The Wednesday 3-31-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 1, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Border Flip Flop. O'Reilly used the tpm to talk about John McCain's flip flop over using troops on the border. Because an Arizona farmer was killed by an illegal immigrant. Now McCain is calling for Obama to put the National Guard on the border. Which O'Reilly supports, and has been calling for years. With all the news out there this is what he does a tpm on, kind of ridiculous if you ask me.

So then O'Reilly had Dick Morris on to discuss it. O'Reilly asked Morris if it will hurt Obama, and of course he said yes. Then Morris said McCain changed his opinion about troops on the border because he has to move to the right to beat J.D. Hayworth in the Republican primary, so it had nothing to do with the Arizona farmer getting killed as O'Reilly claimed, it's all about politics and winning a primary. Then Morris spent the rest of the segment trashing and smearing Obama over Iran, etc. So it was the usual one sided biased smear segment on President Obama, with nobody to give the counterpoint. They did talk about offshore drilling, and for once Morris liked that. Morris also claims it might be Obama starting to move to the center.

Okay now get this, the next segment was about racism in the Tea Party, which is about 99% white people. But O'Reilly found one black Tea Party member to go on the Factor and deny the charges of racism. As if that proves anything, when he is maybe 1% of blacks in the Tea Party, and of course he is going to deny the Tea Party is racist. So it proves nothing, except that O'Reilly thinks people are stupid enough to fall for this cheap move.

And the black Tea Party guest (Kevin Jackson) admitted he is a conservative. As he talked O'Reilly showed video of different Tea Party protests and everyone was white. O'Reilly asked him about racism in the Tea Party, and Jackson said it is totally bogus, that he has never seen any racism at any Tea Party protest. then he must not have looked because it is everywhere, just looks at the signs, they are racist. This whole segment was a joke, and this guy Jackson also admitted the Tea Party pays him, so he is a paid spokesman, as in paid spin doctor. Basically this guy was paid to go on the Factor and deny the racism charges, the whole thing was a bogus interview. And what a shocker, they picked a black guy to do it, what a joke.

In the next segment O'Reilly had some right-wing blogger (Jason Mattera) on who confronted Senator Al franken. Of course O'Reilly loved it, and asked if bloggers should now be considered journalists. And btw, this guy Matera is a paid right-wing blogger for the far right Human Events website. All he did was ask questions over and over without letting Franken answer any questions. He also called him Senator smalley, instead of using his name. Even O'Reilly said it was a mistake to call him Senator Smalley, Billy also said it was disrespectful and it gave Franken an excuse to write him off as a right-wing partisan.

But then O'Reilly said he liked what Mattera did, and said it was a good interview except for calling him Senator Smalley. Mattera is a right-wing nut, and O'Reilly gave this fool a full segment. Basically O'Reilly gave him advice on how to do an interview, hammer them, but be respectful, that way you get more to nail them with. Yeah right, as if he is ever respectful to any Democrats. And btw, O'Reilly loves full disclosure, but he failed to disclose that he writes for Human Events. In fact, he just wrote an article for them on 3-27-10, called "The Freedom Factor" which was 4 days ago.

Then O'Reilly had the ridiculous body language segment, with the big boob blonde bimbo body language reader. Which I do not report on because it's not news, and has no news value at all. In fact, I refuse to even mention her name. It's just another segment for O'Reilly to get ratings by having this bimbo make Democrats look bad with her biased and one sided body language readings. She always has a negative reading on a Democrat, and a positive reading on a Republican. To be honest, I do not think this garbage should be on a so-called hard news show, and that is why I never report what she says.

Then O'Reilly did his weekly Miller Time segment with the unfunny Dennis Miller. Basically Miller is put on to make jokes about President Obama and other Democrats, especially Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and Barney Frank. Which I have no problem with, because he is a comedian, I just will not repeat his lame jokes. The problem is the hypocrisy from O'Reilly, because he complains when liberal comedians do jokes about Sarah Palin, but then he has Dennis Miller on his show every week to do the exact same thing he complained about. The hypocrisy and double standard on this from O'Reilly is off the chart.

And there is one big difference that makes what O'Reilly does even worse. When Letterman does a Palin joke, he is doing it on a comedy show. He is a comedian that gets paid to do jokes, that is his job. Not to mention, Letterman also does jokes about Democrats, but O'Reilly never complains about that. He only complains when Letterman does a Palin joke, which proves his bias. And O'Reilly has a news show, so when he has Dennis Miller do jokes about Democrats, he is doing it on a news show, not a comedy show. Making what O'Reilly does far worse, because he does not have a comedy show.

And the last segment was the did you see that with Jane Skinner. O'Reilly bills the segment as video you must see. When it's usually just stupid video that nobody really cares about. I personally think O'Reilly only does it for ratings, because Jane Skinner is a pretty good looking blonde. I think he has her on late in the show to try and keep viewers watching for the entire hour. Because most of the videos they show are not news, they are more like dumb things that may or may not be funny.

Billy showed a video of a naked singer Erykah Badu, as if anyone cares. Then he said it was just a cheap publicity stunt, and it worked because O'Reilly talked about it. They also talked about a video about the movie scarface, in it they hired kids to play the actors in Scarface. And this is news how? Nobody cares, and it is not news. O'Reilly called it stupid and boring, but then he showed it anyway.

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

Federal Judge Rules Bush Wiretapping Illegal
By: Steve - March 31, 2010 - 8:30am

And of course O'Reilly ignored the entire story, even though it was all over the news Wednesday, Keith Olbermann and almost everyone at MSNBC and CNN reported it.

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the National Security Agency's program of surveillance without warrants was illegal, rejecting the Obama administration's effort to keep shrouded in secrecy one of the most disputed counterterrorism policies of former President George W. Bush.

In a 45-page opinion, Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that the government had violated a 1978 federal statute requiring court approval for domestic surveillance when it intercepted phone calls of Al Haramain, a now-defunct Islamic charity in Oregon, and of two lawyers representing it in 2004. Declaring that the plaintiffs had been "subjected to unlawful surveillance," the judge said that the government was liable to pay them damages.

The ruling delivered a blow to the Bush administration's claims that its surveillance program, which Mr. Bush secretly authorized shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was lawful. Under the program, the National Security Agency monitored Americans' international e-mail messages and phone calls without court approval, even though the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, required warrants.

The Justice Department said it was reviewing the decision and had made no decision about whether to appeal.

The ruling by Judge Walker, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, rejected the Justice Department's claim - first asserted by the Bush administration and continued under President Obama - that the charity's lawsuit should be dismissed without a ruling on the merits because allowing it to go forward could reveal state secrets.

The judge characterized that expansive use of the so-called state-secrets privilege as amounting to "unfettered executive-branch discretion" that had "obvious potential for governmental abuse and overreaching."

That position, he said, would enable government officials to flout the warrant law, even though Congress had enacted it "specifically to rein in and create a judicial check for executive-branch abuses of surveillance authority."

And the great journalist Bill O'Reilly never said one word about the entire story, even though he claimed the Bush wiretaps were legal.

The First Amendment And Free Speech
By: Bill Pappas - March 31, 2010 - 8:00am

Some Republicans and Tea Party members love to wrap themselves in the Constitution when it suits them. Falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater and causing a panic is not protected speech. The falsehoods told by some Republican elected officials and others about the health care legislation in this highly charged political environment are analogous to shouting 'fire' when protesters then throw bricks through windows and spit on Congressmen.

The First Amendment right to 'peaceably assemble' has been ignored by Tea Partiers at last summer's town hall meetings and outside the Capital where Congressmen are entering.

Then, there is the 'fighting words' doctrine which in some cases isn't protected free speech when it can incite a violent reaction. "Fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment ... [because] their content embodies a particularly intolerable and socially unnecessary mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey" (Antonin Scalia).

What are we to do with fellow citizens who claim rights, abuse them and take no responsibility for the consequences of their speech or actions? They don't respond to reason.

O'Reilly Said Fox Does Not Use Fear Tactics
By: Steve - March 31, 2010 - 12:30pm

Okay, so then how does he explain this:



Answer: he will NOT explain it, he will ignore it just like he does all the other bias at Fox News from everyone who works there.

The source for the ridiculous column is Tucker Carlson's right-wing Daily Caller. Carlson is a Fox News employee btw. But the article in the Caller, while misleading on it's own, doesn't go anywhere near what the headline says.

The Caller's headline was somewhat less dishonest: "IRS looking to hire thousands of tax agents to enforce health care laws." It does not make a declaration of fact that agents are actually being hired, only that the IRS is looking into it. But more importantly, there is no mention of these agents being armed. Any new hires will be accountants with calculators, not mercenaries with machine guns.

But that didn't stop the Caller from posting an accompanying photo of heavily armed soldiers in combat gear who have nothing whatsoever to do with the story. And, of course, Fox Nation re-posted the same photo.

The Caller's article is filled with falsehoods. Anyone who actually bothers to read the article will notice that there is no substantiation of its claim that Democrats are working with the IRS to hire new agents. The only confirmation comes from Republicans supplying their own speculation as to staffing requirements.

It's fair to assume that expanding efforts to collect revenue would require additional personnel. But, the article notes that the new hiring is aimed at collecting taxes unrelated to the health care bill. So are Republicans and the Fox Nationalists taking the position that tax cheats should not be pursued or held accountable?

Should law abiding Americans have to shoulder the burden for these deadbeats? Yes, that is their position. Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee even issued a report that criticized the administration for proposing $8 billion to fund tax compliance measures. It seems to me that an $8 billion allocation to recover $300 billion in late taxes is a pretty good return on investment.

The content of the article in the Caller is very misleading, but the Fox Nation version is full of outright lies. It states that the IRS is hiring "armed" tax agents. It also states that these new agents will be dispatched to enforce Obamacare.

Except both those statements are lies, and they are not even in the article they link to. Yet the Fox Nation post the photo of soldiers in combat attire, weapons at the ready, deployed in a search and destroy posture. Which is about as dishonest as you can get, yet O'Reilly never says a word.

The obvious intent of Fox is to frighten their congregation of right-wing fools into believing that the Gobernment is coming to take their money and send them to FEMA camps where they will be forced to have abortions.

After struggling for over a year to derail the President's agenda, and failing, Fox is doubling down. They want people to be so afraid that they will fortify their bunkers, stockpile weapons, hoard rations, buy gold, and prepare for Armageddon. And the way they advance that goal is by spreading lies like this story from the right-wing idiots at the Fox Nation website, and on their tv shows.

And btw, O'Reilly does a weekly media bias segment with Bernie Goldberg, they discuss bias in the media. But they never report anything like this, ever. Because it's done by Fox News, so they do not care that they are being dishonest. In fact, they never discuss any right-wing bias in the media, they just ignore it all, like the good little Republicans they are.

The Tuesday 3-30-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 31, 2010 - 12:00pm

The TPM was called Fringe Groups And Hating America. O'Reilly finally talked about the right-wing Christian militia group getting busted by the FBI for their plan to kill police. Billy said this:
O'REILLY: When you do violent things, you hate your country. And there's all kinds of violence - physical, mental, and emotional. The FBI has smashed a whacked-out militia group in Michigan; apparently these loons were plotting to kill a police officer and then bomb the funeral in the hope of touching off an uprising against the government.

In another insane situation, the Westboro Baptist Church, which hates gay people and believes God is punishing America, won a victory in court.

The Michigan militia and the Westboro church are far-right nuts, but there are just as many far-left idiots doing vile things.
Notice anything missing there, think about it. O'Reilly failed to mention that they are a right-wing Christian militia group, he just calls them a Michigan militia group. If you only watch the Factor you would have no idea they are a right-wing religious group, because O'Reilly left that part of the story out. And btw, I looked at a lot of sources on it and O'Reilly is the only one I could find that failed to mention that.

Then he mentions the church that protests at military funerals and claims there are just as many far left idiots doing vile things. Oh really, name one. All the hate and violence is on the right, with one example of hate on the left against Eric cantor. It's 100 to 1, with the 100 coming from the right.

Then O'Reilly had the far right Laura Ingraham on to discuss it. And as you would expect she agreed with everything O'Reilly said. With nobody from the left to discuss it, making it a one sided biased segment. Crazy Ingraham barely mention the militia group, and never called them a right-wing group, instead she attacked the church group and the left. She said this: "In the history of any country, you're going to have these fringe elements that feel aggrieved, but now we have the 24/7 media that give them a platform. What I don't like is when people try to conflate the craziness of these 'whack jobs' and true conservative ire about what's happening in politics or the culture."

Ingraham singled out the Westboro Baptist Church for condemnation. "These freaks have the right to speak out, but they don't have the right to target private citizens." Abd btw, everyone is opposed to that church group protesting military funerals, even liberals. But they are not violent, they are not sending death threats to Congressman and their children, so there is no comparison to what the right is doing. O'Reilly and Ingraham imply what they do is just as bad as what the right is doing, which is just ridiculous. And the right supports what the death threat idiots are doing, everyone is opposed to the church idiots protesting military funerals. I am as left as it gets, and I think no funeral should ever be protested, for any reason, it's over the line.

