The Wednesday 6-30-10 Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - July 1, 2010 - 10:30am

The crazy far right spin doctor Laura Ingraham was in for O'Reilly, so it looks like he took the week off for the July 4th holiday. And since Ingraham was in I will not do a full review of that garbage, but I will say a few things.

Ingraham started the show slamming Obama for the jobs report due out Friday, and she called it the summer of no recovery. Even though the economy has been adding jobs every month this year, which is 100 times better than losing 740,000 jobs a month under Bush. And btw, the June jobs report is expected to report the economy added 13,000 private sector jobs in June, which is not much, but it's a hell of a lot better than what it was doing under Bush.

Then Ingraham had the far right spin doctor Newt Gingrich on to join her in slamming Obama, and everything he has done. Even though Obama pulled us out of the recession Bush created, they blame it all on Obama, and give him no credit for creating over 2 million new jobs since he took office.

Then Ingraham had Democratic Congressman Luis Gutierrez on to talk about immigration and securing the border. Gutierrez stressed that "comprehensive" reform will make demands on illegals who want to be citizens. "I want to register them, I want to tax them, and I want to teach them English. We should segregate those who come here to do harm from those who come here to work."

Then Dick Morris was on to talk about some rumor that there is trouble between the Clintons and Obama. Which is basically just tabloid garbage, with no proof to back any of it up. And it's the same rumor Morris has been spreading for 6 months. Then Morris once again speculated that Mrs. Clinton has one eye on the Oval Office. Even though O'Reilly claims to have a no speculation zone, he lets there right-wing fools speculate their ass off. And remember that this is the same Dick Morris who said Ric Lazio would crush Hillary by more than 10 points in her Senate run a few years ago, haha, wrong. Morris should be on TMZ reporting gossip, because that's about all he does, none of it is based on facts, and he is not a journalist.

Then Ingraham had the crazy Congresswoman Michele Bachmann on to talk about her insane, we are not in a global economy nonsense, the same thing Keith Olbermann listed her as worst person in the world for Wednesday night, it's pure insanity. But Ingraham loved it, and put that nut job on the air to talk about it.

Then Ingraham had Mark Levine and Leslie Marshall on to discuss the Russian spies. Ingraham said it was another foreign policy snafu for the president. A snafu, how? Obama had nothing to do with it, and they had been doing it for 10 years. It was ridiculous, and just another smear job on Obama.

In the last 2 segments Ingraham had 2 more right-wing nuts on, John Kasich to promote his book and his run for Governor. And crazy Cheryl Casone was on to slam Obama for the economy and jobs. The same Cheryl Casone who has a plan to tax the poor to lower our debt. Which is just insane, and it will never happen. Yet Ingraham put this fool on the air.

Casone claims they do not pay any taxes, and while they do not pay a federal income tax, they pay all kinds of taxes, including a federal gas tax every time they buy gas for their car. They pay taxes on all the food they buy, clothes, property taxes, etc. So Casone is an idiot, who just lies her right-wing ass off.

O'Reilly Wins Bronze In Worlds Worst Persons
By: Steve - July 1, 2010 - 10:00am

From the 6-30-10 Countdown With Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: Get out your pitchforks and torches, time for tonight‘s worst persons in the world.

The bronze to Bill-O the clown, talking to someone named Anne Mullins about a conservative website's list of the top ten right wing nut jobs liberals are supposed to hate the most.
O'REILLY: Palin, Coulter, Malkin and Bachmann are all attractive women. They're all good looking. But I think that liberals, they resent that. They think that all women who are good looking should be liberal women.
Miss Mullins then says, yes, there are no ugly women in the top ten. Palin, Coulter, Malkin, Bachmann--anybody want to volunteer to break it to Miss Mullins and Mr. O'Reilly? Leave me out of it.

Our runner up, Michele Bachmann, number ten on the list, but still the leader for Operation Enduring Stupidity.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BACHMANN: President Obama is trying to bind the United States into a global economy, where all of our nations come together in a global economy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: She went on to insist that a global economy would lead to literally a one-world government. Put that aside for a moment. Let me just review that sentence again. "President Obama is trying to bind the United States into a global economy where all of our nations come together in a global economy."

What kind of-what kind of global economy do you know of that isn't a global economy? But our winner, Cheryl Casone, who used to do news cut-ins here and is now somehow on the Fixed Business News Channel, and she has the whole debt thing beat.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CASONE: A new government report showing 40 percent of income tax filers are paying no income taxes at all, and are getting money back. And this has someone here saying enough is enough. You want America's debt mess cleaned up? It's time for all Americans to pay up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Is she really saying we need to tax the poor? I mean the really, really poor? I mean, there was this report from the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, that said 40 percent of filers pay nothing. But it pointed out that half of them had incomes under 19,000 dollars a year. She's not talking about increasing taxes on the really poor, is she? She's not talking about the CBO report?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CASONE: You know, Chris, the CBO report-granted it's for 2007. But the fact that most Americans are not paying any income tax, at the end of the day, kind of shows the imbalance. What if everybody pays just a little bit, we're out of debt in this country. So, Jonathan, did we just find a way to solve America's debt crisis, do you think?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Next on Fox Business Channel with Cheryl Casone, Swift's modest proposal that hunger could be solved by eating the children of impoverished families? Was it satire or was he just a far thinking economist ahead of his time. Cheryl "Tax the Poor" Casone of Fox, today's worst person in the freaking world.

Sharron Angle Says No Abortions: EVER!
By: Steve - June 30, 2010 - 11:00am

Want more proof this right-wing Tea Party nut Sharron Angle is a far right extremist loon, here it is.

In a radio interview with Bill Manders, Sharron Angle -- the GOP candidate and Tea Party darling challenging Harry Reid for Nevada's U.S. Senate seat -- came out firmly against abortion. She even took the extreme position that women should not have control over their reproductive rights in cases of rape or incest, because it would interfere with God's plan for them:
MANDERS: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

ANGLE: Not in my book.

MANDERS: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?

ANGLE: You know, I'm a Christian, and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.
Hmmmm, maybe it was God's plan to have the Supreme Court rule that abortion was legal, even through the terms of 7 Republican Presidents. I wonder if crazy Angle ever thought of that, I doubt it. And btw, don't you think God would want to allow an abortion to save the life of a mother, the baby, or both, I sure do.

Not to mention, Last week, Manders, who is a conservative radio host, told his listeners that in order to beat Reid, Angle has to "slide to the left a little bit, to the middle, so to speak. Not stay way over to the right."

"There are things about Sharron that are annoying to the voters," he added. Recently, former Republican congresswoman Barbara Vucanovich, the first woman from Nevada to hold federal office, said she may not even vote for Angle. "She's very rigid and I have a little bit of trouble understanding her positions," Vucanovich said. "So I'm not out there waving the flag. She's a very difficult person."

The far right has even embraced Angle's anti-choice position. She has said that while it won't be "the most prominent issue in Nevada's Senate race," she "will show voters the difference between Reid and me on abortion: He flip-flops on the issues." She added that more people are identifying as "pro-life" because the issue "has been framed in a more positive way."

Republicans Block Vote On Homeless Veterans Bill
By: Steve - June 30, 2010 - 10:30am

Now this is just ridiculous, Republicans claim to support the great men in the military. Then they vote against a bill that would provide additional benefits to homeless veterans. I guess they only support veterans who are in the military now, and to hell with the veterans who served in the past.

Tuesday, Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) brought her bill -- the Homeless Women Veterans and Homeless Veterans With Children Act -- to the Senate floor seeking unanimous consent. Murray said the bill would "expand assistance for homeless women veterans and homeless veterans with children and would increase funding and extend federal grant programs to address the unique challenges faced by these veterans."

However, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) objected on behalf of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) to this seemingly non-controversial issue:
McCONNELL: Madam president, reserving the right to object and I will have to object on behalf of my colleague Sen. Coburn from Oklahoma. He has concerns about this legislation, particularly as he indicates in a letter that I'll ask the Senate to appear on the record that it be paid for up front so that the promises that makes the Veterans are in fact kept. So madam president I object.
This is pretty low, even for Republicans, and the Washington Monthly's Steve Benen said. While Murray pledged to continue to fight for the bill's passage, Majority Leader Harry Reid's spokesperson said "Republicans have their priorities backwards -- according to them, it's OK to give tax breaks to CEOs who send American jobs overseas, but not to help out-of-work Americans and homeless veterans."

Note: To anyone in the military, remember this when you vote in November. The Republicans do not care about you, they just say they do, and this proves it.

The Tuesday 6-29-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 30, 2010 - 10:00am

The TPM was called Losing In Afghanistan. Billy asked if we can win in Afghanistan, and basically said we might lose. When he said Bush already won it, a few years ago. Proving that he was lying then, and he is lying now. O'Reilly said we are losing under Obama, when it's Bush's war, so if we are losing it's Bush's fault. Obama is just trying to clean up the mess, a mess we should not have even got into in the first place. Yet O'Reilly blames the whole thing on Obama, which is just ridiculous. O'Reilly said it looks like we will lose, unless Petreaus can pull a miracle.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to discuss it. Colmes said the war is crazy, and that we should just get out. O'Reilly asked Colmes why Obama disagrees with him, and Colmes said he does not know. Then O'Reilly said Crowley knows, then she went on some 2 minute right-wing spin nonsense, that did not even answer the question. Finally Crowley said Obama stayed there, and added more troops for political reasons. And for once she could be right, because if Obama pulls the troops, the Republicans will slam him hard, and call him weak on terrorism. Now get this, O'Reilly said we are not winning in Afghanistan, then he said he does not want to say we are losing, wtf? If we are not winning, then we are losing, what an idiot.

The funniest thing is when O'Reilly told the General how to win in Afghanistan, he said if you listen to him we can win. As I fell off my chair laughing, I said to myself, when was O'Reilly in the military, oh yeah, NEVER. And when did O'Reilly become an expert on military strategy, oh yeah, NEVER.

Then O'Reilly had Gen. Anthony Tata on to discuss the Rolling Stone article on Gen. McChrystal, for the millionth time. And I will not report on this story anymore, because O'Reilly is just beating it to death to smear the reporter who wrote it. Gen. Tata was only on to agree with O'Reilly, and slam the Rolling Stone reporter, nothing more, nothing less.

Then John Stossel was on to talk about the Obama administration, and how they plan to sue Arizona over its new immigration law. Which is another story O'Reilly is beating to death, basically to make Obama look bad. Who cares what Stossel has to say about it, not me. He is not a federal immigration law expert, he's just a right-wing nut who gets on Fox to spin out right-wing garbage. O'Reilly called it open warfare between the Obama administration, and the state of Arizona.

Then he cited what the Arizona Governor said about a meeting with Obama, as he talked to Stossel, with nobody from the left to provide the balance. Then O'Reilly told Obama what to do, put 10,000 National Guard troops on the border. So if we listen to O'Reilly the problem will be solved. Even Stossel disagreed, then Stossel went into a detailed answer about why he objects to what O'Reilly wants to do. Then O'Reilly said he does not understand why Stossel does not agree with him. O'Reilly, who claims to never speculate, speculated that 80% of the people watching would agree with him. So Stossel nailed him, he said because they are your fans, and they are watching your show, oh snap, lol.

Then O'Reilly did a crazy segment about the far right townhall.com website, who compiled a list of the top 100 Americans they say liberals despise. Who fricking cares, and what is Mr. nonpartisan Independent doing reporting on this lame list from a far right website. It's ridiculous, and I could care less what kind of list they put out. This is not news, it's just right-wing garbage for O'Reilly to use to try and get his ratings up. He even said liberals hate conservative women because they are good looking.

Which is just laughable, we hate them because they are far right idiots, which is the same reason we hate conservative men. It has nothing to do with looks, and O'Reilly is just stupid for even saying that. O'Reilly was even on the list at #9, even though he claims he is not a conservative. He said he should not even be on the list because he is not a conservative. So if that's true, why is he in the top 10 of every conservative list that comes out about anything. And why do 99.9% of liberals hate him, what say you Billy?

Then is it legal with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle. They were on to talk about the Elena Kagan nomination to the Supreme Court. Wiehl said Kagan is a smart moderate who should be on the Supreme Court. Guilfoyle said Kagan should not be on the Supreme Court, and does not believe she is a moderate. O'Reilly predicted she will be confrmed, which she will be, so for once O'Reilly will be right. Then O'Reilly cried about the Supreme Court Chicago gun ruling, even though his side won 5 to 4, he still cried about it, and wants to know why the 4 voted no. And btw, I am a liberal, as liberal as it gets, and I agree with the 5 who ruled for the old man. Killing the O'Reilly argument that all liberals disagreed with the ruling. Wiehl said the 4 who wrote the dissent, have a good point, then he called Wiehl crazy.

And finally the 2 Republican culture warriors were on, Margaret Hoover and Getchen Carlson were on to cry about some things a few reporters said about Sarah Palin. My God, let it go man. Sarah Palin is a big girl, she can fight her own fights. O'Reilly acts like he is her big brother and he is going to beat up anyone who dares to say anything bad about her. Hoover even called it a non-story, and O'Reilly said he does not care about it, but he did almost an entire segment on it anyway.

They also found the time to slam Paul McCartney for making political statements, again, for the millionth time. This story is 3 weeks old, and they bring it up again to smear McCartney, it's ridiculous. Earth to O'Reilly, McCartney is a singer in a rock band, so nobody cares what he said, not even me. Get a grip man, and report some real news for once. Not to mention it's an old story, so why drag it out again.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, including O'Reilly, 9 Republicans were on the show, to 1 Democrat. In closing, O'Reilly said he does not want to say we are losing in Afghanistan, even though he said we are not winning, and the TPM was called "Losing In Afghanistan." What a fricking idiot, wow!

O'Reilly Makes A Fool Of Himself Again
By: Steve - June 30, 2010 - 9:30am

On the Tuesday June 29th O'Reilly Factor, Billy said Liberals resent attractive conservative women, and think all women who are good looking should be liberal. Which may be one of the most ridiculous things he has ever said.



I am a liberal, and I do not resent any attractive conservative women, in fact, I do not resent any women. When politics are invloved I do not care if a woman is attractive or not, liberal or conservative, it's a non-issue. What happens is Republicans only run attractive woman, and use them on Fox.

So then if a liberal slams them for their politics or bias, O'Reilly pulls the you hate them because they are pretty nonsense. It's insane, and something you would expect to hear from Glenn Beck. I could care less if Palin or any conservative woman is attractive, I judge them on their politics, not their looks.

And only an idiot like O'Reilly would even make such a ridiculous claim, except for maybe Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh. Here is my message to O'Reilly, open mouth, insert foot, you crazy fool.

Factor Poll Shows His Viewers Out Of Touch
By: Steve - June 30, 2010 - 9:00am

O'Reilly's website features a nonscientific poll of his audience, then O'Reilly airs the results on his show. Yesterday, O'Reilly asked his audience, "What concerns you the most?" Here are the crazy answers:
1) Illegal Immigration - 48%
2) Economy - 41%
3) Oil Spill - 9%
4) Afghanistan - 2%
O'Reilly agreed with them and said this: "That would have been my vote."

Which is crazy, because most people list illegal immigration last on their list at 5 to 7 percent. According to a May NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 7 percent of respondents think immigration should be the top priority. And a May Fox News poll even said that only 5 percent think immigration is "most important for the federal government to be working on right now."

Proving that the Factor viewers are out of touch with what the average American cares about. My list would be Jobs, Economy, Oil Spill, Health Care, etc. Illegal Immigration would be last on my list, which is in line with most Americans, except for the crazy people who watch O'Reilly.

And btw, it says it is an unscientific poll right on the website, and yet, O'Reilly still uses the results to claim it represents the views of the majority of Americans, even though it's an unscientific poll, taken on a biased right-wing website. Figure that out, because I sure can't.

Note To O'Reilly: Bush Also Set A Timeline
By: Steve - June 29, 2010 - 9:30am

Hypocrisy alert: Recently O'Reilly has been hammering Obama for his July 2011 timetable of troop withdrawal in Afghanistan. Which is just ridiculous for a couple reasons.

1) Obama campaigned on the troop withdrawal, so he was elected President partly because he said he would bring the troops home. Something O'Reilly never mentions.

2) We can not just leave a 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan forever, at some point we have to bring them home. In fact, the longer we have troops there, the worse it's getting. At some point we have to get out and let the Government of Afghanistan run their own country.

Right now it looks like things are getting worse, because the people do not want us there. If the people are against you, it's a no-win situation. So the smart thing to do is just bring the troops home, and let them run their own country. Not to mention, the timeline is not a hard timeline, and Obama has even said he might delay the July 2011 timeline, if he needs to.

But the hypocrisy is in the timeline criticism, from O'Reilly and a lot of other people on the right. Because Bush also set a timeline for troop withdrawal from Iraq, but O'Reilly never said a word about that. In fact, he supported a timeline back then, because it was set by a Republican President. O'Reilly said we have to set a timeline in Iraq so they know we will not be there forever, and then they are motivated to get ready to provide their own security.

Now that Obama has a timeline for Afghanistan, O'Reilly sings a different tune. Simply because he is a Democratic President. Now O'Reilly says it is insane to set a timeline, even though he supported in when Bush was the President.

Here is what O'Reilly does not tell you:

On November 17, 2008, US and Iraqi officials signed a Security Agreement, referred to as a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), stating that "All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011." The agreement also called for all U.S. combat forces to withdraw from Iraqi cities "no later than June 30, 2009."

Bush even praised the agreement, calling the SOFA "another sign of progress," President Bush said in a November 27, 2008, statement, "The Strategic Framework Agreement sets the foundation for a long-term bilateral relationship between our two countries, and the Security Agreement addresses our presence, activities, and withdrawal from Iraq."

Funny how O'Reilly never mentioned any of that, I guess he just forgot, yeah that's it. His crack research staff must have just missed it, even though anyone with a computer can do a google search and find it in 2 seconds.

Not to mention, Petraeus, Mullen, and Gates all agree on the timeline set by president Obama. Funny how O'Reilly never mentioned that either. Defense Secretary Gates said this: "General Petraeus absolutely agrees with the president's strategy. He agrees with the December review, and he agrees with the timeline to begin a drawdown in July of 2011 that is conditions-based."

And O'Reilly never reported any of that. They will do a review in December, then if the conditions are right, they will begin a drawdown in July of 2011. So the drawdown is not set in stone as O'Reilly implied, it will be a conditions-based drawdown, if the December review says so.

In closing, I would have to say that for someone who claims to be a journalist, O'Reilly sure left out a lot of facts in this story. About the only thing he got right was that there is a timeline for troop withdrawal. The rest he either got wrong, or left out all the facts.

The Monday 6-28-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 29, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Political Violence. O'Reilly spent the entire TPM crying about riots in Toronto in the wake of the G-20 summit. O'Reilly asked if it was a vision of the future, and I say no it's not you right-wing fool. Basically O'Reilly implied that if the world economic system falls apart you could see massive riots, death and destruction, etc. Which is just laughable, because that is not going to happen. O'Reilly is just using Glenn Beck fear tactics, that the sky is falling because we have a Democratic President. O'Reilly actually blamed it on progressive economics. Except he can not explain how the economy did so well for 8 years under Bill Clinton, who was a progressive.

Rick Salutin from the Globe and Mail was on to discuss it, who is an op-ed writer, not a regular writer. Salutin called the leaders of America, Canada, etc. criminals. And he blamed the riots on the leaders of the big countries. O'Reilly disagreed with him and said the criminals are the idiots who were part of the riots. Salutin was basically saying the world leaders are criminals for doing everything to help the wealthy, while not doing enough for the poor, etc. Salutin said he thinks we are living in a 3rd world dictatorship. The whole thing was strange, because it happened in Canada, so I could care less. And O'Reilly had some nut from Canada on to discuss it, when I could care less what he said either.

So then O'Reilly had Brit Hume on to talk about it even more. It was a riot in Canada, so what, they have riots all the time. But according to O'Reilly and Hume it's a look at the future, and that the whole world is going to collapse and riots will be everywhere. Wow, talk about speculation, and jumping to conclusions, this is the king of speculation. These 2 right-wing nuts (O'Reilly & Hume) have turned one riot in Canada, into the whole world economic system is going to collapse and it will lead to chaos. My God is that ridiculous, and maybe the biggest speculation O'Reilly has ever put out. Even after he claims to never speculate, it's just ridiculous fear mongering. Hume said spending is out of control, and agreed with O'Reilly, amking them both massive idiots.

Then O'Reilly did another segment on the Obama administration filing suit against the state of Arizona because of its new immigration law. So we had to hear about it again for the millionth time. O'Reilly defended the crazy right-wing Governor in Arizona who signed the law, and slammed Obama for trying to fight it. Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to discuss it. Williams said Obama is going to win the lawsuit, and of course O'Reilly and Ham said the Arizona Governor is going to win. And this Mary K. Ham is a joke, for one thing she is not that smart, and second, she is just a right-wing puppet who is only on to agree with O'Reilly on everything. So after Williams said Obama will win, O'Reilly switched it to who will win it in the public opinion arena. O'Reilly even said Obama can not win it, which is more speculation, and he called it a loser all day long.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about the Elena Kagan confirmation hearings. Where all the Republicans smeared her with lies, but she is still going to be confirmed. Kelly said there were no fireworks, and said nothing exciting happened. O'Reilly called it as boring as burnt toast. Then O'Reilly speculated that Kagan would have voted against the old man in the Chicago gun rights case. When he has no idea how she would have voted, what an idiot. And then they talked about some tabloid garbage about a convicted sex offender wanting to go to church. There are kids in the church so he can not go. Kelly said good, and too bad for the sex offender. I am not so sure about this one, because there is no way the guy is going to do anything to a kid in a church, especially when the kids will have their parents with them.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about the firing of General McChrystal. Why is the question, Goldberg is a so-called media analyst, so who cares what he has to say about the firing. It was just stupid, because he is supposed to be on to do media bias analysis. Basically they spent the entire segment bashing the Rolling Stone reporter. With of course nobody to provide any balance. And they even admitted Hastings did not break any rules of journalism. And yet, they slammed the guy anyway. the whole thing was ridiculous, and just nothing but right-wing spin. O'Reilly also complained that McChrystal would not have Fox News on the tv sets, but he said he could not confirm if that was true, yet he reported it was anyway.

And finally the last segment was the ridiculous Factor Reality Check. Where O'Reilly sits there alone, doing what he calls a reality check on something a Democrat said. It's not a reality check, it's O'Reilly putting his right-wing spin on what someone else said. There is no reality, and no checks, just spin.

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

Fox News Still Lying About The Jones Act
By: Steve - June 29, 2010 - 8:30am

Now this is getting ridiculous, Fox News is still lying about help from foreign countries in the oil spill, because of the Jones Act. Even though the lie has been disproven at least 20 times in the last 2 weeks or so.

6-28-10 -- Fox News Steve Doocy falsely claimed (again) that "foreign ships that want to come help in U.S. waters can't unless" the Jones Act is "lifted by the president." In fact, foreign ships are already involved in the oil spill response, and the Jones Act allows for exceptions in the case of an oil spill.
DOOCY: It's day 70 into the Gulf crisis, and as oil keeps gushing into the water, the Jones Act remains in place. That means foreign ships that want to come help in U.S. waters can't unless it's lifted by the president.
Wrong! A June 18 document released by National Incident Commander Adm. Thad Allen and a June 15 press release from the Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center stated: "Currently 15 foreign-flagged vessels are involved in the largest response to an oil spill in U.S. history. No Jones Act waivers have been granted because none of these vessels have required such a waiver to conduct their operations as part of the response in the Gulf of Mexico."

David Matsuda, acting Maritime administrator, stated in June congressional testimony that "during the current situation in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S. vessels have been used in every situation where U.S. vessels and crew are available. Seventy-seven percent of the vessels providing oil spill response in the Gulf are U.S.- flagged." He added: "Even though twenty-three percent of the vessels responding to the oil spill are not U.S.-flagged, none of these are known to be in violation of any U.S. law or regulation. Vessels that do not call upon points in the United States are not in violation of the Jones Act."

Rear Adm. Kevin Cook, Coast Guard director of prevention policy, stated during a June 17 House hearing: "I would not call [the Jones Act] an impediment because foreign-flagged skimmers can be -- they're treated as oil spill response vessels. And if they're operated outside of three miles, they are not impacted by the Jones Act."

The National Incident Command stated: "While we have not seen any need to waive the Jones Act as part of this historic response, we continue to prepare for all possible scenarios, and that's why Admiral Allen provided guidance to process necessary waivers as quickly as possible to allow vital spill response activities being undertaken by foreign-flagged vessels to continue without delay should that be necessary."

The Jones Act has not prevented the response team from accepting the offers. In a June 11 news briefing, Allen, the national incident commander, said, "We are more than willing to consider Jones Act waivers," and noted that foreign vessels were being used. A statement issued June 18 said that 15 foreign-flagged vessels were involved in the cleanup, and none required Jones Act waivers.

That's in part because of a specific exemption in the act that can allow for the use of foreign "oil spill response vessels," said H. Clayton Cook, a Washington attorney and expert on the Jones Act.

Cook, a Republican, said there had been longstanding opposition to the act, which many see as protectionist and a bow to unions, but there was no evidence that the Jones Act was standing in the way of the cleanup. "This is being used for political purposes. It's a classic red herring."

So basically, Doocy is a lying right-wing idiot who either does not know the facts, or he does, and is still lying about it to make President Obama look bad.

Rolling Stone Reporter Slams O'Reilly
By: Steve - June 29, 2010 - 8:00am

The writer from Rolling Stone (Michael Hastings) who wrote the article about General McChrystal, was on Reliable Sources over the weekend. During the interview he was asked about O'Reilly calling him a far-left hatchet man. And he said this: "If Bill O'Reilly is calling you a far-left critic...that probably means you're doing a good job."



And btw, in O'Reillyworld anyone who is not as far right as he is, would be classified as far-left. Most of the time when O'Reilly calls someone far-left it usually means that person has said something critical of O'Reilly. He has very thin skin and he uses his bully pulpit to settle scores, instead of actually doing some real journalism.

O'Reilly say's far-left with such regularity that it's laughable, and the charge has no meaning anymore. Basically, anyone he disagrees with is far-left, which supposedly dismisses anything the person might have to say. And most of the time the person he is calling far-left simply quoted his own words, then showed that he was lying or spinning, or having a right-wing bias.

If you dare to call O'Reilly out on any of the 20 or more right-wing lies he puts out every week, he calls you a far left loon who is simply trying to smear him for telling the truth. Even if you are exactly right, and you nailed him in a lie, he still calls you a far-left loon. But if a right-wing loon says a lie about a Democrat, O'Reilly says nothing, and almost never calls them a far-right loon.

Rove Violates Journalism Ethics: O'Reilly Silent
By: Steve - June 28, 2010 - 9:30am

Before I report the details of this story that O'Reilly has totally ignored, think about this. Imagine what O'Reilly would say if a paid political analyst at MSNBC or NBC, started a liberal 527 PAC to raise millions of dollars to get Democrats elected to Congress, while still working for MSNBC or NBC.

My God, O'Reilly would blow his top and report it every night for a week. He would call for them to be fired, or to not be a part of the 527, and most likely ask the FEC to investigate them for campaign law violations. There would be a Talking Points Memo on it, and it would be the lead story every night. but when his good buddy Karl rove, who works for Fox, and who is a regular on the Factor does it, O'Reilly ignores the entire fricking story.

6-26-10 -- WASHINGTON -- In a campaign season of anti-establishment ferment, some of the Republican Party's best-known insiders are building an ambitious fundraising machine for the fall elections and beyond.

They started with a bang in April, cashing a $1 million check from a Texas oil magnate. After a quiet May, friends and foes are watching to see if the new organization's core group, American Crossroads, can reach its goal of raising $52 million by November.

Karl Rove, who was President George W. Bush's top political strategist, and Ed Gillespie, a former Republican Party chairman and White House aide, modeled their network on successful operations created by Democrats several years ago.

American Crossroads is a 527 organization -- named for a section in the tax law -- that is exempt from limits on campaign fundraising and spending that apply to party-affiliated groups. It can tap rich conservatives, such as Trevor Rees-Jones, president of Dallas-based Chief Oil and Gas, who chipped in the first $1 million.

Steven Law, a former U.S. Chamber of Commerce lawyer and now president of American Crossroads, said the group has about $30 million in pledges that Rove, Gillespie and others secured during recent trips to various cities.

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

What gets me is how a group run by Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, both well known Republican partisans, can get a tax free 527, when we all know they are partisan Republicans who are going to use the money to only get Republicans elected, and they even admit it. Which is just ridiculous, and if anyone should be investigated it's the people who let those 2 right-wing stooges get a tax free 527.

Economist Calls Neil Cavuto An Asshole
By: Steve - June 28, 2010 - 9:00am

Now this was a special moment in the history of cable news, the AFL-CIO Chief Economist Ron Blackwell called Neil Cavuto an asshole. And the only thing that could have possibly topped that, is if he had said it to O'Reilly. Of course, O'Reilly never has any actual economists on the Factor, let alone a Union economist, so that would never happen.

Here is what happened, and remember this, because if O'Reilly or anyone from Fox or the right-wing blogs report this, they will surely leave out all the details, and spin it like Blackwell said something Cavuto did not deserve.

Neil Cavuto had Ron Blackwell, AFL-CIO Chief Economist on to discuss unemployment and job creation. By the end of the interview Cavuto had demonstrated exactly why Democrats and progressives should never go on any Fox News show.

The interview turned into a ridiculous debate because Cavuto could not understand a simple fact. Cavuto kept crying about the number of jobs created by the Obama stimulus. And btw, Blackwell clearly admitted that there was a net loss of jobs, but that it would have been far worse without the stimulus.

Cavuto could not seem to get it. So Blackwell told Cavuto that the stimulus had created some jobs, but that more jobs were lost due to the recession than were created by the stimulus. Then Cavuto said (over and over) that because there was not a net increase in jobs that no jobs were created at all. Which is just flat out ridiculous right-wing spin, because some news jobs were created.

After repeated interruptions by Cavuto, as he only does to Democrats, and repeated requests by Blackwell that he be allowed to finish a thought, Cavuto insulted him. Then Blackwell called him an asshole, and man was it great:
CAVUTO: You're the chief economist there. Where did you get your degree? I mean...at a baking school? Where are you cooking up these numbers?

BLACKWELL: That's an insult. Forget about it. You're a joker. You're an asshole.

CAVUTO: So your answer to just answering a simple question is to curse at me?
Yeah right Neil, that was just a simple question. Wrong, you just insulted the Chief Economist for the AFL-CIO, that was not just a simple question, it was a downright insult, you right-wing jackass. And it was something you would never say to a Republican from say, the Club For Growth, who are the far right guys that you agree with on everything.

Not to mention Blackwell is right, if you pass a stimulus and 2 million news jobs are created, but the economy loses 2.2 million jobs because of the recession Bush caused btw, then you did create a million jobs, what part of that do you not understand. Cavuto is just a total right-wing idiot, or as Mr. Blackwell said, an asshole, and a big one.

Palin Legal Defense Fund Ruled Illegal
By: Steve - June 28, 2010 - 8:30am

June 24th, 2010 -- A legal defense fund set up for Sarah Palin when she was the Alaska governor was illegal, an investigator for the State Personnel Board said Thursday. The investigator, Timothy Petumenos, said the Alaska Fund Trust inappropriately used the word official on its Web site to describe it, wrongly implying Ms. Palin’s endorsement as governor.

Her lawyer said she would return the money from the fund, which brought in almost $390,000.

Now guess what Billy O'Reilly said and did in March of 2009:
March 31, 2009 -- Bill O'Reilly did a segment on what he called the frivolous ethics charges against Governor Palin, and the legal bills they're causing her to rack up.

After Lis Wiehl pointed out that politicians are not allowed to advertise these funds, and that the max contribution is $1000, O'Reilly promised that he would advertise the fund so she wouldn't have to, and contribute $1000 himself.
So the dumbass not only promoted it, he donated money to her illegal defense fund. Not to mention, what is a so-called non-partisan Independent doing promoting and donating money to a far right moron like Sarah Palin. Simple, he is a Republican who gives money to other Republicans.

And btw, Palin was found to be guilty on most of those ethics charges, so they were not frivolous, as O'Reilly and Palin both claimed. it looks to me like she just wanted someone to pay her legal fees, and O'Reilly fell for it, hook, line, and sinker. Like the stupid right-wing idiot he is.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Crime Rate Increases
By: Steve - June 28, 2010 - 8:00am

Almost every night O'Reilly does a segment on the new Arizona immigration law, he rails on and on about how much crime the illegals are doing in border states like Arizona, so that is why they had to pass the new law. O'Reilly claims that crime rates among illegals are going through the roof, to justify the new law, that he supports 100% btw.

But there is one small problem with all those claims from O'Reilly, it's all lies, every word of it. On June 19th, the NY Times reported this information, that comes right from the FBI and Border Patrol.

The rate of violent crime at the border, and across Arizona, has been declining, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as has illegal immigration, according to the Border Patrol. While thousands have been killed in Mexico's drug wars, raising anxiety that the violence will spread to the United States, F.B.I. statistics show that Arizona is relatively safe.

Judith Gans, who studies immigration at the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at the University of Arizona, said that what social psychologists call self-serving perception bias seemed to be at play.

She was not talking about O'Reilly when she said this, but it does paint an accurate picture of what O'Reilly is doing. She said people accept information that confirms their biases, and discard, ignore or rationalize information that does not. There is no better example than the role of crime in Arizona's tumultuous immigration debate.
GANS: If an illegal immigrant commits a crime, this confirms our view that illegal immigrants are criminals. If an illegal immigrant doesn't commit a crime, either they just didn't get caught or it's a fluke of the situation."

Their repeated characterization of illegal immigrants as criminals -- easy to do since they broke immigration laws -- makes it easy for people to ignore statistics.
Crime figures, in fact, present a more mixed picture, with the likes of Russell Pearce, the Republican state senator behind the immigration enforcement law, playing up the darkest side while immigrant advocacy groups like Coalicion de Derechos Humanos (Human Rights Coalition), based in Tucson, circulate news reports and studies showing that crime is not as bad as it may seem.

For instance, statistics show that even as Arizona's population swelled, violent crime rates declined, to 447 incidents per 100,000 residents in 2008, the most recent year for which comprehensive data is available from the F.B.I. In 2000, the rate was 532 incidents per 100,000.

Scott Decker, a criminologist at Arizona State University, said a battery of studies have suggested that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes, in part because they tend to come from interior cities and villages in their home country with low crime rates and generally try to keep out of trouble to not risk being sent home.

"Hard as it is to change the crime rate, it may be more difficult to change public perceptions about the crime rate, particularly when those perceptions are linked to public events," Mr. Decker said.

He added, "There is nothing more powerful than a story about a gruesome murder or assault that leads in the local news and drives public opinion that it is not safe anywhere."

Terry Goddard, the state attorney general, who does not support the immigration law, said he doubted that the immigration law would put a dent in the smuggling-related crime that grabs attention in the state.

Brian L. Livingston, executive director of the Arizona Police Association, said this, "We know the majority of people crossing the border are not criminal."

Which is the exact opposite of what O'Reilly claims, and notice that O'Reilly has never had Mr. Livingston on the Factor, he only has right-wing spin doctors on who agree with him that crime by illegals in border states is on the increase and out of control. When the facts show the crime rate in border states has went down since 2000. Stats that come right from the FBI and the Border Patrol.

O'Reilly Ignored Judge Story About Stock Ownership
By: Steve - June 27, 2010 - 9:00am

As anyone who watches the Factor on a regular basis knows, O'Reilly loves to attack judges that make political or corrupt rulings. In fact, he attacks judges who simply make a ruling he does not like, even if the judge was simply following the law.

And to be honest, most (probably 95%) of the judges he goes after were appointed by a Democrat. O'Reilly will name them, put their photo on the air, publish their phone number and e-mail address, and then slam them as bad judges on the air.

So when I heard last week that the U.S. District Court Judge, who declared the Obama administration's 6-month moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico illegal, owned stock in Exxon, Transocean, and other oil drilling companies, I asked myself, when will O'Reilly go after this right-wing judge.

So I watched the Factor all week, and to my surprise (haha, not) O'Reilly never said a word about him. Financial disclosure records show that in 2008 Judge Martin Feldman owned a host of energy stocks. And ThinkProgress has obtained Feldman's latest financial disclosure report -- for calendar year 2009.

The disclosure, which was filed just earlier this month, reveals that Feldman still owns Transocean stock. The report also indicates that Feldman owns a new stock that was not listed in his 2008 report, Exxon.

Funny how O'Reilly never mentioned any of that, I guess he just forgot, yeah that's it, he just forgot. And if you buy that one, I have some swampland to sell you.

Here is a list of Feldman's energy holdings:
Exxon
Ocean Energy
Provident Energy Trust
Peabody Energy Corp
Atlas Energy Resources
EV Energy Partners
Basic Energy Services
Petrohawk Energy Corp
Boardwalk Pipeline Partnership
Valero Energy Corp
Crosstex Energy
Noble Corp (offshore drilling company)
Judge Feldman's energy-investment income suggests a bias in favor of sustaining the fossil fuel energy industry. Think about this, the question that Feldman was asked to rule on was whether Obama's drilling moratorium inflicts an undue harm to the public interest.

But judge Feldman ruled that the suspension of deepwater drilling "simply cannot justify the immeasurable effect on the plaintiffs, the local economy, the Gulf region, and the critical present-day aspect of the availability of domestic energy in this country." The energy companies who filed suit against the administration arguing the importance of oil drilling for the economy probably didn't have to do much to convince Feldman to rule in their favor.

And btw, it was reported that Feldman sold his Exxon stock recently, though the timing of the sale is very unclear:
Judge Feldman says in a Wednesday letter to the administrative office that he sold his shares at the opening of the stock market on Tuesday, "prior to the opening of a court hearing on the spill moratorium case."
However, the hearing took place on Monday. A secretary for Judge Feldman said he was not available to explain the discrepancy. And even if he did sell his Exxon stock, what's to stop him from buying it back. The whole thing is fishy, and a perfect story for O'Reilly to report. And yet, he has ignored the entire story.

