight years and by President George H. Bush, Sr. at a 48.0 percent increase over only four years in office.

Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, on the other hand, have only raised the debt ceiling by 43.6 and 26.3 percent.

Now we do not know if Congress will reach a compromise and pass legislation to increase the statutory limit again by the Aug. 2 deadline.

But even if Congress does pass the proposed $2.4-trillion increase, Obama will still be looking at a total increase of 47.5 percent over his first term, less than half of the increase that Reagan had during his first four years.

And you will never see that reported by O'Reilly, or any Republican, or anyone at Fox for that matter, because they do not want you to know the real truth.

The Friday 7-29-11 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - July 30, 2011 - 11:30am

There was no TPM because the insane far-right partisan hack liar, Laura Ingraham was the fill-in host for O'Reilly again. And the propagandist Ingraham spent the entire show spinning the debt limit deal with mostly Republican guests.

So I will not do a full review, but I will highlight a few really biased and ridiculous things Ingraham said.

Ingraham did not have one Democratic guest on the entire show to discuss the debt issue. She only had other Fox stooges, like James Rosen, Ed Henry, and Bret Baier on to talk about it. And of course all they did was put their right-wing spin on it.

So after having 3 Fox News stooges on to spin it, she has 2 Republican Congressman, and no Democrats, fair and balanced? How?

What she did was have a Republican Congressman on who voted for the Boehner bill, and another Republican Congressman who voted against the Boehner bill. I guess in her world that is being fair and balanced, but she does not give a damn about being balanced. All she cares about is using the Factor show to spin out her right-wing propaganda, which is exactly what she does, and O'Reilly lets her, making him as bad as she is.

Then she had Ed Henry back on to speculate on President Obama's mood as the August 2nd deadline looms. Hey Ingraham, Billy said the Factor is a no speculation zone, oh yeah, you could care less, because you speculate all the time.

In the next segment Ingraham cried about some on the left saying that a lot of the Tea Party are borderline traitors, which I have said myself, and I agree with.

Some left wing pundits have also been comparing Tea Party fiscal conservatives to terrorists and traitors. Ingraham had the journalist Kathy Areu and Tea Party activist Kevin Webb on to discuss it.

Areu said this: "This is an emotional time, and some of the people in the Republican Party are acting like children. The parents are reprimanding the children and sometimes it seems a little rough. The Tea Party has made a fool out of itself, they don't understand that their actions will lead to horrific consequences."

Webb said this: "Let the far left keep doing this demonization. Americans are basically fair and they believe in disagreement without being disgusting. I've been called the Uncle Tom, but can't they come up with something different? The fact is that we are the adults in the room and we wouldn't be having this debate if the Tea Party didn't exist."

But what's really sad is that Ingraham made it a story about only the left attacking the Tea Party for their position on the raising the debt ceiling. When even O'Reilly has attacked the Tea Party for their position, O'Reilly said the Tea Party has to stop their hateful rhetoric and he warned the GOP that this craziness on the right is helping President Obama.

So it's not just the left attacking the GOP and the Tea Party over the raising the debt ceiling, it's O'Reilly, McCain, and a few other Republicans also, somehow Ingraham missed all that and just forgot to report it, yeah right, and I'm the King of England too.

Then Ingraham had Lanny Davis and Alan Colmes on, but not to discuss the debt issue, to talk about the Obama job approval ratings, which have dropped a little recently. The segment was only done so Ingraham could slam Obama, and if his approval was above 50%, she would never do a job approval segment. And she never says a word about the job approval ratings for any Republicans, which are lower than the ratings for Obama, so it's all one sided right-wing bias.

And finally she had Bob Cusack on, the managing editor of the Hill, to discuss the debt issue of course. Which was pretty much boring, and he did not tell us anything we did not already know.

Rapper 50 Cent Responds To O'Reilly On Twitter
By: Steve - July 30, 2011 - 11:00am

50 Cent answered Bill O'Reilly, who recently said he wanted to bring both 50 Cent and Chris Brown on his show for a debate.

It all started when Laura Ingraham slammed NBC for having Chris Brown on the "Today Show" because he "beat his girlfriend [Rihanna] to a pulp."

So 50 Cent jumped to the singer's defense and took to Twitter to say that he would never watch the station again.
"I just saw a clip on FOX news Hating on NBC for having chris brown on unbelievable. I'm never watching that again. He paid for his mistake assholes."
Since then O' Reilly's teamed up with Laura Ingraham, who refers to 50 Cent as "quarter", to invite both the rapper and the singer on The O'Reilly Factor--an invitation 50's obviously turned down. 50 Cent wrote this on Twitter:



Now who wants to bet me that O'Reilly never reports any of that? Anyone?

Fox Anchor Confused By The Moon & Volcanoes
By: Steve - July 30, 2011 - 10:00am

On Wednesday the Fox News anchor Jon Scott invited Bill Nye (The Science Guy) on his show to talk about newly discovered volcano on the moon. Scott, for reasons that aren't entirely clear, asked if the existence of a volcano on the moon somehow casts doubt on climate change science, saying this: "It's not like we've been up there burning fossil fuels."

Nye, clearly taken by surprise, patiently and slowly explained to Scott that, no, volcanoes have nothing to do with fossil fuels. And notice that Scott used the words "climate change science" instead of Global Warming. That's because Fox sent out a memo telling them to not say Global Warming because liberals use those words, as they claim to be fair and balanced, yeah right.

Scott's lunar confusion comes on the heels of Bill O'Reilly's famous dumb question when he asked this: "How'd the moon get there? Who put it there?"

O'Reilly, had argued that the rising and falling of the tides prove the existence of God, and was lashing out at the pinheads (aka scientists) who rightly noted that the moon's gravity was actually responsible for tidal movement.

And the moon, it turns out, got there when a huge celestial body collided with earth about 50 million years after it first formed, ejecting loads of debris into space which accreted into what today we know as the moon.

The question now is why Fox News is having such trouble reporting the basic scientific facts about the moon. I'm afraid we may never know -- as O'Reilly famously put it: "You can't explain that."

And let me add this, only a far-right loon would ask if a volcano on the fricking Moon has anything to do with Global Warming on earth. Even a deaf, dumb, and blind 2 year old knows that Global Warming is caused by things that happen on planet earth. Nothing we do on planet earth, has anything to do with what happens on the Moon. Nobody is burning fossil fuels on the Moon, you total idiot.

Boehner Gives Up On Republican Budget Plan
By: Steve - July 29, 2011 - 11:40am

UPDATE - 7-30-11 -- It looks like Boehner was up all night twisting arms to get enough Republicans to vote for his budget bill. But it's still gonna die in the Senate, because the Democrats have the majority, and they have all said already that not one of them will vote for it.

Not to mention, some Republican Senators will most likely not vote for it either, so there is no way he has the votes in the Senate, making it a massive waste of taxpayer time and money. This is not what we pay Congressman to do, waste time passing a bill they know will die in the Senate. It's ridiculous, and frankly disgraceful.

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

Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) called off a vote Thursday on his balanced budget amendment, because he does not even have the votes to pass it in his own party. The friday vote was also called off, in what many people say is a massive waste of time, Boehner keeps trying to pass a bill that can not pass. And will die in the Senate anyway, even if it does pass the house.

An now, according to a report by CBS News, Speaker Boehner has added a requirement that a Balanced Budget Amendment be sent to the states before the debt ceiling is raised beyond an initial $900 billion.

At the Weekly Standard, conservative Bill Kristol calls the move a "pointless and embarrassing gimmick to try to secure a last-gasp victory on the House floor."

Then this morning Tea Party freshman Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) admitted that all the frantic maneuvering to pass House Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) deficit reduction bill is essentially an exercise in futility because it will be dead on arrival in the Senate.

Scott said on Fox News that no one likes this bill and at that this point, conservative lawmakers are simply trying to put themselves in the strongest negotiating position possible when they inevitably have to compromise to strike a deal with the Senate. Scott is voting against Boehner's bill until it includes more items conservatives want.

Not only is it a massive waste of time, it's a massive waste of taxpayer money trying to pass a bill in the house that does not have the votes, and will die in the Senate anyway.

McCain Slams Republicans Over Balanced Budget Amendment
By: Steve - July 29, 2011 - 11:30am

And of course O'Reilly has ignored it all, because it kills his right-wing spin that only liberals and Democrats oppose the Republican balanced budget amendment bill. Hey Billy, how come you do not have John McCain on the Factor to discuss it, you biased hack.

A far-right group of Republicans are demanding to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to the Constitution. By forcing government to actively slash spending in the face of falling revenues, such an amendment would greatly damage an already-weak recovery, mandate perverse actions in the face of recessions, and is considered one of the worse ideas in Washington.

But as House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said, the fringe contingent of the GOP is aiming to create enough chaos to force the Senate and the White House to accept a BBA. Freshman Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), sponsor of the Senate's BBA bill, actually wants America's house to come down unless he gets his way.

But Wednesday on the Senate floor, a more seasoned senator schooled the freshman contingent on economic reality. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) stood amazed that some members actually believed a BBA could pass in the Senate. Such a belief, he said, is "worse than foolish. That is deceiving." McCain said that Republicans who are holding out on raising the debt ceiling for an impossible amendment is unfair and bizarro:
McCain: Over here, we have individuals who believe somehow that there is still chance, at least in this Congress, to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Now, I will take back seat to none in my support of the balanced budget amendment. Thirteen times I voted for it. I will vote for it tomorrow.

But what is really amazing about this is that some, some members are believing that we can pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in this body with its present representation, and that is foolish. That is worse than foolish. That is deceiving.

Many of our constituents, by telling them that just because the Majority Leader tabled the Balanced Budget Amendment legislation, that somehow through amending and debate, we could somehow convince the majority on the other side of the aisle to go along with a balanced budget amendment of the constitution. That is not fair.

That is not fair to the American people, to hold out and say we won't agree to raising the debt limit until we pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

It's unfair, it's bizarro.

And maybe some people who have only been in this body for six or seven months or so really believe that. Others know better. Others know better.
McCain also read aloud from a Wall Street Journal editorial today that depicted conservatives anxiously waiting for a BBA as living in a fantasy world in which they are "tea-party Hobbits" that "could return to Middle Earth having defeated Mordor."

"This is the kind of crack political thinking that turned Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell into GOP Senate nominees. The reality is that the debt limit will be raised one way or another, and the only issue now is with how much fiscal reform and what political fallout."

But you would not know any of that if you only watch the Factor for your news, because O'Reilly does not report any of it.

The Thursday 7-28-11 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - July 29, 2011 - 11:00am

There was no TPM because the far-right partisan hack Laura Ingraham hosted (the so-called no spin zone) Factor show. Here is my question, how can it possibly be a no spin zone with Laura Ingraham hosting, who is one of the biggest far-right spin doctors in America.

In fact, about a year ago O'Reilly even called her a far-right kool-aid drinking ideolouge, and yet, he still has her host his show when he is gone. Proving that O'Reilly is also a far-right partisan hack, because nobody except another Republican would ever let the lying, spinning, Laura Ingraham host their show.

I will not do a full review, because with Ingraham you know it's going to be 100% right-wing spin, so it's a waste of time to show how much of a right-wing idiot she is over and over. But I will report on a couple segments.

Ingraham had Republican Congressman Steve King on, who is bucking his party and voting "nay" on the Boehner plan. King said this: "If we concede this ground now, our chances of getting a balanced budget amendment passed in this Congress go to nil. The language about 'default' has been false from the beginning - people think of it as the first day that we run out of borrowing authority. But default is if the United States doesn't service its debt, and all we need is the first dime of every dollar coming in to service American debt. We have to stand on the principles we believe in."

So then the crazy Ingraham scolded King for going against some of the country's most eminent conservatives, saying this: "We have people like Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Mike Pence, Allen West, Paul Ryan, Bill Kristol. How is it that they're all wrong and a small minority of Republicans are right? You are on the verge, and I say this with great sadness, of losing all the great leverage and the gains that you've made up to this point."

Then in the very next segment we got some reality, Congressman Jerrold Nadler told an audience that "we don't have a deficit problem right now" and should be focusing on unemployment. And he is exactly right, but of course the crazy Laura Ingraham disagreed.

Ingraham had Democratic strategist Joe Trippi on to talk about it. Trippi said this: "He makes a good point, and that should have been a piece of the Democratic message this whole time. We have all these people out of work who are not paying taxes - we should be addressing that and neither party is talking about it. Republicans are talking about cutting spending and cutting taxes and none of that is going to create jobs. We should be talking about cutting tax loopholes and putting the money into tax credits that create jobs."

Bingo, give that man a cigar. What we need are jobs, that would increase the revenue, and lower the debt. Then as the economy recovers you can do some spending cuts, when people can handle it better.

That should be the plan, Instead all these right-wing nuts (who caused most of the debt to begin with) are trying to use the debt as leverage to cut a bunch of Government programs they do not like, and what a shocker, all of them are programs that help the poor and lower class working Americans, not one thing they propose, cuts anything from the wealthy or the corporations.

And in the very last segment Ingraham had a Fox anchor on who actually reported the truth for once.

Ingraham asked the Fox Business anchor Gerri Willis what a ratings downgrade would mean to average Americans. Willis said this: "A downgrade will be a disaster for the country. We will have to pay more to issue debt, as much as $130 billion a year in increased interest costs for the federal government. There may also be a stock market selloff, and then it'll really hit home if interest rates pop. People with variable rate mortgages would be hurt, people with credit cards would be hurt, the dollar would grow weaker, and gas prices would continue to go up. So it would be a disaster for consumers and for the government. The credit rating agencies have our future in their hands."

And yet, Ingraham and a whole lot of Republicans want us to default and they do not care about the ratings downgrade. When it would hurt millions and millions of people, make the economy worse, possibly crash the stock market, increase home interest rates, lower the value of the dollar even more, and gas prices would go up.

This says a lot about Ingraham and a lot of other Republicans, that they are willing to crash the economy and the stock market, to get some spending cuts they want. Which is an outrage to me, and borderline treason.

During Stupid Segment O'Reilly Slams Wealthy Liberals
By: Steve - July 29, 2011 - 10:00am

It looks like Fox News has moved on from bashing poor people for being able to afford microwaves to bashing the rich -- but only the the "liberal" rich.

Somehow in O'Reillyworld it's great to be a rich conservative, and it's the American way, but if you are a wealthy liberal you should feel guilty, and there is something wrong with that.

A segment on The O'Reilly Factor Wednesday featured producer Jesse Watters attending a polo match in the Hamptons and interviewing the attendees. Following the clips from the match, O'Reilly asked Watters if he had seen any "wealthy liberal guilt" there.

Watters responded that he had not and that it was "a microcosm of liberal hypocrisy."

But it is worth noting that none of the attendees at the match said they were liberals, so O'Reilly and Watters just made it up. In fact, they did not ask anyone if there were conservatives or liberals, so they have no idea what ideology there were.

In the following segment, O'Reilly and Dennis Miller touched on several topics, including Miller's liking for both wealthy and poor people and Obama's purportedly having led a rich man's life.

Later in the segment, the two began to reminisce about a dinner they had together at a chi-chis restaurant at which they enjoyed scallops and blini.

But somehow O'Reilly forgot to ask Miller if he felt any guilt about having enjoyed such a fancy meal while much of the country continues to struggle with the recession. And he clearly never asked any wealthy Republicans if they feel guilty about having so much money during an economic downturn.

Basically O'Reilly just used the segment to bash wealthy liberals, without even knowing if anyone at the Polo match was a liberal or not. The entire segment was biased, laughable, ridiculous, and a total waste of tv time.

100% Proof Laura Ingraham Is A Massive Liar
By: Steve - July 29, 2011 - 9:00am

On the Wednesday night Factor show Laura Ingraham (the far-right Republican) said she had the people more with her then the Democrats and President Obama. So I wrote that she is crazy and a liar. When asked by O'Reilly if Obama is intimidated by the far-left, Ingraham said this, here are her exact words:
INGRAHAM: "He's got to motivate the troops. Because he can't run on his record, he's got to run on all these other side issues to whip people into a frenzy on any number of left wing issues.

The far left is very active and very well funded by people like George Soros, but we have the people more with us.

People want to see more personal and government responsibility."
So Ingraham thinks the people are more with her, and she could not be more of a liar. For example, all the polls says she is wrong.

On July 17th of 2011 ABC News and The Washington Post ran a poll of 1001 adults, asking a series of questions about the Republican party. And here are the results:

1) Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling the economy?

Approve - 28%
Disapprove - 67%

2) Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling the federal budget deficit?

Approve - 27%
Disapprove - 68%

3) Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling creating jobs?

Approve - 26%
Disapprove - 65%

4) Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling taxes?

Approve - 31%
Disapprove - 65%

As you can see, the majority of the people do not approve of anything the Republicans are doing. Which is the exact opposite of what Ingraham said, proving she is a massive liar. And not only that, O'Reilly knows what the polls say, and he let her get away with saying it anyway, which makes him as bad as she is.

But that's not all, the poll also asked about the debt issue, and here are the results:

-- As you may know, there is a debate in Washington right now about reducing the federal budget deficit and increasing the government's debt limit. Who do you trust more to handle this issue: Obama or the Republicans in Congress?

Obama - 48%
Republicans - 39%

So once again Ingraham is wrong, the majority of the people are not with her, they are against her.

In fact, in every question the Republicans lose, every single one, here are more poll results:

-- Who do you think cares more about protecting the economic interests of middle class Americans: Obama or the Republicans in Congress?

Obama - 53%
Republicans - 35%

-- Who do you think cares more about protecting the economic interests of small businesses: Obama or the Republicans in Congress?

Obama - 48%
Republicans - 39%

-- Who do you think cares more about protecting the economic interests of you and your family: Obama or the Republicans in Congress?

Obama - 47%
Republicans - 37%

As you can clearly see, the Republicans lose on every issue, and it's not even close. But Ingraham claims she has the most people with her. Proving that she is a liar, and not even a good one.

Now let me show you one more poll question:

-- Thinking about the economic challenges facing the country would you say the actions taken by the Republicans in Congress made things better, made things worse, or had no effect?

Better - 16%
Worse - 39%

Only 16% think the Republicans in Congress have made things better. Which in Ingrahamworld, means most of the people are with her. It's crazy, and that is the kind of right-wing garbage O'Reilly lets her get away with.

And it's not just that one poll folks, I could post the results of just about any other poll and it would say virtually the same thing. That the majority of the people do not support the Republicans on anything, and yet, she goes on tv and says they do.

The Wednesday 7-27-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 28, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Why a debt deal remains out of reach. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The reason a debt deal can't get done is because of pressure on both President Obama and Speaker John Boehner. The Tea Party is a problem on the right when compromise becomes necessary; President Obama has the same kind of problem from the far left.

The insidious MoveOn organization is actually threatening any Democrat who doesn't toe the far left line and raise taxes. But nearly two-thirds of the American public want President Obama to get a deal done and the President's image is taking an enormous hit.

Not only are his poll numbers falling, but the National Journal reports that states like Ohio, Michigan, New Hampshire and Iowa - all won by President Obama last time around - are now turning. The President must walk away from the far left, just as Speaker Boehner has to put the far right on the shelf.

Independent Americans will decide the next presidential election, and independents want the debt chaos to stop. In the end, it is Mr. Obama who has the most to lose if a compromise is not reached. Unless he wants to 'move on' from the Oval Office, he had better get a deal done.
Wow, is that a massive load of right-wing spin. First, notice that O'Reilly admits there is pressure on Obama from the left and the right, which is true, but he only insults the left by calling moveon.org insidious, while not saying anything insulting about the Tea Party or the right.

Second, it is not a threat to tell a President you will not support him in the next election if he does not do what you want. It's called politics, that is how it works, you vote for someone and get them elected, then you tell them if they do not do what you want you will not vote for them the next time, and the right does the very same thing.

Third, O'Reilly said two-thirds of the American people want Obama to get a deal done, but what he failed to mention is that two-thirds want Obama to raise taxes, close loopholes for the wealthy, and add some spending cuts, without touching medicare or social security. O'Reilly ignores all that, because he does not want you to know that is exactly what the majority wants.

Then O'Reilly pulled his usual biased garbage trick, he has one guest on, a Republican, to discuss it, with nobody from the left, nada, zip, no-body. He had Dick Morris on to talk about the far-left, and what they want. Morris said this: "You can't imagine how much influence they have, because Barack Obama's presidency and his entire political career is based on maximizing turnout from the left. It's not based on persuading independent voters, it's based on increasing turnout. If the left turns on Obama, they'll vote with their feet and stay home, so any rumbling on the left scares Obama to death."

So then O'Dummy concluded that "progressives" exert influence far beyond their numbers, saying this: "Only about 20% of Americans define themselves as liberal, and under that banner maybe 8% would be far left. Yet it seems they have an inordinate amount of power when it comes to Barack Obama."

Then Laura Ingraham was on to discuss it. Crazy Ingraham said this: "He's got to motivate the troops. Because he can't run on his record, he's got to run on all these other side issues to whip people into a frenzy on any number of left wing issues. The far left is very active and very well funded by people like George Soros, but we have the people more with us. People want to see more personal and government responsibility."

Wow, Ingraham is in right-wing dreamland, because the majority of the people support Obama on almost every issue, so where she got the people are with us garbage is beyond me. Go look at the polls, on almost every issue the majority side with the Democrats, especially the big issues, like jobs, medicare, the economy, and social security. Ingraham is not just a partisan hack, she is a 100% proven liar.

Then Ingraham turned to Norwegian killer Anders Breivik, who has been described as a "Christian" by some media outlets. And of course she agreed with O'Reilly, Ingraham said this: "There are a lot of very well funded people on the secular left, who don't much like Christianity and have no problem smearing them. A lot of these people have waited for an event like this that they could pounce on and say there is a moral equivalent between Islamic jihadists and Christian groups. But if you really think Christian conservatives are a bigger threat to your security than jihadists, I guess we live on different planets."

Now that is some good spin, because she never even talked about how the Norway terrorist says he is a Christian, or how he cited many American conservatives in his 15,000 word manifesto, even the friends of Ingraham, Frank Gaffney and Pam Geller were cited. But she ignored all that, to spin that he is not a Christian.

Then O'Reilly had the Democratic Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez on, who was arrested outside the White House Tuesday while protesting for more liberal immigration policies. Gutierrez said this: "I met with the President last December, and asked him to use his prosecutorial discretion and at least help groups of immigrants like American soldiers whose wives are under orders of deportation.

He said he would not do that, but he had made a pretty big promise back when I was campaigning with him. All I'm trying to do is have some consistency between the candidate and the President."

So then O'Reilly gace him some phony praise for his passion, but questioned his pragmatism, saying this: "Your beliefs are heartfelt, but President Obama knows that if he takes your view and tries to circumvent the Congress he's going to lose votes, and he's all about getting re-elected."

Then O'Reilly had a Factor Producer Jesse Watters on who went to the Hamptons on Long Island and spoke with some wealthy people at a polo match. Why? And how is this news? He asked some wealthy people if they feel guilty for being so wealthy. And of course they said no, so I ask again, how is this news, and why even do this stupid segment.

Then O'Reilly had Dennis Miller on for the Miller Time segment, which I do not report on because it's biased and one sided. O'Reilly has the conservative COMEDIAN Dennis Miller on to make jokes about Democrats, with no liberal COMEDIAN on to make jokes about conservatives. Not to mention, it is not news, and has nothing to do with reporting something to inform the people.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Dagen McDowell on for did you see that. She watched a clip of former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who has been visiting various Muslim nations and bashing America.

McDowell said this: "She appeared on Libyan television, criticizing a number of things about the United States, including President Obama's policies. But this is nothing new - she suggested that President Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened and that the CIA was involved."

So then O'Dummy implied that McKinney is being supported by nefarious organizations, saying this: "She's obviously not paying her airfare - somebody is behind this, but we don't know who. She's giving aid and comfort to the worst elements in the world and it's disgraceful."

Really? Where is your proof, and what happened to that no speculation rule you have, because that is pure speculation. You have no ides if she is paying her own bills or not, so you are an idiot. Not to mention, what she is saying is true, just because she said it in a foreign country does not make her a bad person, she told the truth, so you are the disgrace O'Reilly.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as hell pinheads and patriots. And the real reason the debt deal is not done is because the Republicans are using it to get the spending cuts they want, and if the Democrats did that under Bush O'Reilly would have called them un-American traitors.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About President Obama Again
By: Steve - July 28, 2011 - 10:00am

On the Monday Factor show O'Reilly was caught lying again about Obama, O'Reilly said Obama "Buys Into (To A Certain Extent) The Idea Of Some On The Far Left Who Want The Capitalistic System To Collapse.



Which is just ridiculous, because Obama has said a hundred times that he not only believes in the capitalistic system, he supports it 100%, and he has even said it is what made American the great country it is today.

O'Reilly just makes this crap up to make Obama look bad, and it's pretty sad, let alone a flat out lie from a man who claims to only report the facts that he can prove are true.

Republican Says Obama Will Be Impeached Over Debt
By: Steve - July 28, 2011 - 9:00am

Now this is a good one, the Republican Congressman Steve King from Iowa said Obama will be impeached if he blocks debt payments. Wow, is he insane, because the Republicans are the people who are at fault if the debt payments are not made.

That's like me choking you so you can not breathe, and then blaming you for not being able to breathe.

As Republicans refuse to negotiate on the debt ceiling pushes the country ever closer to the brink of default, one Iowa congressman sees the impending financial collapse as cause for impeaching President Obama.