Then O'Reilly aired clips of angry leftists protesting Ann Coulter's appearance in Canada. As an example of bad things the left has done, which is just laughable. Because it happened in fricking Canada, it was not done by any liberal in America, so that has nothing to do with the liberals in this country.

Billy also talked about the Code Pink protesters shouting down Karl Rove, it was actually a citizens arrest, Louis Farrakhan claiming the "white right" is praying for the death of Barack Obama, and a protester interrupting a speech by Sarah Palin. And then he claimed the media coverage of those events was minimal. Then O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Hatred on the left is bubbling, no doubt about it. Far-left violence and bad behavior is all over the place, but do we hear about that on the network news? No, we hear about the Tea Party people and how bad they're behaving. This is a media scandal - one side gets scrutinized, the other side gets a pass.
Are you fricking kidding me, hatred on the left? It's all on the right, you have one example of hate on the left, the youtube death threat to Eric Cantor. That's it, the other 99% of it is from the right. Yet O'Reilly claims it's mostly coming from the left, and that the media is ignoring it. What a joke, one thing happened in Canada, and the rest were just people protesting, there was no hate or violence. All the hate and violence is from the right, yet O'Reilly spins it to blame the left.

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to discuss it. Crazy Crowley blamed it all on Obama, when all he has done is keep his campaign promise, he ran of these things and now he is doing them. Colmes got to the heart of the matter, racism, Colmes claimed that President Obama's race is a principal factor, he said this: "He is doing what he said he would do, he's doing change. What's driving a lot of this is racism! There is a loud minority and a lot of them hate the fact that there is a black guy in the White House. I don't think there's an equivalency between anger on the left and anger on the right."

And Colmes is exactly right, a lot of the hate on the right is driven by racism, they hate having a black man in the White House. Which O'Reilly and Crowley fail to mention, because they deny it.

Then O'Reilly had another right-wing nut on, John Stossel. O'Reilly asked him when protected free speech becomes unacceptable hate speech. Stossel said this: "When it incited violence. If you go on tour with Glenn Beck and you tell the crowd to beat him up, and the crowd does, then you can be prosecuted. If you say the 'n' word in someone's face, that could be considered inciting violence, but in general all those ugly words are legal."

Stossel argued against "hate speech" laws that criminalize certain slurs. "A crime is a crime, and trying to divine your motives is wrong. It's important to have free speech, even when it's ugly, because you don't want government saying this is okay, but this is not." O'Reilly said that speech has to be regulated: "There has to be a code of some kind that says you can't go up to somebody and verbally assault them with words."

Ok, but who regulates that speech, O'Reilly and Stossel, I don't think so. Speech can not be regulated, because then it is not free speech. Proving that O'Reilly is just an idiot, because if you regulate speech, it's not free speech anymore, which would be a violation of the 1st amendment.

Then O'Reilly spent the entire is it legal segment with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle, on the case of 15-year-old Phoebe Prince, who killed herself after being bullied by kids in her high school. While ignoring the arrest of the 9 right-wing Christian militia guys. The legal team did not even mention it, the whole segment was about the 15 year old girl killing herself.

Then O'Reilly had another right-wing spin doctor on, Charles Krauthammer was on to analyze the health care plan enacted in Massachusetts under then-Governor Mitt Romney. And of course no Democratic guest was there to counter his right-wing spin. Krauthammer trashed the plan, and had nothing good to say about it. But what he failed to mention is that the people like it, and when they tried to get it voted it out they failed. Not to mention, it's very similar to the Obama health reform bill, and that was passed in Massachusetts by the Republican Mitt Romney. So they ignored the hypocrisy from the right, when the two plans are almost the same.

The the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, the reason I call it the lame pinheads and patriots is because it's usually a partisan joke. The pinhead is always a liberal, and the patriot is normally a ridiculous pick. O'Reilly almost never names any real patriots, like members of the military, the police, or fireman, etc. Usually he names someone who bought his book a patriot, or something like that.

And here is a perfect example, the Tuesday patriots were everyone who bid on autographed covers of O'Reilly's upcoming book Pinheads and Patriots.

Former Bush Officials Slam Tea Party Activists
By: Steve - March 31, 2010 - 10:00am

Monday night on CNN, Larry King discussed the Tea Parties and their effect on the Republican Party. David Frum, a speech writer in the Bush White House, and Scott McClellan, the former press secretary to George W. Bush, slammed the Tea Parties for their extreme views, like saying they would abolish Social Security.
FRUM: When you bring on two people on to an important show like this, and they represent themselves as leading a conservative and libertarian uprising against the president, and you say what you would really like to do, and they say, we would like to abolish Social Security, is that helpful to the Republican Party?

There probably aren't even two percent of the members of the Republican Party who think that way. But that - those are the people on television. That's not helpful.
McClellan said the Tea Parties have limited appeal because they are simply a "divisive protest movement" that plays too much to people's fears and hatred:
MCCLELLAN: And then you had the comments from one Tea Party activist that was at the rally over the weekend in Searchlight, referring to President Obama as a terrorist. I mean, that's just outrageous. You know, I think that there are probably many decent people in the Tea Party movement that have some legitimate concerns about their economic security.

But this is a divisive protest movement that plays too much to people's fears and hatred. And it's got limited appeal. I think that after the 2010 elections, you're going to see this party or the Tea Party movement dissipate to a great degree. It has limited influence. It really hasn't shown itself to be a strong, powerful force, even within the Republican Party. However, it is pushing Republicans too far to the right.
And the Republican party leaders in Congress are making it worse, rather than lead the Tea Party into a responsible direction, GOP leaders have added fuel to the fire with violent rhetoric, crazy conspiracy theories, and hate towards Democrats. The Tea Parties are providing loyal protesters and campaign volunteers to Republican campaigns too, so it is unclear if the Republican Party is even capable of separating from them.

In fact, they support them using the hate and violence. Because it hurts Democrats, and they can say they had nothing to do with it. Not to mention, most of Fox News is doing the same thing, especially on Beck and Hannity. They watch Beck and Hannity every day then clean and load their guns, because Beck and Hannity have lied to them using fear tactics, so Fox is part of it too.

O'Reilly even joined the party Monday night, he said Obama could possibly ban guns. Which stokes the fire even more with right-wing lies, so it's not just Beck and Hannity, it's O'Reilly too. And O'Reilly has been lying about the Obama health reform bill for a year, so he is making them mad with lies on that also.

Great Example Of Republican Bias By O'Reilly
By: Steve - March 31, 2010 - 9:30am

Think about this, Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner was just on the O'Reilly Factor last Wednesday to talk about the Obama health reform bill. Then the very next day his NY office has white powder and a threat filled letter sent to it. This happened in NY, the same place O'Reilly works and does his show, and yet he ignored the entire story.

O'Reilly did not say a word about it, even though it was a big national news story, and a big story in New york. Not to mention it happened the very next day after he was on the Factor. But O'Reilly still failed to report even one word about it.

Now think about this, the Republican Congressman Eric Cantor says his office window was shot out. This happened in Richmond Virginia, so what does O'Reilly do. He reports it that night, even though he was not on the Factor, and it did not happen in New York.

And the best part is that two days later the Richmond police say it was a random gunshot that was not even a threat to Congressman Cantor. Because the bullet hit the window on the way down, so it barely had enough force to even make it through the window. On top of that, it hit a window on the first floor of the building, and the Cantor office is on the second floor, so his office window was not even hit.

Now did O'Reilly do a correction, and follow up with the facts in the story, of course not, he just left it out there as if the Cantor office window had been shot out. So if you only watch the Factor for the news, you still think the Cantor story was true. When the Richmond police reported the truth at least 5 days ago. And you have no idea that Congressman Weiner had white powder sent to his office, because O'Reilly never even reported that.

That is about as biased as you can get, and it's terrible journalism. It's one sided right-wing bias, with no facts in one story. And then after the actual facts come out from the Richmond Police, O'Reilly ignores them, to leave the impression it happened the way he said it did.

O'Reilly should have reported the white powder sent to Congressman Weiner story, and he should have done a follow up story to give a correction on his reporting about the Cantor window shooting story. That is what a real journalist would have done, O'Reilly did not do either one, proving that he is not a real journalist.

This is called journalism by O'Reilly, when the facts show it's nothing but one sided right-wing bias from a conservative hack. What say you Billy?

Fox Cut Away From Obama Health Reform Bill Signing
By: Steve - March 31, 2010 - 9:00am

Fox News strikes again, around 10:30am Tuesday I was watching the Fox News coverage of the Obama bill signing. He signed the final bill on health care reform and talked about how it will also save $68 Billion dollars by cutting out the middleman on the student loans.

So Fox suddenly cuts away from Obama before he even signed the bill, he was still talking as they cut away. They did not even wait until he was done talking. All the sudden a plane is on the screen landing, and the Fox anchor (Jane Skinner) is talking about the plane having problems landing. I watched and the plane landed with no problems.

So I switched it to CNN and MSNBC and they were still covering it, then Obama signed the bill with all the different pens. CNN and MSNBC both covered all of it.

As Obama was signing the bill I switch back to Fox and they are still showing a plane landing. Then Greg Jarrett is on the air talking about the plane landing. They talked about that for a couple minutes, then they cut back to Obama, but he had already signed the bill, so they missed it. And when they cut back to Obama, they only showed the video with no sound, for maybe 10 seconds.

Then they reported on a girl that killed herself after being bullied, and that was all I could take. So I turned Fox off and laughed at their ridiculous coverage of the Obama bill signing.

They showed a little of his speech, then cut away to a plane landing, before Obama even signed the bill. And the plane had no problems at all, they claim it did, but it landed with no problem. It looks like they just made it up as an excuse to cut away from the Obama bill signing. Because they cut away right before he signed the bill, then cut back after he had signed it.

Not to mention, the plane did not have any problems landing, and none of the other cable news networks cut away to show it. Good job Fox, you have proven once again that you are nothing but a joke of a biased right-wing news network.

And btw, Media Matters has the video of it, for anyone who wants to see what happened.



Now where is the great journalist Bill O'Reilly and Bernie Goldberg to report this media bias, against the President of all people, haha, that will never happen. They will ignore it as they always do, because it's an example of conservative bias at Fox by Republicans. Somehow they can only find liberal bias in the media, they can not seem to find any conservative bias, even though it's on the very same network they work for.

O'Reilly Goes Insane In Newsmax Interview
By: Steve - March 30, 2010 - 9:30am

I thought I had seen it all in my 10 years of monitoring the crazy Bill O'Reilly, and then he says this in an interview with the right-wing Newsmax. You have to read it to believe it, so here it is, word for word:
O'REILLY: "CNN was at the top of the hill when we came in 13 1/2 years ago. What happened to CNN? Basically they stayed where they were 10 years ago. They did not change with the times."

We live in a very intense country, a very difficult time. CNN does not reflect that urgency. They basically report the news. And they do a good job.

But people in the United States now, they know the news already, because they have the Internet, they have talk radio, a lot of vehicles, so they want analysis and perspective from a cable network, particularly in prime time. They don't want to hear [the news] again. CNN doesn't give you that, so that's why they have fallen off dramatically.

MSNBC made the key mistake of hiring bad people. It's as simple as that. They've got a bunch of guttersnipes on their network and even if you're a liberal, which is what they sell, you don't like these people.

On Fox, on the other hand, Glenn Beck is a nice guy, Greta Van Susteren is a nice person, Shepard Smith is a good personality, and Sean Hannity is a Republican and identifies himself that way. So it's real people.

And then you turn on MSNBC and you see these people attacking personally, they're throwing all kinds of stuff around. People go, 'It's unpleasant. I'm not going to watch it.' And they don't.

He says he advises commentators who appear on Fox not to be malicious.

You can make your points. But I'll tell an Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham - sometimes they might get a little rambunctious - make your points, but you don't have to attack personally. Most Americans don't like that stuff.

O'Reilly says The Factor, attracts about 5.5 million viewers. But he says he doesn't think about his phenomenal ratings or gloat over being No. 1.

He does point out that the 5.5 million viewers constitute just a fraction of who sees us because it goes out on the Internet, Newsmax and everybody else. Every time I do something crazy, they put it on a Web site. So gazillions of people all over the world see the program. But if I thought about that, I would lose perspective.

We know what we're doing. I think that's obvious. We put on a fast-moving show. We cut through all the B.S. and get to what's important. I look at the ratings. It is a scorecard. I'm a competitive guy. I want to win. But I don't go home and think, 'Gee, I'm number one. Wow!' I don't do that. That would be self-destructive, I think.

The viewing and listening audience on TV and radio includes many people who tune in because they want to hear their opinions reinforced by people who think exactly the way they think, O'Reilly says.