Now imagine if the judge was a Democrat who owned stock in solar power companies owned by Al Gore, then he ruled against George W. Bush over an energy issue. O'Reilly would scream bloody murder, do a 5 part investigation of the judge over a weeks time, and Gore, and call for the Feds to investigate.

But when a judge, who owns stock in energy and offshore drilling companies rules against Obama, O'Reilly is silent as a mouse. I guess that's some more of that fair and balanced no spin zone reporting, or non-reporting.

Palin Links To Article Comparing Obama To Hitler
By: Steve - June 27, 2010 - 8:30am

Bill O'Reilly, and pretty much everyone on the right said it was wrong to compare George W. Bush to Hitler, for 8 years O'Reilly said it was wrong, and called out any Democrat that did it. So now you have Sarah (braindead) Palin telling people to read an article by Thomas Sowell that compares President Obama to Hitler, and O'Reilly did not call her out, in fact, he never said a word about it.

Sarah Palin (R) lashed out at White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel on Twitter earlier this week, telling him "u lie" for saying that many Republicans agree with Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) that the White House shook down BP to create a $20 billion escrow fund to help Gulf families.

Of course, Barton's sentiment is not unique among conservatives, as Palin herself proved today. Taking to Twitter once again, Palin said this: "GOP: Don't let the lamestream media suck you into 'they're defending BP over Gulf spill victims' bs" She followed up by urging her followers to "read Thomas Sowell's article," which compares President Obama to Hitler.

Not to mention, Emanuel is 100% accurate, because most Republicans agree with the Barton apology, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, etc. Of course a few Republicans in Congress did speak out against the Barton apology, but they are in the minority, and they only did it to put a public spin on it, when you know behind closed doors they agree with Barton. So Palin is the liar, not Rahm Emanuel.

Limbaugh praised Barton's BP apology as a "home run."

Laura Ingraham: "Joe Barton, before he apologized, had a legitimate point" about BP being victims of the Obama administration's "shakedown."

JammieWearingFool: Barton's comments are "the truth."

Big Journalism: Barton's comments were a "relatively mild statement of fact, expressed inoffensively."

WSJ: Barton "rightly called" White House "pressure" on BP "a shakedown.

Napolitano: If government sues BP to require company to pay for workers' lost wages, "that's theft."

Beck: "You can't just change the law" to raise BP's liability cap, asks, "Is that what we fought the Nazis for?"

John Fund on the BP escrow account: "You better believe it's a shakedown."

Kristol: "BP is being persecuted by a demagogic congressional committee chairman."

Media Matters has identified at least 62 recent instances of media conservatives defending BP, 38 of which occurred on the Fox News Channel, Fox Business, the Fox Nation, or the talk shows of Fox News hosts.

If you read the Sowell article you will see that Sowell argues the escrow fund is just like the Enabling Act, which "gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people -- indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others."

Then on Tuesday, Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) endorsed Sowell's ludicrous Hitler-Obama comparison on House floor, calling the columnist brilliant, before quoting several lines from the piece. "It's difficult to overstate how absurd all of this is."

You have all that evidence, and 50 times more than that I did not show you, which proves that most Republicans support BP, and agree with Joe Barton. And yet, Palin tweets that Emanuel was lying when he said the GOP agrees with Barton, when Emanuel was telling the dead on truth.

O'Reilly Factor Video Insanity
By: Steve - June 27, 2010 - 8:00am

In crazy video #1 Chris Wallace repeats the absurd claim that ICE official Harold Hurtt is a sanctuary city guy.



Why did Wallace make that insane claim, because he has expressed concerns about local police in the field enforcing federal immigration law, concerns that are widely held among many law enforcement officers.

In fact, Houston (under Chief Hurtt) was not a sanctuary city, and he has said that in his role at ICE, "he will support local law enforcement agencies decision to participate in any ICE program of their choosing, even if it involves questioning suspects on the street about their status."

In crazy video #2 O'Reilly says the Obama appointment of Harold Hurtt to ICE shows that he is not serious about enforcing immigration law.



Even though hurtt has said he will enforce every ICE immigration law. And Houston cooperated with ICE when Hurtt was serving as their police chief. Hurtt said that at ICE, he will support local decisions on enforcement of immigration. O'Reilly ignored all that to claim he will not enforce immigration law, with no proof, he basically just made it up, and speculated his ass off. Hey Billy, why not wait and see if he does enforce it or not, before you unfairly attack the man.

In crazy video #3 O'Reilly has the idiotic Greg Gutfeld on to name his dumbest thing of the week, when he may be the dumbest man on tv, so as they say, people in glass houses should not throw stones. Gutfeld picked Robert Redford, and instead of discussing what Redford said, he just called him names. Gutfeld said he looks like an unlubricated catcher's mitt and an elderly woman.



Now think about this, O'Reilly calls that hard news, in the fair and balanced no spin zone. When it's nothing but right-wing lies, and insults over how someone looks. This is not news, it's not fair and balanced, and it's clearly not a no spin zone. So basically O'Reilly is a lying right-wing hack, who makes this garbage up in the hopes that someone will believe it.

Fox & Friends Are The Dumbest People On Earth
By: Steve - June 26, 2010 - 9:30am

On Wednesday Gretchen Carlson from the Fox & Friends show said her job at Fox is the exact same as the job the President of the United States does. Which is so ridiculous it's hard to believe an adult who works at a News Network would even say that.

Then her co-host Brian Kilmeade made a fool of himself with a crazy statement about a robot. Wednesday, after news broke that the cap BP placed on its leaking oil well had to be removed because one of its robots bumped the well's venting system, Kilmeade had some harsh words for the robot. He said this: "I'd love to talk to that robot that knocked the top off the cap that was in the bottom of the Gulf yesterday. What was that robot thinking?" he asked in disgust.

So then Jon Stewart from the Daily Show replied to Kilmeade:
STEWART: The BP guys, or the robot. Kilmeade. Robots don't think. They're machines. They don't cry. They don't fall in love. They can't be your girlfriend. They're f***in' robots. It's like talking to your toaster. "This English muffin is burnt! Why toaster!? Why?!?! Why have you done this to my breakfast?" Fox and Friends, I don't want to have to do this everyday.
Then you have this, both Carlson and Doocy are regulars on the O'Reilly Factor. Carlson is a culture warrior who does the weekly culture warrior segment with Margaret Hoover. And Doocy is a regular who takes the Factor News Quiz with Martha MacCallum. When Doocy is lucky to get 2 news question right, out of 5, and he worls for a fricking news network.

These 3 people, Brian Kilmeade, Gretchen Carlson, and Steve Doocy, are just flat out stupid. None of them are qualified to be in the journalism business, let alone host their own so-called news show. One guy was a former sports reporter, the other guy was a former weatherman, and the woman was a beauty contest winner.

They are just stupid right-wing fools, and Fox gives them their own show. If anyone believes one word they say, you should be in a padded room next to Glenn Beck, and I truly feel sorry for you.

The Friday 6-25-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 26, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Obama Confusion. O'Reilly just repeated his right-wing spin that the Obama administration has gone off the deep end, and is on the verge of collapse. Then O'Reilly said (for the millionth time) how he has been fair to President Obama, which is just ridiculous. It's the same old tired right-wing spin we hear from O'Reilly every night, and it's getting old very fast. O'Reilly claims Obama is confused on how to run the country, and told him to be far less liberal.

Then the right-wing Chris Wallace from Fox News Sunday was on to agree with O'Reilly's right-wing spin, which is exactly what he did. Wallace spent the whole segment saying O'Reilly is right about everything. So it was nothing but 2 right-wing spin doctors, sitting around telling each other how their spin is accurate and true. It's the old line, one lies and the other one swears to it. And O'Reilly calls that being fair to Obama, which is just laughable. What O'Reilly does is spin out this right-wing garbage, then have another right-winger on to agree with him, then it looks like everyone agrees with him, and that he is right. When the truth is, only other right-wing fools agree with either one of them.

Then Geraldo was on to talk about the McChrystal firing, Geraldo also blames the Rolling Stone reporter, just as O'Reilly does. Which is also ridiculous, the only person to blame is the General and his staff who were stupid enough to say that stuff to a fricking magazine reporter. Billy and Geraldo want to shoot the messenger, which is just stupid. O'Reilly even reported that 99% of all journalists say the Rolling Stone reporter did nothing wrong. Geraldo called the reporter a rat in an eagles nest, whatever the hell that means. O'Reilly called the reporter a far left radical hatchet man, and agreed with Geraldo that he is a rat. Then Geraldo and O'Reilly blame him anyway. Proving that both O'Reilly and Geraldo are just stupid, and that's about all I am going to say about this issue. The story is pretty much over, and yet these guys are still talking about it. Move on morons.

Then O'Reilly had the Democratic General Wes Clark on to discuss Afghanistan and the McChrystal firing. Which is so rare it's hard to believe he was on, Clark is a paid Fox News military analyst, but since he is a Democrat O'Reilly only has him on about two times a year, and this was one of those times. Clark said he is not going to second guess McChrystal, and that he would not have let a reporter follow him around. O'Reilly asked Clark if he would let him follow him around, and he said no, but he would let Dan Rather or Tom Brokaw follow him around. Which was a shot at O'Reilly and he knew it. Clark also said he will support whatever General Petraeus plans to do in Afghanistan. Clark tried to explain to O'Reilly what we have to do in Afghanistan, but it was like talking to a wall. Clark said it's 70% about Pakistan, and O'Reilly actually agreed with that, which is the only thing he agreed with.

Then O'Reilly did a segment with the right-wing Dana Perino and the liberal Leslie Marshall, trashing the Obama labor secretary. And of course Perino agreed with O'Reilly, but she did admit that the Obama labor secretary was right about paying fair wages to everyone, even illegal immigrants. Who btw, O'Reilly calls illegal aliens, when the proper term is undocumented workers, which is the term the CEO of Fox News Rupert Murdoch used on Wednesday.

The fake liberal Leslie Marshall half agreed with O'Reilly, which proves she is not a real liberal, she is a moderate Democrat. In fact, both guests half disagreed with O'Reilly, even Perino, and O'Reilly called it insanity. Marshall did make one good point, she said who is going to pay to deport all these illegals, and O'Reilly has no answer for that. Just like the new $700 million dollar prison in California, it sits there empty, because they do not have the money to staff it, and the federal Government will not pay for it. O'Reilly and all his crazy right-wing friends want all this stuff done, but they don't fund it, and they don't want to pay for it.

Then O'Reilly had the crazy Glenn Beck on to talk politics, and of course O'Reilly also promoted his stupid book, that book critics have called a total waste of time to read. Beck said Obama did something right for once, by firing McChrystal. And that was the only thing he could think of that Obama has done right. Crazy O'Reilly said a stronger President could have let McChrystal keep his job. Which is just insanity, and nobody thinks that but O'Reilly. And btw, O'Reilly talked about a story Beck reported about flies that are swarming the White House. Huh? How the hell is that news? They spent 2 minutes talking about his nonsense. Beck claims Obama is Dr. Doolittle. And he wonders why people say he is crazy, O'Reilly even pointed out that this kind of stuff is why they write that he is crazy.

Finally, it was dumbest things of the week, with Greg Gutfeld and Juliet Huddy. And as I like to say, this segment is the dumbest thing of the week, except for the Beck segment. If you want to see how dumb Great Gutfeld is, just watch Red Eye on Fox at 2 am one night. Huddy cried about Jerry Seinfeld saying Lady Gaga is a jerk for stripping and giving people the finger at a yankees game.

Earth to Huddy, who cares, he is a COMEDIAN. And how is it dumb, he was right, she is a jerk, and she did it in his private box when he was not there. Gutfeld slammed Robert Redford for blaming the BP oil spill on Dick cheney. Except Redford is right, and Gutfeld is an idiot, then all Gutfeld did was make jokes about Redford's looks. O'Reilly was mad at Chris Rock for saying it's ok to let bullies bully people on the View. Dear Bill O'Reilly, Chris Rock is a COMEDIAN, who cares what he said, nobody, but you.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And my God, this entire show was nothing but an hour long smear job on Obama and his administration, with almost all right-wing spin doctors. What the hell happened to that fair and balanced claim, it's a fraud. Over the last 3 shows O'Reilly has had about 22 Republicans and 5 Democrats, that's not balance, and it's not even close.

Memo To Lying Right-Wing Media
By: Steve - June 26, 2010 - 8:30am

Following the resignation/firing of Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, most of the right-wing media have falsely suggested that Gen. David Petraeus, who will replace McChrystal, does not support the rules of engagement being used in conducting the war. In fact, Petraeus has repeatedly expressed his support both for the rules, and for the principal of prioritizing protection of civilian lives.

The usual right-wing idiots are spreading this lie, Gretchen Carlson, Ann Coulter, Dennis Miller, etc. Miller even said it on the June 23rd O'Reilly Factor. He said this: "Petraeus is going to come in and he's going to commence the killing. And we've got some Jane Austen rules of engagement in Afghanistan, and if he can tighten those up a little, Petraeus is going to be a help to us there."

Too bad it's all lies, here is what Petraeus said. In a March 17 hearing, General Petraeus noted that the "loss of civilian life" "was threatening to undermine" the Afghanistan strategy and described the rules of engagement as being similar to what "we went through in Iraq."

In a March 17 congressional hearing, Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) asked Petraeus, "Would you say that these rules of engagement that we are in a situation where maybe, at some point in time, they need to be reconsidered?" Petraeus responded, regarding "the issue of the tactical directive issued first by General McKiernan and then refined by General McChrystal":
This was issued because the loss of innocent civilian life in the course of military operations was threatening to undermine the very strategy, the very policy that we were endeavoring to carry out in Afghanistan.

And after an enormous amount of, again, very careful analysis and review and so forth, this directive was published. Now, right up front in it, it says that no one is ever denied the right to self defense, nor will we ever hesitate, if someone is pinned down by fire, in responding to ensure that those troopers never feel as if they're fighting with their hands tied behind their back.

Having said that, there are tactical situations in which, if you're not pinned down and decisively engaged and can break contact because you don't know precisely who is in the house from which there may be a fire on you, where you hesitate in dropping a bomb or reconsider because there may be innocent civilians. And we have had a number of cases in which that has happened. And there cases recently, in fact, again, and we have to reduce these cases.

But we will not do it by risking the lives of our soldiers. And so that's the balance that we have to strike. This is not uncommon to us. We went through this in Iraq as well. And there are cases where you literally back out of a fight rather than continue to prosecute it, as long as you can do that, if you're not sure exactly who might be on the receiving end of a 500-pound bomb or attack helicopter or hellfires or something like that.

So that's what we're trying to achieve.
And in a June 17th Congressional hearing, General Petraeus described the rules of engagement as "living our values."
PETRAEUS: But, you know, we are about living our values. And every time we have taken expedient measures, not only has it been wrong, we have also paid a price for it in terms of it biting us in the backside in the long run. And so that's -- again, we have to be aware that they will use our reluctance to kill innocent civilians, if you will, or to risk the lives of innocent civilians in the course of these operations.
And finally, a June 24th Reuters article reported that Afghan leaders "did not expect the shake-up to bring strategic changes." According to the article, General Zaher Azimi, a spokesman for the Afghan defense ministry, said "We expect Petraeus to follow McChrystal's assessment, which has reduced civilian casualties, brought down arrests and house searches and involved coordination on operations."

Shep Smith Slams Napolitano For Defending BP
By: Steve - June 26, 2010 - 8:00am

Why would anyone stick up for BP when they have a 6% approval rating, yes I said 6% approval. Who knows, but that is what Napolitano and a lot of idiots at Fox are doing. So Shepard Smith slammed the former judge.



And btw, from what I have seen, Shepard Smith is the only person at Fox News who even half way tries to be fair and balanced. He is not perfect, and I have seen a little right-wing bias from him, but not much, and if everyone at Fox was like him, they would almost be fair and balanced.

The Thursday 6-24-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 25, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called President Obama on The Decline. And once again, for maybe the millionth time O'Reilly claims the Obama job approval ratings are on the decline. Which is just another right-wing lie from the king of lies Bill O'Reilly. The Obama job approval is around 50%, as it has been since August of 2009, there is no decline, O'Reilly just made it up. It does go down a few points once in a while, then it goes back up, but O'Reilly only reports the down days. It's dishonest, it's bias, and it's right-wing propaganda.

Billy claims the mainstream media is propping Obama up, because they sense he is going down, which is just ridiculous. And get this, O'Reilly normally uses the Rasmussen poll to claim the Obama numbers are down, but this time he did not use it, because Rasmussen has Obama at 48% approval. So he went to the bogus Wall Street Journal poll, that has Obama at 45% approval. Then O'Reilly claimed Obama is done because once you drop to 45% it's over. Which is crazy, and btw, Ronald Reagan was at 45% approval at this time of his first term.

Then the insane far right Laura Ingraham was on to discuss it. She talked about McChrystal first, and even she admitted he had to be replaced. And btw, in the TPM O'Reilly cited the Newsbusters blog to smear the media over their pro-Obama reporting, which is a far right blog that spins everything to the right. Funny how he never disclosed that, yeah right. Basically they spent the whole segment talking about the McChrystal firing and Afghanistan.

O'Reilly said we do not know if we are winning or not in Afghanistan. But 3 years ago he said Bush already won the war in Afghanistan, now he is not sure, simply because we have a Democratic President now. And once again O'Reilly said McChrystal should not have been fired. Then O'Reilly and Ingraham trashed the media for what they called pro-Obama reporting, for saying he made a good move to fire McChrystal. How is that a pro-Obama bias, when it's true, and even some Republicans are saying Obama did the right thing. Watching O'Reilly and Ingraham is like watching the twilight zone, or the movie dumb and dumber.

Then O'Reilly had Dr. Marc Lamont Hill on to discuss it. And of course he disagreed with almost everything O'Reilly and Ingraham said. But he can not disagree very strongly because then O'Reilly will never invite him back on the show. One thing I do not like is that Dr. Hill did not point out how O'Reilly cherry picks polls to smear Obama. But if he did, O'Reilly would probably kick him off the show. Hill agreed it was a low point for Obama, but he did not agree on some of the other things. Hill called the firing of McChrystal a smart move. Hill also did not agree the Obama administration is going south, as O'Reilly claims it is. And Dr. Hill pointed out that the Reagan approval was lower than Obama at this time in his first term, which of course O'Reilly brushed off and dismissed.

And then O'Reilly had the right-wing Sara Carter on to discuss the drug war along the Mexican border, O'Reilly claims it is spilling into America, and asked what we should do about it. This is just more fear tactics from O'Reilly and the right to drum up support for crazy immigration laws like Arizona passed. The so-called spillover, turned out to be threats against a few police, that are claims made by a Republican Sheriff who is not even on the border, so it has not spilled into the US.

Next up were the 2 Republican culture warriors, Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover were on to discuss strippers in New Orleans asking for some of the $20 billion BP victims fund. And who else but the old pervert O'Reilly would even report this worthless story, nobody. O'Reilly ran stripper video to tease this story all through the show, at least 3 or 4 times. It's all about R-A-T-I-N-G-S, instead of reporting real news. Hoover said they should get some of the money. Carlson said she does not care if they get any money or not, because it's not taxpayer money, and then she said she would give them the money. Then O'Reilly trashed the Fathers day website Obama promoted, O'Reilly called it stupid. Hoover and Carlson both disagreed with O'Reilly.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to discuss the Obama administration moving forward to sue the State of Arizona over their new immigration law. Basically they both trashed Obama for doing it, and then Megyn Kelly said it will depend on the judge, but she also said she thinks the law is on the side of the state of Arizona. O'Reilly called it a war, which is beyond ridiculous, it's not war moron, it's a fricking legal case.

And in the last segment it was the ever ridiculous, and massive waste of time, Factor News Quiz with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum. That O'Reilly calls the Great American News Quiz, which is just laughable. Because it's a stupid news quiz, taken by two right-wing morons from Fox who usually get most of the answers wrong, and they work for a news network, or as some people say, a so-called news network.

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

Fox Is A Propaganda Outlet For BP Misinformation
By: Steve - June 25, 2010 - 8:30am

Media Matters for America has compiled a list of myths and falsehoods about the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, all of which have been pushed by Fox News. Here is a partial list:

Myth: Obama waited weeks before responding to the oil spill

Myth: Moratorium is not needed because oil companies are equipped to handle spill

Myth: BP was only drilling "out there" because environmentalists and the federal government "made them" do it

Myth: Obama, unlike Bush, "was off on vacation" during crisis

Myth: "Ridiculous" and "offensive" to blame Bush for spills

Myth: Obama is the "single largest recipient of BP's cash"

Myth: Obama admin turning away foreign aid by refusing to waive union-supported Jones Act

Myth: Obama admin defied Constitution when they "told" BP to create escrow account

Myth: Obama admin unreasonably delayed purchase of Maine company's oil boom

Myth: Obama unnecessarily delayed berm plan

Myth: Coast Guard docked oil-collecting barges for no good reason

And here are a few documented examples:

-- BP was victim of a "shakedown." On at least 10 occasions, Fox figures criticized BP's escrow account as an Obama "shakedown" or "slush fund."

-- Investigations of BP are McCarthyist "witch trials." Fox figures criticized congressional and criminal investigations into BP on at least nine occasions.

-- Obama administration has "demonized" BP. On at least nine instances, Fox figures attacked Obama for "demonizing" BP.

-- Conspiracy theories about the oil spill. Media Matters identified at least four instances in which conspiracy theories about the oil spill were raised on Fox's networks. For example, on the May 27 edition of Fox Business' Happy Hour, host Eric Bolling asked guest Alan Colmes, "Are you sure they didn't let the oil spill leak so he could renege on his promise to allow some offshore drilling?"

Myth: BP was only drilling "out there" because environmentalists and the federal government "made them" do it

Fox News Claim: Several Fox News figures, including Sarah Palin, Charles Krauthammer, Steve Doocy, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly, have claimed that, as Hannity put it, BP "should have been in ANWR and shallower waters, and environmentalists pushed us out there." Fox News contributors Andrew Napolitano and Bill Kristol, and Fox guest Mike Flynn have blamed the federal government for, in Flynn's words, "making them drill in water that deep."

REALITY: Deep-water regions feature vast oil reserves that make such drilling potentially lucrative. According to the U.S. Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service, the "best source of new domestic energy resources lies in the deep water." The deepwater region of the Gulf has also been identified as "probably the most promising area in United States-controlled territory."

Myth: Obama is the "single largest recipient of BP cash"

Fox News Claim: "Largest single donation" "from BP" has gone to Obama. After Palin suggested a connection between "contributions made to President Obama and his administration and the support by the oil companies to the administration," Doocy said that "when it comes down to the single largest recipient of BP cash, Palin is absolutely right ... it was Barack Obama."

FACT: Obama presidential campaign took no money from BP's PAC. Obama received $71,051 in contributions from BP employees during his presidential campaign. Obama's presidential campaign received no funds from BP's PAC or from the company itself. A CRP spokesman confirmed that "the $71,051 that Obama received during the 2008 election cycle was entirely from BP employees." The spokesman also stated that "Obama did not accept contributions from political action committees, so none of this money is from BP's PAC."

FACT: Obama raised more than $744 million for his presidential campaign. The $71,051 he received from BP's employees accounts for less than .01 percent of Obama's total presidential campaign contributions.

Myth: Obama admin turned down foreign assistance in dealing with oil cleanup

Fox News Claim: Obama's refusal to waive the Jones Act has prevented international assistance. Fox News Dick Morris, Bill O'Reilly and Oliver North have similarly asserted that Obama's purported refusal to waive the Jones Act has prevented the United States from accepting aid from foreign ships.

REALITY: International assistance is part of the Gulf spill response. In an interview on the June 15 edition of Fox & Friends, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs stated that "foreign entities are operating within the Gulf that help us respond" to the oil spill.

In a June 15 press release, the Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center stated, "Currently, 15 foreign-flagged vessels are involved in the largest response to an oil spill in U.S. history." The Center further explained, "No Jones Act waivers have been granted because none of these vessels have required such a waiver to conduct their operations in the Gulf of Mexico."

The administration has further stated that they would waive the Jones Act if waivers were requested, but that "there are no pending requests for foreign vessels to come into the Gulf."

And that's not all, I could go on and on and on, it's all lies put out by Fox News, including Bill O'Reilly. None of it is true, and they know it, yet they report it anyway, then they have the nerve to say they are fair and balanced, which is just laughable.

Laura Ingraham Still Lying About BP Oil Spill Aid
By: Steve - June 25, 2010 - 8:00am

Laura Ingraham, who is a Factor regular for political analysis, and the fill-in host for O'Reilly, is still lying about international aid in the BP oil spill cleanup.

Crazy Ingraham has repeatedly falsely suggested that no international aid has been used in response to the Gulf oil spill because President Obama has not waived the Jones Act, even after White House press secretary Robert Gibbs informed her and Fox that this was not the case, they are still lying about it.



Fact: There are currently 15 foreign-flagged vessels in the Gulf responding to the spill -- each of which did not require Jones Act waivers -- and Fox News itself has even reported that foreign technology is being used as part of the response.

And it's not just Ingraham, Beck, Hannity, and almost everyone at Fox has repeated this lie. Even after it's been proven to be untrue, they still repeat the lie, over and over.

The Wednesday 6-23-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 24, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Was Obama Right to Fire McChrystal? O'Reilly asked if Obama was right to get rid of McChrystal, as if anyone did not think he should have. Of course he was right to get rid of McChrystal, because he broke the rules, so he must go. Even most Republicans said he must go, so the question is just stupid. Then O'Reilly blamed the reporter from Rolling Stone for McChrystal getting fired, which is crazy, he got himself fired for what he said. O'Reilly also said this:
O'REILLY: The whole McChrystal deal is bad for the country and bad for the military, but maybe General Petraeus can save the day, as he did in Iraq. However, the truth is that there is chaos in America on almost every front, and that is never a good thing.
How is it bad for the country, nobody cares that McChrystal got fired, except maybe him and his family. And what's this nonsense about chaos in America on every front, where, how, when, show me. Things are pretty good here, the economy is improving, the jobs are slowly coming back, and the stock market is doing well too. O'Reilly is just an idiot, what chaos, other than the BP oil spill, things are in pretty good shape here. And btw, O'Reilly said Afghanistan was Obama's war, which is beyond ridiculous and total right-wing bias, it's Bush's war, and that is a fact. Obama is just trying to deal with the mess Bush left him.

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing idiot Dick Morris on, and he speculated that the McChrystal controversy could hurt President Obama with his liberal base. Which is just madness, I am his liberal base and I could care less about the McChrystal firing, I say don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, and who cares. Morris also said the liberals are mad at Obama for not stopping the oil leak and they're mad at Obama for fighting in Afghanistan. That's another lie, we are not mad at Obama for not stopping the oil leak, we are mad at BP for causing it, and we are mad at BP for not stopping it. In fact, I would bet you can not find one liberal who is mad at Obama for not stopping the oil leak. Morris is just a clueless idiot.

Then O'Reilly had the Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, who is a Republican, and Senator Joe Lieberman on to discuss it. Cohen endorsed President Obama's change of commanders. "The comments that General McChrystal and his aides made, were contemptuous of the entire administration team and there was no way any president could ignore that. It's not a question of whether you agree with the President's policy, you must respect the office under all circumstances. Otherwise, it cuts to the core of civilian control of our military. President Obama made the right decision."

Now get this, O'Reilly questioned whether McChrystal's punishment fit the crime, he said this: "Soldiers in the field are always grousing and no general gets everything he wants. This wasn't anything unusual, but it was captured by this Rolling Stone guy who obliterated the commander in the field. It's disturbing."

Grousing? Get a clue man, the General can grouse all day, but when he does it to a reporter, he gets groused out of his job. And the only person to blame is him, not the reporter who reported it, you fool. Even the stupid Joe Lieberman said Obama did the right thing. O'Reilly called President Karzai a corrupt midget, and said it's a big mess. But a few years ago O'Reilly said we have already won in Afghanistan, and he complained that the left would not give George W. Bush credit for the victory. Now the biased idiot says it's a mess, calls it Obama's war, and claims we can not win because of the corruption by Karzai. Which is what liberals said 3 years ago, but then O'Reilly said that was crazy, and called us Bush hating, America hating, traitors, and now he is saying the same damn thing.

Then the body language bimbo was on to do some body language readings, which I refuse to report on because it's not news. And after than nonsense Dennis Miller was on to make jokes about Obama and other Democrats, simply because the mostly right-wing Factor viewers like it. Which I also refuse to report on, because it's not news, and has nothing to do with any news.

And finally O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to talk about the Rolling Stone article on General McChrystal. He said this: "I don't think Rolling Stone did anything wrong, unless they used something that was off the record or unless they made stuff up. It isn't the role of the journalist to do PR for the military or to protect a soldier's career. If I'm in a bar with McChrystal and his boys and they start saying the things they said, I'm going to report it. This reporter is an unabashed card-carrying lefty, and it just amazes me that a general could be so breathtakingly unsophisticated as to do an interview with these guys. But I don't blame Rolling Stone."

What's funny is during the segment Goldberg and O'Reilly attacked the media for being biased in their reporting, and they said the Factor is the only fair and balanced news show on tv, which is so funny I almost fell off my chair laughing.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, not one Democratic guest was on the show to discuss the firing of General McChrystal, so much for that fair and balanced claim O'Reilly and Goldberg made.

O'Reilly Compares Obama To Jimmy Carter
By: Steve - June 24, 2010 - 9:30am

O'Reilly is rapidly going into Glenn Beck land with this right-wing garbage. Now he claims Obama is in Jimmy Carterville, and that he only fired McChrystal to keep people from thinking he is a wimp.



And think about this, during the 8 years of George W. Bush, O'Reilly is the guy who called anyone who ever spoke out against Bush, or called him a name, an America hating traitor. Now he not only does not have that standard anymore, he is the one calling the President names.

Not to mention, during the Bush years George W. Bush fired a liberal General who spoke out against him, but of course O'Reilly praised that firing, and never once said he did it to avoid being thought of as a wimp. Good job O'Reilly, you win the hypocrite of the century award.

And btw, not once has O'Reilly called anyone an America hating traitor for speaking out against Obama, or calling him names. Because now it's being done by people on the right to a Democratic President, and that's ok with O'Reilly. Proving once again that he is nothing but a biased right-wing hack, and a massive hypocrite.

Right-Wing Newspaper Smears Kagan With Bogus Photo
By: Steve - June 24, 2010 - 9:00am

And what a shocker, O'Reilly has not said one word about it. Now just imagine what he would say if the NY Times did this to a Republican, he would go nuts, and report it every night for a week. But since a right-wing newspaper did it, he ignores the entire story.



In a Washington Times op-ed run alongside a doctored photo of Kagan in a turban (pictured above), frank Gaffney ropes Kagan into a bizarre fantasy involving Shariah law, the Muslim Brotherhood, and, somehow, the beleaguered Troubled Assets Relief Progam.

Drawing Beck-like conspiratorial connections between Obama's judicial nominees and plots to destroy America appears to be a conservative hobby. Both the Washington Times and Sean Hannity called district court nominee Judge Edward Chen "another Obama nominee who doesn't appear to love America" because Chen correctly worried that the 9/11 attacks would harm race relations and religious tolerance in the United States.

Gaffney is just another right-wing idiot that makes up this garbage to smear Democrats. And O'Reilly helps these morons by not reporting on it, because he is one of them, and he likes what they do, he just can not publically support them, because then he proves he is not an Independent, and he has to pretend to be fair and balanced, when we all know he's not.

Bill O'Reilly Headline Generator (Very Funny)
By: Steve - June 24, 2010 - 8:30am

Hey folks, James Wright over at dilhole.net has created a funny headline generator that does fake headlines from O'Reilly, you should check it out when you get a chance.

www.dilhole.net/billoreilly.php

Factor Regular Dick Morris Caught Lying Again
By: Steve - June 24, 2010 - 8:00am

Here is conclusive proof that Dick Morris is nothing but a lying right-wing propagandist. And guess what, he is a Factor regular for political analysis. O'Reilly has him on at least once a week to give his political analysis of different issues. And the guy is a proven liar, but O'Reilly still has him on every week anyway.

Dick Morris wrote this on Wednesday June 23rd, 2010:
Obama's Numbers Plunge as He Drowns in Oil

Wednesday, 23 Jun 2010 08:29 AM

By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Drowning in oil, the Obama administration is pulling out all the stops to halt the hemorrhaging of liberal support which is driving his ratings down to the low 40s -- previously unexplored territory.

Obama has already lost all the Republicans and almost all of the independents. But he has kept his head above water with the solid support of liberal Democrats and African-Americans. But now that the Gulf oil spill enters its eighth week, with no sign of abating, he is shedding Democrats.

Rapidly.
And now the truth:

I can not find any polls that have Obama in the low 40's, even the totally biased right-wing Rasmussen poll has Obama at 48% approval. And the Fox News poll has Obama at 46% approval. Just look at the actual poll numbers I found from June.

ABC/Washington Post - 52%
Ipsos/McClatchy - 50%
USA Today/Gallup - 50%
AP-GfK - 50%
CNN/ORC - 50%
Gallup - 49%
Rasmussen - 48%
FOX/OD - 46%

Obama is also NOT shedding Democrats, he has an 80% approval rating among Democrats, which is about the same as it's been for a year, or more. He has not lost the Independents either, except the right-leaning Independents, who are actually Republicans that claim to be Independent. The only group he has lost is Republicans who hate him, because he is a Democrat, and because he is black. So Morris is lying about that too.

Notice that only Fox and Rasmussen have Obama under 49% approval, that alone shows you how biased they are, because all the other polls have Obama at 49% or higher. And O'Reilly never reports any of those polls, he only reports what Rasmussen has, proving he is a biased right-wing hack.

Morris and O'Reilly just make it up, and then they hope someone will believe it without checking to see if they are telling the truth. Which they are not, the Obama job approval rating is holding steady around 50%, and it has not changed for almost a year. He was at 50% in August of 2009, and he is still around 50% now.

The Tuesday 6-22-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 23, 2010 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Gen. McChrystal Under Fire. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: General Stanley McChrystal, is being called back to Washington because of an article in Rolling Stone magazine. In the piece, an unnamed aide to McChrystal disparages President Obama for being unprepared in an Afghan briefing. In my opinion, the article is tepid, not explosive at all, but the President is angry. There is only one time Gen. McChrystal is quoted bad-mouthing someone - he mocks presidential adviser Richard Holbrooke.

All the other stuff is allegedly from his aides. I say 'allegedly' because Rolling Stone magazine did a piece on me a few years ago and it was a total hatchet job. However, to be fair to Rolling Stone, Gen. McChrystal has not denied anything in the article. The situation is awful - we have Americans dying in Afghanistan and now the commander is on the carpet because of Rolling Stone!

But as bad as the Afghan situation is becoming, the overall picture for the United States is getting worse by the day: Oil spill, chaos; Mexican border, chaos; the economy, shaky; and now this mess in Afghanistan. This is the low point for the Obama administration. Is it all the President's fault? No, but plenty of it is."
Some of that is true, and some of it is right-wing spin. Like the part where O'Reilly claims Rolling Stone did a hatchet job on him, that's a lie, they simply told the truth about him, and he did not like it, so he called it a hatchet job, when it was all true. And this crap about the picture for the USA getting worse by the day, that's ridiculous, and if a Democrat had said that under Bush O'Reilly would have called them an America hating traitor.

Then O'Reilly had 3 Republicans on to discuss it, Lt. Col. David Shaffer, Lt. Col. David Hunt, and Major Garrett. The 2 military experts said it was wrong for McChrystal and his aides to say what they did. Col. Hunt said they should be fired. Major Garrett reported that Obama and the White House are unhappy, wow, tell us something we don't know next time. O'Reilly questioned whether General McChrystal's offense should cost him his job, he said this: "If you read the article closely, there is no direct disparagement of the President by General McChrystal. I'd hate to lose a good general because of this nonsense."

Then O'Reilly did a ridiculous segment on Obama, asking if he is focused enough on the job of being President. O'Reilly and Monica Crowley implied Obama is taking too many vacations, and not spending enough time on his job. Which is just crazy, because Bush set the record for vacations, and back then both Crowley and O'Reilly defended him, now they trash Obama for taking a vacation once in a while, and not even close to as many as Bush had. Back then they argued the President can do his job anywhere at any time, because of technology that allows the President to be in power and make decisions wherever he is at.

Crowley even said Obama is taking a vacation every 5 minutes, which is just insane, and total lies. Colmes defended Obama, and said this: "Unless the far right can come up with something other than this and actually come up with something of substance, this is silly."

And then for some crazy reason O'Reilly had John Stossel on to talk about the BP oil spill, when he is not an oil spill expert, he's just a right-wing hack. And the crazy stossel said this: "BP is despicable, so I am not on their side. But I object to President Obama saying he would meet with BP and 'inform them' that they should set aside $20 billion. That is a Chicago shakedown! We didn't need to do that - we have laws and these guys are going to pay much more than $20 billion. This is like Venezuela, it's thuggish, and it's not democracy."

Wow, he is an idiot. Stossel and Joe Barton should meet up and cry about shakedowns and slush funds, they can call it the dumb and dumber summit. Obama simply asked BP to set up a oil spill fund, and they agreed, it was a good thing, and even O'Reilly said it was the best thing Obama has done in the whole deal. About all this did was prove that Stossel is a far right lunatic, along with Barton and Bachmann, etc.

Then the is it legal segment with the 2 Republican legal experts. They talked about a 6 to 3 decision, where the Supreme Court ruled American citizens can not help terrorists, even with words and advice. Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle dissected the ruling. "The court said that Americans can not give any kind of material support to known terrorist groups," Wiehl said, "and that includes legal advice. If you do it, you can get fifteen years."

