The Thursday 6-30-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 30, 2011 - 11:40am

The far-right loon Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly again, so I did not do a full review, mainly because it's the same old right-wing propaganda she has put out since Tuesday night.

But I will say this, Ingraham filled the show with right-wing stooges, who of course, did nothing but trash Obama. And the one liberal who was on the show had to share his time with the Republican Dana Perino.

So as usual it was all right-wing spin, all the time.

The Wednesday 6-29-11 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - June 30, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called President Obama showing leadership? Crazy Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: Today the President held a press conference and most of the questions focused on our dismal economy and the stalled debt negotiations.

The President painted a scary vision of America in the event the Republicans maintain their 'no new taxes' stance. He was defiant and dismissive and it was vintage Obama - always shifting the focus away from his abysmal economic record and instead scare-mongering and demonizing the enemy.

The President's lecture on leadership was both unintentionally hilarious and disturbing. How does a man who has been MIA on our critical debt negotiations, a man whose own budget plan was voted down 97 - 0 in the Senate, and a man who has yet to propose any plan of his own to reform Medicare and Social Security lecture anyone on leadership?

So far this year he has played golf 17 times and has attended 33 fund-raisers, yet by his own admission he has spent only about three hours on the debt crisis with the House and Senate Republican caucuses.

But, to be fair, today he did accomplish something all historians will remember - he met with the WNBA champion Seattle Storm.
What a load of right-wing garbage, Ingraham is a 100% lying far-right hack. Almost nothing she said is true, it's pretty much all spin. Ingraham acts like the economy is terrible, and it'a all Obama's fault. When the economy is great compared to what it was under Bush. Obama saved us from the Bush depression, and we have had 15 straight months of job growth, we went from losing 700,000 jobs a month under Bush, to a gain of jobs every month under Obama.

Now that is a good thing, but Ingraham turns it into a terrible thing. That is what she does, spin the facts to make Obama look bad. And the 17 golf trips is meaningless, not to mention when Bush was slammed for taking so many vacations, Ingraham defended him, saying the President deserves to take a vacation once in a while. And when she was defending it for Bush, the country was going to hell, as he took more vacation time than any President in history. But Ingraham had no problem with it then, because a Republican did it.

Then she had the ridiculous Dick Morris on to agree with her, Morris said this: "This signifies a clear embrace, of the class warfare, ultra-left, populist Democratic approach. He speaks about raising taxes on oil companies, which will decrease oil exploration and production and increase gas prices. He talks about opposing itemized deductions for the rich, but he's probably talking about the mortgage interest deduction. The home-building industry is in terrible shape and this will just make it worse. He talks about raising taxes on the wealthy, but the top two percent in the country spends 33% of the money. He is taking aim at two of the most vulnerable sectors of the economy - real estate and consumer spending."

Then she had Ben Stein, a Republican who actually agrees with the President on to discuss it. Stein said this: "I am in favor of greatly raising the tax on very wealthy people. It's basic arithmetic, not ideological - we are spending an enormous amount of money that we are borrowing, and at some point there will be so much debt that we'll have a crisis. The simpler way would be to tax people who have a great deal of money and have them help pay down the debt."

But of course Ingraham disagreed with Stein, because she is a partisan hack who puts political ideology ahead of what's good for the country. And for once Ben Stein has it right. If we do not raise taxes on the wealthy, we will have a real debt crisis, and that would be a disaster for everyone.

So then Ingraham has another far-right loon on to agree with her, to make Stein look wrong, because it was 3 against 1 on the issue. But the 3 are all partisan hacks who do not care about the country, they just want lower taxes for their wealthy friends, and for their own greed.

Stuart Varney was on with his assessment of President Obama's press conference. Varney said this: "I heard his comments about leadership, and surely the leadership should be coming from President Obama. The economy is a mess, we have a massive deficit, but what we got was political posturing, not a new economic approach to our problems. Where is the leadership? Where is the policy that deals with our debt and our declining economy? I didn't see it. I saw class warfare on display."

Ingraham replied to Varney with a sarcastic remark that President Obama actually does have a clear policy, saying this: "It's called soaking the rich, demonizing Congressional Republicans and invoking things like 'corporate jet owners.'"

Then Ingraham has this loon and anti-abortion activist Lila Rose on, who is a fraud that has no credibility, but the right love her because she is pro-life. Rose said this: "Planned Parenthood is waging a national campaign, to justify the millions of tax dollars they revieve. In Indiana they commit more than half of all abortions. Meanwhile, they serve less than 1% of Medicaid patients. They're using Medicaid services as a front for an abortion business."

But pro-choice advocate Sally Kohn contended that Planned Parenthood is essential. Kohn said this: "Two-thirds of these Planned Parenthood clinics are located in communities that are classified as 'medically underserved.' Especially with high gas prices and unemployment, it's harder and harder to get these services. 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is help women, especially poor women, to have abortion as an option."

Then Ingraham claimed Obama flip-flopped on immigration. Ali Noorani and Kathy Areu were on to discuss it. Noorani said this: "The President has a lot of work to do. He has to move from promises to action, and he has a huge incentive to earn the trust of Latino voters in 2012. The majority of Americans, conservative and liberal, want a fixed immigration system but Republicans have stood in the way of immigration reform."

Areu praised President Obama's instincts and policies, saying this: "This administration has deported more illegal immigrants than the Bush administration, and Republicans and the right should be happy about that. But we Latinos are happy that he is concentrating on the criminals and the people we don't want in this country. He is doing the right thing and we are happy that he is trying to appease the Latino voters."

And finally in the last segment Ingraham had two guests on to talk about the Casey Anthony trial, which I do not report on because it is tabloid news.

Then the lame as hell pinheads and patriots vote.

Court Upholds Constitutionality Of Obama Health Care
By: Steve - June 30, 2011 - 10:00am

The majority wrote this:
"We find that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of legislative power by Congress under the Commerce Clause and therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district court."
They also wrote this:
By regulating the practice of self-insuring for the cost of health care delivery, the minimum coverage provision is facially constitutional under the Commerce Clause for two independent reasons.

First, the provision regulates economic activity that Congress had a rational basis to believe has substantial effects on interstate commerce.

In addition, Congress had a rational basis to believe that the provision was essential to its larger economic scheme reforming the interstate markets in health care and health insurance.
The most important part of Wednesday's Sixth Circuit decision upholding the Affordable Care Act isn't what the court said, although the court's rejection of the meritless challenge is quite significant. The most important part of the decision is who made it.

Judge Jeffrey Sutton is a George W. Bush appointee and a former law clerk to conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. He served as an officer in the conservative Federalist Society's Federalism and Separation of Powers practice group.

Prior to becoming a judge, Sutton devoted much of his career to preventing people with disabilities, religious minorities, and even children who are illegally deprived of Medicaid coverage from holding states accountable in federal court, even successfully arguing states rights cases in the Supreme Court.

So he is exactly the kind of person who would be extremely sympathetic to the conservative claim that the Affordable Care Act exceeds Congress lawful authority.

Sutton concluded that the heart of the assault on the Affordable Care Act, the claim that a law encouraging people to buy insurance is unconstitutional because Congress cannot compel people to take this unwanted action, has no basis in the "text of the Constitution," and it rests on a legal distinction that is utterly incoherent.

The case against the Obama Affordable Care Act is so weak that one of the court of appeals most conservative judges (a judge who devoted much of his life to shrinking federal power) just rejected it.

So now would be a good time for the idiots on the right to stop pretending these lawsuits have any merit at all.

And btw, O'Reilly predicted the courts would rule against Obama on the health care bill, saying you can not force people to buy health insurance, and he was wrong.

Stupidity Alert: Michele Bachmann Strikes Again
By: Steve - June 30, 2011 - 9:00am

Someone needs to stop her, or give her some history lessons. Because at this rate she will go down in history as a woman dumber than even Sarah Palin.

The self-described scholarly candidate Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has tripped over basic facts again. Tuesday on Good Morning America, she defended her pants on fire statement that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery (they didn't) by insisting that John Quincy Adams was a Founding Father (he wasn't).

After host George Stephanopoulos pointed out that John Quincy Adams (the son of John Adams) did fight against slavery, but only decades later, Bachmann stood by her historical interpretation anyway, even though she was proven wrong.

Steve Benen wrote this about it: "I hate to be a stickler for reality, but when the Declaration of Independence was signed, John Quincy Adams was a nine-year-old boy."

No wonder Bachmann only has a 33% approval rating in her home state of Minnesota, she is as dumb as a brick, and even when she is corrected she still refuses to admit reality.

And think about this, O'Reilly called her an honest woman who has done a good job in Minnesota. When both things are a lie, because she is not honest, and she has not done a good job. She is a far-right loon that gets basic history wrong, and has far-right radical views that are out of the mainstream.

The Tuesday 6-28-11 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - June 29, 2011 - 11:00am

There was no TPM because Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly, instead she went right to her top story. Which was crying about the media attacking Michele Bachmann. Earth to Ingraham, when you run for President and you are a far-right loon that says crazy things you will be attacked.

Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to discuss it. Colmes said this: "I have to laugh when Michele Bachmann says Obama fears her. The guy who killed bin Laden fears Michele Bachmann! She brings this on herself by saying statements that are not true, she has not adequately answered questions about farm subsidies she received and she continues to make these faux pas."

Crowley said this: "What we're witnessing is another edition of 'conservative woman derangement syndrome.' We saw this go on with Governor Palin, and now with Michele Bachmann. Why? Because you have very strong conservative women who actually walk the walk and live their lives according to conservative principles. They are an existential threat to liberalism."

Ingraham agreed that "if you're a conservative woman in the United States and you are unapologetic about your views, it's going to be open season on you."

Now that is ridiculous, it's just laughable. Bachmann is not attacked because she is a conservative woman, she is attacked because she is a loon, who says crazy things all the time. Her approval rate in Minnesota is 33%, so even her own voters do not like her. It has nothing to do with her being a woman, it's about her views on the issues, and the insane things she says.

Then Ingraham complained about President Obama promoting a fundraising raffle in which the winner gets to dine with the President and Joe Biden. Cleta Mitchell and Caroline Heldman were on to discuss it.

Mitchell said this: "It is unseemly and I think it's illegal. The law is very clear that you're not supposed to raise money on federal property, it's a federal crime. And they filmed this in the White House."

But Professor Caroline Heldman argued that President Obama's action was completely proper, saying this: "The Justice Department has ruled that you can raise money in the private residence of the White House. President Obama is doing something I do not support personally, but he didn't make these rules. He is simply playing by a set of rules that he inherited."

Then Ingraham had Dean Baker and Jonathan Hoenig on to speculate that America could end up like Greece. Which is just ridiculous, and will never happen, so I am not even going to report on this nonsense.

In the next segment Ingraham had Curtis Sliwa and Cooper Lawrence on to talk about cities that have been hit by bands of thugs who rush in to loot department stores and food markets. Sliwa said this: "This started in Philadelphia, where wolfpacks started mobbing up. They use the internet and it becomes a mad rush - like locusts through the cornfield, they buzz through and they know that most of them will go free. The cops have to give a few 'wooden shampoos' and some attitudinal readjustments so the kids are sucking concrete, then you'll see how quick that anti-social behavior will stop."

Cooper Lawrence advised authorities to focus on the mob leaders, saying this: "There's a small percentage of kids who love the crime - they start young and they keep at crime as long as they can. They're the ones who instigate the other kids and it's very important for police to understand who the real criminals are here."

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to analyze a federal judge's ruling that suspended portions of a Georgia law intended to cut down on illegal immigration. Guilfoyle said this: "This is a pivotal ruling, because this judge said Georgia was trying to do an end run around federal law. He put on hold two controversial elements of the law, including a provision aimed at people who 'willingly and knowingly' help an illegal alien."

Wiehl said this: "This law could be interpreted so broadly, that if you are a Good Samaritan and want to give medical assistance to an illegal alien, that in itself could be criminal. The judge said that's crossing the line and is preempting what the federal government is supposed to do."

And in the last segment Ingraham had two guests on to talk about the Casey Anthony trial, which I do not report on because it is tabloid news.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots vote, and the totally biased Ingraham Factor was finally over.

Fox President Admits They Are Sometimes Not Factual
By: Steve - June 29, 2011 - 10:00am

Now this is a good one, and you can bet the farm you will never see O'Reilly or Bernie Goldberg ever talk about this, because it exposes them as liars and frauds.

Former News Corp. President Peter Chernin admits in a new TV special on Rupert Murdoch that some Fox News shows are not meant to be "factual."

The newest episode of Bloomberg TV's Game Changers, profiles News Corp. Chairman Murdoch, whose media empire includes Fox News, and interviews several former News Corp. employees. Promotional material for the program quotes Chernin as saying of Fox News:
CHERNIN: There's news on Fox News, which I happen to believe is very neutral and moderate and presented fairly. And then there's the talk and opinion shows which no one ever pretends are news and factual. And Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity are clearly people on the right side of the spectrum but they are always presented as such.
So not only does he admit their opinion shows are not always factual, even though they claim they are, he admits that O'Reilly is to the right of the political spectrum, even though O'Reilly denies it, and claims to be a non-partisan Independent.

While Fox News has tried hard to draw a distinction between its opinion and news programming, many people, including myself have noted that the line doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

In fact, it's laughable. What they are doing is fraud, and it's dishonest. They claim to be telling you the turth, and only report the facts, while spinning everything to the right, denying they are partisan, and telling you they are non-partisan truth tellers.

When it's all a lie, and even the former Fox President admits it. O'Reilly is the worst, because not only does he lie about reporting only the facts, he does it while saying he is a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone.

So why should we believe anything he says, when he is lying about all of what he does. The answer, you should not believe anything he says, because pretty much all of it is right-wing spin and his opinion.

Santorum: There's No Such Thing As Global Warming
By: Steve - June 29, 2011 - 9:00am

In an interview last week with Glenn Beck, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum claimed global warming is a hoax.

Beck grinned as Santorum called for a drill everywhere policy and claimed that there is no such thing as global warming:
BECK: Oil?

SANTORUM: Drill. Drill everywhere.

BECK: Coal?

SANTORUM: Absolutely. Natural gas. We have huge stores. 263 years of oil at the current rate, almost 200 years of gas, and 300 years of coal.

BECK: What about global warming?

SANTORUM: There is no such thing as global warming. It is, in my opinion, there are hundreds of factors that cause the earth to warm and cool, and the trace gas - of which human participation in this trace gas is....

BECK: This could seal the deal for me.
Earlier this month, Santorum told the other conservative idiot, Rush Limbaugh, that global warming is "junk science."

And btw, Beck has said he does not endorse candidates, but last week he said you should vote for Herman Cain, and now he is saying Santorum calling global warming a hoax seals the deal for him. For a guy who does not endorse candidates, he sure is doing a lot of endorsing.

The Monday 6-27-11 O'Reilly/Williams Factor Review
By: Steve - June 28, 2011 - 11:00am

There was no TPM because Juan Williams filled in for O'Reilly, instead he went right to his ridiculous and insane top story. It was called President Michele Bachmann in 2012?

Are you kidding me, that is laughable, and I will be the President before crazy Michele Bachmann is, to even act like she is a serious candidate is stupid. Only Republicans take her serious, the rest of the people see her for what she is, a far right idiot, and a Plain clone.

Juan had Brit Hume on to talk about her, and of course there was no Democratic guest on to tell the truth about Bachmann, just Juan and Hume spinning for her crazy ass. Hume said this: "She has a strong and intense enough base of support within the Republican Party, that she will have a foothold in the race that will not easily be shaken. But I think she has a better chance of being nominated than being elected because she may not have the appeal to independents that a candidate will need in this election cycle. She is a worthy contender but she is regarded with scorn by the political elites in Washington."

Earth to Hume, she is not a worthy contender, she is a right-wing loon. At least he got it right that she can not win the general election, but that's about all he got right. Remember when Hume was considered a non-partisan by a few people at Fox, haha, now we see his true colors, because he is as partisan as it gets.

Juan actually argued that Bachmann could connect with many independent voters, saying this: "A lot of the independents are female white women. Michele Bachmann is the mother of five who has raised a bunch of foster kids, she's a very appealing character and very telegenic. She could wear that scorn as a badge of honor."

What a load of right-wing garbage, from Juan the fake Democrat, he sounds just like a Republican. And he is crazy if he thinks Independent women voters are going to vote for Bachmann just because she has 5 kids, that is ridiculous, and total right-wing spin. They vote based on her positions on the issues, not on how many kids she has. Juan is an idiot, and that is a fact.

Then Karl Rove was on to attack Obama, which is what he always does, and of course there is never a Democratic guest on with him to provide the balance.

Rove said this: "We're in the middle of a big battle over the debt ceiling, and the President has wanted more spending. The message of these ads is that in this battle we have to have real reductions in spending and we have to take away the President's blank check. He's fighting Republican attempts to get a package of spending restraints that would reduce the deficit."

Which is just ridiculous, mostly because Bush and the Republicans are the people who put us into debt, and yet, Rove never says a word about that, he acts like Obama caused all the debt, when it was Bush who cause 90% of it. So as usual Rove was spinning his ass off, and Juan allowed it.

Then Juan had the right-wing fool Herman Cain on again, and he asked the Republican candidate about being mocked by Jon Stewart. Cain said this: "I understand that Jon Stewart is a comedian, but he mocked me in the old 'Amos and Andy' dialect, which I think was a bit much. But I've been called every name in the book so I am not offended - he's a comedian, I'm a problem-solver. This is not about color, it's about ideas and character. Jon Stewart does not like me because I am an American black conservative."

Juan agreed that black conservatives are often subjected to ridicule, saying this: "A lot of liberals have trouble with anybody who is black and conservative in America. You don't fit in the box. But you are getting tremendous support from the Tea Party, which is made up of a lot of older white Americans. You're an exemplar in my mind."

This guy Cain is a joke, and yet O'Reilly has had him on the Factor two times already. And both times O'Reilly and Williams kissed his ass, without asking him any tough questions, or any questions about all the crazy things he has said. It's softball city for the crazy Republicans, which is what O'Reilly and Williams do.

Then Mary K. Ham and Leslie Marshall were on to talk about Obama. Marshall said this: "This is nothing new. Whenever there is a reelection campaign coming up, people perceive presidents as moving more toward the center and they attack them. But there has been a huge change - Osama bin Laden is dead! I maintain that's all he needs to put on any commercial to be reelected."

But Ham contended that President Obama will have a hard time winning reelection, saying this: "Only 37% of liberals 'strongly approve' of the President, folks on the left are unhappy because of Gitmo and Libya, and a lot of anti-war leftists are saying this is not what they signed on for. Barack Obama has gotten himself into a situation where the folks on the right are unhappy, folks on the left are unhappy, and the numbers aren't moving on independents."

Proving what an idiot she is, because yes a few liberals are unhappy with Obama, but he will be re-elected, because when it comes time to vote for Obama or a corrupt far-right Republican they will vote for Obama.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about the widespread distrust of the media. Goldberg said this: "This is because of how the media have been behaving for years. During the last presidential election, 90% of Republicans and more than 60% of Democrats and independents said the media was rooting for Barack Obama. So just about everybody felt the media were in the tank."

What an idiot, they liked Obama because he was a good candidate, smart, and not a Republican. It was not bias, they just hated Bush so much after what he did in 8 year, they liked Obama. Plus Obama had almost no negatives, he was almost a clean candidate, so there was nothing to not like about him. Not to mention being black, which made a hostoric even when he won.

Goldberg predicted the mainstream media outlets will again be squarely behind President Obama next year, saying this: "When he is actually running for reelection against a real conservative Republican, the media will jump on the 'love train' all over again and the American people will lose more faith in the media."

And in the final segment, Juan had some legal stooge on to talk about the Casey Anthony trial, which I do not report on because it is tabloid news.

Then the lame as hell pinheads and patriots vote. On a side note: Juan ran the entire show as if O'Reilly was hosting it, there was no difference. He loaded the show with 99% Republican guests, to put out right-wing spin, while only having one liberal on the entire show, and she had to share her time with the Republican Mary K. Ham.

Bachmann Confuses Serial Killer With John Wayne
By: Steve - June 28, 2011 - 10:00am

My God is this woman stupid, in fact, she might even be dumber than Sarah Palin, and that is pretty hard to do because Palin is as dumb as a rock. Now think about this, she is running for President, which is really scary.

Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has a thing for John Wayne. In an interview Monday with Newsmax, she said she wants to live in "John Wayne's America."

No big deal right, wrong. Because in the Iowa town of Waterloo, where she announced her presidential candidacy, Bachmann said this to Fox News:
BACHMANN: John Wayne was from Waterloo, Iowa. That's the kind of spirit that I have, too.
No big deal, right, wrong. Because the historically challenged Bachmann is as dumb as a brick. The John Wayne born in Waterloo Iowa, is John Wayne Gacy, the serial killer who murdered 33 teenage boys, not Johm Wayne the actor.

It was so bad, all the late night comedians were making jokes about it Monday, Leno, Letterman, etc. But of course O'Reilly and his stooge Juan Williams totally ignored the story, because they do not want you to know how stupid these Republicans are.

GOP Walked Out On Budget Deal To Protect The Rich
By: Steve - June 28, 2011 - 9:00am

Last Thursday House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) might have doomed negotiations to raise the nation's debt limit when they walked out over a dispute with Democrats about raising revenues.

Their theatrics bring the country closer to the brink of financial collapse, and observers have described the move as political grandstanding. Then on Friday More details emerged about exactly what Republicans are willing to threaten the global economy over to defend.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), a member of the bipartisan debt discussion group led by Vice President Joe Biden, said Republicans chose to protect taxpayer subsidies for big oil companies, tax breaks for corporate jets, and tax breaks for millionaires:
Democrats want to close tax loopholes that benefit oil companies, and eliminate a tax preference that gives corporate aircraft a friendlier depreciation schedule than commercial aircraft.

Additionally, Van Hollen said, Democrats were proposing to phase out tax deductions and certain credits for people making more than $500,000 a year. These would be paired with a reduction in the tax burden on lower earners, by eliminating existing limitations on their deductions.

"The message Republicans sent was this, unless we accept their lopsided approach, they're prepared to tank the economy," Van Hollen said.
Democratic aides also said Republicans refusal to consider defense spending cuts to alleviate painful cuts to domestic programs was central to the negotiation breakdown.

As Democrats have repeatedly emphasized, it's impossible to improve the country's debt situation without raising revenues or by slashing discretionary spending alone.

There's also evidence that Republicans planned the walk-out weeks in advance to pressure Democrats and improve Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) negotiating position. In short, at no point have Republicans been negotiating in good faith or honestly trying to broker a deal.

They're more interested in striking a Tea Party pose and using the massive debt they created as an excuse to enact their radical political agenda.

More Bad Republican News O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - June 27, 2011 - 10:00am

And here is another story about a corrupt Republican that O'Reilly is ignoring. It's become a pattern for O'Reilly, report on bad things Democrats do, and ignore all the bad things Republicans do.

Federal law prohibits corporations from donating to individuals running for public office, but freshman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) may have made an end run around this law:
After spending $9 million dollars of his own money to win a seat in the U.S. Senate, Ron Johnson didn't have to feel the pain very long.

Johnson's plastics company paid him $10 million in deferred compensation right before he was sworn in as Wisconsin's new senator.

The first-term Republican declined to say how his Oshkosh firm, Pacur, came up with a figure that almost mirrored the amount he personally put into his campaign fund.

"You take a look in terms of what would be a reasonable compensation package, OK?" Johnson said this week.

"It's a private business. I've complied with all the disclosure laws, and I don't have to explain it any further."
Sadly, Johnson's refusal to explain his actions could be exactly the right legal strategy for him, even if he is guilty of evading campaign finance laws.

As one election lawyer told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, to determine that Johnson violated a federal statute, the FEC would need to find a smoking gun proving the existance of an agreement between Johnson and Pacur that the company would reimburse his campaign costs.

The unlikelihood of such a prospect may be what makes Johnson comfortable refusing to talk about his enormous single payday.

And btw, spending all that money worked, because Johnson defeated the three-term Democratic incumbent Russ Feingold in the 2010 elections.

Congressman Calls For Investigation Of Justice Thomas
By: Steve - June 27, 2011 - 9:00am

This is a big story folks, that just got even bigger, because now a Congressman is calling for Justice Thomas to be investigated. As the great (haha-actually terrible) journalist Bill O'Reilly is still ignoring the story. In fact, Juan Williams (the pretend Democrat Fox has) hosted the Factor Friday night, and he also ignored it.

Congressman Chris Murphy (D-CT) - the lead sponsor of a bill which would strip Supreme Court justices of their immunity from a code of ethical conduct that applies to other federal judges, said that an investigation may be necessary to determine whether Justice Clarence Thomas ethics violations rise to the level where he is no longer fit to serve on the nation's highest Court:
MURPHY: I think our problem is we don't know the full extent of Justice Thomas connections to leading GOP donor Harlan Crow, or, frankly, to a further network of right-wing funders. What he's done is incredibly serious.

I think, at the very least, his actions should disqualify him from sitting on any cases in which Crow-affiliated organizations are parties to or have attempted to influence the Court.