There’s nothing wrong with that, he maintains, but I do it a little differently. I basically say to you, 'I'm going to tell you the truth about the issues that we deal with. If it's a liberal solution that's better, I'm going to tell you. If it's a conservative solution, I'll go there.' But all of my opinions are going to be fact-based.
Wow, there are so many lies in that interview I barely know where to start. O'Reilly said the ratings at CNN are low because they only report the news, which is their job btw, and O'Reilly even admits they do a good job. Then he claims the MSNBC ratings are low because they hired guttersnipes that nobody likes, even the liberals that watch them.

1) News Networks are supposed to report the news, CNN does that, they do not worry about ratings, they report the news, which is what they should be doing.

2) Keith Olbermann has the highest rated cable news show that is not on Fox. They also have Ed schultz and Rachel Maddow, who people like, if they did not like them, they would not watch them. And btw, if you take any show on Fox and put it on any other network, nobody watches them, the Sunday Fox News show with Chris Wallace comes in dead last every week with barely a million viewers. While the other 3 Sunday shows all get 3 to 4 million viewers.

3) The reason O'Reilly and other people on Fox, like Beck and Hannity, get good ratings is because they are Republicans who say what Republicans want to hear. And a higher percentage of Republicans watch the news than Democrats do, so they target their shows to get ratings from Republicans. Not to mention, the Democrats split their ratings between CNN and MSNBC, while all the Republicans tune to Fox.

Then O'Reilly said Glenn Beck is a nice guy, that statement alone shows that O'Reilly is a massive liar. Because Glenn Beck is a hate speech, fear tactic using, right-wing idiot. He even said Beck and Hannity are real people, as if the rest of us are not, if that's not right-wing bias what is it. Then O'Reilly said the people at MSNBC use personal attacks, as if he does not, when his entire show every night is a personal atack on every Democrat in the country.

In fact, O'Reilly and his 95% right-wing guests do more personal attacks than any other show in America. So that's the pot calling the kettle black, big time. Then O'Reilly said he gets 5.5 Million viewers a night, which is a lie, he averages roughly 3.6 million viewers a night. Then he said he doesn't think about his phenomenal ratings or gloat over being No. 1. My God is that a lie, one of the biggest lies I have ever heard. Almost every night he gloats about his ratings, it's pathetic.

And think about this, Billy was gloating about his ratings in the Newsmax interview, as he was saying he does not gloat about his phenomenal ratings, lol. Wow is he a nut, that's gloating, as you claim you never gloat. The lunatic even claims that he has way more than 5.5 million viewers, which is ridiculous, because only the ratings you get for one show are counted, that is roughly 3.6 million viewers a night.

Then O'Reilly said he cuts through all the B.S. and get to what's important. Like running stripper video, or talking about teens sexting, or wild horses, or body language garbage, yeah he gets to what's important, not!

In fact, he ignores any big news story that makes a Republican look bad, and spends half the shows on nonsense, like the news quiz, Dennis Miller, and on and on. It's not news, it's garbage to get ratings, as he ignores real news.

O'Reilly said if he finds a liberal solution to something he will tell you, ok, when, I have not heard one in 10 years. Then he said all his opinions are fact-based. And I'M Donald Trump too, all his opinions are based on right-wing spin and talking points. And that Newsmax interview was just laughable, if O'Reilly actually believe the crap he said, he needs to be locked up in a padded room, right next to Glenn Beck.

The Monday 3-29-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 30, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Stirring Up Controversy. O'Reilly talked about Palin at the NV. Tea Party rally to get Harry Reid voted out of office. And btw, O'Reilly said the crowd was 8 to 10 thousand, while all the right-wing bloggers said it was 20,000 or more. O'Reilly claims the left is scared of the Tea Party so they are trying to demonize them, they are not violent, they are just misunderstood, yeah Billy, you can believe that, nobody else does. Billy said the Tea Party is great, but that they do have a few loons in their group.

Then Al Sharpton was on to discuss it. Sharpton said everyone should calm down and lower the tone. O'Reilly showed the clip of the guy in the white hat spitting on the Congressman, but he denied it was a spit, he said it may not have been a spit. When the fricking tape shows the guy spitting on him ,and it also shows the Congressman wiping the spit off his face. Sharpton said it was clearly a spit, but O'Reilly said he is not so sure, when the damn tape shows it. Then O'Reilly cried about how the media is attacking the Tea Party unfairly. Basically Sharpton disagreed with O'Reilly on everything.

O'Reilly said that if you say some people in the Tea Party might be racist, you have to prove it. Then he went on his crazy rant about how if there is not tape of racism then it never happened. O'Reilly deneied it all, because there is no tape. But there is a tape of the spitting, and he denies that too. It's pathetic, and O'Reilly can not even admit the truth. Then O'Reilly said it was unfair to say some people in the Tea Party are racist, unless you have proof, which we do, he just will not admit it. In O'Reillyworld if there is no video of it, it naever happened because you can not prove it.

So sharpton said are you calling Congressman Lewis a liar, O'Reily said no. But then he said he will not do the Factor so he does not believe he was called the n-word, which is calling him a liar. The arguments O'Reilly makes to defend the Tea Party do not even make sense, it's something a crazy person would come up with. Basically O'Reilly is saying because Congressman Lewis will not go on the Factor and say he was called the n-word to O'Reilly, he does not believe it happened. Which is insanity, it's crazy talk, especially when he says he will not call him a liar, which is exactly what he is doing.

Then Brit Hume was on to agree with O'Reilly, they both argued that there was no racism in the Tea Party, and that Sharpton was wrong. The usual right-wing propaganda, from Hume and O'Reilly. Hume said there is no proof they do anything racist, when there is, like the white face joke signs, the bone through the nose, and on and on. They just deny it, then claim the left is making it all up to make the right look like racists.

And then finally O'Reilly mentioned the Palin rifle scope crosshairs on her political target map, after a week of ignoring it, but Hume and O'Reilly dismissed it as nothing, and said it is not violent at all. So they deny reality, because it is wrong to put rifle scope crosshairs on a political map using the words, target, reload, and aim. But according to Hume and O'Reilly is just politics as usual, and there is nothing violent about it, except nobody has ever seen anything like it before. Did I mention Palin works for Fox News, or that Hume and O'Reilly love her, lol. So they are clearly not objective, and they defend everything she does.

Then O'Reilly talked some more about the health reform bill. Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to discuss it. Billy asked who is to blame for the hate, Williams said it's mostly coming from the right, with the death threats and the reload, aim, talk. Wow, for once Juan actually sounded like a Democrat, it's a miracle. Then crazy Mary K. Ham went on to blame it all on the left, ignoring all the hate from the right, she takes her talking points from Rove, Beck, and Hannity, so she is a total right-wing stooge.

Ham claims the media is not reporting all the hate against the right, when 99% of it is against the left, so that is why the media is not reporting much of the hate against the right, because there is almost none of it. Williams also said the Tea Party is linked with militia groups on the right, and O'Reilly denied it all. Wow, Juan was right twice in one night, it's a double miracle. And btw, O'Reilly agreed with Ham, that the media is only reporting the hate against the left, which they both said is unfair. Let me unspin their nonsense, if 99% of the hate and death threats are against the left, that gets reported on more, how hard is that to understand.

And btw, O'Reilly has still not reported that the gunshot in Cantor's office window was a lie, so he was not threatened. Not to mention, Juan Williams never pointed that out, when he could have, proving that Williams is part of the cover up at Fox. Juan should have mentioned that when O'Reilly and Ham said Cantor got a death threat. To this day O'Reilly has not done a correction about the Cantor lie about getting a gunshot through his office window.

Then O'Reilly had the crazy far right nut Col. Ralph Peters on to smear and trash President Obama. O'Reilly said it was a good thing for Obama to go to Afghanistan, Col. Peters had a whole different take on it. Peters cried like a baby that Obama made a mistake going to Afghanistan for a daytime trip, then leaving before dark. Crazy Peters claims it was a mistake for Obama to not stay the night. Ummmm, maybe he was busy running the fricking country, and if he had stayed the night, Peters would have hammered him for that. This Col. Peters is a fricking right-wing joke, he hates Obama, and smears everything he does. And O'Reilly puts this scum on with no Democratic military analyst to counter all his right-wing propaganda. This Col. Peters makes me sick, he is lower than scum, he should be on with Beck, because they are both nothing but far right a-holes.

Then the far right Bernie Goldberg was on to cry about the media, and Howard Kurtz. Like anyone cares, but O'Reilly and his right-wing viewers. And of course, as I always point out, there is no Democratic media analyst on the Factor, which says a lot about O'Reilly. So Goldberg said Kurtz is a good guy, but that he was wrong to say people that deny the story about the racism against the Congressman are wrong, unless they can prove the n-word was used. Then Goldberg said if Congressman Lewis would go on the Factor and say he was called the n-word, he would believe him. WTF, are you kidding me, so if he does not go on the Factor and say it, then it's not true, give me a break, that's just ridiculous.

And btw, Goldberg also said he is a journalist, two times, he said I'm a journalist. Which is just laughable, Goldberg is a right-wing propagandist, that's not a journalist, it's called being a partisan spin doctor. What gets me is Goldberg and O'Reilly both say they are not calling Congressman Lewis a liar, when he says he was called the n-word. They say it could have happened, but there is no proof it did, because they do not have it on tape, which is basically calling him a liar, without using the word liar. And then they qualify it with, if Congressman Lewis goes on the Factor and says he was called the n-word they will believe it. How ridiculous is that, it's insanity.

Congressman Lewis is never going to do the Factor, for any reason, and he should not do it, because it's not a news show. It's a 99% right-wing smear zone, with 99% Republican viewers, so why would he even think about doing the Factor. And to suggest Congressman Lewis can only be believed if he does the Factor is just laughable.

The last segment was the always ridiculous Factor Reality Check. For anyone that does not know what this is, it's like a 2nd talking points memo. O'Reilly plays video of things liberals said and then he does what he calls a reality check on what they said. It's not reality, and there are usually no checks. Basically it's O'Reilly all alone putting his right-wing spin on something a liberal said. I do not report what he says, because it's not reality, and the checks are ridiculous. I will say this, all the so-called reality checks were on Democrats, as they almost always are. Somehow O'Reilly can almost never find a reality check to do on a Republican.

Here is an example of what a joke the Factor reality check is, one so-called check was video of a dog attacking a police car and chewing on the bumper. That's a reality check, on what, how, when, on what planet. O'Reilly reports on that nonsense, but he ignores the real news about the planned police attack by the right-wing militia group.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, the media was reporting all day Monday about the right-wing Christian militia group getting busted by the FBI for planning to target police. Nine people were charged with conspiring to kill police officers, then attack a funeral in the hopes of killing more law enforcement personnel. They even had Bible passage quotes on their website.

It's a big story, and of course O'Reilly ignored the whole thing, because it makes Republicans look bad. But he sure had time to report on Laura Ingraham on the Today show, and what Howard Kurtz said about Fox News. Now imagine what O'Reilly would say if a left-wing hate group targeted police to kill, Billy would flip his lid and report it every night for a week.

Not to mention, O'Reilly also ignored the video that shows the Tea Party nut spitting on the Democratic Congressman, even though he said if there is evidence it happened he will report it.

O'Reilly Says It's Possible Obama Could Ban Guns
By: Steve - March 30, 2010 - 8:30am

What happened to the Factor never speculates, as anyone who is a regular viewr of the Factor knows O'Reilly claims to never speculate, and to not even allow speculation on his show. Then he speculated that Obama could possibly ban guns, which is speculation, the speculating he claims to never do.

Here is the crazy video:



Now I know for a fact that this is nothing but pure 100% right-wing lies from O'Reilly, he just made it up, it's flat out nonsense. President Obama has never once said he would try to ban guns, ever, not once. And in fact, he supports gun ownership. And this garbage could make the nuts on the right even more dangerous by having them go buy more guns.

Here are the facts about Obama and guns, right from the Obama website, and btw O'Reilly could have easily read this, which I am sure he has, yet he speculated that Obama could possibly ban guns anyway. Here are the actual Obama positions on guns:
Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?

OBAMA: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?

OBAMA: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.
What President Obama is saying is that he believes in the right to bear arms, but that states have the right to make their own laws about who can own guns. Which is the exact same position most republicans have. Obama also said this:
Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?

OBAMA: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage.

And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.
Nowhere in any of that does Obama say he wants to ban guns, in fact, he says the opposite. That he respects the 2nd amendment, and that he supports all legal gun ownership.

O'Reilly Hypocrisy On Media Tea Party Attacks
By: Steve - March 30, 2010 - 8:00am

Think back to when O'Reilly reported on a few isolated negative comments about george W. Bush, or Tony Snow at the DailyKos blog and the Huffington Post. These websites get millions of visitors a day, but O'Reilly took a few hate speech comments by visitors to the website in the comments section and used them to smear the entire website.

O'Reilly's argument was that everyone there is guilty of hate speech because a few visitors left some hate speech comments on some of the articles that were posted there. Even though nobody who actually wrote for DailyKos or the Huffington Post said any of it. The comments were made by anonymous visitors in the free speech comments section. And once they were found by the monitors they were deleted.