The Factor called out the three dissenting judges: "They would allow you to lose your life for a principle. It's just nuts!" The Court also ruled against a California police chief who claimed his rights were violated when he was disciplined for using a department phone to send text messages to his mistress. "The Supreme Court voted 9 to 0 on this one," Guilfoyle reported. "He sent 1,000 texts to his mistress, so this was not unreasonable and it was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment."

Here is what gets me, the terrorist ruling was 6 to 3, so it passed, and yet O'Reilly is still mad at the 3 people that voted no. Wow, get over it man, your side won, enjoy it and stop attacking judges that voted in a way you did not like. And btw, I am a liberal and I agree with the 6 who ruled on it, so stop saying all liberals were against the ruling. I say if it is proven in court that an American helped a terrorist, in any way, they should go to jail, for a long long time.

And finally O'Reilly had the far right Charles Krauthammer on to slam Obama, as he usually does. O'Reilly asked him about the General McChrystal situation, with no Democratic guest of course. Then crazy Krauthammer said this: "It will be very bad for the country if McChrystal gets fired, but if Obama fired him he would be standing on solid ground. Nonetheless, I think it would be a mistake because we are at an absolutely critical point in the war."

The good Dr. K also offered a bleak diagnosis of the Obama administration and its many challenges. "This is what happens when you elect a professor and community organizer to the presidency. He won on rhetoric and promises and vision, but the essence of the presidency is managing the crises that you never thought would happen. He knows how to talk, he knows how to give speeches, but he doesn't know how to govern, and that's why things are in chaos."

And that is what you call biased right-wing political analysis, with nobody to provide the balance, or give the counterpoint. Only Republican think that way, the rest of the country thinks Obama is doing a pretty good job, he just happened to have to deal with all the things Bush screwed up, and the oil spill. yet these right-wing idiots blame it all on Obama, and claim he is not doing a good job, it's ridiculous, and nothing but GOP propaganda.

Not to mention, O'Reilly should be ashamed of himself for doing all this right-wing propaganda, with almost no Democrats to counter what the right is saying.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. Now get this, O'Reilly named Kevin Costner the pinhead, here is what he said: "And the Pinhead: Kevin Costner, who claims to have a machine that could help clean up the oil spill, but has ducked repeated invitations to appear on The Factor."

Let me get this straight, Kevin Costner has a machine that can help clean up the oil in the Gulf, which is a good thing, but somehow in O'Reillyworld he is a pinhead because he will not go on the Factor to talk about it. Wow, that is just pure insanity, and as I have said a million times, Bill O'Reilly is a fricking idiot.

News You Will Never See On The Factor
By: Steve - June 23, 2010 - 9:30am

Recently O'Reilly said you should not blame George W. Bush for anything to do with the cause of the Gulf oil spill, or anything else for that matter. O'Reilly said Obama has been the President for over a year, so it's all on him now, and it's time to stop blaming Bush.

What O'Reilly fails to mention is that almost everyone does blame Bush, for the nations economic problems, and for the massive deficit. O'Reilly is so busy covering for his good buddy George W. Bush that he lets the facts get in the way.

To begin with, in a Rasmussen poll, the biased right-wing Rasmussen, a June 16th telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows that 47% still blame today's economic problems on the recession that began during the presidency of George W. Bush, and 45% say they're due to the policies of President Obama.

So even in a biased right-wing poll, more people still blame Bush than Obama for the current economic problems. Something O'Reilly never reports, even though Rasmussen is his favorite pollster. And btw, most other polls have it at 60% Bush, to 40% Obama, or even more blame Bush, I have seen the number as high as 62% for Bush, as recently as last week.

Then we move on to the federal deficit, O'Reilly and the Republicans are blaming it all on Obama. O'Reilly said Obama is bankrupting the country by running up massive deficits. Basically O'Reilly and the right blame the deficits all on Obama.

Except there is one little problem with that, it's all a lie, in fact, the entire deficit for the next 10 years is all because of Bush.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities did an analysis of the deficit in December of 2009, which was revised on February 17, 2010, and they found that the tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic downturn together, explain the entire deficit over the next ten years.
Here is a quote from their report:
Some critics charge that the new policies pursued by President Obama and the 111th Congress caused the huge federal budget deficits that the nation now faces. In fact, the tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic downturn together explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years.
For the record, Nobody is disputing their analysis, or their numbers. The Republicans just avoid talking about it, or even mentioning the report, because it kills their spin that the deficit is all Obama's fault. Notice that O'Reilly has never said a word about it, he just ignores it because it shows the truth.

And btw, if you go back and look at every President from Obama back to Eisenhower in 1953, the Republican Presidents created higher deficits than the Democratic Presidents. Which is another fact O'Reilly never reports.

President Obama Job Approval Numbers
By: Steve - June 23, 2010 - 9:00am

I am posting this information to show what a lying right-wing fraud of a journalist Bill O'Reilly is, for saying the Obama job approval numbers are going down and down and down. When in fact, there has been almost no change in his approval numbers over the last 10 months.

Gallup is the most trusted polling company in America, and they have a daily tracking poll on the Obama job approval ratings. As of (6-22-10) they have the Obama job approval at 49 percent.

Now if you go back to August of 2009 the Obama job approval was 50 percent. So that's only a 1 point drop in 10 months, and the poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 points, so the actual rating could be 52 percent.

That means the Obama job approval rating has been virtually the same for almost a year. Which kills the O'Reilly spin that his approval numbers keep dropping and dropping. And last week Dick Morris even said his approval was 40 percent, but I can not find any poll that says that, even the biased Rasmussen poll has Obama at 43 percent approval.

Proving that O'Reilly and Morris are both dishonest right-wing partisan hacks, who spin and lie to make President Obama look bad.

Bill (Pervert) O'Reilly Obsessed With Cyrus & Gaga
By: Steve - June 23, 2010 - 8:30am

To begin with, here is my question. Why does O'Reilly care what outfits the 17 year old Miley Cyrus wears. If you ask me, it's kind of creepy.

On Monday night O'Reilly named Miley Cyrus a pinhead for wearing sexy outfits on stage. And while he was doing it he showed video of her dancing around in the sexy outfit, which is really creepy.

O'Reilly even said her management should talk to her and get her to wear less sexy clothes, because she is a role model for young girls. Excuse me, who does he think he is, God. Earth to Bill (the old pervert) O'Reilly, shut the hell up. The only person who can decide what she wears is Miley Cyrus, it's her life, and her career. And frankly, it's none of your business, and very creepy that a man of your age would even care what she wears.

Then on the same show O'Reilly invited Lady Gaga on the Factor, and even said she could drink Whiskey. O'Reilly is obsessed with Gaga and Cyrus, which is odd because he claims to have a hard news show. But Miley Cyrus and Lady Gaga are not news, they are hollywood celebs. I guess he is getting so old he thinks he is hosting Inside Edition again.

Here is my advice to O'Reilly, stop being a pervert, and leave the 17 year old Miley Cyrus alone. And stop making a fool of yourself trying to get Lady Gaga on your so-called news show. Neither one of them are going to listen to you, and I would bet that neither one of them will ever do your show either.

Now Beck Wants To Get Rid Of Public Schools
By: Steve - June 23, 2010 - 8:00am

Why you ask, because he claims the kids are all being indoctrinated by the Government. And if you had any doubts that Beck is insane, he just removed those doubts with that statement.



The Monday 6-21-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 22, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called President Obama vs. Arizona. O'Reilly cried like a baby, because the Obama administration says it plans to sue the state of Arizona over its new legislation on illegal immigration. O'Reilly was outraged, and said it was the wrong thing to do, blah, blah, blah. Too bad O'Reilly, suck on it loser. If the law is a violation of civil rights, and will allow profiling, which it will, they should be sued.

Then the right-wing Brit Hume was on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest of course. Hume basically agreed with O'Reilly, and put his political spin on it. Hume implied that Obama was doing it because the Hispanic population in America is growing so fast he has to do it to get their votes. Then O'Reilly said Obama and the Democrats are going to get crushed in November, hey Billy, what happened to that no speculation zone. You just speculated, moron.

In fact, Hume and O'Reilly were both speculating, they speculated all over the place. O'Reilly said no cap and trade, immigration reform, or anything this year, which he also said about the health care bill, that passed btw, so O'Reilly was wrong about that. O'Reilly even said that people say Obama is not smart, who are they, because I never heard anyone say that, even the right-wingers that hate him admit he is smart. Obama was the President of Harvard Law School, how can he not be smart.

Then O'Reilly had a segment with Alicia Menendez and Andrea Tantaros, who were on to talk about the Jon Kyl claim that Obama told him he will not secure the border without amnesty for illegals. Obama and his spokesman have both denied it. The White House vehemently denied the assertion, adding that Kyle "knows" that Obama didn't say it. And yet, O'Reilly used the claim from Kyl to smear Obama with it anyway. Kyl said there were other people in the room, but he kicked them out before Obama said it, which sounds very fishy.

O'Reilly admitted that nobody but Kyl and Obama know what was said, but he did a segment on it anyway, where he implied it was said. Menendez defended Obama, and O'Reilly just dismissed what she said, as he does with all Democrats. And of course the far right Tantaros used the segment to smear Obama on everything, not just the Kyl claims. She slammed Obama on the oil spill, etc. even though it was a segment about the Kyl claims. Tantaros said Obama just wants 10 million new Hispanic voters so they can have a permanent majority. Which is crazy, Obama just understands you can not deport 10 million illegals, it's impossible.

Then O'Reilly had Newt Gingrich on to talk politics, with no Democratic guest of course. gingrich admitted Joe Barton made a mistake with his apology to the BP CEO. Then he went on to smear Obama for everything he is doing, or has done. Newt was on to talk about the politics of Obama vs. the Republicans, and Newt just turned it into an Obama smear segment. Rahm Emanuel said the Republicans are in the back pocket of big oil, which they are, and O'Reilly even admitted some of that is true.

But then he let Newt spend the entire segment slamming Obama. The whole thing was a joke, they pretty much ignored the topic of the segment, to just do a political smear job on Obama. At the end O'Reilly asked Newt if he could have done anything Obama did not do, and Newt says he does not want to make it personal, after he made it personal. Newt also lied about Obama not letting foreign countries help us with the oil spill, which is a flat out lie, and O'Reilly never once disputed a word of it. Newt was also on to talk about his smear book about Obama. And btw, O'Reilly never once asked Newt about his comparison of Obama to the Nazis, proving he is an ass kissing right-wing stooge.

In the next segment O'Reilly talked about the drug war, he reported on a commercial by Sting, Montel, and George Soros. O'Reilly is opposed to the commercial and the message they are sending out. Ethan Nadelmann from the Drug Policy Institute was on to discuss it. O'Reilly claimed he is looking out for the kids, and cited a study that said 70% of most child abuse is drug related. Nadelmann said most of that is people who drink, so he busted O'Reilly for his spin, and O'Reilly instantly changed the subject, and would not talk about him catching O'Reilly in a lie. O'Reilly pulled the protect the kids card, to argue against making pot legal. Which is just ridiculous, because almost nobody who smokes pot goes on to abuse a child, the rate is almost zero. Think about this, less than 1 percent of Americans smoke pot on a daily basis, so even if a few of them abuse a child, it is sure not very many.

And here is a fact from drugpolicy.org:

Fact: Every serious scholar and government commission examining the relationship between marijuana use and crime has reached the same conclusion: marijuana does not cause crime. The vast majority of marijuana users do not commit crimes other than the crime of possessing marijuana. Among marijuana users who do commit crimes, marijuana plays no causal role. Almost all studies show that marijuana decreases rather than increases aggression.

O'Reilly also claims that in countries where pot is legal, it has been a failure, wrong:

Fact: For more than twenty years, Dutch citizens over age eighteen have been permitted to buy and use cannabis (marijuana and hashish) in government regulated coffee shops. This policy has not resulted in dramatically escalating cannabis use. For most age groups, rates of marijuana use in the Netherlands are similar to those in the United States. However, for young adolescents, rates of marijuana use are lower in the Netherlands than in the United States.

Then the far right Bernie Goldberg was on to discuss the Congressional grilling of BP CEO Tony Hayward. And of course there was no Democratic guest on to discuss it, just good old Bernie, spinning out his right-wing talking points with nobody to provide the balance. Crazy Goldberg said the BP CEO was treated unfairly by Congress, which is just laughable. In my opinion, they should tar and feather him, and do it on tv so everyone can see it. Goldberg is just another right-wing idiot crying about Congress being too hard on him, which is just sad, and even O'Reilly thinks he got what he deserved. Goldberg is such a joke, if Fox News was not on the air he would not have a job in journalism. And crazy O'Reilly made him the one and only Factor media analyst, making O'Reilly as big of an idiot as Goldberg.

And finally the totally ridiculous Factor Reality Check. Billy is on all alone to play clips of something a liberal said, then he gives you what he claims is a reality check on what they said. In reality, it's just right-wing spin from O'Reilly on what they said, that's not reality it's spin. I do not report what he says, because it's not news, and there is no reality. In fact, half of them have no checks at all, so most of it is just stupid. And btw, 99% of the so-called reality checks are on liberals.

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

Republican Sharron Angle Called For Armed Revolution
By: Steve - June 22, 2010 - 9:00am

And Bill O'Reilly has ignored the entire story. It's been all over the news and the internet, the crazy Republican Sharron Angle said we need a new revolution, and we should use a second amendment remedy to do it. She also said the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.

Here is what she said:
ANGLE: You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government.

In fact, you know, Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that's not where we're going. But, you know, if this - this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, My goodness. What can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you, the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.
This woman won the Republican primary for the Senate in Nevada. And she's nuts, on top of calling for an armed revolution, she thinks flouride in the water is a communist plot to kill Americans, she supports a scientology drug treatment program for prisoners, she wants to privatize social security, get rid of the department of education, and many more radical positions.

A candidate for the U.S. Senate, who has already won her party's nomination, has talked openly about the possibility of the armed overthrow of the government. Asked to clarify, she either flees from journalists, or gives a non-answer. It's incumbent on all candidates to explain their beliefs to voters, but in this case, Angle's extremism makes the responsibility all the more acute.

Jon Chait explained, "There's been a lot of wild, loose rhetoric on the right since Obama took office -- wilder and more mainstream than the equivalent on the left under George W. Bush -- but Angle is really taking things dangerously far. The protection of the law is not enough to ensure the survival of a democracy. Democracies rely upon certain social and cultural norms in order to survive. An important one is a basic respect for the democratic process and a refusal to hint about the idea of actual armed revolution.

And that is the woman the Republicans elected to run against Harry Reid. Proving they are just as crazy as she is, and O'Reilly has ignored it all to help her hide the fact that she is borderline insane. Imagine what O'Reilly would report if she was a Democrat, he would be all over the story every night.

And btw folks, think about this. Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, and Sharron Angle, have all refused to speak with the mainstream media. They will not talk with anyone, except Fox News once in a while, where they know they will be treated with kid gloves, and get softball interviews. If they can not handle the media, how can they possibly be qualified to be a United States Senator.

Far Right-Wing Idiot Attacks Right-Wing Idiot
By: Steve - June 22, 2010 - 8:30am

Now this is great, a far right idiot attacking another right-wing idiot. The far right radio idiot (Mark Levin) attacked Bill O'Reilly for saying Joe Barton was a fool to say he is sorry to BP, and because he told Michele Bachmann she is wrong to complain about Obama getting BP to set up the $20 billion fund.

Rep. Joe Barton's (R-TX) apology to BP last week revealed a philosophical divide among conservatives. While many in the Republican Party were quick to distance themselves from Barton, other conservative pundits leaped to defend the Texas congressman.

On Thursday night, Bill O'Reilly said, "Obama was correct in bringing pressure on the company to pony up the money," adding, "I'm happy there's $20 billion in play and more to come."

The next evening, in an interview with Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), O'Reilly said the fund was "the best thing" Obama has accomplished, and emphasized that he doesn't agree with words like shakedown and extortion.

O'Reilly's approval of Obama's work on behalf of Gulf Coast victims was simply too much for right-wing radio host Mark Levin. On Friday, Levin took aim at O'Reilly, who he calls the "8pm'er" (for his 8 pm show on Fox News), while defending Barton:
LEVIN: I'm sick and tired of this idiot on cable. I'm just sick and tired of this phony populist idiot, the 8pm'er on cable.

Congratulate Obama for getting this $20 billion fund to 'help the folks, to help the little people.' Really? Let me explain something to you, Mr. Cable TV. British Petroleum was in the back pocket of the Democrat Party.

Somehow, Joe Barton -- who speaks the truth -- has become the issue. As I said, he may have been inarticulate about it. There was no need to apologize to BP, I got that. But if you have an IQ over 12, you understand his point. And his point is we cannot have a President with the power to decide when a company has to cough up tens of billions of dollars without authorizing legislation.

This is not an acceptable position for somebody who poses for the folks as a populist, as a journalist. To keep pandering and pretending, 'I stand with the little people against the big company.' No, you're screwing the little people!

I'm so sick and tired of the cowardice and the ignorance. I'm so sick and tired of the play to the little guy.
Levin -- who serves as an inspiration for Michele Bachmann -- has taken aim at other Fox pundits. Earlier this year, he ripped Glenn Beck for being mindless, incoherent, and pathetic.

And btw, Levin is just a flat out liar. For one thing, Obama did not make BP set up the $20 billion dollar fund, he asked them to do it, and they said yes. They could have said no, but they did not do that, so Levin does not even have the facts right.

Then he claimed that BP was in the back pocket of the Democrats, which is just ridiculous, and another lie. Because 80% to 90% of all oil money goes to Republicans. Not to mention you even have Republicans giving an apology to BP, for almost destroying the whole fricking ocean.

You have a Democratic President who slams them and gets $20 billion from them, and you have all the other Democrats trashing them in the media and in Congress, and you claim BP is in their back pocket. Name one Democrat who said they are sorry to BP, you can't. And what's the old saying, with friends like that, you don't need enemies.

Levin is just a far far right idiot, and a massive liar. Then he attacks O'Reilly for not being as far right as he is, when O'Reilly is on his side 99% of the time. Which is just stupid, especially when he has the #1 show on cable news and he is just a radio moron. I love it, because it shows just how stupid they are, Levin attacks one of his own people, simply because O'Reilly said one thing he did not agree with.

And btw, O'Reilly did not say one word about it on the Monday Factor, he just ignored it.

Howard Kurtz Slams Fox Softball Angle Interview
By: Steve - June 22, 2010 - 8:00am

Sunday Howard Kurtz slammed Fox & Friends for their softball interview of Sharron Angle, and he also corrected Steve Doocy's misinformation about her position on Social Security.



And think about this, Sharron Angle is running for the Senate of the United States, one of the most powerful jobs in the world, but she will not do any interviews with any media, except for Fox and a few other right-wing media outlets.

Remember back to when Al Gore was running for President in 2008, O'Reilly slammed Gore for not doing any tough interviews, he said if he is afraid to do a tough interview he should not be allowed to be the President. So Sharron Angle does the same thing, and O'Reilly says nothing. Then on top of that, his own network is caught doing a softball interview with her.

O'Reilly & Newsmax Do Financial Product Infomercial
By: Steve - June 21, 2010 - 9:30am

What a shocker, Newsmax economic crisis summit that the featured Bill O'Reilly and Dick Morris, was little more than an infomercial designed to use fears of inflation to sell the Newsmax $1,495 hot commodities insider membership.

I will not go into all the details of this sham of an economic crisis, that had two guys who are not economic experts, but I will say a little about it.

After speaking to O'Reilly, Morris, and some investors about the risk of upcoming inflation and promoting commodities as a hedge against inflation, summit host John Daly announced that Newsmax was offering a "hot commodities insider membership" designed by Dennis May for $1,995, or $1,495 for the first 1,000 subscribers (Daly stated that the package "is worth $5,681").

The membership includes "at least 36 powerful recommendations in the hot commodities super income portfolio," as well as "24 recommendations in the hot commodities profit accelerator portfolio" in order to hunt down those enormous triple and quadruple digit profit opportunities.

And if you believe that garbage will double or triple your investments, contact me now, because I have some land to sell you that will make you 10 times your money.

There was a strange thing at the summit, Daly said O'Reilly was not there to endorse a product, or a financial service. Huh? If you are the featured speaker at an economic summit where they sell a financial service, then he is basically endorsing the product, that it the main reason he was there. So that was dishonest, and hard for anyone to believe.

Daly said this:
DALY: Hello, my name is John Daly, and I'd like to welcome you the Economic Crisis Summit. Joining me now is the man more Americans turn to for straight talk than anyone else about how the news will impact your life. Every weeknight, more than 5 million Americans tune in to his show, The O'Reilly Factor, making it the number one cable news program for over nine years. Bill O'Reilly, thanks for joining us today.

O'REILLY: OK, John. Nice to see you.

DALY: Great to have you here. First of all, I want to mention to our viewers that you are really here to give your unvarnished views about our economic situation and how it's going to impact Americans. You're not here to endorse anyone else's point of view or to endorse a product or financial service. You're joining us just to give us your take."
First, think about this, Daly is lying because O'Reilly does not get 5 million viewers a night. At best he gets a little over 3 million viewers a night, and in the past few weeks it's been around 2.8 million viewers a night. Even if you count the 11pm Factor re-run (which is not done in the ratings business) he still only gets about 4.3 to 4.5 million viewers a night. The actual rating is on one show, the 8pm show, and for that show O'Reilly is averaging 2.8 to 3.3 million viewers a night, and that is a fact.

Second, after Daly said O'Reilly was not there to give financial advice, or to sell a financial service, he did just that. O'Reilly told them to buy Gold, and said it "is a good hedge," but that they should "be very careful about what they buy."
O'REILLY: Yes, but you have to be very careful. I made some good money buying gold about a year and a half ago. And I took some profits. But I still hold some gold. But you've gotta be very careful. Gold will always be valuable. Always. All right?

Now, it may not be as valuable if the dollar stabilizes, this and that, but it will always be valuable. So it is a good hedge. And there's a number of ways to play it. You can buy bullion, you can buy coins, or you can buy companies that trade gold, gold-mining companies, things like that.

DALY: Bill, good advice. Thank you very much.
O'Reilly also recommended that "elderly viewers who are dependent on a monthly check, buy stocks that are beaten up."
O'REILLY: The most important thing for your elderly viewers who are dependent on a monthly check from their investments is to be smart about what to do in the next two years. So, as you rightly mention, CDs pay nothing, savings accounts pay nothing. In fact, you're losing money, because inflation is more than what you get.

I would recommend, and I know I'm going out on a limb here, because you might get hurt doing this, so don't do it because I said so. But think about it. Buying stocks that are beaten up, all right? And you can just easily tell what the 52-week high and low is. Buying stocks that have gotten hammered but do pay a decent dividend. You get money from them. They pay it to you. And, if the stock is beaten up right now, there's a good chance it'll go up, so that you make money on your stock purchase as well. But there's a chance it'll go down.
Now think about this, Bill O'Reilly is not a financial expert, or an economic expert. He has a degree in History, and he is a so-called journalist with a lame cable news show. And yet, here he is giving financial advice at a right-wing economic summit. Here is my advice to you, talk to a financial expert, and do what they tell you to do. What if you buy Gold and the price suddenly drops, is O'Reilly going to give you your money back, I kinda doubt it.

O'Reilly Still Spinning State Budget Shortfalls
By: Steve - June 21, 2010 - 9:00am

Almost every night O'Reilly claims the state budget shortfalls (like in California) are due to liberal policies that have failed. While it is true that California has an estimated $26 billion dollar shortfall, it's not true that liberal policies caused it. Because every state in America has a budget shortfall, but three. That means 47 out of 50 states are in the red, including all the states run by Republicans, even Texas.

Texas faces a daunting $18 billion shortfall for the next two-year budget cycle, amounting to 20 percent of the total budget, but the Republican Gov. Rick Perry is still refusing federal money from the stimulus. The Texas Board of Education can not even afford to buy the new school textbooks.

From the Texas Observer Newspaper:
The state normally replaces textbooks on a rotating basis every 10 years. With Texas facing a budget shortfall of at least $11 billion in 2011, the money isn't going to be there. Textbooks covering the new science standards would have cost $400 million, and the Legislature is already expecting a bill of $888 million for textbooks already ordered.
So you have two right-wing idiots here, O'Reilly for not reporting that REPUBLICAN run states are also facing massive budget shortfalls, and Perry for refusing stimulus money to pay for the school textbooks.

I have one simple question for O'Reilly, how can liberal policies be to blame for the state budget shortfalls, in the Republican run states. Answer, they can't. The truth is this, we had a fricking 2 year recession under Bush you moron. Then all the states had less money coming in, so they were spending more than they took in, and that's what caused the shortfalls, you right-wing hack.

If Bush had not almost destroyed the country in 8 short years, and caused the massive (almost depression) recession, the states would not have had such massive budget shortfalls. They were not caused by liberal policies, they were caused by the Republican George W. Bush. Who let Wall street and the Corporations do whatever the hell they wanted for 8 years with no oversight.

So you are a dishonest right-wing propagandist, to claim the budget shortfalls are due to liberal policies. And btw, those liberal policies sure worked great for 8 years under Bill Clinton, who left Bush with a surplus, so how do you explain that smart guy.

Oil Companies Have Bogus Oil Spill Plans
By: Steve - June 21, 2010 - 8:30am

And O'Reilly has not reported a word of it. This is real news, that shows the oil companies who filed the deepwater oil drilling permits, lied about their ability to handle a massive oil spill, just to get the permits. They even list a dead man as a contact to help them with the spill. So you would think O'Reilly would be all over this news, right?

WRONG! Not only is he not all over it, he has not said a word about any of it. But he sure has time to investigate a Democratic Congressman who pushed a college student, that was trying to interview him.

Oil execs admit their spill plans are embarrassing. Conservative media figures have attacked President Obama's moratorium on new offshore drilling in the aftermath of the BP oil spill. However, the oil spill response plans for all five major oil companies drilling in the Gulf were written by the same consulting firm, and oil executives have admitted their plans are "an embarrassment."

Fred Barnes: "Lift the moratorium on existing drilling."

Rush Limbaugh called the moratorium "obscene," "insane," and "absurd."

Palin: "We still need to drill, baby, drill."

Now they are some stupid people, the oil companies admit they can not handle a big oil spill in deep water, that they lied about it to get the drilling permits, and these right-wing nuts still want to drill baby drill. Proving they are insane, or stupid, or both, and I vote for both.

According to a June 16 Washington Post report, "the same tiny Texas subcontractor" authored the Gulf spill response plans for BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Shell Oil, and Exxon Mobil:
The spill response plans for all five companies were written by the same firm, the Response Group. The Houston-based firm's Web site says the company has about 35 employees.

The five oil companies submitted these plans -- each more than 500 pages long and each relying on the same reassuring language -- as part of their applications for permits to drill deepwater wells in the gulf. The firms assured the government that they could handle oil spills much larger than the one now threatening the region's environment and economy.
According the Post report, three of the five major oil companies operating in the Gulf "listed the phone number for the same University of Miami marine science expert, Peter Lutz, who died in 2005" in their spill response plans.

Four plans included provisions to protect walruses which "have not called the Gulf of Mexico home for 3 million years."

In testimony before the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee on June 15, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson stated repeatedly that his company is "not well-equipped to handle" major oil spills.
STUPAK: B.P. relied on Marine Spill Response Corporation to provide response equipment, and so does your plan. So if you can't handle 40,000, how are you going handle 166,000 per day, as you indicated?

TILLERSON: The answer to that is, when these things happen, we are not well-equipped to deal with them.

STUPAK: So when these things happen, these worst-case scenarios, we can't handle them, correct?

TILLERSON: We are not well-equipped to handle them. There will be impacts, as we are seeing.

STUPAK: And you've all said...

TILLERSON: And that's why the emphasis is always on preventing these things from occurring because, when they happen, we're not very well-equipped to deal with them. And that's just a fact of the enormity of what we're dealing with.
When Congressman Markey questioned Tillerson on the Exxon Mobil plan's inclusion of contact information for a "technical support person" who had been dead for four years, Tillerson acknowledged that it was an "embarrassment" and stated that "we admit that we need expertise."

Dear Bill O'Reilly, this is real journalism, done by me, a simple blogger. The question is, why do I have to do this, when you are the so-called nonpartisan independent journalist, with the #1 rated cable news show. When are you going to do your job and report this information, never?

USA Today Pulled An O'Reilly With Poll Numbers
By: Steve - June 21, 2010 - 8:00am

O'Reilly keeps saying the Obama job approval numbers are dropping and dropping, and that the Gulf Oil Spill is destroying his Presidency. Except the facts do not match his right-wing spin. Because O'Reilly makes all those dishonest claims based on the biased Rasmussen polls.

The Obama job approval numbers are not dropping, or down, at Gallup. Obama is at 49% job approval at Gallup. Which is actually a 5 point increase over the last week or so. The same it's been for the last 10 months, from August of 2009 until now. Basically it's been a 1 point drop in the last 10 months, and that is within the + or - 3 point margin of error in the poll, so it could be 51% approval.

And yet, almost every other night O'Reilly says the Obama approval numbers are dropping and dropping, when no such thing has happened. O'Reilly even predicted that the Democrats will lose big this November because the Obama job approval rating is 42%, at Rasmussen. It's all right-wing propaganda put out by O'Reilly, Fox, and the right-wing spin doctors. Even the USA Today newspaper is doing it.

USA Today this week forgot to inform readers that Obama's job approval has gone up, it's up four points since March to 50 percent.

And here is a note for O'Reilly: At this stage of his first term, Ronald Reagan had a 45 percent approval rating.

Funny how O'Reilly never mentions that. O'Reilly claims Obama is done, even though he is at 50% approval in one poll, and 49% in another, which is 4 and 5 points higher than Reagan was at this stage of his first term.

It's almost like journalists are embarrassed when their own polling results don't match the preferred Beltway narrative about how Obama's presidency is being swamped by the Gulf oil disaster. I mean, everyone's writing that, right? Even USA Today couched its polling write-up in terms of the oil spill and what bad news it is for Obama. (Another, separate USA Today polling piece about how Dems are doomed in November also ignored Obama's approval rating.)

But if that's the case, why, in the latest polls by the Washington Post and USA Today, has Obama's approval rating went up? Why is Obama's approval rating higher in those polls than it was before the BP disaster?

What say you Billy?

BTW, according to Gallup's daily track poll of Obama, his approval rating is up five points in the last week. Is anybody at Fox going to report that?

Haha, don't bet on it.

If Obama's approval rating was down four points from March, do you think USA Today would have mentioned that trend in its report?

June 19th Market Update For O'Reilly
By: Steve - June 20, 2010 - 9:30am

On Friday June 19th the DOW was up 16.43 points to 10.450.64, which makes the 4th day in a row the DOW has went up. Over the last 5 days the DOW is up 2.35 percent, and over the last month the DOW is up 3.80 percent.

So far in June the DOW is up 314 points or, 3.10 percent. And over the last year the DOW is up 22.15 percent under President Obama.

Now look what Bill O'Reilly said on Tuesday June 8th:
O'REILLY: Stock markets are plummeting and bank interest rates are miniscule, so where should you put your money?
That day, June 8th, the DOW was up 123 points, and it has been up almost every day since. In fact, the DOW has been up every month since February of 2010, except for May. It was up 2.56% in february, 5.15% in March, 1.40% in April, down 7.92% in May, and up 3.10% in June. So in the last 5 months, the DOW has went up every month but one.

And yet O'Reilly claims the markets are plummeting, when they have been up almost every month this year. The man is a LIAR, and he only said that to make his braindead viewers think the markets are down because of Obama.

What O'Reilly did was cherry pick one down month, then claim the markets are plummeting, when the markets are up in every other month, except the one month (May) he used to make the false claim. He implied the markets are down because of the liberal policies from Obama, when the markets are actually up. And if that's not right-wing bias, there is no such thing.

O'Reilly Said Bush Not To Blame For Oil Spill
By: Steve - June 20, 2010 - 9:30am

Almost every Republican in the media is saying Bush had nothing to do with the BP oil well disaster, so leave him alone, including Bill O'Reilly, who claims to be a nonpartisan Independent.

O'Reilly said it is "Dishonest" for Democrats to "continue to lay it all on Bush." On the June 14th O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly said that "there was not much difference in the Bush oil policy than the Clinton oil policy" and that "there's plenty of blame to go around," so "for the Democrats to continue to lay it all on Bush is flat out dishonest."
O'REILLY: There was not much difference in the Bush oil policy than the Clinton oil policy. Both presidents allowed deep water drilling in some areas, as did President Obama. And Congress went along with it.

So there's plenty of blame to go around. And for the Democrats to continue to lay it all on Bush is flat out dishonest.
To begin with, none of the Democrats are saying ONLY Bush is to blame, so O'Reilly is lying about that. Nobody is laying it all on Bush, as O'Reilly claims, they are just saying that some things Bush did in his 8 years as the President, helped cause the BP oil well disaster. And the facts show it, the very same facts O'Reilly ignored, like these.

Here is what O'Reilly failed to report, it's called journalism, as in reporting the facts.

The Inspector General report found "a culture where the acceptance of gifts from oil and gas companies were widespread" in Louisiana MMS office under Bush.

The Department of Interior's Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigated allegations against MMS employees for conduct that "occurred prior to 2007" in the Lake Charles, Louisiana, district, and "found a culture where the acceptance of gifts from oil and gas companies were widespread throughout that office," and that prior to 2007, "receiving gifts such as hunting trips, fishing trips, and meals from oil companies appears to have been a generally accepted practice by MMS inspectors and supervisors in the Gulf of Mexico region." MMS subsequently "provided additional ethics training to employees."

None of that was reported by the great journalist Bill O'Reilly, not a word.

the IG investigation also found email porn, illegal drug use at the Louisiana MMS office under Bush. The Lake Charles investigation also found that -- in addition to accepting gifts from oil companies-- MMS employees "admitted to using illegal drugs during their employment at MMS," including a clerical worker who said "he had used crystal meth the night prior to coming to work at MMS," and an inspector who "admitted that he might have been under the influence of the drug at work after using it the day before."

And more: An MMS employee (who worked there under Bush) even negotiated a job with a drilling company while inspecting their platforms. The IG report states that a Lake Charles MMS employee, who now works for the Island Operating Company, an oil and gas production firm, negotiated a job with the company while inspecting IOC platforms.

A source in the oil drilling business told OIG that some Bush MMS inspectors allowed oil and gas companies to fill out their own inspection forms.
The confidential source told investigators that some MMS inspectors had allowed oil and gas production company personnel located on the platform to fill out inspection forms. The forms would then be completed or signed by the inspector and turned in for review. According to the source, operating company personnel completed the inspection forms , and then MMS inspectors would turn in the completed form.
And not a word of that was reported by Bill O'Reilly.

The Office of Inspector General issued a report on September 9, 2008, (Two Months before President Obama was even elected) stating that several investigations uncovered a "culture of ethical failure" at the Lakewood, Colorado, MMS office. The report stated that "between 2002 and 2006, nearly 1/3 of the entire RIK [Royalties In Kind] staff socialized with, and received a wide array of gifts and gratuities from, oil and gas companies with whom RIK was conducting official business."

And yet, there is more, much more:

-- The Bush MMS adopted regulation stating drillers are "in the best position to determine the environmental effects of its proposed activity."

-- In April 2008, Bush MMS loosened rules requiring blowout plan.

-- The Bush MMS 2007 environmental impact assessment for BP lease dismissed risk of massive oil spill.

-- The Bush MMS failed to respond to 2004 warning about vital piece of blowout preventer.

-- The Bush MMS ignored warnings about faulty cementing in wells.

-- WSJ: In 2003, Bush MMS decided not to require last-resort shut-off device.

-- The Bush MMS suppressed scientists concerns about environmental impact of spills in Alaska.

-- Bush issued an executive order to end the ban on offshore drilling. In a June 14, 2008, speech, President Bush announced the executive order he had issued to end the prohibition on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf: "So today, I've issued a memorandum to lift the executive prohibition on oil exploration in the OCS. With this action, the executive branch's restrictions on this exploration have been cleared away."

It goes on and on and on and on, but O'Reilly said Bush was not to blame for any of it, proving that he is about as dishonest as you can get. Because all that was done under Bush, and way more, so much I can not even list it all because it would take me all day to do it.

O'Reilly Thinks Protecting Barge Workers Is Wrong
By: Steve - June 20, 2010 - 9:00am

On his Fox News show Friday night, O'Reilly opened his Talking Points Memo by declaring that there had been an "amazing screw-up in the Gulf cleanup." He went on to talk about an ABC News report about 16 oil-collecting barges in the Gulf that had been called back to shore because of questions about safety measures aboard the ships.
O'REILLY: So why -- why -- would the Coast Guard shut them down? Ready? Because the Guard wanted to confirm there are life vests and fire extinguishers onboard the vessels, and the Guard couldn't find the people who built the barges to get that confirmation.

Insane? You bet. You halt the cleanup over life jackets?
As Media Matters noted earlier that day, the barges weren't grounded simply because it couldn't be confirmed that they had the proper safety equipment -- the ships did, in fact, lack the required equipment, and there were also concerns about their stability. So it was not only a concern about life jackets and fire extinguishers, as O'Reilly claimed.

The Daily Caller reported this:
Sixteen crude-sucking barges are back in the Gulf of Mexico working to clean up oil, but the Coast Guard is defending its decision to ground the vessels because it couldn't verify whether there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board.

"The Coast Guard is not going to compromise safety, that's our No. 1 priority," Coast Guard spokesman Robert Brassel told The Daily Caller.

Brassel said the barges are now "back in operating order."

On Thursday night, the Incident Commander in Roger Laferriere, decided with the captain of the port in New Orleans to inspect the barges when they realized the ships did not have a certificate of inspection to demonstrate safety equipment on board.

Thursday morning, the ships were inspected and grounded because they did not have the proper fire-fighting and life-saving equipment. There were also concerns about the stability of the barges. During the day Thursday, the problems were fixed, and the barges are back out on the water today.
Imagine what O'Reilly would say if someone on one of those barges died because they did not have life jackets, or some other safety problem. Then O'Reilly would scream bloody murder and blame Obama for not making sure the barges were safe.