Monday morning, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) sent out a tweet imploring followers to "STOP talking about default. Obama would be impeached if he blocked debt payments."

King has apparently forgotten why the nation is on the brink of default in the first place: Republican hostage-taking.

During President Bush's tenure, GOP leaders voted to raise the debt ceiling 19 times - by a total of $4 trillion - without demanding draconian cuts to the social safety net in return, and 130 current House and Senate Republicans have voted to raise the debt ceiling under Bush.

In fact, the entire debate right now ignores the fact that Bush's policies added over three times the amount of debt than have Obama's policies.

Still, as Congress figures out what it will take to get Republicans to agree to raise the debt ceiling and avoid financial collapse and calamity, King exemplifies how extreme GOP intransigence has become.

When ThinkProgress spoke with King recently and asked him if he could accept a debt ceiling deal that included $3 trillion in cuts and just $8 in revenue increases, the Iowa congressman refused, declaring, "I'm not for raising taxes."

This is not the first time House Republicans have floated impeaching Obama, nor will it likely be the last. Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) confirmed to ThinkProgress this month that Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) and other House GOPers were exploring impeachment over the debt ceiling.

In the spring, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) called for impeachment if the president refused to support the Defense of Marriage Act. Last year, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) hinted at impeaching President Obama if he didn't do more to stop illegal immigration.

Even the birthers have gotten in on the action, with Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) last year saying he may force President Obama to release his birth certificate under the threat of impeachment. Funny how they never wanted to impeach Bush over the bebt, when he added more to it than Obama has. In fact, the Republicans supported Bush adding all the debt, proving the impeachment talk is all just political nonsense.

The Tuesday 7-26-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 27, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Is America still the land of opportunity? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: What the debt situation is really all about is your right to pursue happiness. America is the greatest country on Earth because it gives the most people the most opportunity to prosper. It does that by using the free marketplace, whereby people can work hard and provide for themselves and their families.

But since the mid-1960's, America has practiced 'social engineering,' spending tax money trying to improve the lives of those who don't have very much. Liberal Americans tend to support the entitlement society, while conservatives are more inclined to promote individualism and smaller entitlement spending.

President Obama is a liberal, and the Democratic Party is now dominated by the left. That's why federal spending has broken the bank in the last two-and-a-half years. But what are we getting for all the spending? The unemployment rate proves that no matter how much money the feds pump into the hands of the less affluent, it doesn't make much of a difference.

Barack Obama believes Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' entitlements can elevate the poor to prosperity. They can't! In 1965 the poverty rate stood at 14%; now, after untold trillions have been spent fighting poverty, the rate is 14.3%! The conclusion: America is bankrupting itself with an entitlement philosophy that does little.
And that my friends sounds like it came right from the RNC headquarters, Sarah Palin, or Newt Gingrich. But what's really stunning is that it comes from a man who claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone. When everything he said is 100% right-wing talking points, spin, and propaganda. Most of the debt problem was caused by Bush and the Republicans from 2000 until 2009, not Obama, but O'Reilly blames it all on Obama and the Democrats, it's literally insane right-wing garbage.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to analyze the Talking Points Memo. Colmes said this: "I disagree with your statement that this President is like Lyndon Johnson. He has offered to cut Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. He has not promoted a 'Great Society,' he has not promoted entitlement spending, he's been willing to cut it to the detriment of his own base."

Without saying a word that the main reason we are in so much financial trouble is because of Bush and the Republicans.

And the crazy far-right Monica Crowley pretty much agreed with everything O'Reilly said, so there is no need to report on it.

Then the right-wing loon John Stossel was on to discuss it. Stossel said this: "We have jobs that allow us to pay full attention to this stuff, and it's still hard to keep track. I was actually surprised that most people knew what the debt ceiling is, but they don't understand the complexities. But I don't think most politicians or most broadcasters understand the complexities either. To me the bottom line is that we've doubled spending since Bush. Barack Obama says we need 'balance, balance.' Well, balance would be to say that Bush and I doubled spending and we're going to cut it back to the Clinton years."

Which is just crazy, it's like a man making $40,000 a year now, saying he is going back to the budget he had 20 years ago when he made $25,000 a year. As you make more money you live better and spend more, and almost nobody could go back to the budget they had 20 years ago, unless they were forced to, as in having a job that paid less.

Then the far-right Charles Krauthammer was on to discuss it. Krauthammer said this: "President Obama asked for time on national television, which is what you do when you're launching an invasion, then he gave a campaign speech and didn't offer a plan. The President has portrayed himself as the only one who is acting in the national interest, and yet through months of argument and debate he doesn't have a plan."

Krauthammer also said this: "Something has to happen or we'll go over a cliff. At some point, when you have a government that's borrowing 40 cents on every dollar it spends, if you withdraw the credit card all hell breaks loose. I've been agitating for weeks for the Republicans to pass a plan in the House and it will be catastrophic if Republicans don't go along with the Boehner plan."

Notice what O'Reilly did folks, he had one liberal on the entire show to discuss the debt deal, and that was a mild liberal (Alan Colmes) who works for Fox so he can not be too hard on O'Reilly or he will not get back on the show. Not to mention, he was on with Crowley and she always agrees with O'Reilly, so it was a 2 on 1 with 2 conservatives against one mildly liberal guy.

Then O'Reilly cried about the media and the Norway terrorist. Billy said that some liberal media outlets have branded Norway killer Anders Behring Breivik a "Christian," and Washington Post's Sally Quinn defended that description, saying this: "I say the guy's a Christian. He talks about 'Jesus Christ our Lord,' he actually said 'I am a Christian,' and he says we have to rid Christian Europe of the Islamic terrorists. If someone says they're a Christian, you have to take them at their word."

And then of course crazy O'Reilly questioned Quinn's logic and conclusion, saying this: "There's no evidence that this guy is in any church or that he followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, yet they call him a 'Christian' because he says he is? The Ku Klux Klan calls itself a Christian group!"

EARTH TO O'REILLY: If the man says he is a Christian then who are you to say he is not a Christian. It's like me saying I am a liberal, and you say I am not, why? Because you said so, that does not make it true, if I say I am a liberal, then I am one, no matter what you think about it. And if the Norway terrorist says he is a Christian, then he is one. And anyone who tries to deny it, is a lunatic.

Then O'Dummy had Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle on for is it legal. They talked about Californian Walter Bagdasarian, who was convicted for writing in 2008 that President-elect Obama should be shot, but a federal appeals court has overturned that conviction.Wiehl said this: "The appeals court ruled that the rantings of this guy, were protected by the First Amendment. He was drunk, there was no real threat, and political speech is the most highly regarded speech in this country."

I agree with Wiehl btw, it's called free speech.

Guilfoyle disagreed, saying this: "I disagree with the ruling because I don't think you should protect violent speech. He wrote about getting a pistol and getting rid of him. Speech that incites violence is not protected."

But the point is, he never did get a pistol and try to do anything to the President, so it was all talk, and the court got it right. Where did Guilfoyle get her law degree, out of a bubble gum machine?

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had a total waste of time discussion about McDonald's, who has announced that its kid-friendly "Happy Meals" will include a fruit or vegetable. Really? Who cares? And how is this hard news I need to know, answer: It's not!

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

O'Reilly Gets It Totally Wrong On Norway Terrorist
By: Steve - July 27, 2011 - 10:00am

Folks, if you want clear evidence that Bill O'Reilly is a lying, spinning, hack of a pretend journalist, here it is:

For the past two nights on his Fox News show, O'Reilly has been expressing his offense at the idea that Anders Behring Breivik, the suspect in last Friday's terror attacks in Norway, is being described by the media as a Christian.

On Monday's show, O’Reilly was outraged that The New York Times described Breivik as a Christian extremist in a page-one headline, declaring that being an anti-Muslim bigot is what drove him, not Jesus, not being baptized.

O'Reilly went on to say that this was part of "A movement in the American media to diminish and marginalize the Christian philosophy."

Later in the show, O'Reilly said the NY Times headline was done to "give jihadists quarter or something like that, diminish the threat of them," saying that "the liberal media is so protective of extreme Islam, when it hates the left. ... At The New York Times, they would all be hung."

So then O'Reilly continued his lies on Tuesday's show during a segment with The Washington Post's Sally Quinn. As Quinn pointed out that Breivik called himself a Christian, invoked the name of Jesus and discussed the nature of his faith, O'Reilly still insisted that there is no evidence that ties this guy to Christianity, dismissing Breivik's self-description by claiming that "Mussolini called himself a Christian."

Are you kidding me O'Reill, the guy hates Muslims and says he is a Christian, so that means he is a Christian. But not in O'Reillyworld, In O'Reillyworld he decides who is a Christian and who is not, and if he does not want you to be a Christian then you are not one, even if you say you are.

While Breivik may not be a Christian in an American way, he clearly identifies as one. As Salon's Alex Pareene wrote:
Breivik chose to be baptized at age 15. He self-identified as "Christian" on his Facebook page. He thought "Christianity should recombine under the banner of a reconstituted and traditionalist Catholic Church" or, later, under a new (traditionalist) European Church.

Breivik is not an American-style evangelical Christian. He is not a "fundamentalist" in that sense. Though he does identify with American cultural Christian conservatives. And he considers himself to be fighting in the name of "our Christian cultural heritage." He supports a reconstituted Knights Templar devoted to winning a war against Islam in the name of Christianity.

All of this says "Christian terrorist." His goals -- the restoration of a pure Christian world in its "traditional" home -- were analogous to the stated of goals of al-Qaida.

He's a sick perversion of Christianity, sure. But if he "doesn't count" as a Christian solely because no one this evil should "count" as a Christian (which is O'Reilly's other argument -- "no one believing in Jesus commits mass murder," he said) then no terrorist should "count" as a representative of his faith.
O'Reilly is trying to have it both ways here. He presumes that Hasan and other Islamic extremists are Muslim because they claim to be committing their terrorist acts in the name of Allah, but he insists that Breivik -- who considers himself a Christian and has clearly stated that he committed his terrorist acts in the name of restoring a Christian Europe -- couldn't possibly be a Christian because he didn't behave like an orthodox Christian. It's a clear double standard.

Then O'Reilly got in one final, and mean shot at the end of the segment. When Quinn repeated her argument that you should take someone at their word on what religion they identify with, O'Reilly the total jerk said this: "Benito Mussolini would have liked you, Miss Quinn, that's for sure, because that's what he was doing."

What a jerk, when the facts prove him wrong he compares people to Mussolini, and it's a miracle any of them ever go back on the show after such insults. If I were Sally Quinn I would never do his show again, and write a column explaining why.

More Norway Terrorist Info O'Reilly Ignored
By: Steve - July 27, 2011 - 9:00am

There is a ton of evidence that Anders Behring Breivik was a right-wing Christian, and yet, O'Reilly still ignores it because he is a right-wing Christian too, and he does not like the Norway terrorist being called a right-wing Christian terrorist, even though all the evidence shows that he is exactly that.

O'Reilly has ignored all this:

Anders Behring Breivik, the main suspect held by police in Norway, left a long trail of online comments, a YouTube video, and a manifesto outlining his political beliefs. The New York Times reports, Breivik endeavored to find common cause with xenophobic right-wing groups around the world, particularly in the United States and his manifesto quoted extensively from the anti-Islam writings of American bloggers.

In his manifesto, Breivik cites an assortment of right-wing figures, but a troubling theme is evident in the 1,500 page document. Breivik was directly influenced by the same group of American anti-Muslim activists that have gained a powerful following in the conservative movement in America in recent years.

Many of the leading Muslim haters in America who inspired Breivik have also been responsible for a rising tide of hate campaigns, from the so-called Ground Zero Mosque hysteria to a disturbing trend of demonstrations against Muslim Americans across the country.

-- Breivik cites neoconservative Muslim hater Frank Gaffney on opposition to Turkey joining the EU, and reprints a post from Gaffney's think tank, the Center for Security Policy.

-- Breivik cites the right-wing blogger Pamella Geller several times in his manifesto, and even reprints articles praising her.

-- Breivik posts a 45-minute interview with Brigitte Gabriel, a leading organizer of grassroots anti-Muslim activism:

Gabriel is the author of several anti-Muslim books, is the founder of ACT For America, a group Gabriel created to engineer a permanent activism base for efforts to scapegoat Muslim Americans. Her group has collaborated with Tea Party groups, and mobilized a hate rally in Orange County earlier this year. Gabriel also confessed that she regularly advises Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Peter King (R-NY).

-- Breivik extensively quotes Robert Spencer, a leading anti-Muslim writer sponsored by David Horowitz.

-- Breivik linked ten times to video clips for the movie Obsession, a documentary created by a secretive group called the Clarion Fund:

In 2008, a mysterious organization called the Clarion Fund mailed the documentary Obsession to 28 million households in swing states leading up to the election. The movie argues that Muslims are waging a war against America, and will stop at nothing to destroy western civilization. Clarion has subsequently produced more films, which are distributed and publicized widely by Geller, Gabriel, Spencer and other leading anti-Muslim activists. The group is chaired by a number of prominent Islamophobes, including Gaffney and Daniel Pipes.

Notice that the great (haha) journalist (not) Bill O'Reilly has not reported any of that news, instead he just runs around screaming that there is no evidence Breivik is a right-wing Muslim hating Christian, when there is tons of evidence he is, O'Reilly just ignores it and spins out his propaganda on the issue.

And btw, most of the people Breivik has quoted are friends of Bill O'Reilly, and have been on his show many times, especially Congressman Peter King, Frank Gaffney and Pam Geller, who O'Reilly agrees with on their Muslim views.

The Monday 7-25-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 26, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: President Obama and the economy. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The debt crisis is the biggest crisis of President Obama's professional life. The country is looking for leadership, but at this point President Obama is not delivering. A new poll shows that just 23% of American voters 'strongly approve' of the President's job performance, while 44% 'strongly disapprove.'

Americans are finally realizing that under President Obama the nation is racking up debt to the tune of more than $4 billion every day! Also, the President's budget proposal last May contained few budget cuts and was rejected by the Senate 97 - 0.

Add to that the awful economy, despite $1 trillion in stimulus spending, and you would think President Obama would want to embrace large spending cuts and lower tax rates. The only thing Talking Points can think of is that President Obama doesn't want a budget deal, that he's hoping the country will blame the Republicans for the chaos and he'll be reelected on that sentiment.

Once back in office, the President can continue to grow the government and provide 'social justice,' his political philosophy. It's a gamble, but that's what I think is going on. The entire world is watching and wondering if we've lost our minds - you can't owe $14.5 trillion and be arguing about spending cuts. That's insane!

Some on the far left actually want the capitalistic system to collapse; they want a quasi-socialistic system where the government pays people's bills. President Obama buys into that philosophy to a certain extent, and that is driving the economic failure.

The USA prospers when business expands and consumers spend, but right now the federal government is hindering that. Most Americans are beginning to wise up.
And folks, 99% of that is right-wing spin and propaganda. Once again O'Reilly cherry picked the polls to make his position look strong, while ignoring the polls that say the majority of people agree with Obama on the debt deal. To say that some on the far left actually want the capitalistic system to collapse, is nonsense, and it goes to show that O'Reilly is a right-wing loon. I am on the far left, and I do not know anyone who wants the capitalistic system to collapse. They just want the rich to pay their fair share in taxes, so once again O'Reilly is lying to you about the left.

So then Brit Hume was on to answer the question, whether President Obama really wants to solve the current debt crisis. And I might add that nobody was on from the left to discuss the O'Reilly TPM, or on to provide the balance for the Hume segment. Which O'Reilly does on purpose because he does not want anyone to question his right-wing propaganda.

Hume said this: "I think he would like a 'big deal' that would accomplish two things. One thing is that it would give the appearance of making inroads on debt and deficits; second, and more important to him, is that it would put off another vote on raising the debt ceiling and the leverage that provides to Republicans. Getting a big deal would give him something to run on, so I think he wants a deal on his terms."

Then O'Reilly talked about the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik, who gunned down scores of children last week, was described by the New York Times as a "Christian extremist." O'Dummy disputed that assessment, saying this: "Breivik is not a Christian, that's impossible. No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder. Also Breivik is not attached to any church and we can find no evidence that this killer practiced Christianity in any way. So why is the angle being played up?

Earth to O'Reilly, you are a liar pal. Because far right CHRISTIAN loons who believe in JESUS commit murder all the time. They kill abortion doctors, and there is a CHRISTIAN group called the Army of God that helps them, and promotes the killers as heroes. So get your facts right, jerk.

O'Reilly also said this: "The left wants you to believe that fundamentalist Christians are a threat just like crazy jihadists are. Jihadists have killed tens of thousands of people all over the world and use governmental power to support terrorism by Muslims. But the left wing press wants to compare nuts like Breivik and Timothy McVeigh to state-sponsored terrorism and jihad. It's dishonest and insane!"

And this: "The second reason the liberal media is pushing the Christian angle is that they don't like Christians very much. They want to diminish Christianity and highlighting so-called Christian-based terror is a way to do that. Going forward, when jihad is mentioned, you know Breivik and McVeigh will enter the conversation. This Breivik guy is a loon, a mass murderer who acted out of rank hatred. No government supported him, no self-proclaimed terror group paid his bills, and there is no equivalency to jihad."

Earth to O'Reilly, Breivik hates Muslims, and he is a right-wing loon, that is a fact, so stop lying about it. An AP article even had quotes from a police officer who said that he spent time on Christian websites. So O'Reilly just denies it, and claims he is not a christian. Then he fills the show with right-wing guests (and one fake Democrat) to agree with him and make him look right.

Then Alicia Menendez and Mary Katharine Ham were on to discuss it, who analyzed the media's description of Breivik as a Christian. Ham said this: "The New York Times and many liberals, desperately want an analogue to extremist Islam so they can make this equivalence. But if you read this guy's writings, it's certainly not mainstream Christian fundamentalism in any way, shape or form. The equivalence is just insane!"

Menendez said this: "The description is based on one AP article that had one police officer's quote that he spent time on Christian websites. I as a Christian find it a little dishonest, erroneous and unproductive. To me it looks like lazy reporting."

But O'Reilly still maintained that left-leaning outlets are not merely lazy, saying this: "The editors of the New York Times sit down and decide what their headline is going to be. This was an intentional branding of a mass murderer as a 'Christian.' It wasn't a mistake or sloppiness, and this is appalling. There is a movement in the American media to diminish and marginalize the Christian philosophy."

Then O'Reilly had Juan Williams on, simply to promote his new book, which I will not name, or report on.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had the far-right Bernie Goldberg on to slam Rahm Emanuel for refusing to answer a question about sending his kids to private school. O'Reilly asked Bernie whether the question was legitimate. Goldberg said this: "It was absolutely 100% legitimate. There are certain things involving children of politicians that are clearly out of bounds, but Rahm Emanuel is hiding behind his children and that's really lame. Here's a 'sensitive' progressive Democrat and he knows it doesn't look good to send his children to a private school while everybody else is going to crummy public schools. That reporter had every right to ask that question."

Wow, what hypocrisy. Because about a month ago the Republican Chris Christie was asked the same question by a reporter, and Christie slammed them and said it was none of their business. Back then O'Reilly and Goldberg loved it and agreed with Christie that it was none of their business. So now the same question is asked of a Democrat, and they call it a legit question, hypocrisy meet Bill O'Reilly and Bernie Goldberg.

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

Trump Proves He Is A Right-Wing Idiot (Again)
By: Steve - July 26, 2011 - 10:00am

Donald Trump said Republicans should reject even a good deal like the one Harry Reid is offering because the uncertainty will ensure President Obama is not re-elected. Now think about this folks, what Trump (The Republican) is saying is he does not care how much it will hurt the country if the debt ceiling is not raised, all he cares about is defeating Obama.

And what the media is not reporting is that Trump is speaking for a lot of Republicans who feel the very same way, especially the Tea Party Republicans. A lot of Republicans do not care if it hurts the country, if it will lead to Obama not getting re-elected, which is borderline treason in my book, but a lot of Republicans think it's a great idea, and could care less if it is devastating to the country.

With only eight days to go before the country risks defaults, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) proposed to essentially give the Republicans exactly what they wanted: a plan that would reduce the deficit by $2.7 trillion but include no increase in revenue.

The plan is a major concession from Democrats, but Republicans still look like they will reject the plan and let the nation risk default for one reason, politics.

Monday morning, the part time Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump elaborated on those less-than-noble motives on Fox News:
TRUMP: Frankly the Republicans would be crazy unless they get 100% of the deal that they want right now to make any deal. If this happens, for instance if this stuff is going on prior to an election, he can't get re-elected.

He possibly can't get elected anyway. The fact is, unless the Republicans get 100% of what they want, and that may include getting rid of Obamacare, which is a total disaster, then they should not make a deal other than a minor extension which would take you before you the election which would ensure Obama doesn't get elected, which would be a great thing.

KILMEADE: If you look at the average American when they're polled, it seems the President of the United States gets less of the blame than Republicans do, but you see Republicans with maximum leverage.

TRUMP: Absolutely the Republicans have the leverage. I don't care about polls. When it comes time to default, they're not going to remember any of the Republicans names. They are going to remember in history books one name, and that's Obama. They're not going to be talking about Boehner or anybody else.
Trump also proposed that the GOP time the debt ceiling votes and possibly let the country default all to sabotage Obama's re-election chances. Such an reckless plan is not only playing games with the debt ceiling, it demonstrates a willingness to let the economy fail and millions of Americans suffer for partisan political gain.

Trump is willing to gamble with the U.S. economy and bet that if the country defaults, Obama will take the blame and be remembered by history as the culprit.

As host Brian Kilmeade pointed out, that's far from a sure thing. A series of polls show that the vast majority of Americans disapprove of how the Republicans have handled the debt ceiling situation and would put most of the blame at their feet if the country defaults.

It also shows that Trump does not care about the American people, or the polls that represent what they think. Proving once again that Donald Trump is a far-right partisan right-wing idiot. And of course you never hear a word about any of this from O'Reilly, because Trump is his New York buddy, they even go to Yankee games together sometimes.

Another E-Mail From A Braindead O'Reilly Fan
By: Steve - July 26, 2011 - 9:00am

Hey folks, here is another e-mail from a loser O'Reilly fan, enjoy it, I know I did. And btw, I wrote her a reply to tell her what a fool she is, and of course she never replied back.
Subject: WOW
Date: Monday, July 25, 2011 11:27 AM
From: Lisa Avedon - [email protected]
To: [email protected]

You are the reason there is so much hate in America against the crazy left wingers. Seriously, find something constructive to do with your life. So sad to see people like you trying your hardest, with your vicious lies, to destroy someone or something. You may need to step away from the computer and venture out into the real world for awhile. There is more to life than the garbage you post. Very anti-social person.
Notice how she calls my truthful reporting about O'Reilly and the right, vicious lies. But when I mailed her I asked for one example of a lie I reported, and I never heard back from her. I even said if she could prove I lied I will take it off the website, and still nothing.

Video Proof O'Reilly Is A Right-Wing Hack
By: Steve - July 25, 2011 - 11:00am

Here are two video clips that not only show O'Reilly defends Republican liars, they also show that O'Reilly will try to help them by putting out their propaganda on the situation.

In video #1 O'Reilly has Stuart Varney on to spin for the Republican Allen West, O'Reilly even agreed that West was defending his honor against Wasserman Schultz. When honor had nothing to do with it, because his honor was not offended.



Wasserman Schultz simply said (on the floor of the House) that the gentleman (West) is letting the people in his district down by supporting medicare cuts, yes she called him gentleman, and she even had stats that show how many people in his district are on medicare. So his honor was not offended, making the defense by Varney and O'Reilly biased, ridiculous, and laughable.

In video #2 O'Reilly puts out the RNC talking points about the debt, blaming it all on Obama, when he knows that 85% of the debt was from Bush, his tax cuts, the wars, etc. O'Reilly spread the right-wing propaganda that it's all Obama's fault and that he spent all the money.



O'Reilly said he had the facts on the debt, which is a lie, what he had are the Republican party spin on the facts.

From politifact.com:

When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion. That's a difference of $4.97 trillion, which means George W. Bush added $4.97 trillion to the debt in 8 years.

The current national debt as of 7-21-11 is $14.5 trillion. That means Obama has added $3.8 trillion to the debt, which is less than what Bush added to it. And Obama had to do most of that to keep the country from going into a depression.

Now those are the facts, Obama has only added $3.8 trillion to the debt, that is a cold hard fact. Which also means it could not only be Obama's fault, because he has only added a little to the debt.

And all that shows O'Reilly to be a liar, he is lying to you. Case Closed.

Republican Tim Pawlenty Creates Phony Faith Website
By: Steve - July 25, 2011 - 10:00am

In the latest in a series of articles about presidential hopeful former Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), journalist Jon Ward has a new story about Pawlenty and his latest attempt to talk up his Christian evangelical faith on the campaign trail.

In the piece, Ward notes that Pawlenty is increasingly talking about Jesus Christ as he tries to edge out his competitors, particularly Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). As Pawlenty explains his faith, he directs audience members to visit a website called PawlentyFaith.com:
"I've got a lot of political heroes too," Pawlenty said. "I love Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, Abraham Lincoln, and Jesus Christ."

He said that he and his wife Mary are people of faith and believers. And then he weaved in a mention of the website PawlentyFaith.com, which he said is dedicated to our view of our faith and how faith connects to the public square.
But the website PawlentyFaith.com does not exist. When a user attempts to visit the website, it redirects them to a Pawlenty campaign website called action.iowastrawpoll2011.com.