But this is starting to rise to the level where there should start to be some real investigations as to whether Clarence Thomas can continue to serve as a justice on the Supreme Court.
Justice Thomas has sat on at least 11 cases where a Harlan Crow-affiliated group filed a brief - adopting the group's preferred outcome in all but one case.

Moreover, Thomas has yet to explain the full extent of his connections to Crow, despite news reports that Crow lavished gifts and other expensive favors on Thomas and his family. Nor has Thomas explained how his gifting scandal differs from the very similar gifting scandal that brought down Justice Abe Fortas.

There is one way, however, in which this scandal is quite different from the Fortas resignation. Fortas was a liberal justice, but many of the clearest calls for his resignation came from progressives such as Sen. Walter Mondale (D-MN) and Brown v. Board of Education author Chief Justice Earl Warren.

As Murphy explains, Thomas ethics scandals have been met with "deafening silence from Republicans."

Unlike Mondale and Warren, who understood that the integrity of the judiciary must trump ideology, Murphy suggests Republicans have the opposite values:
One of the most shocking speeches that a Supreme Court justice has ever made was one that Justice Thomas made a few months ago to a group of Virginia law students, in which (with his wife in the audience) he admitted that his cause on the Supreme Court as a justice was the exact same cause that his wife was pursuing as the chief organizer of one of the big Tea Party groups.

Republicans are silent on Thomas for a simple reason. He's doing their bidding on the Supreme Court today, and they don't want to do anything that compromises his ability to enforce a political agenda in the United States judicial system.
Murphy also notes that he is not holding Thomas to a standard that is any higher than the one he must follow as a member of Congress. If a member of Congress were caught in a similar scandal, Murphy said, "there would be calls from across this country for them to resign, and, frankly, they would have violated the laws of this nation."

And after hearing all that, think about this, not one word of this story has been reported by O'Reilly or anyone on his show. Now imagine what O'Reilly would say if Thomas was a liberal, Billy would do segments on it every night for a week, with follow up segments, and call for him to resign.

But when a Republican Justice does it, not only does O'Reilly not call for him to resign, he does not even report the story. While claiming to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone, which is the worst part.

O'Reilly Ignoring The Justice Thomas Scandal
By: Steve - June 26, 2011 - 10:00am

If I told you there was a Supreme Court Justice who had recieved lavish gifts, had political fundraisers, hid undisclosed income, and had numerous conflicts of interest that should have led to his resignation, you would think the so-called great journalist Bill O'Reilly would be all over the story, right?

WRONG! Because it's the Republican Clarence Thomas. O'Reilly has ignored the entire story, even though other Justices have resigned for less than Thomas has done.

The New York Times reports on Justice Clarence Thomas longstanding relationship with a leading conservative donor named Harlan Crow. Crow has donated nearly $5 million to Republican candidates and conservative organizations, including $100,000 to the anti-John Kerry Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and he has also been very generous to the Thomas family.

Mr. Crow has done many favors for the justice and his wife, Virginia, helping finance a Savannah library project dedicated to Justice Thomas, presenting him with a Bible that belonged to Frederick Douglass and providing $500,000 for Mrs. Thomas to start a Tea Party-related group.

They have also spent time together at gatherings of prominent Republicans and businesspeople at Mr. Crow's Adirondacks estate and his camp in East Texas. And the American Enterprise Institute, with Mr. Crow as a trustee, gave Justice Thomas a bust of Lincoln valued at $15,000 and praised his jurisprudence at an awards gala in 2001.

Crow also donated $1.3 million to help set up a museum that Thomas has been heavily involved in creating, an arrangement that could violate the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges if it wasn't for the fact that the Supreme Court has exempted itself from this Code.

And that is not all, Thomas has also done things like this:

-- Justice Thomas attended a Koch-sponsored political fundraiser intended to fund the conservative infrastructure of front groups, political campaigns, think tanks and media outlets.

-- Federal judges and justices are required by law to disclose their spouse's income, to prevent persons who wish to influence the judge or justice from funneling money to them through their husband or wife. But, Thomas falsely claimed that his wife, a lobbyist and high-earning member of the professional right, earned no non-investment income whatsoever while she was working at the right-wing Heritage Foundation.

When asked to explain this error, Thomas, who is one of the nine people responsible for issuing binding interpretations of the nation's founding document - claimed that he "misunderstood the filing instructions."

-- His wife used to lead an organization that vigorously opposes the Obama health Care Act, and she even briefly signed a memo calling that Act unconstitutional. She is also earning lobbying fees for working to have the Act repealed. And lawyers argued that such activities by a judge's spouse requires the judge to recuse from the lawsuits challenging the ACA, but a defiant speech Thomas gave to the conservative Federalist Society leaves little doubt that he will not recuse himself.

-- His wife may also be getting rich off of her husband's vote in the infamous Citizens United decision - which freed corporations to spend billions of dollars to buy U.S. elections. Her new lobbying firm offers advice on optimizing political investments for charitable giving in the non-profit world or political causes, a line of work which has obviously become much more lucrative since Citizens United.

And yet, Bill O'Reilly has ignored it all, because the man is a Republican he likes, and agrees with. Now imagine if a Democratic Justice were doing that, O'Reilly would make it his mission in life to get him to resign. But when a Republican Justice does it, O'Reilly is as silent as a mouse. Not to mention, Juan Williams filled in Friday night, and he did not report it either.

Crazy Republican Warns Of Chinese Military Invasion
By: Steve - June 26, 2011 - 9:00am

Here is some more proof that a lot of Republicans are nuts, and of course O'Reilly did not report it, because the guy is a Republican and O'Reilly covers for them. Even though it would have made a perfect pinhead listing, O'Reilly still ignored the entire story.

Nevada state Sen. Mark Amodei (R) didn't wait long after starting his campaign for his state's unfilled House seat before dabbling in xenophobia. Amodei, the GOP nominee for Nevada's second congressional district special election in September, launched his three-day-old campaign with a television ad telling viewers China's debt holdings will soon allow the country to rise up and destroy U.S. sovereignty.

The commercial, which follows in the footsteps of China-bashing ads run by Citizens Against Government Waste and former Rep. Zack Space, depicts a Chinese news anchor in the near-future discussing the U.S. decline in the face of China's imperial aspirations.

"Their President Obama just kept raising the debt limit, and their independence became a new dependence. As their debt grew, our fortune grew, and that is how our great empire rose again."

Running in the background are shots of Obama bowing to Chinese president Hu Jintao and a doctored image of the Chinese army marching with automatic rifles in front of the U.S. Capitol building as it flies the red Chinese flag.

At its close, the ad cuts to an image of Amodei as he promises to "never vote to raise Obama's debt limit and risk our independence."

And now the facts, China will never invade the United States, ever, it will not happen. Claims that U.S. independence is at risk from China's increased ownership of the public debt is a thinly veiled attempt to play on some Americans xenophobia.

At the end of the 2010 fiscal year, China owned just 9.5 percent of our debt. But not only does Amodei ignore the facts regarding the national debt, the ad's leap from the national debt ceiling to Chinese troops marching in front of the Capitol is simply preposterous.

But this fear-mongering may not be enough to save Amodei's campaign once the debate focuses on his support for the GOP plan to turn Medicare into a voucher system.

The Friday 6-24-11 O'Reilly/Williams Factor Review
By: Steve - June 25, 2011 - 11:00am

There was no TPM because Juan Williams filled in for O'Reilly, and I will not do a full review, but I will make a few comments and give a summary of what Williams did.

In the top story segment Juan had Geraldo on to talk about the Casey Anthony trial. Which I will not report on, because it is not the kind of news a real news show should be reporting.

Then Juan had Karl Rove on to talk about the Obama re-election. Rove said this: "The economy is bad, unemployment is going to be above 8% on election day, and he has enormous problems with groups that are critical to his reelection. His job approval has dropped among independent voters and younger voters and the enthusiasm is simply not going to be there. He has very unpopular policies and right now he is losing to a generic Republican candidate."

And that is pretty much 99.9% right-wing spin, that sounds just like O'Reilly said it. The economy is not bad, it's just a little slow, but it is good, and Rove is lying when he says Obama is losing to a generic Republican candidate, not to mention all the polls have Obama beating all the actual Republicans, so Rove was spinning like a top.

Juan Williams even disputed Rove's theory by questioning the current GOP candidates, saying this: "You look at the candidates that are out there and I don't see how any one of them can beat President Obama. People are getting more optimistic about their personal finances."

Then Juan had 2 right-wingers on to talk about a new poll that said a majority of Pakistanis disapprove of Osama bin Laden's killing by the U.S. military. Michael Scheuer and Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer were on to discuss it. Really? Who cares, what good does it do, and is anyone shocked the Pakistanis did not like Bin Laden being killed, he was one of them, and they all hate Americans, so where is the news in this story, and why even report on the poll.

Then Juan had a re-run of a recent interview by O'Reilly with immigration activist Randy Parraz, who was incensed by McCain's allegation. McCain created a firestorm by blaming the Arizona wildfires on illegal immigrants from Mexico, with no proof and no evidence. Then later even denied saying it, what a fool.

Parraz said this: "He went from being Senator McCain to Senator 'McBlame,' and he tried to start another fire by making these comments. I'm tired of these theories, we need to get to the facts and there should be an investigation into who started these fires. Why the rush to judgment?"

Then Juan (the pretend Democrat) had Lou Dobbs on to smear Obama with more right-wing propaganda on the economy. As usual it was the same old one sided right-wing spin, with no liberal guest to provide the balance to what Dobbs was saying.

And finally in the last segment Juan had two lawyers on to talk some more about the Casey Anthony trial, which I do not report on because it is tabloid news, and only people like Geraldo and Nancy Grace should be reporting it.

Then the lame as hell pinheads and patriots vote.

O'Reilly Takes Credit For Whitey Bulger's Capture
By: Steve - June 25, 2011 - 10:00am

This is classic Bill O'Reilly, after reporting on someone, take credit for their capture, even if your reporting had nothing to do with it, and you have no evidence it did.

Thursday night, O'Reilly stepped up claims of his own importance to new levels, He took credit for the capture of the FBI's most wanted American, former Boston mob boss Whitey Bulger.

O'Reilly said this: "This is amazing that The Factor could lead to the capture of a serial killer, Whitey Bulger."

O'Reilly's proof? The FBI offered $2 million for Bulger's capture and recently began running ads all over the country to gain information of his whereabouts. But since O'Reilly has such high ratings, the tip must have come from one of his viewers, he assumed.

O'Reilly said this: "I'm taking credit, whether you like it or not."

He then admitted he has no evidence to support his claim, saying this: "You can't do cause and effect, but you know."

Republican Culture Warrior Margaret Hoover then aded to the insanity, when she gave O'Reilly credit for amplifying the issue.

And now the facts: The tip might have come from one of O'Reilly's viewers. We don't know and neither does he. But why let a little thing like facts get in the way of some self-congratulation.

Not to mention, O'Reilly has said that he only reports on things that he can prove, no speculation, and if he can not prove it he will not report it.

Then he just makes it up, and says his reporting led to the capture of Whitey Bulger, while admitting he has no evidence to prove it. And that's honest journalism, how?

The Thursday 6-23-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 24, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called The economy bites Obama. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It is now beyond a reasonable doubt that the President's policies are not working. Since Mr. Obama took office in January of 2009, two and a half million jobs have been lost in the private sector in the U.S.A. Right now 25% of all Americans holding mortgages are in trouble, not able to pay their debts, or losing value on their homes.

What Mr. Obama tried on the economy has not worked. This country is in dire trouble. Not only is unemployment high, not only is housing a disaster, but the federal government continues to spend at a rate that is catastrophic. So why is this happening? Well it all boils down to political philosophy.

President Obama is a liberal guy who believes the Fed should run the economic show. And he hired advisors who believe that as well. The administration then set out to fight the recession by spending government money -- the so-called stimulus. That ran up trillions of dollars of debt.

Historically, the way out of recessions is to give the private sector lower tax rates, and reward businesses for hiring other people. But the Obama administration has resisted that. So what the upcoming election comes down to is whether the American people understand the economic present and future.

At this point in history, the U.S.A. needs a robust private marketplace and it's got to drastically cut government spending.
And every word of that is not only 100% right-wing propaganda, most of it is a flat out lie. To begin with, the stimulus worked, it was meant to keep us out of a depression and give a short term boost to the economy, which is exactly what it did. What O'Reilly also fails to mention is that the economy is getting better, not as fast as Obama would like, but we have had 15 straight months of positive job growth.

O'Reilly also lies when he says historically, the way out of recessions is to give the private sector lower tax rates, and reward businesses for hiring other people. But the Obama administration has resisted that. Because Obama did not cancel the Bush tax cuts, he could have let them expire. But he did not do that, so he did pass a tax cut by not letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

Notice that O'Reilly did not have any liberal guests on to comment on his insane TPM, that's because they would have destroyed his spin with the truth. O'Reilly is trying to make Obama look bad with lies and spin, so the people will elect a Republican and he can get another tax cut on top of the Bush tax cuts, that is all he cares about, and he will do anything to get Obama defeated. But I have news for him, most of his viewers are right-wing stooges who are already going to vote Republican, so his propaganda is mostly worthless.

Then O'Reilly had Newt Gingrich on to talk about his failed campaign. Gingrich said this: "If you go back and look at 1980, Ronald Reagan lost 13 of his senior people on the day of the New Hampshire primary and shortly thereafter his new campaign manager Bill Casey dismissed another 100 people. John McCain also went through something like this in the summer of 2007."

O'Reilly pointed out that Gingrich was looking at a pretty substantial roadblock, saying this: "You know the press is gunning for you and you know that the perception is often reality in politics. And the perception right now, Mr. Speaker, is that you don't have a chance. You're not going to be able to raise the money."

And the right-wing O'Reilly propaganda machine strikes again, it's not the media's fault, it's Newt's fault, for being such a bad far-right candidate. He dug his own hole with all the stupid things he has said, so it's his own fault he is having problems. All the media did was report what he said, word for word, so blame Newt, not the messenger.

Then Laura Ingraham was on to discuss newt and politics. Ingraham said this: "We do need ideas people in politics. So I'm glad that he is injecting ideas and solutions." Ingraham continued, pointing out that Gingrich has made quite a few mistakes, and that the media was going to keep hammering him for them: "When the media decides you're the target, look out. You better be prepared."

Once again, it's blame the media. When they only report what he said, if he did not say such crazy and stupid things the media would not have anything to hammer him with, so it's his own fault, not the media, they are just doing their job. Which O'Reilly and Ingraham do not like, because they are doing it to a Republican they are friends with.

Now this is a good one, O'Reilly wants Media Matters to have their tax-exempt status revoked. When what they do is a public service, and a great one. While far-right groups like the MRC put out biased propaganda, and O'Reilly does not say a word about them, because they are all Republicans. Yes Media Matters leans left, but they also hammer Democrats too, so they do not just slam the right. O'Reilly is just mad that they tell the truth about him and the people at Fox, so he wants to punish them by getting some of their money taken away.

O'Reilly had C. Boyden Gray, former White House counsel under President Bush the elder why the government was subsidizing Media Matters. Gray said this: "A Democratic organization is using taxpayer funds to attack you, to assault your First Amendment rights and to run a Democratic-leaning media boot camp in violation of our tax laws and probably also the First Amendment."

O'Reilly even thought that there was a clear case for the IRS to act against Media Matters, saying this: "There is no question that this organization should not be tax except. It pays the assassins who run it very well, six figures. It gets money from George Soros, perhaps the most far left activist in the country."

That is just ridiculous, O'Reilly and Gray are nuts. O'Reilly calls them assassins ,are you kidding me, they are journalists, real ones, unlike O'Reilly who pretends to be one. Now just imagine what O'Reilly would say if a liberal called the stooges at MRC assassins, he would flip and do a week of shows on it. And notice that not one liberal has been on the show to comment on anything, that's so O'Reilly can spin out his right-wing propaganda with nobody there to set him straight with the facts.

Then another Casey Anthony segment, which I do not report on. Then O'Reilly had the culture warriors on to talk about the capture of Whitey Bulger. And believe it or not, O'Reilly took credit for it. I have another blog on that so I will not go over it again, but I will say this, it's ridiculous.

Hoover said this: "Five million saw that PSA that might not have seen it if they weren't watching 'The O'Reilly Factor.' So it amplified it."

That's a lie, O'Reilly has had a ratings drop in the last few months, and he is not even breaking 3 million viewers a night now, usually it's about 2.7 million, so Hoover is a massive liar. Not to mention, O'Reilly even admitted he has no proof he helped to capture Bulger, and yet he took credit for it anyway, saying this: "We ran that entire FBI announcement that they paid a lot of money to run, and I don't know of any other national broadcast that did that. I don't think John Walsh did it. So I'm taking credit, whether you like it or not."

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Steve Doocy and Liz Claman on for the total waste of tv time Factor news quiz. Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as hell pinheads and patriots vote.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About General Petraeus
By: Steve - June 24, 2011 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly said this on the Wednesday night Factor show:
O'REILLY: A new survey from Pew Research says that 56% of Americans want U.S. troops in Afghanistan brought home as soon as possible.

Americans continue to say the war was the right thing to do but that it's unlikely Afghanistan will be able to maintain a stable government after the U.S. military leaves.

Unfortunately, the war has now become political - President Obama knows he must get on the right side of the folks and that's shading his Afghan policy. That's why he's withdrawing more troops quicker than the commander in the field, General David Petraeus, wants.

As Talking Points said last night, the President should defer to General Petraeus, who has been very successful in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But Wednesday I found out that O'Reilly was wrong, because General Petraeus said he supports the Obama decision.

Claiming that he ignored Gen. David Petraeus's advice. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said on Fox News last night that "It has been widely known that General Petraeus objected to this proposal."

So O'Reilly picked up on that statement from McCain and reported it as if it was a fact. And you can bet the farm O'Reilly never even contacted General Petraeus to find out if it was accurate. Then he reported it anyway, proving he is nothing but a right-wing hack of a pretend journalist.

Here is the truth, Thursday morning in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen said that General Petraeus does support Obama's decision. He said this: "I support the President's decision, as do Generals Mattis and Petraeus," Mullen said.

And btw, O'Reilly did not put out a correction, or even mention this information on the Thursday night Factor show.

Fox Headline Exactly The Same As GOP Press Release
By: Steve - June 24, 2011 - 9:00am

If you wanted more proof that Fox News is a front for the Republican party, here it is, look at the headline Paul Ryan put out about government spending, then look at the headline Fox News used when they reported on the story, they match exactly.

Ryan press release headline:
"Government Spending As A Share Of The Economy Will Increase By Nearly 70 Percent."
Fox News headline:
"Government Spending As A Share Of Our Economy Will Increase By Nearly 70 Percent."
Fox News adopted its "headline" for today straight from a press release from the office of Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, claiming that the Congressional Budget Office estimated that "government spending as a share of our economy will increase by nearly 70 percent by 2035."

In its long-term budget outlook, CBO projected that spending would increase from 24.1 percent of GDP in 2011 to 27.4 percent in 2035.

Not to mention, it's right-wing spin and lies, because it's only a 3.3 percent increase over 34 years. And Fox put it out as if they worked for the Republican party.

Think about what they did, the CBO put out a report about government spending, and instead of reporting on the CBO report, Fox used the press release headline from the Republican Paul Ryan to report the story.

That's about as biased as it gets folks, and of course you will never hear a word about this from O'Reilly, or anyone on his show.

The Wednesday 6-22-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 23, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called What the folks think about the Afghan war. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A new survey from Pew Research says that 56% of Americans want U.S. troops in Afghanistan brought home as soon as possible. Americans continue to say the war was the right thing to do but that it's unlikely Afghanistan will be able to maintain a stable government after the U.S. military leaves.

Unfortunately, the war has now become political - President Obama knows he must get on the right side of the folks and that's shading his Afghan policy. That's why he's withdrawing more troops quicker than the commander in the field, General David Petraeus, wants.

As Talking Points said last night, the President should defer to General Petraeus, who has been very successful in Iraq and Afghanistan. But there is no question that Americans have pretty much had enough of fighting in Muslim nations.

It has cost this country way too much in blood and treasure, and in the future we must do things differently. But since we've invested ten years and more than a half-trillion dollar in Afghanistan, it would be foolish and irresponsible to let the Taliban win.
What an idiot, after 10 years it is time to get out, no matter what the Generals want. And notice that in the past O'Reilly said we must go by the will of the people, he said he looks out for the folks, that he goes by what the folks want. Except when they disagree with him, then he says to hell with what the folks want, listen to me. Even though he was never in office, or the military, does not have access to the intelligence on Afghanistan, and he is just a lame cable tv news show host.

I say pull all the troops out of Afghanistan, by the end of summer, then use that $2 Billion a week we are spending there and create some jobs with it here at home. What say you Billy?

Then O'Reilly had Col. David Hunt and the Former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen on to discuss it. Hunt said this: "I think it's time to end this. There are about 280 provinces in Afghanistan and we only have control of 29 of them after ten years! We are supporting a corrupt and massively incompetent government, we are spending $2-billion a week and the military is exhausted. It's time to stop this because the nation-building part of this has not even worked."

Thiessen said this: "We've made a lot of gains in the past eighteen months and General Petraeus has made a lot of progress, but it still needs time. He wasn't given enough troops in the first place when the surge began, and now the President is pulling the rug out from under General Petraeus at the moment that he's making progress."

Then O'Reilly had Gen. Wesley Clark on to talk about Libya. President Obama said that American forces are not facing hostilities in Libya so Congressional approval is not needed to continue the mission. Clark said this: "I think there were hostilities early on, but we've pulled out of that. We've turned this over to our allies, we don't have troops on the ground and we are not involved in direct combat activities. There's no vital U.S. interest in Libya and there's no reason to have U.S. troops engage in hostilities and risk their lives."

But O'Reilly still wants Obama to request Congressional approval, saying this: "If I were President Obama I'd explain my position to Congress and hope they vote along with me. If they didn't, then we'd pull out. That's our system."

Turning to Afghanistan, Clark likes President Obama's plan for gradual withdrawal, saying this: "General Petraeus is an outstanding leader, but the President has to look at a broader, deeper picture. We went there to go after Al Qaeda and we dealt them a really heavy blow. We've got to leave Afghanistan in a responsible way and it seems to me that the President completely fulfilled his obligations as commander-in-chief in outlining that plan."

Not to mention, Obama ran for President saying he would bring the troops home, then he added troops, and O'Reilly is still mad, it's ridiculous, and all the troops should be brought home as fast as possible. And this crap about going to Congress because that's our system is total hypocrisy from O'Reilly, because when Bush did it without Congressional approval O'Reilly supported him, what a joke.

Then O'Reilly gave another GOP Presidential contender some free publicity to slam Obama. O'Dummy had Tim Pawlenty on to critique President Obama's Afghanistan policy. Pawlenty said this: "I thought his speech tonight was deeply concerning. He said we need to end the war 'responsibly,' but when America goes to war, America needs to win. We need to close out the war successfully, which means to follow General Petraeus' advice and get those Afghan security forces built up so they can pick up the slack. You have the President saying to General David Petraeus, the smartest and most insightful guy in this debate, that he knows better."

O'Reilly said that Pawlenty will have a hard time convincing the American people: "We have a corrupt guy running Afghanistan, a guy who can't even rally his own people. We've made a half-trillion-dollar investment and have had 1,500 dead in Afghanistan. So how do you sell this to the American public?"

Bingo, you dont. The American people do not want to buy it anymore, because it's been 10 years and we are getting nowhere. And only the far-right idiot neo-cons want to keep it going, especially when we are broke. O'Reilly even says we are broke, well if that's true how can we afford to spend $2 Billion dollars a month on a war we can not win, what say you Billy?

And if you can believe this, O'Reilly had Dennis Miller on in the last segment to talk about the Obama speech on Afghanistan. Are you kidding me, Dennis Miller? He is a comedian, so why should anyone care what he thinks, I know I sure dont.

Then the show was over, no mail, and no pinheads and patriots. Notice that only 1 Democratic guest was on the entire show. So as usual, it was all right-wing spin, all the time, except for the General Clark segment.

The Truth About Indiana & Planned Parenthood
By: Steve - June 23, 2011 - 10:00am

On the Tuesday Factor show, O'Reilly talked about how Indiana was the first state to defund Planned Parenthood, Indiana passed a law that cuts state and Medicaid funding to the organization's 28 clinics.

The Republicans passed the law, and of course O'Reilly supports what the Republicans did, what a shocker, not!

O'Reilly sided with the Indiana legislators who voted for the ban. Saying this:
O'REILLY: If the government of any state deems that an agency is not worthy of getting funds, it's none of the federal government's business.
Now of course O'Reilly left out all the facts in the story, because he does not want you to have all the details, then you might disagree with him if you have ALL the information you need to make a judgement on what they did. Here is what O'Reilly failed to report.

Republican lawmakers have turned Planned Parenthood into the touchstone for anti-choice efforts. But as Ezra Klein notes, the women's health organization itself is not really about abortion.

Planned Parenthood's services focus on contraception, sexually transmitted diseases, testing and treatment, cancer screening, and prevention. Serving mostly adults who earn below 150 percent of the poverty line, Planned Parenthood estimates it prevents more than 620,00 unintended pregnancies each year, and 220,000 abortions.