Hey O'Reilly, let's say someone fell off a barge and they did not have the proper life jackets, then they died. Are you going to tell his family, and are you going to pay the judgement on the lawsuit his family would surely file over his death. You claim to look out for the little guy, but then here you are saying to hell with safety and the little guy, just get the barges on the oil spill, and safety laws be damned.

And the barges were not out of action for very long, they just went through a safety inspection, then they were back in business. What's really funny is that O'Reilly is Mr. rule of law, except when he disagrees with the law, or when he wants someone to ignore the law. He has said if you ignore the laws you have chaos, then he says they should ignore the law and just do it anyway.

O'Reilly is a joke, one day he says we must follow the rule of law at all times, or we will have chaos, then they next day he says what are those idiots doing following the rule of law. Proving that the only idiot in this is Bill O'Reilly.

The Friday 6-18-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 19, 2010 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Oil Clean up grounded over life vests. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: With the world watching how the Obama administration is handling the Gulf oil crisis, we now find out that 16 barges were grounded by the Coast Guard. These barges were sucking up thousands of gallons of oil and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal says they are extremely effective, so why would the Coast Guard shut them down? Because the Guard wanted to confirm that there are life vests and fire extinguishers on board the vessels. Insane? You bet. Halt the cleanup over life jackets! This is why many Americans are furious over the oil debacle.
Earth to O'Reilly, there is a thing called safety laws, and there is a rule of law. That means any ship on the water must follow those laws, so all they did was inspect the ships to make sure they were legal, get over it man. And btw, I'll have another blog posting on this with more details.

O'Reilly also talked about Republican Congressman Joe Barton of Texas, who apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward for what Barton called the Obama administration's 'shakedown.' O'Reilly said he believes President Obama should be applauded for getting BP to pony up the $20 billion, he even said it's the best thing Obama has done in this whole mess. What he failed to report, is all the people calling for Barton to resign from his Chairmanship, even some Republicans are calling for him to step down. O'Reilly ignored all that.

So then O'Reilly had the crazy right-wing Michele Bachmann on to talk about what Barton said, and the fact that she agrees with him, she even called it extortion, which is dumber than what Barton said. Here is what O'Reilly did to help her, he found out what she said, so he put her on the Factor to dig herself out of the hole she put herself in. Which is exactly what she tried to do, suddenly she was not using the word extortion, she said this: "The company is clearly responsible, but the question is who will run the $20 billion fund, and that was my point. And here we have the President threatening criminal action against BP, so is BP going to take money from the shareholders to keep themselves out of jail? That's crossing lines we have to be careful about."

Now she claims she was only worried about who would run the $20 billion fund, give me a break. She said Obama was using extortion, then it suddenly changes to she is just worried about who is running the fund. And btw, the man running the fund is the same man who ran the 9-11 fund, so he can be trusted. O'Reilly even said he did a good job running the 9-11 fund. O'Reilly even disagreed with Bachmann, and said BP CEO Tony Hayward is a weasel, and he praised the Obama administration for getting the company to put up the money. But he still put Bachmann on all alone to spin her extortion claim, and change it to something different. Off camera he probably told her she looks bad saying that, so he would let her come on his show to clarify her statement. Which is what she did.

Then O'Reilly had the 2 Republican military experts on to discuss the war in Afghanistan. Lt. Col. David Hunt and Lt. Col. Ralph Peters were on to say things are going bad, and O'Reilly agreed that it has not been going well for U.S. and NATO forces. O'Reilly asked for them to rate the war from 1 to 10, with 1 being bad, and 10 being good. They both said a 3 or a 4, and O'Reilly seemed shocked they rated it so low.

Peters said the Karzai government is corrupt and widely despised. Hunt agreed with that assessment. "The corruption and incompetence of the Afghan government is so bad and you can't win this way. You can kill every bad guy on the battlefield, but as long as Karzai runs a corrupt government it works against everything we're trying to do." And then O'Reilly compared it to Vietnam, a war we could not win.

But get this, liberals have been saying that very same thing, ever since Bush invaded Afghanistan. We said you can not win if the people do not want you there, and you can not win with a corrupt government that the people do not want. But we said that under Bush, so back then O'Reilly called it bull, and called us Bush hating America haters. Now he is saying the same thing we have been saying for years, and suddenly it's ok. But when liberals said it under Bush we were America hating idiots, go figure. And if we can not win it, why not get our damn troops out of there, what say you Billy?

Then Geraldo was on to talk about Joran Van Der Sloot, which I refuse to report on. But O'Reilly asked Geraldo about Afghanistan, who was there a month ago. He disagreed with Peters and Hunt, and he said things are bad, but not as bad as Peters and Hunt say it is. O'Reilly even pointed out that General McChrystal also disagrees with Peters and Hunt. Things are bad, but they try to make it seem worse than it is to politically hurt Obama. Even though he put more troops in there than Bush had, so if anyone is to blame, it's Bush, because it's his war. Geraldo also pointed out that the surge has just started, so it's too soon to evaluate it. Proving that Peters and hunt are just political hacks who only want to make Obama look bad.

Then the right-wing Rita Cosby was on to talk about her new book, which I will not report on. And then Glenn Beck was on to talk about his appearance on Judge Andrew Napolitano's new show on Fox, Beck said he's philosophically closer to Ron Paul than Sarah Palin. Beck said this: "I'm not sure Sarah Palin would be for closing the Department of Education, but I would be." And I say this, who cares, you are just a right-wing idiot that nobody listens to, except a few other right-wing idiots, very few, as in less than 1% of the people.

Then O'Reilly had Brian Kilmeade and Juliet Huddy on to name the stupidest people of the week. Huddy went with the young woman known as "Snooki," a cast member of MTV's "The Jersey Shore." "She's very trampy," Huddy said, "but she is now an idol to millions of teenage girls. She went to a restaurant in Bayonne, New Jersey and when people found out she was there it was a mob scene." Kilmeade nominated the parents who allowed their young daughter to dress up like Lady Gaga for an Internet video.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and here is more proof why I call it lame. O'Reilly said a man named Tim Peeler is a patriot or a pinhead, and said you decide. Peeler swears he came face-to-face with a 10-foot-tall man with beautiful hair, a real life Bigfoot. Peeler claims he chased the massive Sasquatch off his property, but unfortunately forgot to grab his camera to document it.

This is easy, not only is Peeler a pinhead, O'Reilly is also a pinhead for even reporting this garbage. I guess he still thinks he is hosting Inside Edition, instead of what he has said is a hard news show. Earth to O'Reilly, that is not hard news pal, it's insane nonsense.

June 18th Stock Market Update For O'Reilly
By: Steve - June 19, 2010 - 9:00am

On Thursday 6-18-10 the DOW was up 16.47 points, to close at 10.450.64. Which is the 5th day in the last 6 days the DOW has been up.

Over the last 5 days the DOW is up 2.35 percent, and O'Reilly has not said a word about it. In fact, the DOW has been up almost every day since O'Reilly said the market is plummeting last Tuesday.

Not to mention, the DOW is now up 22.99 percent in the last year under President Obama.

Proving that Bill O'Reilly is a right-wing LIAR, who makes up fairy tales to make President Obama look bad.

Conservatives Lying About Oil Spill Aid
By: Steve - June 19, 2010 - 8:30am

Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Tucker Carlson, and almost every Republican in the country are now lying about President Obama letting Foreign Countries help us with the Gulf oil spill disaster.

On the O'Reilly Factor Tuesday night, Sarah Palin said this: "What the federal government should have done was accept the assistance of foreign countries; of entrepreneurial Americans who have solutions that they wanted presented they can't even get a phone call returned. The Dutch they are known and the Norwegians, they are known for dikes and for cleaning up water and for dealing with spills."

"They offered to help and yet no they too, with the proverbial can't even get a phone call back. That is what the Norwegians are telling us, and what the Dutch are telling us, and then the entrepreneurial Americans, the company in Maine that has the boom and the absorbents."

And it's all lies from Palin, none of what she said is true, not a word. Dick Morris told O'Reilly the same thing, he said this: "We didn't get foreign ships in because Obama still hasn't waved the stupid Jones Act."

On the June 15 edition of Fox & Friends, Beck said that Obama "needs to explain why we turned down all the international help. They offered it within a couple of days. We said no."

On Fox & Friends, Laura Ingraham stated that one of the "things the president needs to talk about and needs to do" is to "waive the Jones Act" so that "all of our technology, all of our manpower, all the skimmers internationally" could reach the Gulf.

Ingraham did not note that there are already international ships in the Gulf responding to the spill. In fact, there are currently 15 foreign-flagged vessels in the Gulf responding to the spill -- each of which reportedly did not require Jones Act waivers -- the U.S. has used cleanup equipment from other nations, according to Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen.

Here are the facts:

The only part of the Fox News fairy tale that is true is that the Jones Act has not been waved, but as a press release from the Unified Command for the BP Oil Spill noted Wednesday:
"Currently, 15 foreign-flagged vessels are involved in the largest response to an oil spill in U.S. history. No Jones Act waivers have been granted because none of these vessels have required such a waiver to conduct their operations in the Gulf of Mexico."
Even if the Jones Act applies, a foreign flagged vessel can still conduct certain planned operations as part of the BP oil spill response if the vessel is an oil spill response vessel and meets the requirements of 46 USC § 55113.

What about those Norwegians that Sarah Palin was so upset about Tuesday night. Well it turns out that they are already here along with several other countries. Once again, from the Unified Command:
"To date, the administration has leveraged assets and skills from numerous foreign countries and international organizations as part of this historic, all-hands-on-deck response, including Canada, Germany, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, the United Nations International Maritime Organization and the European Union's Monitoring and Information Centre."
Surprise, surprise, Fox News is not telling their viewers the truth. Fox just keeps repeating the lie until it is accepted as truth by their audience. The Fox News agenda is to turn Obama into George W. Bush. The newest lie about the president turning down international aid fits in with their two year old narrative that Barack Obama is in over his head, which is why voters need to put the GOP back in charge.

The sad part of all of this is that there are a couple million people who watch Fox News every day, and the majority of them don't understand (or don't care) that they are being brainwashed by right wing propaganda.

More Proof Rasmussen Rigs Their Biased Polls
By: Steve - June 19, 2010 - 8:00am

Two new polls are out measuring the job approval rating of New Jersey's new Republican Governor, Chris Christie. The first, from Quinnipiac University, has the Christie approval rating at 44 percent. There's also a new poll out from O'Reilly's favorite polling company, Rasmussen.

Based only on the name, and Rasmussen's well-known history of producing GOP-friendly results with his robo calls of "likely voters" only, you should be able to guess what Christie's approval rating is in the Rasmussen poll. Go ahead and try.

If you took the Quinnipiac results and added seven points, then you nailed it: Rasmussen found the Christie approval at 51 percent. What's revealing though, is looking at the differences in methodology between Rasmussen, and a real poll conducted by Quinnipiac. The differences might explain how the polls came to such different conclusions.

-- Number of NJ voters interviewed by Rasmussen: 500

-- Number of NJ voters interviewed by Quinnipiac: 1,461

-- Margin of error for Rasmussen: 4.5 percent

-- Margin of error for Qunnipiac: 2.6 percent.

In case you missed them from today's Washington Post profile of Rasmussen, check out these devastating quotes:
"The firm manages to violate nearly everything I was taught what a good survey should do," said Mark Blumenthal, a pollster at the National Journal and a founder of Pollster.com.

Nate Silver, who runs the polling analysis site FiveThirtyEight, faults Rasmussen for polling only likely voters, which reduces the pool to "political junkies."

"It paints a picture of an electorate that is potentially madder than it really is," agreed Scott Keeter, director of survey research at Pew Research Center and vice president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). "And potentially more conservative than it really is."
And btw, Rasmussen's work is considered a joke within the polling world. But O'Reilly and Fox News quote their polls pretty much every night, especially O'Reilly.

Now think about this, Rasmussen always has the Obama job approval 4 to 7 points lower than Gallup. But when Rasmussen polls Republicans, they are always 4 to 7 points higher than other polling firms. That alone proves that Rasmussen has a right-wing bias.

Not to mention, O'Reilly denies that Scott Rasmussen has a right-wing bias, and bills him as an Independent Pollster. And if that's true, why did MSNBC stop using the Rasmussen polls. It's the same as Fox claiming to be a fair and balanced News network, everyone knows it's a lie, and yet they keep saying it anyway.

Newsmax Using O'Reilly & Fear At Economic Summit
By: Steve - June 18, 2010 - 9:30am

In the run-up to right-wing website Newsmax's June 17 Economic Crisis Summit -- featuring Bill O'Reilly - CEO and Editor in Chief Christopher Ruddy used fear of inflation and skyrocketing gas prices to entice people to attend the event.

A June 3rd email sent to the Newsmax mailing list urged readers to sign up to view its June 17th "Economic Crisis Summit," a webcast which promises "Powerful Solutions for Uncertain Times."

The email identified Bill O'Reilly as the summit's "Premier Guest" and stated that the summit's "esteemed panel" will be "led by Fox News' Bill O'Reilly and Dick Morris." The email further noted that O'Reilly "has been warning Americans of the dangerous economic policies being pushed by Obama and Congress."

And btw, O'Reilly is not an economic or financial expert, he is a History major, and he went to journalism school. He has even admitted that he knows nothing about economics, or the financial markets. But Newsmax still plans to use him to give financial advice, and to talk about the economy.

Ruddy sold the summit by spreading fears about "inflation," "hidden dangers" to savings accounts, and being "robbed" of Social Security.

In a June 8 email to the Newsmax list, Ruddy stated that "Citizens have stood up and dusted themselves off and are beginning to recoup what they've lost" during the financial crisis, but "the darkest hours may still lie ahead" because "Two wars, countless bailouts, and overzealous social programs have sent our economy once again to the brink of collapse." Ruddy claimed that the "two inevitabilities" of "inflation and higher taxes" "are going to strike each of us - very soon."

Ruddy stated that this was "exactly why I've convened this Economic Crisis Summit," in which "Fox News's Bill O'Reilly and Dick Morris will cut through the mainstream media's spin to give you the truth about inflation and higher taxes" and "legendary investor" Jim Rogers will discuss "which investments may be the soundest bet for your future."

And then, after all the fear, doom and gloom propaganda from Ruddy, O'Reilly, and Morris. Newsmax will use all the anti-Obama rhetoric and stoked fear of hyperinflation to drive sales of the financial-services products it offers.

Newsmax will then ask participants to spend $1,295 or more on investment schemes that promise a "Potential Reward" of hundreds of thousands in return. The investment schemes center on stock tips from Newsmax's "chief financial adviser," or advice on entering foreign currency trading markets.

The Thursday 6-17-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 18, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called BP's CEO Under Fire. O'Reilly said the BP CEO was shaky, and would not answer any questions. Then he talked about Democrats who hammered him, and a few Republicans who defended BP, they called it a shakedown, and a slush fund. Proving those Republicans are in the back pocket of big oil. The Republican Barton even later said he was sorry for the shakedown comment. And O'Reilly actually agreed with the Democrats for once.

Then Laura Ingraham was on to discuss it, and crazy Ingraham said Barton had a valid point, even though he later said he was sorry for making the shakedown comment. Then Ingraham cried about the $20 Billion dollar fund, and said the local people should be in charge of it. Ingraham is nothing but a far right joke, she even claimed that Obama is demonizing BP, which is just laughable. Obama has handled the $20 Billion in the right way, and Ingraham still complains.

One attorney said it would take 20 years to get that much money from BP through the courts, and Obama got it in one day, yet Ingraham still cried about it. O'Reilly even said he is happy with the $20 Billion, and thinks Obama did the right thing. Here is my message to Laura Ingraham, shut up already, you right-wing freak. If Bush had got that $20 Billion you would call him a hero. And of course, no Democratic guest was on to discuss it, just crazy Ingraham.

Then O'Reilly had another segment about how the left has turned on Obama, his evidence, a few jokes Jon Stewart made about Obama on his comedy show. I have said this before, and I'll say it again. Jon Stewart is a comedian, he does a comedy show, it is not news, it's comedy. So what does O'Reilly do, he put Ann (The Insane Fool) Coulter on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest of curse. Then Coulter spent the entire segment slamming Obama, which I will not report on because it's just 100% pure right-wing propaganda. And O'Reilly should be ashamed of himself for having that nut on his show.

I will say this, O'Reilly and Coulter claimed that after Jon Stewart made jokes about Obama, all the liberals will then hate Obama, which is beyond laughable. And Coulter also claimed the Obama administration is collapsing, which even O'Reilly said was going too far. And that's about all I'm going say about that segment.

Then O'Reilly had another segment on the new Arizona immigration law. O'Reilly cited a poll, and the talked about a protest. Jose Lara was on to discuss the protest, and he is opposed to the law. O'Reilly basically disagreed with Lara, after he said there will be racial profiling, O'Reilly told him that will never happen. O'Reilly said Lara was trying to indoctrinate the kids who were in the protest. Lara is a teacher who ran the protest, but he did not take any of his students, and the school was not involved in any way.

O'Reilly just put out the right-wing talking points on it, and said he was trying to indoctrinate the kids in Arizona. Lara denied it, and stood his ground. Lara even said the crime rate is down, and then O'Reilly said only because of the economy. When he has reported the crime rate is up, so Lara busted him on his crime rate lies. It's like Lara was not even there, O'Reilly ignores and dismissed everything he said, then spewed out his right-wing talking points. How is it indoctrination when they go to a protest of their own free will, that's just nonsense from O'Reilly. Nobody made them go, they went all on their own.

Then Tamara Holder and Jennifer Smetters were on to talk about the father of the 16 year old girl who tried to sail around the world. Which I will not report on because it's more of a tabloid news story, than a real news story. I will say this, Smetters said the father should be charged with a crime, Holder said she wants to wait until all the facts come out before we decide to charge him or not. they also talked about a gay marriage ruling by a judge, they said it was wrong because he is gay, and they think his ruling will be over-ruled.

Then the 2 Republican culture warriors, Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson were on. O'Reilly and the warriors complained about an elementary school giving kids condoms. Carlson called it the most insane thing she has ever heard of in her life. Hoover also said it was wrong, but she said if they were doing it in high school it would be a good idea. Then O'Reilly talked about boys being put into a beauty contest, that mostly have girls in them. O'Reilly complained because he is worried the kid might turn gay, he did not say that, but I guarantee you that is what he was thinking. Hoover was sort of ok with it, she said it was not normal, but she was not totally opposed to it, and Carlson was outraged.

And finally the boring waste of time Factor News Quiz with Steve Doocy and Harris Faulkner. That I do not report on because it's not news, and has nothing to do with any real news.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And for people who wonder why I call it the lame pinheads and patriots, here is why. Wednesday night O'Reilly named the mother of Kathy Griffin the patriot, simply because she likes Bill O'Reilly. And the Pinhead was a full size cat who became an Internet sensation by knocking a little hat off of a tiny kitten.

It's ridiculous, a patriot is a fireman, a policeman, someone in the military, an EMT, someone like that, but O'Reilly does not name them patriots, he names an old lady who likes him a patriot, for simply saying she likes him. And those e-mails are so highly edited they are nothing like what the person wrote in to the show.

June 17th Stock Market Update For O'Reilly
By: Steve - June 18, 2010 - 8:30am

On Thursday 6-17-10 the DOW was up 24.71 points, to close at 10.434.17. Which is the 4th day in the last 5 days the DOW has been up. Over the last 5 days the DOW is up 2.57 percent, and O'Reilly has not said a word about it.

And all this has happened since last Tuesday when O'Reilly said the market was plummeting. Not to mention, the DOW is now up 22.69 percent in the last year under President Obama.

Proving that Bill O'Reilly is a LIAR.

Olbermann On Palin And The Dutch
By: Steve - June 18, 2010 - 8:00am

Keith Olbermann put the smackdown on Simple Sarah over her lies about Obama refusing help from the Dutch on the Gulf oil spill, so I thought I would just post what he said.

From the June 16th Countdown With Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: America's oil princess explains we need the socialist Norwegians and them Dutch in here to fix the Gulf because they're good at dikes.

OLBERMANN: There was no official Republican response to the president's address last night, but that does not mean they did not have anything stupid to say about it.

In our fourth story: during Sarah Palin's FOX News Channel response last night, she said the president's biggest mistake was not allowing the Dutch to come to the rescue, and she didn't mean Ronald Reagan.

Last night, on fixed news, Sarah Palin turned kid glove treatment from Palin booster Bill O'Reilly into a gotcha interview. Here is Billo asking the half-governor what a hypothetical "President Palin" address would have sounded like.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: Tell the nation tonight what you would have said your main point in that speech. Go.

PALIN: Stopping the gusher. That's the number one priority of the nation.

O'REILLY: But nobody knows how to do it.

PALIN: We need to make sure all technology is being thrown at this problem.

O'REILLY: Nobody knows how to do it.

PALIN: But we haven't had that assurance the president-we haven't had the assurance by the president that that has been his top priority. Instead, what his top priority is, Bill, is cap and tax. It is using this crisis, not letting it go to waste, but to use this crisis to increase the cost of energy.

O'REILLY: Are you telling me that you don't think the president's top priority is stopping that leak? Are you-is that what you're telling me?

PALIN: What I-what I'm telling you is that is not what I am hearing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Clearly, she wasn't listening. Quoting the president last night, "Make no mistake: we will fight this spill with everything we've got for as long as it takes," or in his last news conference, quote, "This is my top priority-getting this stopped and then mitigating the damage."

We rejoin Miss Bendy Straws already in process.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: The oil company, BP, says, we don't know how to stop the leak. Obama obviously doesn't know how to stop the leak. Do you know how to stop it?

PALIN: Well, then, what the federal government should have done was accept the assistance of foreign countries, of entrepreneurial Americans, who have had solutions that they wanted presented.

O'REILLY: Who?

PALIN: They can't even get a phone call returned, Bill.

PALIN: The Dutch. They are known-and the Norwegians-they are known for-for dikes and for cleaning up water and for dealing with spills. They offered to help. And yet, no, they, too, with the proverbial "can't even get a phone call back." That is what the Norwegians are telling us and the Dutch are telling us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: "The Washington Post" reported Monday, quote, "In late May, the administration accepted Mexico's offer of two skimmers and 13,779 feet of boom; a Dutch offer of three sets of Koseq sweeping arms which attach to the sides of ships and gather oil; and eight skimming systems offer by Norway."

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

More facts:

"Right now, 15 foreign-flagged vessels are involved in the largest response to an oil spill in U.S. history. No Jones Act waivers have been granted because none of these vessels have required such a waiver to conduct their operations in the Gulf of Mexico."

Even if the Jones Act applies, a foreign flagged vessel can still conduct certain planned operations as part of the BP oil spill response if the vessel is an oil spill response vessel and meets the requirements of 46 USC § 55113.

What about those Norwegians that Sarah Palin was so upset about Tuesday night. It turns out they are already here, along with several other countries.

"To date, the administration has leveraged assets and skills from numerous foreign countries and international organizations as part of this historic, all-hands-on-deck response, including Canada, Germany, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, the United Nations International Maritime Organization and the European Union's Monitoring and Information Centre."

Obama Job Approval Numbers For O'Reilly
By: Steve - June 17, 2010 - 10:00am

As of Wednesday June 16th, The Gallup Daily Tracking Poll has the Obama job approval rating at 49 percent. Which is only a 1 point drop from August of 2009, almost a year ago. And the poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 points.

O'Reilly keeps saying the Obama job approval numbers are dropping and dropping and dropping, when in fact, they are virtually the same now as they were 10 months ago. There has been a slight drop a day or two, and a slight increase a day or two, then it stays right around 50 percent.

And btw, O'Reilly based his dishonest claims on the Obama job ratings, from ONE poll, the biased right-wing Rasmussen poll. While never reporting the honest and unbiased Gallup poll numbers.

The Wednesday 6-16-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 17, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Far Left Turns On Obama. Now O'Reilly claims the far left has turned on Obama, simply because some die-hard liberals have voiced a few complaints about Obama not being liberal enough for them. The whole thing is just ridiculous, and O'Reilly is just saying it to make the people think everyone hates what Obama is doing, even the far left, which is just not true. I am a big time liberal, and I have no problem with what Obama has done, so as usual O'Reilly just makes it up to try and make Obama look bad. And I would guess that 99% of liberals are happy with the job Obama is doing.

From what I have seen, O'Reilly should change the name of the show to The Smear Obama Factor. Because pretty much every night O'Reilly spends almost the entire hour doing some biased and dishonest political smear job on Obama. Sometimes he is doing the smear, and sometimes he puts all his right-wing friends on to do it for him. And the most pathetic part is that O'Reilly claims he has been fair to Obama, which is just laughable. If you spend 45 minutes a night having right-wing spin doctors like Palin, Rove, Morris, Gingrich, Hume, etc. smear Obama over everything, you are not being fair to the President.

And btw, that is the exact opposite of what O'Reilly did when Bush was in office, back then O'Reilly defended everything Bush did, until the very end of his 2nd term when things went to hell. In fact, O'Reilly would not even let anyone on his show that smeared Bush. Now he makes a living smearing Obama with 99% right-wing guests. O'Reilly cited the Rasmussen poll that says Obama has a 42% approval rating, while ignoring the Gallup poll that has Obama at 49% approval.

Then O'Reilly had Dick Morris on to discuss it. Morris basically agreed with O'Reilly and claimed the oil spill has made everyone on the left mad at Obama. Which is just ridiculous, and nothing but right-wing spin from O'Reilly and Morris. O'Reilly called them left-wing kooks and loons, now ask yourself how many times he has said that about the right, answer, none. Basically, O'Reilly and Morris spent 10 minutes smearing Obama with no Democratic guests, or anyone from the Obama administration on to defend him. Morris also lied that Obama refused aid from Holland, which is another lie, because Obama did approve their aid, and they are helping right now. Morris said Obama is a smart guy, but he does not know how to manage anything. And the Obama smearfest was over, for now anyway.

Then O'Reilly had Dr. Caroline Heldman and Leslie Marshall on to discuss how the far left is mad at Obama, according to O'Reilly. And Marshall agreed with O'Reilly, because she wants to keep getting invited back on the show. O'Reilly calls her a liberal, but real liberals would never agree with O'Reilly on anything. O'Reilly claims Global Warming is behind the anger from the far left. And they both agreed with that, so it proves that they are more like moderate Democrats then they are liberals. I might agree with O'Reilly once in a while, but I would also point out his bias and spin, which they never do, and mostly agree with him, even though they claim to be liberals.

Then the all Republican is it legal team, of Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle. They talked about a video of a policeman punching a woman in the face, over a fricking jaywalking ticket. The cop punched her right in the face, he was white, and the woman was black. They have put the cop on desk duty. Wiehl said the cop could be charged with a crime. O'Reilly said they are all pro police on the Factor, as if we did not already know that. Guilfoyle said she does not think the cop will be charged with anything. The police union is backing him, even though they have a video of him punching the woman in the face. And btw, O'Reilly loves the police union, and said the union should stand behind him, but hates all the other unions, figure that out.

Then O'Reilly had another right-wing propaganda segment on Border violence around Arizona. this is just more right-wing spin to try and justify the new Arizona immigration law. When the facts show Border violence near and in Arizona is down over the last year or two. O'Reilly had Sheriff Paul Babeu on to discuss a National Park on the Arizona Border being closed because of Border violence. And btw, Sheriff Babeu is not on the Border, he is 85 miles from it in Pinal County. O'Reilly simply had him on because he is a Republican who supports the new Arizona immigration law. He is also the same Sheriff who did the dishonest campaign ad with John McCain, and yet, O'Reilly failed to disclose any of that.

O'Reilly did not disclose the fact that he is a Republican who supports the new Arizona immigration law, or that he was in the dishonest McCain tv campaign ad about it. Both things O'Reilly complains about when other journalists do them. He says it's wrong when other journalists do it, then he does the very same thing.

Then Dennis Miller was on to do his unfunny jokes about Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Which is not worth reporting on because it's not news, and has nothing to do with any news.

And finally, did you see that with Jane Skinner. O'Reilly and Skinner sit around showing mostly stupid video that nobody cares about, then they comment on it. I do not plan to report on them, because it's pretty much a waste of time, and most likely just an excuse for O'Reilly to have another blonde Fox News bimbo on the show.

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

June 16th Market Update For O'Reilly
By: Steve - June 17, 2010 - 9:00am

Yesterday (June 16th) the DOW was up again, it was up 4.69 points to close at 10.409.46. So the DOW is now up 20.87% over the last year.

Over the last 5 days the DOW is up 5.15%, with a 500 point increase. In fact, 4 of the last 5 days the DOW is up, and on the one down day, it only dropped 20 points.

But according to the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly, the market is plummenting. Which makes him look like a fool, and a right-wing liar, because the market is up over 20 percent in the last year, and up over 5 percent in the last 5 days.

BP News O'Reilly Has Ignored (Part 90)
By: Steve - June 17, 2010 - 8:30am

BP has rejected the help of thousands of volunteers, many with expert training and experience in handling offshore oil disasters and oil spill cleanup.

Chuck Todd interviewed Don Abrams of OilSpillVolunteers.com, who collected the names of nearly 8,000 volunteers in the first weeks after BP's Deepwater Horizon explosion, and tried repeatedly to contribute their expertise to mitigating this national disaster.

Many of the volunteers Abrams had organized have certification in the federal government's official Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard (HAZWOPER), and were ready and able to train others:
On May 13, we turned over a list of about a hundred highly qualified people to BP, including people with two to three decades of offshore oil experience, people with experience in spill clean ups, people who are HAZWOPER instructors. As of about two days ago, I contacted those people, and none of them have been contacted by BP.
Abrams explained that he has turned over his list to state agencies and local non-profit organizations, after BP failed to respond.

CAP recommends that the government, not BP, run the volunteer hotlines and cleanup efforts. "People actually just want to be called to service," Center for American Progress fellow Van Jones said on Sunday.

And O'Reilly has not, and will not, report any of this. Because he can not use it to politically smear President Obama with it, or have one of his right-wing stooges on to do it for him.

O'Reilly Caught Spinning Pelosi Interview
By: Steve - June 17, 2010 - 8:00am

Bill O'Reilly cropped an interview with Nancy Pelosi to falsely claim that she said she "hasn't heard the Democrats blaming Bush" for the Gulf oil spill, comments O'Reilly suggested showed Pelosi as out of touch or dishonest. In fact, Pelosi said that she hadn't heard the "critique" that that "Democrats keep blaming the Bush administration."

During the opening segment of his Fox News show, referring to the politics of the Gulf oil spill disaster, O'Reilly asserted: "So there's plenty of blame to go around, and for the Democrats to continue to lay it all on Bush is flat-out dishonest. Even the liberal media is catching on to the ruse." O'Reilly then aired a portion of an interview between Pelosi and MSNBC's Chuck Todd:
TODD: When you hear this critique: "Why do Democrats keep blaming the Bush administration?"

PELOSI: I haven't even heard that. I haven't heard that.

TODD: So you think it's a -- but when does that run out? When do you feel like that runs out with the public?

PELOSI: Well, it runs out when the problems go away.
O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The speaker hasn't heard the Democrats blaming Bush? Are you kidding me? Is she in 24-7 lockdown?
No Billy, you right-wing spin doctor, she said she has not heard the critique of Democrats who blame Bush. She did not say she has not heard any Democrats blaming Bush, as you claimed. Making you a dishonest right-wing idiot.

Pelosi was actually responding to Todd's question asking: "At what point do you think the public says, you know what, yes, we were unhappy with the Bush administration. That's why you're speaker of the House, that's why Barack Obama is president of the United States. So stop blaming the Bush administration."

Todd then asked, "When you hear this critique: Why do Democrats keep blaming the Bush administration?" Pelosi responded: "I haven't heard that."

Todd introduced the previously taped interview by commenting that Pelsoi "gave no ground on the idea that there's a statute of limitations on the blame-Bush argument."

The Tuesday 6-15-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 16, 2010 - 1:00pm

There was no TPM, because O'Reilly did a special show on the Obama speech. And I did not review it, but I will say this. O'Reilly had almost an entire show of Republicans on to discuss it.

The usual right-wing propaganda spinners, Palin, Crowley, Krauthammer, etc. The only Democrat on the show was Alan Colmes, who works for Fox, so he can not be too hard on O'Reilly or he will never be invited back.

In case you do not know it, any time O'Reilly has a real Democrat on the show, who slams him for his spin, hypocrisy, double standards, lies, etc. They are never invited back, only moderate Democrats who are almost borderline Republicans get on the Factor. And they mostly kiss his butt so they can be invited back, so almost no real Democrats get on the show.

Fox News has Bob Beckel and General Wes Clark on the payroll, but they are never on the Factor. They are real Democrats who call O'Reilly out on his right-wing propaganda, which means they never get on the show, because O'Reilly hates guests who call him out on his lies and spin.

Stock Market Update For O'Reilly
By: Steve - June 15, 2010 - 9:00am

Last week O'Reilly said the stock market was plummeting because of Obama, even though the DOW is up 20.2 percent over the last year.

And yesterday (Tuesday) the DOW was up 214 points, not to mention, 3 out of the last 4 days the DOW has been up between 40 and 273 points. In the last 5 days alone the DOW is up 4.6 percent.

But of course O'Reilly never reports any of that, he only reports on the market when he can cherry pick a short term down period, to dishonestly claim it's because of the Obama policies. When the Obama policies have led to the market going up 20 percent since he took office.

It's called partisan right-wing bias, and it's what O'Reilly does all the time.

Another BP Story O'Reilly Has Not Reported
By: Steve - June 16, 2010 - 8:30am

Tuesday, the chief executives of the five big oil companies, including BP's Tony Hayward, are going to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. According to an e-mail released by that Committee Monday, a BP drilling engineer warned that the Deepwater Horizon oil rig was a nightmare well that had caused the company problems in the past. The e-mail came just six days before the well exploded.

More than five weeks before the disaster, the Deepwater rig was hit by several sudden pulsations of gas called kicks, and a pipe had become stuck in the well. In fact, the well had to be shut down because of one really big kick of natural gas. The blowout preventer was discovered to be leaking fluid three separate times.

As early as June 2009, BP engineers had expressed concerns in internal documents about using certain casings for the well because they violated the company’s safety and design guidelines.

And O'Reilly does not report any of this, because he can not use it to politically smear Obama with it. In O'Reillyworld, it's not a story unless he can use it to attack Obama, or have a right-wing guest on to do it for him.

Then he claims there is no evidence BP knowingly did anything wrong, when the evidence is looking him right in the face, he just won't report it.

Fox & Friends Caught Lying For Sharron Angle
By: Steve - June 15, 2010 - 8:00am

Here is more proof that Fox is nothing but a right-wing propaganda outlet, pretending to be a fair and balanced news network.

In a new ad, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) criticizes his Republican opponent, former Reno assemblywoman Sharron Angle, for wanting to privatize Social Security and Medicare. To support this claim, the Reid ad plays a clip of Angle saying, "We need to phase Medicare and Social Security out" in a May debate.

Angle's campaign called Reid's ad a deception, saying that she wants to protect those who entered into the system on good faith while creating free market alternatives and new personalized programs for those not already in the system.

Angle has been hiding from the real media since winning the GOP nomination, but she granted an interview to Fox and Friends Monday morning. Host Steve Doocy obliged by trying to help her clean up her stance, suggesting that it's "misinformation or mischaracterization" that she's anti-Social Security:
DOOCY: Before you go, Sharron, just, you know, perhaps it's misinformation or mischaracterization, but some have said that you are out to get rid of Social Security. That's not true, right?

ANGLE: Well, that's nonsense. I have always said that we need to make the lock box - a lock box. Put the money in there for our senior citizens. They came here in good faith paying into a system that Harry Reid has put an IOU in for 24 years. He has been raiding Social Security. And what we need to do is personalize Social Security and Medicare so that the government can no longer raid it.
Wow, could the Doocy question be any more leading and softball, he basically answered for her in his question, which an attorney would object to as a leading question in a court. Then she talked about a lock box, which Doocy and all of Fox News said was ridiculous when Al Gore called for it. They slammed Gore and made fun of him for a month when he called for a lock box, but when Angle says it they act like it's a great idea.

In the Fox and Friends interview, Gretchen Carlson falsely claimed that Angle is a political newcomer who received Sarah Palin's endorsement, is being derided by the dean of the press corps in Nevada, Jon Ralston, as a softball interview. On his Ralston's Flash blog, the host of Face to Face wrote that Angle was "not challenged on anything" and the Fox hosts "seem not to know who she is or who endorsed her."

Politico's Ben Smith printed a note from Ralston that further ripped the interview and Angle's performance in it:
U.S. Senate hopeful Sharron Angle said that during an astonishing interview on Fox and Friends this morning in which the hosts claimed she is a political newcomer (not so) and was endorsed by Sarah Palin (not so).

That's quite the different spin from Angle after her past comments about privatization, and her view that Social Security is hard to justify. (Of course, Reid is going to have to justify his policies on Social Security, but Angle clearly has been told to massage (no, not the Scientology massages) her position for popular consumption.)

Follow-up? Don't be silly.
As Media Matters notes, Angle's own website says that she believes Social Security should be transitioned out in favor of personal retirement accounts. Perhaps Doocy thinks her own website is filled with misinformation about her positions. And not once did they ask her about all the crazy positions she had, that was scrubbed from her website after she won the GOP primary. It was as softball an interview as you can get.

The Monday 6-14-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 14, 2010 - 10:00am

The TPM was called Blaming Bush For The Gulf Oil Spill. O'Reilly called it blaming Bush part 90, and claims the Democrats are ridiculous to blame Bush. He claims it is propaganda put out by the Obama administration to take the heat off Obama. O'Reilly claimed it was dishonest to blame Bush, even though it is mostly true. Then he slammed the liberal media and Nancy Pelosi, who denied the Democrats were blaming Bush. Then O'Reilly called for drilling in ANWR, and more Nuclear power. O'Reilly even said the oil spill was nobody's fault, nobody, not even BP, unless it is proven they did not have the right safety measures in place. Then O'reilly told the Democrats to just shut up, because Bush is not to blame.