The phony website has a YouTube video which features Pawlenty and his wife briefly discussing their belief in God. The video is window dressing to disguise the real reason the former governor has told people to visit PawlentyFaith.com.

The rest of the site is dedicated to recruiting people to volunteer for Pawlenty's campaign or to attend the Iowa Straw Poll as supporters of Pawlenty.

There is a sign-up tool, social media action items, a phone number to attend the straw poll as a supporter, and links to the latest Pawlenty interviews. There is not a deeper discussion about Pawlenty's faith and how faith connects to the public square, as Pawlenty has been telling Iowans.

So he is a phony, and a liar. And where is the great (haha) journalist (haha) Bill O'Reilly on this story, nowhere to be found, he has totally ignored it.

NWLC Says O'Reilly Statement Made Up & Offensive
By: Steve - July 24, 2011 - 10:00am

Commenting on the Institute of Medicine's recommendation that contraception should be considered a preventative service and co-pays for contraception should be eliminated, Bill O'Reilly made this bogus claim:
O'REILLY: "Many women who get pregnant are blasted out of their minds when they have sex. They're not going to use birth control anyway."
Then Judy Waxman, The Vice President of Health and Reproductive Services at the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) responded to O'Reilly's statement by saying this:
WAXMAN: "Almost all the women that are heterosexual use contraceptives at some time. There is no study that O'Reilly refers to when he says that. He totally made that up. It is his opinion and it is offensive."
Waxman also noted many other problems with O'Reilly's statement, saying this:
WAXMAN: The Institute of Medicine recommended that the preventative services package which will be required to be covered in all new private health plans in the U.S. should include the full range of FDA contraceptive methods.

Payment for these recommended services is not made by the government, but rather it is paid for by the plans.

There are three things that are wrong with the O'Reilly statement.

First, the government is not paying. Second, these recommendations apply to new health plans in the U.S. only. And third, this recommendation will not cost the government billions of dollars.

The IOM report says that the use of contraceptive is cost-effective and cites a 2007 study which estimates that cost savings due to contraceptive use is estimated to be $19.3 billion.
In other words, O'Reilly was wrong, he just made it up. And not only will the Government not be paying for it, the program would actually save the taxpayers money. So O'Reilly had it all wrong, and he lied to you.

Number Of Tea Party Events Down 50 Percent!
By: Steve - July 24, 2011 - 9:00am

O'Reilly and his right-wing friends all think the Tea Party is great, and that it is (and will be) a powerful force in American Politics. Which is all in denial of the facts, that the Tea Party is a fringe group of mostly far-right Obama hating white people.

O'Reilly himself said that only 19% of the people support the Tea Party, so how can 19% of them be a powerful force in politics. The answer is they cant, and they wont. In fact, the Tea Party is already dying out, the number of events they are having in 2011 is down 50 percent, and the number of people who go to them is also way down, 50 percent or more.

Last September, Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin answered critics who predicted that the movement would soon die out, saying this: "The Tea Party movement is here to stay."

Seven months later, presidential candidate Herman Cain (a Tea Party favorite) agreed saying this: "I have people asking me all the time. Do you think this Tea-Party thing is going to go away? No, it's not going away. It's gonna get stronger and stronger."

But a ThinkProgress investigation shows a far different picture. And their evidence points to one conclusion: Tea Party activity has declined sharply in 2011.

For this report, ThinkProgress examined the total number of events across the country listed on the Tea Party Patriots (TPP) and Americans for Prosperity (AFP) websites each month. They compared the number of Tea Parties that occurred in 2010 with the number that took place in the first seven months of 2011.

And the results were stunning. For TPP, fewer than half the number of Tea Party events took place in the first seven months of 2011 compared to the same time period in 2010. And while an average of 337 Tea Parties were held across the country each month in 2010, for 2011 that number has dropped to only 166 events per month, and continues to decline even more.

Critics of their findings say that the number of Tea Party events has significantly decreased in 2011 compared to 2010 because 2010 was an election year.

But that objection is flawed for two reasons. First, if the Tea Party claims to be a movement rather than an election turnout machine for Republicans, we would expect to see no dropoff from 2010 to 2011. Which is clearly not the case.

Second, nearly every Tea Party leader has declared some variation of this theme: "Our work doesn't end on Election Day, that's when it begins."

They also claim the Tea Party is getting stronger, when in fact it is not, they are not gaining new members, and the number of people at their events is down.

When you look at the actual number of Tea Party events that have taken place since 2010, it's clear there has been a significant drop-off. Photos posted online from Tea Party events show mostly empty rooms, with more people from the media at some events, than people from the Tea Party.

They have even had to move their events to smaller rooms because almost nobody was showing up. The facts show that the Tea Party is not growing stronger, it is growing weaker, and it is dying out.

The Friday O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - July 23, 2011 - 11:00am

There was no TPM because the far-right loon Laura Ingraham was the fill-in host for O'Dummy. And I will not do a full show review, but I will write a little about what Ingraham did, and I will report on the first segment because O'Reilly called in to talk to Ingraham.

In the Top Story segment Ingraham started with the debt crisis and President Obama's claim in an op-ed that his balanced approach is endorsed, in his words, by everyone "from Warren Buffett to Bill O'Reilly."

Bill, who had the day off, phoned in to talk on the president's claim. O'Reilly said this: "That op-ed is a little disingenuous. Everybody knows that I don't want any increase in the federal income tax. What I would like is tax reform overhaul, a flat tax, and perhaps a national sales tax. So I am for revenue enhancement but not for raising income tax levels. The President didn't explain that, he's just trying to say that he's being reasonable. But I don't think he's being reasonable and he has not articulated to anyone what his vision is for getting out of this debt jam."

O'Reilly also said this: "The Tea Party and conservative Republicans should stop being pig-headed and saying they're not going to compromise, no matter what."

Then Ingraham talked about the presidential polls, she said that according to recent polls, President Obama is ahead of every Republican contender, and for once she is right. But then she went off into right-wing spin land and had two people on to say Obama is going to lose in 2012, even though all the polls have Obama beating every Republican.

The two people she had on were a joke, Doug Schoen and Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway. Schoen is a fake Democrat who was even caught at a Republican fundraiser giving money to a Republican candidate, and Conway is the Ann Coulter of Republican pollsters. I will not go into details of what they said, but I will say that not only did Conway spin out right-wing propaganda, so did the so-called Democrat Schoen.

In fact, Schoen sounded more like a Republican than Conway did, which is just laughable that Fox claims this guy is a Democrat. In fact, the whole segment was laughable. Obama is beating every Republican by 10 or more points, except for Romney, who he is beating by 3 to 8 points (depending on what poll you look at) and yet Schoen and Conway did the segment as if Obama was losing to every Republican.

Then Ingraham did a bogus segment crying about the media reporting on the Bachmann migraine headaches. She claims there is no story and the media is just going after her because she is a Republican. Which is also laughable, because O'Reilly has even reported on it and said it was a valid story. Fox News has also reported on it, so that kills the spin from Ingraham that only the liberal media are reporting it to make Bachmann look bad.

Ingraham even had a Fox News Dr. Marc Siegel on to discuss it, and of course he agreed with the crazy Ingraham. Siegal said this: "These are all non-doctors on TV, and they don't know what they're talking about. A migraine affects 28-million people in the United States, and most of the time it's treatable by diet, by exercise, by avoiding certain foods, and sometimes we also need some medications to treat it. It's really a disgrace that the media is targeting this - I believe it's sexist and it's problematic when you consider that President Obama himself had a long history of smoking. Where's the demand that he get a cardiac workup? This is a deliberate attempt to undermine her candidacy and assassinate her character."

Now that is funny, how is a person smoking the same as a migraine headache. And this guy is a doctor, more like a political hack pretending to be a doctor. And he acts like if you are not a doctor you can not talk about migraine headaches, and you know nothing about them. Which is laughable on it's face, that's like saying unless someone played sports they can not talk about sports. Not to mention, O'Reilly and Fox have also reported on the story, so it is a real story that needs reported on.

Ingraham agrees that the media's focus is biased and inappropriate, saying this: "You could hear the collective scream from women across the United States asking, how dare you go down this road?"

Are you kidding me? No women care about it, except maybe a few Republican women like Laura Ingraham. And why would they care, when it's a valid story to report on. Nobody even has a problem with reporting on it, except for Ingraham and the fake Fox News doctor she dug up.

And finally in the last segment Ingraham played a re-run of an interview O'Reilly did about Muslims who want to build a mosque near Ground Zero who recently won a legal victory when a judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a New York City firefighter.

Ingraham played Bill's interview with attorney Adam Letitman Bailey, who represents the Muslim developers. "It's time to build," Bailey declared. "Now that we've won the case, we have to demolish the existing building and then construction will begin - we have enough money to demolish the building but not enough to build the new one. Most importantly, we now have freedom of religion thanks to the court decision."

But despite the legal ruling, Billy still insisted that no mosque will be built in the immediate vicinity of Ground Zero, saying this: "You must know that I predicted the mosque will never be built. I don't believe there is a construction crew in New York or New Jersey that will come and help you build it, no one is going to pick up a hammer. I may be wrong, but I flat-out predict that you're not going to get this thing built. And if your clients were really sensitive to the suffering of the 9/11 families, they would move it three blocks away."

And I predict O'Reilly is wrong, because in this economy I do not see anyone turning down a good paying construction job that would last a couple years or more.

Then the pinheads and patriots vote, and the ridiculous Ingraham Factor was over, thank God, I can barely stand to watch this fraud of a hack Ingraham, she is so biased and so partisan it's a joke to even let her host the show.

The Truth About Those Bush Tax Cuts
By: Steve - July 23, 2011 - 10:00am

About 10 years ago the USA borrowed billions to pay for the first round of Bush tax cuts, $51 billion to be exact.

On August 1, 2001, the Associated Press reported that the Treasury Department was tapping $51 billion of credit in order to pay for the budgetary cost of the first round of Bush tax cuts. The AP also reported at the time that Democratic Party opponents of the tax cuts worried that they would return government budgets to red ink.

And as we now know, the Democrats were right. Because the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts combined have blown a $2.5 trillion hole in our budget, and created deficits stretching on for years.

Remember this, at the time Bush, O'Reilly, all the Republicans, and everyone at Fox said the tax cuts would lead to higher revenues, and create jobs that would give us a great economy. But none of that happened, and we now know that they were lying to us.

For the same price as the Bush tax cuts, which did little to help the economy, we could have sent tens of millions of students to college, retrofitted every household in America with the capacity to generate alternative energy, hired millions of firefighters and police officers, ended our national shame of having kids who lack health care coverage, or put millions of more teachers into classrooms.

Instead, the Republican Congress passed budget-breaking tax cuts, and then went on to pass even more tx cuts in 2003. In 2010, Congress then went on to renew the Bush tax cuts for an additional two years.

All the tax cuts did was add to the debt, while making the rich richer. And it was only done as a payback to the wealthy Republicans who donated money to get Bush elected in 2000. Republicans (and O'Reilly) said the tax cuts would create millions of new jobs and lead to a booming economy, and look what happened. The economy did not get better, and there are not millions of news jobs from it.

And think about this, none of this is ever reported by O'Reilly. While he argues for more tax cuts as a way to help the economy, the facts show that it does not work, and that all it does it make the wealthy more wealthy, while adding to the debt.

O'Reilly Hypocrisy On The West/Schultz Story
By: Steve - July 23, 2011 - 9:00am

Bill O'Reilly and Stuart Varney (both Republicans) agreed Thursday night that Tea Party Congressman Allen West (R-FL) was simply defending his honor, when he personally attacked Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) as vile and unladylike for criticizing his voting record.

O'Reilly said this: "I think he should have gone after Wasserman Schultz the way he wanted to," adding that West should not apologize:
VARNEY: He is a man of honor, a blunt military guy. Maybe he could have used softer language. Perhaps he should have.

O'REILLY: I don't care about that. I think he should have gone after Wasserman Schultz the way he wanted to.

VERNEY: But I don't think he should have apologized.

O'REILLY: I wouldn't have apologized either. Look, he used words that were forceful because he felt, as you said, his honor was impugned -- I have no problem with that.
His defense of West, who has refused to apologize, is typical of O'Reilly's chauvinism, dressed up as old-school masculinity.

But his defense of West is trumped by politics, because it shows a double standard. Following a similar incident last year, when Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter accused Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) of being unladylike, O'Reilly took Bachmann's side, excoriating and mocking Specter's insensitivity.

O'Reilly also defends any kind of attacks against Sarah Palin from the left, while defending attacks against Democratic women from the right.

West and Specter were both in the wrong in pretty much the same way, but O'Reilly defended one and attacked the other.

O'Reilly and Varney are not alone, other Fox hosts have defended West's harsh rhetoric as well while attacking Wasserman Schultz in obviously gendered terms. Host Monica Crowley took West's side while calling Wasserman Schultz "she of the angry perm."

Fox contributor and right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin, said Wasserman Schultz is nothing more than former congressmen "Alan Grayson in heels."

Now remember this, these are the very same women who cry foul any time a Democratic man says anything about a Republican woman. They claim it's gender bias, sexism, and they claim they are trying to shut them up. Then they do the very same thing, or defend a Republican man who does a personal attack against a Democratic woman.

O'Reilly is the worst though, because he attacks anyone from the left who says anything about Sarah Palin. While not only ignoring personal attacks from the right on Democratic women, he defneds the attacker, but only when a Republican is doing the attacking.

The worst part is that Wasserman Schultz did nothing to deserve the personal attack from West. She was speaking about West on the floor of the House, and she did not even mention his name, she simply said the gentleman from Florida is letting his voters down by supporting cuts to medicare.

Which is true, because she cited stats that show how many people in his district are on medicare. So his honor was not impugned, and the defense of his personal attack on her was ridiculous by O'Reilly, Varney, and the rest of the right-wing stooges at Fox.

The Thursday 7-21-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 22, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Is the Tea Party self-destructive? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: I have supported the Tea Party because I believe it empowers individual Americans, always a good thing. Also, the Tea Party wants fiscal responsibility and a smaller federal government. But now the Tea Party has come to a crossroads - some of its members simply do not want to raise the debt ceiling and that could be catastrophic.

There is a way to raise the debt ceiling while drastically cutting federal spending and reforming the tax code, so the Tea Party should reassess the issue. 19% of voters consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement, which is not enough to carry the day on anything.

If the Tea Party is perceived as unreasonable, it will not grow any larger. In fact, if a compromise on the debt is not reached and the economy gets even worse, the Tea Party will be blamed. The Tea Party could become a tremendous force for good, but it could also evaporate.

Most Americans do not like extremism in politics - we need a sane compromise and tough economic reform. I hope the Tea Party will be a part of it.
Of course O'Reilly supports the Tea Party, because it's a bunch of right-wing loons, who hate Obama, and a lot of them are racists. But when liberals form citizen groups O'Reilly is opposed to them, because he hates liberals and Democrats. And the Tea Party will never be a strong force with anyone but Republicans, nobody else likes them or supports them, they are a fringe group that will fade away over time, and have no political power.

Then O'Reilly had Laura Ingraham on to discuss it, and of course there was no Democratic guest to provide the counter point and the balance. Crazy Ingraham said this: "You seem to be buying into the elite talking points on the Tea Party movement, which is the idea that the Tea Party is being radical or unreasonable merely because it believes the government should live within its means and we should have visible, real and meaningful cuts in spending."

O'Reilly said this: "Some Tea Party-supported legislators are saying they're not going to vote for a compromise, no matter what it is, but 66% of Americans say they want a compromise."

And that 66% do not want the Republican plan, which of course O'Reilly failed to mention. Not to mention this, neither O'Reilly or Ingraham reported that nobody agrees with the Tea Party, and the majority of the people trust Obama on the debt issue.

Then O'Reilly had Ingraham on for a 2nd segment simply to give her time to promote her lame book. Which he also promoted on his website the entire week he was on vacation over the 4th of July holiday. And that is something he never does for Democratic guests, ever.

Then O'Reilly had the biased far-right loon Stuart Varney on to discuss the debt issue. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance, so as usual it was a biased one sided debate with 2 Republicans and 0 Democrats.

Varney said this: "I say compromise, and avoid at all costs a downgrade of America's financial reputation or any chance of a default on our loans. What is really worrisome is the pace at which we're expanding our debt, which makes a downgrade more likely. The deficit today is 10 times bigger than it was in 2007!"

Varney also reported on his interview with Republican Congressman Allen West, who called Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz "vile, unprofessional, and despicable."

And what a shocker, O'Reilly left out the part where West said she was not a lady, funny how he just forgot to mention that. And the reason he said it was simply because she called West out for sticking it to all the people in his district who are on medicare.

Varney said this: "Congressman West responded very forcefully, because I think he felt his honor as a human being had been impugned by Wasserman Schultz. He is a military guy and a very blunt guy and I don't think he should have apologized. I'm sick and tired of politicians apologizing, which is meaningless." And of course Varney is wrong, because the West honor was not involved, he just used that as an excuse to justify his insults. Which btw, if he had said on the floor of the House, would have been removed from the record, and he would have been reprimanded. But according to O'Reilly and Varney, West is right and his honor was insulted. Which is just laughable, and it shows that O'Reilly and Varney are total right-wing stooges.

O'Reilly even said he has no problem with what West said, but if a Democrat just says Palin is Dumb, which is true, O'Reilly goes after them and rips them to pieces.

Then O'Reilly had Geraldo on to talk more about the Casey Anthony case, really? Why? Move on jerk, it's over, Casey was found not guilty and you were wrong, loser.

The Culture Warriors Leslie Marshall and Margaret Hoover were on next to react to a report showing that one in four Americans engages in binge drinking. O'Reilly acted like it was a big deal, when I am shocked it's only one in four.

Hoover said this: "The numbers actually aren't that bad, and drinking and drug use among young people is actually going down. But I agree that medical marijuana is the biggest ruse that we've got going in this country."

Marshall said that Americans have always done things, even negative things, in a big way. "As much as I love my nation and my fellow Americans, we have a society of excessiveness. We drink to excess - in college people were drinking until they passed out or threw up."

Earth to Marshall, that's what college kids do, get a life and report on some real news.

Marshall also endorsed the idea that the federal government should provide free birth control to every woman who wants it, saying this: "The cost up front, is very little compared to the savings in the long run. There are going to be fewer abortions, fewer people on welfare and Medicaid."

Then Hoover strongly disagreed, saying this: "I am all for lower priced birth control, but I don't think the government should pay for it. Liberals always want to throw money at a problem to fix it."

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum on for the total waste of time Factor news quiz. Which I do not report on because it's garbage.

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

O'Reilly & Morris Lie About The Debt Polls
By: Steve - July 22, 2011 - 10:00am

Talk about right-wing spin, this is it. On the Wednesday night Factor show O'Reilly had a segment with Dick Morris, where O'Reilly said Americans are increasingly concerned about the debt crisis.

So O'Reilly claims the American people are really really worried about the debt crisis, and his evidence of that was, you guessed it, a poll done by Dick Morris and his own personal polling company.

They are both saying that most Americans really care about the debt, and that they are increasingly concerned.

But it's all bull, it's garbage, it's all made up by O'Reilly, then he has Morris on with his bogus and biased poll to spin it with him, to make it look like he is right, when he is dead wrong.

Here are the facts:

The Dick Morris polls are worthless, they have no credibility, none. Because he is a biased right-wing hack, and he basically rigs his polls by the way he asks the questions, and by who he samples.

Most Americans care about jobs and the economy, a new poll taken by Gallup on July 10th has it like this:

Economy - 31%
Jobs - 27% Debt - 16%

And that is a real poll, not the Dick Morris rigged up poll. It shows that most Americans could care less about the debt crisis. Only 16% of the people care, that means 84% do not care.

In O'Reillyworld that means it is an important issue with the American people. But in the real world all it shows is that nobody really cares, and it also shows that O'Reilly and Morris are lying, spinning, right-wing hacks that will lie to you.

And finally we have what I call poll cherry picking, O'Reilly cherry picks polls that agree with his position on an issue, while ignoring polls that disagree with him.

O'Reilly and Morris both ignored this poll, In the new Quinnipiac poll a majority of U.S. voters trust Obama more than congressional Republicans to get the country back on track - and they also favor his approach to trimming the nation's debt, a poll out last Thursday found.

It not only says more Americans trust Obama on the debt than Republicans, it also says the Republicans would get most of the blame if a deal is not done by August 2nd.

The poll says that 45 percent trust the president more than Republicans on the economy, while 38 percent trust the Republicans more.

The poll also found that if there's no deal to raise the debt ceiling, voters would blame congressional Republicans over the president, 48 percent to 34 percent.

Survey participants also would prefer to see two measures that Obama has pushed: tax hikes for the rich and closing loopholes.

So what O'Reilly did was ignore the real polls, and have the biased right-wing hack Dick Morris on to use his bogus poll, which has no credibility. That is not only bias from O'Reilly, it's dishonest, because he is cherry picking a right-wing poll to back up his argument.

O'Reilly is using a right-wing hack (Dick Morris) and his biased poll, to lie to the American people. While ignoring the Gallup and Quinnipiac polls, that are honest, impartial, and trusted polls, that say the opposite of what O'Reilly and Morris claim.

Congressman Lewis Slams Republicans For Voter ID Laws
By: Steve - July 22, 2011 - 9:00am

Here is more on a big story that O'Reilly (the so-called) journalist has ignored. It's about Republicans passing all these voter ID laws to suppress the vote for people who mostly vote Democratic.

Joining in a bicameral effort to combat the large number of voter ID bills being pushed by Republicans across the country, long-time civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) slammed these "all too common" bills as "a deliberate and systematic attempt to prevent millions of elderly voters, young voters, students, minority and low-income voters from exercising their constitutional right to engage in a democratic process."

Recounting the dark history of voter suppression efforts in our history, Lewis said this: "Make no mistake, voter ID laws are a poll tax."

And the main reason O'Reilly has ignored the story is because it makes Republicans look bad, not to mention he agrees with the voter ID laws they are passing and he likes it that Republicans are supressing Democratic votes, so to him it's not a story at all.

The Wednesday 7-20-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 21, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Michele Bachmann's big headache. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Campaigning for the presidency is fraught with danger; you have to have security wherever you go because violent people are everywhere. And then there is the press, which may not be violent, but has many nuts. Enter Michele Bachmann.

A website reported that she is taking medication for migraine headaches, which set off a frenzy of media activity. ABC News' Brian Ross tried to ask the Congresswoman about the headache deal and whether it affected her work on Capitol Hill.

Ross said her staff 'came up and pushed me away.' Not good! You may remember that I had a similar situation back in 2008 when a guy working for then-Senator Obama tried to stop me from asking him a question. That illustrated the problem of security going overboard.

Michele Bachmann is new to national politics and she'll have to figure it out, just as Barack Obama did. All the candidates have to be very careful, but their security must be mature enough to know who's the enemy, and who is just trying to do his job.
Notice that O'Reilly said "A website reported that she is taking medication for migraine headaches" without naming the website. That's because the website is liberal, and O'Reilly did not want to give them publicity, which he never does when a conservative website reports something. And what's really funny is the rumor is that a Republican gave that Bachmann headache info to the website.

Then O'Reilly had Brian Ross on to discuss it. Ross said this: "I was never closer than ten or twelve feet from her, but people on her staff recognized me and the blocking was all about me. Other cameramen and other reporters were allowed to get close. My question was about whether her migraine headaches were so severe that she had to miss some votes. As commander-in-chief, she really has to be available on a 24-hour basis."

So then even O'Reilly criticized Congresswoman Bachmann's security team for physically touching Brian Ross, saying this: "That's not smart, that's not the way to handle this because it is a legitimate question."

Now get this, then O'Reilly had Dick Morris on, O'Reilly claims that Americans are increasingly concerned about the debt crisis, so he had Morris on to spin it for him.

The latest (bogus) poll by Morris found that Americans place nearly equal blame on Republicans and Democrats for the national debt. Morris said this: "This shows the residual blame, that attaches to all things 'Bush.' People were used to a balanced budget under Clinton and then they saw deficits all of a sudden under Bush, which is what they remember."

And all that is nothing but 100% right-wing spin, because the Morris poll was done by his own polling company, which is biased, and a joke. Not to mention other real polls say the Republicans will be blamed more if a debt deal is not reached. And finally, Gallup just ran a real poll on the debt, and only 16 percent of Americans care about it. They care about the economy and jobs, so O'Reilly and Morris are both right-wing liars who are spinning you.

I will have a blog on this issue tomorrow that proves O'Reilly and Morris are lying right-wing spin doctors.

This is a good one, The conservative Heritage Foundation reports that 82% of "poor" families in America own a microwave oven, 78% have air conditioning, and 65% have more that one TV. So Lou Dobbs was on to discuss the findings. With no Democratic guest to provide any balance.

Dobbs said this: "This study points out, that most families living in what is defined as 'poverty' have a microwave, a dishwasher, a dryer, and there are Xboxes and PlayStations in the home. It is really extraordinary to think of these conveniences that are enjoyed by these people when many of us think back to when we were younger and didn't have a television set. If you're going to be poor, be poor in America."

O'Reilly suggested that many people benefit from the large underground economy, saying this: "We're not diminishing the suffering of poor people, but a lot of people who report low wages are making decent money off the books. The poverty in America has never been like the poverty in Africa or Mexico."