O'Reilly said this about DailyKos: "The hate this site traffics in rivals the KKK and Nazi websites."

So he basically claims the entire website is all hate, based on the comments of a few people who left an anonymous comment on a blog posting or two, out of the millions of comments that are made every day. But when the media labels the Tea Party racist and full of hate for the things they did, O'Reilly defends them, and claims it was just a few far right loons so you can not call them all racists and hate mongers.

So he is taking the exact opposite position for the Tea Party that he did for the DailyKos. Last night O'Reilly claimed that connecting the threats and bigoted language to the tea party as a whole was a "grossly unfair" effort to brand the entire movement as a bunch of racists. Which is what he did to DailyKos when he said they are a hate site, based on a few isolated comments, that were not even made by anyone who writes for them.

Now think about this, the Tea Party people that said the racial statements and the hate speech are actual members of the Party. Unlike the anonymous comments made at Kos, who are not writers for the website.

Billy said this to Laura Ingraham:
O'REILLY: But the press showed no restraint at all in covering that story and immediately took that and branded the tea parties a bunch of racists. Now, that's the strategy. This is why it's a big story. Why I'm leading with it tonight on the Factor. And I got Al Sharpton in the seat. Because I can't get the others and that tells me something too. I can't get John Lewis and I can't get Emanuel Cleaver. These are the guys who made the accusations. They won't come on. That shows, that tells me something. But anyway, the strategy is on the left because the Tea Party movement is a danger to them to brand everybody in it as a racist.

INGRAHAM: Isn't that a sure sign of a scoundrel's refuge, though? I mean, you always go to the racist charge.

O'REILLY: Sure. Of course it's scoundrels. Of course, the left-wing media, you don't get more scoundrel than those people. And but that's what they're doing. You can see it. You can see it that any nut - and there are some nuts, Laura, in the Tea Party movement - any nut and anything will be used to brand the entire movement.
So O'Reilly is complaining about branding everyone in the Tea Party racists because of a few bad apples. Which is exactly what he did to DailyKos and the Huffington Post. And btw, nobody is saying EVERYONE in the Tea party is a racist, not me, not anyone, it has never happened. What the media is saying, and what I have said is that there are a lot of racists in the Tea party, we are not saying they are all racists.

O'Reilly lies about what we are saying, then claims it is wrong to label them all racists based on the actions of a few. When we are not doing that, even I have not said they are all racists, I just say they have a lot racists, which they do. Then he complains about branding them all racists based on what a few of them did, when that is exactly what he did with Kos and the Huffington Post.

It's a lie to claim the media said they are all racists, it's hypocrisy for O'Reilly to complain about it, and it's a double standard. Because he branded all of dailyKos and all of the Huffington post hate websites, based on a few isolated comments made by 3 or 4 anonymous posters out of millions of comments. While defending the tea party for the racist hate speech, when the things they said were made by actual members of the Tea party.

Video Proof Congressman Cleaver Was Spit On
By: Steve - March 29, 2010 - 9:30am

For over a week O'Reilly, Hannity, Fox News, every tea Party member, and virtually every Republican in America has denied Congressman Cleaver was spit on. They even said there was no proof it happened, that there was no video of it, and they can not find any witnesses who saw it.

Which is just ridiculous, because there are witnesses, they just refuse to believe them. And now there is an actual video that shows the Congressman getting spit on, by a Tea Party idiot in a white baseball hat. The video shows Congressman Cleaver waling by the man in the hat, then you see him wipe the spit off his face with his right hand, then he points to the man for the Capitol Police to arrest.

Then the man is arrested, but he was later released because Congressman Cleaver is a better man than I am, and refused to press charges against the spitter. If it was me, I would have pressed charges, and had the Capitol Police throw the bum in jail. But he is a better man than me, and he refused to press charges, so the man was let go with no arrest.

Now get this, Hannity offered a 10,000 reward for proof he was spit on. Time to pay up sucker, because over the weekend CNN showed the video of the spitting, so Hannity needs to write a check to CNN for $10.000.

The video can be seen here btw:

www.huffingtonpost.com/congressman-spit-on.html

And now the really good stuff, Fox News wrote an article about it where they claim the man was never arrested. But they admit he was detained by the Capitol Hill Police and put in handcuffs. Earth to idiots at Fox News, that is being arrested. If the POLICE grab you and put you in handcuffs, you have been arrested. The fact that he was later released does not mean he was not arrested, it just means they let him go after he was arrested.

Fox News wrote this in a March 22nd article, and I quote:
However, U.S. Capitol Police said the protester was never arrested. He was only detained and put in handcuffs, then released. Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, spokeswoman for the Capitol Police, told FoxNews.com the individual was released because Cleaver refused to identify him.

Asked about the Capitol Police account, Petrovic said it's not that Cleaver couldn't identify the suspect. It's that he wouldn't identify the suspect, because the police would have been "obligated" to make an arrest, which he didn't want.

"He was aware of that obligation and so he did not make an identification," she said. "He saw who did it and he could have identified that person if necessary. But he chose not to."

As for the initial claim that the the individual was arrested, Petrovic said staff members mistakenly presumed he had been arrested because he was in handcuffs.
So they admit he was arrested, then they claim he was not arrested because Congresman Cleaver refused to identify him, because he knew if he did the man would be sent taken to jail. But there was an arrest, he was just later released and not prosecuted, because Congressman Cleaver did not want the man to be prosecuted.

Now there is video of the spitting, but guess what one right-wing blogger said about it. This is so ridiculous it's pathetic, here is what D. Scriber said about the spitting on March 28th. I kid you not, he actually said this:
As for Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, he claimed one of the demonstrators, a guy in a white baseball cap spit on him. Now comes video from The Huffington Post, a politically left-of-center website, of the incident in question that is bound to create more questions than answers. While HuffPo's headline implies the video offers proof of the incident, it may also play into the hands of skeptics, like Fox News' Sean Hannity, who had offered a cash reward for proof of the spitting.

One theory sure to arise from the video is that the protester was yelling at Cleaver as phlegm flew accidentally from his mouth. In other words, the unidentified protester is what you might call a moist yeller, not a spitter.
And remember this, he said that after the video showing the spitting came out. He claims the Huffington Post video creates more questions than it does answers. Which is just ridiculous, because it clearly shows the Congressman getting spit on and wiping the spit off his face. Not to mention, it's not a Huffington Post video, it's a video from CNN.

Then he claims the spit was just phlegm that accidently flew from his mouth, and accidently landed right on the Congressmans face. He called the man a moist yeller. And I am sure he also believe that when Mike Tyson bit that guys ear off that was an accident too, yeah that's it, Tyson accidently bit the mans ear off.

They even claim the video creates more questions than answers, when it clearly shows the man spitting on Congressman Cleaver. So it does not create more questions, it proves he was spit on, case closed. And they even said that everyone at the protest denied it happened, so it never happened. When of course they are all going to deny it happened, because it makes them look like low life scum for spitting on a Democratic Congressman.

Which they are, I hate Republicans with a passion, but I would never spit on a Republican Congressman or Senator. And even with video proof they still deny it. Proving how ridiculous they are.

Republicans Using Replace & Repeal To Raise Money
By: Steve - March 29, 2010 - 8:30am

Republican leaders are now preaching this replace & repeal dishonesty, they claim if you vote them back into power they will repeal the Obama health reform bill, all of it, even the good parts that people like.

So guess what, even if you had a small majority of Republicans in the House, and a small majority of Republicans in the Senate, the Obama health reform bill is not going to be repealed. Because even if they pass a bill to repeal it, Obama will veto it. So they are lying to you, they are just suckering you morons into giving them money for their elections.

They are promising to do something they can not do, it's all a con game on you clueless right-wing stooges. And if you fall for it you are just stupid, not to mention you would be voting the same group of people back into power that ruined the country over the last 8 years. Not to mention, these Republicans would even be worse than Bush and Cheney.

Some Republicans even admit they can not repeal the bill, but they are running on it anyway, even though they know it is not possible. That's called dishonest campaign tactics, against their own people.

Republican Senator Jon Kyl said this: "Obviously, the president will not sign a repeal bill that the Congress passes, so that's more of a symbol. Barack Obama is the president. He would never sign a repeal law."

Newt Gingrich said this: "What you have to do is be politically honest. If the Republicans win a majority in the House and Senate next year, they will not be able to repeal the bill. The president would veto it."

So they admit they can not repeal it, and Gingrich says they should be honest and admit it. They they run the dishonest replace & repeal campaign anyway, just to get all the Republican suckers to give them money. And there you go Republicans, you can thank me for telling you the truth, even though you will ignore it because you morons don't give a damn about the truth.

Republicans Lie About Tea Party Crowd Size Again
By: Steve - March 29, 2010 - 8:00am

Last Saturday the Tea Party had a protest in Searchlight, NV. They were there to protest against the Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. And guess who the keynote speaker was, Sarah (air head) Palin. They spent weeks planning this protest, they did advertising on tv, radio, websites, everywhere.

So this big Tea Party protest with the great Sarah Palin there to speak, had a lousy 8,000 people. That's it, 8,000 people. Which is just sad, and when liberals protest something they usually get 100,000 or more to a protest.

And as usual all the right-wing blogs and of course Fox News lied about the crowd size. They funny part is that the right-wing blogs lied about the crowd size, then complained that the media was not reporting the same numbers they had. When they numbers they had were just made up, by the organizers of the protest.

They also lied about what was said in a Politico report on the protest. Newsbusters wrote this on their dishonest right-wing blog:
Politico's Kenneth Vogel had a little higher number, saying "an estimated 20,000 tea partiers gathered for a rally in a windswept desert lot," in his March 27 report on the event.
Sounds ok right, wrong, because that is not what it said, here is what the Politico story actually said:
VOGEL: "When we talk about fighting for our country, let's clear the air right now about what it is that we're talking about," she told a crowd estimated by organizers at 20,000 gathered for a rally in a windswept desert lot.
Vogel did not say the protest had 20,000 people, he quoted the organizers of the protest, who claimed they had 20,000 people. So then you ask, does anyone know how many people were there, and if so, who said it. And here is the answer to that question:
According to an estimate from Metro Police spokesman Jay Rivera, about 8,000 people were at the event.
This right-wing dishonesty was all over the internet, with many websites pointing to Politico and claiming it had independently confirmed the 20,000 number, without noting that all Politico did was pass along the organizers (dishonest) estimates.

On Fox News they covered the protest all day, they even showed the entire Sarah Palin speech live, then at one point Fox called it a Conservative Woodstock. Which is just laughable, they had 500,000 people at Woodstock, the Tea Party protest had 8,000 people. So there is no comparison, and anyone who compares that pathetic protest to Woodstock is just a moron.

And btw, O'reilly and most of the right want you to believe the Tea Party is not a conservative movement, and that they are not just a bunch of far right loons, who are even farther right than the average Republican. But if that's true, how come only the right-wing blogs lie about the crowd size at all their lame protests. And how come all the protest speakers are Republicans, Palin, Beck, Bachmann, and on and on.

They target nothing but Democrats, and all their speakers are Republicans, if that is not a conservative movement there is no such thing. Making O'Reilly and anyone who says it is not a conservative movement a dishonest liar.

This Tea Party nonsense is a joke, it's a small group of right-wing nuts who want to vote every Democrat out of office, and they also want to get rid of any moderate Republican who ever voted with the Democrats on anything. At best they are 1000th of 1 percent of the American people.

And here is something they expect people to forget, the Republicans just ran the country for 8 years with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in power. And look what happened, they destroyed everything, the housing market, the stock market, the job market, the banks, the financial markets, and they put the economy into a deep 2 year recession, which was almost a depression.

But they want us to vote Republicans back into power, give me a break, they should never have power again after what they did in that 8 years from 2000 to 2008. So remember this folks, we already had 8 years of Republicans, and they destroyed the country by letting the wealthy and the Corporations do whatever they want with no regulation. So this November remember that and vote for anyone but a Republican or a Tea Party loser.

The Week After Health Care Reform Passed
By: Steve - March 29, 2010 - 7:30am

Here is a great review of what the dishonest Republicans did (including O'Reilly) in the week after the Obama health reform bill passed. It was written by Dianna Parker at Media Matters, she details almost all of the lies and spin from Republicans. Here is what she wrote.

The week that followed the end of America as we know it

This week was a big deal, folks. And it's not because America, as we know it, is over. Congress passed major health care reform legislation -- even though the media declared it "dead" just two months ago -- and President Obama signed it into law.

On Monday, we rubbed our eyes after a long, difficult year of debate, took a look around, and realized two things had happened that would affect our lives: The U.S. has a new health care system that extends benefits to millions of the uninsured, and Rush Limbaugh decided he is not moving to Costa Rica after all.

When "Armageddon" didn't rain down after health care was passed, as the conservative media warned that it would, Fox News and the noise machine scrambled to find new ways to delegitimize the law, basically hurling every argument possible at it to see what stuck.

Here's what they came up with: On-the-fence Democrats who voted "aye" were BRIBED!