Juan Williams and Andrea Tantaros was on to discuss it. Williams sort of agreed with O'Reilly, and disagreed a little. Williams said there was corruption in the MMS, and O'Reilly said how do you know that, when everyone knows it. Williams said they were corrupt under Bush, so O'Reilly went back to the Clinton admin, to say they were at fault too. When that was 10 fricking years ago, so that is just ridiculous, because the oil well was not even built until 2001, after Clinton was out of office. O'Reilly is just a joke, and he covers for Bush so much he should get paid by Bush.

And of course Tantaros just slammed Obama with partisan garbage, and blamed him for everything, because she is a right-wing stooge. And btw, nobody said a word about the whistleblower from BP who said they rigged safety tests on the blowout shut off valve. O'Reilly and his right-wing spin doctors failed to mention that, or the other things Bush did, like put former oil company employees to work at the MMS. All that was totally ignored, like the permit to drill that deep was issued in 2001 by the Bush administration. O'Reilly was mad that they keep blaming Bush.

Then O'Reilly had Brit Hume on to talk about some poll that he claims said almost half of the people say the Democratic party is too liberal. With no mention of a poll on how much the people think the Republican party is too conservative, which I would bet is more than 60%, and who the hell cares anyway. Hume also talked about blaming Bush, and Hume said it was ridiculous, and that Obama should take the blame because he is the President, and it happened under his watch.

Who btw, when Bush was blamed for Katrina Hume said the opposite, he said Bush is not to blame, so he is a partisan hypocritical hack with double standards. That is why O'Reilly puts him on, to agree with him. Hume also said the poll hurts the Democratic party, which is bull. Then Hume and O'Reilly said the poll shows it will be a bloodbath for the Democrats in November, and Hume said the Republicans will most likely win back the House and the Senate. Which is pure speculation, that O'Reilly claims to not allow, but I guess it's ok when a Republican does it. I speculate the Republicans will not win the House and Senate back, so let's see who is right in November.

Then O'Reilly had Lisa Miller from Newsweek on to talk about the her article on crazy Sarah Palin. Basically, the article claims that Palin is doing something that has never been accomplished before by combining evangelical Christianity and modern feminism, and using it as a tool to shore up the traditionally weak female front of the religious right. In real world talk, Newsweek did it to sell magazines to Republicans, who rarely buy a Newsweek magazine.

In other words, it's a cheap political stunt to sell magazines. And O'Reilly jumped right on the Palin bandwagon, then used it to increase his ratings by talking about Palin and religion, which the right loves. The article is a joke, they claim Palin is a God to white women, what they do not report is that she is only a God to white REPUBLICAN women, the rest of the women pretty much hate her and her extreme right views.

The article mostly praised Palin, but O'Reilly claims it was mocking her. O'Reilly said Palin does not like the article, Miller said she heard Palin had not read it, then O'Reilly sarcastically said, she still does not like it. So O'Reilly was busted for lying that Palin did not like it, and yet, he still claimed she does not like it, what an idiot. At the end of the segment O'Reilly called Miller a good writer and said it was a fair article, after he spent the whole segment yelling at her, and attacking her for what was in the article, and even quoted some things he did not like. Wow is he nuts, up the meds Billy, you are going insane.

Then Glenn Beck was on to discuss his new book. Which I will not report on because it's just a cheap book promotion to sell the lame book on the #1 rated cable news show, I will not even mention the name of it. Here is a thought, when was the last time you saw O'Reilly put a big name liberal on his show (and give them a full segment) to promote his book, answer: NEVER. At the end O'Reilly said Beck owes him big for all the free promotion, then Beck said he would pay him with donuts. I think it was a waste of time, because all Becks viewers most likely also watch the Factor.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about the 16 year old girl who tried to sail around the world. Billy said the Father may have sold her story to the tabloids, O'Reilly said it was a disturbing story, and went through the details. The girl even said she plans to try it again. And btw, O'Reilly also promoted Goldberg's website, which he never does for Democratic guests. Not to mention, the Father says he did not sell her story to the tabloids, but O'Reilly implied he did anyway. Goldberg called it child abuse, and O'Reilly pretty much agreed. Basically the whole segment was garbage, it's a media bias segment, but they did not even talk about any media bias.

And the last segment was the ever ridiculous Factor Reality Check, where Billy sits there all alone putting his spin on something a liberal said, which he calls a reality check. When it's really nothing but right-wing spin from O'Reilly, with no Democratic guest to counter his spin. And btw, 99% of the so-called reality checks are on liberals, almost none of them are on conservatives, and most nights they are 100% on liberals. O'Reilly just throws a conservative in there once in a while, so he can claim the segment is fair and balanced if he is asked about it.

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

BP Documents Prove O'Reilly Was Wrong
By: Steve - June 14, 2010 - 9:30am

On the Monday night Craptor Billy said BP has done nothing wrong, and that they should not be prosecuted or punished, unless their is evidence they violated safety laws.

Well guess what, there is evidence, and O'Reilly has ignored it, what a shocker, NOT!

Here is an AP headline from Monday 6-14-10, read it Billy, it's called real journalism, something you know nothing about.

Documents: BP cut corners in days before blowout

NEW ORLEANS -- BP made a series of money-saving shortcuts and blunders that dramatically increased the danger of a destructive oil spill in a well that an engineer ominously described as a "nightmare" just six days before the blowout, according to documents released Monday that provide new insight into the causes of the disaster.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee released dozens of internal documents that outline several problems on the deepsea rig in the days and weeks before the April 20 explosion that set in motion the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history. Investigators found that BP was badly behind schedule on the project and losing hundreds of thousands of dollars with each passing day, and responded by cutting corners in the well design, cementing and drilling mud efforts and the installation of key safety devices.

"Time after time, BP made decisions that increased the risk of a blowout to save the company time or expense. BP's carelessness and complacency have inflicted a heavy toll on the Gulf, its inhabitants, and the workers on the rig," said Democratic Reps. Henry A. Waxman and Bart Stupak.

Congressional investigators have identified several mistakes by BP in the weeks leading up to the disaster as it fell way behind on drilling the well.

In the design of the well, the company chose a riskier option among two possibilities to provide a barrier to the flow of gas in space surrounding steel tubes in the well, documents and internal e-mails show. The decision saved BP $7 million to $10 million; the original cost estimate for the well was about $96 million.

In an e-mail, BP engineer Brian Morel said this:
Sorry for the late notice, this has been nightmare well which has everyone all over the place.
The e-mail chain culminated with the following message by another worker: "This has been a crazy well for sure."

BP also rejected the advice of a subcontractor, Halliburton, in preparing for a cementing job to close up the well. BP rejected Halliburton's recommendation to use 21 "centralizers" to make sure the casing ran down the center of the well bore. Instead, BP used six centralizers.

In an e-mail on April 16, a BP official involved in the decision explained: "It will take 10 hours to install them. I do not like this." Later that day, another official recognized the risks of proceeding with insufficient centralizers but commented: "Who cares, it's done, end of story, will probably be fine."

The lawmakers said BP also decided against a nine to 12 hour procedure known as a "cement bond log" that would have tested the integrity of the cement. A team from Schlumberger, an oil services firm, was on board the rig, but BP sent the team home on a regularly scheduled helicopter flight the morning of April 20.

Less than 12 hours later, the rig exploded.

BP also failed to fully circulate drilling mud, a procedure that could have helped detect gas pockets that later shot up the well and exploded on the drilling rig.

The letter from Waxman and Stupak noted at least five questionable decisions BP made before the explosion, and was supplemented by 61 footnotes and dozens of documents.

"The common feature of these five decisions is that they posed a trade-off between cost and well safety," said Waxman and Stupak. Waxman, chairs the energy panel while Stupak, heads a subcommittee on oversight and investigations.

Funny thing though, O'Reilly can not find any evidence BP did anything wrong, when it's right here in black and white. I guess he just forgot to read the news, yeah that's it, he just forgot.

More BP News O'Reilly Has Totally Ignored
By: Steve - June 14, 2010 - 9:00am

Here is a real news story about how much of a fraud BP is, and O'Reilly has ignored it, not a word. All his BP reporting is an attack on President Obama for political reasons, he says almost nothing about BP, and all the lies they put out. Even when we found out BP was lying about the amount of oil flowing into the ocean, O'Reilly blamed that on Obama, when he had nothing to do with the numbers BP was dishonestly putting out.

Now we hear about this, a BP call center operator admits the call center is a sham, that it's just to keep people from calling the Corporate headquarters. And the great (so-called) journalist Bill O'Reilly does not report any of this.

To demonstrate that it's responsibly taking care of the oil spill and listening to public complaints, BP has touted the fact that it has set up call centers to handle the response. However, one of the operators at the BP Call Center in West Houston has revealed that she and the other 100 employees are just PR props; BP isn't actually doing anything with the thousands of calls it receives:
We take all your information and then we have nothing to give them, nothing to give them, said Janice.

Janice said calls about the oil disaster are non-stop and that operators are just warm bodies on the other end of the phone.

We're a diversion to stop them from really getting to the corporate office, to the big people, said Janice. Because the operators believe the calls never get past them, some don't even bother taking notes.
BP told KHOU in Houston that it has received more than 200,000 phone messages from the Call Center in Houston, but it couldn't say just what percentage of calls are returned.

CAP Senior Fellow Tom Kenworthy and the Wonk Room's Brad Johnson have written that federal agencies, not BP, should handle spill response hotlines for volunteers, technology ideas, affected wildlife, and others. Full call records need to be logged with incident reports and technology ideas presented publicly on dynamic websites.

Just watch the Factor and see how O'Reilly reports on the BP oil spill, to begin with, he barely reports it, some nights he does not say anything about it. And when he does report on it, he does not hammer BP, as the real journalists are doing, he only uses the spill to smear President Obama for it.

Which is what the partisan Republicans are doing. And while O'Reilly has said Obama is not to blame for the spill, or the fact that they can not cap the well, he does attack Obama politically, and he puts every right-wing nut in the country on his show every night, who does blame Obama for all of it.

Other (real) journalists are talking to oil spill experts, environmentalists, people hurt by the spill, fisherman, charter boat operators, restaurant owners, etc. O'Reilly has not had any of those kind of guests on the Factor, none, zero. All he does is have idiots like Rove, Coulter, Morris, Ingraham, etc. on to smear the President over it, who are all paid right-wing spin doctors.

Palin Slams Newsweek Article She Never Read
By: Steve - June 14, 2010 - 8:30am

Before I report the hypocrisy from Sarah Palin, I have a couple points to make. First, on the Monday O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly told the author (Lisa Miller) Sarah Palin did not like the article, when Palin admitted to Greta that she has not even read the article. Proving that O'Reilly is nothing but a right-wing Palin ass kissing LIAR.

Second, Palin slammed critics of Arizona's new anti-immigration law who have not read the law. Then she does the very same thing, by slamming the Newsweek article without even reading it. Making her a massive hypocrite, and a fool, because O'Reilly even admitted that Lisa Miller was a good writer and that it was a fair article.

Here is what ThinkProgress wrote about it:

Newsweek's new cover features Sarah Palin with a halo around her head and the words Saint Sarah. The accompanying article by Lisa Miller explores Palin's popularity with the religious right, especially Christian women. While Miller notes the feminist criticisms directed at Palin and wonders about her real motivations, the article is certainly not a hit piece.

But Palin wouldn't know that, because she hasn't read the article. Nevertheless, on Friday, she went on Greta Van Susteren and slammed it:
VAN SUSTEREN: Check out Newsweek's latest Palin cover. Things are a little different this time. It shows Governor Palin with a halo over her head. The headline, Saint Sarah. Now, the article's about Governor Palin's appeal to conservative Christian women.

Governor Palin is back with us. Governor, what do you make of the new cover? Now it's Saint Sarah?

PALIN: Haven't seen it, but if the title and what I hear about the content is any indication of where Newsweek is going, it's no wonder that Newsweek is doing so poorly. People are not reading that stuff. It's not relevant. It's not interesting stuff that they're making up and writing. And that's why they're going down.
No simple Sarah, Newsweek and other magazines are in trouble because of two things, the economy, and the internet.

The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz criticized Palin for mocking it before reading it. "My point on Palin is, read the Newsweek piece and then rip it," he wrote. "Rip Newsweek too, fair game. Engage on the substance."

What makes Palin's criticism even more ridiculous is that she has sharply reprimanded critics of Arizona's anti-immigration law who haven't read it. From her Facebook page on May 18:
PALIN: State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley became the third Obama administration official in short succession to admit that he hadn't actually bothered to read Arizona's 10-page long "secure the border" bill before condemning it and criticizing Americans who support Arizona's necessary efforts to do the job the Obama Administration should be doing.

At first blush this revelation seemed unbelievable, but maybe I shouldn't be surprised. This now seems "the Washington way" of doing things. If the party in power tells us they have to pass bills in order to find out what's actually in them, they can also criticize bills (and divide the country with ensuing rhetoric) without actually reading them.
Hey Palin, read the damn article before you slam it, you giant hypocrite. The hypocrisy from her is stunning, she is just like Beck, have a set of rules, then do not even follow your own rules. Here is my comment for Crazy Palin, go away, you are a joke and a laughing stock to everyone in America, except the right-wing fools that love you.

Five Day Stock Market Report For O'Reilly
By: Steve - June 14, 2010 - 8:00am

Last week O'Reilly said the stock market was plummeting (his word) because of a short term drop, that he blamed on President Obama. Even though over the last year the market is up 16.8 percent, and in the last 5 days the market is up 3.8 percent.

The funny thing is, O'Reilly does not report on the market when it's up, he only reports on it when their is a down period. O'Reilly said that over the last few weeks the market was down 9 percent. And of course he said it is because of the liberal policies Obama has put in place.

In fact, O'Reilly said that on 6-8-10, the very same day the DOW went UP 123 points. Not to mention the next 4 days, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Monday, the DOW was UP an average of 250 points to 10,190.89.

Proving that it's all dishonest partisan right-wing propaganda. Which is what O'Reilly is good at, being a dishonest right-wing spin doctor to make Obama look bad.

Beck Attacks Obama's Family (Again)
By: Steve - June 13, 2010 - 9:30am

Glenn Beck, who apologized last month for his vicious smear of President Obama's 11-year-old daughter Malia and commented that "there is absolutely no excuse or reason to ever, ever, ever, ever even come close to the line of dragging somebody's family into the debate" today attacked Obama's wife, parents, and grandparents.

Riffing off Obama's statements about BP CRO Tony Hayward and Obama's reference to his grandmother in his 2008 speech on race, Beck attacked Obama's parents as "revolutionar[ies]" and his grandparents for purportedly attending a "communist Little Red Church." Beck concluded that "it's almost like Marxism has been bred into" Obama. Later in the program, Beck said of Michelle Obama, "I don't think she" has "a love of her country."

While Beck has angrily told his alleged persecutors to "leave the families alone" and claimed to have never "dragged somebody's family into the debate prior to his attacks on Malia, Beck has in fact repeatedly brought up Obama's family in his commentary over the last several months.
BECK: Using his own words to describe his grandmother, that when you see a 'typical person' like the president of BP, he has a reaction -- um, you know -- to those people that has been bred into him. Ok. Alright. Now that actually kind of works, if you understand who his parents were. And who his grandparents were. Because they're not really the 'typical white people.'

His mother - his mother wasn't. His mother was a revolutionary. His father wasn't. A revolutionary. His grandparents, they went to the communist Little Red Church just outside of Seattle. They had communist friends. So it's almost like Marxism has been bred into him.

And I think that's who she is. I don't know her at all, other than her own words. And her own words are not in sync with America. Americans are proud of their country.
This is 100% proof that Glenn Beck is a low life piece of you know what, he says nobody should attack the family, and he went nuts when his family was attacked. So he has a rule against attacking the family for political reasons, then he breaks his own fricking rule. Stay classy Glenn, you giant piece of right-wing garbage.

Tanya Acker Details Her O'Reilly Encounter
By: Steve - June 13, 2010 - 8:30am

Tanya Acker wrote this after she was on the June 9th O'Reilly Factor.

Oh Bill O'Reilly -- It's "Our" Country, Too

I recently was asked to appear on The O'Reilly Factor to discuss the Los Angeles Unified School District's ("LAUSD") reaction to Arizona's controversial immigration law. The school board had passed a resolution providing that LAUSD schools would teach students about the law in the context of other provisions that compromised or interfered with civil rights. Fox News then reported that LAUSD was going to teach its students that the law was "un-American." That was the subject of this particular O'Reilly show.

When I contacted the LAUSD to confirm whether it had approved such an "Arizona is the new un-America" curriculum, a member of the Superintendent's staff informed me that it was not (he also informed me that he previously had attempted to correct the Fox News reporting on this point, but apparently to no avail.) The Board had decided that educational institutions should provide instruction about the law in the context of other controversial legal and political provisions (such as Jim Crow and Japanese relocation laws). I was prepared to defend this approach.

On the show I met two opponents: Mr. O'Reilly himself and a radio host who lamented the fact that the LAUSD has been overrun by "ethnic minorities." (As a graduate of the LAUSD and one of the "ethnic minorities" who apparently did the overrunning, I should have known the direction in which this was going.)

The problem arose when I used the first-person plural pronoun "we" in attempting to discuss that "we" have certain shared values as Americans and that the LAUSD decision was, in my view, an appropriate attempt to locate the Arizona law on the spectrum of those values. While "we" may disagree about the impact and import of Arizona's approach toward immigration, I believe there is a legitimate conversation to be had about the manner in which that law implicates our conceptions of civil rights and liberties as they have evolved throughout the years.

Mr. O'Reilly took great issue with my use of the term "we"; apparently, according to him, holding a minority view with respect to the Arizona law robs me of any entitlement to describe what I believe "our" shared values as a nation to be. Indeed, I didn't get very far in describing my views of those values as Mr. O'Reilly told me (before I could finish a sentence) that he was not going to let me "get away" with my use of the term "we" since mine was a "minority" perspective with respect to the equity of the Arizona law.

(I wasn't particularly surprised by his approach, especially since it comes after my last appearance of several months ago when he told me to "keep quiet" as he described how conservative White men are unable to speak their minds without fear of recrimination. I trust that he's continuing to save space for them on his show.)

There are many among that celebrated group of "We the People" who are opposed to the Arizona law but who nonetheless remain deeply troubled by our broken immigration system. I am one of them and, frankly, I do not need to be lectured about the consequences of illegal immigration by Mr. O'Reilly or anyone else.

I would remind him and others that notwithstanding their volume, zeal, and well-perfected soundbites, they hold no monopoly on interpreting the American voice, or on understanding American values, or on interpreting our Constitution, or on being concerned about the problem of illegal immigration. Those of us who disagree with the Arizona law are as much a part of the "we" who will need to resolve this issue as are Mr. O'Reilly and his guest who so lamented the browning up of Los Angeles schools.

As "we" move toward a comprehensive, national immigration reform policy (which hopefully will soon become a national priority), "we" should look to whatever shared values remain among us so as to ensure that any immigration proposal respects the civil rights and liberties that have evolved into core American values.

While there may be disagreement about where the Arizona law falls on that spectrum, it is absurd and un-American to engage in such a critical national conversation in a way that entertains only the most acrimonious voices.

Angle So Crazy Republicans Refuse To Support Her
By: Steve - June 13, 2010 - 8:00am

This far right nut job Sharron Angle, the Tea Party woman from Nevada, who is running against Harry Reid, is so crazy that even most Republicans will not even support her.

The Republican mayor of Reno, who had supported Republican Sue Lowden's Senate campaign, announced yesterday that he'll support Harry Reid(D) over Angle.
"She's an ultra-right winger," Reno Mayor Bob Cashell (R) said. "I can't support her. I don't support her."
Dawn Gibbons, Nevada's First Lady and a former Republican state assembly member who served with Angle, also threw her support to Harry Reid.

And even after all that information came out, O'Reilly and Dick Morris still said nothing about her. All they did was say what a great win she had, while not saying one word about her positions on the issues today, or in the past.

The woman is a far far right Tea Party nut, that thinks flouride in the water is a communist plot to kill Americans, and wants to give prisoners drug rehab treatment based on scientology. She also supported making alcohol consumption illegal.

Does she not know Prohibition was a massive failure that ended about 60 years ago. She even said that it is unacceptable and wrong for both parents to actually hold jobs at the same time. The woman is bonkers, so if you vote for her, you are even dumber than she is.

O'Reilly Dishonestly Attacks Obama Again
By: Steve - June 12, 2010 - 10:30am

If anyone wants proof that O'Reilly hates Obama, just read this blog posting. This will prove that O'Reilly is nothing but a dishonest, lying, spinning, right-wing hack of a pretend journalist.

On Friday 6-11-10 O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: In addition, the economy remains a mess - unemployment is almost 10% and the stock market has lost 9% in the last few weeks.
And that is just pure right-wing propaganda, it's dishonest, and nothing but partisan right-wing spin. To begin with, when Obama took office the economy was losing 700,000 jobs a month, since then Obama has turned that monthly job loss into monthly job gains. In the last 4 months the economy had added jobs every month, and the unemployment rate has actually dropped from 9.9 percent, to 9.7 percent.

Then O'Reilly pulls a dishonest cherry picking trick on the market to claim it's doing bad, because of Obama. He said the market was down 9% over the last few weeks. Which is total right-wing spin, and just flat out deception.

If you go back 6 months the market is only down 2 percent. If you go back 3 months the market is down 4 percent. And if you go back 1 month the market is down 6 percent. But if you go back 1 year, the market is up 16.8 percent.

O'Reilly is being dishonest, when he did was find a date that he could use to claim the market is down 9 percent, to make Obama look bad. When I could do the very same thing to make Obama look good, let's go back 5 days, the market is up 2.8 percent. And here is the best evidence O'Reilly is a right-wing liar.

In February the market was up 2.6 percent, in March the market was up 5.1 percent, in April the market was up 1.4 percent, then in May in dropped 7.9 percent. O'Reilly said nothing about the market for February, March, or April, because it was up and that makes Obama look good. But then as soon as we had a one month drop, O'Reilly pulls the market is down 9 percent over the last 3 weeks garbage.

It's an old right-wing trick, never give Obama credit for the market going up, but when it drops blame him and smear him with it. Not to mention, the Dow was below 8,000 when Obama took office in January of 2009. So in the last 17 months it has went up over 2,000 points (a 16.8% increase) under Obama.

The Dow was up pretty much every month, in the last 12 months, so what does O'Reilly do, he cherry picks the one month it was down, to claim the 9% drop over the last few weeks shows that Obama is a bad President. When the exact opposite is true, the market is up under Obama, way up.

Then O'Reilly even blamed Obama for the new report that double the amount of oil is leaking, from what BP said it was. How that is Obama's fault is beyond me. Earth to Bill O'Reilly, it's a BP oil well, they have the duty to report how much oil is flowing into the ocean, if they lie about it, it's their fault, and President Obama has nothing to do with that, you fricking idiot.

Here is an example, If your gas and light company lies to you about how much power you use, then you quote them, and later find out they lied, then they are to blame for the lie, not you. Obama was simply going by what BP said, because it's their oil well, and they were the only people who could say what it was, until we got to see that underwater camera.

Now that is a real reality check. And it shows just how much of a right-wing idiot O'Reilly is. All that nonsense is just a right-wing smear job on the President, which is not only unfair and partisan politics, it's un-American, and it's a giant violation of the rules of journalism.

The Friday 6-11-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 12, 2010 - 10:00am

The TPM was called Anger On The Rise In America. I will not go into detail of what O'Reilly said, because it's pretty much right-wing propaganda. But basically O'Reilly claimed that everyone in America is angry at Obama because he is doing a bad job. Which is just ridiculous, and only something a right-wing spin doctor would say. Other than the oil spill, almost everyone is happy with the job Obama is doing. Except Republicans, who will not be happy no matter what he does.

And the attacks on Obama over the oil spill are almost all from the right, who attack him over everything to dishonestly smear him and score cheap political points. Obama did not cause the oil spill, and he can not fix it either, nobody can, because the technology is not there to cap an oil well 5000 feet under water.

Obama is not to blame for that, BP is, because they lied about it on their drilling permit application. They said they could deal with a spill 5000 feet under water, and they were lying. So BP is to blame, not the President, or anyone else. All these attacks on Obama are just political nonsense, because he had nothing to do with it, the spill just happened while he was the President.

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing Chris Wallace on to discuss it. O'Reilly said the anger in America is the worst he has ever seen, and asked Wallace if he agreed, Wallace said no, and pointed out he was wrong. Wallace reminded him of the Vietnam war protests, and riots in the streets in the 60's etc. O'Reilly claims to be a history major, and yet he forgot all that, or just ignored it on purpose.

Then O'Reilly had another segment on the Obama accused of being an angry black man story. He had Tara Dowdell and a black Tea Party activist Rev. C.L. Bryant on to discuss it. O'Reilly searched far and wide to find a black man who is in the Tea Party, so he could put him on to deny the claim that white people on the right (like Drudge) are racist towards Obama. Which is exactly what Bryant did, and of course O'Reilly knew he would, because of the pre-interview they do with every guest.

Dowdell said there is racism towards Obama from the right, and of course both O'Reilly and Bryant said she was wrong and denied it. Even though there is a ton of evidence to prove it. O'Reilly just had the Tea Party stooge on to back him up, and to make the Democrat look wrong, and I bet his right-wing viewers bought it all, hook, line, and sinker.

Then O'Reilly had another segment on Joran Van Der Sloot with Geraldo, and a segment with Judge Andrew Napolitano to promote his new show on Fox. Which I will not report on because it's not news, and nobody cares. I could care less what Joran Van Der Sloot did in a foreign country, and I could care less that Judge Andrew Napolitano has a new show on Fox.

And next up was the crazy Glenn Beck, for his regular weekly segment. O'Reilly put Beck on to smear Obama some more, and Beck was mad that Obama said he was going to kick some ass over the oil spill. Which is just ridiculous, because they (the right-wing in America) claimed Obama was being too cool and that he should get mad and show it. So he does, he says he is going to kick some ass. So then they hammer him for getting mad, which is just laughable. And all it does is prove how dishonest people like Beck and O'Reilly are. Not to mention, not having a Democratic guest on with Beck to counter all his right-wing lies and spin.

And finally, dumbest things of the week. Which I would vote for this segment being the dumbest thing of the week. Courtney Friel picked Lady Gaga, who stripped to her underwear at a New York Mets baseball game and saluted the crowd with her two middle fingers. Gutfeld picked actor Ashton Kutcher, who likes to preach environmental responsibility. And O'Reilly picked Rosie O'Donnell, who urged the government to seize all of BP's assets, Billy said this: "She wants to take over the company, but there's a Constitution, Rosie."

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And get this, O'Reilly named Snooki the pinhead, for complaining about the 10% tax on tanning salons. Which is just ridiculous, because all of O'Reilly's right-wing friends had the same complaint, and yet, none of them were named pinheads when they did it.

More Proof The Tea Party Is A Joke
By: Steve - June 12, 2010 - 9:30am

What would you say about someone who was opposed to mandatory home trash collection. You would most likely say, wow, that's crazy. Well that is exactly what the Tea Party and FreedomWorks are protesting in Georgia. And yes, this is for real, they are opposed to mandatory home trash collection.

Local chapters of the Tea Party and FreedomWorks are collaborating to plan a protest in Gwinnet County, Georgia, to voice their latest grievance against government powers, mandatory home trash collection:
Three political activist groups are joining together Saturday to protest Gwinnett County's new trash plan, which begins July 1st. The Four Corners Tea Party, FreedomWorks Gwinnett and Gwinnett Citizens for Responsible Government have organized the protest, which will begin at 11 a.m. Saturday at the gazebo next to the Gwinnett Historic Courthouse. "It's our way of letting the commissioners know we remember their vote and we're not going to forget it," said Debbie Dooley, a grassroots coordinator for FreedomWorks. "We want to make sure they are held accountable for their vote."

The county's new solid waste program will make trash collection mandatory for all homeowners in unincorporated Gwinnett County.
The Four Corners Tea Party says on its Facebook page that the group is concerned with "requiring people who live in the unincorporated parts of the county to pay for trash pick-up, whether they like it or not."

Now just imagine what your neighborhood would look (and smell) like, if you let people opt out of having their trash picked up. It shows how crazy the Tea Party is, and why you should not vote for any of them. And that fact that FreedomWorks is involved, shows how crazy Dick Armey is, and why he was voted out of Congress.

And btw, these are the very same people O'Reilly supports. Except he does not report any of this, because it makes them look crazy. Just like he failed to report all the crazy positions Sharron Angle has, so people do not know how crazy she is.

She thinks flouride in the water is a communist plot to poison Americans. But O'Reilly does not tell anyone about that, because not only does it make her look crazy, it makes him look crazy too, for supporting her. So he just talks about how great she is, without informing the people with all the facts about her.

More BP News O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - June 12, 2010 - 9:00am

This is real news folks, the kind of news real journalists are reporting, so of course O'Reilly has totally ignored this story.

BP Is Preventing Trained Local Officials From Assisting In The Oil Spill Response

BP and federal responders continue to battle the petroleum company's oil spill as it continues to devastate the southeastern coast of the United States. Now, a group of fire chiefs from Baldwin County, Alabama, which is located along the state's coastline, are alleging that the oil giant is complicating this battle by purposely keeping trained local officials away from the spill response:
Fire chiefs along Alabama's coast are complaining about BP's response to the Gulf oil spill crisis. The 36-member Baldwin County Fire Chiefs Association sent a letter Wednesday to the unified command and Alabama Gov. Bob Riley saying the company appears to be purposely keeping trained local officials away from the spill response. They also say they're getting far too little official information about what's going on.
Addressing BP, the fire chiefs write in their letter, "Interestingly our services are free or at most cost reimbursable. You have chosen to use commercial operations at exorbitant costs. To be kept totally out of the loop in this disaster makes no sense. Our citizens have come to expect a high level of response from us. With us having no information for them we are not meeting their needs. They deserve better than they are getting."

Local Alabama news station WKRG reports that the chiefs had planned to meet with the oil company last week to relay their concerns, but "company officials cancelled the meeting at the last minute." The chiefs say their experience in hazardous material situations and knowledge of the region could be beneficial in the cleanup. But so far, BP has done a terrible job of communicating with local agencies.

We're here," Gib Hixon, president of the Baldwin County Fire Chiefs Association, told the Mobile Press-Register. "We've offered our facilities for logistics, staging, training. They have totally ignored us."

O'Reilly Wins Gold In Worst Person In The World
By: Steve - June 11, 2010 - 10:00am

From the Wednesday June 9th Countdown With Keith Olbermann

OLBERMANN: Our winner, Bill-O the clown. The panicky website News max reports, quote, "on June 17th, an esteemed panel led by Fox News Bill O‘Reilly and Dick Morris, along with global investor Jim Rogers and News Max CEO and editor in chief Christopher Ruddy, will convene to discuss inflation, higher taxes, our fragile economy and real solutions that average Americans can take to ensure their wealth is safeguarded and positioned to prosper in an uncertain future."

You know what happened at the least three of these News Max panels? News Max tries to sell the huddled masses a product of theirs called the Money Matrix Insider, usually for just 1,495 bucks, 1,000 dollars off the list price. It guarantees you a potential reward of 137,000 dollars.

Good lord, Bill-O's been reduced to hyping pyramid schemes. Bill, look, I know I haven't been paying that much attention to you lately. I'm sorry, you just seem to be fading out. But this desperate plea, this TV equivalent of cutting yourself. No, Bill O'Reilly, no. How can I say this? You're too good for the News Max Money Matrix insider pyramid scheme.

All right. Who am I kidding. You're not bad enough for the News Max Money Matrix insider pyramid scheme. Bill, please, go back to bashing undocumented immigrants and announcing you won the Peabody Award from the "Paris Business Review of Frenchmen," your boycott that destroyed France and made it into a cinder.

Please, leave this crap to Matthew Lesko and G. Gordon Liddy and the Sham Wow guy. If you are a laughing stock, how can I possibly take you seriously? Semi seriously? Just barely seriously?

I'm saying, you're still slightly more credible than the Sham Wow guy. Don't blow that. I am Bill O'Reilly and I'm here to sell you a bamboo steamer, today's Worst Person in the World.

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

And let me add this, as Larry The Cable Guy would say: "Now That's Funny, I don't Care Who You Are."

The Thursday 6-10-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 11, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Who To Blame For Gulf Oil Spill. O'Reilly said we must have oil because solar and wind is not enough. Then he trashed Time magazine over their article on who is to blame for the oil spill. O'Reilly even said he is mad at BP for the oil spill, except he never attacks them, all he does is blame Obama for political reasons. Then O'Reilly said Bush and Obama are to blame for the oil spill. O'Reilly also trashed the environmentalists for refusing to allow drilling in ANWR and in shallow water. Then he claimed to be an environmental guy, which is just a joke. At the end O'Reilly said the Time article was mostly left-wing trash.

Then Laura Ingraham was on to discuss it, all alone, with no Democratic guest of course. So then Ingraham agreed with O'Reilly, and trashed Time magazine and Obama, while saying nothing about Bush or any Republican that Time named. Ingraham said she does not know who is in charge of the oil spill, and O'Reilly said the Coast Guard. Which everyone knows, except for the stupid Ingraham. Then Ingraham called them all incompetent, O'Reilly said that's your opinion, but that he could not dispute it, and that most people would agree with her, which is just ridiculous. Nobody agrees with Ingraham on anything, except other far right nuts, including O'Reilly most of the time.

Then O'Reilly had E. Christopher Murray from the ACLU on to talk about how the ACLU is not happy with Obama over some of his policies, like civil liberties and national security, closing Gitmo, Patriot Act, etc. Which O'Reilly loves to death, because he can not get enough of any liberal, or liberal group, that is unhappy with something Obama has done, or plans to do. Billy reports it all, to make Obama look as bad as possible. And btw, O'Reilly is opposed to all the things the ACLU wants Obama to do.

This was just another Obama bashing segment, but this time, O'Reilly used a rep from the ACLU instead of a right-wing stooge, like he usually does. And one last thing, during the segment O'Reilly argued in support of racial profiling, when he has said he does not approve of racial profiling, making him a 100% liar. O'Reilly slammed the ACLU for being opposed to racial profiling, he said if you have 12 million illegals, and 11 million are Mexicans, then you must target Mexican looking people. Murray disagreed, and said that's racial profiling. So what happened is we found out that O'Reilly actually supports racial profiling, despite what he has said in the past.

Then O'Reilly had Sara Carter on to talk about the Border agent who shot and killed a Mexican teen, who was throwing rocks on the El Paso border. The Mexican Army showed up and a war almost broke out with the U.S. Border Patrol. The Border Agent was put on paid leave, and may be prosecuted, after the FBI investigation is done. Carter is a right-winger who agreed with O'Reilly on everything, and blamed it all on Mexico.

The Mexican Government called it an excessive use of force. But of course neither O'Reilly or Carter mentioned that information. I do not know what happened, because I was not there, and I am not laying the blame on anyone. But I do know that O'Reilly only reported one side of the story, with a right-wing guest only, which is a violation of journalistic standards.

Then O'Reilly had the 2 Republican culture warriors Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover on to discuss a teen pregnancy survey by the Centers for Disease Control, which O'Reilly called shocking. Proving that he is an old out of touch fool, that still thinks it's 1950 and it's Leave It To Beaver land. The survey said 71% of teens think it's ok to have a baby out of wedlock. Basically the 3 of them were outraged, and stunned that girls today would think that way. With no Democratic guests on to discuss it.

Then O'Reilly had Megyn Kelly on to discuss the war on drugs, and if it is a total waste of time. I say it is, and they should make everything legal except hard drugs like Heroin etc. O'Reilly cited an anti-war on drug commercial paid for by George Soros, and made by a far left group, they used Sting, etc. O'Reilly slammed Sting, and basically said he does not know what he is talking about. Basically O'Reilly and Kelly disagree, and think Sting and Soros are all a bunch of far left loons that know nothing.

They also talked about a 16 year old stripper who used a fake ID to get a job, O'Reilly and Kelly both blamed the club, and said they should be prosecuted. Then O'Reilly had more Joran Van Der Sloot garbage, which I refuse to report on. Kelly said her daytime show barely reports on it, because it's not that big of a story, and they do not do many crime stories. Billy said he will have more on it tomorrow with Geraldo, oh boy, I can't wait, not.

The last segment was the total waste of time Factor News Quiz with Steve Doocy and Rebecca Diamond. O'Reilly asks them 5 news questions, and they try to answer, which most of the time they get wrong, and they work at a news network. Then they send Factor gear to the person who they represent at home. Wow, what a prize, Factor Gear. If I had any Factor Gear, I would either try to sell it to some right-wing sucker, or just toss it in the trash. And for the record, both of them missed 4 out of 5, so it was a tie.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails, that O'Reilly's staff hand picks and edits for the show. Most of which look nothing like the original e-mail that was sent in.

O'Reilly Failed To Report Angle Is A Right-Wing Nut
By: Steve - June 11, 2010 - 9:00am

Wednesday night O'Reilly had Dick Morris on to talk politics and the recent primary elections. O'Reilly said the biggest win was by Sharron Angle in Nevada, who will now face the Democrat Harry Reid. O'Reilly called it a big win for the Tea Party, and had nothing but good things to say about Angle.

But of course, he never mentioned all the bad things about her, because he is a Republican, and he loves the Tea Party. So I was watching Keith Olbermann, and he went through a list of her positions, most of which have now been removed from her website btw. This is all the stuff O'Reilly and Morris failed to report.

From the June 9th Countdown With Keith Olbermann:

And another Tea Party triumph in Nevada. Maybe not. Conventional wisdom was that Sue Lowden's come from ahead defeat to Tea Partier Sharron Angle would hurt Senator Harry Reid. Turns out Ms. Lowden was the sensible one. Ms. Angle's resume is startling, or if you prefer, cartoon-like. She told "Liberty Watch Magazine" that she's opposed to legalizing alcohol. Las Vegas. Eleven years ago, she proposed a bill requiring doctors to tell women that research suggested abortions might increase their risk of breast cancer, even though, you know, it doesn't.