Only 3 percent of its services actually involve abortion procedures.

That 3 percent, however, serves as the foundation for the right-wing's anti-choice zealotry and has spurred House Republicans and five GOP-led states to vote to defund the women's health organization this year alone.

The first to defund Planned Parenthood, Indiana passed a law that cuts state and Medicaid funding to the organization's 28 clinics in the state.

Only four of which provide abortion services.

In effect since May 10, the law not only eliminates the clinics $1.3 million a year in Medicaid funds but also strips them of $150,000 in funding for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.

While a record number of donations allowed clinics to continue services, that help ran out yesterday. Now, Indiana's Planned Parenthood clinics are shutting down operations and leaving thousands of Hoosiers without access to health care.

-- According to Indiana Planned Parenthood president Betty Cockrum, the clinics will stop treating Medicaid patients today. "Our 9,300 Medicaid patients, including those who had appointments Tuesday, are going to see their care disrupted."

O'Reilly never said a word about that!

-- Without the STD prevention funding, Planned Parenthood has to lay off two of their three intervention specialists, or "health workers who track down the partners of someone who tests positive for an STD and ensure they are tested and treated." Planned Parenthood is now left with a single specialist to address STD testing and treatment for the entire state.

O'Reilly never said a word about that!

-- To reduce costs, all 28 clinics will close tomorrow and employees will be sent home without pay. Only one clinic in Indianapolis will stay open Wednesday but will close Thursday.

O'Reilly never said a word about that!

Planned Parenthood in Minnesota also announced yesterday that it will close 6 of its 24 clinics because of budget cuts to Title X funding for low-income women and families.

Even though none of the six clinics perform abortions.

"The clinics provide services ranging from contraception to cervical cancer screenings to testing for sexually-transmitted diseases."

And what the Republicans are doing will not decrease the number of abortions, it will actually increase them. The irony of the GOP's anti-choice agenda is that the attack on family planning clinics like Planned Parenthood actually serve to increase the number of abortions.

As the Guttmacher Institute reports, high abortion rates reflect a greater incidence of unintended pregnancies that often result from a lack of access to effective contraception and to quality health care. The factors that lead to higher abortion rates are the same factors Planned Parenthood seeks to address.

Guttmacher also noted that, had the state's Republican lawmakers successfully eliminated Title X funding as proposed, "Minnesota would see a 17 percent increase in unintended pregnancies and a 24 percent increase in abortions."

I guess O'Reilly just accidently forgot to report all that, yeah right, and I'm Elvis too.

Fox News Lied About Most Trusted Polling
By: Steve - June 23, 2011 - 9:00am

Fox News has been spinning an outdated survey to claim that a national polling firm says that Fox "is the most trusted television news source in the country."

In recent press releases -- including one sent out Monday announcing the hiring of Ed Henry as the channel's chief White House correspondent -- Fox has made the following claim:
The FOX News Channel is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news.

A top five cable network, FNC has been the most watched news channel in the country for nearly ten years and according to Public Policy Polling, is the most trusted television news source in the country.

Owned by News Corp., FNC is available in more than 90 million homes and dominates the cable news landscape, routinely notching the top ten programs.
And it is true that in January 2010, Public Policy Polling released a survey saying that respondents trusted Fox News more than any other outlet the pollster asked about. In that poll, 49 percent of respondents said they trusted Fox News, compared to 37 percent who distrusted it.

But that doesn't mean Fox is still the most trusted news outlet. "They are spinning the 2010 version of that poll when the 2011 version of the poll came out differently," says Tom Jensen, the director of PPP.

PPP published a new installment of the poll in January 2011 -- with very different results. PPP found that PBS -- which wasn't included in the 2010 poll -- was by far the most trusted outlet. Fifty percent of respondents said they trust PBS, while only 30 percent said they distrust PBS. Meanwhile, trust in Fox dropped to 42 percent, while distrust of Fox increased to 46 percent.

From PPP: A year ago a plurality of Americans said they trusted Fox News. Now a plurality of them don't. Conservatives haven't moved all that much- 75% said they trusted it last year and 72% still do this time around. But moderates and liberals have both had a strong increase in their level of distrust for the network- a 12 point gain from 48% to 60% for moderates and a 16 point gain from 66% to 82% for liberals.

The Tuesday 6-21-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 22, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called President Obama and war. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: In a rare occurrence, elements on both the left and right are opposing the war in Afghanistan. Almost every poll shows the majority of Americans have decided that the ten-year old war isn't worth it anymore.

So President Obama must take action, and tomorrow night he will announce how many troops he will withdraw from the Afghan theater. The reason the USA and NATO continue to fight in Afghanistan is to make sure the Taliban do not come back and seize power.

The Taliban are on the defensive now and many of them are hiding in neighboring Pakistan, a frustrating situation because as soon as Western forces pull out they will come back.

Talking Points does not have enough time or information to tell you what President Obama should do in Afghanistan, but I will say this: General Petraeus is the key and whatever he says, Mr. Obama should do.

So, Mr. President, stick with Petraeus, even if you have to take a political hit.
Then O'Reilly had Ann Coulter on to discuss it, really? Why? Who cares what crazy Coulter has to say about it. Why not have some military experts on to comment on it, one from the right, and one from the left. Oh yeah, because that would be the right thing to do, and it would be fair and balanced, which O'Reilly does not do.

Coulter said this: "Republicans support deploying troops, when it is in the national interest of the United States. Democrats support deploying troops and flinging them around the world only provided it is not in the United States national interest. Everything we could accomplish in Afghanistan we did in the first six months of that war. You don't want regime change in a place that has more goats than flush toilets. Afghanistan has never exported violence, they just want to be left alone - they're perfectly happy being poor, ignorant, and having a 30-year lifespan."

What a load of right-wing garbage, Democrats support deploying troops when it is needed, so everything Coulter said was pure lies.

O'Reilly even disagreed with the insane Coulter, saying this: "CIA satellite photos clearly show that Al Qaeda had training camps to wage jihad. The Taliban knew it and paid for it. You don't abandon ship right now, you play it out!"

And dont you just love O'Reilly telling Obama what to do with a war, when he is just a lame cable news tv host, who has never held office, he does not have access to the intelligence, and he does not know what the people on the ground are telling Obama and the Generals. Give me a break, O'Reilly is a fool who should shut up and stick to spinning out right-wing propaganda, and leave the war business to the people who are in power.

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about Mitt Romney, Herman Cain and John Huntsman refusing to sign a pledge drafted by an anti-abortion group. Krauthammer said this: "Romney put out a parallel statement, which was strongly pro-life. But he had a problem with one provision in the pledge that could be interpreted as meaning if there is a large chain of hospitals, and one auxiliary clinic somewhere is involved in abortion in some way, you have to cut off all the Medicare and Medicaid funds to all of the hospitals in that chain. To me what's important is not signing a pledge, it's having a position that is consistent and convincing."

O'Reilly agreed that pledges can be misleading and overly restrictive, saying this: "The subtleties you just raised are never brought to bear. People who are just casual consumers of news are going to hear things over and over that aren't true, and I think that is very dangerous."

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to talk about a sting operation by the Department of Justice that inadvertently allowed Mexican drug cartels to obtain a cache of American weapons. Crazy Crowley said this: "They lost track of about a thousand weapons, and many of those guns wound up in the hands of criminals. This program comes directly out of the Department of Justice, so are you telling me the President and his Attorney General didn't know about a drug trafficking program across an international border?"

Colmes said this: "We need to know what the AG knew, but can Holder know everything that's going on in every operation? It was a horrible operation, terribly done."

O'Reilly cited the incident as one more example of Holder's ineptitude, saying this: "It's unfair to say that President Obama would have known about an operation like this, but Holder had to know about it. Eric Holder is a zealot and an ideologue. Do we really want an ideologue running the Justice Department?"

On a side note, both O'Reilly and Crowley are right-wing spin doctors who hate Eric Holder because he is a liberal, and they have even called for him to resign, so they are cleary not objective when they discuss anything about him.

Then O'Dummy had the right-wing Howie Carr on to talk about one of the FBI's most wanted men, 81-year-old "Whitey" Bulger, who has been on the run for 17 years. Really? Why? Who cares, and how is this news I need to know. It was ridiculous, and I will not even report what they said about it.

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on for is it legal. They talked about Indiana, who cut off funding for Planned Parenthood, while the Justice Department says that the funding ban is illegal. Wiehl said this: "The Justice Department believes, that this Indiana law violates a federal law which says Medicaid patients can go to any place that is qualified to provide services. Indiana is trying to cut down all of Planned Parenthood."

Guilfoyle said this: "Why should Planned Parenthood be entitled to have public funding, and why should the federal government be getting involved in this? This is basically social activism, let's call it what it is!"

And of course the pro-life right-wing O'Reilly sided with the Indiana legislators who voted for the ban, saying this: "If the government of any state deems that an agency is not worthy of getting funds, it's none of the federal government's business."

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Holly Bristow on to talk more about the Casey Anthony trial. Which I do not report on because it is nothing but tabloid news to get ratings.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as hell pinheads and patriots waste of TV time vote.

Fox Censored Jon Stewart On Fox News Sunday
By: Steve - June 22, 2011 - 10:00am

This is what Fox does folks, when they do not like someone telling the truth about them, they edit it from the show.

On Monday, Jon Stewart appeared on Fox News Sunday to discuss his criticism of Fox News. But one uncomfortable reference to marching-order emails from a Fox News executive was cut from the program.

Speaking with host Chris Wallace, Stewart referenced emails from Fox News vice president and DC managing editor Bill Sammon to bolster his case that Fox News resembles "ideological regimes" who receive "marching orders."

Stewart told Wallace that Fox News "reminds me of, you know -- you know, ideological regimes. They can't understand that there is free media other places. Because they receive marching orders." Stewart then said "and if you want me to go through Bill Sammon's emails" but was cut off by Wallace.

Stewart was referencing a series of leaked emails that Media Matters released showing Sammon slanting his bureau's reporting. In one email, Sammon ordered his news staff to cast doubt on established climate science. In another, Sammon directed staff not to use the phrase "public option," but instead the GOP-friendly "government option" and similar phrases.

Sammon also sent emails highlighting "Obama's references to socialism, liberalism, Marxism and Marxists" in his 1995 autobiography and slanting Fox's coverage of President Obama's 2009 Cairo speech.

But viewers watching Fox News Sunday on-air wouldn't have heard Stewart's reference to Sammon because it didn't appear on air.

The following is a transcript of Fox News Sunday's conversation with Stewart. In bold and caps is the portion of that conversation that was cut from the portion that aired on the show.
STEWART: You can't understand because of the world you live in that there is not a designed ideological agenda on my part to affect partisan change because that's the soup you swim in. And I appreciate that. And I understand that.

It reminds me of, you know -- you know, in ideological regimes, they can't understand that there is free media other places. Because they receive marching orders. AND IF YOU WANT ME TO GO THROUGH BILL SAMMON'S EMAILS AND --

WALLACE: DO YOU THINK I'VE EVER -- How do you explain me?

STEWART: OH I THINK YOU DO A NICE JOB. AND I'VE TOLD YOU THAT ON THE SHOW. I THINK YOU'RE ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING --

WALLACE: Do you think I get marching orders?

STEWART: I think that you are here in some respects to bring a credibility and an integrity to an organization that might not otherwise have it, without your presence.

So, you are here as a counterweight to Hannity, let's say, or you are here as a counterweight to Glenn Beck, because otherwise, it's just pure talk radio and it doesn't establish the type of political player it wants to be.
Fox News Sunday's avoidance of the Sammon bias fits a pattern of the network publicly avoiding uncomfortable questions about the controversial Sammon while it touts the credentials of the news bureau he manages.

And as expected, O'Reilly never said a word about any of this. And in fact, ignored everything Stewart said about Fox, while doing a media bias segment, with no liberal media bias experts for balance, only Bernie Goldberg.

Olbermann Names Wallace And Sammon Worst Persons
By: Steve - June 22, 2011 - 9:00am

On the June 20 edition of Current TV's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, he named Chris Wallace And Bill Sammon worst persons over editing of Stewart's criticism.



And if you do not know the story, Fox edited some of the Stewart comments out of the show. Jon Stewart appeared on Fox News Sunday to discuss his sharp criticism of Fox News. But one uncomfortable reference to marching-order emails from a Fox News executive was cut from the program.

And you can bet the farm neither O'Reilly or his so-called media bias analyst Bernie Goldberg will ever say a word about it. In fact, they ignored it, and chnged the subject to the bias of the NY Times.

The Monday 6-20-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 21, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called The presidential election and the media. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There is no question that the upcoming presidential campaign will be the most media intensive in the nation's history. The press will be trying to sway your vote, and both the Democrats and Republicans know that.

The White House believes the Fox News Channel will actively support the Republican Party; therefore, we have seen media attacks on FNC stepped up over the past few months.

Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, Jon Stewart said the New York Times is not 'relentlessly activist.' Mr. Stewart is desperately wrong about the Times, which has ten times as many liberal columnists as conservatives and moderates.

Gay marriage, abortion rights, wealth redistribution, global warming - you name the liberal issue and the New York Times energetically promotes it. For Mr. Stewart not to understand that is perplexing.

The larger issue is that most of the media is activist liberal, dedicated to swaying popular opinion. That gives Barack Obama a major advantage because the liberal press sympathizes with him.

Throughout the upcoming campaign you will see ideology in play almost every day, but not here on The Factor. We'll deal the election hand in a fair way, and if we don't, you let me know.
Notice how O'Reilly ignored everything Stewart said about the Fox bias, and how their viewers are the most misinformed, to change the subject to the NY Times. And Stewart is right, most of the NY Times is straight news, all the liberals are on the op-ed pages, so O'Reilly was wrong about that.

Then his claim that there is no idealogy on the Factor is laughable on it's face, to even make that claim you have to be insane. O'Reilly is as biased as it gets, and he has 95% Republicans on to back up his bias, which means he is a partisan hack, he just refuses to admit it.

And btw folks, O'Reilly claims this big liberal media machine is why Obama and the Democrats have some kind of big advantage. But if that is true, how did Bush beat Gore, especially when Gore got more votes, and how did Bush get re-elected. If the big liberal media machine is so powerful for liberals, how did Bush win 2 terms.

And it's not just the White House that believes the Fox News Channel will actively support the Republican Party, it's every person in America with a working brain.

Then Brit Hume was on to talk about the media's role in the 2012 election. And of course O'Reilly did not have one liberal on to provide the balance. Hume said this: "The media always have an important role, but I think it will be secondary to the conditions in the country. The media may have some effect on how conditions in the country are perceived, but as we saw in this recent Congressional election, the left and the Democrats got swamped. Obviously the President will get friendlier coverage from the mainstream media than the Republican nominee, but they don't have a monopoly any more."

Then O'Reilly cited ONE example of the networks liberalism, saying this: "CBS has hired Norah O'Donnell, who called President Obama a 'pragmatic centrist' and called Newt Gingrich a 'racist.' She has a long track record of left-wing opinion, and now she's going to be CBS's primary White House correspondent in an election year."

Then O'Reilly had Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham on to talk about Howard Dean, who recently labeled the Tea Party "the hate wing of the Republican Party." Williams said this: "He fears the Tea Party, because the Tea Party drove the 2010 elections and has also driven opposition to the Obama health care initiative. Without the Tea Party, the Republican Party has no populist edge to it - the Tea Party is the dynamo of the Republican Party."

Wow, Juan is an idiot, and a liar. Howard Dean does not fear the Tea Party, in fact, he thinks they are a joke. All he did was tell the truth, the Tea Party is the hate wing of the Republican party, and they also have a lot of racists. O'Reilly and Williams just can not handle the truth, and the truth hurts. What's really funny is now they admit the Tea Party is right-wing, when just 6 months ago O'Reilly and Williams were saying the Tea Party was not part of the Republican party.

Ham said this: "The left is very upset. Gitmo is still open, there are three hot wars, and they're not happy with Obama for giving up on the public option in the health care situation. So they're very upset with President Obama and I think this is Dean's attempt to rile them up."

Then O'Reilly Dr. Keith Ablow, and Family therapist Kathryn Smerling on to talk about the Casey Anthony trial. Which I do not report on because it is tabloid garbage for ratings.

Then the rapper Lupe Fiasco, who called President Obama the biggest terrorist, was on to discuss it. Fiasco said this: "To put it into context. I was asked about a song that addresses terrorism. The statement that I made was that the biggest terrorists are Obama and the United States of America and his foreign policy. It was an expression of me trying to understand the society. If we're going to fight terrorism, fight the 'root causes' of terrorism."

So O'Reilly slammed Fiasco for misrepresenting the war on terror, Billy said this: "President Obama's responsibility is to protect you and me and he's doing it through aggressive action. We're trying to defend ourselves against people who killed us on 9/11. You are oversimplifying and bringing a message to young people that is not true!"

Then O'Reilly had the biased partisan hack Bernie Goldberg on to cry about NBC and their bias. NBC Sports started their Sunday coverage of the U.S. Open with a montage of golf greats and children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. But the words "under God" were conspicuously missing, which caught the attention of some people.

Goldberg said this: "This is one that I can't figure out. If NBC wanted to intentionally take a stick and poke it in the eye of middle America, this is precisely how you would do it. I don't know if it was an honest mistake or, more likely, a lefty producer flexing his muscles. But I do know it was really, really dumb."

Goldberg also talked about CBS's hiring of correspondent Norah O'Donnell. Goldberg said this: "No network would hire as its chief White House correspondent someone as far to the right as she is to the left. If you're even a little to the right, you're going to stick out in the newsroom. But if you're as far left as she is, you don't stick out at all, you fit in."

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly did his so-called reality check. Which is just laughable, because it almost has no reality, and hardly any checks either. It's just O'Reilly by himself putting his right-wing spin on what other people said. And I do not report on this segment because it's not news, and there are no guests.

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

Republicans Want You To Forget George W. Bush
By: Steve - June 21, 2011 - 10:00am

Have you noticed that you never hear any Republicans like Bill O'Reilly, Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin, mention George W. Bush, or what he did in the 8 years he was the President. That's because they want you to forget how bad of a President he was, and how his right-wing policies almost destroyed the country.

Here are some quotes from a Politico article on how the Republicans are hoping you forget about Bush:
From Capitol Hill to the statehouses to the presidential primary, Republicans are turning their back on almost every accomplishment of the Bush administration.

Bush's attempt to reposition the GOP has been rejected in favor of an unmodified brand of conservatism that would rather leave people alone than lift them up with any armies of compassion. Many of Bush's distinctive policy ideas have fallen by the wayside, replaced by a nearly single-minded focus on reducing the size of government.

Twelve years after the then-Texas governor chastised his party's congressional leaders for attempting to "balance their budget on the backs of the poor," it's unthinkable that any serious Republican presidential hopeful would attempt to get to the left of the congressional GOP.
The Republicans want to run and hide from anything Bush did, as they spin you that they will be different:
Republicans now openly condemn the bailout programs Bush initiated for banks and auto companies. Members of Congress look on the No Child Left Behind Law with suspicion. Few will defend the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and the only acceptable party line now on immigration reform is "No Amnesty."

And in last week's New Hampshire presidential debate, the Republican field even edged away from the Bush administration's foreign policy, condemning the intervention in Libya and calling for an end to the war in Afghanistan.

It adds up to a comprehensive and unmistakable rejection of the Bush legacy - and above all, of Bush's platform of compassionate conservatism that was supposed to give the GOP a permanent electoral majority.
Basically, what they are doing is lying to you. They want you to forget what Bush did, and they claim he was the wrong type of Republican, and that they are different.

But it's all right-wing spin and lies, because they are no different than Bush was, they just want you to think they will be. And if you elect a Republican to be the next President, he will be exactly like George W. Bush, maybe even worse.

He will do whatever the lobbyists, the religious right, the corporations, the wealthy, and the far-right special interest groups tell them to do. They say jump, and the Republicans say how high.

House Republicans Cut Food Safety Inspection Budget
By: Steve - June 21, 2011 - 9:00am

Here it is folks, this is what the Republicans you elected are doing, they are cutting the funding for food safety inspections, while at the same time giving out billions in tax cuts to the wealthy, who btw, give a lot of it right back to them in the form of campaign donations.

Last week the House Republicans cut millions of dollars from the Food and Drug Administration's budget, denying the agency money to implement landmark food safety laws approved by the last Congress.

The House also voted to reduce funding to the Agriculture Department's food safety inspection service, which oversees meat, poultry and some egg products. And lawmakers chopped $832 million from an emergency feeding program for poor mothers, infants and children. Hunger groups said that change would deny emergency nutrition to about 325,000 mothers and children.

No Democrats voted in favor of the agriculture appropriations bill, which passed by a vote of 217 to 203.

The White House opposed many of the cuts, saying they would force the USDA to furlough inspectors at meat and poultry processing plants and leave the FDA unable to meet the requirements of a food safety law passed in December.

The legislation, which was the first major change to the nation's food safety laws since 1938, calls for the FDA to significantly step up scrutiny of domestic and imported food and devise a system aimed at preventing the kind of contamination that sickens one in six Americans every year.

And btw, The law, which received bipartisan support, followed years of cutbacks at the FDA and waves of food-borne illnesses linked to foods.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 48 million Americans get sick from tainted food every year. Of those, about 28,000 are hospitalized and 3,000 die.

Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) tried unsuccessfully to restore some money to FDA by arguing that the agency is overwhelmed by imported foods, inspecting just about 1 percent of the supply after it arrives in U.S. ports.

Think about that folks, only 1 percent of the food is inspected now, and the Republicans cut their budget even more, so now less than 1 percent will be inspected. Don't we the people pay taxes for this kind of stuff, I thought we did, but I guess not.

I want the food inspected, but the Republicans only care about saving their corporate masters money. The stats show that 3,000 people a year die from tainted food, so I guess the Republican do not care bout those people. But if a few hundred women a year have abortions that kill a possible person, they sure as hell care about that.

"China is the Wild West," Dingell said. "The stuff they are exporting to the U.S., I'm not sure I would feed my hogs. It's time to stand up and say we're going to spend what it takes to keep people safe."

Food safety advocates said they are counting on the Senate to restore the funding for the FDA that the House cut. "Clearly, we still think there's a serious need for additional resources for FDA," said Erik Olson, director of food and consumer product safety programs at the Pew Charitable Trusts.

This is what they do folks, instead of honestly trying to pass a new law they simply vote to cut the funding to pay for what the old law said. It's called dishonest political dirty tricks, and of course you never hear a word about this from O'Reilly, even though it is important news you need to know.

O'Reilly ignores most real news, because he is a Republican, and he is trying to cover for his right-wing friends, by not reporting news like this.

Jon Stewart Gives Wallace A Fox Reality Check
By: Steve - June 20, 2011 - 11:00am

On the Sunday Fox News show with Chris Wallace Jon Stewart was a guest, and boy did he give Wallace a reality check, including telling him that in every poll Fox News viewers are the most misinformed.



And for anyone who does not know what Stewart is talking about, read this:

Back in 2003, the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes conducted a survey on public knowledge of terrorism and the then-recently launched Iraq war. The report found that "those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions about these issues of grave national importance."

And the difference was big: According to the report, Fox News viewers were "three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold inaccurate views of 9-11, WMDs in Iraq, and international support for the war."

Then in December of 2010, the Program on International Policy Attitudes released another, wider-ranging report on "Misinformation and the 2010 Election," which examined the accuracy of news consumers' views on tax policy, government bailouts, the economy, climate science, and President Obama's background.

The findings were in line with the 2003 survey -- Fox News viewers were "significantly more likely" to be misinformed.

What the media studies show is the necessary result of a so-called news organization (Fox) putting ideology over accuracy. It's not news, and it's not good for the country.

And btw folks, O'Reilly never reports on any of these studies, he just ignores them as if they never happened. But if the biased right-wing Media Research Center (MRC) puts out a study on the media saying it all has a liberal bias, O'Reilly not only reports that, he has the guy who did the study on the Factor to discuss it.

And he does it with nobody from the left to provide any balance, or show how it was a biased and flawed study by a partisan media watchdog group.

More Bachmann Insanity O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - June 20, 2011 - 10:00am

As usual O'Reilly is ignoring another crazy statement from Michele Bachmann. Because she is a Republican and he wants to help cover for all the crazy stuff she says. O'Reilly even interviewed her recently and never once asked her about any of the crazy things she has said.

Speaking to reporters outside the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans Friday, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said she wants schools to teach students the creationist theory of intelligent design, saying this:
BACHMANN: "What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. I support intelligent design."
Of course there is one big problem with that, intelligent design is not science. Bachmann also called for using taxpayer dollars to teach the religious theory to students though federal block grants to the states. Which is not allowed, because it involves religion, and it's why we have Sunday school and churches.

On top of all that, O'Reilly even called her an honest woman who is doing a good job in Minnesota, even though she lies all the time, and her approval rating in Minnesota is a lousy 33 percent.

Alan Colmes Has Officially Lost His Mind
By: Steve - June 19, 2011 - 10:00am

I have to say that Colmes is ok in his job of giving the opinions for the left on Fox, but not great. Because he has to kiss O'Reilly's ass, or he will be taken off the show if he is too hard on him. So when you get a comment from Colmes, it is not what a real liberal would say, most of the time it's watered down.