When someone starts out with this: "We're not diminishing the suffering of poor people." That is exactly what they are doing. It sure is funny how 2 rich white conservatives are going to tell you how great the poor have it in America. And they use a study from a right-wing group that is also full of rich white conservatives. Without having one person from the left on to discuss it, or without having a poor person on to say how great they love being poor. The whole segment was laughable, and ridiculous.

Then O'Reilly had two waste of tv time segments that I do not report on, the body language bimbo Tonya Reiman, and the has been right-wing comedian Dennis Miller.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly talked about a fued in the House. After Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz accused Republican Allen West of betraying his Medicare constituents, West immediately fired back. So Fox Business anchor Dagen McDowell was on to discuss it. With no Democratic guest of course.

McDowell said this: "He wrote an email in response, and here's what's getting him into trouble. He called Wasserman Schultz 'the most vile, unprofessional and despicable member of the House.' He sent copies to Nancy Pelosi and Eric Cantor and others."

O'Reilly said that Allen West declined an invitation to appear on the show and explain his side of the story, saying this: "If I were Congressman West, I would come on and say here's why I'm so mad about this. He needs to explain why he's so angry with her, and by not doing that he hurts himself and his cause."

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

O'Reilly Spins For The Republicans Again
By: Steve - July 21, 2011 - 10:00am

Now this is great, on the Monday Factor show the crazy Bill O'Reilly said all the Democrats want an entitlement state, and all the Republicans want a lean mean economy.



Which is so partisan, and so ridiculous it's just laughable. Is he talking about the same Republicans who bankrupted the country from 2000 until 2008. Is he talking about the same Republicans who gave all the money we had in tax cuts for the wealthy. Is he talking about the same Republicans who spent what little money we had left on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I could go on and on, and it all shows that Republicans spent more money than the Democrats did. Look at the facts, Bill Clinton and the Democrats put policies in place that caused an economic boom, and he handed Bush a surplus. hen after 8 short years of Bush and the Republicans the country almost went broke, and fell into a depression.

And yet, O'Reilly claims the Republicans will fix everything, when they are the people who caused the mess we have now. It's not just ridiculous, it's false history, and it ignores the fact that the very same people O'Reilly wants to run the economy are the people who ruined it in the first place.

I guess Billy just forgot all that, yeah that's it, he just forgot about Bush and what the Republicans did for 8 years. Yeah and I'm Elvis too.

Warren Buffet Said The Debt Ceiling Is Worthless
By: Steve - July 21, 2011 - 9:00am

During a meeting with President Obama this week, billionaire investor Warren Buffet said the debt ceiling should be completely done away with.

Buffet argued the debt ceiling is nothing more than an (artificial limit) that wastes the Congress time:
BUFFET: "All it does is slow down a process and divert people's energy, causes people to posture. It doesn't really make any sense."
Buffet said that during his White House visit to discuss charitable giving. And he is 100% right, the debt ceiling is a political gimmick, and it is not needed.

Former President Clinton said he would invoke the 14th Amendment solution to raising the debt ceiling without hesitation.
CLINTON: "I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for expenditures it has appropriated is crazy."
Clinton also said he would force the courts to stop him from unilaterally raising the limit.

The Tuesday 7-19-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 20, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Is big business afraid of Obama? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Even if the debt ceiling is raised and the feds drastically cut spending, the economy will remain at risk. That's because some American business people fear President Obama's policies and are not hiring or investing as a result.

Entertainment mogul Steve Wynn put forth that point of view, saying President Obama 'keeps making speeches about redistribution.' There is a perception on Wall Street that Mr. Obama is primarily interested in social justice, not capitalism.

To win reelection, Mr. Obama has to convince big business that he'll help them, and he has to convince everyday Americans that he'll impose discipline on government spending and drop the redistribution stuff.

Safety nets for children, the elderly and the ill are a must, but President Obama has made a major mistake by trying to take assets away from certain Americans and give them to other Americans. That's against our system and it has been an economic disaster."
And as usual that is mostly nothing but right-wing propaganda. Obama does not want to redistribute money, he just wants a fair tax for the wealthy and the corporations, so the lower and middle class working Americans are not bearing more of the tax burden then they should be. In O'Reillyworld, that's redistribution of income, but to everyone else it's called a fair and progressive tax system.

So then of course O'Reilly has a Republican guest on to agree with his spin, and trash Obama, with no Democratic guest for balance. Karl Rove was on to trash Obama for his fundraising, but when Bush broke records for fundraising Rove never said a word, and had no problem with it.

Rove said this: "I'm impressed with his fundraising, but I'm not all that impressed. He's been attending a fundraiser every three days, but he can't keep up that pace and there aren't that many places where you can do million-dollar fundraisers. Most of the business community's money will go to the Republican candidate or they're going to sit on the sidelines."

O'Reilly even questioned whether moguls will dig deep for the President, saying this: "I don't believe Steve Wynn is alone in not liking the anti-business climate that some believe President Obama is fostering. Why would fat cats want to give the President four more years when he's done such a poor job on the economy?"

Which is more right-wing spin, because plenty of moguls will give Obama money, just not the right-wing moguls. And Obama has not done a poor job on the economy, he has done an ok job, not great, but a lot of that was out of his control, the President does not run the economy, he can only do a few things to help it.

And what's funny is when Democrats said Bush was doing a bad job on the economy, O'Reilly and the right said the President can not control the entire economy, so you can not blame him for all of it, but now that Obama is in office they say he can, which is total hypocrisy.

Then 2 weeks late O'Reilly FINALLY reported on the Murdoch hacking scandal. Amy Kellogg said this: "There are certainly people who are loyal readers of Murdoch's newspapers here, and they probably always assumed there were some unethical practices behind those screaming headlines. But there are also people who are outraged by the hacking into the phones of murder victims and terrorist victims. This has now gone beyond the media - it's touching police and it's touching government at the highest level. So people are upset."

The conservative British writer Nile Gardiner was also on to discuss it, and all he did was cry about the media reporting on it, saying it's nothing but a witch hunt, and of course the biased fool O'Reilly agreed with every word he said.

Gardiner said this: "We are seeing the beginnings of a witch hunt against Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation here in the United States, and we now have several Congressional committees threatening to hold hearings into allegations of phone hacking of American citizens. But there is not a shred of evidence that the U.S. side of News Corporation has been involved in any of these scandals."

O'Reilly said that many liberal outlets are jumping on this story because they despise Rupert Murdoch and Fox News, saying this: "Journalists are citizens - if we break the law, we should be held responsible. But right now there is not one American employee of the News Corporation implicated in any of this."

Wrong! The media is reporting it so much because it is a big story, except with O'Reilly and Fox, and O'Reilly lied, because there is an American employee who was involved, he even resigned over the scandal.

Then O'Reilly had Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley to discuss a school cheating scandal. Colmes said this: "What happened in Atlanta is terrible, and what's bizarre is that it's not the kids who are cheating, it's the teachers and principals. But there have always been scandals and lying and cheating."

Crowley denounced the 'authority figures' who apparently lied, saying this: "These 200 teachers and principals are supposed to be not only the educators, but also the moral guides for these kids, and kids are learning the lessons of what they see out there in the culture."

Then the right-wing loon John Stossel was on, who took an informal survey of students, most of whom admitted that they've cheated in school. Stossel said this: "I was amazed that these kids not only said they cheated, but also they said it with a TV camera there. They're not ashamed of it. But we have no evidence that there is a trend, maybe this has always been true."

Stossel also slammed O'Reilly for his claim that America is in decline, saying this: "Violence is down, teen violence is down, teen pregnancies are down, murders and robberies and rapes are down. Life is getting better!"

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to discuss a couple legal cases. Wiehl said this about the Clemens trial: "We get to say to our kids, that if you cheat and lie you may have to go to jail. But the problem is that the government has prosecuted eleven people and got a grand combined total of less than three years in jail."

Guilfoyle turned to the case of a female gym teacher in Ohio who is accused of having sex with five male students, saying this: "All of a sudden, she says the boys took advantage of her 'impaired' mental condition. She's looking at 81 years behind bars and I hope she serves time."

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly asked What happens if Sarah Palin joins the presidential race?

Palin has not ruled out a presidential run, so O'Reilly invited Charles Krauthammer to discuss her situation. Krauthammer said this: "If she gets in, it gets complicated, the rowboat gets very crowded, and bodies are going to start to go overboard. If Palin enters the race, she and Bachmann are going to fight it out for mostly the same constituency and one of them would emerge as the main contender to Mitt Romney."

But what Krauthammer and O'Reilly never mentioned is that neither Palin or Bachmann is going to win, so they might put up a good fight, but they will not win.

Krauthammer also evaluated Texas Governor Rick Perry, who seems ready to enter the race, saying this: "He has a lot of executive experience, he's strong with social conservatives, Texas has had a good record of creating jobs, and he has a lot of money. You put all that together and you've got a serious contender."

And as usual neither one of these right-wing hacks say a word about Perry telling people he wants to let God fix all the problems we have. O'Reilly and Krauthammer both ignored that statement from the insane Rick Perry, because it makes him look like a loon, so they just never report it, or discuss it.

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

O'Reilly Spins The News Corp Hacking Scandal
By: Steve - July 20, 2011 - 10:00am

O'Reilly finally reported on the News Corp phone hacking scandal (2 weeks late) and not only did he spin it for News Corp, he lied about the story, and the reporting he did was one sided and biased, with two Republicans guests, and nobody from the left for balance.

After weeks of ignoring News Corps phone hacking scandal, Billy finally covered the issue on his show Tuesday night. His so-called reporting was a report from Amy Kellogg, who has been reporting on the topic for Fox News from London, and a discussion with Heritage Foundation senior fellow Nile Gardiner.

The segment ran for about six minutes, and O'Reilly used most of the time with Gardiner to spin the scandal away.

(O'Reilly also falsely claimed that there has not been any "intrusion of this story thus far on News Corp. properties" in the U.S.

But that is a lie, because Les Hinton, CEO of News Corps Dow Jones division, resigned as a result of the fallout.)

O'Reilly claimed that no American employee of News Corp. has been "implicated" in the company's hacking scandal and that "in the United States, there isn't any intrusion of this story thus far on News Corp. properties. None."

And now the facts, Les Hinton, who is an American citizen, was the CEO of News Corp. Dow Jones division and publisher of The Wall Street Journal, until he resigned recently as a result of the scandal.

Here is the best part:
O'REILLY: Correct me if I'm wrong, Doctor. There's not one American employee of the News Corporation implicated in any of this.

GARDINER: Yeah. That's absolutely right. There's not a shred of evidence whatsoever that the U.S. side of News Corporation has been involved in any of these scandals hitting Britain at this time.

An allegation has been made by the Daily Mirror that the journalists of the News of the World may have hacked into the phone accounts of some U.S. citizens. Again, that is a claim made against the News of the World. There is no real evidence to back that up, either.
And now the facts, From The Wall Street Journal:
Dow Jones & Co. Chief Executive Les Hinton resigned late Friday, as the top executive at News Corps financial publishing unit sought to contain the damage from the company's British tabloid scandal, which began while he oversaw the company's U.K. newspaper operations.

Mr. Hinton said that he was "ignorant of what apparently happened" at the company's tabloid newspapers earlier in the decade. He characterized his lack of knowledge as "irrelevant" and said it was "proper" for him to step down.
And who cares anyway, if Murdoch was a liberal who had something to do with MSNBC or CNN, O'Reilly would be all over this story like stink on dog crap. But since it involves the parent company of Fox News he ignored it for 2 weeks.

Then on top of that, when he finally did report on it, he did it will all right-wing guests, put a spin on the story to defend Murdoch, claimed the media was doing a witch hunt, when people have been arrested for the scandal, and lied that nobody from the USA was involved.

That is not journalism folks, let alone no spin journalism. It's a biased hack job by O'Reilly to defend his boss, and to use the story to attack the media. When a real journalist would have reported it weeks ago, and called for Murdoch to resign in shame.

They even hacked into phone calls of 9-11 families, and yet, O'Reilly ignored it all. An entire newspaper in the UK was closed over it, and O'Reilly spins it as nothing, and said the media is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Fox Spins The Palin Documentary Film Flop
By: Steve - July 20, 2011 - 9:00am

Last weekend the Sarah Palin documentary, The Undefeated, officially opened, and of course Fox News reported on it. As usual they lied and called it a huge hit. When in fact, it was a massive flop, even using documentary standards.

Time magazine reported that the movie was a big disappointment at the box office:
The Sarah Palin documentary The Undefeated, playing on about a dozen screens, in such conservative bastions as Grapevine, Texas, and Orange Country, Cal., amassed perhaps $75,000.

The weekend take for the Palin doc - which may reach $8,000 per theater - is underwhelming at best, given the star quality of its subject, the ardor of her admirers and the exposure The Undefeated gleaned on right-wing websites.
The Wrap, a website that covers Hollywood, confirmed Time's numbers, reporting that the movie "got off to a soft start, grossing somewhere between $65,000-$75,000, according to estimates confirmed by the distributor ARC Entertainment."

Compare that to the biopic documentary called "Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work" that opened on SEVEN screens last year and averaged $23,479 per theater.

Even after that information was reported, Fox News is touting the opening as a smash hit, leading their Fox Nation website with the following:
Palin Film Opens Strong, Theaters Packed
The Fox Nation piece, which is about the film's opening weekend, leads with a quote from an article that appeared before the film even premiered. It avoids all mention of actual ticket sales, and it currently has a zero percent positive rating by the movie review aggregation site Rottentomatoes.com.

The Monday 7-17-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 19, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called The debt debate continues in Washington. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: On paper the debt thing is boring and many Americans are not paying attention, but the controversy will define the future of the USA.

On one side, President Obama and the Democratic Party want America to become an entitlement state that compels 'social justice,' financially supporting Americans who can't or won't support themselves.

On the other side, Republicans want to drastically cut spending and promote private business to bolster the economy.

A new CBS poll shows that Democrats are winning the PR war, which either means the GOP is not getting its message out or the vast majority of Americans want a European-style entitlement state.

Talking Points does not believe that most Americans want that, so the message seems to be the problem. Enter Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio, who absolutely destroyed CBS newsman Bob Schieffer on Sunday. Mr. Rubio called for 'a decrease in spending of at least $4 trillion and something that helps grow our economy.'

He went on to say that he does believe in closing some tax loopholes that corporations and wealthy people use. If the Republicans want to win the vital debate, they need to follow Rubio's lead.
It's official, O'Reilly has lost his mind. Now he does not believe the CBS poll, what a joke. Here is what O'Reilly does, he only believes the polls when he agrees with the results. It's ridiculous, and biased. Earth to O'Reilly, it's not just a CBS poll that has those results, they all do, jerk.

Then O'Reilly had Brit Hume on to discuss the debt ceiling, and of course no Democratic guest was on to provide the balance in the debate. Hume said this: "This isn't going well for Republicans, just as it didn't go well for Republicans when they were in a strikingly similar fight 16 years ago."

Hume also said this: "Boehner and the House leaders would have a stronger hand if they knew that they could do something like what Marco Rubio proposed - combine a debt ceiling increase with a large package of meaningful spending cuts. What the Republicans are doing this week is pie-in-the-sky, a proposal to cap spending as a percentage of GDP and add in the requirement that there be a balanced budget amendment. I'm not sure that can even pass the House, and there's no way it'll go through the Senate, so clearly it's not going anywhere."

Wow, for once Hume is right about something, and everything he said is most likely true. Which also destroys the argument from O'Reilly that the polls are wrong.

Then O'Reilly had Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams on to talk about the Republican Rick Perry possibly running for President. And not once did any of them mention the fact that Perry recently said he would let God fix all the problems we have. Neither O'Reilly or anyone reported it, because they want to cover for him, even the so-called Democrat Juan Williams ignored it.

In fact, Juan Williams loves Perry, saying this: "I think he's a winner, the kind of person who bridges the divide within the Republican ranks as they look for a nominee. He has the Tea Party appeal, he's raised a lot of money, and he's a bridge between Tea Party and establishment Republicans."

Ham praised Perry's economic record, saying this: "The most important thing is that he's got a message about jobs. The recession was fairly short in Texas because a bunch of jobs came there from other states, and that is the most powerful message a politician can have."

Then O'Reilly had Margaret Hoover on to promote her new book, that deals with the GOP. Hoover said this: "My book is about connecting to the next generation. People who are under 30 voted two-to-one for Barack Obama and if we don't make inroads in the next 16 months, we're going to lose the next generation. Their politics are pragmatic, not ideological, and Republicans need to start talking to the youth that elected Barack Obama."

Then Mr. Pro Union (haha) O'Reilly did another Union smear job segment with some right-wing reporter Rob Wolchek. Undercover news crews in Detroit taped auto workers drinking and smoking weed during their lunch hour. So O'Reilly spent the entire segment trashing Unions. Because a few idiots were drinking and smoking weed during their lunch break.

O'Reilly said because of that they should get rid of the unions, and he is a massive idiot. Hey Billy, people drink and smoke on their lunch break every day, Union worker or not, and if you fire everyone who drinks and smokes at lunch, you would barely have anyone left to do the jobs. Just because a few guys who are in a Union do it, does not mean you slam the entire Union. You slam the guys who did it, not the Union.

Then O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to suck up to Marco Rubio, Goldberg gave Rubio high marks and high praise, saying this: "If the Republicans don't put him on the ticket, they need to get their heads examined. Here's a guy who presents the Republican position better than anyone in the leadership."

Goldberg accused many in the media of again carrying President Obama's water, saying this: "A storyline has developed - Barack Obama is the reasonable and responsible one, while the Republicans aren't responsible. This storyline wasn't created by the media; Barack Obama painted that picture of himself and his pals in the media picked it up and ran with it. Never mind that over the past two years Barack Obama has spent money like Imelda Marcos in a shoe store."

O'Reilly even predicted that Marco Rubio will be the Republican's VP candidate next year, saying this: "Partly because he's from Florida and the Republicans have to take that state."

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had the bogus Factor Reality Check. Which I do not report on, because it has almost no reality, and no reality checks. It's just O'Reilly by himself putting his right-wing spin on what someone else said.

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

O'Reilly Ignoring Michele Bachmann Church Scandal
By: Steve - July 19, 2011 - 10:00am

As usual O'Reilly ignores most of the big news stories that make Republicans look bad, last week it was reported that Michele Bachmann quit her church to try and keep the media from linking her to some crazy things they have said.

And of course O'Reilly has ignored it all, but when Obama was linked to Pastor Wright for some things he said, O'Reilly reported the hell out of it for weeks and months on end, he even did a 25 part series on Pastor Wright, with video and transcripts, recordings, etc. One part a night for 25 straight days.

O'Reilly also said it was right to link Pastor Wright to Obama because he knows the man, and goes to his church, so it shows what kind of person he is by who he pals around with. It was guilt by association, but when Bachmann quits her church because they said some crazy things about the Pope, O'Reilly ignores the entire story.

Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and her husband Marcus preemptively left their church of more than ten years just weeks before she announced her candidacy to avoid association with its extremist views. Salem Lutheran Church in Stillwater, Minnesota, has faced criticism recently for its anti-Catholic views, including preaching that the Pope is the Antichrist.

The church that Michele Bachmann and her husband Marcus had attended for more than a decade, Salem Lutheran in Stillwater, Minn., granted the couple's request to be released from their membership last month, a week after Bachmann told a national audience that she would run for the Republican presidential nomination.

The Bachmanns had approached their pastor and verbally made the request "a few weeks before the church council granted the request," said Joel Hochmuth, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the governing body for the church.

Here is my question, you have to go to a church council to be released from their membership. Why cant you just quit, sounds like communism to me, haha.

The highly convenient timing of the move clearly indicates it was a political calculation on Bachmann's part. It remains to be seen how religious values voters will feel about the candidate choosing political opportunism over her church. On the campaign trail Bachmann frequently invokes her faith and proudly speaks about coming to Christ at the age of 16.

CNN also reported that Salem Lutheran Church still maintains some ties with the Bachmann family. "It lists a Christian counseling center operated by Bachmann's husband on its website under special member services for confidential counseling."

So she has not quit entirely, some of it is for public relations. And Bachmann must still account for her ongoing connection with other radical preachers and churches, especially Bradlee Dean of the notoriously anti-gay You Can Run But You Can't Hide ministry.

Dean has been described as Bachmann's Pastor Wright, and has repeatedly called for gays and lesbians to be put in prison and has said executing gays is moral.

Many journalists have observed the parallels between Bachmann leaving her church for political expediency and Barack Obama's decision to do the same in 2008 after his church's preacher, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, faced a barrage of criticism for his rhetoric.

But since O'Reilly is a Republicans and he likes Michele Bachmann, you can bet the farm he will never touch this story, because it would hurt her politically.

Republican Gov. Signs Law That Will Supress The Vote
By: Steve - July 18, 2011 - 9:00am

Here is another big story that O'Reilly has ignored because it makes Republicans look bad, and they are not just doing it in South Carolina, they are doing it all over the country, passing these voter ID laws.

They claim it's to keep illegal immigrants from voting, but it's really to supress the vote with minorities, and the poor, who mostly vote Democratic. It's legal voter suppression, and it's a very dirty trick, instead of making it harder to vote, they should be passing laws making it easier to vote.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley(R) has a unique solution to the problem she created by signing a law in May that will require voters to present a government-issued photo ID at the polls, she will personally drive you to the DMV.

As with any voter ID requirement, Haley's law could have the effect of suppressing the vote of thousands of people who don't currently have South Carolina IDs, especially minorities, college students, rural voters, and the elderly. For these people, it is often difficult or impossible to travel to the DMV to obtain a license, so many wind up not being able to cast a ballot come Election Day.

But Haley isn't worried because she has a plan. She said this: "Find me those people that think that this is invading their rights," she told a local Fox affiliate, "And I will go take them to the DMV myself and help them get that picture ID."

Which is just ridiculous, because the South Carolina election commission estimates that 178,000 of the state's voters lack the ID necessary to allow them to exercise their right to vote.

That means that if every single one of the 178,000 voters were to present themselves to the governor's mansion and request the free ride Haley just offered them, it would take 7 years, 4 months, 3 weeks and 5 days for her to drive them all to the DMV.

But I have a much simpler solution, do not take away their right to vote in the first place.

The FBI Is Investigating News Corp & Rupert Murdoch
By: Steve - July 17, 2011 - 10:00am

The AP reported this on Thursday: "A law enforcement official says the FBI has opened an investigation into allegations that media mogul Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. tried to hack into the phones of Sept. 11 victims."

The decision to investigate was made after Congressman Peter King, wrote FBI Director Robert Mueller demanding an investigation, said the official, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly. The FBI had received letters from King and other members of Congress.

News Corp., based in New York, has been in crisis mode because of a scandal that sank its U.K. newspaper the News of the World.

And the great (haha) journalist (haha) Bill O'Reilly has not even mentioned the story, not one time, ever. So much for being a real non-partisan Independent journalist with a no spin zone. In reality, O'Reilly is a tabloid fraud of a right-wing hack, who pretends to be a real journalist.

Republican Governor Refuses To Discuss Approval Ratings
By: Steve - July 17, 2011 - 9:00am

Republicans make a living reporting on the Obama approval ratings, they talk about it non-stop, including John Kasich the Republican from Ohio, and yet, when asked about their own approval ratings, they refuse to discuss it.

Reading from his prepared notes, Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) bragged on MSNBC's Morning Joe Tuesday about what he considers to be his major accomplishments since taking office in January.

But his fantasyland claim was stopped short when co-host Mika Brezinzski asked him a simple question: "How are your approval ratings?"

A stunned Kasich stumbled for a response, saying this: "Approval ratings depend on who takes the poll, and bottom line, my state was dying."

And btw, every poll taken has Kasich at 30% to 33% approval, so his spin on who takes the poll is nonsense, because ALL the polls have him around 33%, even the polls taken by right-wing pollsters.

In the latest PPP poll, only 33% of registered voters said they approve of Kasich's job performance, compared to 56% who said the disapprove of it. That result ties Kasich with Florida's Rick Scott (R) as the most unpopular of the 38 governors PPP has surveyed.

Kasich is now so unpopular that in a hypothetical do-over election, PPP found him getting hammered by the Democrat Strickland 59% to 34%. Kasich barely won last year by only a two-point margin.

Back in March, PPP also showed Kasich losing in a do-over contest. But in that poll, he lost by a relatively modest 15-point spread, 55% to 40%. A Quinnipiac poll presented a similar finding.

Now I do not blame him for avoiding the question and spinning the low approval ratings, because it's hard to explain why you're so unpopular that you would actually lose a do-over election by 25 points.

With the majority of Ohio voters disapproving of his last four major proposals, that fact is hardly likely to change. And of course neither O'Reilly or anyone at Fox mention the low approval for Kasich, but they sure report on the low approval for Obama.

The Friday 7-15-11 Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - July 16, 2011 - 11:00am

The far-right loon Laura Ingraham was the fill-in host so I did not do a full review. But I will say this, Ingraham is a far-right die-hard conservative, and O'Reilly claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone.

But when you watch Ingraham and compare her to O'Reilly, there is almost no difference, except Ingraham is a woman, and O'Reilly is a man. They both make the same right-wing biased arguments, they both support the same right-wing issues, they both hate liberals and Democrats, and they both spin out 99% right-wing propaganda.

So when O'Reilly claims to be a non-partisan Independent, he is lying, and it's laughable to make such a claim. The fact that he even lets the far-right Laura Ingraham host his show, but never Colmes or Beckel host, is proof alone that he is a Republican.