Two months ago, Mr. Angle said she was a member of the Oath Keepers, a group preparing itself not just for government internment camps, but for the day that someone issues a, quote, order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

Last October, she said a traditional home is not just spouses of different genders, but one in which one parent stays home with the children and the other provides the financial support for the family. Last October she said that, not 1968.

She endorsed a plan for a prison drug treatment that would be like sweat lodges, saunas with massage, that would cost 15,000 dollars a prisoner. It was developed in part by the Church of Scientology.

Ms. Angle also wants to end the Department of Education, believes income tax is unconstitutional, plans to phase out Social Security, two weeks ago, after BP, she said she favors more deregulation of the oil industry.

Oh, and Ms. Angle voted against fluoridizing the water, because she thinks fluoride might be a communist plot to poison Americans. And you thought Orly Taitz had lost it.

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

And let me add this, Harry Reid is happy that Angle won. Because they thought Sue Lowden had a chance to beat him. It turns out that Angle is much crazier than Lowden, so they will have way more ammunition to use against her. And the Reid campaign think it will be easy to beat Angle.

But O'Reilly and Morris called it a great win for Angle, and the Tea Party. Even though she will probably lose, and they voted out the woman that would have had a far better chance to beat him. Morris even predicted that every Republican who won on Tuesday, will win this November.

Dow Up 273 Points: O'Reilly Says Nothing!
By: Steve - June 11, 2010 - 8:30am

On Tuesday 6-8-10 O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Stock markets are plummeting and bank interest rates are miniscule, so where should you put your money?
On that very day the Dow was up 123 points, and then the next day the Dow was up most of the day until it dropped later in the day and closed down 40 points. But then on Thursday the Dow went up 273 points, and closed up 273 at 10.172.53.

The point here is that O'Reilly never said a word about the Dow going up 273 points on Thursday. And when he said the markets are plummeting on Tuesday they were actually up 123 points that day.

Not to mention, the market is up about 3000 points since Obama took office, so not only are they not plummeting, they have went up at a pretty good rate.

Proving that O'Reilly is not only a liar, it proves that he is a biased right-wing partisan too. Because he only reports on the markets on the down days, while ignoring the markets on the up days. And btw, he does the exact same thing with the Obama job approval ratings. He only reports them on the down days, while ignoring them on the up days.

In the last year alone the Dow is up 16.8%, which is not plummeting as O'Reilly claims, it's an increase. Now think about this, who would lie about the markets, only a Republican who wants to make Obama look bad. Which is exactly what O'Reilly does, with the markets, and the Obama job approval ratings.

O'Reilly Said Progressives Are Disgusting
By: Steve - June 11, 2010 - 8:00am

Billy was on the June 10th Glenn Beck radio show, where he called Progressives disgusting, and said they do not want a stable society. Here is the audio:



In the clip he also said progressives will smear and destroy you, as if him and Beck, and pretty much everyone at Fox and on the right do not smear and destroy everyone. It's called politics, both sides do it. But O'Reilly acts like only liberals and progressives do it, which is just ridiculous, and nothing but pure right-wing propaganda.

And think about this, O'Reilly claims to be a nonpartisan independent, with a no spin zone, who is fair to both sides. He even denies he is a Republican, and recently after Dr. Marc Lamont Hill called him a Republican, he said he would sue him if he ever called him a Republican again. Then he has 95% right-wing guests, and goes on the Glenn Beck radio show to call progressives disgusting.

If that's not a Republican, what is it? If anyone can explain to me how that is not being a far right Republican, I'd love to hear it, just e-mail me. If I said conservatives are disgusting, and that they do not want a stable society, you would classify me as a liberal, and you would be right. And btw, I do not think that, I just think they have the wrong ideas for the country, and I do think some of them are stupid, especially Sarah Palin.

More Republican Hypocrisy About The Government
By: Steve - June 10, 2010 - 9:30am

One day these right-wing morons say the Government should stay the hell out of the way, and let the American people and Corporations do whatever the hell they want to. Then they next day they scream and yell that the Government is not doing enough to help them, it's ridiculous, and massive hypocrisy.

It's nothing more than a political smear job on Obama to score cheap political points.

Despite her much-publicized opposition to strong government action, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has recently slammed President Obama for not using his executive authority to commandeer boats in the Gulf region to deal with that oil plume as it was coming up in the water.

And now the Right-wing Florida senatorial candidate Marco Rubio has joined the hypocrisy club. During an interview with Sean Hannity earlier this year, Rubio complained that Obama was trying to "create a dependency society by trying to fundamentally redefine the role of government in America."

He agreed with Hannity that when "people look to the government for security of any kind, we give up our prosperity." He told NPR, "The more that government is involved in your economy, the less economy there is left over for the rest of us."

But now that his state is facing a crisis from the oil disaster, Rubio is changing his tune and practically begging for the assistance of the federal government to help Florida cope. Tuesday night on Fox News, Rubio said containment of the spill should be "the number one priority of the federal government," and he solicited assistance for Louisiana that "only the federal government could provide to help protect their marshes."

Then, Rubio demanded federal government assistance to protect Florida's beaches:
VAN SUSTEREN: If people do not enjoy your beaches you don't have revenue to run your government, and you are in a deeper financial problem aside from the ecological damage. Now what?

RUBIO: Obviously, you want to make sure people have confidence in the state of Florida with the assistance of the federal government that it is doing everything it can to protect beaches.
Of course, Rubio is correct that the federal government does have a much-needed role in leading the containment and clean-up efforts. But the oil disaster highlights the giant hypocrisy of right-wing conservatives who preach the mantra of limited government.

And not once has O'Reilly done a story about the hypocrisy from the right, who say the government should stay out of everything, then as soon as a disaster happens they scream for the feds to bail them out. Mostly because O'Reilly is one of them, so he just ignores it.

The Wednesday 6-9-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 10, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Race And The Oil Spill Disaster. O'Reilly said some people are saying Obama is now an angry black man after the ass kicking comment. Yeah, those people are called Republicans, because nobody else is saying that. O'Reilly mocked the Obama ass kicking comment, making fun of it. Then he cited a few people who said Obama was an angry black man, and one of them was Matt Drudge. O'Reilly said it was just dumb, and yet, he does an entire talking points memo discussing it.

Mark Halperin from Time Magazine was on to discuss it. O'Reilly said it was ridiculous to claim it was racist, and Halperin disagreed. O'Reilly just can not believe anyone is saying something racist about President Obama, because he is basically a right-wing idiot. O'Reilly even denied the Drudge headline was not a racial headline, which is just laughable. O'Reilly said he can not read Matt Drudge's mind, and he does not think it was racist. Then O'Reilly pulled a number out of his ass, and said maybe 5% of the people are racist against Obama. Halperin even called him on it, and O'Reilly admitted it was just a guess. At the end O'Reilly said it was a made up media controversy. It was pure speculation, which O'Reilly said he never does.

Then O'Reilly had Dick Morris on to talk politics. O'Reilly asked Morris about the race thing, and of course Morris agreed with O'Reilly 100 percent. Morris also said he does not think the Drudge headline was racist. Then they talked about the Iran sanctions, and of course Morris attacked Obama over it, and called them weak. Morris said it "gives the illusion of action."

Then O'Reilly said the big election for him was the Sharron Angle win in Nevada, the crazy Tea Party lady who beat the crazy bird health care lady. And btw, Morris said Angle will beat Reid, remember that folks, because I think he is wrong. They talked about a few other elections, and Morris predicted all the Republicans will win. Then the fool said the Tea Party is getting stronger and stronger, which is just laughable. And as I predicted neither O'Reilly or Morris said one word about how crazy Sharron Angle is on the issues.

O'Reilly said the Tea Party primary win in Nevada by Sharron Angle was a huge victory. Except the Democrats are happy she won, because they think Reid will beat her. Not to mention, it was reported today that she removed some of the crazy far right positions she has from her campaign website, to make her seem less radical.

Such as: She said fluoride is a communist plot. She sponsored legislation to require doctors to inform women that abortion causes breast cancer. And her ideas for drug rehab for prisoners is based on Scientology. All of which O'Reilly failed to report. So basically she is a right-wing nut, that O'Reilly called a great winner. Not to mention, Sarah Palin supported her. And one last thing, she only won because the Republican running against her (Sue Lowden) is the far right nut who said people should pay for doctors visits with a chicken.

Then O'Reilly had Tamara Holder on to talk about the Blagojevich trial. And of course no Democratic guest was on to discuss it. Basically they reported that the attorney for Blagojevich said he really did not know what he was talking about on the tapes, and that they were taken out of context, etc. Which I could care less about, all I want to know is when it's over, was he found guilty or not. Then I will comment on it, after the jury makes a ruling.

The next 2 segments were body language with the right-wing blond bimbo, that I do not report on because it's not news, it's just a right-wing stooge who does negative body language readings on Obama and the Democrats. And then Dennis Miller was on to make jokes about liberals, which I also do not report on. I have no problem with it, I just do not report it, because it has nothing to do with the news. O'Reilly just has the right-wing comedian on once a week to make bad jokes about Democrats. Miller made jokes about Helen Thomas and her looks, and called her a nasty old liberal, yeah that's real classy Miller. And O'Reilly laughed at them, which of course he would, because he called her a witch.

And finally it was did you see that, with Arthel Neville filling in for Jane Skinner. O'Reilly cried about some anti-Christian stuff, on the comedy network, done by South Park. Earth to Bill O'Reilly, it's a comedy show, and a cartoon, moron. Report some real news for once. Neville did not have much of a problem with it, mostly because it's a comedy network. Then they talked about a kid at a Phillies game who might have been drinking a beer, except some people are saying the beer was empty. O'Reilly admitted nobody knows for sure, and yet he speculated the kid was drinking beer anyway. O'Reilly even called the Philly police and they told him they are not even investigating it.

Let me also add this, almost every day O'Reilly spins out this garbage that Obama is a far left President, as he ignores things that prove differently. President Obama endorsed Blanche Lincoln, he even did a campaign ad for her, who is a moderate Corporate Democrat, what real liberals call a DINO, over the liberal progressive Bill Halter.

And Wednesday someone in the Obama administration even spoke out against the Unions spending so much money to defeat her. That sure as hell does not look like a far left President to me. He is only far left to Republicans like O'Reilly. O'Reilly is so far to the right, he thinks anyone that does not agree with him on everything, is far left.

Then the pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. Which I do not report on because it's not news, and mostly right-wing propaganda from O'Reilly.

More BP News O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - June 10, 2010 - 8:30am

This is real news, about BP, their terrible safety record, and how they falsified and altered safety equipment. None of this information is ever reported by O'Reilly, but he sure has time to spend half the show talking about Joran Van Der Sloot, who is not even an American, who is accused of murder in Peru.

BP and the other companies involved in the Deepwater Horizon disaster face a host of potential fines under various environmental and safety laws, but a recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that few fines are ever actually collected after drilling accidents.

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) -- the troubled federal agency which is supposed to regulate the oil and gas industry -- collected only 16 fines out of the 400 investigations it conducted into Gulf of Mexico drilling incidents in the past five years. MMS found about 200 violations of safety and environmental regulations, but many proposed violations get reduced or dropped during behind-the-scenes reviews:
Each major oil company paid only a single fine related to violations linked to those incidents. Both Chevron and BP spokesmen defended their companies safety records and said their employee injury rates are low.

It was rare for any oil company to pay penalties for problems found in accidents investigated by the MMS, records show. The agency can charge $35,000 per day per violation. But many proposed violations get reduced or dropped during behind-the-scenes reviews. Records show that most final payments were small and took a year or more to collect.

Only three of about 30 companies identified as polluters in MMS reports have so far paid related penalties, records show.
BP had more accidents and blowouts than any other oil company operating in Gulf waters, the Chronicle found. The company had at least 47 such incidents since 2005. BP also had one of the biggest delays in fine collections.

In 2002, two oil well blowouts struck the same BP drilling rig in three months -- it took BP five years to pay the fines. Records also showed that critical safety equipment had been altered without MMS approval prior to a separate 2002 explosion that nearly destroyed a BP oil rig.

Not of word of this has ever been reported by O'Reilly, or anyone on his show, he just ignores it. All he does is smear Obama over it, with cheap partisan right-wing political attacks.

Sarah Palin Caught Lying Again
By: Steve - June 10, 2010 - 8:00am

What a shocker, haha, not!

Palin now believes that the Obama administration needs to crack down on oily corruption, and hold the oil executives accountable before they can be trusted to drill, baby, drill.

This is, of course, exactly what President Obama is doing -- by establishing new moratoria on offshore drilling, launching criminal investigations into the catastrophe, breaking up the Minerals Management Service, creating a presidential investigatory commission, and calling for comprehensive legislation to cap fossil fuel pollution.

In a ridiculous Facebook post, Palin promotes her record as a half-term governor of Alaska, who quit in the middle of her term to get rich, claiming she has made government regulation of oil drilling a constant refrain. Palin wrote this:
PALIN: As Governor of Alaska, I did everything in my power to hold oil companies accountable in order to prove to the federal government and to the nation that Alaska could be trusted to further develop energy rich land like ANWR and NPR-A.
And if you believe that, I have some land to sell you. What crazy Palin failed to mention is that she used Exxon-funded studies to fight protecting the polar bear from oil pollution, and claimed offshore drilling is "safe and environmentally friendly" on the campaign trail.

Robert Gibbs had some advice for Sarah Palin, Gibbs said this on CBS "Face the Nation" last Sunday.

Gibbs: "I'm almost sure that the oil companies don't consider the Obama administration a huge ally," he said, adding, "My suggestion to Sarah Palin would be to get slightly more informed as to what's going on in and around oil drilling in this country."

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Stock Market
By: Steve - June 9, 2010 - 11:00am

On Tuesday night O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Stock markets are plummeting and bank interest rates are miniscule, so where should you put your money?
And now the truth, since President Obama took office the Dow is up almost 20 percent, from 8,500 to over 10,000, and in the last year it's up 14.6 percent.

On the day O'Reilly said the markets are plummeting (Tuesday June 8th) the Dow went up 123 points. And O'Reilly knew it because he tapes his show around 4pm, after the Dow had closed.

Now today (Wednesday June 9th) as I type this, the Dow is up 108 points, to 10,057.

So when O'Reilly says the markets are plummeting, he is lying. The markets are up, and have been going up ever since Obama took office. And if you don't believe me, just go look it up for yourself at money.cnn.com/data/markets/dow.

The Tuesday 6-8-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 9, 2010 - 10:00am

The TPM was called "Obama's Oil Spill Struggles Continue." Notice how O'Reilly calls it Obama's oil spill, which is more right-wing bias, because it's the BP oil spill, not Obama's oil spill. And then O'Reilly spent the next 3 minutes smearing Obama over the BP oil spill. Crazy O'Reilly even said the oil spill has put the entire Obama administration at risk. Which is just insane, and nothing but right-wing propaganda. BP had an oil spill, and Obama had nothing to do with it, so it's crazy to say his entire administration is at risk over something he did not do, and had nothing to do with.

Then O'Reilly had Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes on to discuss it. And of course Crowley agreed with O'Reilly and used her time to blame it all on Obama, and say it could cause Obama to be a one term President. Which is just ridiculous, and nothing but the usual insanity from the crazy Monica Crowley. Colmes sort of defended Obama, but not much. He said Obama does have an optics problem, but that it's far too early to count the President out.

The best thing in the segment is what O'Reilly said, it was just laughable. Billy said he would tell President Obama to ring up BP's Tony Hayward. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: I'd call him up and say, Hey, Tony, you're in big trouble.
What the hell? Hey O'Reilly, what good would that do, and don't you think Tony already knows he's in big trouble. Not to mention, you have no clue if Obama has talked to Tony or not, so you are just a speculating idiot.

Then O'Reilly had a segment called how to protect your money, O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Stock markets are plummeting and bank interest rates are miniscule, so where should you put your money? The Factor posed that question to Fox Business anchor John Stossel.
WTF? To begin with, the markets are not plummeting, they are up, and have been going up ever since Obama took office and got the economy back on track, something you never give him credit for, then you lie about the markets, see my other blog posting for the details. And then you have John Stossel on to talk about investing your money, what a joke, he is not an investment expert, and he even admits it. Stossel refused to give investment advice, all he would say is that he believes in diversification, and that he has 10% of his money in gold. He also said he found out that managed mutual funds do worse than index fund. So O'Reilly put him on to say where to invest your money, and he refused to answer the question. Then why even have him on?

Then O'Reilly did an entire segment on Joran Van Der Sloot, with Bo Dietl, which I refuse to report on. Then O'Reilly talked more about Van Der Sloot with the Factor legal team, Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle, who wasted an entire segment on it too, which I refuse to report on. O'Reilly had them back for a 2nd segment, and they talked about the ACLU's effort to have Arizona's new immigration law overturned, Guilfoyle said this: "The ACLU is trying to say that Arizona is usurping federal immigration law, but this will be denied unless there is a rogue judge."

They also talked about the case of the 23-year-old man who sent an explicit photo of himself to a 17-year-old girl. The girl's father exacted revenge by tying the man up and shocking him with a stun gun. Guilfoyle said this: "This guy took matters into his own hands, because he didn't like his daughter getting pictures of someone's genitalia. I kind of love this guy, but the charges against him are probably appropriate."

And in the last segment O'Reilly had Charles Krauthammer on to smear the Unions. O'Reilly called them corrupt, and hates the fact that they spend money to help Democrats get elected. Even though they have no evidence of corruption, they still implied it anyway. Which is just about all the proof you need that O'Reilly is a Republican, because he hates Unions who give most of their money to Democrats. Not to mention, no Democratic guest was on to defend the Unions, just the far right Krauthammer to smear them with lies.

O'Reilly singled out the Service Employees International Union, which represents more than 2-million workers, Billy said this:
O'REILLY: The SEIU has a tremendous amount of money that they get from dues and give to people like Barack Obama. They have a lot of power and they purport to be the spokesperson for the working American. We underestimate their power.
Notice that O'Reilly does not have a problem with Corporations, and the wealthy, who give 10 times the money Unions do to Republicans. He only has a problem with Unions giving money, because it goes to Obama and the Democrats. And he claims they purport to be the spokesperson for working Americans. No O'Reilly, they do not purport anything, they are the spokesperson for working Americans. Without Unions everyone would be making minimum wage, and barely be able to make enough money to live on, jackass.

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

Another Poll You Will Never See O'Reilly Report
By: Steve - June 9, 2010 - 9:00am

And this poll is even from his right-wing buddy Scott Rasmussen. But you can bet the farm it will never see the light of day on the Craptor.

Fox News has done their best to create a mountain out of a molehill regarding discussions between the Obama administration and prospective Senate candidates in Pennsylvania and Colorado.

While legal and political experts have overwhelmingly stated that the White House's conversations with Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff are not at all unusual, Fox News reporters, anchors and pundits have insisted that something improper occurred, with idiots like Sean Hannity and Dick Morris discussing criminal charges and even the commission of an "impeachable offense."

And then we see a poll from Rasmussen that shows only 19 percent of respondents believe that the discussions were anything unusual in politics. The poll's respondents also found the issue far less important than any of the ten issues Rasmussen typically asks if respondents find important.

Scott Rasmussen himself says of the results, "While politicians profess to be shocked at the job offers, voters see business as usual."

Fox News has a habit of picking up and repeating Rasmussen polls ad nauesaum, even though they often reinforce conservative framing of the issue at hand. Considering that this poll seems to give a contrary response to what Fox News has been promoting, it will be interesting to see if this result gets the same amount of reporting. Yeah, and I'm Elvis too, O'Reilly and Fox will ignore this poll like it was never taken.

Earth to O'Reilly and Fox News, if you can not even get more than 19% of the people to believe your lies, in a biased right-wing Rasmussen poll, you have failed big time, and you should go back to propaganda school for a refresher course.

O'Reilly And Fox Spinning The LA School Story
By: Steve - June 9, 2010 - 8:30am

O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, and pretty much everyone on the right are reporting that an LA School District Board has voted to teach the kids that the new Arizona immigration law in un-American.

As I have recently found out, that is a lie. It's all made up by O'Reilly, Malkin, Tammy Bruce, etc. Because that is not what happened, and not what they are doing. Here are the facts.

Here is what O'Reilly said on Monday May 7th:
O'REILLY: LA schools label AZ immigration law as un-American. Los Angeles public schools will reportedly teach students that Arizona's immigration law is misguided and antithetical to American values.
In the very same segment attorney Tanya Acker defended the district. She said this: "I spoke with some people in the superintendent's office, and there is nothing in this proposed curriculum to teach that this law is un-American.

From the June 2nd laweekly.com:

The Los Angeles Unified School District's board late Tuesday approved a resolution denouncing Arizona's controversial immigration law, a move that puts it in line with the city and county of Los Angeles.

The move will also have the district explore how to cut economic ties with Arizona-based businesses, although a full-on economic and travel boycott -- as was approved by the city of L.A. -- was not part of this deal. Making a teaching moment out of the Arizona controversy was: Classes will discuss the law "in the context of unity, diversity and equal protection for all."

They did not say it was un-American, and they did not say they were going to tell the kids it was an un-American law, as O'Reilly and everyone at Fox has claimed. They are simply going to discuss the law in class.

The Los Angeles Daily News states that school board members Nury Martinez and Yolie Flores have joined Los Angeles Unified School District board of education president Garcia in the move that would call for in-class discussion of the Arizona law "in the context of unity, diversity and equal protection for all."

O'Reilly and all the right-wing spin doctors have twisted it into a story that they are going to tell the kids it is an un-American law, which is a lie. O'Reilly even called it indoctrination, which is another lie. And now you know the truth, not the made up right-wing garbage you get from O'Reilly and Fox News.

Cavuto Caught Lying About Census Jobs
By: Steve - June 9, 2010 - 8:00am

On the Monday Your World with Neil Cavuto, Neil Cavuto and the New York Post's John Crudele repeatedly lied that the Census Bureau is hiring, firing, and rehiring workers to artificially boost national employment figures, despite the fact that they acknowledged not having evidence that this is true. In doing so, Cavuto and Crudele lied about the Census hiring practices and how the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) gathers jobs figures.

Basically, it was 2 right-wing liars doing what they do best, lie to the American people to make President Obama look bad. It's all lies, and nothing but a dishonest right-wing smear job. Here is part of what the 2 liars said:
CAVUTO: To the idea that, deliberately or not, that such workers who worked temporarily, then laid off, then come back and are back -- if that is within the same survey week that you're having for jobs, is it possible you could have a double count?

CRUDELE: It is possible. But here's what we do know. The Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn't audit these jobs. They're reported to them by companies, by Census. So, a figure is brought in; Census says they hired 411,000 people, BLS -- Bureau of Labor Statistics -- takes them at their word. There's no checking. So you have to go to Census to figure out whether or not these jobs are being double counted.

And as you have found out, I've found out from readers of the Post that people are being hired and rehired and fired and rehired and fired and rehired four or five times. What's the purpose of that? Also, people who are being trained for jobs -- they go through two weeks of training and never actually work, and then somebody else gets that job. Or they're promised eight weeks of work and they only get two, and somebody else gets two, and the next person gets two. How all these jobs are counted, I'm sure nobody knows.
What a joke, nobody is being hired, then fired, then re-hired, not one person, ever. It's all lies being put out by the right, mostly Fox News, nobody else is reporting it, not NBC, not ABC, not CBS, not MSNBC, and not CNN. Which tells you it's not true, because if it was they would be reporting it, the whole story is made up right-wing propaganda.

Census director Robert Groves flatly denied the claim that the Census is repeatedly hiring and firing workers, Groves responded to a May 25 New York Post column by Crudele, in which Crudele claimed that Census is hiring and firing workers in order to "report the creation of a new job to the Labor Department."

In a May 25 letter, Groves wrote that "we do not hire, then fire, and then rehire anyone. Any employee who is fired is fired for cause." Groves also called Crudele's column a "distortion of the U.S. Census Bureau's employment and reporting practices."

In his letter, Groves went on to explain this: "We train and hire temporary workers for various operations, most significantly Non-Response Follow-Up, to complete work assignments. When the work is complete, the temporary worker goes into an inactive status. They may be reactivated if there is more work to do, or for another subsequent operation. At no time do we count a reactivation from non-working status as a 'rehire.'"

FactCheck: Contrary to Crudele's and Cavuto's suggestions that Census jobs are being counted multiple times and are artificially boosting national employment figures, FactCheck.org wrote in a response to Crudele's May 25 column that even if the Census was repeatedly hiring and firing workers, "it would not have any effect on jobs figures reported by the BLS" and that "Crudele misunderstands -- or at least, did not report accurately -- the way jobs figures are gathered."

The jobs figures that the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports each month are not based on any count of "new jobs" or new hires. Rather, the BLS gets payroll figures on how many persons are actually being paid at the time of its monthly survey. What reporters and economists commonly refer to as job growth or job losses reflect the net change from month to month, not any tally of those hired or fired (or retired or deceased, for that matter).

Anyone who had been hired, fired and re-hired would still be reported just once, no matter how many times they may have been on or off the payroll before the reporting period.

The Census Bureau reports to the Department of Labor and on our public Web site the number of people paid for work during a given week. We do not report the number of jobs. The Census Bureau reports the total number of unduplicated temporary 2010 census workers that earned any pay during a specific weekly pay period.

Temporary workers earning any pay during the week are counted only once. It is simply not possible for the Census Bureau to engage in the manipulation of data to artificially inflate the employment report of the BLS in the manner alleged.

And btw, all that information is available by simply contacting the Census Bureau. Which any real journalist would have done, before reporting a bunch of lies that claim the Census is rigging the jobs numbers. So what you have is Cavuto and Crudele making up a story out of thin air. Simply to make the President look bad, and to make it look like the job numbers are a fraud.

The Brit Hume Propaganda Zone
By: Steve - June 8, 2010 - 10:00am

Hume and O'Reilly blame the difficulty obtaining loans on a the Obama regulatory crackdown. Even though the Obama financial reform bill has not even passed yet. This shows what total right-wing spin doctors O'Reilly and Hume are.



And btw, the reason the banks are not lending, is mostly banker greed. The Treasury Department reports that October was the ninth consecutive month of declining loans by the 22 top recipients of federal bailout funds. Yet, most of these banks are also reporting significant gains in profits.

The other reason they are not lending is due to paying the Government back on their loans. The Obama administration has pushed the big banks to repay their federal loans before the end of 2010. And they expect by year's end, the 22 biggest recipients will have fully repaid their loans to the Treasury ($185 billion).

And the banks are anxious to comply with the Administration's prodding because a total repayment frees them from federal oversight of their salaries and bonuses. So, the same bankers who created the global financial crisis and destroyed millions of jobs are now legally able to take billions of dollars as bonuses. In fact, Wall Street has set aside more than $140 billion for this.

Funny how O'Reilly and Hume never reported any of that. Because they are dishonest partisan right-wing hacks, who just want to blame everything on Obama. The Banks are paying the money back as fast as possible so they can pay out billions in bonuses, that is why they are not lending money, not because of anything Obama did, it's because of what they did. Yet O'Reilly and Hume blame it all on Obama, which is just ridiculous.

And one last thing, you can get all this information with a simple google search on why are banks not lending. O'Reilly has what he calls a crack staff of 10 people who he claims never get anything wrong. And yet, he got it all wrong, and then blamed it on Obama. When Bush and Wall Street caused the financial crisis, Obama is just trying to fix it.

The Monday 6-7-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 8, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Is President Obama Losing The folks?

O'Reilly put out his tired old right-wing spin that all the people are now opposed to Obama. O'Reilly said President Obama is losing the regular folks. Billy said he is a simple man who eats at Diners, just like the regular folks, and he said he was talking to a Diner owner on Long Island who can not get a re-financing loan to hire more people. And somehow O'Reilly blamed that on Obama, which is just crazy, it's the banks fault. And once again O'Reilly said it's the Obama far left ideology that is driving his poll numbers south, except, as I have shown you his poll numbers are not going south, O'Reilly just made it up.

And what the hell does he mean by regular Americans, I'll tell you what he means. It's code for Republicans, except O'Reilly is too much of a partisan coward to say it. President Obama has only lost the faith of Republicans, the rest of the people still support Obama. And what gets me is if a Democrat had asked that question under Bush, O'Reilly would say it's ridiculous, and call them an un-American traitor.

Then Brit Hume was on, and he pretty much agreed with O'Reilly on just about everything. Hume even said we have a center right country, with a left of center President, and called that the problem. Which is just ridiculous, because we have a center left country, and the 2008 elections proved it. Not to mention there are more registered Democrats than there are Republicans. So Hume is clueless, and nothing but a right-wing spin doctor. The Banks will not loan more money out, so how is that Obama's fault, can someone explain that to me. Hume and O'Reilly blame it on Obama, which is just pure right-wing propaganda. And think about this, Brit Hume is put on an an objective news analyst, then he agrees with everything O'Reilly says.

Then O'Reilly had to talk about the BP publicity campaign, they have spent $50 million dollars on a PR campaign. Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to discuss it. Juan quoted the comedian Jimmy Kimmel, who said BP should take that $50 million and shove it in the hole to plug the leak. Even Ham said it was a risk to do that type of PR campaign, but she did not have much of a problem with it. O'Reilly asked Ham if she was confident if BP will clean up the spill, and she said she does not know, O'Reilly called that an honest answer.

O'Reilly quoted Obama saying BP was nickel diming the cleanup, and O'Reilly said if they are he will go after them, haha, yeah right. They are, right now, and he is not doing anything. Williams said BP can not be trusted, because so far they have lied about everything. Then Ham did a political attack on Obama for not getting the spill stopped, when he can not plug the leak, and they are doing everything possible.

The next segment was about the LA school district teaching the kids that the Arizona law is wrong. John Phillips and Tanya Acker were on to discuss it. Phillips the Republican was outraged. Acker was on to defend the school, she said O'Reilly and the right are misrepresenting what the school is doing, and that they are not teaching the kids the law is un-American. And I have to say that as a liberal I think what the school is doing is wrong, but only if what has been reported is true, so for once, I might agree with O'Reilly.

I say let the parents teach them about the law, the school should not be doing it. Acker said the school is not teaching the kids that the law is un-American. Near the end of the segment O'Reilly cut her off, and stopped her from talking, so the Republican could then talk some more.

Then another Joran Van Der Sloot segment. And btw, Sunday night Geraldo did almost his entire show on this story, which is where it should be reported, not on a so-called hard news show. I will say this, O'Reilly said he does not convict anyone on tv, and he has hammered other people for doing it. So what does O'Reilly do, he declared Van Der Sloot "GUILTY" right on the air, he said this guy is guilty. Before a trial or anything, so he just convicted the guy on tv.

And Van Der Sloot was never even charged with anything in the Holloway case, but O'Reilly said he did it anyway in that case too. Then O'Reilly predicted he would get 25 to 30 years, by the Peru courts. He also made a joke about waterboarding Van Der Sloot to get him to talk. Greta Van Susteren was on to discuss it, and she said they will not do that, so O'Reilly said he would go to Peru and personally waterboard him.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on for his weekly media bias segment. Which is so funny, because there is no Democratic media bias analyst. It's just O'Reilly and Goldberg, who are both Republicans, sitting around crying about liberal bias in the media, and never talking about any conservative bias at Fox, or any other right-wing media source. Somehow they can only find liberal bias in the media, even though Fox is putting out conservative bias 24/7, all day and all night long.

They basically spent the entire segment slamming Helen Thomas, for saying the people in Israel should go back to Poland and Germany, which she resigned over. I say Thomas was wrong to say that, and she probably should retire. I think she is starting to lose it. So in my opinion she did the right thing to retire, after all, she is 89 years old. Goldberg said he hates to see anyone lose a job over a statement, but that he is not going to lose any sleep over it.

Goldberg compared her to the President of Iran, and said they both think the same way. Then O'Reilly and Goldberg twisted her opinion into speculation that everyone on the left agree with her. And Goldberg even said he assumes that almost everyone in the media agrees with her. Hey Billy, what happened to that no speculation rule. He even admitted he has never seen any polls on it, and yet he speculated that it was true anyway. O'Reilly asked why the NY Times) still defends Obama when everyone hates the job he is doing. Earth to O'Reilly, Obama has a 50% job approval, and he got 52% of the vote, so that means the only people that do not approve of his job are the people that did not vote for him.

And finally the last segment was the ridiculous Factor Reality Check. It has no reality, and almost no checks. Basically it's O'Reilly showing video of something a liberal said, then he puts his right-wing spin on what they said. Billy calls that a reality check, I call it right-wing spin.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, O'Reilly named Elton John singing at the Rush Limbaugh wedding a reality check. O'Reilly called it a reality check because the gay liberal did the Limbaugh wedding even though he hates Limbaugh. Which is not a reality check on anything, not to mention this, O'Reilly failed to mention that he was paid $1 million dollars to do it. I would perform for the Devil for $1 million dollars, so O'Reilly was being ridiculous, and he failed to report all the facts.

Karl Rove Caught Lying About Obama Again
By: Steve - June 8, 2010 - 9:00am

Once again, for maybe the millionth time, Karl Rove has been caught lying again about something Obama said. And this is the go to guy for O'Reilly on political matters, he is the senior political analyst for Fox News, and a regular on the Factor at least once a week, if not more.

Criticizing President Obama's response to the Gulf oil spill, Karl Rove said Obama "should have shot straight" and acknowledged that the only sure way to stop the spill was to drill relief wells. In fact, Obama has said that about the spill.

On the Monday June 7th edition of America Live with Megyn Kelly, Rove said this:
ROVE: Here's my point about President Obama. He should have shot straight. He should have said, "You know what, this is a very difficult thing to deal with, we've never had to deal with it before. The only sure way of guaranteeing that this will stop is to drill these relief wells. It will take up to three months to do so. In the meantime, we're going to do everything we possibly can, working in concert with BP, to test out different ways to bring this to an early conclusion."
Which is exactly what Obama has said, and exactly what he did.

On May 14th, Obama called stopping the leak extremely difficult and discussed using the "most advanced technology that exists to try to stop the flow of oil as quickly as possible."

At his May 27th press conference, Obama called the spill an "unprecedented disaster" that will be very difficult to stop, and said that "we're exploring any reasonable strategies to try and save the Gulf from a spill that may otherwise last until the relief wells are finished -- and that's a process that could take months."

Here are a few quotes from the May 27th Obama press conference, all of which Roves seems to have forgot.
OBAMA: We're exploring any reasonable strategies to try and save the Gulf from a spill that may otherwise last until the relief wells are finished -- and that's a process that could take months.

The American people should know that from the moment this disaster began, the federal government has been in charge of the response effort. As far as I'm concerned, BP is responsible for this horrific disaster, and we will hold them fully accountable on behalf of the United States as well as the people and communities victimized by this tragedy.

I'll close by saying this: This oil spill is an unprecedented disaster. The fact that the source of the leak is a mile under the surface, where no human being can go, has made it enormously difficult to stop. But we are relying on every resource and every idea, every expert and every bit of technology, to work to stop it.
And even after saying all that, Karl Rove and the right continue to dishonestly misrepresent what President Obama has said and done. Frankly, it's a sad and pathetic political smear job on the President, by a totally biased partisan hack.

At a time when we should all be working together to stop the massive oil spill, Karl Rove is using it to score cheap political points. And if a Democrat had said this about a Republican President, O'Reilly would rip them to pieces, and call them un-American traitors. But when Rove does it, O'Reilly says nothing, and not only that, he puts him on his own show to smear the President with his lies.

Goldberg Slams Jews Who Report On Israel
By: Steve - June 8, 2010 - 8:30am

Here is the video of Bernie Goldberg saying he does not want anyone who is Jewish reporting on Israel, because according to him, they can not be trusted.



It's just laughable, and the classic pot calling the kettle black. Goldberg can not be trusted to report the truth on anything, and yet, here he is saying you can not trust a Jewish journalist who reports on Israel. When you can not trust his reporting on anything.

And what's sad is Helen Thomas makes a stupid comment about Jewish people, then loses her job. Bernie Goldberg makes a stupid comment about Jewish journalists and O'Reilly says nothing, and then he does not lose his job.

More Republican Racism O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - June 8, 2010 - 8:00am

Once again we find an example of racism by a Republican, the racism O'Reilly has claimed is not in the Republican party, and the racism that he never reports on.

City councilman Steven Blair (R-AZ) stirred up a controversy by using his radio show on KYCA to denounce a mural on the side of Miller Valley Elementary School in Prescott, AZ for depicting a black guy in the middle of that mural. After his rant, angry callers pressured the principal of the school to order the artists to lighten the skin of African American and Hispanic children depicted in the mural.

However, the principal's decision met public outrage, and the artists refused to comply. Now, the Prescott News is reporting that Blair has been fired from his KYCA radio job for his racist opposition to the mural. And that was not all, ThinkProgress recorded a new rant from Blair over the Memorial Day weekend where he encouraged a caller, who said the mural "looks like a bunch of freaky illegals jumping over a fence," to call into the school board to complain:
CALLER: Then when they put that mural up there, I was truly offended. It looks like a bunch of freaky illegals jumping over a fence with this one person with a big stick in his hand. What is that about? How did that pass muster with Prescott City Council?

BLAIR: Well if you're angry about it, 445-5500 is the number you can call, call the school administration and say, 'Hey, you know look, you have a historic building there, you're putting on a mural that some people have called LA or New York.' In my opinion whenever you feel like. Well, I shouldn't say it.

BLAIR: I don't care who you are what you are, but you don't have to shove it down everybody's throats, you know.
O'Reilly plays the stick your head in the sand routine by ignoring all these racism stories about Republicans, then he claims there is no racism in the Republican party. He has even said if you have evidence of any, send it to him and he will report it. So myself and other people I know of send it to him, but it still never gets reported.

Laura Bush Says Obama Not To Blame For Oil Spill
By: Steve - June 7, 2010 - 2:00pm

Wow, I found one honest Republican in America, Laura Bush.