Colmes can say a little to O'Reilly and others at Fox about their spin, bias, and lies, but not too much. Because if he was as hard on him as he should be they would fire him. So on the liberal scale of 1 to 10, I would give Colmes a 5, when he should be at a 9 or 10.

Now after saying all that, recently on the June 18th Fox News Watch show Alan Colmes went off the deep end, or as some would say, he jumped the shark.

Because he said Fox News is the mainstream media:



And that is about as ridiculous of a statement I have ever heard. Fox News is not the mainstream, they are a fringe cable news network that is biased to the right, and only Republicans ever believe a word they say.

The mainstream media is NBC, ABC, CBS, The NY Times, USA Today, Boston Globe, etc. Fox is not even close, and for Colmes to say Fox is the mainstream media, it proves he has lost it.

Varney Caught Lying About Tax Revenue Again
By: Steve - June 19, 2011 - 9:00am

It looks like Stuart Varney will never let this lie drop, because on the Friday Fox & Friends show he was back to lying about it again. he claims that cutting taxes raises revenues, which is just ridiculous, and only right-wing morons believe that nonsense.

Varney told Gretchen Carlson that "History shows that you get more money to the Treasury by lowering tax rates than by raising tax rates."
VARNEY: When you tax at 70 percent - if you go back to the Carter years, so that people who are supposedly wealthy lose 70 cents on every dollar they make above a certain level -- you do that and, you actually take in less money in total taxes than if you have the rate all the way down at 35 percent, where it is now.

In other words, the academic left, like Robert Reich, they want to get back to the Carter years -- very high tax rates on the rich -- because they want to -- they think they are going to pull in a ton of money to pay for Medicare and Medicaid and social services. They are wrong. History shows that you get more money to the Treasury by lowering tax rates than by raising tax rates.

CARLSON: How? I mean, because on its face, you would think, well, how does that happen?

VARNEY: Because lower tax rates -- the money comes out of the woodwork. The rich stop hiding it all over the place; they stop sending it overseas. They're quite prepared to pay 28 percent or 30 percent or whatever it is. They're prepared to pay that low rate. And that stimulates the economy, so the economy grows, and tax revenues grow as the economy grows. That's the basic math here.
In fact, virtually no economist believes the evidence supports the claim that tax cuts result in increased federal revenues.

And he still can not explain how the economy boomed, and added 22 million new jobs after Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy. Varney ignores that fact, as does every other right-wing loon (including O'Reilly) who claims lowering taxes will raise revenues, and lead to a better economy.

And now for the facts: In a December 6, 2007, article titled, "Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues," Time noted that economists agree that the Republican talking point that tax cuts raise revenues is false.
If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties.

Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves -- and were never intended to.

Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.
FactCheck.org concluded on June 11, 2007, that "it is clear" the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 "did not 'increase revenues'" as Sen. John McCain had claimed:
The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House's Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been -- even if they spur some economic growth.
And all that information proves that Stuart Varney is a dishonest and biased right-wing hack who has no credibility, which also means nothing he says can be trusted to be true.

The Friday 6-17-11 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - June 18, 2011 - 11:00am

Laura Ingraham was the fill-in host so I did not do a show review, but I will say this. O'Reilly claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone.

So how can that possibly be true when he has the dishonest, lying, far-right, fraud of a journalist hack, Laura Ingraham host his show.

Especially when every word out of her mouth is a lie, spin, propaganda, or all three. It's ridiculous to let a far-right spin doctor like Laura Ingraham host a show with a so-called no spin zone.

And what does it say about O'Reilly that he would let a known right-wing propagandist host his show. It says he is also a right-wing hack of a pretend journalist, for having her as the fill-in host.

No real non-partisan Independent would let Ingraham host his or her show, ever. And yet, O'Reilly does it all the time, while claiming to be a non-partisan Independent journalist. It's just laughable, and it shows that O'Reilly is also a liar with all the no spin zone claims, because it is a 99% right-wing spin show.

O'Reilly & Friends Praise Crazy Michele Bachmann
By: Steve - June 18, 2011 - 10:00am

Michele Bachmann is a far-right loon, and I will prove it later in this blog. So look at what O'Reilly, Morris, etc. have said about her, and then ask yourself how they can praise her when she says all these crazy things, that O'Reilly, Morris, etc. all ignore btw, and never report on.

Just 2 days ago Dick Morris said this about Michelle Bachmann:
MORRIS: Bachmann has a very legitimate chance to win. She is likely to be one of the two semi-finalists, the other being Romney or Cain. We have to understand that the entire playbook is being re-written by the Republican grass roots.

The Tea Party is tremendously strong all over the country and, working with the evangelicals, they have a very significant role."
Ann Coulter said this about Bachmann:
COULTER: She was a standout and she's very impressive. Unfortunately, I don't think you can run for the presidency from the House of Representatives. She could go back to Minnesota and run for governor and then run for president.
Here is a quote from a transcript of an interview O'Reilly did with Bachmann, and not once in the interview did he ask her about all the crazy things she has said.
O'REILLY: All right. Now, we like you. We think you are an honest woman. We think you've done a great job in Minnesota, but I just worry that the viciousness of this campaign, Congresswoman.

BACHMANN: It's very vicious, Bill. But that's – that's...

O'REILLY: Yes, it's going to be as vicious as we have ever seen in this country.

BACHMANN: It will, it will. There is no question. Because, again, what we're looking at is someone who would be coming up against Barack Obama.

O'REILLY: Yes.

BACHMANN: That's what we are looking at. We need somebody who is going to be very, very strong, very tough and willing to take on these arguments and these debates. During my time here in Washington, D.C., I have been unafraid to take on each one of these debates, whether it's the bailouts, the stimulus or today dealing with the current unrest in the Middle East.

O'REILLY: All right. Well, good luck to you, Congresswoman. I appreciate you coming on the program.
Notice that O'Reilly said Bachmann is doing a great job in Minnesota, while failing to mention that Bachmann has a higher disapproval than approval, right now she is at 33% approval, and 59% disapproval. Which means the people who elected her, the people who know her the best, strongly disapprove of the job she is doing.

Now read this, here are 10 crazy things Bachmann has said in the past, and O'Reilly never said a word about any of them, it was almost a total softball interview.

Ten Crazy Things Michele Bachmann Has Said:
-- In November of 2004, Bachmann said the Disney kids movie "The Lion King" was gay propaganda.

-- In March of 2005, Bachmann said that if we took away the minimum wage, we could wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.

-- During a 2006 debate, Bachmann said there are hundreds and hundreds of scientists who believe in intelligent design.

-- Not long after Terri Schiavo died, Bachmann said she would have voted for the Palm Sunday Compromise because Schiavo was healthy. And from a health point of view, she was not terminally ill.

-- In 2007, Bachmann returned from a junket to Iraq and compared it to the Mall of America, she said this: "There's a commonality with the Mall of America, in that it's on that proportion. There's marble everywhere. The other thing I remarked about was there is water everywhere."

-- In 2008 Bachmann, who is not a scientist, said that carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.

-- In 2008 Bachmann accused then Senator Obama of having anti-American views. She also suggested that Congressional liberals - including Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid - ought to be subject to investigation by the media to find out if they are anti-American. "I think people would love to see that," she told a stunned Chris Matthews.

-- In 2004 Bachmann said the gay singer Melissa Etheridge should repent after getting cancer, as if her being gay caused the cancer.

-- In advance of the 2010 Census, Bachmann said she would break the law by not completing the form.

-- And her #1 most crazy statement was this. During a February trip to South Carolina, Bachmann told a South Carolina audience that Glenn Beck could solve the debt crisis, saying this: "I think if we give Glenn Beck the numbers, he can solve the national debt."
So O'Reilly has her on his show for a full segment and never once asked her about any of that, he just ignored it all, to cover for all her crazy statements.

Then he even claims she is an honest woman who has done a good job in Minnesota. While she has a 33% approval rating, and when Democrats have a 33% approval ratings, O'Reilly slams them all day long and says they should be voted out of office. Proving his bias and double standards once again.

O'Reilly Shows His Right-Wing Bias Once Again
By: Steve - June 18, 2011 - 9:00am

Now he wants everyone who gets entitlements, drug tested, which would be ok with me, as long as everyone who receives government money is tested for drugs. All the execs at AIG, Haliburton, Blackwater, all the oil companies, etc. etc. etc.

And here is something you never heard from O'Reilly, Rick Scott (the corrupt right-wing idiot) is pushing these drug tests because his company makes money giving them.

Not to mention, how many billions would it cost to drug test everyone who gets those entitlements, how will we pay for it if we are broke, and is O'Reilly willing to pay more in taxes to cover the cost, haha, you know he dont.

He wants all this stuff done, but he never wants to pay for it, even after he says we are broke, he calls for more government spending, what a joke.

The Thursday 6-16-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 17, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called The real reason Weiner had to quit. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It wasn't very difficult to predict, as we did, that Congressman Anthony Weiner would have to resign. That's because he lied to the media and tried to use the press to cover his Twitter activities.

Once the media turns on a politician it's very difficult for that person to survive in office. The arrogance of Weiner was amazing. How did he think he could get away with calling press people into his office and lying right to their faces?

No one should celebrate the destruction of Anthony Weiner, mainly because there is a wife and unborn child in the picture, but the country is far better off now that he has resigned. While everyone makes mistakes, there is a level of honesty that must be present in our leadership.

The biggest message of this entire sordid episode is this: Even though the American media tilts left, it will not tolerate being manipulated. Weiner tried to do that and it broke him.
What's really funny is how O'Reilly acts like he told you the real story why Weiner resigned, as if he was the only person who predicted he would resign. When we all know the real story, and why he resigned, we did not need O'Reilly to tell us.

Then O'Reilly had Carl Cameron and James Rosen for their perspective on the Weiner resignation. Cameron said this: "It wasn't just that he lied to the media, but one of the things that really matters in Washington is the handshake nature of doing business. There were people with whom he had been doing business and he lied to their faces, which really ticked them off. His resignation may be the best thing that has happened to the Democratic Party in the past two weeks."

Rosen reported that Weiner may have been hanging on for financial reasons. Rosen said this: "He's not an attorney and he's never really made a significant amount of money. There is some talk to the effect that he was using this time to barter with the Democratic leadership and ask them to line up a job for him. The only leverage he had was that he didn't have to resign."

Then O'Reilly said that almost no one came to Weiner's defense, not even MSNBC.

Then Alan Colmes was on to say Weiner should not have resigned. Colmes said this: "What people do in their personal lives does not affect their performance. I'm not supporting lying, but this is not even a real scandal, this is a junior high school scandal. Yes, he lied to the media and to Democrats, but this is a very bad model of how we should run things. He should have this decided by the people in his district, and if there is going to be a special election he should run. He was run out of office on a rail and it's a shame."

And I agree with Colmes, I do not care what people do in their private lives, I only care how they do their job when they are at work. Unless he had sex with an under-age girl he should not have resigned. Hell, all he did was send photos and talk dirty to a legal age woman, in my world that is a problem between him and his wife, and none of our business.

But of course O'Reilly disagreed with pretty much everything Colmes said, Billy said this: "Not only did Weiner lie to the press, but he lied to the Democratic leadership. Once you start to lie to people you can't serve anymore. Why don't you hire him to be your co-host on the radio so he can lie to you every night?"

But he lied about sending photos and talking dirty to a woman, to try and keep it from his wife, so it's no big deal to anyone, but his wife.

Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about Weiner and politics. Ingraham said this "Sadly, I don't think people are surprised by this. They see lies across the board, but this just happens to be a particularly graphic one."

Ingraham turned to the post-debate poll showing gains for Republicans Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann, saying this: "I think the sense of the country is that we need both passion and substance, someone who is a 'happy warrior.' Romney came across as the CEO-in-chief, very stable and knowledgeable, and Bachmann came across as fiery and smart with passion and charm. It doesn't surprise me that Bachmann has surged and Romney came out very well."

What's really funny is when Ingraham said nobody watched the GOP debate because it was on CNN. But it had 3.2 million people watching, and O'Reilly only had 2.3 million that night. Not to mention, O'Reilly did not even break 3 million viewers one time that week, so he got less viewers than the debate on CNN did. Making Ingraham look like the fool she is for making that statement.

Then O'Reilly had another Casey Anthony segment with Holly Bristow, that I do not report on because it's tabloid news.

In the next segment the Culture Warriors Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover were on to pick the most significant lessons from the Anthony Weiner scandal. Carlson said this: "This is a very disappointing moment for our culture, because we have become so used to this. This is the norm now."

Hoover said this: "Where are the people who are trying to be Lincoln? We should demand more from our politicians and we should elect people who are trying to embody civic values."

The Warriors then looked south to Florida, where the state will mandate drug testing for anyone receiving government benefits. "The country's going broke," Carlson said, "and that's our money that we're handing out. So as far as I'm concerned we can drug test them every day of the week." And of course O'Reilly heartily endorsed the drug testing mandate, saying this: "They're taking our money and giving it to people who are drunks and addicted. That's wrong!"

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Jim Pinkerton and Ellis Henican on to talk about Anthony Weiner's lack of support in the media and among his fellow Democrats. Henican said this: "Nobody liked Weiner to start with. He was a jerk who treated people awfully, he elbowed his way to the front of every room he was in, and you could never get a reasonable answer out of the guy. He lied directly to the press, he was taunting the media, and what really hurt him was the icky pictures and the gross text messages."

Pinkerton said this: "Democrats loved him - he was a great battering ram for them, he would get on TV and slam Republicans. But it was so obvious so quickly that he was guilty and nobody could defend him any more." Then O'Reilly said Weiner's biggest mistake was alienating reporters: "He taunted the media, and once you do that you're dead!"

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

O'Reilly Takes Over Fear Tactics For Glenn Beck
By: Steve - June 17, 2011 - 9:00am

I guess that since Beck is leaving Fox O'Reilly is taking the fear tactic road to try and get Beck viewers. Because on the Thursday Factor O'Dummy said we are setting the table for violence in this country.



Which is just ridiculous, and nothing but crazy far-right fear tactics from O'Reilly. And remember this, he is the very same guy who told the Democratic party it was wrong to use fear tactics, then a week later told the Republican party they should use fear tactics or they will lose to Obama.

Another Great E-Mail From An O'Reilly Lover
By: Steve - June 17, 2011 - 8:00am

Here is another awesome e-mail from a braindead O'Reilly loving fool, enjoy!
Subject: Question
Date: Thursday, June 16, 2011 7:44 AM
From: Michael Graves - [email protected]
To: [email protected]

Do you know what really sucks? YOU.

You are a typical jealous hater. You're a joke. Just another liberal who is cool with Obama spending us into oblivion just to pander to the votes of minorities, when we can't possibly afford it. Yes, we as a country are going BANKRUPT. What happens then? There will be no entitlements. Minorities will finally be complete equals with everyone else because EVERYONE WILL BE BROKE.

Bill O'Reilly is a smart guy who knows what the hell he's talking about. I guess that puts him on the opposite end of the spectrum as you, because you're an idiot who doesn't know shit. Congratulations for wasting more space on the internet because you think you are so very clever. "Oh I have the real no spin zone" blah blah blah.
Typical Republican idiot, blames Obama for the debt when it was Bush who created 90% of it. As usual the morons who love O'Reilly are as misinformed as a person can get.

The Wednesday 6-15-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 16, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Another insult comes from Pakistan. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Incredibly, the Pakistani government has arrested five individuals who apparently helped America find bin Laden. If that isn't a slap in the face, nothing is. Since 9/11 the USA has given Pakistan about $20-billion in aid, and all we ask is that they cooperate in hunting down terrorists.

Yet Pakistan continues to not cooperate and spit in the eye of America. Our politicians don't know what to do about it, and both parties are guilty. The Pakistan problem is vexing because of the Afghan war. NATO and the USA transport supplies through Pakistan and if that pipeline is shut down the war effort suffers greatly.

In addition, China and Russia both have designs on Pakistan and we don't want to drive that country into their orbit. So you can see the situation is a mess. But you simply can't arrest people who helped find bin Laden. That is an outrage and a direct provocation to this country!

President Obama must do something publicly - what Pakistan is doing is simply unacceptable and they must pay a price.
Then O'Reilly had the far right loon Lt. Col. Ralph Peters on to discuss it. Peters said this: "I would stop pretending that Pakistan is an ally, and treat it as the rogue state that it is. Pakistan's military and intelligence services are addicted to terror as a tool of statecraft. They are terror junkies, and giving junkies more money doesn't help the addiction. Pakistan actively hid bin Laden and they are helping the Taliban kill and maim Americans every day. Any member of Congress who votes to give more billions to Pakistan has blood on their hands, and it's the blood of our service members!"

Petersalso said this: "We have to get the number of troops in Afghanistan down, we should cut all support for Pakistan, and we should throw all of our weight behind India." Then O'Reilly suggested that President Obama should give this blunt message to Pakistan's President Zardari, saying this: "If you stop our pipeline of supplies, we will actively bomb your country in pursuit of the Taliban. No more drones, you'll have bombers coming in."

What a couple of morons, as if we need another war, especially when O'Reilly claims we are broke, so how can we afford another war Billy. And this Peters is no foreign policy expert, he just disagrees with Obama on everything because he is a partisan hack.

Then Dick Morris was on for his usual ridiculous predictions and analysis. Morris said this about Michelle Bachmann: "Bachmann has a very legitimate chance to win. She is likely to be one of the two semi-finalists, the other being Romney or Cain. We have to understand that the entire playbook is being re-written by the Republican grass roots. The Tea Party is tremendously strong all over the country and, working with the evangelicals, they have a very significant role."

What a fool, Bachmann has no chance, and if Bachmann wins the Republican party nomination I will move to China, it's never going to happen.

O'Reilly even reminded Morris that only one president, James Garfield, went directly from the House to the White House, Billy said this: "I agree with you that the Tea Party has a lot more power than many people think, and Michele Bachmann is a good campaigner with a resume that has to be respected. But she is relatively inexperienced."

Earth to O'Reilly and Morris, anyone who is not a far right Republican thinks Bachmann is a far right nut, so she is a joke.

Then Lou Dobbs was on, and of course he laid the blame for the slow economy squarely on President Obama. Dobbs said this: "He doesn't understand the economy, and he continues to operate as a caretaker president. This guy is creating panels and commissions and councils, delegating responsibility, and he's acting as if his job is the ceremonial post and vice president is the position of authority. It's staggering!"

Dobbs specifically ridiculed President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competiveness, chaired by GE's Jeffrey Immelt, saying this: "A half dozen of the CEOs on that council, have gotten rid of as many as 20% of the American jobs in their employ since the year 2000."

Then the body language bimbo was on, that I do not report on because it's not news, and it's a waste of tv time.

Then Dennis Miller was on for his regular weekly segment, which I also do not report on, because he is a comedian.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Dagen McDowell on for did you see that. She watched tape of AIDS protesters heckling President Obama, saying this: "One of their central beefs, is his promise to fund an emergency plan for AIDS relief that was set in place by President Bush. President Obama promised to up the funding by $1-billion every year and it hasn't happened. But from 2004 to today funding has tripled and there's an enormous amount of money going to AIDS research."

McDowell also viewed footage of bicyclists riding naked to promote something or other, saying this: "Their whole message is muddled. They said they are protesting our addiction to fossil fuels, they are celebrating cycling, and they want to get the message out about bike safety. But these folks just want to be naked! And none of them look like they cycle a lot."

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

The Tuesday 6-14-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 15, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Analysis of CNN's GOP debate. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
As you may know, I am a simple man and I was very confused by the Republican debate last night. I couldn't tell whether it was Twitter or Facebook, who was asking the questions. I understand CNN wants to be 'hip' and cutting edge, but I got very little out of that debate.

Here are the highlights: Mitt Romney looks very presidential; Michele Bachmann, now running for president, looked very happy about it; and Tim Pawlenty would not challenge Governor Romney on 'Romney-care.' It was very apparent that Governor Pawlenty and all the others would not go after each other, it was a very friendly debate.

I think it's safe to say that at this point Mitt Romney is the heavy favorite to win the nomination, and it looked like many of the participants last night want to be Romney's running mate. Summing up the debate: Two hours of Twitter or fritter or something.
Then George Stephanopoulos was on to discuss it. He said this: "One significant moment was when Tim Pawlenty flinched, and refused to repeat the criticism he had leveled at Mitt Romney on Fox News Sunday. And the second was when Michele Bachmann announced that she had officially filed her papers to run for president. That, combined with her pretty solid performance, crowded out everybody else on the state except for Mitt Romney. I agree with you that Romney is clearly the front-runner, but if Michele Bachmann continues to perform the way she did last night, she's going to be very formidable in Iowa." O'Reilly said that Mitt Romney is in the driver's seat: "All he has to do is stay above the fray because there's nobody else breaking out."

Then Billy had the far right loon Ann Coulter on to discuss the GOP debate. Coulter said this: "He didn't make any huge errors and I suppose he had as good an answer as he's going to have on 'Romney-care.' And he always looks presidential."

Tim Pawlenty: "He was okay, he didn't make any mistakes, but he didn't blow me away."

Michele Bachmann: "She was a standout and she's very impressive. Unfortunately, I don't think you can run for the presidency from the House of Representatives. She could go back to Minnesota and run for governor and then run for president."

Newt Gingrich: "I generally don't like his commentary on TV because it puts me into a coma. I noticed last night that when he has only 30 to 60 seconds to answer, he is so much better."

Herman Cain: "I like him, but you can not run for president unless you've held elective office."

Ron Paul: "He made me remember why I dislike libertarians so much. Saying government should be out of everything is not a good answer to gay marriage. There are a thousand legal consequences to marriage and libertarians dodge the tough questions."

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on, and they talked about their reluctance to attack their GOP rivals. Colmes said this: "It's a double-edged sword. "In a primary, if you attack your fellow Republican, those attacks can come back to haunt you in the general election. I thought Tim Pawlenty had an opportunity to really go after Romney but he chose not to, and I think that hurt Pawlenty."

Crowley advised Pawlenty to continue being himself. She said this: "It's a huge mistake for any presidential candidate to try and be something they are not. Tim Pawlenty is a very decent, even-keeled, calm guy with a strong gubernatorial record. Don't be something you're not. But voters want to see someone who is willing to take the fight in a passionate way to Obama."

Now get this, Monica Crowley said that Republicans could run Lassie and win. Which just goes to prove how much of a right-wing spin doctor she is, because Obama is beating all the Republicans in the polls, and he will be re-elected.

Then John Stossel was on to talk about Ron Paul. Stossel said this: "The Keynesian idea, is that government spending can buoy the economy, it's what the stimulus was based on. And the Fed printed money and kept interest rates low, which fueled the housing bubble. The conceit that the twelve people on the Fed can run a whole economy is terrible! Ron Paul wants to abolish the Fed and he is right about just about everyting."

So Billy put out a counter-libertarian argument, saying this: "Ron Paul wants to let everybody do pretty much anything they want, which means the Wall Street gangsters who invented all this mortgage-backed stuff would have nobody watching them."

Then O'Reilly had Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle on to discuss the Casey Anthony trial, which I do not report on because it is tabloid news. O'Reilly is just covering it for ratings, because Nancy Grace is getting big ratings reporting on it.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Charles Krauthammer on to discuss the GOP debate on CNN. Krauthammer said this: "I learned that libertarians are not going to win the presidency. Ron Paul looked a little confused and libertarianism is a great philosophy as a critique of governance, but it's not a governing philosophy. If you want to know why, watch a tape of last night."

Then Krauthammer declared Mitt Romney the overall winner and TV viewers the losers, saying this: "Romney won by default by doing nothing - he is the front-runner and he didn't get nicked. But the idea that everything had to be answered in 30 seconds was absurd, and moderator John King was cutting off answers. You can't answer everything in half-a-minute and that's why I think the debate suffered."

Krauthammer concluded by analyzing President Obama's suggestion that Congressman Anthony Weiner should step down, saying this: "The President said something similar about Qaddafi, so if you live in Brooklyn near Weiner, I'd watch the skies for drones."

Haha, that was funny, not. Hey Krauthammer, stick to the biased political analysis, and leave the bad jokes to Miller and O'Reilly.

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

The Monday 6-13-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 14, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called New poll released on GOP White House challengers. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: According to a Gallup/USA Today poll taken among Americans likely to vote Republican, Mitt Romney is now favored by 24% of them, compared to Sarah Palin's 16%, Herman Cain's 9%, Ron Paul's 7% and Tim Pawlenty's 6%. Obviously that is good news for Governor Romney, who is up 7% in that poll in just three weeks.

On Friday I was analyzing some of the Republican challengers and said that Governor Pawlenty was too 'vanilla'. Pawlenty responded that he wanted to be a serious candidate and not a showman. The problem is that many Republican voters want a candidate who will hammer President Obama, because they are angry with him.

That's why Donald Trump and Sarah Palin get a lot of attention -- because they go after the president. The Gallup poll is not good for Tim Pawlenty. He must separate himself from the pack if he wants to have a chance. In America today you have to have an element of show business in your political presentation.