In fact, if you took the host name out of the Factor show transcripts, and just read it without watching the show, you would not know if O'Reilly said it or Ingraham. They have almost the exact same arguments on the issues, and they support almost all the Republican positions on the issues.

It's like they are brother and sister, who are both Republicans, only about 1 percent of the time do they disagree, the other 99 percent they agree on everything. And she did talk about the debt deal, when a Democratic guest pointed out the majority of Americans want tax increases to go along with spending cuts, Ingraham said she does not care, and wants spending cuts only.

Obama has proposed 80% cuts, with 20% loophole closing and tax increases, which seems fair to most people, except Ingraham, O'Reilly, and all their far-right friends. Even the majority of Republicans support that plan, but Ingraham, O'Reilly, and the far-right still do not want that deal, even though the majority of the American people support it. Which just goes to show you how far to the right, and how out of touch they are with the people.

Republican Gov. Rick Perry Wants God to Fix Everything
By: Steve - July 16, 2011 - 10:00am

Here it is folks, this is what you get when you elect Republicans to office, they say things like they plan to let God fix it all. Yes he really said that, and you should be scared to death when you hear an elected official say things like that.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) is gearing up for "The Response," an anti-gay prayer event on Aug. 6 billed as a call to prayer for a nation in crisis.

According to the website, Perry's event is based on the belief that the nation's political, financial, and moral crisis is occurring because we are a nation that has not honored God in our successes or humbly called on Him in our struggles.

Perry, who has been roundly criticized for politicizing the event, takes that call very literally.

The Houston Chronicle reports that in a private meeting to raise funds for the event, Perry concluded that property rights, government regulation, and the legal system are threatening America, and that "it's time to just hand it over to God and say 'God, you're gonna have to fix this.'"
PERRY: I tell people, that personal property and the ownership of that personal property is crucial to our way of life.

Our founding fathers understood that it was a very important part of the pursuit of happiness. Being able to own things that are your own is one of the things that makes America unique. But I happen to think that it's in jeopardy.

It's in jeopardy because of taxes; it's in jeopardy because of regulation; it's in jeopardy because of a legal system that's run amok.

And I think it's time for us to just hand it over to God and say, "God, You're going to have to fix this."

I think it's time for us to use our wisdom and our influence and really put it in God's hands. That's what I’m going to do, and I hope you'll join me.
Now that is scary, a Governor of a State is saying he will let God fix it. Perry has long considered himself a prophet of God and is quick to combine religion with his right-wing, anti-government policies. A secessionist with a Confederate past, Perry considers programs like Medicaid, the Clean Air Act, and school assistance as unconstitutional nonsense.

In May, Perry claimed that the economic crisis was proof the nation needed to go "back to those Biblical principles of you know, you don't spend all the money." He even skewed a parable of the Bible to argue that federal public programs are tantamount to slavery in which beneficiaries are "slaves to government."

The idea that U.S. leaders should just hand over basic facets of government like regulation and a legal system to God is a stark abdication of all responsibility as a public servant that could have very real, very serious consequences for Americans.

As Salon's Justin Elliott notes, Perry responded to a historic drought in Texas by calling for three days of prayer for rain in April. "How did that work out? The AP reported June 29: Drought-stricking Texas declared a natural disaster area."

The Thursday 7-14-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 15, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Will an unresolved debt crisis hurt you? The Crazy/Biased O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Earlier this week we interviewed Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who says she will not vote to raise the debt ceiling, no matter what. Talking Points respectfully disagrees with Ms. Bachmann because if a debt deal is not reached Americans will suffer greatly.

I know some of you don't believe that, but Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has warned that the nation faces a huge financial calamity if the debt ceiling is not increased.

Americans should put ideology aside and urge the politicians to get a compromise done, and here's what it should be: There should be at least $2 trillion in immediate spending cuts; there should be no increase in income taxes, but the government should close many tax loopholes; and both parties should agree to revise the entire tax code.

President Obama and the Democrats must stop the spending madness immediately. On the other side, Tea Party people can't continue to say hey, we don't care what happens to the economy, we're not going to raise the debt limit.

Yesterday White House spokesman Jay Carney said I am a voice of moderation in the debate. So now I am offering to broker the debt compromise - I'll go down there, I'm ready to answer the call because I am looking out for you, not some crazed ideology or political party.
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, shut up! You are a biased, dishonest, right-wing cable tv news show hack, so nobody is going to listen to you, that means you can take your partisan ideas and shove it where the sun dont shine. Go look at the polls, the majority of America disagrees with you, jerk.

Then O'Reilly had the far-right Charles Krauthammer on, who also disagreed with O'Dummy. Krauthammer said this: "If you think you are going to get $2 trillion in real cuts from this administration, you really are somewhere out there. We had a resolution of $38 billion in cuts during the issue of the government shutdown, and what did it turn out to be? One-third-of-a-billion dollars."

Then O'Reilly had the so-called Democratic Congressman Rob Andrews on. Who is an admitted moderate and a fiscal conservative, and of course he agreed with O'Reilly, because he is a Republican pretending to be a Democrat.

Andrews said this: "Your point is a refreshing voice of reason, and I would get involved in doing a deal like you laid out. I'd try to do $4 trillion, but certainly $2.5 trillion is good, I think that's very doable. If the country defaults on its debt, there will be economic disaster. And if we don't get the deficit down, there will be economic disaster."

Now think about what Andrews said, does that sound like a Democrat to you, not to me. O'Reilly found a DINO and used him to spin his debt idea, to make it look like even some Democrats agree with him.

O'Reilly also said that substantial cuts are necessary and feasible, saying this: "It shouldn't be difficult for this great country of ours to cut 10% out of the spending. It's a philosophical thing, and I want the Democrats to buy into the fact that we have gone too far in the spending realm."

And I agree, it's what the cuts are for that's the problem. Liberals want taxes raised on the wealthy, defense spending cut, and tax loopholes for the wealthy and corporations cut. O'Reilly and the right want all the cuts from social programs that hurt the poor, and they do not want any tax increases or defense cuts. The problem is not cuts in spending, the problem is what to cut.

Then O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to cry about some e-mails that show some White House staffers tried to marginalize Fox News early in the Obama administration. Wow, really? Who cares, and how is this news. Goldberg said this: "I'm willing to accept that this is history, but still, the emails that were released tell us something. They tell us that the politicians in the White House are able to look you right in the eye and lie to you. This was supposed to be different. Somebody needs to tell Barack Obama that he's not the Mayor of Chicago and 1600 Pennsylvania isn't City Hall. You don't go to war with a news operation."

To begin with, Fox is not a news operation, it's an arm of the Republican party and a propaganda operation for the RNC. And second, do you think the Bush administration did not do the very same thing to CNN and MSNBC. Of course they did, every administration does it. This whole segment was a total waste of time with no news value.

In the next segment O'Reilly asked this: "Who's paying Casey Anthony's legal bills." And to that I say, who fricking cares, mind your own business and get back to reporting real news. Stop trying to get ratings off the Casey Anthony story, it's over, she was found not guilty, and you were wrong, as usual, so move on loser.

In the next segment O'Reilly asked if morbid obesity is a type of child abuse. Two Harvard researchers are saying that extremely obese children should be taken away from their parents and put in foster care.

Culture Warriors Alicia Menendez and Gretchen Carlson were on. Carlson said this: "I don't think the government should get involved in this. The government might take away your kids if they are malnourished, but this is so much more complex than just stopping a kid from starving. This is a complete lifestyle change and the government is not good at doing this - the foster care system is already overloaded."

Menendez said this: "How do you know the difference between what is genetics and what is legitimately neglect and abuse? If you can answer that, then this is not entirely unreasonable."

O'Reilly agreed that morbid obesity can be a form of abuse, at least in extreme cases, saying this: "If a kid is 200 pounds overweight and a doctor says the parents won't feed the kid properly, you're putting the kid in jeopardy."

And I say that is between the parents and the child, we should stay out of it and mind our own business.

Finally, in the last segment O'Reilly had Martha MacCallum and Steve Doocy on for the total waste of TV time Factor News Quiz.

And btw folks, O'Reilly had 7 Republicans to 1 Democratic guest. And the Democratic guest he had on (Rob Andrews) is a DINO, a Democrat in name only. On his Wikipedia page it says he is a moderate and a fiscal conservative, so he is not a real Democrat.

So what O'Conman did was find a fake Democrat to put on who agrees with him on the debt issue, so then he can say he had a Democrat on, and say that even some Democrats agree with him. When none of the real Democrats agree with him or Congressman Andrews, and it was a dishonest/biased trick by O'Reilly.

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

New Poll Says The People Trust Obama More
By: Steve - July 15, 2011 - 10:30am

And here is a poll you will NEVER see reported by O'Reilly, because it says the exact opposite of what O'Reilly claims in his talking points memo from Wednesday night. In fact, it not only says more Americans trust Obama on the debt than Republicans, it also says the Republicans would get most of the blame if a deal is not done by August 2nd.

In the new Quinnipiac poll a majority of U.S. voters trust Obama more than congressional Republicans to get the country back on track - and they also favor his approach to trimming the nation's debt, a poll out Thursday finds.

The poll says that 45 percent trust the president more than Republicans on the economy, while 38 percent trust the Republicans more.

The poll also found that if there's no deal to raise the debt ceiling, voters would blame congressional Republicans over the president, 48 percent to 34 percent.

Survey participants also would prefer to see two measures that Obama has pushed: tax hikes for the rich and closing loopholes.

Note: O'Reilly does not favor any of that, he simply wants spending cuts, with no tax cut increases, and no loophole closing measures. So once again O'Reilly is going against the will of the people, and supporting the Republican plan, which the majority of Americans oppose.

Not only did O'Reilly ignore this poll and what the people want, he lied that the folks agree with him, when almost nobody agrees with him, except right-wing partisans.

Sixty-seven percent say an agreement to raise the debt ceiling should include not just spending cuts but tax increases for the rich and corporations, while twenty-five percent disagree. And 45 percent say that the president's efforts to raise revenues look more like closing loopholes than tax hikes.

Seventy-one percent say they think the economy is in recession and though Obama has been in office for nearly two-and-a-half years, most still blame his predecessor, George W. Bush, for the recession. Fifty-four percent say Bush is to blame more than Obama; 27 percent say the opposite.

And yet, O'Reilly and the right never mention that, they just blame it all on Obama without saying that Bush actually caused the problem, or the fact that most Americans still blame Bush more than they do Obama. Only 27 percent blame Obama, and O'Reilly is at the head of the list of that 27 percent.

Fox Host Denies Terrorism Under George W. Bush
By: Steve - July 15, 2011 - 10:00am

Before I roast this Fox host (Eric Bolling) with the facts about how wrong he was, here they are, not only did we have one terrorist attack, we had at least 3 that we know of:

1) The Terrorist attacks on 9-11-2001, a full 8 months after Bush was in office.
2) The Shoe Bomber Richard Reid.
3) The Anthrax Attacks.

During a heated debate over supposed scare tactics over the debt ceiling standoff Wednesday, The Five's Eric Bolling got an attack of Giuliamnesia, telling Fox colleague Bob Beckel that he didn't remember any terrorist attacks on American soil between 2000 and 2008.

Beckel reminded the panel that "what he did was saying, if we didn't go into Iraq, we were going to be subjected to weapons of mass destruction, which we still haven't found."

This prompted a frustrated reaction from Perino, who said she has "had it with liberals who bring that up all the time."

Beckel asked, again, why the WMD were never found, to which Bolling replied, "Whether they did or didn't, America was certainly safe between 2000 and 2008. I don't remember any terrorist attacks on American soil during that period of time."

And Bolling is not the only Republicans who can not seem to remember all the terrorist attacks that happened under Bush.

In 2010 Rudy Giuliani said we did not have any domestic terrorist attacks under Bush, Giuliani said this: "We had no domestic attacks under Bush. We've had one under Obama," he said, forgetting not only Sept. 11 but also the shoe bomber and anthrax mailings to congressional offices and media outlets.

Dana Perino also can not remember any terrorist attacks under Bush, in November of 2009 she said this: "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term."

It's called a lie, they are all lying, because we had at least 3, if not more we did not hear about for national security reasons.

And just for the record, here are a few more:

4) 2002 - Attack at LAX against El Al ticket counter
5) 2006 - SUV attack at UNC
6) 2006 - Seattle Jewish Federation shooting, Egyptian shoots six
7) 2007 - IEDs tossed at Mexican Consulate in NYC

So that's 7 attacks that happened under Bush, and that does not even count the 5 terrorist attacks against abortion clinics and planned parenthood, that all happened while Bush was the President. And that my friends is why you should never believe anything a Republican tells you.

Six Real Democrats Win Primary Elections In Wisconsin
By: Steve - July 15, 2011 - 9:00am

On Tuesday six real Democrats easily won primary elections in the first of Wisconsin's recall elections, which were prompted by the state's anti-union bill.

They defeated six fake Democrat protest candidates that were supported by the GOP in an effort to sabotage the recall effort.

And of course you never heard a word about any of these dirty tricks by Republicans from O'Reilly, in fact, he has not even said one word about the recall elections. That's because he is a Republican, and he does not want to report the truth, that most of those Republicans who voted to bust the unions, will be recalled.

The Wednesday 7-13-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 14, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called The economy and agony on the left. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: No matter how the debt debate turns out, liberal America will lose. I am more firmly convinced than ever that the folks understand it is not good for the nation to borrow another $2 trillion on top of the $14.5 trillion we already owe. I think even the dimmest among us knows that's bad.

And who wants to keep borrowing? That would be the left and its leader President Obama. Smart people on the left understand the situation - the Consumer Confidence Index stands at 58.5, which is a catastrophe, while the historical barometer for a president being reelected is about 100 in the index. So it's easy to see the trouble Mr. Obama is facing.

In the face of that, the committed left media is demonizing their opposition, conservative Republicans. The left is extremely disappointed that President Obama's economic policies have failed so far, and when people get frustrated they tend to lash out. But the real deal is that most Americans now believe that President Obama has lost control of the economy.
Really? Think about what O'Reilly said, no matter how it turns out liberal America loses. What a jerk, what if liberals get everything they want and the conservatives get nothing, even then O'Reilly still says liberal American loses. Which may be the dumbest statement he has ever made, and the most biased.

O'Reilly also said the folks know we can not borrow another $2 trillion, which is about as big of a lie as a person can tell. Because the polls show that the MAJORITY support raisng the debt limit, and raising taxes. So O'Reilly in not only a right-wing spin doctor, he is a flat out liar. And not one Democratic guest was on the entire show to discuss it, making the discussion as biased and one sided as a person could get.

So then O'Reilly had the right-wing stooge Dick Morris on, he said this: "I think Republicans are on exactly the right track, of opposing additional taxes, supporting spending cuts, and demanding constitutional reform with a balanced budget amendment with spending caps on the federal government. But I've got news for you - if Michele Bachmann wins the presidency, she's going to have to raise the debt limit. You can not cut the budget by 40% in one week."

Earth to Dick Morris, you are not only an idiot, you are a lying idiot. The Republicans are on the wrong track, and I will be the President before Michele Bachmann is. Did you forget nobody from the House has ever been the President, let alone the crazy far-right loon Michele Bachmann. And what a shocker, the right-wing stooge Dick Morris thinks the Republicans are on the right track, not. Even though the majority of Americans disagree, Morris still spins out his right-wing propaganda.

Then O'Reilly had another right-wing stooge Lou Dobbs on, he said this: "Republicans are simply intractable, on the idea that they would allow an increase in revenue. Speaker Boehner has been courageous throughout and I think he now has to take the next step, which is to lead. He has to ask what is a reasonable level of debt for this nation and he has to ask what is a reasonable time in which to balance the budget. These are concepts that have to be expressed to the American people."

What a joke, Dobbs praises Boehner and calls him courageous, when he is doing the wrong thing with the debt deal and doing it for partisan political reasons. Notice what O'Reilly did, he does a partisan TPM, then he has 2 Republicans on to agree with his right-wing spin, and that makes it look like he is right. With no Democratic guests to disagree, so the viewers are brainwashed into thinking O'Reilly is right, because everyone is agreeing with him. When it's all biased right-wing spin, with nobody to counter it.

Dobbs also said President Obama should step up his game, saying this: "This President is looking worse every day and he has an opportunity to cancel out two-and-a-half years of miserable performance. He could stand up and say we are going to cut the deficit and restore this nation to prosperity, but he has become a President who resorts to the rhetoric of fear."

Which is once again nothing but right-wing spin, because Obama has done a good job as the President, considering the mess he had to deal with, that was caused by the Republican George W. Bush btw. But Dobbs calls it a miserable performance, without ever saying that it was all caused by a Republican, and blaming it all on Obama. Talk about spin, that is spinning out of control.

Then O'Reilly had another segment on Casey Anthony with Holly Bristow, and I will not report on it. Earth to O'Reilly, let it go man, the trial is over and you were wrong, move on fool.

Now get this, the next segment was a massive waste of time, with all the news out there O'Reilly decided to waste an entire segment on this nonsense.

Russian-born Marina Orlova was on, who hosts the HotForWords website, she has become a United States citizen. And she said this: "I always wanted to learn about American culture. The English language fascinated me and I have a special degree in philology, which is a very unique field. It took me eight years to get where I am now. I just want to say thank you to this country that gave me this opportunity to follow my dream. I'm very proud of becoming an American, it's a privilege. God bless America."

And to that I say, really? Who fricking cares, how is this news, and why is it on the Factor. But of course O'Reilly loved it, and the fact that she is a hot blonde had nothing to do with it, yeah right, the pervert O'Reilly probably just likes being near hot young women. O'Reilly then praised Orlova as "an American success story." Are you kidding me, get real, she is not even an American, she is Russian.

Then O'Reilly had Dennis Miller (the comedian) on to discuss the debt battle, really? Why? I mean who cares what Dennis Miller thinks about it, he is just a right-wing comedian, and unfunny one btw. And I did not report what Miller said, because it's not news, and he is not a journalist, or an analyst, he is just a comedian who does jokes about liberals so O'Reilly loves him.

And finally, the last waste of tv time segment was did you see that with of course a right-winger from Fox. Dagan McDowell was on to talk about a new advocacy ad that criticizes President Obama for prematurely withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, but Fox Business anchor Dagen McDowell questioned its effectiveness. She said this: "To borrow a phrase, Americans seem to be combat weary. Right after the troop withdrawal proposal from President Obama, a poll showed that 74% of Americans approve of the withdrawal. The generals have also gotten on board with the plan."

And btw, notice that McDowell admitted the Generals (and the majority of the people) agree with the troop withdrawal plan, even though O'Reilly has said they disagree, so right there she proved O'Reilly to be a liar.

Bill then screened a clip from the mega-hit movie Transformers 3, in which he appears as his humble self. Billy said this: "They did that shoot on this set right where I'm sitting, and the director Michael Bay was in Los Angeles telling me what to do through my earpiece." McDowell then rejoiced at the notion that "I get to see you in 3D if I go and spend the twenty dollars."

And I myself, will not go see it just because O'Reilly is in it. Although I might rent it when it hits the dollar bin at the video store, and I get half off, so I get it for 50 cents. That's about the only way I will watch it.

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

Another Important Poll On Debt O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - July 14, 2011 - 10:00am

Here is another big poll on the debt, and of course O'Reilly has ignored the entire thing, instead he decided to spin out right-wing talking points on the issue.

According to a new Gallup poll, only one in five Americans agree with Congressional Republicans (and O'Reilly) that deficit reduction should be based on spending cuts alone.

That includes 74 percent of Republicans who agree that a responsible deficit reduction plan should include both tax increases and spending cuts. The new data flies in the face of claims by GOP leaders that Americans adamantly oppose tax increases to reduce the country’s deficit.

It also flies in the face of what O'Reilly said on Tuesday night, Billy said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama and the Democrats must drastically cut spending and put it in writing; they also must hold the current tax rates. If the Dems do those things, responsible Republicans must raise the debt ceiling one more time for the good of everyone.
Wrong again Billy, because only 20% of the American people agree with you, and 74% of Republicans even think the spending cuts must include a tax increase. In fact, most liberals like myself support spending cuts, it's what the Republicans want to cut, and what they do not want to cut, that's the problem.

But of course you will never hear about that information, or the new Gallup poll on the Factor, because it disagrees with the right-wing spin on it from O'Reilly. He just ignores the will of the people when they disagree with him, but when they agree with him he says we must follow the will of the people.

What a two-faced (dishonest) right-wing hack.

Fox Media Watchdog Show Ignores Murdoch Scandal
By: Steve - July 14, 2011 - 9:00am

Last weekend, Fox News Watch, their so-called media criticism show, covered the following issues: The Casey Anthony trial verdict; MSNBC's suspension of Mark Halperin; the media's role in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case; the cancellation of In the Arena, Eliot Spitzer's CNN television show; and Vice President Joe Biden's new Twitter account.

What they failed to report on, is the closing of the Rupert Murdoch-owned News of the World, billed as the largest English-language newspaper in the world, which published its last edition Sunday.

The paper is folding following allegations that it hacked the voicemails of a slain teen girl in the United Kingdom, an action which potentially impeded the police investigation and gave the girl's family false hope that she was still alive.

There are also allegations that family members of soldiers who died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and families of victims of the 2005 subway bombings have been phone hacked.

NOTE: Guess who else has ignored the story, you got it, the great (haha) journalist (not) Bill O'Reilly, who has not said one word about the story.

Murdoch's News Corp. owns Fox News, and Fox News has been slow to cover the phone hacking scandal, but how could Fox's media criticism show get away with not mentioning News of the World at all.

It would be surprising, except for the recent history of Fox News Watch. In the last couple of years, Fox News Watch has ignored Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon's admission that he linked President Obama to socialism even though he "privately" believed the link to be "far-fetched" at the time.

Ignored the fact that Sammon sent an e-mail directing Fox reporters to skew reporting on climate change.

Ignored the fact that Fox pulled the plug on Sean Hannity's decision to charge admission for a taping of his show and direct all proceeds to the Cincinnati tea party.

Ignored the Fox Business host Andrew Napolitano's 9-11 conspiracy theories, and ignored donations made by News Corp. to Republican-aligned groups.

In April 2010, Joe Strupp even reported that Eric Burns, who hosted Fox News Watch from 1998 to 2008 said that in his final year hosting the program, "The show was getting to be more and more of a struggle to do fairly."

So the decision to ignore the Murdoch scandal is not a surprise to anyone. And it also kills any claim the show has to being a fair and balanced media watchdog show.

The Tuesday 7-12-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 13, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called The folks sound off on the debt crisis. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Last night we had a very lively debate with Congressman Michele Bachmann, who said there is no way she'll vote to raise the debt ceiling. Opinion on Ms. Bachmann's rigid stance was divided, but many of you support her, despite being warned by Brit Hume and others that no debt deal will have severe economic consequences.

Mike Windham of Madison, Georgia wrote this: 'I am floored you actually believe there would be a financial crisis.' All I can say, Mike, is that I don't know of one financial analyst who believes not getting a deal done would be a good thing for the economy. Then there's Tom Sheahan of Butler, Pennsylvania, who declared that 'Geithner and the President are wrong!"

The unintended consequences of no debt deal will be felt by all Americans, even if some folks won't accept it. President Obama and the Democrats must drastically cut spending and put it in writing; they also must hold the current tax rates. If the Dems do those things, responsible Republicans must raise the debt ceiling one more time for the good of everyone.
And that my friends is right-wing spin, because O'Reilly claims his viewers are the folks, which they are not, they are mostly partisan, who agree with almost everything O'Reilly says. Then he says Obama must hold tax rates, when ALL the polls say the majority of the people support tax hikes for the wealthy, and they also support closing some of the tax loopholes for corporations and the wealthy.

But O'Reilly never said a word about any of that, as he spins out his the folks sound off on the debt crisis propaganda. The folks want the wealthy to pay more, and the folks want the private jet tax breaks dropped, and the folks want the tax breaks for big oil dropped, and on and on, but O'Reilly never mentions any of it.

Then for some strange reason O'Reilly had Laura Ingraham on to promote her stupid new book. Which I will not mention, or talk about, except to say this, O'Reilly also promoted her book on his website for the entire week he was on vacation (and she hosted) over the 4th of July. It was on the O'Reilly show review page, and he has never done that for any Democrats selling books.

Then he had an even dumber segment, he asked Colmes and Crowley who is to blame for America's decline. What a stupid question, as if some person was to blame. And of course the Republicans will say liberals are to blame, and the Democrats will say the conservatives are to blame. Not to mention, who cares, and how is this news.

Crowley said this: "If you turn on any network in prime time, you can see pretty much soft core porn. I trace this back to the 1960's anti-establishment, anti-war counter-culture that changed the standards. What we have seen from history is that empires that have gone down this road of extreme permissiveness have ultimately destroyed themselves."

Colmes said this: "I feel like I'm in a time warp, this is a conversation every generation has - when I was a kid people would complain about how much better things used to be. What you call permissiveness I call progress."

O'Reilly said he was worried about the growing cultural divide, saying this: "There is going to be a huge separation between those who are successful and are well educated and everybody else who's going to have tattoos and piercings."

What an idiot, as if people who have tattoos and piercings are not, and can not, be well educated and successful, O'Reilly is just stupid. Because many people who have tattoos and piercings are wealthy, well educated, and successful.

Then O'Reilly did a right-wing smear job segment by having some woman on who wrote a book about Obama's Father. He said it Shed light on Barack Obama's father, when it was nothing but a right-wing smear job, and I will not report on any of it. I will say this though, it is more evidence that O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack, because if a liberal did a book on a Republican Presidents Father O'Reilly would not even let them on his show.