Former First Lady Laura Bush said Friday that she doesn't think President Obama should be blamed for the continuing oil disaster in the Gulf region. Interviewed on "Good Morning America," Mrs. Bush said this:
LAURA BUSH: "I think they're doing everything they can, adding that it cannot be one person's responsibility to solve the problem. There's always a lot of finger-pointing in something like this," she said.
What happened is she told the truth, she is not trying to use the disaster to smear Obama and score political points, unlike the other 99% of Republicans who are. And of course, neither O'Reilly or Ingraham ever reported this, because it would make all their Republican smear merchant friends look bad.

Guess Who O'Reilly Has Not Had On To Talk About BP
By: Steve - June 7, 2010 - 1:00pm

Nobody who has been hurt by the giant oil spill. No Fisherman, no Charter Boat Captains, no Restaurant owners, no Environmentalists, no Oil Company experts to talk about the damage the oil spill will do, nothing. And yet, he claims to be a nonpartisan independent journalist who is looking out for the folks.

When all he does is put right-wing shills on to attack Obama for the oil spill. Keith Olbermann and all the real journalists who work for real news networks had had numerous Fisherman, Charter Boat Captains, Restaurant owners, etc. on to talk about how much the oil spill will hurt them, and how it could wipe them out and put them out of business.

The only people O'Reilly has on to discuss the oil spill are paid right-wing shills for the Oil Companies, like Laura Ingraham, Karl Rove, Dick Morris, Newt Gingrich, etc. There are no guests to speak for the people, or anyone who depends on the Gulf waters to make a living. Some of these people have been fishing etc. for a hundred years and it's all they know, it's a family legacy.

It could all be wiped out, an not once has O'Reilly had any of them on to talk about how the oil spill could ruin their life and their business. What it shows is that O'Reilly does not care about the people who are hurt by the oil spill, all he cares about is having paid right-wing shills on to take political pot shots at the President, to score cheap political points.

GLAAD Contacting O'Reilly Factor Sponsors
By: Steve - June 6, 2010 - 10:00am

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) launched a call to action demanding that O'Reilly and Fox News apologize for comparing gay people to al-Qaeda. And now GLAAD is following up the action campaign by contacting O'Reilly's sponsors and asking that they explain their support for The O'Reilly Factor:
Today GLAAD released a list of advertisers that supported the June 2 broadcast of The O'Reilly Factor. During that broadcast, host Bill O'Reilly likened gay people to the international terrorist organization, al Qaeda.

We are contacting the 35 companies that advertised during the broadcast to ask how they justify supporting this type of defamation.
On Friday the New York Daily News Fred Dreier reported on the controversy surrounding Bill O'Reilly asking, "Do they have an al-Qaeda ad?" during an O'Reilly Factor discussion of a gay-inclusive McDonald's ad. Dreier managed to get Factor senior executive producer on the record defending O'Reilly:
David Tabacoff, the senior executive producer for The O'Reilly Factor hit back: "This is a very silly controversy. The quote was taken totally out of context."

"If you look at the full segment and think he's actually equating gays with Al Qaeda, you must be crazy."

"By seizing on a handful of words, they have made a really ridiculous argument."
And this guy Tabacoff is as big of a liar as O'Reilly is, because nothing was taken out of context. After showing the gay ad, O'Reilly said do they also have an Al-Qaeda ad. Implying their next step would be to do an ad targeted to terrorists. It was 100% in context, so Tabacoff is a flat out liar. How can anyone come to a different conclusion than the one reached by several LGBT advocacy groups that O'Reilly was equating gays with terrorists?

If you want to contact the Fox News Channel and voice your concerns about Bill O'Reilly's history of verbal attacks on LGBT people, including this latest incident of comparing the gay community to al Qaeda, here is their contact info.

Bill O'Reilly - [email protected]

Amy Sohnen
Executive Producer, The O'Reilly Factor
(212) 301-3197
[email protected]

William Shine
Programming Executive Vice President
(212) 301-3289
[email protected]

David Clark
Programming Senior Executive Producer
(212) 301-5352
[email protected]

Brian Lewis
Corporate Communications Executive Vice President
(212) 301-3331
[email protected]

And if you want to contact someone from GLADD, here is their contact info.

Cindi Creager
Director of National News
(646) 871-8019
[email protected]

Richard Ferraro
Director of Public Relations
(646) 871-8011
[email protected]

Republican Leader Boehner Demands Apology From McCartney
By: Steve - June 6, 2010 - 9:30am

Now this is just laughable, Paul McCartney (A Musician) makes a Bush joke and this right-wing fool wants an apology, give me a break. And btw, McCartney is right, Bush is stupid, he is one of the dumbest Presidents we have ever had, and that is a fact. Nobody even disputes it, except a few dishonest Republicans that will not admit the truth.

And they know it, they just do not want anyone to say it in public, and they will not admit it in public. So here is what happened. President Obama awarded Paul McCartney with the Library of Congress Gershwin Prize for Popular Song. "It has been nearly half a century since four lads from Liverpool first landed on our shores and changed everything overnight," Obama said, commemorating McCartney's influence on American culture.

At the end of the ceremony, Sir Paul offered praise of Obama while taking a jab at President Bush. "After the last eight years, it's great to have a president who knows what a library is," he said.

Now that was a shot at Bush, no doubt. But he is a musician, and it's a free country, so if he wants to do a Bush dumb joke he has every right to do it. Especially when all these right-wing jerks never say a word about all the Republicans who make jokes about Obama and the Democrats. Hell O'Reilly puts Dennis Miller on his show every week in the Miller Time segment, where he does nothing but jokes about Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Barney Frank, etc., and Boehner says nothing about that.

The view that Obama is more of an intellectual than Bush is one that many well-known figures publicly hold, including the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. Nevertheless, House Minority John Boehner (R-OH) found McCartney's opinion too much to handle, and demanded that he apologize:
BOEHNER: Like millions of other Americans, I have always had a good impression of Paul McCartney and thought of him as a classy guy, but I was surprised and disappointed by the lack of grace and respect he displayed at the White House, Boehner told HUMAN EVENTS. "I hope he'll apologize to the American people for his conduct which demeaned him, the White House and President Obama."
Boehner finds it somehow politically advantageous to not only defend the deeply unpopular former president but to also attack Paul McCartney, who is a cultural icon, a member of one of the most successful and popular rock bands in history, and a non-political figure. But this sort of petty political attack is nothing new for conservatives:
-- Newt Gingrich recently called religious leaders socialists because they supported Obama's health care reform effort.

-- Bush administration officials objected to awarding Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling the Presidential Medal of Freedom they claimed the books promoted witchcraft. Bill O'Reilly once wondered if Rowling is trying to indoctrinate children with the gay agenda because her books have a gay character.

-- The so-called media critics blog Newsbusters attacked legendary rock band The Eagles because their new album is allegedly one long, sustained attack on the integrity of the United States that doesn't have a word about Islamofascists trying to blow us all up.
So given the right-wing's history of these petty attacks, and now Boehner's condemnation of the infamous Paul McCartney, is there anyone conservatives won't vilify to make a political point?

The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen said this about it:

The same day McCartney told a harmless joke about George W. Bush's limited intellect, George W. Bush boasted about having ordered torture as president, and insisted he wouldn't change a thing if he had it to do over again.

So, just so we're clear, a musician telling a Bush-is-dumb joke generates a fair amount of outrage in some conservative circles. A former president admitting to ordering torture -- bragging about utilizing a technique that the United States has long considered criminal, and has even prosecuted -- is completely fine.

One, in Boehner's mind, requires an apology; the other is a source of partisan pride.

Republican Calls President Obama A "Raghead"
By: Steve - June 6, 2010 - 9:00am

Funny how O'Reilly just happened to ignore this story, yeah I guess he just forgot, or he had more important stories to report, like what Lindsay Lohan is doing.

South Carolina state Sen. Jake Knotts (R) has been taking heat for calling an Indian-American gubernatorial candidate a raghead. He said this: "We already got one raghead in the White House, we don't need a raghead in the governor's mansion," Knotts said of state Rep. Nikki Haley (R).

And O'Reilly was outraged, oops, no he wasn't, because he never said a word about any of it. Now imagine what O'Reilly would say if we had a Republican President, and a Democrat had called him a raghead. The S--t would hit the fan on the Factor, but when Republicans do it he is as silent as a mouse.

And btw, the South Carolina Republican Party quickly condemned Knotts slur, and he eventually issued an apology. "My 'raghead' comments about Obama and Haley were intended in jest," Knotts said in a statement. Saying Knotts hateful rhetoric "does not fit with our program and its goals." The radio station announced that they won't release the audio, but a better decision would be to post the clip of Knott's comment on the Internet without airing the episode so that there's a public audio record of Knott's comment.

Knotts apology seems insincere. He defended his remarks immediately following the interview while talking to reporters, and upped his rhetoric then by calling Haley a f-ing raghead. And he did not say f-ing, he used the actual word.

He then avoided retracting the comment, clarifying to say "he did not mean to use the F-word." He also repeated his line about the "raghead in the White House," and said, "This isn't the first time I've said it."

Knotts went on to say that Haley, who was raised as a Sikh but later converted to Christianity, was not Christian enough to govern South Carolina, and that she was being directed by a secret cabal of Sikhs.
Knotts says he believed Haley has been set up by a network of Sikhs and was programmed to run for governor of South Carolina by outside influences in foreign countries. He claims she is hiding her religion and he wants the voters to know about it.

"We need a good Christian to be our governor," he said. "She's hiding her religion. She ought to be proud of it. I'm proud of my god."

"We're at war over there," Knotts said.

Asked to clarify, he said he did not mean the United States was at war with India, but was at war with foreign countries.
To clarify once more, we are not at war with India you fricking right-wing idiot. And this hateful slur may cost him his career. Former Lexington County GOP chairwoman Katrina Shealy told CNN that "Knotts raghead remark prompted her to make a very early entry into the race that won't happen for two years."

Republican Spin On The November Elections
By: Steve - June 6, 2010 - 8:30am

O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham are saying the Republicans are going to win back control of the House and the Senate this November in the mid-term elections. Even though we still have 5 months until the election, which is forever in politics.

I believe (as most political experts do) that the Democrats will lose some seats, just not as many as O'Reilly and Ingraham think they will. It's a fact, that the party in power loses seats in the first mid-term election after a new President is elected. The people do that so one party does not have too much power. And it's happened almost every time, since the country was founded.

But if you look at polls and projections right now, things do not look as good for Republicans as some on the right say it does. The website electionprojection.com has the Democrats losing 7 seats in the Senate, and that is as of June 5th. Which would make it 50 to 48 in favor of the Democrats.

They also have the Democrats losing 22 seats in the House, as of June 5th. But it would still be 234 to 201 in Favror of the Democrats.

The independent Senators are Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman. Sanders votes with the Democrats, and Lieberman usually votes with the Republicans, but once in a while he does vote with the Democrats. So if their projections are accurate, that would give the Democrats 51 votes and the Republicans 49, and they would not get control of the Senate back.

So electionprojection.com does not have the Republicans getting control of the House or the Senate back. Despite the wishful thinking of O'Reilly and Ingraham. And btw, electionprojection.com is a right-leaning website, so they probably have some bias in their projections. That's why I quoted them, because if they do not even have the Republicans winning the House and Senate back, it will probably not happen.

Not to mention, about a week ago gallup had the Democrats favored by 1 point (47 to 46 percent) in a Congressional election, and now on June 5th, Gallup has Republicans ahead by 6 points, 49 to 43, so these polls go up and down.

And let me say this, polls and projections 5 months before an election are worthless. In 2008 McCain and Obama were virtually tied in the polls 4 or 5 months before the election. And then Obama crushed him on election day, winning about 70% of the electoral votes.

I do not believe in polls or projections until about a month before an election. I just reported on this to show what O'Reilly and Ingraham are saying now, and what the projections are, that do not even agree with them, when it's a right leaning projection website.

More Republican Hypocrisy Over Obama Stimulus
By: Steve - June 6, 2010 - 8:00am

This Republican hypocrisy is just stunning, they all voted NO on the Obama stimulus bill, then they have a press conference or a a ribbon cutting ceremony to praise something that caused new jobs. Jobs that were funded by the Obama stimulus money. It is literally some of the worst hypocrisy I have ever seen in my life. It's like voting against the health care bill, then taking credit for getting more Americans health care, it's ridiculous.

And now we have another Republican hypocrite, Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) joined Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood yesterday at a ribbon cutting ceremony for a green cement plant in St. Genevieve, Missouri. The plant resulted in more than 2,500 jobs during its construction and currently employs 250 jobs for its operation.

Emerson tweeted that it was a "great grand opening event," but she did not say one word about how the plant was funded.

Michael Bersin at the Missouri blog Show Me Progress points out that Emerson voted against the stimulus back in January 2009. Not only did Emerson register a nay vote, she also continued to bash the Recovery Act as recently as March of this year.

In a March 26, 2010 press release, Emerson said this: "The Stimulus Has Grown Government, Not the Economy."

Speaking on the House floor in December of 2009, Emerson said the stimulus had done nothing to create jobs, specifically citing the experience "in my congressional district."

And then she goes to a ribbon cutting ceremony, to take credit for jobs that were created in her District, jobs that were created by a bill she voted against, if that's not the ultimate hypocrisy I don't know what is.

And arlier this year, President Obama told the House Republican Caucus that "a lot of you have gone to appear at ribbon cuttings for the same projects that you voted against."

Which is exactly what she did, on top of that Emerson was appearing with Obama's own Transportation Secretary at an administration event that the White House press office advertised in a press release.

So where is the so-called independent journalist Bill O'Reilly on this story, he loves to report on hypocrisy by Democrats, it's one of his favorite things to do. If Democrats were doing this to a Republican President, O'Reilly would report it every time it happens, list their names on his website, and call for people to vote them out of office. But when Republicans do it, he ignores it all.

The Truth About Bush Admitting To Torture
By: Steve - June 5, 2010 - 3:30pm

From the Thursday June 3rd Countdown With Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: So, waterboarding was torture and torture was illegal, and the former president proudly and publicly says, quote, "Yes, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed." So, the former president broke the law, right?

I've never really seen one, but that's got all the earmarks of being a confession to an international war crime. "Yes, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OLBERMANN: The real news in our next story is that it's no longer news. It used to be news, but now even progressive blogs pay little attention as I utter a phrase that would have drawn a national gasp of shock and horror just ten years ago.

In our third story today, former President Bush last night confessed to committing a war crime. Mr. Bush, speaking before a mostly friendly audience of 2,300 in Grand Rapids, no cameras, no recording devices, no record, just witness accounts, reportedly admitting not only, quote, "yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Shaikh Mohammed," but also asserting, quote, "I'd do it again to save lives."

What makes this latest confession so interesting is Mr. Bush's subconscious hint that he knows it was useless the first time. "I'd do it again," he said, "to save lives." If saving lives were part of it the first time, why add that phrase, instead of just saying I'd do it again?

Despite the claims of torture instigator Dick Cheney, the waterboarding of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has not been demonstrated to have saved a single life, not in those two CIA memos that Cheney swore would prove him right, if only they were declassified, until the Obama administration called his bluff, and the memos, which identified not a single life saved, nor a single incident only waterboarding could reveal.

Waterboarding did not make Mohammed give up Jose Padilla. He was given up by Abu Zubaydah during traditional legal interrogation before waterboarding even began. And the Heathrow Airport plot, given up, along with details about a Southeast Asia terror group, the CIA inspector general believes because Khalid Shaikh Mohammed thought the CIA already knew about them, which is a classic legal interrogation trick.

The best claim, of course, that waterboarding Mohammed gave investigators key information to break up a plot to blow up the Library Tower in L.A., a plot that was broken up in 2002, a year before Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was captured.

What do we know that we got from waterboarding? Lies. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed told the military that he lied to end the torture; 183 separate waterboardings. One lie he told was where to find Osama bin Laden. How do we know he was lying? No bin Laden. Remember?

The Bush administration actually got its waterboarding techniques from a study of techniques the Communist Chinese used during the Korean War to make prisoners lie for propaganda purposes. What lie did Bush and Cheney want to hear? Ibn Shaikh al Libi was captured in 2001, subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. He gave up the link between Iraq and al Qaeda. Well, made it up, actually. By the time we learned that, Mr. Bush had already used al Libi's tortured lie to justify invading Iraq.

Mr. Bush's decision to invade Iraq, only one of many ways in which his decisions to waterboard, to torture, has actually clearly cost more American lives than we can calculate, not just because if he had let experienced, professional interrogators do the work, they might have actually gotten some additional intelligence, but also because at least half of our casualties in Iraq were at the hands of foreigners motivated to fight by American torture.

This the estimate of an actual U.S. interrogator in Iraq. This interrogator, who used real interrogation to help get al Zachari, objected to the torture methods.

But Mr. Bush should have already known waterboarding was wrong, wrong when Americans were court martialed for doing it during the Spanish American War, and during the Vietnam War, wrong when Americans prosecuted Japanese soldiers for doing it to Americans during World War II, wrong when the British and Americans refused to use any torture against the Germans in World War II, wrong when a sheriff and three deputies went to prison for it in the 1980s in Texas.

Mr. Bush last night had other things to say. His greatest disappointment, not relying on torture to send U.S. troops to die under false pretenses, not ignoring the threat of al Qaeda, not failing to prevent 9/11 or failing to fulfill his promise to avenge the dead of 9/11. No, he said the biggest disappointment of his presidency was failing to privatize Social Security.

It may yet rank among the biggest disappointments of the Obama presidency that in the 21st century, a man can confess in public, yeah, we waterboarded, I'd do it again, without fear of arrest, or prosecution, or justice.
Here is my big question, if waterboarding works so great, as O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends claim it does, why did they have to waterboard KSM 183 times. O'Reilly said that KSM talked after 20 seconds of being waterboarded, which is a proven lie. Because we now know he was waterboarded 183 times, so clearly he did not talk after 20 seconds.

So if waterboarding works so good, how come he did not talk after the 1st time, or the 20th time, or the 50th time, or the 80th time, or the 100th time, etc. If it worked like O'Reilly said, he would have only been waterboarded one time, not 183 times. Not to mention, it turns out that KSM just told them lies to get the torture to stop.

And btw, O'Reilly has also claimed that Keith Olbermann is a far left guy who never complains about anything Obama does. When right there he criticized President Obama for not having the AG Holder prosecute Bush and Cheney for torture. Olbermann has also criticized Obama for a few things about the BP oil spill, and many other things, but of course O'Reilly never mentions any of that.

O'Reilly Joins Morris For Newsmax Propaganda Summit
By: Steve - June 5, 2010 - 11:30am

Newsmax is an anti-Obama right-wing propaganda media source. And now they have teamed up with Bill O'Reilly and Dick Morris. Think about that for a minute, O'Reilly claims to be a nonpartisan independent, as he does a bold fresh tour with Glenn Beck, and an economic crisis summit with Newsmax and Dick Morris. They are all Republicans, so much for being an independent.

In a June 3rd email sent to people on the Newsmax mailing list, they promote something called the "Economic Crisis Summit," starring Dick Morris and the Premier Guest Bill O'Reilly.



In the e-mail it says this:
On June 17, an esteemed panel led by Fox News Bill O'Reilly and Dick Morris, along with global investor Jim Rogers and Newsmax CEO and Editor in Chief Christopher Ruddy, will convene to discuss inflation, higher taxes, our fragile economy, and real solutions that average Americans can take to ensure their wealth is safeguarded and positioned to prosper in an uncertain future.
Then it says this, which is all right-wing lies btw:
President Obama Will Usher in One of the Most Massive Tax Increases in History on December 31!

This is when the Bush tax cuts expire.

An immediate 10 percent tax increase across the board will strike citizens of all income categories.

The capital gains tax will rise by almost 50 percent and the tax on dividends as much as 250 percent!

His Obamacare plan already calls for more taxes, including a $28,000 tax increase for millions of Americans.

And now Obama is openly talking about a new value-added tax which would be tantamount to a national sales tax. It is clear that the mentality of both the Obama White House and the Pelosi-run Democratic Congress is pro-taxes.
And now the facts, something Newsmax failed to report.

1) Obama will not cause an immediate 10 percent tax increase across the board. Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget would allow the Bush tax cuts to expire only for individuals making more than $200,000 and families making more than $250,000.

2) Obama is not allowing the Bush tax cuts on dividends and capital gains to expire for most Americans. Obama's proposed budget would raise the top rate from 15 percent to 20 percent, again applying only to the highest income brackets. That is not a 50 percent hike on capital gains, and not an increase of 250 percent for dividends.

3) Health care reform does not include a $28,000 tax increase for millions of Americans, Newsmax just pulled that out of their ass.

4) Obama openly talking about a new value-added tax was limited to having once called it a novel idea.

Newsmax is a biased right-wing media outlet, and O'Reilly knows it, yet he still agreed to do this ridiculous economic crisis summit with dirty dick Morris of all people. Even when he knows the economy is doing great because of the Obama economic policies. Not to mention, I do not know of any real independents that do a summit with right-wing idiots like Newsmax and Morris.

The Friday 6-4-10 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - June 5, 2010 - 11:00am

The far right Laur Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly Friday night, and before I do the show review I'd like to point something out. O'Reilly had Ingraham on the Factor as a guest Thursday night, during the segment O'Reilly called her a crazy far right kool-aid drinker. Then the very next night she is hosting his show, proving that the whole thing was a fraud. Because if O'Reilly really thought she was a far right kool-aid drinker, he would sure as hell not let her host his show. And the fact that he has her host his show proves he has a right-wing bias, because no actual independent would have a far right kool-aid drinker as their fill-in.

The Ingraham TPM was called Leadership In A Crisis Situation. Ingraham claims the leadership in the Obama administration is in crisis, why, because BP has a oil spill and they can not plug the leak. How that is the fault of Obama is beyond me, and nobody blames the President, except partisan Republicans. In fact, the other day a Republican in Congress admitted it was not Obama's fault, then he said they are going to attack him for it anyway, because they can score cheap political points with it and make Obama look bad.

Here is part of what Ingraham said, I will not publish all of it because it's ridiculous garbage, but I will show this much, just to comment on it.
INGRAHAM: President Obama headed to the Gulf Friday to assess the oil spill damage and cleanup efforts. The Gulf is bleeding, and the blood is thick, heavy crude that threatens our economy, national security and culture. The President's handling of the crisis so far has been abysmal. The administration was late to recognize the severity of the crisis, and now it seems like the President is in campaign mode, trying to minimize political fallout with meaningless photo-ops.
All that is a lie, from a partisan right-wing hack, who does nothing but spin everything to make the President look bad. That is her job, Ingraham is a paid political hack. Nothing she says is true, it's all right-wing spin. The President has handled the crisis as good as anyone could have, as O'Reilly even points out, what else can Obama do when the Government does not have the technology to cap the oil well, nobody does, not even BP. The facts show that BP lied when they filed the permits to do an oil well a mile under water. They said they could deal with an oil spill that deep, and those permits were filed when Bush was the President.

Ingraham ignores all that, to dishonestly attack the President with partisan propaganda. Instead of reporting on BP and all the lies and fraud from them, which is what real journalist are doing, Ingraham blames it all on Obama and claims he is doing a terrible job. Even O'Reilly said that was bull, that's why he called her a crazy kool-aid drinker Thursday night. But then he lets her host his show to continue her dishonest attacks on the President. Because O'Reilly can have the attacks on Obama through her, and he does not get blamed for it. O'Reilly hates Obama, so he uses these far right nuts to smear Obama, and he keeps his hands clean.

And btw, when President Bush did the photo-ops in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, Laura Ingraham said it shows the President cares about the people, and that he is in charge of the situation. Now when Obama does a photo-op Ingraham calls it a meaningless photo-op. Proving how much bias she has, and what a joke she is. Not to mention, Ingraham now claims to care about the environment, which is just laughable. She is the person who makes fun of people who speak out for a clean environment, like Al Gore. Ingraham and the right are the people who allowed the BP oil spill, by supporting offshore drilling. Now they claim to care about the environment, give me a break, it's laughable.

Then the insane Ingraham had the Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana on to discuss it. Which I will not report on, because he is a joke, and it was just another biased segment to attack the President. I will say this, Vitter is the guy who cheated on his wife with a hooker, and did not resign from office. Even after he had preached about family values, and being faithful to your wife. This jerk has no credibility, none. He should not be on a tv news show saying anything, he should be out of Congress and hiding in shame. And the fact that Ingraham put this fool on to attack the President shows a lot about her.

Then Ingraham had Peter Beinart and Jonah Goldberg on to discuss the Israeli commandoes who boarded humanitarian ships bound for Gaza. Beinart said Israel deserves criticism on the blockade of Gaza, he said it's a collective punishment against the Palestinians, and that it is morally wrong to punish the Palestinian people because they elected Hamas. Goldberg argued that Israel has every right to defend itself. Which nobody disagrees with, and as usual Goldberg misrepresented the issue. The question is how they do it, not that they don't have a right to defend itself.

Then Ingraham had Dana Perino on, the former White House Press Secretary in the Bush administration. Ingraham asked her what the President should do to win back independent voters, and the crazy Perino said this.
Perino: He should ignore the advice he's getting from the left, which is for him to be more angry and emotional. What we need is a little more action. The fact that he went to the Gulf today is good and cancelling the trip to Asia was smart.
That is right-wing insanity, because most of the right is calling for Obama to be more angry and emotional, in this very show the Republican David Vitter said Obama is too cool, he even called him Joe Cool. He said Obama should show more anger, and be more emotional, instead of being so cool. Then you have Perino saying the left is telling him to be more angry and emotional, when it's mostly the right saying it, including O'Reilly. Then Perino claims Obama going to the Gulf is good, when in this very same show Ingraham said it was a meaningless photo-op. Obama is damned if he does, and damned if he don't. No matter what he does the right is going to attack him for it, just to score cheap political points.

Then Ingraham had Crime reporter Michelle Sigona on to talk about Joran Van Der Sloot. Which I refuse to report on because it is not real news. It's about a guy in a foreign country who may or may not have killed Natalee Holloway in the Netherlands. This did not happen in America, and he was not even charged with her murder. It's a story for Geraldo, not the so-called real news shows.

Then Ingraham had the liberal radio talk show host Mark Levine on to discuss a United Nations human rights report that complained about U.S. drone bombers in Pakistan. Levine endorsed the report's recommendations. "It says we need accountability for the drones, and we need to make sure we're killing the right people. They're looking for us to say that our standards are based on reasonably objective ways to make sure we have the right person. That's really not that controversial."

Laura asked Levine whether liberals are angry at President Obama's frequent drone attacks. "It's causing some angst," Levine replied, "among people on the left, the Kucinich wing of the Democratic Party. But for regular, mainstream liberals, as long as we're killing the right people, we're okay with it. But we do need to shut down Gitmo, which is a symbol of American illegal actions."

And I agree with Levine, I am not angry at President Obama over the drone attacks, I just think we need to be careful we do not kill innocent people, and if you are going to use drones you should make sure you are killing the right people. Somehow Ingraham has a problem with that opinion, how is beyond me. Because if we kill innocent people using drones, it hurts our cause more than it helps. In O'Reilly and Ingraham world they just like killing people with drones, even if they are innocent. They support all the drone attacks, even if innocent people were killed. Which is just stupid, and shows what idiots they are.

Then Dumbest Things of the Week with Greg Gutfeld and Juliet Huddy, two of the dumbest people at Fox. Which is funny for them to be doing this segment, because they are both dumb, and they do dumber things then they complain about. Ingraham nominated Paul McCartney, for saying Bush was not very smart, when he is right, Bush was not very smart, and he proved it every time he opened his mouth. If Bush had been a Democrat, and a Republican singer had said he was stupid, Ingraham would want to give him an award, and O'Reilly would name him a patriot. But when McCartney says it about Bush, somehow he is dumb, when he is exactly right.

All three of them agreed it was the dumbest thing of the week, they spent the entire segment talking about it, and slamming McCartney for it. Huddy even claimed it brought the White House party to a screeching halt and bummed everyone out. Which is just ridiculous, it was a party at the White House with a Democratic President, and mostly Democratic guests. They loved what McCartney said, and nobody was bummed out. So Huddy is just an idiot. Bush is stupid, and McCartney was just stating a fact, a fact that pretty much everyone agreed with who was at the party.

And finally Ingraham had the Republican country star Larry Gatlin on to smear President Obama, who he hates with a passion. I will not go into details of what he said, but I will say it was basically nothing but right-wing propaganda. Then Ingraham told him not to worry because this November Obama is going to lose the House and the Senate and he will have no power left. Which is so funny, because nobody knows if that will happen, and if the economy and jobs get better Ingraham will most likely be wrong. The Democrats will probably lose some seats, because the party in power always does in the mid-term elections after a new President is elected. But it's hard to say if they will lose the House and the Senate, and anyone who predicts they will is just guessing.

What gets me is O'Reilly and Ingraham both say all the Hollywood liberals are pinheads that nobody should listen to, because they know nothing about politics. Then Ingraham puts a lame country music singer on to discuss politics. So what happened to those people are pinheads, oh that's right, they are only pinheads when they are liberals who speak out against Republicans. But when it's a conservative country singer who speaks out against a Democrat suddenly he knows what he is talking about. Give me a break, this Gatlin is just a know-nothing country western singer, he can probably barely spell politics.

And yet Ingraham put this Obama hating fool on just to smear the President. Proving that she is nothing but a partisan right-wing joke, who is dishonest, a hypocrite, and a liar. And what's worse is O'Reilly lets her be his fill-in host.

O'Reilly Gets It Wrong On Romanoff Story
By: Steve - June 5, 2010 - 10:30am

Once again O'Reilly has it wrong again on a legal issue and the Obama administration. Thursday night O'Reilly repeated the false right-wing talking point claim that 18 U.S.C. 600 was violated in the Andrew Romanoff controversy. In fact, legal and ethical experts have repudiated the claim that a crime was committed.
O'REILLY: Apparently another Democratic Senate candidate -- Andrew Romanoff in Colorado -- was approached about a job by the White House to get out of a race, on the heels of Congressman Sestak. That makes two apparent violations of U.S. Code 600, which says it is illegal to entice any office seeker out of a race with the prospect of a government job.
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Legal and ethical experts have dismissed the claim that either the Sestak or Romanoff controversies violate the law. In fact, even the Bush ethics adviser Richard Painter said, "It's a real stretch to say the White House actions violated a law."

But O'Reilly ignores all that to dishonestly spew out the right-wing talking points that each case was a violation of the law. In an interview with the Huffington Post, Painter said that the while the floating of three administration positions to Colorado Democratic Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff is objectionable in obvious ways, claims that it violated the law are baseless.

For starters, if Romanoff had taken the position, he would have effectively been prohibited from running for office. The federal government may have affected the course of the campaign by offering him the post. But it didn't meddle in the campaign itself (an important legal distinction).

Many other legal experts have all said there was no violation of the law, and you have to remember the bias O'Reilly has towards Obama, and the fact that he is not an attorney, so he does not know what the law says.

In a June 3 post, The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder wrote, "The letter of federal law is designed to prevent direct quid-pro-quo situations where financial incentives are in play and protect the rival politician from harm should he or she decide to make a decision that goes against the wishes of the powerful executive branch. But that law has never been used to criminalize low-level political horsetrading."

Ambinder further wrote this:
AMBINDER: This is the reason why ethics lawyers can read the text of the statutes, which seem to be clear, and conclude that no prosecutor in his or her right mind would ever bring a case against a White House for doing what the Obama White House did.
Once again O'Reilly proves his right-wing bias by lying about a legal issue to try and make Obama look bad. Which he does almost every night, usually right after he has told someone how fair he has been to the President.

O'Reilly Ignoring Real News About BP
By: Steve - June 4, 2010 - 9:30am

Dear Bill O'Reilly, here is some real journalism, you should try it sometime.

ThinkProgress: BP Forced Clean-Up Workers To Sign Contract Forbidding Them From Talking With Media

Real journalists from CBS News, Mother Jones, the New York Daily News, and other media outlets have been reporting that BP has blocked them from photographing the dead animals and environmental degradation on the Gulf Coast as a result of the company's oil spill. And now here is the real journalism, something O'Reilly ignores.

Powering a Nation, a student journalism initiative sponsored by the Carnegie and Knight Foundations, has obtained a contract BP made with local boat operators helping with the clean-up sign that explicitly barred them from talking to the media:
The contract included a clause prohibiting them and their deckhands from making news releases, marketing presentation, or any other public statements while working on the clean-up. It also included an additional section titled "Agreement Regarding Proprietary and Confidential Information," which states that workers cannot disclose Data gathered while on the job, including plans, reports, information and etc.
ThinkProgress even published a photocopy of the contract. Earth to Bill O'Reilly, this is what real journalism looks like.

And recently, a BP contractor frustrated with the oil company's cover-up secretly escorted a New York Daily News crew around some of the affected sites, allowing them to observe a shore littered with tarred marine life, some dead and others struggling under a thick coating of crud.

"There is a lot of coverup by BP," said the contractor. "They specifically informed us that they don't want these pictures of the dead animals. They know the ocean will wipe away most of the evidence."

This is a cover up, by BP. And yet O'Reilly ignores the whole damn story, to attack Obama for saying he was going to raise their taxes to pay for the cleanup. And this is the guy who claims to be a nonpartisan independent with a no spin zone.

It's ridiculous, and clearly O'Reilly is nothing but a right-wing stooge that ignores real news to attack the President. On top of ignoring this story, he has still not said one word about the Republican Mark Kirk getting caught lying about winning the military award. While he did 3 different segments over 2 straight nights, on the Democrat Richard Blumenthal who got caught lying about serving in Vietnam.

What Kirk did was worse, because he lied to a Congressional committee, Blumenthal just said it in a press conference. And yet, O'reilly ignored it all, proving he is a joke, and as far right as Gingrich or Rove or anyone on the right.

The Thursday 6-3-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 4, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Insanity All Around. Billy slammed the UN for saying America should stop using the drones to kill people. O'Reilly said it was ridiculous and called them grossly unfair to America. Then O'Reilly said Obama is right to use the drone missiles, when a month ago he said it was wrong for Obama to use the drones to kill innocent people. O'Reilly also talked a little about the Romanoff job offer story, and the LA school that plans to tech the kids that the Arizona immigration law is wrong. O'Reilly was outraged, and said the school is ridiculous. He said it was the worst example he has ever seen of indoctrination.

Megyn Kelly was on to discuss it, and she agreed with O'Reilly that it is indoctrination. And of course nobody from the school was on to give the counter point. In fact, nobody was on to give the counter point. O'Reilly said what can WE do, can WE sue them. Kelly said any lawsuit would fail, but O'Reilly was not buying it, he still wants a lawsuit, and even joked about asking the ACLU to file a lawsuit. Kelly said a lawsuit would fail, case closed. So too bad O'Reilly, you jerk.

Billy said he is going to contact the conservative version of the ACLU, and ask them to sue. Then O'Reilly said he is not doing it for political reasons, he is just doing it for the kids. Yeah right, and I'm Dick Cheney too. They also discussed the Joran Van Der Sloot case, and the Charlie Sheen case, which is tabloid garbage so I did not report on it. What's funny is O'Reilly claims he is not a conservative, but as soon as an LA school does something he does not like, he goes running to the the conservative version of the ACLU and asks them to sue, even after Kelly (the attorney) said any lawsuit will fail.

Then O'Reilly reported on liberals protesting the Obama meeting with the Arizona Governor who signed the immigration law. O'Reilly had Alicia Menendez on to discuss it. She is opposed to the Arizona law. O'Reilly defended the law, and said people that oppose it have it wrong. She disagreed, and stated her case, but of course O'Reilly did not listen and constantly cut her off. Billy claims the left demonizes the law, she disagreed and said that is his opinion.

Then they talked about the border, and troops on the border. O'Reilly asked her why anyone would object to troops on the border, and she said she does not oppose it. But then she said troops on the border is only part of the solution, and O'Reilly agreed with her. Then O'Reilly said we need 10,000 troops, not 1,200. At the end O'Reilly said it was great to finally hear a liberal agree with him that troops on the border is a good thing. Well I am a liberal and I disagree, because they are not trained to guard the border. I believe we should just hire more border police, because that is what they are trained to do, guard the border.

In the next segment O'Reilly talked about the BP oil spill, and he cited the biased Rasmussen poll to smear Obama's handling of it. Laura Ingraham was on to discuss it, the Obama hating Laura Ingraham. So she slammed Obama for the whole thing, she did not have one good word to say about Obama, as she never does. Basically she blamed the whole thing on Obama, when he had nothing to do with any of it, he was just the President when it happened. O'Reilly sort of defended Obama a little, but not much.

And of course O'Reilly did not have any Democrats, or anyone from the Obama administration on to discuss it. And I have to say that not only is Ingraham a totally lying right-wing spin doctor, it's painful to listen to her nasal nose voice. O'Reilly defended Janet Napolitano, and Ingraham called him a kool-aid drinker. Then O'Reilly called her crazy, and said he has seen a kool-aid truck at her house. And for once O'Reilly is right, but he still has her crazy right-wing ass on his show every week. To be honest, I think this whole kool-aid thing was staged to make O'Reilly seem like he is not part of the far right, when he clearly is.

In the next segment O'Reilly talked about the BP oil spill again. O'Reilly attacked John Podesta for saying Dick Cheney and Bush caused the oil spill by putting oil guys in the regulation agency. Charles Krauthammer was on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest of course. Krauthammer said he agreed with Laura Ingraham. O'Reilly said Bush and Cheney had nothing to do with it, he called it crazy, and said nobody would believe it. Krauthammer agreed with O'Reilly, and said it was pathetic.

When Podesta is right, because Bush and Cheney put guys who worked for the oil companies in charge of regulating the oil industry. It was the fox guarding the henhouse. The final question for Krauthammer was, what is the biggest mistake Obama has made. Krauthammer said making the oil spill a political issue. Which is just ridiculous, and nothing but right-wing spin. Obama did not make it political, the right did, especially O'Reilly, he just wont admit it.