That's how Barack Obama got elected. So while we respect Governor Pawlenty, and believe he is an honest and smart guy, he has to define Barack Obama so that Republican voters will know he feels their pain. If the governor is unwilling to do that, as John McCain was, he will not win.
Then Karl Rove was on to discuss it, Rove said this: "This race is far from over. Romney is not way out in front. By comparison, at this point in 1999, George W. Bush was at 52%." Then he talked about Pawlenty, Rove said this: "He can't be himself. He can't be another Donald Trump. He has to make himself authentic and credible."

Then O'Reilly actually said Rove was spinning, Billy said this: "Let me put this 'you have to be yourself' stuff to rest." O'Reilly argued that part of communication in today's media climate is amplifying one's personality to appeal to an audience. "Barack Obama went in there and he put on a performance."

Rove disagreed that Obama's style was what put him in the Oval Office, saying this: "He was a better candidate than our candidate. He articulated a better message than our candidate did." Then O'Reilly strongly disagreed, saying this: "No! He sold it better. The message wasn't better!"

I would say I have to agree with Rove, which is a miracle, and O'Reilly is just being his usual dumb self.

Then Brit Hume was on to discuss it. Hume started by saying he disagreed with Rove and O'Reilly on the reason why Barack Obama beat John McCain. Hume said this: "On 15th September 2008, John McCain and Sarah Palin were leading in the polls. And then the financial crisis hit, and it landed on the Republican ticket like an avalanche. And I don't think that Abraham Lincoln with Ronald Reagan as his running mate could have won that election after that."

The conversation then turned to Rick Perry. Hume said this: "Perry does have a record on social issues that will appeal to an important part of the Republican base. And it gives him - if he chooses to take it, and I'm not at all sure he will - an opening in this race. He can run to Romney's right on those issues."

O'Reilly wanted to know if Hume thought he had been too hard on Pawlenty. Hume said he thought it was still too early in the process to criticize any of the candidates. Billy countered that Pawlenty reminded him of another low-key celebrity, saying this: "He reminds me of Bob Newhart. I'm not saying that in the pejorative. Bob Newhart is whip-smart."

Then O'Reilly had another segment on Anthony Weiner, with Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham. Juan said this: "He is a good congressman. He's crude, he's rude, he's juvenile, he's insecure, but I don't think he should have to quit."

O'Reilly was shocked that Juan was sticking up for Weiner, saying this: "The NOW president says he is a 14-year-old boy. That's who we want in congress? Why don't we get the whole JV lacrosse team and let them run for Congress?"

Ham said this: "The question to always ask with them 'is it about politics or is it about women?' And the answer is almost always it's about politics. That's why you have to nudge them and prod them to get to say something about Sarah Palin being called the C word."

Then O'Reilly had Greta Van Susteren on to talk about the Casey Anthony trial. Which I do not report on, but I will say this. Billy said he will be fair to her on his show, are you kidding me, how is convicting her on your tv show being fair to her. O'Reilly said that despite his belief of the defendant's guilt, she'd continue to get a fair shake on the show, saying this: "We'll cover it fairly here. But, based on what happened, what we know happened, there's just no way this woman should ever see the light of day again."

What a joke, earth to O'Dummy. You can not give her a fair shake while convicting her before the jury verdict, what an idiot.

Then O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to comment on the Palin e-mails, Billy said after combing through the emails, they came up with nothing. But he ignored the fact that thousands of e-mails were not released, and most of the good stuff are probably in those private e-mails, so as usual O'Reilly ignores a big part of the story.

Billy also said the media's interest went way beyond obsession, saying this: "This is a persecution against Sarah Palin." And of course Bernie Goldberg agreed, and explained why he thought the media was still so interested in Palin. saying this: "Sarah Palin is box office. She sells newspapers, and she gets ratings. And that's why the mainstream media can't get enough of her."

The conversation then turned to media bias. Bernie said he saw it as a big problem: "This is the only bias in our culture that we say 'what's the big deal?' We wouldn't say it about racial bias. We wouldn't say it about bias against women. But media bias they don't admit, and on the few occasions when a couple of honest journalists admit it, then they say you just have to learn to accept it. So don't expect them to ever come clean on this."

What a couple of clowns, they are 2 of the most biased people in the media, and yet they criticize other people in the media for bias. Hey jerks, people in glass houses should not throw stones.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had the totally ridiculous Factor reality check, that has no reality and almost no checks. It's basically O'Reilly by himself putting his spin on what other people have said.

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

O'Reilly Spins/Defends For Stupid Sarah Again
By: Steve - June 14, 2011 - 10:00am

O'Reilly strikes again, this time he is crying about the media getting all the Palin e-mails. O'Reilly even called the media interest in Palin e-mails Persecution.



But it's ok with him to dig into everything Bill Clinton did, or any Democrat who was in office. What a joke, it's just another lame attempt by O'Reilly to protect his favorite girl, Stupid Sarah.

And btw, Palin was an office holder, and a Governor. The e-mails are from when she was the Governor, so it is fair game to look at them, because she was a public servant.

Notice that O'Reilly even says (we the people) have a right to know what the people we elect are doing. Except when it's a Republican, then O'Reilly suddenly has a different rule, and it's wrong, what a biased hack.

Morris Admits Bias: Then Claims To Be Impartial
By: Steve - June 14, 2011 - 9:00am

Dick Morris is not only a biased hack of a con man, he is not even a good liar, because one minute he admits he is going to stop saying bad things about Romney, because he may have to help him beat Obama, and the next minute he is saying he will not help any Republican candidates so he can stay impartial.

So he is either a bad liar, or nuts, or maybe both. The so-called "political analyst" Dick Morris admitted Monday that he's stopped criticizing Mitt Romney because the former Massachusetts governor might be the Republican nominee for president, he said this on the Mike Gallagher radio show: "I don't want to make my own task of defeating Obama harder." Think about that for a second folks, how can you be impartial after you have just admitted you are going to do everything in your power to beat Obama. Not to mantion saying he will no longer criticize Romney because it might make it harder for him to beat Obama.

On March 2, Morris even told Bill O'Reilly that Romney couldn't win the nomination because of Romneycare, Morris said this: "In terms of Romney, it's not an Achilles heel, it's an Achilles body. There is no way this guy is going to get nominated with him having passed the equivalent of Obamacare."

Then on June 8, Morris said this to O'Reilly: "I was at the Faith and Freedom Coalition last week. I have a video on my Web site about it and I heard them all speak. Romney is Reaganesque, absolutely incredible."

So one day he says there is no way Romney can win the nomination, then the next day he calls him Reaganesque, and says he is absolutely incredible. Folks, this is why you should never listen to anything Morris says, he is basically a right-wing spin doctor who says whatever the Republicans want to hear to get rich and famous.

Earlier that day, Morris appeared on Fox & Friends and said this: "Romney was very, very impressive at this convention. He was presidential. He reminded me a little bit of Reagan."

Morris added that he did not like Romney's position on healthcare in Massachusetts and his flip-flopping over abortion but boy, he sure put that away with a fantastic speech at this convention. Morris concluded by saying this: "I was kind of saying. This is a guy that could take Obama. I came away very impressed with Romney."

Now get this, near the end of the segment Gretchen Carlson asked Morris if any of the candidates had contacted him to seek his help. And Morris said this: "A few have, but I'm not doing that this year because I want to be impartial in my commentary."

Are you fricking kidding me, how can he be impartial after admitting all his bias and spin for the right. It's about as ridiculous a claim as O'Reilly saying he is an Independent with a no spin zone.

Fox & Friends On The Obama Stimulus Bill
By: Steve - June 13, 2011 - 10:00am

On Monday the 13th, the dishonest Fox & Friends crew, said they can not "Think Of Anything" in Obama's economic policy that has worked.



Proving once again that they are the most dishonest and biased people in the media. Because the Obama stimulus created millions of jobs, helped keep unemployment from going even higher, got the economy going back on the right track, and kept us out of a depression. But Fox claims his economic policies did nothing.

And you never hear O'Reilly or his so-called media analyst Bernie Goldberg, ever say a word about their lies and bias.

Carlson Caught Lying About Perry & Stimulus Money
By: Steve - June 13, 2011 - 9:00am

And here is yet more evidence that Fox is nothing but a right-wing propaganda machine. On Friday, While guest hosting America Live, Gretchen Carlson claimed that Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry "turned away the federal stimulus money."

In fact, despite initially refusing a small portion of stimulus money, Perry ultimately accepted much of the money for his state.

After playing a video of Texas Governor Rick Perry criticizing the use of stimulus funds for expanding unemployment insurance, Gretchen Carlson said, "he turned away the federal stimulus money."

And that is a 100% lie. In fact, Texas used the stimulus funds to balance its budget.

From the 5-26-10 Wall Street Journal:
Although Mr. Perry has railed against the federal economic-stimulus program, billions of dollars from that initiative helped Texas legislators balance the current budget. Those funds won't be available for the next budget.
From CNNMoney:
Texas Gov. Rick Perry likes to tell Washington to stop meddling in state affairs. He vocally opposed the Obama administration's 2009 stimulus program to spur the economy and assist cash-strapped states.

Perry also likes to trumpet that his state balanced its budget in 2009, while keeping billions in its rainy day fund.

But he couldn't have done that without a lot of help from ... guess where? Washington.

Turns out Texas was the state that depended the most on those very stimulus funds to plug nearly 97% of its shortfall for fiscal 2010, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
And there you have it, 100% proof Gretchen Carlson lied to cover for Perry, and to make it look like Republicans refused the stimulus money, when they all took it, and most of them used it to balance their budget, instead of what it was intended for, to create jobs and stimulate the economy.

Republican Calls Social Security A Pyramid Scheme
By: Steve - June 12, 2011 - 11:00am

Not only did he call social security a pyramid scheme, he later flip-flopped on the issue, saying he now supports it, then refused to comment on the pyramid scheme statement.

last week, Rep. Joe Heck (R-NV) faced an angry crowd of constituents after telling them at a town hall meeting that Social Security is a pyramid scheme that isn't working. The congressman doubled down, once again referring to the program as a pyramid scheme during an appearance on a local radio show, telling a caller he was exactly right to call it that.

Then Wednesday morning, on a seperate radio show, he called his previous comments a poor choice of words. At the town hall Wednesday night, Heck refused to address his previous comments and only claimed that he actually wants to defend the program:
Heck vowed Wednesday to preserve Social Security but refused to explain why he called the federal program a pyramid scheme that does not work.

"At this point I am not going to comment on that question," Heck told a reporter who probed him about the pyramid scheme gaffe.

When another reporter asked him about the comment after the meeting, he ignored the question and walked out of the room, avoiding the crowd of constituents gathered to greet him.

At Wednesday's town hall, he said he would protect the program, adding this: "For future generations there may need to be changes for long-term sustainability."
Responding to Heck's rapidly changing positions, Americans United for Change's Jeremy Funk said this: It's a good thing Congressman Heck decided to keep his government health care benefits despite opposing health reform. He may need to be treated for whiplash soon, with all the flip-flopping going on here."

Hypocrisy Alert: Republican Bans Cameras From Town Hall
By: Steve - June 12, 2011 - 10:00am

In 2009, Ohio Republican Steve Chabot took time to list several Democratic outrages on his blog, prompting readers to choose which was the worst.

One of the political cardinal sins: A lack of transparency. Pointing to President Obama's campaign promise of transparency, Chabot railed against Obama for closing off the public from attending an event and proceeded to mock the administration's reasoning for the move:
Newly-elected-President Obama promised that his Administration would be "the most transparent ever." Then, a few days ago, they held a workshop on government openness - and you guessed it, it was closed to the public!

That's hardly the image of openness and transparency the Obama Administration wants to project. Realizing how bad they looked, they scrambled for an excuse and came up with "we needed to make sure there would be room for all the government employees attending."
So now it's 2011, and it looks like Chabot's principles are two years past their expiration date. Because last Wednesday Chabot hosted a town hall event in Cincinnati Ohio that was open to the public. However, any reporters and constituents attending the event were greeted by a sign of non-transparency.

The sign said this: "For Security Purposes, Cameras Are NOT Permitted."

Unless Chabot decided to leak sensitive intelligence information at the meeting, it's hard to see how a camera could pose any kind of security risk at an event that is already open to the public.

Chabot's reversal on transparency is hardly surprising given the severe backlash House Republicans are facing over support for their plan to end Medicare. Several House Republicans have banned recording devices to prevent broadcast of the blowback.

One of the key promises House Republicans made in the 2010 campaign was to make Congress more transparent. Given Chabot's so-called outrage over broken campaign promises, this is hardly the image of openness and transparency he called for from others.

And of course O'Reilly never reports any of this, because he is covering for his Republican friends.

The Friday 6-10-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 11, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Shakeup in the GOP race for the White House. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Newt Gingrich's campaign has fallen apart - most of his staff has quit and the former Speaker is pretty much done as a serious candidate. Things look very bad for Mr. Gingrich, who says 'creative differences' led to the split.

Also, Mitt Romney says he will not participate in the Iowa straw vote in August or any straw votes because social issues dominate those situations, not economics. Mitt Romney knows the only chance he has to be president is to convince you that he can turn the economy around.

So at this point, with President Obama's poll numbers falling, Republicans still have not organized themselves to take advantage of Mr. Obama's weakness. Last night I interviewed Herman Cain, but his candidacy is a very long shot. Same thing with Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann, although the Congresswoman should compete well in Iowa.

Of course, Sarah Palin remains a wild card and no one knows what the heck she's going to do. All in all, at this point it is Mitt Romney's race to lose.
Wow, for once O'Reilly told the truth about a Republican, Gingrich is done, but he was done a long time before that, he was done after slamming the Ryan medicare plan. And I would not call Palin a wild card, I would call he stupid, and even if she does run she can not win, so what she does is meaningless.

But notice what O'Reilly did with the Obama poll numbers, he claims the Obama poll numbers are falling, which is a lie. Because Obama got a bump from the killing of Bin Laden, so even though they have dropped a few points, they are right back to where they were before Bin Laden was killed.

Then Chris Wallace was on to discuss it, and of course no Democratic guest to provide the balance O'Reilly claims to have.

Wallace said this: "You're exactly right when you say Mitt Romney is the clear front-runner, but you overstate it when you say it's his race to lose. I think it's much more competitive than that, and if Governor Rick Perry of Texas gets in he will be a very serious candidate. He can raise money. I also think you slightly overstate the disarray in the Republican Party - the basic Republican attack on Obama on the economy seems to be pretty consistent."

O'Reilly cried that Republicans are not taking advantage of President Obama's political weakness, which sure sounds partisan to me, Billy said this: "There's nobody in charge of the Republican Party, nobody who is dominant. Republicans are looking for somebody to take on Barack Obama like Trump took him on."

Then Lou Dobbs was on. The Dow has shed more than 600 points since June 1 and is below 12,000 for the first time since March. But Dobbs advised investors to stay calm. Dobbs said this: "What we're seeing is a correction, and even with six straight weeks of losses, the Dow is still up for the year. If you have invested in companies you believe in, stay with them, and if you've been in this market, why choose to sell now? In my opinion, there's not a better place to put your money right now."

Then O'Dummy reminded Dobbs that most indicators point to a weakening economy, Billy said this: "High gas prices are taking their toll, consumer spending is constrained, and President Obama, with all due respect, doesn't have a clue how to fix that economy."

Haha, with all due respect, are you kidding me you disrespectful right-wing jerk. O'Reilly would never say that about a Republican President, and it was an insult. Are you telling me that Obama (who may be the smartest President we have ever had) and who has a team of expert economic advisors does not know how to fix the economy, give me a break. O'Reilly is a fricking biased right-wing idiot, who is disrespectful to the President.

The truth is what O'Reilly ignores, that all the wealthy Republicans and corporations are hold back spending and hiring to make Obama look bad, so it will give the Republican nominee a better chance to win in 2012. That is the truth, and in my opinion they are borderline traitors for doing it. They are sitting on trillions in cash, and making record profits, and yet they are still not hiring, and that is a fact.

Then O'Reilly had the moron Donald Trump on the show for some political talk. Trump said this: "The problem with Medicare is the fraud and the waste, so there was no reason for Paul Ryan to come out with this plan so early and to get all of his Republican friends to vote for it. Half of those people are going to lose their elections. Now the Democrats are smiling all the way to the bank."

Wow, for once Trump got it right. Except I would say more than half of them will lose their elections, because all the seniors who are on medicare vote. I would bet 80 to 90 percent of them lose their elections.

But O'Reilly argued that Ryan did the right and courageous thing, because O'Reilly is a die-hard right-wing idiot, Billy said this: "Medicare has to be modified because its deficit in 2019 is going to be $300-billion. We don't have the money!"

Yeah but we sure as hell do not want the Republicans to modify it, their plan sucks, and it will end medicare as we know it. Hell the Republicans want to get rid of medicare, and that is a fact, O'Reilly just will not report it because he knows it would hurt them in their elections. If it is modified it must be done by the Democrats.

Then Geraldo was on to talk more Casey Anthony, which I do not report on because it's tabloid news. But I will say this. Billy said she should be put to death, before there has even been a verdict. And that is not something a person who is opposed to the death penalty would say. Proving once again that O'Reilly only says he is opposed to the death penalty, in reality he supports it, and he calls for people to get the death penalty all the time.

Then O'Reilly had Tim Graham and Ellis Henican on to talk about the media reporting on Anthony Weiner. Graham said this: "The coverage was pathetic, when you compare it to coverage of a Republican. If you go back to 2006 and Republican Mark Foley, who sent creepy Internet messages and resigned immediately, there were 55 stories in the first twelve days on the evening newscasts! There is a real difference in the amount of aggressive coverage."

And that is just ridiculous, because there is a big difference, Foley sent dirty messages to minors, making it much worse. Weiner sent his stuff to a legal age girl. So there was a big difference, and Foley was also a big moral values guy etc. So it was about hypocrisy too.

Henican said this: "The fundamental reaction of the network news is to consider these stories as 'tabloidy' and beneath them. The nightly network news would rather avoid these stories, but I don't think it's ideology."

Not to mention, when Bill Clinton had his sex scandal the network news covered it to death, explain that Graham, you idiot. The network news does not cover minor sex scandals, only big ones, moron.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Greg Gutfeld and Arthel Neville on for dumbest things of the week. Which I will not report on anymore, because the segment is just stupid. They pick dumb things nobody cares about, and they are biased to the right, so they never pick any dumb things Republicans do. The Palin Paul Revere statement should have been picked by one of them, and they all ignored it, because they are biased right-wing hacks.

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

O'Reilly Spins GOP Talking Points On Green Energy
By: Steve - June 11, 2011 - 10:00am

On the Friday Fox & Friends show O'Reilly was back to his usual right-wing spin tactics. He told the stooges at F&F that we do not have the money to invest in green energy.



But we sure have the money to give millionaires and billionaires tax cuts, and fight wars we can not win, and should not have started. We sure have the money to waste on military weapons the military does not need, and doens not want.

We do have the money for green energy, and we need to spend it now. And if O'Reilly is so worried about it, why don't he give back his extra tax cut money from the Bush tax cuts.

Palin Strikes Again: This Time On The DREAM Act
By: Steve - June 11, 2011 - 9:00am

Here is even more evidence that Sarah Palin is as dumb as a rock, and that may be an insult to rocks.

It looks like Stupid Sarah knows even less about immigration than she does American history. During a recent interview with a New York news channel, Palin claimed that the DREAM Act, a bill that would provide a pathway to legal status for certain undocumented immigrants, "usurps ... the system."

She also said that the legislation perverts a legal system geared toward immigrants "who want to be here legally, working hard, producing and supplying revenue and resources for their family."

But if Stupid Sarah had read the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2011, she would realize how insane her statement was. Contrary to Palin's claim, the bill in no way usurps the system as it seeks to remedy the status of undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as babies and children, through no fault of their own.

In fact, the system that would be set up under the DREAM Act grants no special privileges to undocumented immigrants that citizens don't already enjoy. It falls in line with exactly what Palin believes a legal immigration system should do: help immigrants who want to work hard and produce and supply revenue and resources for their families.

As far Palin's claim that the DREAM Act usurps the system? She is wrong. What it does is create a separate program for students who would "not compete for visas with other applicants for legal permanent residence."

The act would not affect the number of visas available or the time it takes to get a visa for those entering through traditional legal immigration. And even if every undocumented student met all the stringent requirements for application, less than 40 percent would obtain permanent legal status.

Once the requirements are met, including undergoing criminal background checks, an undocumented immigrant could be granted temporary legal status. Following a six-year period, immigrants could apply for legal permanent residency.

That would amount to about a total of an 11-year wait and likely more than $2,500 in fees -- on top of tuition and housing costs -- before they could even think of applying for citizenship. That's some way of usurping the system, not!

Immigration policy experts have criticized today's system for being "inadequate to meet the needs of the U.S. in the 21st century," including that "insufficient numbers of visas are made available to bring in either high-skilled or less-skilled workers at the levels needed to meet the changing needs of the U.S. economy and labor market."

Now let's say a prospective immigrant happens to have an immediate American relative -- a distinct advantage. According to the State Department and ICE, a 30-year-old Mexican national with a high school diploma whose sister is a U.S. citizen, the wait to become a permanent legal resident can be astronomical -- "131 years" to be exact.

The Thursday 6-9-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 10, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Obama Must Stop the Nonsense on the Economy. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: More bad news on Thursday. More than 400,000 Americans filed for first-time unemployment benefits last week, raising the specter of a double-dip recession.

Also, Moody's and other credit agencies are now actually warning the Obama administration that the nation's $14 trillion-plus debt is not acceptable. If the president and Congress do not address the situation, America's credit rating worldwide will be downgraded.

But even in the face of all of this, President Obama continues to talk up government spending. Talking Points believes the president must stop that stuff right now. If the nation were fiscally solvent, we could invest in speculative energy projects and continue funding folks who don't have very much. But America is broke, and private industry has lost confidence in the president. That means much private expansion has stopped and new jobs are not being created. There is no question about that.

President Obama must wake up and smell the decay. This is not about re-election. This is about the well-being of most Americans. The economy is going south on Mr. Obama's watch, and Congress is not going to raise taxes in this environment. It is not going to happen. So in order to stimulate the private marketplace, the president and Congress must make it easier for industry to profit, and put all the social justice stuff on the shelf for awhile.

Because of that pessimism, folks are not spending as much and banks are not lending. Presto, another recession. Or am I wrong? Let's stop the nonsense.
I could not take notes from the show because I had to take my Father to the emergency room after he had a fall, and yes he is ok, they checked him out and no bones were broken. I did see most of the show, but my review will be limited because I could not take notes and I am doing it from memory.

In the Top Story segment O'Reilly had 2 guests, one liberal and one conservative, Tamara Holder and Andrea Tantaros. They talked about the media destroying Anthony Weiner, and O'Reilly acted like it was going too far, and that he had no part in it, which is just ridiculous, he reports on it every night, so he is a big part of it.

And of course Holder said it was wrong to report on him so much and destroy him, while Tantaros had no sympathy for him, and said the only person she feels sorry for is his wife.

Then O'Reilly had the fake Fox Democrat Pat Caddel on to talk about Sarah Palin, and my God was it a joke. O'Reilly and Caddel talked all about Palin going around the country visiting historic places and talking history. But not once did either one of them mention the Palin Paul Revere mistake, they just ignored it like it never happened.

O'Reilly did say that Palin's disapproval is so high she can not win, and Caddel agreed. But the big story was Palin saying Paul Revere warned the British, and neither O'Reilly or Caddel said one fricking word about it. Now get this, O'Reilly is a history major, so he knows she was wrong, and yet he still never said a word about it. Which is just laughable, and a real journalist would have at least mentioned it.

Then O'Reilly had GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain on to discuss his run for President. O'Reilly went softball on Cain, he asked a few lame questions about what he would do to fix the country, to which Cain never really gave a detailed answer, but not once did O'Reilly ask Cain about all the crazy things he has said.

Like not signing any bill over 3 pages, which means nothing would ever be signed, building a wall across the border like the great wall of China, and adding a moat full of alligators, or how he said he would make all the Muslim/Americans take a loyalty oath. It was a joke of a softball interview. O'Reilly just pretended Cain had not said any of that crazy stuff, so he never asked him about any of it. Because the man is a Republican, O'Reilly covered for his crazy statements, just like he does for Palin.

Then O'Reilly had a segment with some Republican about drawing troops down in Afghanistan, and of course he said we should not do it. O'Reilly even pointed out that we have been there for 10 years, but he did not care, and said we should keep the troops there.

Then the Culture Warriors Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson were on to answer the question from O'Reilly if kids should watch the Casey Anthony trial. Which is just ridiculous, and I think he could find more important things to talk about. It's crazy to even discuss it, because we have free speech, and if you have kids it is your decision if you want them to watch or not. Who does O'Reilly think he is, God. He should mind his own business, and let the parents decide what their kids can watch.

And btw folks, in the segment O'Reilly said Casey Anthony is as guilty as he has ever seen in his 35 years of reporting. So he convicted her on tv once again, even after he has said nobody should be convicted on tv, then he does it himself. And that's not all, Mr. I am opposed to the Death Penalty, said she will be found guilty and she should be put to death. So as you can see he is lying when he says he is opposed to the death penalty.