The Drudge Report, Bret Baier, Eric Bolling, Betsy McCaughey, Bill O'Reilly, and right-wing blogs saw something fishy behind federal grants given to airports in Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-MI) district and suggested that the funds may have bought his vote. (No matter that the grants were awarded in 47 states, including in Republican districts.)

Fox News Andrew Napolitano claimed Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) "changed his vote to yes" after his brother was offered a judgeship. (Oops: Matheson voted against the bill.) Napolitano also accused Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) of changing his vote after the Justice Department ended an ethics investigation on him. (Mollohan's vote was the same before and after the investigation ended.)

The media also revived the falsehood that the bill funds abortions with taxpayer dollars, focusing their attacks on Stupak over his support for finalizing the bill. Gateway Pundit seized on Rep. Randy Neugebauer's (R-TX) accusation that Stupak supported a "baby-killer" bill, and Glenn Beck said Stupak was going to "lose his soul" and that he wanted to be "right behind" Stupak at eternal judgment.

The conservative media also pushed the idea that the law could be voided because it isn't constitutional. By Wednesday, Fox News had interviewed at least nine Republican state attorneys general to promote their efforts to overturn the law through lawsuits.

Legal scholars, however, dispute that the law is unconstitutional, noting that regulation of the health care sector falls under Congress' broad power to regulate interstate commerce. Even Newt Gingrich, who said he's "glad" the AGs are suing, called winning an "outside chance."

As always, claims about the bill and its supporters devolved to baseless name-calling. There was the creative: health reform is like the Black Plague, the Jonestown massacre, the Day the Music Died, etc. The shameless: health reform is like Pearl Harbor and the Hindenburg. The old and tired: "The Democratic Party now officially is the Socialist Party." And the bottom of the barrel: cost analysts at the Congressional Budget Office are just a "bunch of liars."

The debate this week also took a very serious turn toward violence. When news broke that several Democrats in Congress had been threatened with physical violence and racial and anti-gay epithets, the conservative media initially condemned it. And then they accused, and denied, and rationalized.

Gretchen Carlson said it's "disappointing" that Democrats decided to publicly discuss the threats because it's "such a political thing" and suggested they "stop discussing it altogether." Brian Kilmeade asked whether Democrats were "using" the threats "to their advantage to marginalize Republican opposition," and Sean Hannity wondered whether the attention brought to racial slurs was an "effort to smear conservatives."

The Washington Times quoted Dale Robertson, founder of teaparty.org, in an article as saying that Democrats are "trying to label the tea party [as racist], but I've never seen any racial slurs." So much for source vetting: Robertson is the tea partier who was kicked out of a 2009 tea party event at which he carried a sign reading, "Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar."

Beck, who repeatedly stoked fear this week over health care reform passing with violent rhetoric like "war" and "armed insurrection," said the administration was "poking and prodding" and "begging" opponents of the bill to commit violence, and that Obama "punched" Americans in the face with health reform. Beck also compared this time to the "second American Revolution" and wondered if progressives would have "killed us all" if reform had failed.

Sarah Palin took to her Facebook page with a mapped list of House Democrats who voted for health care reform with rifle scope crosshairs aimed at their locations. In a March 23 tweet about her map, Palin wrote: "Don't Retreat, Instead -- RELOAD!"

Bartlett: David Frum Firing Shows GOP Corrupt
By: Steve - March 28, 2010 - 9:00am

Former Bush speechwriter David Frum - who famously authored the phrase "axis of evil" - has been unceremoniously forced out from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a right wing, neoconservative think tank. Frum's dismissal resulted from criticism he directed at the Republican Party for staking a failed strategic posture of no compromise on health care. As a result, "it's Waterloo all right: ours," Frum wrote to his fellow conservatives.

Right-wing donors to AEI began raising concerns about Frum. So, AEI president Arthur Brooks took Frum out to lunch this week to tell him that, while he valued a diversity of opinion, he wanted to downgrade Frum to a nonsalaried position. Frum declined the offer and posted a letter of resignation on his personal website.

On his personal blog, Bartlett referred to Frum's departure from AEI as "the closing of the conservative mind." He elaborated further yesterday morning on C-Span's Washington Journal:
BARTLETT: What's really going on here is that adherence to conservative principles has been - is out the window now. All that matters now is absolute subservient adherence to the Republican Party line of the day. And that's what got David into trouble. He was critical, not even of Republican principles, but of Republican tactics on the health care debate. And now, even that is considered, you know, you can't say that or you lose your job.
On his blog yesterday, Bartlett ripped AEI saying this: "The organization has lost an enormous amount of credibility by firing him and hiring Republican political hacks like Marc Thiessen. That's a statement I will never need to retract."

Gingrich Says Democrats To Blame For Death Threats
By: Steve - March 28, 2010 - 8:30am

What a ridiculous statement, the people to blame for the death threats are the idiots making the death threats. What happened to Personal Responsibility, one of the main platforms of the Republican party is Personal Responsibility.

Republicans normally claim you are responsible for what you do, but now they are singing a different tune and blaming the Democrats for the death threats they are getting from right-wing nuts. Which just shows what two faced hypocrites they are, they have one standard for when a Republican does something, and a different standard for when a Democrat does something.

Since Congress’s health care debate, lawmakers have recieved countless death threats, had their buildings vandalized, have had white powder mailed to their offices, and have had to get police protection. One tea party blogger has even warned that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) life is in danger and that there may be a “thousand little Waco’s.” But Thursday, former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich spoke alongside Gov. Sonny Perdue at a press conference in Atlanta organized to air Republican opposition to the health care bill that just passed. At one point, Gingrich was asked about the death threats and vandalism lawmakers who supported the bill have been recieving.

After stressing that "there is no place for this viciousness" and condemning the various threats and violent acts, Gingrich went on to explain that the Democratic leadership has to take some moral responsibility for encouraging death threats and terrorism because of the way they conducted the health care debate:
GINGRICH: I would condemn any kind of activity that involves that kind of personal threat. But look, I think there's something very disingenuous about the Democratic leaders who attacked the tea party movement, who refused to hold town hall meetings, who refused to go back home, who kept the Congress locked up in Washington, and are now shocked that people are angry. I think the Democratic leadership has to take some moral responsibility for having behaved with such arrogance, in such a hostile way, that the American people are deeply upset.

So let's be honest with this. This is a game that they're playing. People should not engage in personal threats. I'm happy to condemn any effort to engage in personal threats. But I think the Democratic leadership has to take some real responsibility for having run a machine that used corrupt tactics, that bought votes, that bullied people, and as a result has enraged much of the American people. And I think it'd be nice for President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid to take some responsibility over what their actions have done to this country.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Gingrich has accused his political opponents of provoking terrorism. After the tragic Virginia Tech shootings, he called on the liberal elite to "take responsibility" for creating a world where such tragedies were possible.

And on the eve of the 2006 elections, Gingrich appeared on Fox News and said that the the Democrats "whole approach is to blame America for what, in fact, terrorists do." It appears now that Gingrich is blaming America in an attempt to rationalize right-wing terrorism.

This is crazy talk from Gingrich, it's nothing but right-wing propaganda. President Obama and the Democrats in Congress simply did what they said they would do in the 2008 Presidential election, pass health care reform. They simply followed through on a campaign promise, and if they had not passed it, O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends would hammer Obama for breaking his campaign promise.

The people to blame for the death threats and the violence are the right-wing a-holes that did it, not the Democrats who simply passed a health care bill that gives 35 million more Americans health care. And the nuts that are mad on the right, are mad because they have been misinformed about what's in the bill. They were misinformed by O'Reilly, Fox News, and every Republican in America.

So if anyone is to blame, other than the nuts doing the death threats, it's the Republicans who made them mad by lying to them about what is actually in the bill, and that includes Bill O'Reilly, who helped the Republicans spread those lies on his #1 rated cable news show. Now that is some real no spin, from www.oreilly-sucks.com.

Republican Lied About Gunshot To His Office
By: Steve - March 28, 2010 - 9:30am

The Richmond Police, the Washington Post, and the NY Times are reporting the shot that hit Republican Congressman Eric Cantor's office was random. Richmond police spokesman Gene Lepley said the bullet that hit U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor's campaign office in downtown Richmond early Tuesday was random. A preliminary investigation indicated that the bullet was probably not aimed at his office.
LEPLEY: "It is a stray bullet as part of random gunfire."
Cantor announced Thursday at a news conference in Washington that his office had been fired at. His exact words were: "Just recently I have been directly threatened. A bullet was shot through the window of my campaign office in Richmond this week."

That is a lie, a bullet did hit a window in the building where his office is, but his office window was not hit, and it hit on a downward trajectory that barely had enough impact to break the window. Police confirmed that a bullet struck a window, landing on the floor about a foot from the window. The round struck with enough force to break the window but did not penetrate the blinds.

The investigation indicated that the incident in question took place around 1 a.m. Tuesday, when a bullet was fired into the air, striking the office window as it traveled back downward, the Richmond police said in a statement.

Cantor's office is in a small building several blocks from Capitol Square. It has several offices in it. There are no Cantor signs on the doors or windows. According to the Richmond police, "an unknown person shot a firearm into the air and that on the way back down the bullet broke a window in a building where Cantor has an office."

It's an unmarked two-story brick building, the bullet "finished its arc back to earth at a sharp downward trajectory, breaking a window pane on the bottom floor of the two-story brick building where Cantor's campaign leases the top floor."

And btw, the Washington Post called Congressman Cantor for a statement on their story and he refused to comment. A spokesman for Mr. Cantor also refused to return two phone calls from the NY Times, or respond to an e-mail message seeking a comment. It is now clear that Cantor used this random shooting incident to try and change the news coverage that was making Republicans look bad, an age old republican tactic.

It's also clear that O'Reilly reported the lie without checking to see what the actual facts were. And now that we know Cantor was lying when he said he was shot at, O'Reilly has not done a follow up to report the truth, or do a correction.

The Friday 3-26-10 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - March 27, 2010 - 9:00am

Laura (far right nut) Ingraham was the fill in host. And let me say this, O'Reilly claims to be a nonpartisan independent with a no spin zone. Those are his words, he denies he is a Republican, and claims to be an objective nonpartisan independent journalist. He has said it a hundred times, over and over for years.

Then he had Laura (fricking) Ingraham fill in for him. Who is about as far right as you can get, she is the female version of Sean Hannity. She filled in for O'Reilly and spent the entire hour spewing out non-stop right-wing propaganda, nothing she said in the whole hour was true, it was all right-wing talking points and spin.

Is that what a nonpartisan independent journalist does with his show when he is not there, put Laura Ingraham on to spin out non-stop right-wing propaganda. I don't think so, that is what a partisan Republican does with his show. If O'Reilly were a real nonpartisan independent Ingraham would never be allowed to host his show. Hell she would probably not even be allowed to be a guest, let alone fill in host.

The fact that O'Reilly has Laura Ingraham as his fill in host is 100% proof that he is a Republican, because only a Republican would let her fill in for him. Notice that no Democrat is ever allowed to fill in, it's always Ingraham or another Republican. It's ridiculous, and just laughable to claim you are an objective nonpartisan independent journalist, then have Laura Ingraham as your fill in host.

And now, I am not going to do a full review of the Factor with Laura Ingraham, because it was basically unwatchable non-stop right-wing propaganda, that is not even worth reporting on. It was 10 times worse than O'Reilly, she had a few Democrats on but constantly cut them off and talked over them so they could barely get a word out. But when she talked to a Republican guest, they were never cut off or talked over. It was just pathetic, and I would compare it to watching the Sean Hannity show.

In one segment crazy Ingraham had the right-wing stooge James Hirsen on to claim Nickelodeon is biased, because they honored Michelle Obama for her war against childhood obesity. Which may be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. How in the hell is that bias, it's not even political. They are simply honoring her for trying to fight childhood obesity, it's insane to claim they are biased for that. Hirsen and Ingraham even called it political indoctrination, which is just crazy talk from two insane right-wing nuts.

And that was not even the most crazy segment on the show, in another segment Ingraham had a liberal talk radio host, Mike Papantonio on to discuss the Palin rifle scope crosshair map and her hate speech, something O'Reilly has totally ingored btw. In that segment Ingraham defended Palin and said she did nothing wrong. Papantonio said, "and you put sniper scope crosshairs on the people you're talking about, it's like screaming 'fire' in a jammed theater. Ingraham said it's free speech, but free speech is not putting scope crosshairs on a political map.

She also had the totally crazy Col. Ralph Peters on to trash Obama on foreign policy, particularly regarding Iran. But they never said a word about the nuclear deal Obama got with Russia. This Col. Peters is the Dick Morris of military analysis, he never likes anything Obama does, no matter what. He is as biased as it gets, he is simply put on to smear Obama, it's total one sided right-wing bias. And there is never a Democratic military analyst on with him, before him, or after him. Fox news even has the Democratic General Wes Clark on the payroll, but they never use him, it's always crazy Col. Peters, or the even crazier Col. David Hunt.