Then O'Reilly had John Stossel on, who argued against a proposed law that would penalize parents who fail to report a missing child. Stossel said this: "It may not be a terrible law, but I object to your rush to judgment and your rush to say that every state should pass this law. Having laws passed after children tragically die is just a bad way to make law. Every time there's a verdict we don't like we're going to pass a law?"

Then O'Reilly had Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl on to talk more about Casey Anthony, most likely to get ratings, because as you can see O'Reilly's ratings have dropped since he stopped talking about Casey Anthony. And I will not report what they said, so drop it already O'Reilly.

And finally, Karl Rove was on to predict whether a debt deal will be reached. rove said this: "We are going to have to have a deal. It probably won't be as robust as Republicans want it to be, it won't include taxes like the President wants, and it'll probably be done in such a way as to discombobulate the bond markets, at least temporarily."

Rove of course chastised President Obama for refusing to make substantial and immediate cuts, saying this: "The President has no plan. He talks about $4-trillion, but if you had him on The Factor tonight he could not explain where that would come from." So O'Reilly warned that without a deal "the stock market is going to tank because they don't like uncertainty on Wall Street."

Notice anything, not one Democrat was on the entire show to discuss the debt deal. Only Republican guests were on to discuss it, which is about as biased as a person can get. O'Reilly just wants right-wing spin put out about it, that is why he had only Republicans, so it was all right-wing spin, all the time.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as ever pinheads and patriots vote. And btw, for the people who e-mail me and say O'Reilly is not a biased right-winger, explain to me why he supports 99% of the Republican positions, and why 99% of his guests are right-wing spin doctors.

O'Reilly had 8 Republicans on (including himself) and 1 liberal, Alan Colmes. Not to mention, Colmes was not even on alone, he had to split his time with the far-right loon Monica Crowley. So it was a 2 on 1, with O'Reilly and Crowley against Colmes, and of course O'Reilly agreed with everything Crowley said.

O'Reilly Ignored Obama Aid Cut To Pakistan
By: Steve - July 13, 2011 - 10:00am

After Bin Laden was found and killed in Pakistan, O'Reilly said it was an outrage, and called for Obama to cut the money we send them. Billy said they needed to be punished for not telling us where Bin Laden was.

Well guess what, that is exactly what Obama did. The Obama administration has suspended hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Pakistan, in what it is calling a pause as relations between the U.S. and Pakistan are poor. Up to $800 million of military aid could be affected by the suspension.

And O'Reilly has not said one word about it, nothing, zip, zilch, zero. That is because he does not report anything that makes Obama look good, because he is a Democratic President, and O'Reilly does not like his policies, even when he does what he calls for, O'Reilly ignores it anyway.

That is classic right-wing bias from O'Dummy, call for a President to do something, and slam him for not doing it, then after he does it, just ignore it and do not give him credit for it.

Republicans Reject ALL Defense Spending Cuts
By: Steve - July 13, 2011 - 9:00am

Last week, House Republicans abandoned cuts to the defense budget with almost every Republican voting against even modest cuts for items like the Pentagon's sponsorship of NASCAR races.

Here is my question, what in the hell is the Government doing sponsoring a NASCAR race?

Republicans even shot down bipartisan proposals that would have frozen spending or preserved a $8.5 billion increase.

"The military is at the table, and it is eating everybody else's lunch," Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) commented.

And that my friends is what Republicans do, they refuse to cut wasteful defense spending, that goes to billion dollar defense companies, because they have a lot of money and they give it to them for their campaigns. But they have no problem trying to cut social security and medicare, that goes to the lower class and the poor.

The Monday 7-11-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 12, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Washington brawl over debt limit continues. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: If the federal government does not raise the debt ceiling by August 2, there will be an economic catastrophe in America. That's what President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner are saying. But Congresswoman Michele Bachmann says she will not vote to raise the debt ceiling, no matter what, even if the President and the Democrats approve dramatic spending cuts.

Talking Points believes that is not a wise position; if big spending cuts are agreed upon, the federal debt ceiling should be raised for the good of the nation. You can imagine what worldwide markets will do if the USA defaults on obligations in August.

All of us will suffer economically because foreign investors would begin to pull their money out of America and the dollar would plummet, along with stocks. So a deal must get done, but President Obama is making a huge mistake in trying to raise taxes now.

On the GOP side, we need tax reform desperately and we need to raise more revenue in smart ways - perhaps a 1% national sales tax, which could raise close to $100 billion a year without hurting the economy. There are ways to get a deal done and make the country stronger in the process.

Summing up, the debt ceiling has to be raised, income taxes have to stay where they are, and government spending has to be cut dramatically. If those things do not happen, we are all in big trouble.
So says Bill O'Reilly, what a biased hack. Taxes must be raised, on the wealthy, and give the working man a tax cut.

Then O'Reilly had the crazy Michele Bachmann on, Bachmann said this: "No one wants to see the United States government default on its debt, and we don't have to. We have sufficient revenue coming in to pay off the interest on the debt and we don't have to default. The one thing that we can't do is add another $2.4 trillion to the debt."

Then O'Reilly asked Bachmann whether she believes Tim Geithner's prophecy of economic catastrophe if the ceiling is not raised. She said this: "He is wrong. We can pay off all of our obligations. But what we can't pay for are all our wasteful programs in Washington. President Obama has no interest in cutting back on all these wasteful programs, his plan is to first raise another trillion dollars in taxes on small business, then maybe do some spending cuts way into the future."

O'Dummy reminded Bachmann that "your own Republican leadership in Congress is willing to extend the debt ceiling, you are the renegade here." Bachmann ended the interview by boasting of her titanium spine, whatever that means.

Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to talk about the debt debate. Williams said this: "This country risks catastrophe if we don't raise the debt ceiling, and the Tea Party is blocking what's important for America. Nobody wants to raise their own taxes, but I'm with three-quarters of the American people who say this country is in serious shape. President Obama is only talking about ending tax cuts for oil companies and hedge fund guys."

But of course Ham agreed with Michele Bachmann, saying this: "What she's worried about is raising the debt limit without spending cuts. We're not even talking about actual cuts in spending now, we're talking about future cuts in the growth of spending. Conservatives are right to be skeptical."

Then O'Reilly had Nancy Grace on, who has been hammered for saying Casey Anthony was guilty on TV. O'Reilly asked Grace about her anti-Anthony stance. Grace said this: "This was a miscarriage of justice, and what went wrong was not me covering what happened, what went wrong was the jury verdict. There are only two alternatives - either this was an intentional murder of a little girl or a felony chloroforming of the child, who wound up dying. And that is the truth!"

Yeah, according to Nancy Grace, who declares everyone guilty just because they are on trial.

Grace also said this: "Some TV pundits may attack me because they want the Casey Anthony interview, and attacking me may put them in good with the defense. But regardless of what some newspaper writer says, it doesn't change the truth and I am here to tell the truth."

Whata joke, they are attacking her because she spent 3 years convicting the woman on TV, and then she was found not guilty, it has nothing to do with getting an interview. Hell the Court TV founder even called her a monster, which she would not even talk about.

Then Brit Hume was on to talk about the Obama press conference, and of course there was no Democratic guest for balance, so it was a biased one sided segment, as usual. President Obama met the press Monday and declared his willingness to cut trillions from the federal budget. Hume said this: "I thought it was a boffo performance on the part of Barack Obama, who has been the one resisting doing anything about spending for these many months. Now he's the guy who's ready to take on his party for the sake of getting close to a balanced budget. It's been a remarkable turnabout on his part and he made it sound like he is the big father figure who is looking on the benighted children of the United States as people he needs to protect. He played his new role to a tee and it was quite extraordinary."

Then the far-right loon Bernie Goldberg was on. Goldberg said this: "I happen to agree with everything Nancy Grace said to you. What do they think she's guilty of? Being rude? Flamboyant? Arrogant? When did that become a crime on cable television? If that were a crime, there would be a whole bunch of cable TV news people in cable TV jail. Nancy Grace sees herself as the judge and jury - it's not my style of journalism, but the people who watch her consider it the unvarnished truth."

Which just shows what an idiot Goldberg is, because what she did wrong was convict a woman on TV, before she was found guilty by a jury, it is not just unethical, it's wrong, and Bernie Goldberg is a fool for not admitting what Grace did was wrong. As I said before, even the founder of Court TV said Grace is a monster, and she is not supposed to convict people on TV.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly did his ridiculous reality check, which I do not report on because it's laughable, there are no checks, and almost no reality, it's just O'Reilly by himself giving his opinion of what people say.

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

O'Reilly Still Ignoring Murdoch Hacking Scandal
By: Steve - July 12, 2011 - 10:00am

Even though this is one of the biggest news stories in England and America, to this day O'Reilly has totally ignored it, and not said one word about the story. Now it's even worse, with possible criminal violations in the USA.

O'Reilly even does a weekly legal news segment with the two right-wing lawyers, Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl, and yet, he has still ignored the entire story.

Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has become the latest known victim of information gathering orchestrated by U.K. newspapers owned by NewsCorp Chairman Rupert Murdoch.

The quickly developing scandal has moved far beyond the now-defunct News of the World, with the U.K's Guardian reporting that journalists from across the News International newspaper group, owned by NewsCorp, repeatedly targeted the liberal Brown for more than 10 years while he served as Chancellor of the Exchequer and then Prime Minister.

Con-men and private investigators working for the papers, including the Sunday Times (the most reputable publication of the group) illegally obtained banking, phone, and other records about Brown, including medical data on his infant son, the Guardian reported this about it:
-- Scotland Yard has discovered references to both Brown and his wife, Sarah, in paperwork seized from Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator who specialised in phone hacking for the News of the World.

-- Abbey National bank found evidence suggesting that a blagger acting for the Sunday Times on six occasions posed as Brown and gained details from his account.

-- Brown's London lawyers, Allen & Overy, were tricked into handing over details from his file by a conman working for the Sunday Times.

-- Details from his infant son's medical records were obtained by the Sun, who published a story about the child's illness.
Brown joins other members of his Labour Party, members of the royal family, victims of terrorism, murder, and their family members in being targeted with shady or allegedly illegal practices by the newspapers. Journalist Carl Bernstein, whose investigation into the Watergate break in helped bring down President Nixon, has dubbed the rapidly expanding scandal "Murdoch's Watergate."

Much of the scandal has focused on Rebekah Brooks, the CEO of News International, who was previously editor of the News of the World and the Sun. It was Brooks who contacted the Browns in 2006 to tell them that she had obtained (likely in violation of privacy rules) records showing that their four-month-old son Fraser was suffering from cystic fibrosis.

But while victims have demanded that Rebekah Brooks resign, Murdoch has given her an extraordinary show of support, taking her to dinner Sunday and saying she is his top priority.

But Murdoch may soon have bigger problems on his hands. Legal experts told the AP Monday that his company could face criminal prosecution in the U.S. for his U.K. papers alleged bribery of British police officers, which would be a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

According to the the Department of Justice, "The FCPA prohibits payments made in order to assist the firm in obtaining or retaining business."

So the papers use of bribery to obtain information which helped sell newspapers could fall under the act's purview. And even though the bribery occurred entirely in Britian, NewsCorp is an American company, incorporated in Delaware, and held accountable for its foreign subsidiary's actions.

Even if the corporation wasn't directly involved in bribery, it could be found in violation of the law for turning a blind eye.

The legal experts told the AP they would be surprised if the Securities and Exchange Commission and the DoJ have not already opened investigations into the matter and said the decision to close News of the World was potentially an attempt to limit Murdoch and NewsCorp's legal exposure.

And btw, NewsCorp is the parent company of the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, which have mostly ignored the scandal.

More Bias From So-Called Straight News Fox Anchors
By: Steve - July 12, 2011 - 9:00am

Here is more proof that even the so-called straight news anchors at Fox are biased, and they are always biased to the right, never to the left.

The Fox Anchor Bill Hemmer said Health Reform's IPAB "Sounds A Little Scary, Doesn't It?"



For anyone who does not know it, that is an opinion, and the so-called straight news anchors are not supposed to give opinions, they are supposed to read the news with no opinions.

Court TV Founder Calls Nancy Grace A Monster
By: Steve - July 11, 2011 - 11:45am

So it looks like I am not the only person who thinks Nancy Grace is a pathetic joke, the founder of Court TV called her a monster.

Here is a quote from the AP article about HLN and Nancy Grace making a living off the Casey Anthony trial:
BRILL: I feel like I owe the nation community service for having hired her and put her on television. She's a monster. At Court TV, anchors and commentators were instructed to explain the legal process to viewers but not opine on guilt or innocence.
Here are a few other quotes from the article:

Nancy Grace may now be the most polarizing host in cable television news - and that's saying something.

The former prosecutor took up the cause of 2-year-old Caylee Anthony when the child went missing and spent hour after hour on the case as mother Casey was charged with her daughter's murder. Grace harbored nothing but disdain for "tot mom," as she called Anthony.

Her assertion that the Anthony jury was "kooky" and post-verdict statement that "the devil is dancing tonight" seemed over the top even by Grace standards, offering fresh material for both those who cheer her advocacy and others who find her overbearing.

One of the jurors in the Anthony case, Elizabeth Ford, told ABC News that the 51-year-old Grace was not fit for television.

"I think a lot of things she says fuel the fire and they're based on nothing," Ford said. "I'm obviously against making decisions based on just speculation and opinion."

Pattie Fitzgerald, founder of Safely Ever After, a California organization that develops school curriculum to teach children how to combat abuse said Grace often crosses the line by being too one-sided. "Everyone is guilty," she said.

last year Grace settled a wrongful death lawsuit with the parents of Melinda Duckett, a 21-year-old mother of a missing son, who committed suicide in 2006 the day a pre-taped interview with Grace was about to air.

The lawsuit accused Grace of inflicting emotional distress on Duckett with her questions and saying the woman was hiding something because she did not take a lie detector test. Police later said Duckett was the prime suspect in the 2-year-old boy's disappearance. And btw folks, O'Reilly even said Grace went too far with the Duckett interview, and that says a lot, because if O'Reilly thinks you went too far, you have.

Ilene Farmer, a lawyer in Baltimore's public defender's office, said Grace has undermined respect for the jury system the way she has spoken out against the Anthony verdict. She said she's worried that someone who disagrees with the verdict, whipped up by Grace's disgust, will harm some of the jurors.

And the HLN executives love her, Scott Safon, HLN's chief executive, said he was very comfortable with how Grace presented the case. Which is why I never watch HLN, and never will. As long as Nancy Grace works for them, I refuse to watch it.

Another Braindead O'Reilly Fan Sends Me Mail
By: Steve - July 11, 2011 - 11:00am

If you want to see just how clueless and misinformed the O'Reilly fans are, read this:
Subject: Mr. Steve Senti
Date: Sunday, July 10, 2011 12:41 PM
From: Mollie Walker [email protected]
To: [email protected]

Mr. Senti - since I am old enough to be your Grandmother I am going to speak to you as if you was my lost grandchild and so far no one in the family has tried to pound any common sense into your head.

Do you want to live under Communism, Socialism or Capitalism? Have you been to countries and spent time under each of these systems? (I have)

Being registered as an independent is the WOOS-IE way out - either go down the left side of the highway or the right side of the highway - sitting on the yellow line and picking fault with ONE of the parties is really the chicken way - Man-Up and when you find fault with what Mr. O'reilly says on his program, do your own home work and find out the facts, if that is different then what he is saying then print it - (send it to him or any Liberal channel-they will be happy to get 'facts' from you).

Steve you can do better then this - don't be a SILLY.

Mollie
And that my friends, is a right-wing loon and a half. In other words, she is a crazy far-right O'Reilly loving fool.

Fox Straight News Show Used GOP Talking Points
By: Steve - July 11, 2011 - 10:00am

Here is yet another example that even the so-called straight news shows at Fox are using Republican talking points.

In a series of segments called 10 Ways to Save the Economy, the so-called straight news Fox show called Special Report with Bret Baier promoted nothing but conservative talking points on the financial crisis, stimulus package, estate tax, and deregulation.

The segments also echoed the viewpoint of Fox News conservative opinion programming. But not one of the ten segments mentioned or supported any measures favored by progressives to save the economy. Not one, it was all right-wing spin, all the time.

The June 24th Special Report segment on how to "save the economy" even pushed the false claim that the Obama stimulus did not work. So not only were they spinning out right-wing talking points on how to save the economy, they were lying about the Obama stimulus at the same time.

And for the record: The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the Obama stimulus helped the economy. By the second quarter of the year 2010 it raised the gross domestic product by between 1.7 and 4.5 percent. It lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percent and 1.8 percent, and increased the number of people who had jobs by between 1.4 and 3.3 million.

In March 2010, 70 percent of the 54 economists it surveyed "said the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act boosted growth and mitigated job losses."

Furthermore, in a report on the effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office noted that the stimulus added millions of jobs to the economy, raised real gross domestic product (adjusted for inflation) and lowered the unemployment rate.

In June, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) said the "economy has now grown for seven straight quarters."

In its report the CBPP added that "economic activity, had been contracting sharply when policy makers enacted the financial stabilization bill (TARP) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act."

And finally, the White House Council of Economic Advisors quarterly report from March showed that the stimulus increased gross domestic product and lowered unemployment.

Dick Morris Caught Lying About Helping Republicans
By: Steve - July 11, 2011 - 9:00am

A few weeks ago Dick Morris said he would not be helping any Republicans running for office, so he can stay impartial and objective. Yes I know it was a ridiculous statement, that is not true, but he did say it.

On June 14th Dick Morris was on Fox & Friends, near the end of the segment Gretchen Carlson asked Morris if any of the candidates had contacted him to seek his help. Morris said this:
MORRIS: "A few have, but I'm not doing that this year because I want to be impartial in my commentary."
Okay, now read this. The Republican Senate hopeful Richard Mourdock (R-IN) has enlisted the support of Fox News "political analyst" Dick Morris in an official campaign fundraising email sent through DickMorris.com's email list.

In an email sent Friday, Morris asked "conservative friends" to help Mourdock's primary campaign against incumbent Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) by sending Mourdock money. Morris wrote this: "Please click on this LINK to send him a campaign contribution. If we let Congress keep its RINOs and give away at the negotiating table the gains we amass at the ballot box, we will have only ourselves to blame."

In his appeal, Morris also wrote this: "I recorded a video discussing the dynamics of the race. Click here to watch the video and consider supporting Mourdock." The pro-Mourdock video was sent to subscribers of his list roughly two hours prior to the fundraising solicitation.

The email, which states it was "Paid for by Hoosiers for Richard Mourdock, Inc.," also contains a screen capture of Morris and a Fox News logo next to a "donate" button.

So much for not helping Republicans this year so he can remain impartial in his commentary. What a joke, Morris is doing what Morris does, spin out right-wing propaganda to make money.

Morris even fundraised for Mourdock in Columbus, Indiana on April 1. Prices ranged from $100 for an individual attendee to $2,500 for a host. The Mourdock campaign touted the Morris appearance in a press release announcing it "raised $157,689.70 from 643 donors since announcing his candidacy for the U.S. Senate on February 22nd of this year."

Here is what Morris does, he builds subscribers to his email list through his website, which contains several sign-up solicitations. Fox News regularly helps Morris promote the site, including O'Reilly. And a search of Nexis over just the past year returned 77 results for the term, "DickMorris.com" on Fox News.

So as usual it's more lies from Dick Morris, and to even think his commentary is ever impartial, no matter what he does to help Republicans or not, is just laughable, it does not even pass the smell test. Morris is a right-wing partisan hack, that is a fact, and nothing he says can ever be trusted to be impartial commentary.

O'Reilly Joins GOP In Saying Obama Stimulus Failed
By: Steve - July 10, 2011 - 10:00am

One of the main talking points (lies) from the GOP and the RNC, is that the Obama stimulus failed. Now that is a lie, but they keep saying it anyway, in the hopes that if they say it long enough people will believe it.

This brings me to Bill O'Reilly, who said he never uses any GOP talking points. Except he does, and he uses them all the time, including now, when he basically quoted their talking points by saying the Obama stimulus was a total failure.

O'Reilly said this on Friday night:



And all that is a lie, a 100% flat out right-wing lie. Because the Obama stimulus worked, it did exactly what it was meant to do, provide a TEMPORARY stimulus to the economy to get positive job growth back, and to keep the economy from falling into a depression.

It was not a jobs bill, or a save the economy forever bill, it was a temporary economic plan to keep us from going into a depression, and to stop the 750,000 job losses a month under Bush. And it worked exactly the way it was supposed to.

Now it did not get unemployment as low as Obama said it would, and it did not create as many jobs as he thought it would, but it did work, because we are back to positive job growth every month, and we did not go into a depression.

So O'Reilly is a liar, he is lying to you, and putting out GOP talking points on top of the lies. Proving once again that he is nothing but a partisan right-wing hack of a fraud journalist.

Republican Senator Caught Lying About Rating Agencies
By: Steve - July 10, 2011 - 9:00am

Throughout negotiations over whether to raise the debt ceiling, Republicans have maintained that it would be worse to raise the limit without significant spending cuts than to not raise the limit and risk the country's first-ever default. This is, of course, not true.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) made the rounds of local media outlets Friday to spin the GOP message, but ran into some trouble with the facts when he claimed that credit rating agencies like Standard & Poors agree with Republicans during a radio interview with KTRS in St. Louis:
BLUNT: If you read any of the rating agencies -- Standard & Poor and the other agencies -- they don't say we're in trouble because of the debt ceiling or that we might default, they say we're in trouble and we could be downgraded as an economy to invest in, in our bonds and everything, because we're spending way too much money relative to our abilities to produce goods and resources.
Blunt is lying, and in fact, the exact opposite is true:
Standard & Poor's would cut the U.S. credit rating to its lowest level and Moody's Investors Service said it will probably reduce its ranking if the government fails to increase the debt limit, leading to a default.

S&P would lower its sovereign top-level AAA ranking to D, the last rung on its scale if the U.S. can't pay its debt, John Chambers, chairman of the company's sovereign rating committee, said Friday.

Moody's said it would probably assign a position in the Aa range, or within three steps of its highest level.
An executive for the third major rating agency, Fitch, told Rueters, "If we reach the second of August without a lifting of the debt ceiling, Fitch would assign a rating watch negative to the U.S. sovereign ratings."

When facts get in the way of the right-wing talking points, Blunt just changes the facts. And several Republican lawmakers, including House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), have suggested that default would actually be good for the U.S., despite the credit rating agencies dire warnings.

The Friday 7-8-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 9, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Bad news for the economy and Obama. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Unemployment ticked up to 9.2% in June, the highest level this year. The President explained the situation by saying there are a number of forces holding the economy back, and Congress should do more to promote economic growth.

Republicans were quick to hammer the President and to draw a sharp line about taxes. So going forward, President Obama can expect no compromise from the Republicans on a tax increase. That means Mr. Obama must cut government spending without raising revenue, something he is adamantly opposed to doing.

The bad economic news is also deadly for American liberalism. The facts say that massive government hasn't worked to stimulate the economy and that the liberal vision of economics has failed. Most of President Obama's economic advisers have left the building and there is no clear-cut plan to improve the economy coming out of the White House.

Mr. Obama knows he's in deep trouble and committed liberals have to know that their vision for the country is crumbling. Talking Points believes this may be one of the worst days President Obama has had in office.
Wow, that TPM sounds like the RNC wrote it for O'Reilly, it's like he is working for the Republican party. What happened to the non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone, oh yeah, that's garbage, because he is a partisan with an all right-wing spin zone. Now the economy did get worse, but it's still improving, just not at the rate Obama would like. Gob growth was positive, and the stock market is still over 12,000.

So as usual O'Reilly used every right-wing talking point they have to downplay how good the economy is doing, while ignoring all the things that have improved since Obama took office. O'Reilly ignored all the good news for 2.5 years, and only reports on the economy when it's bad news. Which is 100% right-wing bias, and not objective journalism.

Then O'Reilly had Alan Colmes and Andrea Tantaros on to discuss it. Colmes said this: "This was not a dark day for the President. There's a lot of work to do and there is a year-and-a-half to go before the next election. And this is not a bad issue for liberalism, it's because conservatives and 'blue dog' Democrats would not let the government do all it needed to do. Things would have been a lot worse without the stimulus. Unemployment would be at 17% right now had we not done what we did."

Of course Colmes is right, but the far-right loon Andrea Tantaros disagreed, and as usual put out the right-wing talking points on the issue.

Tantaros said this: "If the President adopted policies that are more in line with Republican principles, he would have a chance of getting his numbers back on track. He blew his popularity and his mandate on very far-left things like Obamacare. That's when the President really started to tank."

What a joke, the people have rejected the Republicans plan for the economy, I guess she does not look at the polls, or just ignores them. Not to mention, O'Reilly does the same thing, he is ignoring all the polls that say the majority want higher taxes on the wealthy, to go along with some small cuts, but not to social security or medicare. As usual O'Reilly never said a word about the polls, even though he claims to go by the will of the people.

Then Geraldo was on, who has expressed his belief that the Casey Anthony jury reached the correct decision, defended his stance and blasted his critics.

Geraldo said this: "I am the loving father of five children, and the suggestion that those of us who feel the prosecution's case is thin care less about this sweet toddler than they do is false and disgusting. And for that snarky Bernie Goldberg to come on your program and suggest that my view of the prosecution's case would be different if the victim was a Mexican immigrant was a low blow with heavy racial overtones. I owe him a bloody nose - that was really a punk thing to say. And I still think that the prosecution's case was very thin."