And finally in the last segment O'Dummy had Martha McCallum and Steve Doocy on for the total waste of tv time news quiz, which I do not report on because it is not news.

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

Here Is A Poll O'Reilly Will Never Report
By: Steve - June 10, 2011 - 10:00am

O'Reilly sure loves to report on polls, excpet the polls that disagree with his positions, or the polls that show the majority of the people do not like Republicans, even in their home states.

A newly released poll on June 9th, from Public Policy Polling shows that only 1 of the 9 potential GOP Presidential candidates has a favorable rating in their home state: former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson (R-NM).

All the other Republican candidates, such as Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), Mitt Romney (R-MA), Sarah Palin (R-AK), and Michelle Bachman (R-MN) are disliked by a majority of voters in the states they governed or represented.

That's probably not a good sign for any of these candidates. If the voters who know them best don't care for them, why would others around the country? Certainly you don't have to be popular in your home state to get elected President but it would be a good sign if you were.

It also shows that the people that know them the best, do not like them, but you never hear any of this from O'Reilly or Morris, or any other right-wing stooges O'Reilly has on every night to cherry pick and spin the polls to make Republicans look better.

Here are the numbers, the 1st number is their approval, and the 2nd number is their disapproval.

Gary Johnson - 44/32
Newt Gingrich - 39/47
Herman Cain - 28/36
Rick Perry - 42/50
Rick Santorum - 37/47
Mitt Romney - 40/52
Tim Pawlenty - 40/53
Sarah Palin - 33/58
Michele Bachmann - 33/59

And btw, Bachmann is the worst with 33/59, with Sarah Palin the 2nd worst with 33/58. Now think about that, O'Reilly loves them both, and has both of them on his show on a regular basis.

O'Reilly even recently said that Palin did a good job as Governor of Alaska. Then after an e-mailer asked how could she do a good job when she quit after 2 years, O'Reilly defended her again and said she did a good job while she was there.

But if that's true how is her home state approval rating at 33% and her disapproval at 58%. What say you Billy?

And think about this, O'Reilly is saying Palin did a good job as Governor of Alaska, while she has a 33% approval in Alaska. Which proves that O'Reilly is a Palin ass kisser who will say anything to defend her, even lie for her, meaning his credibility when talking about Palin is zero.

On a side note, Herman Cain has a 28% approval in his home state, and this is the man Glenn Beck said you should vote for. Proving that Beck is an idiot, as if we did not already know that.

O'Reilly Tells Obama To Stop Doing Good Things
By: Steve - June 10, 2011 - 9:00am

Here is more proof that O'Reilly is nothing but a right-wing hack, after showing President Obama advocating investments in clean energy and education, O'Reilly tells him to stop that kind of stuff.



If we do not invest in clean energy and education there will be no future, because America will be left behind. Somehow the so-called Harvard graduate O'Reilly, does not understand that.

Billy thinks the answer to everything is to give all the money to the wealthy and the corporations and let them do whatever they want, which is the GOP platform and crazy, because I guess he forgot already that is exactly what Bush did for 8 years and it almost destroyed the country.

The Wednesday 6-8-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 9, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Weiner deals a blow to liberalism. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There are very few people who can go out and effectively promote left-wing views in the media these days. Congressman Anthony Weiner used to be the point man to deliver the liberal point of view, he was on TV all the time.

Now Mr. Weiner is no longer available and the liberal propaganda machine is taking a huge hit. The left still has reliable friends in the media, of course, but usually those press outlets speak to their own - not too many conservatives or independents watch MSNBC.

So if liberal America wants to persuade independent people that their cause is correct, they have very few options left. Like him or not, Anthony Weiner was a passionate spokesperson for the left and there is no one available to replace him.

Thus the Weiner story becomes far more than a congressman blowing up his own career; the entire liberal movement in America has been damaged.
Wow, is that ridiculous. That may be the dumbest talking points memo O'Reilly has ever put out. It's insane to claim Anthony Weiner is the only person who can speak out on the liberal agenda. The liberal movement has not been damaged, only Congressman Weiner has been damaged. In fact, the Democratic party has not even been damaged, it was a stupid thing to do by one man. And 6 months from now, nobody will even remember it happened, or care.

Then O'Reilly had the Democrats Leslie Marshall and Bob Beckel on to discuss it, and of course they both disagreed with every word O'Reilly said. Marshall said this: "I know Anthony Weiner has a big mouth, but he's not loved by many liberals, myself included. So this is not about liberalism, it's about men in politics who do really dumb things."

Beckel said this: "The guy would go on MSNBC and CNN and speak to 243 people, so the idea that he was carrying a huge burden for the liberal message is silly. He should resign today and it won't hurt us at all. The idea that this punk Weiner is somehow a big deal in the Democrat liberal machine is crazy!"

Bingo, Beckel nailed it. He basically called O'Reilly crazy for saying Weiner is a big deal in the liberal machine, and Beckel is dead right. But of course, O'Reilly continued to spin out his crazy opinion on it, saying Weiner's loud voice will be missed on the left. Which is just ridiculous.

Then O'Reilly had the biased spin doctor Dick Morris on to trash Obama with news from the polls. Morris predicted Obama's poll numbers will soon drop even more. Morris said this: "The most important statistic is that 59% disapprove of his handling of the economy, which is a snapshot in a downward trajectory. We are just beginning the double dip of the recession, we are just beginning significant inflation, and we're going to have high interest rates. You ain't seen nothing yet."

Even though Morris believes President Obama is beatable, he said Sarah Palin should stay out of the race. Morris said this: "Palin should not run because she has been so unfairly castigated by the media. I have enormous regard for her and she has a brilliant career ahead of her, but conservative Republicans are saying that their neighbors hate her and we can't win if she runs."

Now remember this, Morris is usually wrong on his predictions, and he usually says what he wants to happen, not what might actually happen. I predict the economy will get better, then Obama will be re-elected. Morris talks all these poll numbers, but what he fails to report on is the polls that have Obama beating any Republican they could run against him. If Obama does not have a big scandal, and the economy gets a little better, which it will, he will be re-elected.

Notice that Morris cherry picked the polls, he says 59% disapprove of Obama on the economy, but he fails to mention that even with that he still beats every Republican in the country in 2012. And of course he never says a word about that poll.

Then O'Reilly had the Attorneys Lee Armstrong and Kelly Saindon on to talk about a New Mexico man who rented billboard space to trash his girlfriend for having an abortion without his consent. Which I will not report on, because this is a local news story about a dispute between a man and his girlfriend. O'Reilly just reported it for ratings because it's about abortion, and he is a pro-life loon who loves abortion stories.

Then O'Reilly had Aphrodite Jones on to talk more about the Casey Anthony trial, which I do not report on because it is tabloid garbage, and O'Reilly is only reporting on it for ratings. But I will say this, once again O'Reilly said she was guilty, and convicted her on tv, which he has said in the past that nobody on tv should do, then he does it himself, what a clown.

Then O'Reilly had Dennis Miller on for his weekly Miller Time segment, which I do not report on because he is a comedian and it is not news. Not to mention, there is no liberal comedian on to make jokes about conservatives, so it is a one sided biased comedy segment.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Dagen McDowell on fr did you see that. She watched video of Kentucky teacher Carrie Shafer, who admitted to having sex with a 17-year-old male student but walked away with just probation and a small fine. McDowell said this: "She might be able to go back and teach after she serves that three-year probation. What school district is going to hire a convicted felon, but it's not out of the question."

O'Reilly argued that Shafer should have done time, Billy said this: "Doesn't society have an obligation to send a message to adults who are doing this to minors? If it were a man, you know he would have gone to jail."

McDowell also reported on a new poll asking voters about Congressman Anthony Weiner. "51% of New York City voters do not think he should resign."

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

O'Reilly Caught Using GOP Talking Points On Economy
By: Steve - June 9, 2011 - 10:00am

Think about this folks, O'Reilly said he never uses any GOP talking points. Then on the Tuesday Factor he said Obama made the economy worse, which is a new GOP talking point. And it's not just ridiculous, it's a flat out lie.

And this is from the guy who claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone.

Here is where it started, a Peggy Noonan column -- she said this: "he made it worse" -- and then all the right-wing stooges (including O'Reilly) started repeating the lie that President Obama's policies have made the economy worse.

From Peggy Noonan's June 3 column in The Wall Street Journal:
NOONAN: Four words: He made it worse.

Obama inherited financial collapse, deficits and debt. He inherited a broken political culture. These things weren't his fault. But through his decisions, he made them all worse.
But in the real world there is broad agreement among almost all the economists that the Obama stimulus boosted growth and employment, and most of the deficit is attributable to Bush policies and the recession.

Then the right-wing echo chamber kicked into high gear. The day Noonan's column was published, National Review senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru posted an entry to the National Review Online blog The Corner that excerpted from the column and declared that she had found the campaign theme.

Steve Doocy from Fox & Friends jumped on the bandwagon:
DOOCY: And she says it comes down to four words: "He made it worse." And when you think about it, we had all those different arsenal tools in Ben Bernanke's toolbox. We did what the president wanted. He made it worse, according to Peggy Noonan.
From the June 7 edition of Fox News Special Report with Bret Baier:
KRAUTHAMMER: And I think you can argue strongly that the Obama administration made it worse. In the midterm election last year, the idea that Republicans ran on was that he's a left liberal. What they're going to run on in 2012 is he's a failure. He tried all of this stuff. He promised us we'd get improvement, and it hasn't worked. It was a huge Keynesian experiment, and it hasn't panned out.
From the June 7 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: The Obama administration's made all of it worse.

COLMES: No, they didn't make it worse.

O'REILLY: Yes, they did.

COLMES: They would have made it better if we had a bigger stimulus.

O'REILLY: They would have. They would have.

COLMES: And imagine what the Republicans would be saying if the auto industry were not saved and hundreds of thousands of jobs were gone. They'd be going crazy. They'd be going crazy.

O'REILLY: I was OK with the auto industry, but for you to sit there and say the Obama administration has not made it worse --

COLMES: They made it better.

O'REILLY: -- is for you to just ignore the statistics.
Wow, O'Reilly is so far in the tank for the GOP he can not see straight. To say Obama made the economy worse is insane, it's ridiculous, and just laughable. O'Reilly has gone off the deep end, and he should never again claim to be a non-partisan Independent, because he is a total far right-wing stooge.

Insanity Alert: O'Reilly Claims Obama Made Economy Worse
By: Steve - June 9, 2011 - 9:00am

Now this may be the dumbest thing O'Reilly has ever said, and that is saying a lot, because he says a lot of dumb things. During the Crowley and Colmes segment O'Reilly actually said Obama has made the economy worse.



Think about that for a minute, would a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone say something like that. Especially when the facts show that Obama has made the economy better, and a hell of a lot better. Of course not, only a partisan biased right-wing hack would say something like that.

In fact, Obama kept us out of a depression and saved the economy from disaster, I guess O'Reilly just forgot all that.

Under Bush we had negative GDP growth, a recession, a housing crisis, a banking crisis, and we were losing over 700,000 jobs a month before Obama's stimulus bill passed. We have now had positive monthly job growth for 15 straight months.

How is that making things worse? What an insane statement. To even say that Obama has made the economy worse you have to be a total lying right-wing idiot, which is exactly what O'Reilly is, because Obama has made the economy 10 times better. And that's a fact.

The Tuesday 6-7-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 8, 2011 - 11:00am

Instead of the TPM O'Reilly opened the show with the top story. O'Reilly had Karl Rove on to talk about some new poll numbers, Billy said this: "New polls say 69% of Americans are "dissatisfied" with the federal government. And 47% of registered voters say they will definitely not vote for Obama next year.

Rove said this: "The President is basically at 50% against all the likely Republican first-tier candidates, and that's not a good place for the President to be. To be stuck at 50% is not a good sign. The bounce from the Bin Laden action lasted only a couple of days."

What a load of right-wing garbage that is, it's total spin. Obama is at 50% or higher against all the Republicans, which is a good thing. Rove also fails to mention that Obama beats every Republican they can run against him. And the bounce from killing Bin Laden is still in effect, it's only gone with right-wing stooges like Rove and O'Reilly. Rove also talked about Congressman Weiner's "Twitter-gate" scandal on the Democratic Party. Rove said this: "This is not helping them, and I don't understand why Nancy Pelosi didn't say to Congressman Weiner that it's time for him to go. If she said that publicly it would be impossible for him to stay, but instead she referred this to the ethics committee. It guarantees that this issue is going to linger."

Hey jerk, nobody even cares about the Weiner scandal but Republicans, and it does not hurt the entire Democratic party because of what one man did, that's just crazy. I sure will not say remember the Weiner scandal so I will not vote Democratic, it will have no effect, and in 6 months nobody will even remember it.

Then O'Reilly had another Republican on to discuss it, number of Democrats on to discuss it, zero. Charles Krauthammer was on, who advised Republicans to steer clear of the Weiner scandal. Krauthammer said this: "It's the oldest rule in politics, which is when the other guys are committing suicide, don't get in the way. The lesson is from the Clinton years when Republicans overreached with impeachment and public opinion changed. The longer the person in the scandal stays in office, the better it is if you're a Republican."

Then O'Reilly finally had the TPM, it was called Anger at Obama's handling of the economy. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As you may know, there was bad economic news last week - the unemployment rate went up, the housing market remains awful. Talking Points believes the American people themselves can turn the economy around if the government gets out of their way.

There's a lot of cash on the sidelines, and once the private sector becomes more confident, the economy will improve. What's holding things back is huge government spending and uncertainty about things like Obama-care.

Also, many Democrats still believe the federal government should redistribute wealth in America. Industry doesn't like that, so it's become a problem. They're sitting on the money instead of investing it.

The essential question is what kind of country do Americans want: a vibrant capitalistic state or a Western European-style nanny state? The call will be made next year.
And that is mostly right-wing spin, because the economy is getting better, and we have had 15 straight months of job growth, but O'Reilly ignores all that.

Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to discuss it. Colmes said this: "A small percentage of what you pay in taxes, goes to help the needy, the poor, the unemployed, as well it should. We live in a society where we put into a common pot, it comes out of our salaries, and then we take it out when we need some help. A small percentage of our budget actually goes to help poor people."

Crazy Crowley said this: "Entitlements are narcotics. That's why the left loves to expand the entitlement programs, it's why Barack Obama and the left instituted a massive new entitlement program that is essentially socialized medicine. Once people get addicted to the narcotic of the entitlement, whether it's Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid, it's very difficult to take it away. We now have 47-million Americans on food stamps, which is heartbreaking."

And we have all that because of what Bush did, he left Obama a mess and he is still trying to fix it, but it was so bad it's taking longer than he thought. And not once did O'Reilly or Crowley say anything about the mess Bush left Obama, they act like it's all Obama's fault, when Bush did all the damage.

Then John Stossel was on to cry about government spending, which is a total waste of time, and I will not report on it. In fact, these Stossel segment are stupid, and O'Reilly should cancel them, then use the time to report some real news.

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to talk about, Anthony Weiner of course. They are legal experts and he did not do anything illegal, so it was ridiculous. Wiehl claims he broke some kind of law, which is just laughable, and he will never be prosecuted for anything, ever. Guilfoyle talked about the octomom doctor, who is going to have his medical license revoked next month. To which I say, who cares, and how is this legal news I need to know.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had the dishonest conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart on, who broke the Anthony Weiner story. And O'Reilly only had him on to give him a forum to brag about breaking the story, and to trash the media outlets he does not like, because they expose his bias and his shady tactics. Which O'Reilly would never do for a liberal, but he does it for the far right dishonest Andrew Breitbart.

Breitbart said this: "It starts off with Media Matters, and I can't think of a more grotesque organization in the history of media. And MSNBC has a level of coordination with Media Matters - they put talking points from Media Matters into the mouths of Lawrence O'Donnell and Rachel Maddow. The coordination is stellar. This was a case study over the last two weeks of them trying to make sure the story didn't reach this point."

And that is just laughable, all Media Matters do is publish transcripts, video, and audio of what people said, how the hell is that grotesque. It's their own words, and they document bias and lies from people like O'Reilly and Breitbart. They are just trying to smear Media Matters because they show what dishonest biased hacks O'Reilly, Fox, and Breitbart are.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, that is a total waste of tv time, and the lame as hell pinheads and patriots. O'Reilly should drop these two segments and use the time to report some real news.

O'Reilly Still Crying About Legal Donations By Soros
By: Steve - June 8, 2011 - 9:00am

If you ever wanted conclusive evidence that Bill O'Reilly is a dishonest fraud of a right-wing biased idiot, here it is. Not only does he slam George Soros for giving legal donations to media outlets he supports, he does it with the biased idiot from the Media Research Center Dan Gainor.

Remember this folks, MRC is the media watchdog that did a study on media bias, and they looked at CNN and MSNBC, one of their examples of liberal bias was made by a Republican. A Republican Senator had made a negative comment about Bush on MSNBC, and the MRC study listed that as an example of liberal bias, when a Republican said it.

So their so-called studies are garbage, and anyone who cites one of their studies is a biased right-wing fool, that means you O'Reilly. Because not only did he cite the biased MRC, he had one of their employees on the Factor to discuss it, with no Democratic guest on to provide the balance.

Here is the video from the Monday show:



Now think about this, it's massive hypocrisy and a double standard. Because what Soros is doing is legal, and there are many conservative billionaires and millionaires that do the same thing, except they give money to conservative media outlets, like the MRC, who are funded by right-wing billionaires and millionaires.

But O'Reilly never says a word about them, he only has a problem with a liberal billionaire giving money to media outlets he likes.

What O'Reilly did was bias, hypocrisy, a double standard, and just bad journalism. He used a partisan source to attack someone, he had a partisan guest on with nobody for balance, he only goes after liberals who donate money to media outlets, and he never says anything about all the wealthy conservatives who give money to media outlets they like.

In fact, O'Reilly is a joke. He is a biased fraud of a pretend journalist. This is not journalism, it's biased partisan garbage, done by 2 right-wing stooges, O'Reilly and Dan Gainor. So what did they prove, that Soros gives legal donations to the media outlets he likes.

Since when is that a crime, and what is wrong with it, nothing that I can see. And yet, O'Reilly turned Soros into some evil liberal that is trying to ruin America, for simply giving money to people he likes. And that money goes to exposing frauds like O'Reilly, so it is actually helping the American people see who the dishonest journalists are.

O'Reilly Ignoring All The Medicare Protests
By: Steve - June 8, 2011 - 8:00am

In the last month or two all over the country the American people have been protesting the proposed medicare/medicaid changes by the Republicans and Paul Ryan. There have been a ton of protests at town hall meetings and all over the place.

And not just by Democrats, a lot of these protests were done by Republicans at Republican town halls. Becuase even most Republicans do not want anyone messing with their medicare.

Freshman Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) faced a tough crowd at a town hall in Superior, WI yesterday, with several outbursts of people telling the congressman his party's Medicare plan is horrible policy.

Among a street full of protesters who greeted Duffy outside the event was one man who said this: "We're here to save Medicare. They're robbing it, taking it away from us."

And O'Reilly has ignored it all, because it disagrees with his spin that the majority of the people support the Republican plan, which they don't. Every single poll shows that the majority of Americans do not want medicare changed, especially by the Republicans.

But if you watch the Factor for your news, you would not know any of this, because O'Reilly ignores it on purpose, and then spins out right-wing propaganda on the issue. And he does it in what he calls the no-spin zone, which is just laughable.

And btw, back when the Democrats were doing town hall meetings and they had protests about the Obama health care plan, O'Reilly reported the hell out of them. But when Republicans get protests over their medicare plan O'Reilly never says a word, proving his right-wing bias once again.

The Monday 6-6-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 7, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Congressman Weiner comes clean about Twitter. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
The interest in the Weiner Twitter situation comes because a sitting congressman has a responsibility to the people he represents and to his country. If you embarrass those people and your country, you must be held to account.

Also, Mr. Weiner has been an outspoken attack guy, criticizing Republicans and conservatives who oppose his liberal point of view. Last week the Congressman lied about his Internet activities, but today he was forced to confess. Weiner says he will not resign, even though Congressman Chris Lee did quit for a similar escapade earlier this year.

Is this story important? In the big scheme of things, not so much. But it erodes confidence in the federal government and a lot of people got hurt because Weiner tried to get away with it. Congressman Weiner will have to answer to the voters, but should he be sitting there? Remember that other politicians, including President Clinton, have survived worse.
There is one big difference here, the Republican Chris Lee was a bible thumper who preached moral values, Weiner was not. It was still wrong for Weiner to do it and lie about it, but he was not a hypocrite for doing it, like Lee was. And I will also say that Weiner was an idiot for not admitting to it in the first place.

Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham were on to discuss it. Williams said this: "He shouldn't resign, that's up to the voters. But I will say that he is eroding confidence in leadership in this country. Americans are upset with athletes, Wall Street, religious leaders, and this is just another example of why people think the people at the top are looking out for themselves."

Ham said this: "As a matter of honor he should resign because he lied for a week to everyone. But politically he can ride this out - I don't think the people of New York will fire him because Democrats don't have to live up to any particular standard in this area."

O'Reilly questioned the sincerity of Weiner's apology, Billy said this: "He knew there was so much evidence against him that he had to admit it. So how is he taking responsibility if he doesn't resign?"

In the next segment O'Reilly talked more about the Weiner story, he had Maria Cardona and Bob Cusack on to discuss it. Cardona said this: "As a woman and a mother, I do think he should resign. I am sick of politicians and men behaving badly. But as a Democrat, I'm actually glad he's not going to resign because he didn't do anything illegal and he's a great fighter for New York."

Cusack said this: "Much worse has been done by members of Congress who are still serving. But do I think Democratic leaders want him to resign? Absolutely. There are still many unanswered questions about this." And O'Reilly concluded that Weiner has harmed his constituents and his country: "I hate this story, it makes the United States look bad."

Which is just laughable, because O'Reilly never feels that way when Republicans have sex scandals, hell he usually never even reports them. O'Reilly has totally ignored the John Ensign sex scandal, but he reports the hell out of the Edwards and Weiner scandals.

Then O'Reilly had the far-right Dan Gainor of the conservative Media Research Center on to report on George Soros activities. And what I will say is that all Gainor and O'Reilly did was cry about the money Soros gives to different media outlets. It was a joke, because what Soros is doing is legal, and these clowns do not say a word about the Republican Billionaires who do the very same thing.

They give money to conservative media outlets, but O'Reilly never says a word about that. And the worst part is that the MRC is a biased joke of a media watchdog, they get money from wealthy conservatives to lie about bias in the media. When all Soros does is give money to media outlets to tell the truth about people like O'Reilly and the other liars at Fox.

Then O'Reilly had a right-wing propaganda segment with the Republican Ben Shapiro, who has a new book out that claims the TV industry injects left-wing politics into entertainment shows. Shapiro said this about it: "I spoke with Bill Bickley, a producer on 'Happy Days,' who told me he was subtly trying to insert anti-Vietnam War messages in the show. And 'Mary Tyler Moore' was a new-fangled take on feminism, the first overt feminist move into prime time television. It was supposed to be a liberal message and a slap in the face to conservative America - this is what is going on in their delusional brains."

Yeah this Shapiro sounds real objective, not. He claims they are delusional for putting a political message in a tv show, when there is nothing wrong with it, and they never have a problem when Republicans do it. What a joke this segment was, it was nothing but 2 right-wing idiots spewing out right-wing garbage, with no Democratic guest for balance.

Shapiro added that some conservative "bad guys," such as the Michael J. Fox character on "Family Ties," were actually embraced by viewers. "There's one mistake liberals keep making. They keep putting conservative characters on TV, thinking they will be the villain. But then it turns out that the American public is looking for somebody conservative and it resonates with them."

Then O'Reilly had the far-right loon Bernie Goldberg on, he claimed some liberal media outlets, including NBC News, seemed determined to ignore the Anthony Weiner story.

Goldberg said this: "NBC's Brian Williams said he wasn't covering the story because he had more compelling things to cover. But doesn't it occur to any of these journalists that Anthony Weiner, who was an important Congressman and a leading voice of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, and who may have run for mayor of New York, that it is a legitimate issue to question his judgment and his honesty? Those are legitimate journalistic issues but they tried to say this isn't important."

Earth to Goldberg, it's only a big story to right-wing stooges who want to use it to make the Democratic party look bad for what one man did, and that's a fact, nobody else cares about it. Not to mention, Brian Williams only has a 1/2 hour to report the news, and he is not (and should not) use it to report on tabloid sex scandals. That's why we have cable news networks, and tabloid news shows like TMZ etc.

Why don't you 2 idiots wake up and report some real news, not this tabloid garbage. In fact, I do not think any news shows should report on any sex scandals, by Republican or Democratic politicians, or anyone.

And in the last segment O'Reilly had Holly Bristow on to talk about the Casey Anthony trial, which I do not report on because it is tabloid garbage. Nancy Grace is all over it, and she is getting big ratings doing it. So O'Reilly is also trying to use the trial to get ratings, and btw, it's not working, the Factor ratings are flat.