It was like watching a female version of Sean Hannity. To be honest, I could barely watch the whole show, it was so ridiculous and so biased I almost turned it off. Ingraham is about as annoying as a person can be, with that nasal nose voice, constantly talking over the Democratic guests, cutting off everything they tried to say, it was just terrible to watch.

And this was done on the so-called no spin zone, when it was all right-wing spin. Ingraham even opened the show by pointing her finger at the camera and saying Caution you are entering the no spin zone. Which was probably the most ridiculous thing she did in the whole show. When you are a certified right-wing lunatic, who puts out nothing but right-wing propaganda, you can not be saying it's a no spin zone. it's not even true when O'Reilly says it, let alone the far far right Ingraham.

As far as the guest list goes Ingraham was more balanced than O'Reilly ever is, she had 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats. But she constantly talked over the Democrats and cut them off after every 5 words they said, while never doing that to the Republican guests. Making her segments with the Democrats unwatchable, she just spewed out non-stop right-wing talking points even after the guests disputed them. She basically had the Democratic guests on to disrespect them and talk over them. It was not an interview, it was a lecture.

And that is my review of the Friday night Ingraham Factor, it was unwatchable total right-wing propaganda.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About IRS & Health Care Bill
By: Steve - March 27, 2010 - 8:30am

Wednesday night O'Reilly said this in his dishonest talking points memo:
O'REILLY: The IRS will increase its enormous power because it will monitor what kind of health insurance you have, and if you don't have any you will be punished.

Also, your health records will be transferred to the federal government. So if you have an embarrassing condition, people in Washington could know about it.

All of this infringes on personal freedom, and that is very troubling. It's also very simple. Do you want bureaucrats to know about your medical history? Do you want the IRS tracking not only your income but your insurance expenditures?

So the fears seem to be justified.
Too bad it's all a lie, which is what Congressman Weiner told O'Reilly, then he was called a liar by not only O'Reilly, but also Laura Ingraham the next night when he was not there to defend himself. O'Reilly said the IRS is going to monitor what kind of health insurance you have, lie, and that the bureaucrats in Washington will know what embarrassing medical condition you have, lie.

None of that is true, and it all started as a Republican talking point in a March 18th press release put out by the Republican Kevin Brady (R-TX). It was right-wing propaganda put out by the Republican staff of Congressman Brady. Then O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends spread the lie to scare people into thinking the IRS was going to monitor it, and come to get you.

That press release is not based on facts, it's based on one biased report from a Republican Congressman's staff. Conservatives have come up with a new line of attack to scare the American public: The IRS will be tracking you down if you don't purchase health insurance. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) fueled the scare in a March 18 press release, announcing the findings of a study by his Republican Hill staff.

This news quickly spread to conservative media outlets, which hyperbolized the claim with statements like: the IRS will now oversee health control and determine whether you are compliant, and the IRS will now be responsible for finding and punishing those who don't have acceptable health insurance. An article on the Daily Caller even published a headline saying, "IRS looking to hire thousands of tax agents to enforce health care laws" accompanied by a picture of armed soldiers.

But Thursday during a Congressional Committee hearing, IRS Commissioner Daniel Shulman made clear that all these claims are nothing but misinformation. He said Brady's analysis was premature because the IRS is still figuring out the resources it will need to implement the tax provisions in the health care legislation. He also completely refuted the notion that IRS agents would be going after people to see if they have acceptable health care.
SHULMAN: The way we envision this working is that HHS, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the exchanges will be working with the insurance companies to determine what is acceptable coverage.

There are not going to be any discussions about health coverage with an IRS employee.

KIND: And no taxpayer is going to be subject to any IRS liens or levies, or jail time, for failing to disclose insurance requirements to the IRS?

SHULMAN: That is what the legislation calls for, yes.
And btw, nobody is going to see your medical records but your doctor. Those medical records are off limits to everyone except your doctor. So O'Reilly was lying about that too. What O'Reilly also failed to report is that Homeland Security can already see your medical records if they want to, which was part of the Patriot Act that was passed under Bush. But O'Reilly never said a word about that, he only complains when we have a Democratic president.

And unless someone at Homeland Security wants to see your medical records, nobody will see them but your doctor. So if you are not a suspected terrorist, nobody in the Government is going to see your medical records.

So basically O'Reilly based his dishonest IRS claims on one biased press release put out by one Republican Congressman. He did not even ask anyone at the IRS if it is true, or have anyone from the IRS on his show to discuss it. Which proves he did not want to get to the truth, that he just wanted to scare people with right-wing propaganda put out by one Republican Congressman. And that's called journalism, haha, not.

Road Rage Attack Over Obama Bumper Sticker
By: Steve - March 27, 2010 - 8:00am

And the old right-wing nut did it while the guy had his 10 year old daughter in the car with him. Just look at this guy, I hate to stereotype people, but don't this fool look just like the typical right-wing Tea Party protester, old, white, Republican, and stupid.



Here is the full story:

NASHVILLE - A Nashville man says he and his 10-year-old daughter were victims of road rage Thursday afternoon, all because of a political bumper sticker on his car.

Mark Duren told News 2 the incident happened around 4:30p.m., while he was driving on Blair Boulevard, not far from Belmont University.

He said Harry Weisiger gave him the bird and rammed into his vehicle, after noticing an Obama-Biden sticker on his car bumper.

Duren had just picked up his 10-year-old daughter from school and had her in the car with him. "He pointed at the back of my car," Duren said, "the bumper, flipped me off, one finger salute." But it didn't end there.

Duren told News 2 that Weisiger honked his horn at him for awhile, as Duren stopped at a stop sign.

Once he started driving again, down Blair Boulevard, towards his home, he said, "I looked in the rear view mirror again, and this same SUV was speeding, flying up behind me, bumped me."

Duren said he applied his brake and the SUV smashed into the back of his car. He then put his car in park to take care of the accident, but Weisiger started pushing the car using his SUV. Duren said, "He pushed my car up towards the sidewalk, almost onto the sidewalk."

Police say Harry Weisiger is charged with felony reckless endangerment in the incident.

Republican Hypocrisy On The CBO Numbers
By: Steve - March 26, 2010 - 10:00am

Since the Obama health reform bill passed the House on Sunday and was signed into law on Tuesday, Republicans have escalated their dishonest attacks and called for repealing the bill. Unsurprisingly, their talking points are just as fact-free and disingenuous as they were leading up the bill's passage.

For example, Tuesday night on Fox, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) said Obama is just plain wrong in saying that Medicare recipients won't have their benefits cut. As evidence, Gregg cited the Congressional Budget Office, which he called the independent score keeper:
GREGG: You can go to CBO. I don't have the language right in front of me, but CBO -- to paraphrase CBO, what they said was that the reductions in Medicare in the big bill, which the president signed today, and in the reconciliation bill, will lead not to more solvency in Medicare but will be spent on new programs that have nothing to do with Medicare. They were very forthright about this. And they are the independent score keeper.
Yet on the very same day, when Campbell Brown pointed out the CBO's projection that the bill will reduce the deficit, Gregg changed his tune:
BROWN: Do you not believe in those numbers?

GREGG: Of course not. If you believe those numbers, I will sell you a bridge in Brooklyn and probably two in Oakland.
So Gregg cites the CBO numbers, and claims they are accurate, when he likes what they say, but then he says the CBO numbers are bogus when he does not like what they say. That's called dishonest partisan politics, and massive hypocrisy.

Then on top of all that, Gregg is wrong. The CBO said that the reconciliation package the House passed on Sunday extends Medicare solvency "by at least 9 years" and actually lowers spending per Medicare beneficiary from 8 percent growth rate to 6 percent without cutting benefits.

And in fact, the CBO also said the bill reduces the deficit by $138 billion over the the first 10 years and $1.2 trillion over the second 10 years.

The Thursday 3-25-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 26, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Enforcing Obama-Care. O'Reilly trashed Congressman Weiner, when he was not there. He called the Congressman a liar, when the only liar is O'Reilly. The IRS does not enforce the bill as O'Reilly claimed, they only enforce the collection of the penalty if you do not get the health care. So Weiner was right, yet O'Reilly said he was wrong, and called him a liar, when he was not there.

The health reform bill has passed O'Reilly, it's over, yet O'Reilly just keeps talking about it. Earth to O'Reilly, move on, it's over. Start attacking Obama for something else, the health reform bill is done, it passed, you lost, game over.

Then the far right Laura Ingraham was on all alone to discuss it, with no Democratic guest as usual. Crazy Ingraham said the Democrats who are worried about violence are desperate to change the subject from health care. Which is just ridiculous, Obama had a public signing of the bill, and dared Republicans to run against it in November. That's celebrating it, not trying to change the subject. And btw, after a year of health care debate everyone is tired of talking about it, that's not changing the subject, it's moving on after the bill has been passed. The people want to move on to the next issue, not talk about health care after it's already passed. Which just goes to show that Ingraham is crazy.

And get this, Republican Eric Cantor reports that a bullet was shot through his office window. So O'Reilly reported that, but he ignored the 20 other reports of violence against Democrats. Then O'Reilly and Ingraham both trashed Congressman Weiner and called him a liar. Here is the truth, the IRS has nothing to do with enforcing the Obama health reform bill, as O'Reilly claimed, unless you do not buy it, then there will be a penalty, and if you do not pay the penalty the IRS will come after you to get it.

So O'Reilly was the liar, and Congressman Weiner was right. Weiner did not deny the IRS would enforce the penalty, all he did was call out O'Reilly for lying that the IRS would enforce the entire bill. If you get the insurance, then you will not have to pay the penalty, so the IRS will have nothing to do with it, unless you do not get the insurance, and they have to collect the penalty.

Then Ann Coulter was on (in person) to talk about her speech being canceled in fricking Canada. Which is just ridiculous, to begin with nobody cares, n-o-b-o-d-y. It's only a story with Republicans like O'Reilly, the rest of America could care less that Ann Coulter had a speech canceled in Canada. If it had been canceled in America it would be a story, but it happened in Canada, so not one person here cares. O'Reilly called it the most controversial story of the day, haha, what a joke.

It's only a controversial story with O'Reilly, nobody else cares. And the most controversial story of the day are the death threats against Democrats, which O'Reilly totally ignored, except for a 2 second mention to say the Democrats are just using it for political reasons, which is exactly what the GOP talking points are on the issue. And btw, O'Reilly keeps saying the Coulter speech was shut down by the protesters, that is a lie. The people who asked her to give the speech decided to cancel it, it was their decision, so it was not shut down by the protesters. O'Reilly played it as if Coulter was the victim, when she is the hate monger who puts out the hate speech.

Then O'Reilly had Megyn Kelly on to imply that President Obama made an illegal deal with Congressman Sestak to have him drop out of an election. Billy and Megyn called for an Investigation. Then O'Reilly speculated, and said he is speculating, but that he is speculating with hard evidence. Which is just a flat out lie, there is no hard evidence, and O'Reilly said he never speculates, after he just speculated. It may turn out to be true, it may not, but there is clearly not any hard evidence, it's all speculation at this point.

They also talked about the Navy Seal abuse case against a detainee, and they both preditced he will be found not guilty. Then they cried about a judge who dropped a case of domestic violence against a man, because he married the woman he beat up. Billy and Megyn were outraged. I say who cares, it was a crappy little local domestic violence case. And the woman later married the guy.

Then the culture warriors were on, Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson. Who are both Republicans, and there are no Democratic culture warriors. They complained about a school that helped a 15 year old girl get an abortion without her mothers permission. And for once I agree with them, I think the school was wrong, because the girl is a minor. I believe the parents should be told if their 15 year old daughter is pregnant. Then they talked about a new study about models who are normal size, which is tabloid garbage that I will not report on.

Then the crazy far right nut Glenn Beck was on for his regular weekly segment. And the fact that O'Reilly has this far right lunatic on for a regular weekly segment, is more proof he is a partisan Republican, because he does not have a far left nut equal to Beck on every week. The interview was taped Wednesday night, O'Reilly asked Beck what Obama will do next to make Beck mad. Beck said illegal immigration. Then the crazy Beck said Obama has to make the American people look like radicals, whatever the hell that means. Which is just insane, and the rest of this garbage was not even worth reporting, it's the usual Beck insanity. He said it was slavery, and like what Hitler did, O'Reilly even told him to stop it with the Hitler stuff.

I will say this, O'Reilly actually made a good joke. Beck asked him what he does to discipline his kids, and he said make them watch Beck's show. Now that's funny. The rest of the Beck segment was just the same old ridiculous right-wing lies and propaganda. With no Democratic guest to counter any of his lies. And of course nothing about the death threats to Democrats or any of that.

The last segment was the total waste of tv time, Great American News Quiz. O'Reilly has Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum on to take this ridiculous news quiz every week. And of course there are no Democrats on to take it, only the two Republicans. It's not news, and it has no news value at all. And I refuse to report on it because it nonsense, on a so-called hard news show. One question was what is Snoop Dogg's real first name, and that's news?