Then O'Reilly had the culture warriors, Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson on to discuss the so-called school indoctrination story in LA. O'Reilly talked about state debt, which has nothing to do with culture. They cried about these so-called sin taxes on, soda, gum, and bottled water. But if they need to raise money they have to tax something. Hoover, Carlson, and O'Reilly all hate the sin taxes. Then they talked about a lawsuit about a woman who works at Citibank who claims she was fired for wearing sexy clothes. Citibank claims she was fired for not doing a good job. And the last story was about Barbie, yes the actual Barbie doll. O'Reilly claims the clothes for Barbie are too sexy. Carlson said the clothes are too sexy, and she does not like it. Hoover did not have much of a problem with it.

The last segment was at your Beck and call with the right-wing idiot Glenn Beck. And of course O'Reilly did not say one word about the big Glenn Beck scandal, about him attacking the 11-year old daughter of President Obama, even after he said he never goes after the children. O'Reilly ignored the entire story and never asked Beck about it one time.

Beck talked about the so-called school indoctrination story in LA. And of course he agreed with his good buddy O'Reilly, and said it was an outrage. Here is my problem, public schools have a right to teach what they want, as long as it does not involve religion. And what's funny is O'Reilly and Beck have no problem with the insanity happening in Texas, where the right is teaching crazy stuff down there. O'Reilly said no fair-minded person could possibly think what the school in LA is doing is a good thing. So basically he is saying anyone who supports it is a nut. Beck went off on some insane liberal conspiracy nonsense, that is not even worth reporting.

Near the end of the segment O'Reilly made a crazy statement, he said History does not matter. Then a minute later when Beck said only math, reading, and writing should be taught in school, O'Reilly then said History does matter, and that it must be taught in school. Wow, Billy is either senile, or he does not remember what he said a minute earlier, or both. And I vote for both.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And not a word from O'Reilly about all the gay groups slamming him for comparing gay people to terrorists. He just ignored it like it never happened.

Bush Admits He Used Torture: O'Reilly Says Nothing
By: Steve - June 4, 2010 - 8:30am

Remember back to the Bush years, when news leaked out that Bush and Cheney had approved torture, O'Reilly said it was all made up lies by the far left who hate Bush. Then it was proven that Bush and Cheney had approved torture, as in waterboarding. So what did O'Reilly do then, he claimed it was not torture, because Bush and Cheney said so.

They called it enhanced interrogation, which is code for torture, they just refused to call it torture, even though waterboarding was defined as torture in the Geneva Conventions, and other human rights documents the USA had signed on to. It was torture, and they admitted it.

O'Reilly defended it all day long, like a good little Bush ass kissing Republican. And then on Wednesday George W. Bush admitted he waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and said he would do it again.

Wednesday, former President Bush spoke at the Economic Club of Grand Rapids, MI, where he said that had no regrets about waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and would do it again. According to Fox 17 in Grand Rapids, Bush "didn't allow cameras inside for the event," but reporters caught his remarks:
BUSH: Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I'd do it again to save lives.
So there you have it, in black and white, Bush admitted he approved the use of torture. And Bill O'Reilly says nothing, not a word. While at the same time calling for Obama to make AG Eric Holder go back and investigate the Clinton pardon of Mark Rich, that happened in the fricking 90's.

Give me a break, O'Reilly says nothing about Bush approving torture and he says we should forget the past. But then he calls for an investigation of a Clinton era tax evasion pardon case from the fricking 90's, what a joke.

And btw, Waterboarding KSM 183 times did not save any lives. In fact, Mohammed told U.S. military officials that he gave false information to the CIA after withstanding torture. And a former Special Operations interrogator who worked in Iraq has stated that waterboarding has actually cost American lives:

"The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001."
So Bush was even lying when he said the waterboarding/torture he approved saved lives. And the so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly has not reported any of this, ever, he ignores it all to cover for his buddy George W. Bush.

Gov. Brewer Claims Her Father Died Fighting Nazis
By: Steve - June 4, 2010 - 8:00am

But there is a small problem with her claim, it's a total lie, and here is my question, do any Republicans ever tell the truth.

Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona has faced significant criticism ever since she signed the anti-immigrant bill into law. In a recent interview with the Arizona Republic, Brewer spoke out about some of the harsh rhetoric she's heard, saying comparisons equating her with the Nazis are especially hurtful because her father died fighting the Nazis in Germany.

Brewer said this:
BREWER: The Nazi comments, they are awful. Knowing that my father died fighting the Nazi regime in Germany, that I lost him when I was 11 because of that...and then to have them call me Hitler's daughter. It hurts. It's ugliness beyond anything I've ever experienced.
And now the facts:

The Arizona Guardian reports that in fact, "the death of her father came 10 years after World War II had ended. During the war, Mr. Drinkwine worked as a civilian supervisor for a naval munitions depot in Hawthorne, Nev. He died of lung disease in 1955 in California."

So he never fought the Nazis, he managed a naval munitions depot in Nevada. He never died during WWII, he died 10 years after the war was over. And he died of lung disease, which had nothing to do with fighting Nazis in Germany, and nothing to do with the war. Which means that not only is she a racist right-wing stooge, she is a liar too.

O'Reilly Compares Gay People To Al-Qaeda
By: Steve - June 3, 2010 - 4:00pm

Remember this, in the past O'Reilly has said a million times that he has no problem with gay people, and that he supports gay rights, but he is opposed to gay marriage. He even said they were making a political statement selling burgers. Which is crazy, they are simply trying to sell more burgers to gay people, that's not a political statement. It's called marketing to a target audience.

Then the massive liar compared gay people to terrorists. Wednesday night during the "did you see that" video segment with Jane Skinner, O'Reilly showed a McDonalds ad targeted to gay men, that only ran in France. O'Reilly also insisted that the ad would never run in America. Which is pure speculation, that he says he never does.

Here is what he said:
O'REILLY: Alright, so look, they want to make a political statement selling burgers. They're entitled to it. It will never run in the USA. They'll never do that.

SKINNER: Part of an overreaching campaign called come as you are, which you saw at the end there. So they show people in different walks of life. This happens to be their gay friendly ad.

O'REILLY: OK. Do they have an al Qaeda ad, you know, come as you are? You know?

SKINNER: And how do you know it's not coming to the States?

O'REILLY: I don't know.

SKINNER: Never say never.

O'REILLY: No. That would not -- I guarantee you that will not run here.
Here is the video:



And now you know how O'Reilly really feels about gay people. The politically correct garbage he has put out in the past has now been exposed as a lie. He implied that if you do an ad targeted to gay men, the next step is an ad targeted to terrorists in Al-Qaeda.

Which is just ridiculous, and about as anti-gay as you can get. This is something you expect to hear from Limbaugh or Beck, not a so-called nonpartisan independent. What it does is show that O'Reilly is a true blue right-wing homophobe. And that all the bull he put out about supporting gay rights was nothing but lies.

And that is not the only anti-gay statements O'Reilly has made recently, just last month O'Reilly compared transgendered people to Ewoks.

What happened last night is O'Reilly forgot for a minute that in the past he has said he has nothing against gay people. Then he compared gay people to Al-Qaeda, and the cat was out of the bag. So now we know the truth.

O'Reilly Getting Attacked By LGBT Groups
By: Steve - June 3, 2010 - 3:30pm

On Thursday, in response to Bill O'Reilly asking, "Do they have an al-Qaeda ad?" during a discussion on the O'Reilly Factor of a gay-inclusive McDonald's ad, several prominent LGBT advocacy organizations had harsh words for the cable news host.

Human Rights Campaign (HRC) spokesperson Michael Cole called on O'Reilly to apologize in a statement given to Media Matters, saying the Fox News host should be ashamed:
COLE: Bill O'Reilly should be ashamed for equating a family with a gay son to terrorists. It may be news to him but most Americans know and love LGBT people and would be offended at this kind of comparison. An apology is certainly warranted.
In a statement also provided to Media Matters, Rea Carey -- executive director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force -- said O'Reilly was pulling from his usual menu of bigotry by equating gays with terrorists:
CAREY: McDonald's/France invites us to come as we are, but O'Reilly pulled from his usual menu of bigotry, equating gays munching Big Macs with terrorists. O'Reilly will be served a Big Mac and fries at any McDonald's in the world, but he can't stomach the welcome to gay patrons at the Golden Arches. Eat it, Bill!
Responding to O'Reilly on its blog, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) said the Fox News host stooped to the lowest level and that his tone was equally disturbing:
GLADD: Instead of discussing this groundbreaking commercial in a fair manner, O'Reilly stooped to the lowest level, using the occasion to compare the gay themed ad to the idea of creating an ad targeting a terrorist organization for business. His lighthearted tone in the segment was equally disturbing.
As Media Matters and www.oreilly-sucks.com has repeatedly documented, O'Reilly has a long history of advancing homophobic misinformation about the LGBT community and related issues despite having once said, "I think everybody's got to relax on all this gay stuff."

The Wednesday 6-2-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 3, 2010 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Obama On The Attack. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Faced with a growing environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and falling poll numbers, President Obama played offense Wednesday. He threatened British Petroleum and all the oil companies with higher taxes and has announced a criminal investigation into BP. Mr. Obama is watching his entire administration totter because of a situation no one can control.
And that entire statement from O'Reilly is nothing but 100% pure right-wing lies and propaganda. To begin with, the Obama poll numbers are not falling. The Obama job approval numbers have not dropped one point in the last 9 months. Scroll down and look at my other blog posting for the details. Then O'Reilly claims the entire administration is tottering, which is just laughable, and only something a right-wing idiot would say.

Then O'Reilly cried about Obama slamming the Republicans for not helping him get the country back on track. Billy also cried about Obama saying he is going to raise taxes on BP to get the money back they spent on the oil spill cleanup, and warned Obama to watch his step, O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: He can bluster against BP, but bluster won't stop this catastrophe and neither will higher taxes on the oil companies, which will simply sell more crude to China and India. The President better watch his step here - remember those gas lines under Jimmy Carter? Just sayin.
Since when does a lame cable news network tv host warn the President and tell him what to do, never in my book, so just shut the hell up you fricking moron.

Then O'Reilly put the far right Karl Rove on to smear and attack Obama non-stop. Which is exactly what he did. Rove said this: "The President did make a mistake by not preparing the American people and saying this will be difficult to do. And then it took President Obama 40-some days to finally tell state and local officials to call him if they aren't getting things they need. The other thing that gets me is that the administration has no plan. They've outsourced this to BP but are also trying to give the impression that they're in charge."

Which is just nothing but lies and right-wing talking points, none of that is true, Rove just made it all up. Even O'Reilly was not buying it, and actually defended Obama a little. O'Reilly said that that some of the criticism is unwarranted, he said this: "No matter what Barack Obama did, he can't plug the hole."

Then O'Reilly had an insane segment where he implied that Obama is so cool it's hurting his job approval ratings, and that he needs to be more emotional. Billy said Obama does not have enough emotion and outrage over the oil spill. Washington Post columnist Sally Quinn defended the President against those charges, she said this: "President Obama is empathetic, and you could see that when he went down there to the Gulf. There's no one alive who can blame Obama for this oil spill. He is authentic, he's not trying to be anything that he's not, and it's clear that he cares."

So then the insane O'Reilly said this: "While the President is not to blame, he has appeared disengaged. Anybody could go down there and show sympathy, but it took him 40 days to put someone in charge. He looks a little cold-blooded."

Which is ridiculous, because the 40 day claim is a right-wing lie put out by Rove and the other Republican smear merchants. And to say he looks cold-blooded is just ridiculous, and something only a right-wing nut would say.

Then O'Reilly put Dick Morris on to smear and lie about President Obama. Morris said the Israel ship attacks and the BP oil spill are causing the Obama job approval ratings to drop, and that his approval is 40%, with a disapproval of 60%, which is a bold faced lie. The Obama approval rating is 50% at Gallup, with 44% disapproval. Even the Biased Rasmussen poll has Obama at 46% approval, and 53% disapproval. So Morris just made it up, and O'Reilly did not correct him or dispute his numbers. Proving that O'Reilly is as biased and as wrong as Morris.

Then O'Reilly had Greta van Susteren on to discuss Joran Van Der Sloot, from the Natalee Holloway murder story, who is under suspicion again for another murder in Peru. And Mr. no speculation was in rare form, speculating his ass off. Joran Van Der Sloot was never even charged with anything in the Holloway murder case, let alone put on trial and convicted. And yet, O'Reilly told Greta that he knows Van Der Sloot killed Natalee Holloway and got away with it. So much for no speculation, and for the innocent until proven guilty rule. I could care less about Joran Van Der Sloot, but it's wrong to call him a murderer when he was not charged, and never found guilty.

Then O'Reilly had the lame right-wing comedian Dennis Miller on to make jokes about President Obama and the Democrats. Which I do not report on, because it's not news, and it has nothing to do with any news. It's just a lame segment O'Reilly does because his 90% right-wing viewers love to hear jokes about Obama and the Democrats.

And the last segment was the "did you see that" with Jane Skinner. O'Reilly and Skinner show a few videos that he claims are a must see. They talked about a McDonald's TV ad, running in France, that features a gay teenage boy. And a video of Lady Gaga and O'Reilly asked the burning question, what makes Lady Gaga so overwhelmingly popular?

Skinner said this: "She's different and she does have a talent for pop music. She can write songs, she can sing pretty well and she is a brilliant marketer. She's trying to shock you and it was the same thing back when Elvis was shaking his hips and the Beatles showed up with long hair."

And then for some strange reason O'Reilly begged and pleaded with Lady Gaga to visit the No Spin Zone. Why who knows, maybe O'Reilly has a crush on her and he just wants to get near her.

Then of course the ever lame pinheads and patriots, but no e-mails, because O'Reilly spent so much time smearing Obama with 99% Republican guests, he did not have time for e-mails. They are so highly edited, it's not even worth talking about them anyway.

Factor Ratings Down For May 2010
By: Steve - June 3, 2010 - 9:30am

In primetime, the only growth was from On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, which was up +1% at 10 p.m.

The O'Reilly Factor was down -6% in total viewers and -1% in the 25-54 demo at 8 p.m. The 11 p.m. replay was down -9% and -14% respectively in total viewers and the 25-54 demo.

At 9 p.m. Hannity was down -9% in total viewers and -7% in the 25-54 demo.

Funny how O'Reilly never mentioned that, or that he has lost about a million viewers a night since January, but when his ratings are up you hear about it every other day.

Proof O'Reilly Spins The Obama Job Rating Polls
By: Steve - June 3, 2010 - 9:00am

Over the last 9 months O'Reilly has been saying the Obama job approval ratings are going down and down and down. His evidence, the biased Rasmussen poll taken by the Republican pollster, Scott Rasmussen. About once a week O'Reilly will cite the Rasmussen poll that shows a drop in approval for Obama.

While ignoring the more trusted and un-biased Gallup poll, that shows no drop at all. O'Reilly does this to imply that the Obama job approval numbers drop more and more every week. When it's a lie, the numbers go up a few points, and they go down a few points, then you average them to get a 3 day rolling average.

One day it might go down 3 points, and the next day it might go up 3 points. Dishonest journalists like O'Reilly only report the ratings on the down days, and only quotes Rasmussen, who always has an Obama approval rating 4 to 7 points lower than Gallup and most other pollsters.

The way to measure job approval ratings for a President is month to month, and year to year. Only dishonest partisan hacks measure it day by day, especially when they do a 3 day average. And honest journalist would report the ratings month by month, and report the numbers from 2 or 3 different polls, not just the one biased Rasmussen poll.

Right now as I type this, Rasmussen has Obama with a 46% approval rating, and a 53% disapproval rating. While the Gallup poll has Obama at 50% approval, with a 44% disapproval. And take note of this, the Rasmussen poll has Obama with a higher disapproval rating than approval. That alone proves his poll is biased, because almost every other valid poll in America has Obama with a higher approval than disapproval.

And the fact that O'Reilly only quotes the biased Rasmussen poll when he reports the Obama job approval ratings, proves how much of a right-wing partisan he is.

Here are the facts, since September of 2009, which is 9 months ago, the Obama job approval ratings have not dropped one point in the Gallup poll. Do you hear me O'Reilly, you liar, in the last 9 months the Obama job approval ratings have not dropped one point, not one. They go up a point or two one day, and go down a point or two the next day, but when you average it by the month, there is no drop, none.

Just look at this graphic, right from Gallup. You can clearly see the Obama job approval rating was 50% in September of 2009. Then you look at June of 2010 and it's 50% approval, with 44% disapproval.



Earth to Bill O'Reilly, the lying dishonest right-wing fraud of a journalist. If the Obama job approval rating at Gallup was 50% about 9 months ago in September of 2009, and today it's still 50%, there was no drop in job approval ratings, none, zero, zip. What part of that do you not understand?

O'Reilly Wrong About Crime In Sestak Story
By: Steve - June 3, 2010 - 8:30am

On Tuesday night O'Reilly devoted another entire segment to the Joe Sestak story, he had Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams on to discuss it. And of course O'Reilly said it was a violation of the law, and his robot right-wing stooge Mary K. Ham agreed.

But Juan Williams said this: "This would be criminalizing basic political exchange, and no jury in America would say they were guilty for 'doing politics' in Washington. This is just not worthy of an investigation."

Then O'Reilly said this: After reading the relevant statutes, The Factor concluded that "it looks like they violated the law."

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Juan Williams is right for once, and as usual O'Reilly and Ham are dead wrong. Here are the facts, as in real facts, not the made up biased right-wing spin O'Reilly and Ham put out.

Legal experts have repudiated the claim that any of those statutes apply to the Sestak job offer. Even the Bush ethics lawyer Richard Painter said there is no legal violation, in a Washington Post article he said this: "I cannot see how this statute can be reasonably applied to this case. It's even more apparent that this is a non issue. No scandal. Time to move on."

The former Bush Attorney General also said there was no violation of the law. He said this: Based on White House and Sestak statements, the job offer "doesn't violate the statute."

On the May 28 edition of Fox News America Live, former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey said that it is "highly questionable there was a crime," adding that positions covered under 18 U.S.C. 600 have to be "made possible, in whole or in part, by an act of Congress. In other words, it has to be a position that was created by an act of Congress or somehow partially created by an act of Congress. If it's not, then it doesn't violate the statute."

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said that criminal allegations in the Sestak case are "ludicrous." She points out that there has never been a prosecution under the 1972 law cited by the Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans. "There's no definition of 'political activity' within the law," she said.

Talking Points Memo's Zachary Roth reported in May that Sloan had said of the Sestak offer, "There is no bribery case here. No statute has ever been used to prosecute anybody for bribery in circumstances like this." Likewise, on May 28th, Sloan stated that "bribery is a tough case to prove. You need an official act in exchange for a thing of value. You just don't have that case here." She added: "Mr. Sestak didn't have any kind of official act to trade. Not running for Congress, not running for Senate, can't be an official act, which is the kind of thing he would have to exchange for that thing of value."

Now remember this, Bill O'Reilly is not an attorney, and he has no legal experience. So you have all these legal experts saying there was no violation of the law in the Sestak job offer. And yet, O'Reilly claims there is, based on his reading of the evidence. Which is just laughable, especially when even two Republican legal experts say there was no violation of any law.

O'Reilly just spins out the GOP talking points, even when they are not true, and then he hopes someone will believe his propaganda. Proving once again how much of a partisan right-wing hack O'Reilly is. He just ignores what the legal experts are saying, and declares it a violation of the law. Based on what, his opinion, which is worth nothing.

O'Reilly Was So Wrong Last Week It's Ridiculous
By: Steve - June 3, 2010 - 8:00am

Last Thursday O'Reilly reported that BP had capped the oil spill well. I heard him say it, and I was going to report on it, and then I forgot, until I saw something that reminded me about it this morning. Here is exactly what O'Reilly said last Thursday.
O'REILLY: President Obama ran into some good news today - it looks like BP has finally been able to cap that damaged oil well after five weeks. Mr. Obama understands that Americans are very angry about the spill and the President sounded tough in holding not only BP, but all oil drillers, responsible.
And none of that is true, the BP "Top Kill" plan failed, it did not work. Earth to O'Reilly, what kind of journalism is that, you had it all wrong. Did you get your journalism degree from a box of Cracker Jacks. What happened to that crack staff you said you have that never makes any mistakes. There was no cap, ever, and yet you reported there was anyway.

O'Reilly Ignored Mark Kirk Military Award Lie Story
By: Steve - June 2, 2010 - 11:00am

As I expected and predicted, O'Reilly totally ignored the Mark Kirk military award lie story, simply because he is a Republican, and that is a fact. Kirk is a Republican who is running against Democrat Alexi Giannoulias for an Illinois Senate seat.

Think about this, last week the story about the Democratic Senate candidate Richaed Blumenthal broke, he was caught lying about serving in Vietnam. He did serve in the Marine reserves at the time, but he was not in Vietnam. And boy did O'Reilly love that story, he loved it so much he reported on it three nights in a row.

For three straight nights O'Reilly devoted a segment to the Blumenthal story, with Republicans on each time to hammer him. And then a similar story breaks about the Republican Kirk, and not only does O'Reilly not report it for three straight nights, he did not report it at all.

The only difference is that Kirk is a Republican. Kirk's false claim that he was named the Navy Intelligence Officer of the Year in the late 1990's was even made at a Congressional committee hearing. There is even a video of him saying the lie, which O'Reilly usually loves to show, especially when it's a Democrat, but O'Reilly is still ignoring the story.

And the only reason anyone can think of why, is that Kirk is a Republican. At the very beginning of Kirk's testimony, he makes this claim: "I've been in office just one year. Before that I was a Navy Reserve Intelligence Officer--was the Navy's Intelligence Officer of the Year in 1998," Kirk said in a March 2002 House committee hearing.

In one segment O'Reilly did on the Blumenthal story, O'Reilly said the military lie may have ruined his Senate run, and he claimed Blumenthal was trying to salvage his political viability. In the same segment O'Reilly had Republican Fred Thompson on to slam Blumenthal. Thompson said the Blumenthal military lie is a serious problem, and I quote:
THOMPSON: The most serious problem in this country, is people's distrust for government and the people who represent them. Then somebody like this comes along and undermines that even more.
Then Thompson called Blumenthal a weasel.

The very next night O'Reilly had another Republican on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest of course. O'Reilly devoted another full segment to the story with the far right Laura Ingraham.

Ingraham said Blumenthal willfully broke a cardinal rule of military service. Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: I don't think anyone who happened to be a Republican would get away by saying I 'misspoke.' I've had scores of vets calling my show, and they all say they never, ever say we were in theater when we were not in theater. It's considered a terrible instance of what they call stolen valor."
Ingraham also said that Blumenthal's political career is toast. And then in the same show O'Reilly talked more about the Blumenthal story in the News Quiz with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum.

Anyone notice a pattern here. When a Democrat does something wrong O'Reilly reports it two or three nights in a row. And he only has a Republican on to discuss it, so there is never a Democratic guest to give the other side, and provide the balance a journalist is supposed to have.

But when a Republican does something wrong, even when it's almost the very same thing, as in lying about what you did in the military. Not only does O'Reilly not report it two or three nights in a row, with only Democratic guests to slam him, O'Reilly does not report the story at all. And btw, Blumenthal had times when he only said he served DURING Vietnam, so he did actually mis-speak, Kirk lied about his military award all the time, every time, even at a Congressional hearing. Making what he did much worse, and yet O'Reilly still ignored it all.

That my friends is 100% proof that Bill O'Reilly is a biased, one sided, right-wing hack of a pretend journalist. Because only a biased partisan Republican would cover those two stories like that. And now if you run into someone who claims O'Reilly is a fair and balanced independent journalist, and not a Republican, just show them this blog posting.

The Tuesday 6-1-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 2, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Obama, Israel And Public Opinion. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The consensus among intelligence people is that Israel was baited into confronting a pro-Palestinian flotilla in the Mediterranean. It is the impact on the Obama administration that Talking Points wants to address. So far the President has been quiet and the administration says it is studying the situation. The U.N. has condemned Israel as usual, and the anti-Jewish lobby is out in force.

So who are these anti-Israel protesters? Most are committed liberals who believe Israel is persecuting the Palestinian people; the right wing in America generally supports Israel and is supportive of their ongoing struggle to protect themselves against people who have hated them for thousands of years. President Obama, of course, is a left wing guy and his relation with Israel is tense.
Now if that's not speculation, what is. O'Reilly claims the anti-Israel protesters are all liberals. Well I am a liberal and I am not anti-Israel at all, and I also support their right to protect themselves. So he is a liar, and a massive speculator, which he claims to never do. Then crazy O'Reilly claims Obama is a left-wing guy who has tense relations with Israel. Where is your proof, do you have any, or are you a mind reader. And btw, O'Reilly even admitted that 78% of Jewish Americans voted for Obama in 2008. Okay, so if his relations with Israel are tense, why would 78% of Jewish Americans vote for him, what say you Billy?

Then O'Reilly continued the biased right-wing speculation, by having Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley on to discuss it. Colmes began by making a distinction, he said this: "Just because you don't agree with Israel's policies, doesn't make you anti-Jewish or anti-Israel, any more than disagreeing with a conservative government in the U.S. makes you anti-American. These commandoes overreacted and civilians were killed."

And for once, Colmes made a great point. Crowley (the Obama hater) claimed President Obama has consistently displayed animus toward Israel, she said this: "This President has pounded Israel over the settlements and he is okay with the U.N. resolution on nuclear non-proliferation that singles out Israel with no mention of Iran. He has taken positions that have led Israel to believe they are on their own."

Now get this, O'Reilly said everyone should weigh the evidence, he said this: "These protesters have no idea what happened but they run out to condemn Israel. They should do what the Obama administration is doing and wait to see what happened."

Do you believe that insanity, a minute ago O'Reilly slammed Obama for being anti-Israel. Then the crazy fool tells Colmes and Crowley that everyone should do what Obama is doing and wait to see what happened. Wow, O'Reilly spins so much he goes in circles. I'm thinking he may need to double up on his meds, because he talks out of both sides of his mouth in a 5 minute period.

In the next segment O'Reilly did another segment on the Sestak story, he had Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams on to discuss it, for the millionth time. O'Reilly said President Obama's political enemies have accused the administration of illegally trying to get Joe Sestak to drop out of the Pennsylvania Senate race. Then he asked if the right-wing is overplaying the issue.

And of course Ham the right-wing stooge said yes, But Juan Williams dismissed the allegations as trivial. Williams said this: "This would be criminalizing basic political exchange, and no jury in America would say they were guilty for 'doing politics' in Washington. This is just not worthy of an investigation."

Then O'Reilly had a segment about author Joe McGinnis, who is working on a book about Sarah Palin, who rented a house next to the Palins in Alaska. Bernie Goldberg was on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest of course. Goldberg depicted McGinnis as a provocateur, and said this: "McGinnis can live where he wants, but it's just wrong to live there. It's creepy, and even celebrity politicians have the right to a zone of privacy. I worked at CBS News for 28 years and let's say I decided to write a book about Dan Rather or Katie Couric and I decided to move right next door to them. How would they react? They wouldn't like it one bit."

O'Reilly charged McGinnis with immoral and unethical behavior, Billy said this: "He is intruding upon her life and the life of her family by his presence. If McGinnis has one scintilla of class he'll get out of there."

Now that's funny, all the guy did was rent a house next to Palin. It's a free country and he has every right to do that. Funny how these right-wing nimrods, forget we live in a free country when someone does something they do not like. And O'Reilly talking ethics and class is just laughable, pot meet kettle. Billy has no ethics, and no class, and as they say, people in glass houses should not throw stones. Last time I checked it was not illegal to rent a house, even if it's next door to someone you are writing a book about, so shut the hell up cry baby.

Then John Stossel was on to say the Government should stay the hell out of the BP oil spill. And even the right-wing O'Reilly disagreed, Billy said this: "Drillers need to be watched and regulated, there has to be some kind of structure for the federal government to regulate these companies that can cause this kind of environmental damage."

And for once O'Reilly is right, Stossel is just a fool. His answer to everything is keep the Government out of it, too bad 99% of everyone else disagrees with his crazy ass. The oil spill is too much for one private company to handle, so the Government must step in to help. That is why we pay taxes, to help in cases like this. Which proves that people like Stossel who say the Government should never do anything are idiotic far right morons. And when he says garbage like that pretty much everyone looks at him as a joke, which he is, and yet O'Reilly has him on ever week anyway.

Then O'Reilly had is it legal with Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl. They talked about Albert Snyder, whose son Matthew was killed in Iraq, he has filed suit against the Westboro Baptist Church, for shouted anti-gay and anti-military slogans during Matthew's funeral. Guilfoyle thinks the Supreme court might rule against Snyder because of the 1st amendment. Wiehl predicted the court may rule against Westboro. And they all hope the court rules in favor of Snyder, even though they claim to believe in the Constitution and the 1st amendment.

While I think these people from Westboro are scum to protest at a military persons funeral, they are protected by the 1st amendment. So I actually support the 1st amendment, not just say I do. And if the Supreme Court rules for Snyder, they will be throwing the Constitution out. The most they should do is put a distance rule on the protest, because in the Constitution is says you have a right to peaceably assemble. O'Reilly could care less about the Constitution, he just wants them to rule for Snyder, even if it violates their 1st amendment rights. Proving what a giant idiot he is.

They also talked about the Blagojevich trial, and Wiehl predicted he will be convicted of extortion and conspiracy and sentenced to 20 years. Which is just ridiculous, and even O'Reilly was shocked that she thinks he will get 20 years. I will bet he is convicted, but there is no way he will get 20 years. Wiehl is just an idiot on this one.

And then O'Reilly did an entire segment on the Sarah Ferguson story, which is a tabloid trash story for TMZ or Geraldo, not a so-called hard news show, so I will not report on it. Earth to O'Reilly, this is not real news, and nobody in America cares what the lame Sarah Ferguson did.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And another totally biased O'Reilly Factor was over, with 7 Republican guests and 1 Democratic guest.

Beck Implies Obama Is A Nazi-Era Monster
By: Steve - June 2, 2010 - 10:00am

Think about this, if a host with a liberal news show called George W. Bush a Nazi-era monster, O'Reilly and every other Republican in America would call for him to be fired, and tried for treason or sedition. But when Beck does it to a Democratic President, they say nothing.

Beck said this: "No one wants to think that your country is in the hands of a monster," then he compared Obama to Nazi-era Germany.



And not only do they say nothing about it, they support him and even have him on their shows, especially O'Reilly. Who when Bush was in office said it's wrong to make Nazi comparisons to the President.

O'Reilly even has Glenn Beck on his show every week in a segment called At Your Beck And Call. But not once has he slammed Beck for all the Nazi comparisons, not one time, ever. Even though Beck does a Nazi comparison almost every day, O'Reilly ignores it all and never says one word about it.

Beck makes so many Nazi comparisons to Democrats, Lewis Black did an entire segment on it for Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. And O'Reilly says nothing. But when a Democrat called Bush a Nazi, O'Reilly always reported it, slammed them for doing it, said the Nazi comparisons are wrong and must be stopped.

And as I like to point out, remember that O'Reilly claims to be a nonpartisan independent journalist, who is fair to both sides in the no spin zone. But when you compare how O'Reilly covered Democrats who called Bush a Nazi, to Republicans who call Obama a Nazi, there is no comparison, it's night and day. That's not what a nonpartisan independent does, it's what a partisan right-wing hack does.

CNN Blumenthal/Kirk Bias Worse Than Fox News
By: Steve - June 2, 2010 - 9:30am

Not only is Fox News totally biased in their reporting on the Blumenthal and Kirk military lie stories, CNN is worse than Fox. At least Fox spent 21 seconds on the Kirk story, compared to almost 4 minutes on Blumenthal, CNN did not spend 1 second on the Kirk story, not a word.

The day after a report that Democratic Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal had made false claims about his military service, CNN devoted 11 segments to the story. By contrast, CNN ran no segments on Republican Senate candidate Mark Kirk's admission that he had made a false claim about his military service in the two days after that story broke.

On the evening of May 17, The New York Times published an article claiming that Blumenthal had, on a number of occasions, claimed or suggested that he had served in Vietnam during his military service. The next day, CNN had 11 segments on the Blumenthal story.

6 a.m. American Morning
7 a.m. American Morning
8 a.m. American Morning
9 a.m. CNN Newsroom
1 p.m. CNN Newsroom
2 p.m. CNN Newsroom
3 p.m. Rick's List
4 p.m. Rick's List
5 p.m. The Situation Room
6 p.m. The Situation Room
10 p.m. election coverage

No CNN segments on Kirk, as in none.

A Washington Post article first published on its website on May 29 and in its print edition on May 30 reported that Kirk acknowledged after the Post began examining his statements about his military service that he had falsely claimed in his official biography that "he received the U.S. Navy's Intelligence Officer of the Year award for his service during NATO's conflict with Serbia in the late 1990s."

Kirk's bio has since been changed to read that his unit received an award from the National Military Intelligence Association, a professional group. CNN ran no segments about Kirk on May 30 or May 31.

Fox News Bias Over Blumenthal & Kirk Stories
By: Steve - June 2, 2010 - 9:00am

In its News programs following media reports indicating Democrat Richard Blumenthal and Republican Mark Kirk had made false statements about their military service, Fox News Special Report devoted nine times as much coverage to Blumenthal's misstatements as it did to Kirk's. Special Report also reported that Blumenthal's statements were "offensive" and his candidacy is "finished."

On May 17, The New York Times reported that Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, the state's Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, had made comments about his service in the Marine Corps Reserve that were a lie.

Special Report devoted 3 minutes and 13 seconds to the Blumenthal story in its next edition on May 18.

Then on May 29, The Washington Post reported that Rep. Mark Kirk, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Illinois, "has admitted to inaccurately claiming he received the U.S. Navy's Intelligence Officer of the Year award for his service during NATO's conflict with Serbia in the late 1990s."

The Post wrote that Kirk "acknowledged the error in his official biography after The Washington Post began looking into whether he had received the prestigious award, which is given by top Navy officials to a single individual annually."

Special Report devoted 21 seconds to the story on May 31, in the program's first edition after the story broke.

In their reporting on Blumenthal, Special Report provided time for his opponent to call the Blumenthal lies offensive.

Laura Ingle reported that then-Republican Senate candidate Rob Simmons "said Blumenthal's past remarks are a big mistake" and quoted him stating, "I find it offensive that he is still wrapping himself in the veteran flag of those of us who served in Vietnam."

Ingle also reported that "critics say that they don't understand how he could have made such a mistake being -- having such a sharp legal mind and being a wordsmith by trade and never correcting the record."

Additionally, during the "All-Stars" segment, A.B. Stoddard stated of Blumenthal: "I really think he's finished. When he stands there and says he will not allow a few occasions when he misrepresented his service as Vietnam veteran to impugn his actual record, it's impugned his credibility and his legitimacy as a candidate. I think his candidacy is finished. I can't imagine he recovers from this."

By contrast, in its first edition after the Kirk story broke, Special Report did not provide comments from Kirk's Democratic opponent, or any other critic, even though such criticism was included in the Post's article. Special Report spent a whole 21 seconds on the story, and do not have any critics on to discuss it.

And there you have it, a perfect example of right-wing bias in the reporting at Fox. From the show that O'Reilly and everyone at Fox claims has no bias, they claim it's a straight news show with no opinion and no bias. It's the Special Report show with Bret Baier, who Fox claims is objective and has no opinion or bias.

But I just showed you 100% proof that they are biased, and that they are not objective. What say you Billy?

Karl Rove Is A Pathetic Right-Wing Liar
By: Steve - June 1, 2010 - 9:00am

Here is a great example of why nobody should ever believe anything Karl Rove says. It proves that he does not care about the truth, or facts, all he cares about is smearing Obama with lies to score cheap political points, and to make him look bad. On Monday, Memorial day, Karl Rove attacked President Obama for commemorating Memorial Day outside of Arlington. Obama was in Chicago for a holiday weekend, so he decided to do a Memorial Day ceremony at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery. He told Vice President Joe Biden to do the customary wreath-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery.

And the low life right-wing idiot Karl Rove attacked him for it:



Rove said it was disrespectful to the military. And here is what makes Rove a giant dishonest partisan right-wing idiot. In 1983 Ronald Reagan did the very same thing. Then in 1992 George H.W. Bush did the very same thing, both Republican Presidents.

In 1983 Deputy Secretary of Defense W. Paul Thayer laid a wreath at Arlington Cemetery during the Memorial Day ceremony. He did it while President Reagan attended a summit meeting in Williamsburg, Va.

In 1992, Vice President Dan Quayle laid a wreath at the Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day. He did it while President George H.W. Bush made brief remarks at an American Legion hall in Kennebunkport, Maine, where he also played a round of golf.

Which makes Karl Rove a massive hypocrite, and a fool. And it was not just Rove using the dishonest hypocritical attacks, it was quite a few other right-wing idiots.

Glenn Beck said this: "Obama is skipping out on a Memorial Day ceremony at Arlington Cemetery because he'll be in Chicago on vacation. I'm sorry, I don't ever, ever question the president's vacation. I didn't under Bush, I didn't under Clinton, I don't under Obama."

He later added this: "I have no problem with the man taking a vacation. But I am sick and tired -- sick and tired -- of people believing the lie that this administration has respect for the police or has respect for the soldiers of our country. I'm tired of it."

And I'm tired of right-wing a-holes like Beck, smearing the President with cheap political stunts to get publicity, and score political points with the far right. This is madness, two Republican Presidents did the same thing and these guys said nothing about it then, not a word. And Obama did honor the troops, he just did not do it at Arlington.

So now Obama is disrespecting the troops because he did not honor them where Beck and Rove wanted him to, give me a break, this is laughable. This kind of garbage is why people hate all these idiots on the right, especially Rove and Beck. They are massive hypocrites who make these attacks when Republicans have done the very same thing. And you know it's ridiculous when even Rush Limbaugh did not attack Obama for it.

Once again Karl Rove and Glenn Beck have proven that they are nothing but partisan right-wing hacks, that nobody should ever listen to, and that nobody should believe anything they say, ever again.

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