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

Mitt Romney Is Lying To You Already
By: Steve - June 7, 2011 - 9:00am

And of course you never heard a word about any of this from O'Reilly, because he is a partisan Republican who wants to help all the Republicans. During a town hall meeting Friday Mitt Romney said no political person has ever talked about criminal sanctions against doctors who perform abortions or for women who get abortions. When not only has a political person said it, Republicans, he has talked about it himself.

When he first campaigned for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, Romney promised to preserve and protect a woman's right to choose. But that pro-choice position quickly melted away under the heat of right-wing scrutiny and now, in seeking to get the religious right vote, Romney is trying to re-brand himself as an anti-choice candidate.

Friday at a town hall meeting at the University of New Hampshire in Manchester, NH, ThinkProgress's Brad Johnson asked Romney whether, given his anti-abortion stance, there should be criminal sanctions on doctors or women if abortion should become illegal.

But Romney shut down the question as irrelevant, saying this: "I don’t think any political person has talked about criminal sanctions."
TP: I know that you believe we should repeal Roe vs. Wade and I was wondering if abortion becomes illegal in some states, should there be criminal sanctions against doctors who still perform abortions or for women who get abortions?

ROMNEY: I don't think any political person has talked about criminal sanctions. I think the right thing for matters relating to abortion is very similar to what I described in other measures which is return this to the states. Let the states make their own choice. I'm pro-life and I think this is best handled - like many other things - at the state level.
It should come as no surprise that Romney seems to have forgotten he himself talked about this issue prior to his first presidential run. He said this in 2007: "In the case of a doctor, the kinds of penalties would be losing a license or having some other kind of restriction. In the case of partial birth abortion, the penalty is a possible prison term not to exceed two years."

He also might want to recheck with his GOP colleagues, because several notable figures in the GOP presidential field have said it. Just last week, Republican Tim Pawlenty made headlines for dropping his recent statement that there should be no criminal punishment for abortion.

Fearing backlash from the GOP base, Pawlenty's camp quickly reasserted that Pawlenty believes doctors "should be subject to a penalty possibly including a criminal penalty."

Republican Newt Gingrich is also on the record saying abortion should be considered a crime and legal punishment should focus "on doctors performing abortions."

Mike Huckabee, a favorite champion of social conservatives, also said he would punish doctors paid to provide abortions.

Given how recently Romney has adopted his new anti-choice position, it's no surprise that he will not admit how drastic the GOP's anti-abortion positions actually are.

And btw, Romney has flip-flopped on a lot of issues, and not one person in the media is calling him a flip-flopper. But when John Kerry ran for President and he flip-flipped on a couple issues he was branded a flip-flopper and it was all over the media.

O'Reilly claims the mainstream media has a liberal bias, but if that's true, how come they are not branding Romney a flip-flopper.

Fact: High Tax Rates Do Not Hurt Economic Growth
By: Steve - June 7, 2011 - 8:00am

One of the biggest lies from O'Reilly and all his conservative friends is that higher taxes kill job growth. O'Reilly and all the leading right-wings have repeatedly used this belief to justify tax cuts for upper-income earners and oppose tax increases. In defending the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans last fall, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said he opposed job-killing tax hikes.

But the idea that higher taxes retard economic growth is not backed up by the facts. Bloomberg News interviewed Joel Slemrod, who was is an economist at the University of Michigian and is a former senior economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan, about the issue.

Slemrod pointed out that high tax countries tend to perform well economically and said that returning to Clinton-era tax rates in 2013 would not harm the economy:
High GDP countries are high tax countries. That doesn't mean high taxes cause the high GDP. Slemrod, who served as senior staff economist for President Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers, said that given the economy's performance in the 1990s, returning marginal rates to their Clinton-era levels in 2013, as Obama proposes, would not harm the economy.
In fact, Slemrod's argument applies across the board. Historically, the United States has actually had some of its strongest periods of economic growth while taxes were high.

In the 1950s, which had one of the sharpest periods of economic growth in all of American economic history, the top marginal tax rates for the richest Americans was about 90 percent.

And economic growth in the higher-taxed 1990s was much stronger than in the 2000s. Which shows that higher taxes did not impede job growth, nor are lower taxes especially helpful.

Notice that when O'Reilly and the right spin out the lie that we must have lower taxes on the wealthy to have a good economy, they ignore the fact that Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and the economy boomed for 7 years after that.

It's direct evidence that raising taxes on the wealthy does not hurt the economy, and it actually proves that it can help the economy. But O'Reilly ignores those Clinton tax increases, and the result of them on the economy and job growth, like they never happened.

Stupid Sarah Digs Paul Revere Hole Deeper
By: Steve - June 6, 2011 - 10:00am

Instead of just admitting she got it wrong when she said Paul Revere warned the British, Stupid Sarah dug the hole deeper on Sunday when she said she did not get it wrong. Which is just laughable, because she had it all wrong, in fact, the only thing she got right is the name Paul Revere.

Describing the Paul Revere ride as "Warning the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms, by ringing those bells and, making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells," Palin's version inspired confusion and some much-deserved shots from the media.

Sunday morning on Fox News, Palin doubled down on her lies about Paul Revere's ride. Even Chris Wallace knew she got it wrong, and he said so, but Palin denied it anyway and put out some crazy story that Paul Revere did warn the British:
WALLACE: I gotta ask you about that real quickly, though. You realize that you messed up about Paul Revere, don't you?

PALIN: You know what? I didn't mess up about Paul Revere. Here's what Paul Revere did. He warned the Americans that the British were coming, the British were coming. And they were going to try to take our arms so got to make sure that, uh, we were protecting ourselves and, uhm, shoring up all of our ammunitions and our firearms so that they couldn't take them.

But remember that the British had already been there - many soldiers - for seven years in that area. And part of Paul Revere's ride. And it wasn't just one ride. He was a courier. He was a messenger. Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there that, Hey. You're not going to succeed. You're not going to take American arms. You are not gonna beat our own well-armed, uh, persons, uh, individual private militia that we have. He did warn the British.

And in a shout-out, gotcha type of question that was asked of me, I answered candidly. And I know my American history.
WOW, that answer makes her look even more stupid then the original answer she gave that Paul Revere warned the British. She would have been better off to just admit she got it all wrong. And if she knows history, I'm Bill Gates.

Just for the record, here is the story of Paul Revere. The purpose of Revere's ride was to inform John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and other colonial American patriots that the British Army was marching from Boston to Lexington.

Secrecy and stealth were essential. So contrary to Palin's crazy claim that he warned the British they would not succeed, Revere attempted to avoid all contact with British troops or British loyalists already living in the colonies.

The entire point of his mission was to inform the American patriots of the British troop movements without the British knowing.

At one point in the night, Revere was even temporarily detained and interrogated by British soldiers at a roadblock. While being interrogated by the British he told them a lie about the colonial militia's strength. Which was not a warning, as Palin claims, and anyone who thinks that was a warning is just stupid.

Lying to British soldiers about troop strength is not a warning, it's not even close, and to even claim that's a warning to the British, is laughable on it's face.

And due to the need for secrecy and stealth - Revere used no bells or warning shots, and delivered his message in face-to-face contacts throughout the night. Palin seems to forget her lies about the bells and warning shots in her initial telling of her fairy tale.

Actually it's sad how stupid Palin is, and how the Republicans defend her. Every time she talks you think you are listening to a half braindead 10 year old. She does not even sound like an adult, she sounds like a moron who has been coached to say things and then gets it all wrong.

It's clear as day that Palin is just an idiot, and anyone who disagrees with that has no credibility at all. They are in denial, including O'Reilly, who has said Palin is a smart woman who is qualified to be the President. Which is ridiculous, because she is not qualified to be a dog catcher.

Reality Check: Dick Morris Is A Massive Liar
By: Steve - June 6, 2011 - 9:00am

Here is an idea I have, if a so-called journalist/analyst/tv host or guest is caught lying on tv 3 times, as in the 3 strike rule, they should be banned from doing any other tv shows ever again. That would mean Dick Morris would have been banned years ago, because this fool lies every time he opens his mouth.

And now he is lying again, this time about the spending under Obama and the deficit. On the Thursday Fox & Friends show Dick Morris claimed that President Obama "will be defeated" in 2012 because "he's causing the second housing crisis by cutting out the mortgage interest deduction" and "causing the deficit with this gigantic government spending."

But he fails to mention the facts, as in the truth, that the proposed changes in the mortgage deduction for the wealthy have not even been implemented, and may never be. Not to mention, the primary drivers of the deficit are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economic downturn, and the tax cuts passed by the Bush administration.

Morris said this: "I think that Obama definitely can be defeated and will be defeated. I think that the - it is impossible for him to avoid blame for this economy."

Morris said this: "Doesn't he understand that he's causing the deficit with this gigantic government spending? I mean, at some point he just has to look in the mirror and say, 'Everything I've been doing is wrong.'"

Morris also said this: "Obama will be running for re-election in the middle of a recession, and this time it will be called the Obama recession."

Which is funny, because there is no recession, so how can it be called the Obama recession, with no recession. Not to mention, while the economy is not doing as well as Obama hoped for, we have had 15 straight months of job growth, which is good news, and the people know it.

And btw, most Experts agree that the Bush policies, and the Economic Downturn are mostly to blame for the deficit:

In a January 7, 2009, report, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected, based on spending authorized under the Bush administration, that the federal deficit in FY2009 would total $1.2 trillion. According to the CBO, the actual federal deficit for FY2009, which began during Bush's last year in office, was $1.4 trillion.

In an August 2009 analysis, the Center for American Progress (CAP) concluded that about two-thirds of the then-projected budget deterioration for 2009 and 2010 could be attributed to either Bush's policies or the economic downturn.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) published an analysis of federal deficits in December 2009, which was updated on June 28, 2010, titled, "Critics Still Wrong on What's Driving Deficits in Coming Years: Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers."

From the report: Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years.

In an October 2010 post on his Reuters blog, Justin Fox, editorial director of the Harvard Business Review Group, analyzed the deficit and concluded that it was "mainly the result of the collapse in tax receipts brought on by the recession."

Morris said that Obama is "causing the second housing crisis by cutting out the mortgage interest deduction."

But the mortgage interest deduction proposal has not been implemented and is expected to "hit a wall of resistance from entrenched special interests." The Obama administration, as well as several tax and deficit commissions, have called for limiting or eliminating the deductions in the past. But the proposals have gone nowhere and the same outcome is expected this year.

And even if it did pass, which it most likely will not, it would only affect those with taxable income of $250,000 and up and help to lower the debt by bringing in $321 billion over 10 years.

So not only are all his predictions wrong, virtually everything he says is a lie, and once again Dick Morris is proven to be a liar, but O'Reilly still has him on the Factor every week to spin out his lies.

Rumor Alert: O'Reilly's Wife Might Have Left Him
By: Steve - June 5, 2011 - 10:00am

Gawker.com is reporting that Maureen McPhilmy, the wife of Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly, may have moved out of their Manhasset, Long Island home for a new property located just down the street.

They said this: "Bill O'Reilly's wife Maureen McPhilmy purchased a new house about a year ago, just down the street from the Long Island home she's shared with Bill-o since 2002," wrote Gawker’s John Cook in an article that ran on the current affairs site yesterday/Friday June 3rd. "O'Reilly still owns the old one. And Fox News isn't saying whether they still live together."

The website also noted that McPhilmy is listed under her maiden name, as the sole owner of the 5,282 square foot property – which she reportedly bought for $2.5 million in May 2010.

The new property is located about half a mile from the sprawling waterfront home she and O'Reilly have lived in with their children for almost a decade.

In a detail that is sure to pique the curiosity of many, McPhilmy has changed her voter registration to the new address, while O'Reilly maintains his registration at the old house.

Gawker admits the family may have recently moved, or they could be in the process of moving.

The home may have been purchased under McPhilmy's maiden name to cloak its identity from the public and the press, or it may be that O'Reilly simply hasn't updated his voter registration yet.

Another reason, Cook wrote, might be "that Bill O'Reilly is a loathsome falafel-rubbing lech, and McPhilmy moved out but stayed close by for the sake of their two school-age children."

Fox News was contacted by Gawker for clarification on Friday but they declined to comment.

Krauthammer Caught Lying That The Stimulus Failed
By: Steve - June 5, 2011 - 9:00am

Another Factor regular, the far-right Charles Krauthammer has been caught lying about the Obama economic stimulus. On the Tuesday On Special Report show on Fox, Charles Krauthammer pushed the right-wing spin that the 2009 Obama stimulus failed.

Krauthammer falsely claimed the Obama stimulus provided no benefit to the economy at all:
BREAM: First let's start with Afghanistan, and Charles we talked about this a little bit last night: how much the cost of the war and the operations there will impact the decisions made on the ground. Everybody points to the defense spending and says, that's something Republicans are going to have to be willing to sacrifice on.

KRAUTHAMMER: Look, this is an Administration that spent a trillion dollars on a stimulus which will not leave a trace, and now it's saying that in order to save a few billion, a fraction of a fraction of that, there are people in the White House who want to reduce the war effort.
Nonpartisan studies have said that the economy would be far worse today without the 2009 stimulus. Not to mention, it was not a trillion dollars, it was $787 billion, which is not a trillion dollars. Krauthammer says trillion to make it sound like more money than it was, so he does not even have the undisputed facts right.

A May 2011 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that as of the first quarter of 2011, the Obama stimulus lowered the unemployment rate "by between 0.6 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points," and "increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 3.3 million."

And what Krauthammer also does not mention is that a lot of the Republican Governors refused some of the stimulus money, or used it to help balance their budgets, instead of creating jobs, which is what the money was supposed to be for. This was done on purpose by many Republicans, so the new jobs created would not make Obama look better, which in my book is borderline treason.

In its fifth quarterly report on the stimulus, the White House Council of Economic Advisors provided the following chart showing that private forecasters estimate that, by the third quarter of 2010, the stimulus had increased employment by between 2.1 and 2.5 million.

It also showed that the stimulus "has raised the level of GDP as of the third quarter of 2010, relative to what it otherwise would have been, by 2.7 percent." CEA also said that private analysts estimate that the stimulus boosted GDP between 2.1 and 3.5 percent.

In its May 2011 report, CBO estimated that as of the first quarter 2011 the stimulus had increased real gross domestic product by "between 1.1 percent and 3.1 percent."

And btw, the stimulus was a temporary plan to boost the economy, not fix it in the long term, so it worked, it did what it was supposed to. And yes the Obama people got it wrong on how many jobs it would create, but that is only because the economy was much worse than they knew about when they made the prediction.

Once Obama got into office and saw how bad things really were because of what Bush did, he backed off those unemployment predictions, but you never hear Krauthammer or O'Reilly for that matter, ever report any of this.

And of course, you never see O'Reilly correct the lies from Krauthammer. That's because O'Reilly hopes you believe his lies, then it makes Obama look bad, and that is what O'Reilly lies to see. Because he is a biased partisan hack of a pretend journalist.

O'Reilly Said Only Conservatives Understand Economics
By: Steve - June 5, 2011 - 8:00am

Try this, look up the word delusional, there you will see this: See Bill O'Reilly's statement on how only conservatives understand supply-side economics.

On the Thursday Factor show O'Reilly told Laura Ingraham that only conservative media audiences understand "supply-side economics."

So then Ingraham says she wants to "re-educate" Americans about why the "conservative free-market approach to economics works."



Not only are O'Reilly and Ingraham delusional, they are in denial. Because supply-side economics is a crock, and even the conservative David Stockman finally admitted it recently.

It's a fact, supply-side economics does not work. And what's even worse than O'Reilly denying it, is that Ingraham wants to re-educate the American people with that right-wing propaganda, and O'Reilly does not care, because he believes it too.

Here is a quote from an economic study that details why supply-side economics does not work, and why tax cuts for the wealthy do not create jobs, or help the economy. They list 4 reasons why trickle down supply-side economics do not work.

Here are the 4 reasons, and some quotes from the study:

1. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to economic growth.
2. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth.
3. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth.
4. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.

Data from the past 50 years strongly refutes any arguments that cutting taxes for the richest Americans will improve the economic standing of the lower and middle classes or the nation as a whole. To be sure, the economic indicators examined in this report are dependent on a variety of factors, not just tax policy.

However, what this study does show is that any attempt to stimulate economic growth by cutting taxes for the rich will do nothing -- it hasn't worked over the past 50 years, so why would it work in the future?

To put it simply and bluntly, Bush's top-bracket tax cut is an ineffective attempt at stimulus that will not cause any growth -- unless, of course, you're talking about the size of the deficit.

And btw, only Republicans believe supply-side trickle down economics works, nobody else does. And that makes O'Reilly a Republican, even though he denies it. Not to mention he agrees with the Republicans on 99% of the issues, which is even more proof that he is in fact a Republican.

The Friday 6-3-11 O'Reilly/Williams Factor Review
By: Steve - June 4, 2011 - 11:00am

Juan Williams was the fill in so there was no TPM, he went right to the top story, which was about John Edwards being indicted. Former prosecutors Georgia Goslee and Kieran Shanahan analyzed the government's case.

Goslee said this: "I don't think this is a strong case. I understand that there is an overwhelming sentiment to punish John Edwards, but I'm not really sure that the prosecution is going to be able to carry the burden of proof. The question is whether these donations were campaign contributions and there's an argument on both sides."

Shanahan said this: "The question is whether John Edwards intended for these expenditures to benefit his campaign, and it's pretty obvious that a large part of his motivation was his campaign and his projecting himself as a 'family values' candidate. The conspiracy count is probably pretty easy - John Edwards has a credibility problem given his inconsistent statements."

And I predict Edwards will be found not guilty, because it will be almost impossible to prove the money used was campaign funds. Most legal experts say it is a weak case, and they thing the government is just wasting taxpayer money going forward with the prosecution, especially when the key witness has died.

But of course O'Reilly will cover every detail of the case, because Edwards is a Democrat, while ignoring all the sex scandals by Republicans, like the current John Ensign scandal, which O'Reilly has totally ignored.

Then Williams had the far right Eric Bolling on to discuss the economy and jobs. And of course Williams did not have a Democratic guest on for balance, just as his mentor Bill O'Reilly does it.

Bolling said this: "There are millions of Americans out of work, $3.79 gasoline, and now 9.1% unemployment/ President Obama certainly shouldn't be taking a victory lap for the auto industry because the taxpayer bailed them out. He said Chrysler paid back all the money, but Chrysler paid back the money with a government loan, and that's in addition to the $14-billion-plus that GM will probably end up owing us. The president takes victory laps for the economy, but I'm not sure what's so victorious about what's going on."

And for once Juan actually made a good point, that cuts through the spin from the right, Williams said this: "We have had 15 straight months of job growth, so why are you beating the daylights out of President Obama when we're coming out of a deep recession that he inherited?"

Bingo, Juan actually sounded like a real journalist for once, but don't worry folks, it will most likely be a long time before it happens again. Because Williams is a pretend Democrat who agrees with O'Reilly 90% of the time.

Then Williams had Andrea Tantaros and Leslie Marshall on to talk about GOP candidates. Marshall said this: "Romney is a strong and viable candidate for the GOP, because he reaches a cross-section of voters and independents. Sarah Palin, whether she runs or not, is helping her tea party candidate, and I think all of this confusion helps President Obama."

Tantaros said this: "Conservatives are very skeptical of him because he's been flexible on abortion and gun control and there was 'Romney-care,' which has been an absolute disaster. I think Romney will have serious turbulence trying to secure the Republican nomination."

And what's funny is Romney is losing to Obama by less than any other Republican, but he may not win the Republican nomination because the far right does not think he is far right enough. So he has the best chance to beat Obama, but the idiots on the right may not give him the chance, because he might not win the Republican nomination.

Then Williams had another segment on John Edwards, and a segment with Geraldo on the Casey Anthony trial. Which I will not report on, because one story had already been discussed earlier in the show, and the other story is tabloid garbage for ratings.

And in the last segment Williams played a re-run interview of O'Reilly and Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow, an evangelical Christian who has written a book about his faith and his sport. O'Reilly only interviewed Tebow to promote his book because he is a right-wing Christian bible thumper, just like O'Reilly.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots. And btw, notice how the Democratic John Edwards sex scandal gets 2 full segments in one show, even with the so-called Democrat Juan Williams hosting, while the Republican John Ensign sex scandal can not even get one segment, ever, with Juan hosting or O'Reilly. They both ignore it, like the good little Republicans they are.

O'Donnell Cautions O'Reilly About Sex Scandal Reporting
By: Steve - June 4, 2011 - 10:00am

On his Thursday night MSNBC show Lawrence O'Donnell talked about Weinergate running on all cylinders in the media, especially at Fox. O'Donnell then used this story against Bill O'Reilly, to warn that he who has been involved in sex scandals should not cast the first stone.

In the Rewrite segment, O'Donnell called O'Reilly's discussions of Rep. Anthony Weiner uncool, as O'Reilly provided the material for his own sex scandal and, keeping quiet is just the classy thing to do.

O'Donnell clarified that he himself has not had a sex scandal, and that he didn't care if the worst was true about Rep. Weiner, as his political currency is not stamped with hypocrisy, because he is a liberal Democrat who did not run on a family values platform.

Then he gave O'Reilly what he called a lesson in taking the high road by mentioning the official filings of the 2004 lawsuit against O'Reilly for sexual harassment and hostile work environment, the stuff involving the loofah and the falafel.

"I'm putting down this weapon," O’Donnell told O'Reilly through the screen, though by this point the damage had been done. Then O'Donnell laid down his own law on covering sex scandals: those who have not been accused of sexual misconduct, "they can take as many shots at Weiner as they want, I don't care. But you, Bill? C'mon."

Basically what he is saying is that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones, that means you O'Reilly.

Stupid Sarah Says Paul Revere Warned The British
By: Steve - June 4, 2011 - 9:00am

Can we now all admit that Sarah Palin is as dumb as a rock, because now she is saying Paul Revere warned the British. Which a half braindead 5 year old would know is wrong.

Sarah Palin is running around the country in her bus to what she says is "take Americans back to their roots." Whatever the hell that means. So Thursday Palin stopped in Boston, MA where she toured some historic sites along the Freedom Trail.

Except she made one big mistake, Palin decided to talk, and when she does that she shows us all how stupid she is. While talking about Paul Revere and his famous Midnight Ride in which he put two lanterns up, to warn American Patriot leaders that the British were coming by sea. Palin, got a little confused, and offered her own take on the historic event:
PALIN: He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms uh by ringing those bells and making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free and we were going to be armed.
Are you kidding me, he warned the British? With gun shots and bells, maybe if you are a stone cold idiot he did. But the story is about warning Americans by using a signal of two lights, there were no gun shots or bells. And it's hard to imagine why Paul Revere would warn the British of anything, or why he'd do it with bells and gun shots.

Of course, a quick survey of the morons in the GOP presidential field reveals that basic American history is not their strong suit. Tim Pawlenty confused the Iraq war with an Iran war, Hermain Cain confused the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, and Michele Bachmann (R-MN) confused Massachusetts with New Hampshire.

But they all pale in comparison to Stupid Sarah, who is one of the dumbest people in politics I have ever seen. And if she were a liberal, O'Reilly and Dennis Miller would rip her to pieces every week for her stupidity. But since she is a Republican, they ignore it and even claim she is a smart woman, which is just laughable.

O'Reilly Tries To Help Beck Get Better Ratings
By: Steve - June 4, 2011 - 8:00am

On the Thursday Factor O'Reilly showed exactly how much of a right-wing partisan fool he is, because he not only promoted Beck's show, by asking people to watch Beck, he said it would be a day of mourning on Beck's last show June 30th.



Now ask yourself this, would O'Reilly do or say any of that for anyone who has a show on CNN or MSNBC. Of course not, because he sees them as liberal, and he hates them. While claiming to be a non-partisan Independent, but if he is a non-partisan, how is it he hates liberals and loves conservatives.

In the real world we have a name for a guy like that, Republican. Not to mention, Beck is the biggest far-right liar in the media, except for maybe Limbaugh and Hannity. And yet, not only does O'Reilly promote Beck and call him a great man, he gave him a weekly segment on his very own show.

While not giving any far left liberals the same promotion, or a weekly segment. Which is what a real non-partisan Independent would do.

The Thursday 6-2-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 3, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called The economy takes a turn for the worse. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Economic data paints a bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Housing prices continue to fall, unemployment is not getting better and consumer confidence in the tank. Then there's the $14-trillion-plus debt.

The mistake President Obama is making is that he believes the federal government can control economic growth, but it can't - only the private sector can.

The President and Mr. Bush before him were correct in supplying taxpayer money to prevent the banking system from collapsing, and Mr. Obama was also right in lending some American corporations cash to recover.

But the President's overall economic philosophy is hurting the nation - he is spending far too much money on 'social justice' and doesn't have a clue on how to reform things like Medicare.

Mr. Obama wants to raise taxes on the affluent, including small business owners who hire people. But if you want more jobs, you must give business incentives to hire, not take more money away from the entrepreneurial class.

Talking Points believes Mr. Obama's passion for spending is damaging the American economy and that will be the centerpiece of the 2012 campaign.
Wow, is O'Reilly a massive right-wing spin doctor. Obama saved the country from a depression with his economic stimulus plan, so the thanks he gets is O'Reilly trashing him. It was a temporary fix, and now the economy needs more help, and where are the Republicans who promised jobs if they were elected, nowhere to be found.