And of course O'Dummy defended Goldberg and questioned Rivera's view of the case, saying this: "You are known for your passion on the border immigration issue - this wasn't a racial thing, it was in ideological thing. And I have no doubt that Casey Anthony murdered that little girl or at least participated in it. You've cut her far too much slack!"

Note: Geraldo is a lawyer, O'Reilly is not. So he knows the law, O'Reilly does not. This is simple, you can not vote guilty for MURDER when there is no cause of death. Because there is no proof of a MURDER when you do not know how the child died. The prosecutor screwed up when he charged Casey Anthony with murder, that was his fault, so if you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at him for blowing the case.

Then O'Reilly had the Florida State Representative Scott Plakon on, who explained his proposed "Caylee's Law" legislation. Plakon said this: "There is a lot of disagreement about the outcome of this case, but there is one thing everyone should agree with - it should not be okay for a parent or guardian to run around for 31 days without reporting what she knew to be a missing or deceased child. If a child under 12 years old is missing for 48 hours, this law would require parents to report it to authorities. And a deceased child would have to be reported within two hours."

O'Reilly of course loved that, and he praised Plakon for his initiative, saying this: "Caylee's Law has to be passed in Florida and I think it will be, I can't see any Florida official opposing this law. It's necessary in every state in the union."

Then Frank Bailey, who is a former staffer for Sarah Palin in Alaska, has written a book that is highly critical of the former governor. Bailey said this: "This book is an example of what happens when we lose our way. The Sarah Palin we saw in 2005, the person who would fight for Alaska and stand up for ethics and honesty, we lost that to the limelight and the power and the fame. She craved that and being governor became second fiddle, and the folks up here in Alaska realized that. I've seen the chaos in her organization, I've seen the way she manages, I've seen the way she leads, and she can not rise above the petty criticism."

Then the Palin loving O'Reilly said Bailey's book was not all that damning, Billy said this: "I read your book and I don't know what she did to make you so disappointed. If this is the worst that Governor Palin did, she's pretty good compared to most politicians."

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to as usual trash Obama, which is what he does, because he is a partisan Republican, and of course no liberal guest was on to provide any balance to the segment.

Krauthammer said this: "This really hurts Obama, and it should be a body blow for liberalism in general. We have had a controlled historical experiment - we've had two enormous recessions, the one in 1981 and the one we've just gone through. Ronald Reagan's remedy was cutting taxes and cutting regulation, and we got a tremendous recovery and about three decades of almost uninterrupted economic expansion. And we now have the liberal remedy, a trillion dollars of government spending. We've seen the result and it's a complete waste, there is no recovery. We just engaged in a huge Keynesian experiment and it failed."

Are you kidding me, the last recession was caused by Bush and 8 years of Republican rule. And not only was it the worst recession we have had in 50 years, it almost crashed the entire economy and put us into a depression. Krauthammer acts like liberal policies caused the recession, when it was Bush and the conservatives policies that caused it. Everything Krauthammer said was either a lie, spin, or right-wing tlking points.

Not to mention, he just ignored the 8 years of economic boom (under the liberal Bill Clinton) after he raised taxes on the wealthy. That 8 years led to a job growth of 22 million new jobs, and the best 8 years of economic growth we have ever seen in the history of America. Crazy Krauthammer just acted like it never happened. And he also ignored the fact that Reagan raised taxes, so he is in right-wing dreamland, and O'Reilly is right there with him.

And finally in the last segment O'Dummy had Greg Gutfeld and Arthel Neville on for dumbest things of the week. Which I do not report on, because the whole segment is stupid, and not news, it's a total waste of tv time on what O'Reilly has claimed is a hard news show, and the news show of record.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, yes your mail is edited by O'Reilly, even though he has said nothing is ever edited on the show, and the lame as hell pinheads and patriots vote.

Another Poll O'Reilly Has Totally Ignored
By: Steve - July 9, 2011 - 10:00am

O'Reilly loves to report on polls, except when they disagree with his partisan position on an issue. For example, if a poll shows the majority of the people support an issue, and O'Reilly agrees with them, he reports it, and says we MUST follow the will of the people.

But when a poll shows the majority of the people support an issue O'Reilly disagrees with, he ignores that poll, and never says a word about it, let alone call for following the will of the people.

Now another poll has come out that disagrees with O'Reilly on how to reduce the deficit, and of course he has totally ignored it.

The new poll by the Pew Research Center (a polling company O'Reilly has cited before) finds that 60 percent of Americans (including 50 percent of Republicans) say it is more important to keep Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are rather than to reduce the deficit.

Among Republicans, only Tea Party activists and those who make more than $75,000 a year prioritize deficit reduction over maintaining Social Security and Medicare.

On the question of whether it is more important to reduce the budget deficit or to maintain current Medicare and Social Security benefits, the public decisively supports maintaining the status quo.

Six-in-ten (60%) say it is more important to keep Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are; only about half as many (32%) say it is more important to take steps to reduce the budget deficit.

Note: That puts O'Reilly in with the 32% minority who want to cut Social Security and Medicare.

Half (50%) of Republicans say that maintaining benefits is more important than deficit reduction.

Independents prioritize maintaining benefits over reducing the deficit (by 53% to 38%).

Democrats overwhelmingly view preserving current Social Security and Medicare benefits as more important (by 72% to 21%). And you would not know any of this information, if you only watch the Factor for the news, because O'Reilly has not reported it.

Bill Clinton Slams GOP For Voting Law Changes
By: Steve - July 9, 2011 - 9:00am

And of course you never hear a word about this story from O'Reilly, because he does not want you to know the Republicans are changing voting laws to make it harder for minorities, blacks, and the poor (who mostly vote Democratic) to vote.

Speaking Wednesday at the annual Campus Progress convention, former President Bill Clinton called out the GOP's state by state efforts to make it harder to vote, a war on voting designed almost entirely to reduce the number of Democrats who cast ballots:
CLINTON: I can't help thinking, since we just celebrated the Fourth of July and we're supposed to be a country dedicated to liberty, that one of the most pervasive political movements going on outside Washington today is the disciplined, passionate, determined effort of Republican governors and legislators to keep most of you from voting next time.

There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the other Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today.

Getting rid of same-day registration. Some states getting rid of all advanced voting. Governor of Florida proposed to reverse his Republican predecessor's signing of a bill that gave people the right to vote when they got out of prison and they'd finished they're probation period, even if they didn't have a pardon, that's one of the most important things we can do.

Why should we disenfranchise people forever once they pay their price? Cause most of them in Florida were African Americans and Hispanics and would tend to vote for Democrats, that's why.

Why do we want to get rid of same day registration? Why has New Hampshire made it almost impossible for college students who come from other states but live in New Hampshire most of the year to vote there?

Why is all this going on? This is not rocket science. They are trying to make the 2012 electorate look more like the 2010 electorate than the 2008 electorate.
Clinton is exactly right to question why anyone who professes a love of liberty could work so passionately to prevent Americans from exercising their most sacred right to vote, and the examples he cites are just a small taste of the GOP's pervasive effort to keep people from going to the polls.

Numerous GOP state legislatures rammed through voter ID laws, which disenfranchise thousands of elderly, disabled, and low-income voters. Republicans typically justify these voter disenfranchisement laws by claiming that they are necessary to combat voter fraud at the polls, but actual in-person voter fraud almost never happens, so these new voting laws are not needed.

For example, a recent Supreme Court decision upholding a voter ID law was only able to cite one example of in-person voter fraud in the last 143 years.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) gutted his state's public financing system for candidates to pay for a voter disenfranchisement law. And a 5-4 Supreme Court decision just declared laws enabling publicly financed candidates to defend themselves against unlimited corporate attack ads unconstitutional.

And btw folks, O'Reilly did an entire segment with Dick Morris about what Bill Clinton said in his speech, but they only talked about what he said about Romney and Bachmann. They totally ignored the statement by Clinton about the GOP trying to stop people who vote Democratic from voting.

Here is the bottom line, it's easier for Republicans to win the game, if they can make it impossible for the other team's players to even take the field.

The Thursday 7-7-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 8, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Good & bad news from Anthony trial. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: First, the good news, and it is scant: Judge Belvin Perry gave Casey Anthony the maximum sentence for lying, four years. But she will be released next week because of time served and 'good behavior' in jail.

So Ms. Anthony walks while her two-year-old daughter Caylee's murder remains unsolved. In addition, a Florida representative has introduced legislation called 'Caylee's Law,' which would make it a felony for a parent or legal guardian to fail to report a missing child to authorities.

That law should be passed immediately in every state. Now for the bad news: Obviously, Casey Anthony did not deserve to walk free. Just the fact that she didn't report Caylee missing for 30 days means the woman should spend a long time in prison.

So far just one juror, Jennifer Ford, has spoken out, and she apparently believes there could have been an accident involved. Based on what? Maybe a Martian came down and put duct tape over Caylee's mouth! Juries have to operate on facts, not irresponsible and unproved theories.

So here we have a jury member failing to convict Casey Anthony on murder charges and pointing to a theory to justify the decision. That's insane! If accused murderers can get acquitted based on theoretical fantasies, then our entire justice system has collapsed.
Haha, what a joke. O'Reilly talks about irresponsible and unproved theories, which is what the prosecution had, there was no evidence of a murder, so they should not have even charged murder. O'Reilly just does not understand how a jury votes for guilty or not guilty, if there is no cause of death, you can not prove a murder, so the jury got it right, shut up already O'Reilly, you are just making a fool of yourself.

Jeff Ashton, one of the prosecutors in the Casey Anthony case, was on to talk about the jury's ruling. Ashton said this: "When they go back into the jury room, jurors can do what they want, and the judge allowed the jury to argue the accident theory. I did not find it compelling, but the jurors may have seen it differently. We felt that the way Caylee Anthony was found, with duct tape over the skull, was very compelling evidence, and our medical examiner basically said there is no reason to put duct tape on a child, dead or alive."

But the question is, who put that duct tape on her, and they had no evidence of that either. And of course O'Reilly remained dumbfounded by juror Jennifer Ford's explanation, saying this: "She says she can sleep at night and she has done her duty under the Constitution because of the theory that there could have been an accident. Because there is an unfounded theory with no evidence to back it up, she says it's reasonable doubt."

And she is exactly right, if there is no cause of death, that is reasonable doubt that it was a murder.

Then O'Reilly had Clint House on, who testified about Casey Anthony's partying while Caylee was missing. House said this: "Casey would tell us, that Caylee was either with a nanny or with her parents, and we had no reason to disbelieve her. She came to parties with us and had a good time just like any 22-year-old would. The last time I saw Casey before she was arrested was at a club in downtown Orlando."

Then the Republican Senator Jim DeMint was on, he complained about President Obama's desire to increase taxes on the wealthy. DeMint said this: "I've talked with a lot of people, and they're mad about not having jobs, about the spending and debt, and about gas prices. But I haven't talked with anyone who is mad because CEOs are making money or because corporate jets are flying around. This is part of the President's class warfare politics. Republicans are for a flatter corporate tax rate that would eliminate all these loopholes and credits."

Which is crazy, because the polls say the majority favor raising taxes on the wealthy, and even O'Dummy took issue with DeMint's assertion that Americans aren't resentful, saying this: "I know people who are very angry because they see CEOs making enormous profits while laying off workers, which some of them do. But I firmly believe that the President feels the wealthy have an obligation to help those who don't have a lot, and therefore if we raise the tax rates on the wealthy that income redistribution kicks in."

Then Laura Ingraham was on, who spoke about the jury's verdict in the Anthony case. Ingraham said this: "If you only watched the closing arguments, I think you had to go away thinking the jury was not going to convict her. The burden of proof is not on the defense to prove how the victim was killed, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Just from what I saw, regardless of how terrible a mother she was or how awful a person she is, the prosecution didn't meet that standard. I think she probably killed her daughter, but this is the system of laws we have."

Wow, for once I actually agree with Ingraham.

In the next segment Diane Sawyer was on to report on her recent interview with Jaycee Dugard, who was kidnapped, held captive, and abused for eighteen years. Sawyer said this: "She was held in captivity, and willed herself to survive. Parole officers went to the house where she was being held 60 times and did not look in the back yard! There are so many levels of this story - there is outrage and also learning about ourselves."

Sawyer also differentiated the Dugard story from the death of Caylee Anthony, saying this: "This is a tragedy only in one sense - she lost eighteen years of her life. But she proved that she, at 4'6" tall, was a match for this 6'4" convicted predator. There is something victorious about what it is to survive."

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had the total waste of time Factor news quiz, with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum, which I do not report on because it's nonsense.

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

The Real Truth About The Corporate Tax Rates
By: Steve - July 8, 2011 - 9:00am

During negotiations regarding raising the nation's debt limit, congressional Republicans have defended tax loopholes for corporations, claiming that America has a high corporate tax rate that is stifling economic growth and job creation.

But the Center for Tax Justice (CTJ) has crunched the most recent data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Office of Management and Budget, and the Census Bureau, and finds that "the U.S. is already one of the least taxed countries for corporations in the developed world."

As a share of GDP, the U.S. had the second lowest tax rate, behind only Iceland. This statistic flips on its head the often-repeated Republican charge that America has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world.

In 2009, U.S. corporate taxes had fallen to only 1.3 percent of GDP, from 4 percent in 1965.

Conservatives love to point out that other OECD countries have lowered their corporate tax rates in recent years, but they conveniently ignore that "these countries have also closed corporate tax loopholes while the U.S. has expanded them."

As CAP Director for Tax and Budget Policy Michael Linden has noted, the U.S. is actually a very low-tax country across the board.

Recently, conservative commentator Bill Kristol chastised his own party for pretending that lowering the corporate tax rate is a cure-all for America"s economic woes.

On Fox News Sunday, he interrupted a panelist who again tried to assert the U.S. is suffering from a high corporate tax rate:
KRISTOL: "Republicans are making a mistake if they focus on big businesses and corporate tax rates. Corporations have a ton of cash. The corporate tax rate is not killing big business in America."
The GOP presidential candidates have almost uniformly introduced proposals to radically lower the U.S. corporate tax rate. For instance, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) wants to reduce the corporate tax rate to 15 percent and eliminate all taxes on capital gains, dividends, interest income and inheritance.

CTJ put the issue succinctly in a tweet this morning: "Dear US Corporations: You pay the 2nd LOWEST tax rate in the industrial world, so quit whining or move to Iceland."

The Wednesday 7-6-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 7, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Dumb, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As I said Tuesday night, it would be unfair to disparage the jury in the case of Casey Anthony in the acquittal without first hearing from them. But they don't want to talk. And who could blame them?

Acquitting this horrible woman has caused a national outrage. So far, only one alternate juror has explained the acquittal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSSELL HUEKLER, ALTERNATE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL JUROR: I don't think the prosecution was able to show how she died, what was the motive -- what was the motivation.

MATT LAUER, "TODAY" SHOW HOST: In your opinion, did Casey Anthony get away with murder?

HUEKLER: No, she did not get away with murder.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Again, it's hard to me to criticize that man, I don't know him. But I do know that there was so much evidence in the case, so many bizarre things done by Casey Anthony that to let her walk away from the death of her two-year-old is astounding. It is astounding.

Now the O.J. Simpson jury did the same thing. There, race was involved as most jury members were biased in favor of Simpson, who is now serving up to 33 years in a Nevada prison for committing another crime.

The frustrating thought about the Caylee Anthony murder is that justice is not being done. Hopefully the little girl is in heaven and her killer will most likely go to hell, but here on earth our powerful justice system has failed. Somebody got away with murder.

There is no solution to the problem because human beings are fallible. It took the jury just 11 hours to acquit the woman, apparently believing the prosecution did not prove its case.

But in America today is the burden of proof too high? Have we become a nation that does not make judgments any more about behavior? Is there always an excuse for everything? Reasonable doubt was not raised by Ms. Anthony's lawyers.

They ran around concocting a lot of bull they couldn't prove. They correctly challenged the state's evidence but again, expert witnesses, FBI people testified there was chloroform in Ms. Anthony's car, along with a hair that matched those at the death site.

The jury chose not to believe the experts. Why? That, combined with Casey Anthony's bizarre behavior, actions no innocent person would ever have taken, should have sealed her fate. The Casey Anthony verdict is a dark, dark day in American history, no question.
What a joke, O'Reilly is a fool because the O.J. comparison is ridiculous, and it's not even close to the same thing. In the O.J case they had two bodies, and they knew the cause of death, so there was a murder by someone. In the Casey Anthony case they only had a skull and bones, so they could not prove murder because they did not have a cause of death.

Earth to O'Reilly, if you have a problem with anyone it should be the prosecutor for charging murder, because without a cause of death it is impossible to prove a murder. They jury made the right ruling, because you can not vote guilty for murder if you can not prove there was a murder. I know you are a simple man, but even a 2 year old understands this. If there is no cause of death, there was no murder, because nobody knows how the child died, so how can you vote guilty for murder if you do not even know if it was murder?

Then O'Reilly had criminal defense attorney Jennifer Barringer, a consultant for Casey Anthony's defense team, and Anna-Sigga Nicolazzi, a prosecutor in Brooklyn, New York on to discuss it. Nicolazzi said this: "We have what lawyers call the 'CSI Effect.' You know you have cases that on television that use science to prove beyond all doubt without any other possibility that this is the person. But you know what? That's not real... but these days juries expect it when they come into the courtroom."

Barringer said this: "We did have some dueling experts. We put up experts that said exactly the opposite... This was science that had never brought in before. This is new stuff." Then O'Dummy said he thought that the facts in the case made it pretty obvious what the verdict should have been, saying this: "I have no beef against Casey Anthony. I don't know the woman. But I put it together and I said 'This is guilty.'"

Once again showing how stupid he is, because you can not prove a murder when there is no cause of death, so the jury had no choice to vote not guilty for murder. O'Reilly just can not seem to understand that, or the law, so I hope he is never on a jury.

Then O'Reilly had Dick Morris on to talk about a statement Bill Clinton made about Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann. Morris said this: "He suffers from ADD. If Clinton isn't getting enough attention he's disordered. And so he's always saying stuff to try to keep his name public. There is a grand Democratic strategy to try to stop Romney from getting the Republican nomination... I think he is the candidate they fear the most."

And of course O'Dummy had his own theory about why Clinton was propping up Bachmann, saying this: "The Democratic Party hates Sarah Palin so much that they are using Michele Bachmann to hammer Palin, because they know there is not room for both of them. So they are boosting up Congresswoman Bachmann to just make sure that Sarah Palin doesn't get in the race."

Wow, that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard O'Reilly say. Because the Democratic party want Palin to run, they hope she runs and wins, then Obama will crush her in the general election.

Morris even disagreed with Billy, arguing that the president would actually love to run against the former Alaska governor, Morris said this: "When Barack Obama goes to bed at night if he says prayers one of them is for Sarah Palin to be the Republican nominee."

And for once Dick Morris is right about something, it's a miracle.

Then Brit Hume was on to talk about an RNC ad about Obama, O'Reilly said the segment was a fact check on the ad, but the only guest was the right-wing Brit Hume, and they did not fact check it. So the whole segment was biased, and ridiculous. Hume said the ad was effective, but they never said if it was true or not, so there was no fact check at all.

Then O'Reilly asked Hume how the Democrats could counter those attacks, so there was no fact check, O'Reilly just used the segment to say the ad was effective, and then give the RNC advice on how to counter what the Democrats would do.

Then O'Reilly had another Casey Anthony segment with Holly Bristow, which I will not report on, because I am done talking about the trial and the verdict.

Then O'Reilly had the unfunny Dennis Miller on for his regular weekly segment, which I do not report on because he is a comedian and nobody cares what he has to say about anything. Not to mention, there is no liberal comedian on to balance him out, so as usual it's a one sided biased right-wing segment.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had the ridiculous body language segment, which is so stupid I do not report on it.

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

Hume Admits Fox A Shill For GOP Campaign Ads
By: Steve - July 7, 2011 - 10:00am

As if we did not already know, on the Wednesday O'Reilly Factor Brit Hume pretty much admitted the right-wing ads will get more air time at Fox, than anywhere else.

Hume Admits the RNC Ad "Will Probably Get More Exposure On O'Reilly And Other Programs" Than Through Purchased Ad Time:



Basically the RNC and the GOP have the fake news anchors at Fox (O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.) run their ads, then claim it is news so they can report on it without giving the DNC or the Democratic party equal time.

And they do this, as they claim to be the fair and balanced news network, which is just laughable.

Ohio GOP Passed Law That Will Supress The Vote
By: Steve - July 7, 2011 - 9:00am

Last week, the GOP-led House passed an election law overhaul without the highly restrictive voter ID provision. However, the House tweaked the bill to weaken a law mandating poll workers to direct voters in the wrong precinct to their correct voting location.

Under the new language, a poll worker need not direct a voter to where they are eligible, adding that "it is the duty of the individual casting the ballot to ensure that the individual is casting that ballot in the correct precinct."

Allowing poll workers to refuse to help those who are legitimately confused about where they should vote opens the door for increased voter suppression. As state Sen. Nina Turner (D) pointed out, "Voting in the wrong precinct led to over 14,000 registered voters statewide to lose their vote in 2008."

Rating the statement true, Politifact wrote this about it:
The second most common reason the ballot was not counted was because while the person was properly registered to vote in Ohio, they cast the ballot in the wrong county or precinct.

In all, 14,335 such ballots were not counted for this reason, according to the Brunner report.

Of those 14,000-plus ballots, 3,423 were cast in Cuyahoga County, home to Turner's district and by far the county with the most uncounted provisional ballots during the November 2008 elections due to wrong place filings.
As the Cleveland Plain Dealer pointed out, mixing up precincts most often occurs in urban and impoverished areas of the state, leading Turner to sarcastically suggest of Republicans, "I guess the loss of votes for some doesn't matter."

The bill now heads to Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) for signature, who is expected to sign it. What they are doing is trying to supress the vote for blacks, other minority voters, and the poor, who mostly vote Democratic.

The Tuesday 7-5-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 6, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Casey Anthony not guilty of murder. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Casey Anthony is vile because for thirty days she did not report her baby missing. Thirty days! In that time the sociopathic Anthony partied hard, got a tattoo, and generally ignored the plight of her missing 2-year-old, who was later found dead in a swamp.

I will not condemn the jury, which would be unfair, and they did convict Casey Anthony of lying to investigators who were trying to find her baby. But Talking Points believes that little Caylee Anthony has been victimized again.

She was an American, entitled to protection. Her mother obviously did not provide that, and now the justice system has failed as well because we still don't know what happened to the little girl. The villain in the case remains Casey Anthony.

She knows what happened and after the verdict was announced she smiled, giggled, and generally behaved inappropriately in the courtroom. She again put herself above the central theme - the brutal death of her child. What the case really comes down to is reasonable doubt.

There was no smoking gun, no eyewitness. But what is certain is that the adult in direct charge of a 2-year-old cannot explain what happened, did not even try to find out, and misled those trying to do so.
Haha, jerk. You were wrong, and you convicted Casey on tv, which makes you a loser, a liar, and a fraud. The jury went by the evidence, they did not even have a cause of death, so how can you convict someone of murder when you do not even know how the little girl died. Yes Casey did some wrong things, but that does not prove murder, idiot.

Then Geraldo was on. Geraldo said this: "I see this as a citizen and as a father. I relate to the poor victim and feel a great deal of disdain for Casey Anthony, who clearly lied. But there was not one bit of evidence that this mother ever neglected or abused this child. The record is conclusive that this was a good mother. There was no DNA, no fingerprints!"

And of course, O'Reilly does not understand that, he thinks that if someone may be guilty of something you convict them, even if there is no evidence they did it.

O'Reilly denounced Rivera's reasoning and conclusion, saying this: "You're telling me the mother never neglected this child when she didn't even call 9-1-1? That's neglect, Geraldo. How does a 'good mother' go to a hot body contest when her baby is missing? I believe the jury didn't want to believe this, almost like the O.J. Simpson case."

Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl also weighed in on the stunning verdict. Wiehl said this: "She thought she was going to get convicted, and she was shocked that she wasn't. The prosecution had a terrific case - they didn't have direct evidence, but they had so much circumstantial evidence that they should have won the case."

Guilfoyle accused the prosecution of overreaching, saying this: "I think even her attorney though she might go down on one of these charges. But here's the problem - this wasn't a death penalty case to begin with, not when you can't look at a jury and tell them with specificity what the exact cause of death was. They could have made it a life-without-possibility-of-parole case."

Then Aphrodite Jones was on, she had predicted a slam-dunk victory for the prosecution. Jones said this: "I think she did it, but there was no smoking gun, no cause of death, and the jury was looking for any doubt, they didn't want to kill this woman. But people are angry. In the streets here in Orlando there were people chanting, 'We don't want murderers on our streets' and they had to use crime scene tape to keep people out of the court house when the verdict came down. But people who sat there in that jury box decided that they had a doubt."

O'Reilly said the jurors should come forward and explain their verdict, Billy said this: "I want to talk to those people and I want them to explain why they let this woman go. Are we at the point in America where you have to have a videotape of someone killing somebody?"

What an idiot, O'Reilly clearly does not understand the law or understand how a jury reaches a verdict. Earth to O'Reilly, you need a cause of death to prove murder, and you have to be sure they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, so if they can not even tell you how the girl died, how the hell can you possibly find someone guilty of murder. That fact alone is reasonable doubt, and the alternate juror even said so, so get a law book and read it moron.