But O'Reilly has no blame for the Republicans, who have killed most of the job bills Obama tried to pass. And what O'Reilly failed to mention is that the economy added jobs again, just not as many as the experts predicted. So things are still improving, but not like Obama wants it to. Hey O'Reilly, where are all these jobs the Republicans promised, and when will you slam them for it. Yeah I know, never, as you spin out that supply-side right-wing trickle down economic propaganda.

Then O'Reilly had another segment on Congressman Anthony Weiner, Billy had Laura Ingraham on to discuss it. Ingraham said this: "Anthony Weiner has made a lot of enemies on Capitol Hill, and there isn't a lot of love lost among him and other Democrats who think he hogs the spotlight. When the guillotine is about to fall on someone, no one says let me put my neck on it first, and no one will stand up for the Congressman after he answered questions the way he did the other day."

Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were to to talk Romney and Palin. Williams said this: "She's having the best time of her life, and I think she has just stuck it to Mr. Romney by reminding him that she is the queen of the tea party. Grass-roots tea party activists just don't react to this guy. He's the front-runner but he can't get any respect - he's the Rodney Dangerfield of Republican candidates."

But Ham dismissed the idea that Palin's appearance was an intentional slap at Romney. Saying this: "This is unfortunate from Romney's perspective that she was nearby, but do I think it was calculated to undercut him? I'm not really sure about that. She's saying, I'm here and I'm a force to be reckoned with. It's been entertaining watching the press try to figure out what she's doing."

Then O'Reilly had Glenn Beck on talk about Palin and Weiner. Beck said this: "The press is all upset, with more than a hint of glee. I actually saw a story saying that Palin is making things dangerous for the press because she won't give them her itineraries."

And that's a lie, the media simply criticized Palin for not doing interviews with anyone but Fox. They never said it was dangerous because she will not give them her itineraries, that is ridiculous, and Beck just made it up.

Beck said this about Anthony Wiener: "I gave him the benefit of the doubt until yesterday when said he couldn't say 'with certitude' whether the photo is him. But I don't have it out for the Congressman even though he held a hearing about one of my radio sponsors to try and discredit them. I haven't even talked about this on television."

Then O'Reilly made the insane statement that Fox News in general has handled the Weiner story with restraint, pointing out that "the guys who are working Weiner over the worst are Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert." Which is just laughable.

In the next segment O'Reilly had the ridiculous and total waste of time body language woman on for her segment, that is so lame I do not even name her, or report what she says.

Then O'Reilly had the Culture Warriors Alicia Menendez and Margaret Carlson on to talk about the Casey Anthony trial. Which I do not report on because it's tabloid garbage.

And finally, in the last segment O'Reilly had Martha MacCallum and Steve Doocy on for the waste of tv time, Factor news quiz. Which is not news, and has nothing to do with any news, so I do not report on it.

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

E-Mail From A Braindead O'Reilly Loving Fool
By: Steve - June 3, 2011 - 9:00am

Now this is great, here is a classic example of a totally brainwashed O'Reilly lover, that does not have a clue. My favorite part is how she says she is honest, as if that is somehow proof that all her lies are valid. Even though she does not show me one thing I have said that is not true.
Subject: ??
Date: Thursday, June 2, 2011 10:57 PM
From: Liz Piper - [email protected]
To: [email protected]

I can't believe you have created a website because you hate ONE man so much.

I don't always agree with him, or for any other bozo in the media, 100% of the time either, but I wouldn't go and make a website about it. You will get no where with this.

Bill O'Reilly actually tells the truth more than any other reporter on any station. I think your problem is is that you are a liberal person, and you just don't like the truth.

Grow up, have a little integrity, and get a life! Seriously dude, get a life! I see LOSER all over your forehead. Oh, did I mention I'm honest?
You can tell the person who wrote that has mental problems, because she claims O'Reilly tells the truth more than anyone, and that liberals hate the truth. Which is just ridiculous, because the entire website is devoted to telling the truth about O'Reilly, and that is what I do.

I am a liberal, I want the truth from everyone, and I report the truth. It's O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends who tell the lies, not me, I just document what he says. And yet, this fool Liz can not even see that O'Reilly is a massive and biased liar.

O'Reilly Slams Jay Leno Writer Over Joke
By: Steve - June 3, 2011 - 8:30am

Now get this, on the Wednesday Factor show Bill O'Reilly named a writer for Jay Leno the pinhead, for what he claims was joke theft.

And I quote: "Wednesday's Pinhead: The Jay Leno writer who apparently pilfered a joke that originally got laughs on FNC's Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld."

Here is the story: On the May 24th "Red Eye," (Which is on at 2am) contributor Andy Levy made a crack about California prisoners being released on the order of the Supreme Court.

"Supreme Court orders tens of thousands of California prisoners released," said Levy. "This actually may help the Raiders start selling out their home games again."

Then, on May 26, Leno told this joke during his opening monologue:

"Bad news for the state of California. The Supreme Court will force the state to release something like 46,000 convicts because of prison overcrowding. But the good news: It looks like the Oakland Raiders will have more season-ticket holders. Yeah, so the stadium will be packed."

Now all of this is ridiculous, for these reasons. To begin with, Red Eye is on at 2 in the morning, and nobody watches it. At best they have 300,000 total viewers.

Are we to believe that the Leno writer was up at 2am and just happened to see the Red Eye show, at the moment the joke was said, then stole their joke. I sure would not believe that, until I saw the proof.

O'Reilly has no proof they stole the joke, and he did not contact anyone at the Leno show to ask them if they stole it or not. So to name them a pinhead for stealing a joke with no proof, and without even asking them if they stole it is ridiculous, and a violation of the rules of journalism.

And how do we know that the Leno writer did not just think of the joke himself, without ever watching the joke on Red Eye.

We do not know, because neither O'Reilly or anyone at Red Eye ever asked the Leno writer if he watched the show, or if he stole the joke from them. And yet, O'Reilly named him a pinhead anyway.

Not to mention, Greg Gutfeld (the red eye host) did not actually come out and say they stole it, he just implied that they might have because they were similar. So O'Reilly takes that implication, and turns it into a fact that the writer for Leno is a pinhead for stealing the joke.

If that is not some of the worst journalism I have ever seen, I do not know what to call it. O'Reilly has even said he does not speculate, even though he does, and that he never reports anything without proof it is true.

Here are my questions for O'Reilly, how come you did not contact Leno to see if the writer actually stole the joke, or just wrote it himself. How come you broke your own rules of proof, when you named the writer a pinhead with no evidence he actually stole the joke. And how can you claim to be an honest journalist.

O'Reilly Spins The 2008 Presidential Media Study
By: Steve - June 3, 2011 - 8:00am

Here is what O'Reilly said on the Wednesday night Factor:
O'REILLY: In 2008 the broadcast networks provided then-Senator Obama with overwhelmingly favorable coverage.
And later in the interview with Diane Sawyer O'Reilly reminded Sawyer of studies showing that the networks were exceedingly biased in 2008. Billy said this:
O'REILLY: Last time around Barack Obama got kid gloves treatment. I am concerned as an American that the three network news nightly broadcasts are in the tank for the Democratic candidate, and I don't think that's fair.
And now the facts, O'Reilly misrepresented what the study found, and of course he knew exactly what he was doing. Because he is so desperate to make the mainstream media look biased, he has to lie about the study.

The study was done by PEJ at www.journalism.org, a non-partisan media analysis group. Here is the title and the date.

Winning the Media Campaign
October 22, 2008
How the Press Reported the 2008 General Election

Now check this out, here is what they say in the first 4 lines of the report:
The media coverage of the race for president has not so much cast Barack Obama in a favorable light as it has portrayed John McCain in a substantially negative one, according to a new study of the media since the two national political conventions ended.

Press treatment of Obama has been somewhat more positive than negative, but not markedly so.
Now think about this, O'Reilly twisted that statement from the study into this:
O'REILLY: In 2008 the broadcast networks provided then-Senator Obama with overwhelmingly favorable coverage.
Which is not what the study said, so O'Reilly was spinning what they found. And here are some more details from the study that show O'Reilly was spinning.

For Obama during this period, just over a third of the stories were clearly positive in tone (36%), while a similar number (35%) were neutral or mixed. A smaller number (29%) were negative.

Read that again folks, 36% positive for Obama, 35% neutral or mixed, and 29% negative. Where is the overwhelmingly favorable coverage for Obama, it's not there, in fact, it's almost a perfect balance. So O'Reilly is a liar, and an idiot. It was 64% neutral or negative, to only 36% positive for Obama. Nobody but O'Reilly claims that is overwhelmingly favorable coverage for Obama, and he is wrong.

For McCain, nearly six in ten of the stories studied were decidedly negative in nature (57%), while fewer than two in ten (14%) were positive.

Some findings from the study:

-- Coverage of Obama began in the negative after the conventions, but the tone switched with the changing direction of the polls. The most positive stories about him were those that were most political-the ones focused on polling, the electoral map, and tactics.

-- For McCain, coverage began positively, but turned sharply negative with McCain's reaction to the crisis in the financial markets. As he took increasingly bolder steps to try and reverse the direction of the polls, the coverage only worsened.

And there you have it, what O'Reilly failed to mention, is that coverage of McCain was mostly positive, until his crazy reaction to the crisis in the financial markets. Then his coverage went mostly negative, and he deserved it. O'Reilly does not tell you any of that, while lying that the media was biased for Obama, when the study actually shows they were almost perfectly balanced.

Now here are some other quotes from the actual study, where they talk about their findings, and they pretty much disagree with O'Reilly.

One question likely to be posed is whether these findings provide evidence that the news media are pro-Obama. Is there some element in these numbers that reflects a rooting by journalists for Obama and against McCain, unconscious or otherwise? The data does not provide conclusive answers.

They do offer a strong suggestion that winning in politics gets winning coverage, thanks in part to the relentless tendency of the press to frame its coverage of national elections as running narratives about the relative position of the candidates in the polls and internal tactical maneuvering to alter those positions.

Obama's coverage was negative in tone when he was dropping in the polls, and became positive when he began to rise, and it was just so for McCain as well. Nor are these numbers different than what we have seen before.

Obama's numbers are similar to what we saw for John Kerry four years ago as he began rising in the polls, and McCain's numbers are almost identical to what we saw eight years ago for Democrat Al Gore.

What the findings also reveal is the reinforcing-rather than press-generated-effects of media. We see a repeating pattern here in which the press first offers a stenographic account of candidate rhetoric and behavior, while also on the watch for misstatements and gaffes.

In short, the financial crisis and particularly Obama's steadier reaction to it in relation to McCain's were clearly a turning point in the media coverage. More positive coverage was then reflected in the polls, which in turn were reinforced in the horse race coverage that played off those polls.

Basically O'Reilly sees what he wants to see, then he lies about it, then he puts his spin on it. Because what he said about the study and the media is not true, it's his biased opinion of it. The study says the coverage of Obama was balanced, and mostly negative for McCain, but it only turned negative after McCain made a big political mistake.

The Wednesday 6-1-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 2, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called How Weiner has botched the 'Twittergate' story. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: We've known Congressman Anthony Weiner for years and believe he has totally botched the 'Twittergate' story. Weiner's a smart guy, but telling the press he doesn't know if the picture in question is him is eye roll material.

Whether or not Weiner sent an inappropriate Tweet to a young woman is still to be determined, but there's no question the Congressman is looking very bad trying to explain the situation.

He continues to assert that someone hacked into his Twitter account and sent out a photograph of a guy in his undershorts to a 21-year-old woman.

As we've stated, the FBI should be involved in the Weiner story, but they will not confirm anything to us. That's wrong because national security is involved.

The worldwide hacking situation is so serious that the Pentagon says computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war. The USA can not simply stand by and allow members of Congress to be attacked by cyber-criminals.

Weiner's case is dumb, but if he was hacked that's serious. High tech sabotage is a danger to all Americans and the Justice Department must get involved now.
O'Reilly said this: "That's wrong because national security is involved."

Are you for real O'Dummy, what a joke. National security is not involved, even if his twitter account was hacked, it was on the twitter servers, not any government servers like his e-mail address for Congress would be. If it was hacked, it was twitter that was hacked, dumbass. O'Reilly just used the national security angle as an excuse to cover the story.

This is a tabloid story, and not real news. And if it was a Republican, O'Reilly would not even report it.

Then O'Reilly even had a full segment to discuss it, with Republican Congressman Cliff Stearns, who wants a federal investigation into the Weiner "hacking" incident. And of course there was no Democratic guest to provide the balance, so it was a one sided biased segment.

Stearns said this: "I'm asking Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano to look into cyber-security, and to assure members of Congress that our BlackBerrys and iPhones are safe, as well as our computers. We want to make sure that whatever happened there is not replicated."

Which is ridiculous, because it was twitter that (might have) been hacked, not any iphones or blackberrys, or computers. The whole thing is bogus, and it was just another way for O'Reilly to report the story as if it were real news about hacking a government official. When most likely his twitter account was not even hacked, and Weiner probably sent the photo himself.

O'Dummy complained that federal law enforcement authorities are not being responsive, Billy said this: "We called the FBI, which won't tell us anything. Someone could blackmail a member of Congress on this kind of stuff, and the FBI won't tell us if they're involved! There's something wrong here. And if Weiner is lying and he wasn't hacked into, he's committing a crime."

Really? What crime would that be? How is it a crime to send a photo of yourself in your underwear to a girl of legal age. O'Reilly is just an idiot.

Then Dick Morris was on to talk about the ridiculous Sarah Palin bus tour. And of course, no Democratic guest was on to discuss it. Morris said this: "She has a novel form of attention deficit disorder. When she doesn't get enough attention, she gets a disorder. I think she's trying to have one last fling of tremendous national publicity before the presidential race starts. I don't think she's running because I don't think she can win and her pollsters tell her that."

And here are the facts, Palin is just using this lame bus tour to get more famous, so she can make more money, pretending to be running for President. She will not run, and we all know it.

O'Reilly even took a shot at the Morris predictions, Billy said this: "You come down with Charles Krauthammer, Brit Hume and me, who don't think she's going to run. That gives me pause because you've been wrong so many times before."

Then O'Reilly asked Diane Sawyer is the network news was too pro-Obama. Sawyer said this: "We are proud of our team. Don't forget that you are talking to the network that broke the Jeremiah Wright tapes, and I went down personally to cover the tea party. We're planning fantastic political coverage and we're even talking about having two people cover some of the big issues so we give you two ways of looking at a story."

Then crazy O'Reilly reminded Sawyer of studies showing that the networks were exceedingly biased in 2008, Billy said this: "Last time around Barack Obama got kid gloves treatment. I am concerned as an American that the three network news nightly broadcasts are in the tank for the Democratic candidate, and I don't think that's fair."

And yet, Fox is in the tank for the Republicans and that does not bother him at all. In fact, during the segment O'Reilly even claimed that Fox is not biased, and that they are really fair and balanced. Which is just laughable, and a total lie. Not to mention, O'Reilly crying about bias when he is as biased as you can get, and his entire network is more biased than anyone, is the ultimate pot calling the kettle black hypocrisy.

And btw, the media studies did not say the networks were biased for Obama, it just showed that they did more positive stories about Obama than they did McCain. And that was not because of any bias, it's because Obama was new to politics, and they barely had any negative news to report on him. Where McCain had been around for 30 years and they had all kinds of negative things to report on him. So O'Reilly put a spin on that 2008 media study.

Not to mention, O'Reilly failed to mention that he had 50 to 1 positive stories for McCain, than he did for Obama. I know because I documented it in a study I ran. In August I started a 3 month factor bias study. It ran from 8-1-08 to 10-31-08, I watched the factor every night and counted the negative and positive comments about Barack Omama and John McCain.

Here are the totals for the entire 3 months, from 8-1-08 to 10-31-08:

Obama -- Negative - 257 -- Positive - 46
McCain -- Positive - 199 -- Negative - 35

That's 88% negative for Obama, and 12% negative for McCain, 81.2% positive for McCain, 18.8% positive for Obama.

As you can see the bias against Obama is stunning, in 3 months of factor shows there were 257 segments with a negative comment against Obama. While during the same time there were only 35 segments with negative comments against McCain.

Then O'Reilly had Marty Makary, a professor of public health at Johns Hopkins on to talk about possible brain cancer from using cell phones. And while it is a real news story, I will not report on it because it has nothing to do with politics, and we do not even know if they do cause brain cancer.

Then Dennis Miller was on for his weekly garbage segment, that I do not report on because it's not news, he is just on to make jokes about liberals, with no Democratic comedian on to provide any balance.

And in the last segment Geraldo was on to talk about the Casey Anthony trial again, which I do not report on because it's tabloid garbage.

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

O'Reilly & Fox Are Lying To You About The Debt
By: Steve - June 2, 2011 - 10:00am

Pretty much every night O'Reilly goes on and on about the debt, and how it is killing the country, that it is the #1 issue facing the country today, and that Obama and the Democrats do not understand that. Even though they sang a different tune during the Bush years, when O'Reilly and his right-wing friends said the debt does not matter. In fact, O'Reilly and many other Republicans even made fun of liberals who complained about the debt. Dick Cheney also said that deficits do not matter.

Over the last couple years Fox News has aggressively pushed the bogus story that the national debt is the number one issue facing America today. But the experts and most of the people say job growth and the economy should be our top priority, a sentiment shared by voters, according to all the polls.

Here are some examples of what the Fox stooges have said:

-- Bill Hemmer: National Debt "Is Issue Number One For The American People."

-- Dagan McDowell: On the O'Reilly Factor, she said this: "The Number One Issue" Is "Our Debt."

-- Bill O'Reilly: On the 5-26-11 O'Reilly Factor, Billy said this: "As Talking Points stated last night, America's debt is the most -- the most -- vital issue facing we the people.

-- Gretchen Carlson Called The Deficit "The Biggest Problem At Hand."

And now the facts: Experts argue that the economy should be a priority over the deficit.

Nobel prize winner for economics (Paul Krugman) criticized efforts to focus on budget deficits rather than economic growth in a New York Times column:
Why not slash deficits immediately? Because tax increases and cuts in government spending would depress economies further, worsening unemployment. And cutting spending in a deeply depressed economy is largely self-defeating even in purely fiscal terms: any savings achieved at the front end are partly offset by lower revenue, as the economy shrinks.

So jobs now, deficits later was and is the right strategy. Unfortunately, it's a strategy that has been abandoned in the face of phantom risks and delusional hopes. On one side, we're constantly told that if we don't slash spending immediately we'll end up just like Greece, unable to borrow except at exorbitant interest rates. On the other, we're told not to worry about the impact of spending cuts on jobs because fiscal austerity will actually create jobs by raising confidence.

How's that story working out so far?
Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said this:
It is ridiculous to be spending so much time yelling about the deficit at a time when 25 million people are unemployed, underemployed or out of the work force altogether.

It is especially absurd when everyone knows that the economic crisis caused by the collapse of the housing bubble is the main reason that we have large deficits today. The main reason the budget went from deficit to surplus in the 90's was the unexpected drop to 4 percent unemployment at the end of the decade, not deficit reduction measures by President Clinton and/or the Republican Congress.
From an op-ed by the Director of The Kentucky Center for Economic Policy, Jason Bailey:
In the short-term, the most important deficit is the jobs deficit, and plans to cut critical investments will only make that problem worse. Elimination of necessary services would ripple through local economies and cost jobs.

We can and should enact legislation that will reduce the budget deficit once the economy is back on its feet. But one necessary ingredient to a lower long-term deficit is strong economic growth, which will require investment in education, infrastructure, clean energy and other areas. A deficit reduction approach comprised entirely of cutting needed investments will harm the future growth rate.
From a statement signed by over 300 economists:
Notice that none of those people are ever on the Factor to discuss the issue, or the fact that O'Reilly never reported that over 300 economists signed that letter saying that a focus on deficit reduction could slow growth and increase unemployment - and could push us back into recession.

O'Reilly does not have them on, or report the letter, because it would kill his right-wing spin that the debt is the #1 issue facing the country today. Not to mention, ignoring the polls that say the #1 issue the people care about is jobs and the economy.

O'Dummy even ignored a Fox News poll from 5-17-11, that said this: Results from a May Fox News poll indicated that 50 percent of Americans believe that the President and Congress should focus on the "economy and jobs," while only 22 percent said they should focus on the "deficit and government spending."

Results from a 4-20-11 New York Times/CBS News poll indicated that 22 percent of Americans believe that employment is "the most important problem facing the country today," and an additional 18 percent ranked the economy as the most important issues.

Only 15 percent rated the budget deficit as the most important issue of the day.

I could go on and on, but you get the picture. O'Reilly is a right-wing spin doctor who spins out right-wing propaganda about the debt issue, that is pretty much exactly what the GOP and the RNC are putting out.

It may not be word for word, but he says the exact same thing, that the debt is the #1 issue facing the country today. When it's a bold faced lie, and he knows it. So it's not only bias, it's dishonest journalism to push an agenda and an ideology.

And the worst part is that O'Reilly does all that while telling you he is looking out for the folks, as a non-partisan Independent journalist, in a no spin zone. Which is just laughable, because he is lying about all of it.

What he really does is lie to the American people with right-wing propaganda, and then claim he is a truth teller. Making O'Reilly a massive liar, with a big right-wing bias, and in reality, the king of spin.

The $7 Trillion Dollar Sarah Palin LIE!
By: Steve - June 2, 2011 - 9:00am

How much of a total right-wing liar is Sarah Palin, read this and you will see how much.

In the only interview Palin has granted during her so-called One Nation bus tour, Stupid Sarah claimed that the U.S. federal debt had grown more under Obama than "all those other presidents combined."

And that is a 100% stone cold LIE!

When Obama took office the debt was $10.6 trillion. After inheriting two wars, the banking crisis, the housing crisis, the jobs crisis, and the worst economy since the Great Depression, the debt has grown by $3.7 trillion since Obama has been in office. Which means Stupid Sarah is only off by $7 trillion dollars.

In fact, not only has the deficit not increased more under President Obama than all other Presidents combined, it has increased less under Obama than the last president, George W. Bush.

Think about this, President Bush inherited a $236 billion budget surplus from Bill Clinton, and yet the deficit still increased by $4.9 trillion under Bush.

And btw, you never see O'Reilly or anyone at Fox correcting what Palin said, because they want you to believe her lies, to help the GOP beat Obama in 2012.

O'Reilly Tells GOP How To Beat Obama With Scare Tactics
By: Steve - June 1, 2011 - 10:00am

Now think about this, O'Reilly tells the Democrats it is wrong to use scare tactics for political reasons, then he tells the GOP to use the very same scare tactics to beat Obama in 2012.

And the worst part is that he does this while claiming to be a non-partisan Independent who is fair to both sides. Okay, so name me one time O'Reilly has given the DNC advice on how to beat a Republican using scare tactics.

Answer: NEVER!

O'Reilly advised the GOP to explain that Obama is driven by social justice and to scare them by saying he is "pushing the country over a cliff" on his show Tuesday night. In fact, Glenn Beck and Hannity have also pushed those same talking points - revealing Fox News role as the GOP's communications arm once again.

O'Reilly has now adopted Beck's tactics, repeatedly connecting President Obama to social justice. And as he said tonight, those accusations can only help the GOP:
O'REILLY: If the Republicans want to defeat President Obama, they have to explain him to the country. Because I don't believe most of the country understands the President and how he is driven by one thing and one thing only, and that is social justice.

Above all else, that's what he wants. And in theory that's good. But in practice, it's pushing the country over the cliff. So as much as he's personable and sincere, the country's going over the cliff. And if the GOP can't make that case, it's gonna lose.
O'Reilly later added this: "I think you're going to have to scare the American people a little bit."

And that's not all, on his May 26th show O'Reilly told the GOP how to craft its Medicare messaging for 2012. His messaging advice was to call the Ryan/GOP scheme to privatize Medicare, "reforming Medicare," and pretend that it's Medicare driving our federal deficit (when in fact it's defense spending).

If that's what a non-partisan Independent journalist does, I'm Donald Trump. What O'Reilly is doing is if he works for the GOP, it's bias, and it's a violation of the rules of journalism. He is using his show to give the GOP advice on how to get their dishonest talking points out, and how to beat Obama.

And this clown has the nerve to criticize other journalists for being biased, give me a break.

Steve Doocy Is The Dumbest Man On Earth
By: Steve - June 1, 2011 - 9:00am

Now this is maybe the dumbest thing I have ever heard Doocy say, and that is saying a lot, because he says some really dumb things. On the Tuesday morning Fox & Friends show Doocy blamed the media being "Supportive of this President" for the lack of a major Obama scandal.



Okay, let me get this straight. It's the media's fault because Obama has not had a major scandal. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

This is ridiculous, and it's so biased it is beyond belief. Not only has Obama not had a major scandal, he got Bin Laden, which their hero George W. Bush could not do.

So Fox is mad because they do not have any scandals to hammer Obama with, like the media did with Bush, who had multiple scandals. Then they blame the media for Obama not having any scandals. Because they are biased far-right idiots.


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