Then O'Reilly had Judge Alex Ferrer on to evaluate the performance of the police. Ferrer said this: "There was one major ball-dropping in this case, that could have affected the outcome. That was when the guy who found the remains of Caylee Anthony called the police and the police didn't respond. When an officer finally came out, he berated the guy for about thirty minutes and left. That officer was fired, rightfully so, but the rest of the officers have done an admirable job trying to piece this case together."

Then Guilfoyle and Wiehl returned to discuss some other legal cases. Guilfoyle focused on a special prosecutor's ruling that cleared CIA agents of wrongdoing in scores of interrogations at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, saying this: "Why was this even revisited? They are wasting time and our taxpayer dollars on political witch hunts. There are just two cases still in question and they are both cases in which deaths occurred during questioning."

Wiehl turned to baseball pitcher Roger Clemens, who swore to Congress that he did not take performance enhancing steroids. Wiehl said this: "The allegation is that he lied to the federal government, and that he lied to Congress, which are two strikes against him. So you spend whatever it takes to bring this to a jury because this guy has allegedly lied."

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had the far-right loon Bernie Goldberg on. One of Casey Anthony's lawyers blasted TV legal analysts he called "incompetent talking heads," but Goldberg came to a different conclusion, saying this: "The mistake those 'talking heads' made, is that they thought the jury in Orlando had a modicum of common sense. But this jury watched too much 'CSI Miami' and wasn't going to convict unless there was rock solid evidence way beyond anything that was presented. I'm so disgusted with this whole thing that I can hardly speak straight."

And Bernie proves he is just as dumb as O'Reilly, they both think because you believe Casey killed the child she should have been found guilty. Which is not how the law works, they have to find a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Anthony attorney was right, all the talking heads (especially Nancy Grace and O'Reilly) had it wrong, really wrong. They jusry got it right, if you can not provide a cause of death you can not convict anyone for murder.

Goldberg also creid about the large audiences that tuned in for a daily fix of the trial, saying this: "I've said that we live in the 'United States of Entertainment,' and I think the fascination with this story proves the point. The American people were watching a reality TV show with the possibility that at the end of the show the star may get sentenced to death. We have American soldiers dying for their country and they don't get one-tenth of the time that this story got! And one more point: If Casey Anthony were a young black woman, no network would give this story ten minutes."

Wow, if that's not some massive speculation, what is it, how does he know that, Goldberg takes after his idol O'Reilly, and they are both right-wing idiots who do not even understand how the law works, or how a jury reaches a verdict.

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

Romney Lied About Raising $10 Million In One Day
By: Steve - July 6, 2011 - 10:00am

The Republican Mitt Romney, who wants to be the next President btw, was caught lying again. This time about how much money his campaign had raised in one day, and of course you never heard a word about this from O'Reilly, because he is a Republican who almost never reports bad news about any Republicans.

On May 16, Mitt Romney announced that he raised $10.25 million dollars in one day. The announcement resulted in an avalanche of good press. A database search reveals hundreds of references to his fundraising haul, virtually all of it positive.

Romney himself also lied about the $10 million figure, saying this: "That's a terrific start. Actually it's more than just a start - it really gives us the boost that we need at this early stage in my effort."

So how was it that, after raising over $10 million in one day, the campaign recently announced it only raised $15 million for the entire quarter?

The answer is, they were lying. Last Friday, the Los Angeles Times revealed the truth:
The former Massachusetts governor's campaign told reporters in May that he had raised $10 million in a one-day phone-a-thon in Las Vegas. But the amount actually represented pledges gathered earlier and tallied that day, not just funds actually taken in by the campaign.
So the campaign not only did not raise $10 million in one day, they didn't even collect $10 million dollars in pledges in one day. Instead, they tallied the pledges they received earlier, and added them to the total.

Basically what happened is Mitt Romney, and his campaign, purposely misled the media and the public for their own political gain.

21 Proven False Statements Fox News Made
By: Steve - July 6, 2011 - 9:00am

Most people do not know that not only did Jon Stewart from the Daily Show report on some of the big lies people at Fox have reported, the pulitzer prize winning website politifact.com documented those 21 false statements, and here they are.

1) Glenn Beck: Less than 10 percent of Obama's Cabinet appointees "have any experience in the private sector." - False (December 2, 2009)

2) Steve Doocy: White House Political Director Patrick Gaspard once served as the "right-hand man" for Bertha Lewis, who heads up ACORN. - False (September 30, 2009)

3) Gretchen Carlson: Says the Texas State Board of Education is considering eliminating references to Christmas and the Constitution in textbooks. - Pants on Fire! (March 12, 2010)

4) PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'A government takeover of health care' (December 16, 2010)

5) Glenn Beck: The Muslim Brotherhood has "openly stated they want to declare war on Israel." - False (February 15, 2011)

6) Karl Rove: "American troops have never been under the formal control of another nation." - False (March 29, 2011)

7) Brian Kilmeade: Says Gov. Rick Scott's approval ratings are up. - False (April 15, 2011)

8) Laura Ingraham: The Massachusetts health care plan is "wildly unpopular" among state residents. - False (May 16, 2011)

9) Sarah Palin: "Look at the debt that has been accumulated in the last two years. It's more debt under this president than all those other presidents combined." - False (June 1, 2011)

10) PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'Death panels' (December 18, 2009)

11) Kimberly Guilfoyle: If you log into the government's Cash for Clunkers Web site (cars.gov) from your home computer, the government can "seize all of your personal and private" information, and track your computer activity. - False (August 3, 2009)

12) Sarah Palin: "We're going to be looking at $8 billion a day that we're going to be pouring into foreign countries in order to import that make-up fuel that we're going to need to take the place of what we could have gotten out of the gulf." - Pants on Fire! (June 3, 2011)

13) Sarah Palin: "Democrats are poised now to cause this largest tax increase in U.S. history." - Pants on Fire! (August 4, 2010)

14) Bill O'Reilly: "Attorney General Eric Holder is involved in the dismissal of the criminal charges" against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation - False (July 23, 2010)

15) Sarah Palin: "Barack Obama had 150 days in the U.S. Senate where he was able to vote quite often 'present.' " - False (February 8, 2010)

16) Glenn Beck: John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population." - Pants on Fire! (July 29, 2009)

17) Glenn Beck: Labor union president Andy Stern is "the most frequent visitor" at the White House. - False (December 7, 2009)

18) Glenn Beck: "Why do we have automatic citizenship upon birth? We're the only country in the world that has it." - False (June 19, 2009)

19) Bill O'Reilly: Says he didn't call Dr. George Tiller a baby killer, as liberal groups charge, but was merely reporting what "some prolifers branded him." - False (June 5, 2009)

20) Bill O'Reilly: When White House communications director Anita Dunn said that Mao Tse-tung was "one of her favorite philosophers, only Fox News picked that up." - False (October 27, 2009)

21) Bill O'Reilly: "We researched to find out if anybody on Fox News had ever said you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance. Nobody's ever said it." - Pants on Fire! (April 27, 2010)

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

And let me add this, the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly did not mention any of this, not a word, he just ignored it all. Now ask yourself this, if they were not true, O'Reilly would have denied it, which he did not do, instead he just pretended it was never said.

Casey Anthony Found NOT GUILTY
By: Steve - July 5, 2011 - 11:00am

Follow up - 2:00pm -- Nancy Grace is so pathetic it's laughable, she is on HLN right now saying she accepts the verdict because that is our system. Then 2 seconds later she says the jury got it wrong, and the verdict was not the truth.

What a joke, Nancy Grace spent 3 years trashing Casey Anthony, calling her tot mom, and convicting her every night on tv, and now she can not accept it, even after the jury said NOT GUILTY. Nancy Grace is a disgrace, and she should not be allowed to be on tv anymore. She is a pathetic joke of a so-called journalist, who I can barely even stand to listen to.

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

Suck on that Nancy Grace and Bill O'Reilly. You two fraud journalists spent 3 years convicting this woman on tv and saying she is more guilty than any person you have ever seen, and the woman was found not guilty.

And all this proves that Bill O'Reilly is a biased joke, a right-wing fraud of a hack. Because he could not put aside his bias to be an objective reporter, who not only convicted Casey Anthony on tv one time, he convicted her on tv 3 or 4 times.

He even did it after he said nobody should be convicted on tv, O'Reilly even told other people they should not convict anyone on tv, then he did it himself.

While I did not report on this story, I am now, because it was O'Reilly and Nancy Grace who were so wrong. They are the morons who got it all wrong. Especially O'Reilly, who was as wrong as a person could get. O'Reilly even told Geraldo that she was as guilty as anyone he had ever seen in his 30 years of journalism.

Wrong! Jerk! You were wrong, and if I had a say in it I would not only let Casey Anthony out of jail, I would give her a money judgement, and make O'Reilly pay her for wrongly convicting her on tv. In fact, if I were Casey Anthony, I would file a lawsuit against O'Reilly and Nancy Grace, and any other person who said she was guilty before the jury verdict.

The Monday 7-4-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 5, 2011 - 10:00am

O'Reilly was still on vacation, so he ran the best of Factor re-runs again.

And as usual it was pretty much all right-wing guests, because O'Reilly is a biased Republican, and to him only the right-wing guests deserve to be on the best of re-run shows.

Which is just more proof O'Reilly is a biased Republican, even though he claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone. Claims that are just laughable, because if you just watch one show you can clearly see he is a biased right-wing stooge.

To even deny it is a joke, and it just makes O'Reilly look like a fool. In fact, if he would lie about that, when it's clear to everyone he is lying, how can you believe anything he says when he is a proven liar, who will not even admit he is a partisan.

The Right-Wing Hypocrisy Is Stunning & Endless
By: Steve - July 5, 2011 - 9:00am

Now get this, the very same right-wing stooges who said we can not afford to give NPR $5 million dollars a year because the country is broke, are now defending tax breaks for corporate private jet owners that would save us $300 million dollars a year, for the next 10 years, which would be a total savings of $3 billion dollars.

Talk about hypocrisy, this is the ultimate hypocrisy. They are arguing that ending the tax breaks is tantamount to "class warfare" and they are also saying it would not significantly lower the deficit.

Call me crazy, but a $300 million dollar a year tax break is a hell of a lot to me. Not to mention, over the 10 years it would save the country $3 billion dollars, which is really a lot of money.

Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin added on Thursday that the Democrats want to end "the litany of subsidies we've gone through, from yachts, to thoroughbred horses, to jetliners of commercial entities."

But a Republican on the Washington Times op-ed page said this: "At best, closing this loophole would yield about $3 billion to Uncle Sam over 10 years. All the proposed taxes on U.S. oil companies would generate $44 billion over 10 years."

Earth to right-wing idiot, $3 billion dollars is a lot of money, even if it is over a 10 year period, every little bit adds up. Especially when you far-right loons said we could not afford to pay $5 million a year to NPR, so how the hell can we afford to give $300 million dollars a year to wealthy jet owners.

And for the record, According to a March 17 Associated Press article, NPR received about $5 million dollars in federal funds in the fiscal year 2010.

This is Republican nonsense, they argue that somehow we are so broke we can not afford to give NPR $5 million dollars a year, but we can afford to give millionaires and billionaires a $300 million dollar a year tax break for their private jets, when they do not even need it.

And it goes without saying, you never hear a word about any of this from O'Reilly or any of the right-wing stooges he has on with him every night.

Lower Taxes On The Rich Do Not Lead To Job Growth
By: Steve - July 5, 2011 - 8:00am

O'Reilly goes on and on about taxes on the wealthy, he says you can not raise their taxes because it will lead to less job creation, and a weaker economy. And btw, this is also what almost every Republican says too, so they agree on the issue.

But there is one big problem with that, it's all a lie, because the facts show that lowering taxes on the wealthy do not lead to job growth, or a better economy.

Not to mention, it has already been proven that you can raise taxes on the wealthy and have a great economy with millions of new jobs, Bill Clinton did it in the 90's and the economy boomed, adding 22 million new jobs after he put a 3% tax increase on the wealthy.

And if you notice, neither O'Reilly or any of his Republican friends ever mention that. That's because they hope you will forget what Clinton did, otherwise you will not believe their right-wing spin, that higer taxes on the wealthy hurt the economy and job growth.

Congressional Republicans, during both last year's debate over the pending expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the current negotiations regarding raising the nation's debt ceiling, refused to consider tax increases on the very richest Americans.

In fact, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) blew up debt ceiling negotiations last week due to his insistence that those making more than $500,000 annually be shielded from any tax increase.

The GOP justification for its position, even with income inequality at its worst level since the 1920s, is that raising taxes on the rich will destroy jobs.

"What some are suggesting is that we take this money from people who would invest in our economy and create jobs and give it to the government. The fact is you can't tax the very people that we expect to invest in the economy and create jobs," said Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH).

But history does not back up their claim. In fact, in the past 60 years, job growth has actually been greater in years when the top income tax rate was much higher than it is now.

-- Just look at this, in the years when the top marginal rate was about 90 percent, the average annual growth in total payroll employment was 2 percent.

-- In the years when the top marginal rate was 35 percent or less (which it is now) employment grew by an average of just 0.4 percent.

-- When the tax rate was 50 percent or above, annual employment growth averaged 2.3 percent, and when the rate was under 50, growth was half that.

-- If you ranked each year since 1950 by overall job growth, the top five years would all boast marginal tax rates at 70 percent or higher.

-- The top 10 years would share marginal tax rates at 50 percent or higher. The two worst years, on the other hand, were 2008 and 2009, when the top marginal tax rate was 35 percent.

-- In the 13 years that the top marginal tax rate has been at its current level or lower, only one year even cracks the top 20 in overall job creation.

Now think about this too, you never hear any of those facts from O'Reilly, he just ignores them. Because he does not want you to know the truth, he just wants you to believe him and his right-wing spin on it.

And one last thing, you will never hear this from O'Reilly or anyone on the right. The real reason Republicans are trying to prevent tax increases on the wealthy, is that they have been what I would call legally bribed.

The wealthy dump truckloads of cash on the Republicans to vote against any tax increases. It's legal, but it's wrong, and the average American suffers because they do not have the money to bribe Congressmen and Senators like the wealthy do.

Romney Can Not Keep All His Lies Straight
By: Steve - July 3, 2011 - 10:00am

Over the last few months Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has repeatedly said that President Obama has made the economy worse. He has said it over and over, day after day, but when he was asked about the false claim he claims to have never said it.

It's ridiculous, because he has been quoted, and he is on video saying it too. And not one time has he denied saying it, until now.

During the Romney announcement speech, he said this:
ROMNEY: "Barack Obama has failed America. When he took office, the economy was in recession. He made it worse."
Romney has repeated the same line during campaign stops, including as recently as three days ago.

When Romney was asked about this ridiculous claim by NBC's Sue Kroll in Allentown, Pennsylvania Friday. Romney claimed to never have said it, saying this:
KROLL: You continue to say that the economy is worse, but unemployment is lower than it was in 2009, the stock market was tumbling and it's now above 12,000, and we just had a two percent gain this last quarter. So how can you continue to say that things are worse when they really are not worse.

ROMNEY: I didn't say that things are worse. What I said was that the economy hasn't turned around. That you've got 20 million Americans out of work or seriously unemployed. Housing values are going down. You have a crisis of foreclosures in this country.
The Washington Monthly's Steven Benen wrote a great comment about it, saying this: "Even for Romney, this is ridiculous. He's argued repeatedly that Obama made the economy worse, and when asked to defend the bogus claim, says he never made the argument in the first place."

Romney is a joke, and a liar. And this is the Republican front runner, a proven liar.

Republican Alan Simpson Calls GOP Debt Tactics BS
By: Steve - July 3, 2011 - 9:00am

And you can bet the farm you will never see Alan Simpson on the Factor, because he is a Republican who is telling the truth about the Republicans and the debt talks.

Former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson blasted his GOP colleagues on the hill Wednesday for failing to reach a deal on the deficit.

The co-chairman of President Obama's bipartisan fiscal reform commission slammed Republicans for kowtowing to American for Tax Reform head Grover Norquist, saying this: "Republicans can't be in thrall to him."

Simpson even pushed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to stand fast on the August 2 deadline.

Surveying the lay of the current fiscal land, Simpson said this: "We're at 15 percent revenue, and historically it's been closer to 20 percent."

Simpson also added this: We've never had a war without a tax, and now we've got two."

Then he said what the Republicans are doing is: "Absolute bullshit."

But if you watch the Factor for your news, you would never know he said any of it, because O'Reilly (and his right-wing fill-in anchors) ever report a word of it.

The Friday 7-1-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 2, 2011 - 11:00am

There was no review because the Friday show was a so-called best of the Factor. In reality, it was what O'Reilly thinks is the best parts of the show, which is all Republicans.

There was not one Democratic guest on the entire best of re-run show, and no, Juan Williams is not a Democrat. He just pretends to be one so O'Reilly can say he has a Democrat on.

Juan is a moderate Republican (who has admitted he is more conservative than liberal) who agrees with O'Reilly 90% of the time, and that is not a Democrat, not even close, because real Democrats disagree with O'Reilly 90% of the time.

The best of re-runs are all Republicans, proving once again that O'Reilly is a biased right-wing fraud, who pretends to be a non-partisan Independent. And the no spin zone claim is maybe the biggest fraud on the American people in the history of journalism.

The Real Reason The Economic Recovery Is Slow
By: Steve - July 2, 2011 - 10:00am

Here is a report that shows the real reason the economic recovery is so slow, and you will never hear a word of this from O'Reilly, because he does not want you to know the truth, he wants you to blame it all on Obama and his economic policies.

Here are the facts:

After the longest recession since WWII, many Americans are still struggling while S&P 500 corporations are sitting on $800 billion in cash and making massive profits.

Economists from Northeastern University have released a study that finds our sluggish economic recovery has almost solely benefited corporations.

From the study:
-- Between the second quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2010, real national income in the U.S. increased by $528 billion.

-- Pre-tax corporate profits by themselves had increased by $464 billion while aggregate real wages and salaries rose by only $7 billion or only 0.1 percent.

-- Over this six quarter period, corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of the growth in real national income.

-- The absence of any positive share of national income growth due to wages and salaries received by American workers during the current economic recovery is historically unprecedented.
In other words, the wealthy and the corporations are sucking all the money out of the economy, to increase their personal wealth, and to increase their company stock prices. Instead of getting most of that money to the people, who would spend it, boost the economy, and create jobs.

The New York Times also wrote about it, saying this: "According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average real hourly earnings for all employees actually declined by 1.1 percent from June 2009, when the recovery began, to May 2011, the month for which the most recent earnings numbers are available."

So as average wages fall, and nearly 14 million people remain unemployed, America's economic recovery has almost entirely benefited corporations. Which adds another chapter to the decline of the middle class, whose incomes are shrinking and wages are stagnating.

On top of all that, last year, top executives salaries increased 27 percent, while workers salaries increased only 2 percent.

And at the moment, income inequality in America is the worst it's been since the 1920s, as the richest 1 percent make nearly 25 percent of the country's income.

Wealthy Republican Admits He Should Pay More Taxes
By: Steve - July 2, 2011 - 9:00am

And not only does he say he should pay more in taxes, he is a big donor to the Karl Rove political groups, and he also said he should not get any social security money, because he does not need it. Which is what I have been saying for years.

Ken Langone, a wealthy Wall Street investor and former head of the New York Stock Exchange, was one of the very first major donors to the Rove campaign groups.

So Wednesday on the Fox Business Network, Langone was asked by host Lou Dobbs about how to kickstart the economy. Langone repeatedly said high unemployment is the greatest problem, but conceded that corporations are doing better than ever. To get things going, Langone explained, everyone would have to feel the pain.

In a sharp contrast with his friend Karl Rove, Langone said wealthy guys like him should pay more taxes:
LANGONE: Well I say this as a devout Republican. I think in these negotiations, I think number one guys like me, I've said this before, there's a caveat. I shouldn't get Social Security. I should pay more taxes.
Langone also said higher taxes on wealthy individuals like himself should go entirely to paying down the debt.

As President Obama and Democrats have pushed to include modest tax increases on the wealthy as part of the debt negotiations, as well as a repeal on tax subsidies to big oil companies, Rove's front groups have hit back with nasty attack ads claiming any tax increase would hurt the economy.

he is not alone, there are hundreds of wealthy people who think they should pay more in taxes, if not thousands, but they never get on the Factor to discuss it. And think about this, notice that guys like Ken Langone are never a guest on the Factor, ever. Because O'Reilly does not want you to hear a big money Republican admit he should pay more in taxes, and not get any money from social security.

In fact, if all the millionaires who are getting social security would refuse it, social security would probably be solvent forever. And if I was a millionaire, I would be ashamed to take that money, I would tell them to keep it, and get it to the people who actually need it.

The Thursday 6-30-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 1, 2011 - 11:00am

The far-right loon Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly again, so I did not do a full review, mainly because it's the same old right-wing propaganda she has put out since Tuesday night.

But I will say this, Ingraham filled the show with right-wing stooges, who of course, did nothing but trash Obama. And the one liberal who was on the show had to share his time with the Republican Dana Perino.

So as usual it was all right-wing spin, all the time.

Some Real News O'Reilly Has Totally Ignored
By: Steve - July 1, 2011 - 10:00am

Here is some real news, this is the kind of news O'Reilly should be reporting, and yet, he has ignored it. But he sure has time to do those ridiculous body language segments, the Dennis Miller nonsense, and on and on.

Boeing overcharged taxpayers for Army helicopter parts. Boeing has been overcharging the Army for basic spare parts, forcing taxpayers to pay more than twice the fair and reasonable price, according to an audit conducted by the DoD Inspector General.

The IG looked at spare parts sales to the Corpus Christi, Texas Army Depot for two helicopters systems and found some serious price gouging, such as charging $71 for a metal pin that should cost just 4 cents:
$644.75 for a small gear smaller than a dime that sells for $12.51: more than a 5,100 percent increase in price.

$1,678.61 for another tiny part, also smaller than a dime, that could have been bought within DoD for $7.71: a 21,000 percent increase. $71.01 for a straight, thin metal pin that DoD had on hand, unused by the tens of thousands, for 4 cents: an increase of over 177,000 percent.
While this case is cause for concern in its own right, it speaks to a bigger question of the Pentagon's reliance on private contractors.

Even without Boeing's price gouging, the IG's office expected Boehing to charge a 34 percent surcharge fee for overhead, general and administrative costs, and profit, according to the audit report.

And many of the parts studied in the report were available from the Pentagon's internal procurement agencies at lower costs:
What is even more shocking is the difference in prices the Army would have paid if it procured many of these parts directly from the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and from the Army's own procurement offices, the audit shows.
Boeing is currently the center of a national debate over labor laws after the company moved a production line from Washington to South Carolina to thwart labor unions, potentially violating rules established by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). In response to the NLRB’s attempt to enforce the law, a number of national Republican leaders, including much of the presidential field, have come to Boeing’s defense and attacked the labor board, even calling for it to be defunded or disbanded.

And here is the worst part, Republicans protect companies like Boeing, while they are robbing taxpayers blind. Which is also one of the main reasons O'Reilly ignores this kind of news. Because if he reported it, he would expose his Republican friends as the corrupt politicians they are.

Companies like Boeing give money to Republicans to get these government contracts, so they can rip us off, then the Republicans provide protection for them, just like in the old days when the mafia guys had businesses pay them protection money. The Republicans are like the mafia, the provide protection for the crooks to rob the American people.

Now if Democrats were protecting a company that was robbing the taxpayers blind, O'Reilly would report that, because he hates Democrats and he does everything he can to make them look bad.

Republican Hypocrisy On Raising The Debt Limit
By: Steve - July 1, 2011 - 9:00am

And of course you never hear a word about this from O'Reilly, or anyone at Fox for that matter. When Bush was the President Republicans voted to increase the debt limit 19 times, yes I said 19 times. Now they say they will not vote to increase it unless Obama and the Democrats agree to large spending cuts, that they never asked for under Bush, while he was increasing the debt.

Republican Congressional leaders are now preparing to push America to the edge of default by refusing to increase the nation's debt limit without first getting Democrats to concede to large spending cuts.

But while the four Republicans in Congressional leadership positions are attempting to hold the increase hostage now, they combined to vote for a debt limit increase 19 times during the presidency of George W. Bush. In doing so, they increased the debt limit by nearly $4 trillion.

At the beginning of the Bush presidency, the debt limit was $5.95 trillion. Despite promises that he would pay off the debt in 10 years, Bush increased the debt to $9.815 trillion by the end of his term, with plenty of help from the four Republicans currently holding Congressional leadership positions.

Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl. Here is a breakdown of the five debt limit increases that took place during the Bush presidency and how the four Republican leaders voted:
-- June 2002: Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote yea, Kyl votes nay.

-- May 2003: Congress approves a $900 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $7.384 trillion. All four approve.

-- November 2004: Congress approves an $800 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.1 trillion. All four approve.

-- March 2006: Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion. All four approve.

-- September 2007: Congress approves an $850 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $9.815 trillion. All four approve.
Searches revealed no demands from the four legislators that debt increases come accompanied by drastic spending cuts, as there are now. In fact, the May 2003 debt limit increase passed the Senate the same day as the $350 billion Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

When Bush was in office, the current Republican leaders viewed increasing the debt limit as vital to keeping America's economy running. But with Obama in the White House, it's nothing more than a political pawn.


To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page:
www.oreilly-sucks.com