Then the lame pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. O'Reilly named Congressman Rangel the pinhead, even though you had a week of Republican pinheads he could have named.

And for the record, O'Reilly has still not talked about any of the death threats the Democratic Congressman and Senators are getting. It's been the biggest story in the country for 4 days now, and O'Reilly has pretty much ignored it. He will not even speak out against Palin using the words target, reload, and aim on her facebook page, or the rifle scope crosshairs on her political map.

That means O'Reilly supports her doing it, and it means he supports the right-wing nuts who are sending the death threats. Because in his own words he has said if you see hate, and you do not speak out against it, you support it. And btw, O'Reilly had 9 Republicans on the show, with exactly 0 Democrats, not even a pretend Democrat, 9 to 0. Not one Democrat on the show to talk about the Death Threats to Democratic Congressman, the white powder letter, etc.

What Happens When A Republican Tells The Truth
By: Steve - March 26, 2010 - 9:00am

He gets fired, Conservative commentator David Frum has lost his job at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing public policy think tank, four days after he called the Republican Party's opposition to U.S. health-care reform the "most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s."

Frum, who has been a resident fellow at the AEI since 2003, announced the "termination" of his position on his blog on Thursday, saying the decision was made over lunch with AEI President Arthur Brooks.

"I appreciate the consideration that delays my emptying of my office until after my return from travel next week. Premises will be vacated no later than April 9," Mr. Frum wrote in his resignation letter to Mr. Brooks. "I have had many fruitful years at the American Enterprise Institute, and I do regret this abrupt and unexpected conclusion of our relationship."

He has also criticized the country's right-wing media organizations, whose popular celebrity hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, he says are ruining the party brand. Last year he called Rush Limbaugh a "walking stereotype of self-indulgence - exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party."

On Tuesday, in an interview with ABC, Frum said that Republicans were under the impression that TV network FOX worked for them, but now "we're discovering we work for FOX."

"This balance here has been completely reversed. The thing that sustains a strong Fox network is the thing that undermines a strong Republican party," he said.

Bruce Bartlett, a columnist for Forbes.com, said Mr. Frum, a friend, recently told him that AEI's health-care experts were ordered not to speak to the media because there were many parts to President Obama's plan that they agreed with.

"It wouldn't surprise me at all if some big donor to AEI saw David's comments about this being a Waterloo for the Republicans, and called up saying 'Forget about getting another penny from me' unless you get rid of this guy," said Mr. Bartlett, who was also fired by a right-wing think tank, the National Centre for Policy Analysis, for writing a book criticizing George W. Bush's policies in 2005.

So as you can see if a Republican tells the truth about another Republican they get fired. Not to mention, they were told not to speak about the Obama health reform bill because they agreed with most of it. Proving they are dishonest partisan hacks.

McCain Refuses To Condemn Palin Reload Rhetoric
By: Steve - March 26, 2010 - 8:30am

Since the House passed health care reform on Sunday, Democratic lawmakers who voted for the bill have received death threats and been victims of vandalism. While some Republicans have condemned these incidents, on Tuesday, Sarah Palin fanned the flames by labeling a map of vulnerable Democratic districts with crosshairs on her Facebook page and tweeting, "Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: 'Don't Retreat, Instead -- RELOAD!'"

This morning, NBC's Ann Curry asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) if he believed his former running mate should use less incendiary language. McCain condemned any violence but bristled at the suggestion that her use of such violent imagery was inappropriate in light of the atmosphere of threats against lawmakers. "Those are fine. They're used all the time," he said:
MCCAIN: I have seen the rhetoric of targeted districts as long as I've been in politics. Please. This is -- any threat of violence is terrible, but to say that there is a targeted district or that we reload or go back in to the fight again, please. Those are fine. They're used all the time. That rhetoric and kind of language is just part of the political lexicon.

CURRY: I think it is the reload and crosshairs that's caused a lot of people to be concerned, Senator.

MCCAIN: Maybe it has and we condemn any violence, any threats of violence. But I've heard all of that language throughout my political career, that anger should be channeled into voter registration and go continue the struggle that we're in to regain America and stop mortgaging our children's futures.
So basically John McCain supports the death threats, the violent rhetoric, and targeting Democrats with rifle scope crosshairs. And the great journalist Bill O'Reilly is still ignoring all of this when it's a big story on every news show in America, except the Factor.

Periello Slams GOP Leaders In Washington
By: Steve - March 26, 2010 - 8:00am

Democratic lawmakers are increasingly coming out and reporting incidents of harassment in response to their vote for health care reform. In addition to previously reported vandalism in Kansas, New York, Ohio, and Arizona -- as well as disturbing threats surrounding Reps.

Tom Periello, James Clyburn, and Bart Stupak (D-MI) have received images of nooses sent to their offices and had their personal information publicly distributed. At least 10 lawmakers have requested extra security after receiving death threats, and Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL) said that "he knows several Democrats who have told their spouses to move out of the home districts while the lawmakers are in Washington."

The response from the GOP leadership in Washington has been disappointing. They have continued to incite their base with dangerous rhetoric -- such as RNC Chairman Michael Steele this week saying that voters should "start getting Nancy ready for the firing line" -- and shied away from outright condemnation of the harassment.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said the violence and threats were unacceptable, but went on to encourage the anger by telling people to put it into political campaigns: "I know there's anger, but let's take that anger and go out and register people to vote, go volunteer on a political campaign, and let's do it the right way."

Today, Periello went on CNN and called out the GOP leadership -- in particular, Boehner -- for his offensive and outrageous response:
PERIELLO: I thought it his statement was fairly outrageous. What he was saying was, for those of you who are threatening people’s children, we want you to channel that anger into the campaign. No, we want those people to go to jail.

People doing these things outside of the law, these people need to be prosecuted, not brought into the campaign room. Those who are simply upset about health care and have every right to do so, they need to be part of the political process, in the same way that all of those who support health care do.
While a few Republicans are now speaking out against it, most Republicans dismiss it. The spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee said that while his organization doesn't condone the harassment, it should be pointed out that Periello and others aren't real victims.

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) condemned the inappropriate behavior, but blamed Democrats for fanning these flames. "I'm a bit concerned about how it's been handled around here in a public way because I think it just tends to fan the flames."

So somehow in Cantorworld it's the Democrats fault for getting death threats. And the NRCC even blamed Periello, they said this is a second statement:

NRCC: "Deplorable as it is, we're not going to allow Tom Periello to use one isolated incident as a cynical ploy to distract Virginians from the higher taxes and Medicare cuts he just imposed on them. Thousands of Rep. Periello's constituents have legitimately expressed their frustration with him via letters, rallies and town hall meetings, and we will always support their right to do so.

So the NRCC also thinks it's Tom Periello's fault he is getting death threats. And they also claim it's one isolated incident, which is a massive lie. The Republicans are crazy, and they are denying reality.

White Powder Sent To Democratic Congressman
By: Steve - March 25, 2010 - 8:30pm

One day after appearing on the O'Reilly Factor, Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner had a threatening letter and white powder sent to his New York office. Here is the AP story on it:

3-25-10 -- New York Police Department field tests have ruled a white powder sent with a threatening letter to the Queens office of Congressman Anthony Weiner is not hazardous.

The letter with suspicious white powder was discovered Thursday afternoon at his office in Kew Gardens.

Police say the letter was handwritten in block letters and made a threat related to Weiner's vote in favor of the sweeping federal health care legislation.

Workers were decontaminated as a precaution. More sophisticated lab testing was also to be done to determine the substance.

Many Democrats around the country who supported the new legislation have had bricks hurled through windows and menacing obscenity-laced phone messages left.

Weiner says his first priority is to his staff. The office is closed.

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

And the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly is ignoring it all, he has not said one word about any of it, nothing, not a word. Imagine what he would say if it was happening to Republicans, and how much he would report it. It would be in the TPM and the Top Story every night, if Democrats were doing it. But when Republicans do it he is as silent as a mouse. Proving once again that O'Reilly is a partisan right-wing hack.

Republicans Admit Health Care Repeal Is Political
By: Steve - March 25, 2010 - 8:00pm

Here you go O'Reilly, you claim to be a journalist, so when are you going to report this. The Republicans admit their claims to repeal the Obama health care bill are impossible. Because President Obama is never going to repeal his own bill. Here is what they said, in their own words.

All this week, Republicans have said that repealing the health reform bill will be part of the Party's campaign platform for this year's midterm elections. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said repeal and replace will be the slogan for the fall.

Congressional Republicans such as Pete Hoekstra (MI), Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Zach Wamp (TN) and John McCain (AZ) and Jim DeMint (SC) have signed on to the cause as well.

But other Republicans are candidly acknowledging that the GOP's new big agenda is mere political gamesmanship:
-- Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ): "Obviously, the president will not sign a repeal bill that the Congress passes, so that's more of a symbol. Barack Obama is president. He would never sign a repeal law."

-- Newt Gingrich: "What you have to do is be politically honest. If the Republicans win a majority in the House and Senate next year, they will not be able to repeal the bill. The president would veto it."

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) proclaimed yesterday that the GOP should repeal this bill, yet seconds later, he admitted that with Obama as President, "it"s going to be very difficult to repeal this bill outright."
National Republican Senatorial Committee head Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) noted that the repeal effort would likely go nowhere "because obviously we don't have the White House, we don't have 60 votes in the Senate."

Even the Conservative U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent millions trying to defeat the legislation, said this week they won't spend a penny supporting repeal efforts.

A number of state attorneys general are also filing lawsuits in a separate repeal effort. But, it appears their motivations may be political as well. At least 4 of the 13 AGs are running for higher office (either Governor or Senator) and the rest are up for re-election. Their lawsuits are designed to rally political support, not lay down new legal doctrine.

Today, President Obama called the GOP's bluff. "This is the reform that some folks in Washington are still hollering about. And now that it's passed, they're already promising to repeal it," Obama said. "They're actually going to run on a platform of repeal in November. Well I say go for it."

And O'Reilly does not report any of this, because he is helping the Republicans lie to the people for political gain, by trying to fool them into thinking if you vote Republicans back into power in November they will repeal the health reform bill. When that is impossible, because even if they win the House or the Senate back, Obama would veto any bill they pass to repeal it. So it's all a right-wing political trick to raise money, and to win mid-term elections.

Mad Republicans Blocking All Senate Hearings
By: Steve - March 25, 2010 - 10:00am

This is real news folks, and O'Reilly has not reported one word of it, nothing. Now imagine what he would say if the Democrats in the Senate blocked all the hearings because they were mad. O'Reilly would flip his lid and call them traitors, but when the Republicans do it he says nothing. Here are the details.

All of Tuesday's Senate committee and subcommittee hearings had to stop after 2:00 p.m. because of Republican objections. There is a Senate rule that says committees need permission to meet anytime after two hours after the Senate convenes. Without permission, even a committee already in session has to stop meeting. No committee meetings are allowed to occur after 2:00 p.m.

The Senate generally waives this rule by unanimous consent at the start of business each day. But to protest health care legislation, Republicans have refused to give their consent this week, bringing committee work in the Senate to a virtual standstill.

Wednesday, the Senate convened at 9:00 a.m., meaning that hearings after 11:00 a.m. were blocked. One hearing canceled was a Senate Homeland Security subcommittee session on Contracts for Afghan National Police Training. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), chair of the subcommittee, went on the Senate floor and called out the GOP tactics:
McCASKILL: Mr. President, I'm just confused about why the hearing that we had scheduled this afternoon cannot go forward. The subject matter of this hearing is oversight of the contract that is engaged in police training in Afghanistan in the Contracting Oversight subcommittee. This is a hearing that is getting to the heart of the matter that we have a real problem with the mission part in Afghanistan on police training because of problems with these contracts, problems with oversight of the State Department.

We have now canceled the hearing because we can't have it. The witness from the State Department has been canceled. The witness from the Defense Department has been canceled. The inspectors general that were coming to testify about a GAO report that just came out last week -- that was damning in its criticism of the oversight of these contracts. I don't get it.
Also on the Senate floor, Carl Levin (D-MI) asked permission for the already-scheduled Senated Armed Services Committee to go forward -- a request supported by ranking member Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Levin pointed out that a couple of the commanders had traveled long distances to attend today's hearing, from as far away as Japan. Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), speaking on behalf of Republicans, objected and blocked the request:
BURR: As a member of the committee -- and I side myself with the chair and the ranking member -- that I have no personal objection to continuing. There is objection on our side of the aisle. Therefore, I would have to object.
In response to the GOP dirty tricks, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reids spokesman Jim Manley replied, "So let me get this straight: in retaliation for our efforts to have an up-or-down vote to improve health care reform, Republicans are blocking an Armed Services committee hearing to discuss critical national security issues among other committee meetings?"

Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Daniel Akaka (D-HI), whose hearing was stopped abruptly at 11:00 a.m., replied, "The Senate should be a place for debate, but I cannot imagine how shutting down a hearing on helping homeless veterans has any part of the debate on the health insurance reform. I am deeply disappointed that my colleagues chose to hinder our common work to help end veteran homelessness."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office put out a statement yesterday responding to the GOP blocks:
REID: The Party of No wouldn't even agree to let Senate committees meet today. Ironically, as they make false claims about transparency regarding health reform, they're shutting down a committee hearing today on transparency in government.

The bottom line is that as millions of Americans are learning about the immediate benefits of health reform, Republicans are throwing a temper tantrum and grinding important Senate business to a halt.
Basically the Republicans are blocking the Senate from doing their job, simply because they are mad that the Obama health care reform bill passed. While O'Reilly says nothing, he does not even report on it. I guess body language segments are more important.

The Wednesday 3-24-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 25, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Government Intrusion. Billy talked about your freedom and President Obama, and asked if the federal government under the Obama administration is becoming too intrusive. Basically O'Reilly said the people are mad because Obama is putting too much Government into their lives. Billy cried about the Government taking over the banks, your medical records, the energy you use, etc. Then O'Reilly said the fear is justified, yeah according to him. Billy also said in the end he thinks the Obama agenda will be defeated.

O'Reilly had Dick Morris on to discuss it, the same guy who said the health care bill would never pass. So now Morris is going after Chris Dodd and his financial regulation bill. O'Reilly then cried about the Government taking over the student loan program by cutting out the middleman, Morris actually agreed with Obama on that, but O'Reilly does not like it. Morris moved on to cap and trade, etc. and Morris said Obama will end up with the Government in control of everything. O'Reilly said that will not happen if the Republicans get power back in November. Morris sort of agreed, but he said they will not have the votes to stop a lot of it.

O'Reilly then asked Morris about the health care lawsuits by the state AG's, Morris said they have a great chance to win, when the two Factor legal analysts last night both said they would lose. Morris said they will win, when this is the same guy who said the health care bill would never pass. Morris also predicted the Obama job approval ratings would drop to below 40% by the end of the year.

Then O'Reilly had Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner on to discuss the health care bill. He corrected O'Reilly about the medical records, and told him the Government will not know what is in your records. They are private and nobody in the Government will see them, and he said O'Reilly was wrong. Then O'Reilly lied about the IRS and the health care bill. Weiner told O'Reilly he is wrong again. Basically Congressman schooled O'Reilly, called out his lies, and punked him for putting out right-wing talking points, then O'Reilly said weiner is dodging the question, when he answered every question he asked.

Weiner said that nothing O'Reilly is saying is true, and that he is debunking everything he said. At the end Weiner said I love you buddy, but you have got to stop making stuff up. Then O'Reilly said I asked him the question 5 times and he would not answer, when he did answer, all 5 times, but O'Reilly would not listen to his answer, and also cut him off every time he tried to answer. At one point Congressman Weiner was so frustrated he took a deep breath and paused for a few seconds, then he asked O'Reilly to let him answer the question. It was classic O'Reilly, ask a question to a Democrat, do not let them answer, then claim they did not answer the question. Then even when he does answer the question, still deny he did.

Then O'Reilly cried about the Ann Coulter speech in Canada getting shut down after protesters prevented her from speaking at the University of Ottawa. I mean, who fricking cares, it happened in Canada. This has nothing to do with America, or anything that happened here. Why is this even a story on the Factor, if it does not happen here in America nobody cares. Yet O'Reilly does this stupid story that nobody cares about which was just a massive waste of tv time.

O'Reilly keeps saying left-wing protesters got the Coulter speech stopped, which is a lie, organizers of the speech themselves decided to cancel the event. Susan G. Cole was on to discuss it, and I do not care. I will say this, O'Reilly defended Coulter, as he usually does.

Then O'Reilly had another worthless segment with the body language bimbo, it's garbage, it's not news, and it has no news value at all. O'Reilly is ignoring the real news about the death threats and brick throwing from the right, but he has time to put this body language bimbo on, it's ridiculous. And of course, all the body language readings were on Democrats, as they usually are.

Then it was strike three, the third worthless segment in a row. O'Reilly had the lame and unfunny Dennis Miller on to spew out his unfunny jokes about liberals. And as usual I do not report what crazy Miller says because it is not news, it's just nonsense for O'Reilly to get ratings by having him do jokes about liberals. O'Reilly asked Miller about ACORN and said they are going out of business. Which is not exactly true, they are just changing their name, so they are not really going out of business as O'Reilly claims.

The last segment was did you see that with Jane Skinner. They talked about videos that they claim are a must see. But once again it's two Republicans with no Democrats to talk about videos they think you should see. Billy showed a video of some guy from MadTV doing a Barack Obama impersonation, Billy and Jane both loved it. The next video was a black female student arguing with a professor, then armed security guards had to remove her from the classroom, she resisted and they forced her to leave.

Billy claimed there would be a lawsuit, which is speculation, that he claims to never do. Not to mention, this crap was must see video, not in my world, it was worthless garbage to me. I have said this before, but I will say it again, I think O'Reilly just does this segment to give Jane Skinner air time on the #1 cable news show, and because she is a good looking blonde, which most likely gets him good ratings at the end of the show.

What's really funny is how O'Reilly complained about hate against Ann Coulter, when she is the one putting out the hate speech. O'Reilly is the guy who ignored the hate from the right and the death threats against Democrats. As he claims to be a nonpartisan independent, who defends Ann Coulter, while ignoring death threats against Democrats.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, O'Reilly did not say one word about the death threats to 10 or more Democratic members of Congress who voted yes on the health care bill, and their children. He also did not say a word about the right-wing blogger that called for bricks to be thrown through windows, talked about cleaning and loading his guns, talked about starting a revolution, etc. O'Reilly ignored it all. In O'Reillyworld none of it happened.

Democrats Get Death Threats After Health Care Vote
By: Steve - March 25, 2010 - 9:00am

At least 10 House Democrats who voted Sunday for health care overhaul have received violent threats to their lives or property, party leaders said today.

Several members have faced death threats and harassing phone calls while others have experienced vandalism at district offices or their private homes.

In one case, a gas line was cut outside the Virginia home of Rep. Tom Perriello's brother after a conservative activist posted the address online, mistakenly thinking it was the congressman's house. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating.

"All threats and incidents directed against Members of Congress are taken seriously and are being investigated...to identify and bring to justice those responsible," said FBI spokesman Paul Bresson.

This is a big story, it's the 8th most popular story on Google news, CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, AP, etc. are all reporting it. And yet, nothing from O'Reilly, he is ignoring the entire story. Nothing on the Palin scope crosshair map, not a word.

And remember this, back when Bush was in power and liberals did something O'Reilly said if you do not condemn it you support it. How many Republicans have went on tv to condemn it, none, just as O'Reilly has not either.

This is dangerous, yet O'Reilly does not condemn it, and Republican leaders are not either, in fact, they encourage it. While O'Reilly is silent, I guess he is too busy reporting on the Ann Coulter speech getting stopped in Canada. When it did not even happen in America, who cares what happened in Canada.

These death threats and violence from the right are happening here in America, and O'Reilly is ignoring it. Because it's being done by his people. So in the words of Bill O'Reilly, if you do not condemn it, you support it.

Congressman Stupak Getting Death Threats
By: Steve - March 25, 2010 - 8:30am

Bart Stupak (D-MI), an anti-abortion Democrat who held out his support for the legislation until Sunday, has received phone calls threatening his life:
Stupak, the Michigan Democrat whose last-minute compromise on abortion guaranteed passage of the bill Sunday, said callers have left messages for him saying, "You're dead; we know where you live; we'll get you."

"My wife still can't answer the phone," Stupak said Tuesday. The messages are "full of obscenities if she leaves it plugged in. In my office, we can't even get a call out. It's just bombarded."
Stupak, a former police officer, said he's not fazed by the threats or by the prospect of protests at his district office this weekend. "I've looked down barrels of guns," he said. "I've talked my way out of it."

Politico reports that Rep. Dennis Cardoza, a Blue Dog Democrat from California, said he's gotten physical threats over health care reform. "There are some folks that identified themselves as being members of the tea party who called, and my staff has gotten to know their names over time, and they have been very loud and very ugly," Cardoza said. And, the Capitol Hill newspaper notes that Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) said he had to change his personal cell phone number after a Republican gave it out to health care opponents. The chairman of the North Dakota Republican Party read Pomeroy's cell phone number aloud on the stage of the North Dakota Republican convention.

Oh where oh where is the great journalist Bill O'Reilly to report this, nowhere to be found, he just ignores it all.

More Republican Violence O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - March 25, 2010 - 8:00am

Some right-wing nut posted the home address of a Democratic Congressman who voted for the Obama health refor bill on his website. He said people should drop by his house and talk to him. So then someone cut the propane gas line to his house, which could have killed him and his family.

There is one small problem with their plan, he posted the wrong address. Lynchburg Tea Party member Mike Troxel posted what he believed to be the home address of Rep. Tom Periello (D-VA), encouraging people to drop by for a face-to-face chat.

The address Troxel posted was actually the address of Periello's brother, who lives with his wife and four children under the age of eight. So he was told he had the wrong address and still refused to take it down, Troxel said this: "If they [Periello's staff] would like to provide me with the address of Tom, then I'd be more than happy to take it down," he said. "I have no reason to believe it's not his house."

And yesterday, after receiving evidence from a commenter that the address did indeed belong to Periello's brother, Troxel finally deleted it, even though he didn't yet have the congressman's real address. ThinkProgress spoke to Troxel yesterday, who said he would probably still post Periello's address if he found it.

They also contacted Nigel Coleman, leader of the nearby Danville Tea Party in Virginia. Coleman said that he knew Troxel and had no problem with the posting of Periello's home address. Another Tea Party member who approves of what Troxel is doing is Kurt Feigel, he told ThinkProgress yesterday that he had no problem with posting the lawmaker's home address.

The FBI is now investigating an incident that occurred at the home of Periello's brother. Federal and local authorities are investigating a severed gas line at the home of U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello's brother, discovered the day after Tea Party activists posted the address online so opponents could drop by and express their thanks for Perriello's vote in favor of health care reform.

The gas line to the home's propane tank was slashed.

What say you O'Reilly, these are your people, you and Palin love them, so when are you going to report this stuff and say it's wrong, and that it must stop, Billy?

Palin Targets Democrats: With Rifle Scope Crosshairs
By: Steve - March 24, 2010 - 9:45am

Where is O'Reilly, can you imagine what he would say if a Democrat targeted Republicans with a map of rifle scope crosshairs. Palin does it and O'Reilly says nothing. Palin wrote this on her facebook page:
With the president signing this unwanted and "transformative" government takeover of our health care system today with promises impossible to keep, let's not get discouraged. Don't get demoralized. Get organized!

We're paying particular attention to those House members who voted in favor of Obamacare and represent districts that Senator John McCain and I carried during the 2008 election.

We'll aim for these races and many others. This is just the first salvo in a fight to elect people across the nation who will bring common sense to Washington. Please go to sarahpac.com and join me in the fight.
Then below that she has a map and a list of the Democrats she is targeting, and the map is marked with a rifle scope crosshair. This is an outrage, especially after all the right-wing hate group increases and the recent violence against Democrats like Dr. tiller, etc. Here is the actual map, right from her facebook page. What say you O'Reilly?



Would O'Reilly say it's ok for Democrats to target Republicans with rifle scope crosshairs on a map, I doubt it. Will O'Reilly ignore this from Palin, of course he will. Palin even told her followers to reload, but O'Reilly ignores it all.

The Tuesday 3-23-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 24, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Joy & Bitterness. O'Reilly talked about Obama signing the health reform bill, and then pointed out a CNN poll has Obama at 51% disapproval. Then he talked about racial comments at the Tea Party protest, O'Reilly said it was just one or two crazy people, but that it does hurt them. Then O'Reilly said the fsr left is dominated by hateful people, which is just ridiculous, all the hate is on the right. O'Reilly also got a shot in on Pelosi and Reid over their low approval ratings. But never mentioned the Republican approval ratings are just as low.

Then O'Reilly had Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley on, they talked about Biden using the f-word when talking to Obama in a private conversation. Colmes mentioned the USA Today/Gallup poll that says most Americans support the bill passing. O'Reilly cut him off and did not want to talk about that, he said let's let that shake out for a few days. Colmes also said the Biden f-word thing was nothing, because he did not say it about anyone as Cheney did, O'Reilly compared it to what Cheney said, when that comparison is ridiculous.

O'Reilly talked about the spitting, the n-word, and the Faggot remark, but then he said there is no tape to prove it so there is no proof it happened. When there are three witnesses who heard it and saw it, yet O'Reilly keeps saying it's alleged and do not know it happened. Then O'Reilly said he doubts it is true because they will not come on the factor and talk about it. Colmes said that is ridiculous, and O'Reilly argued with him. O'Reilly is just a joke, if you do not talk about it on the Factor it never happened, give me a break. According to O'Reilly if it's not on tape yu can not prove it happened, when that is ridiculous, and courts use eyewitness evidence to convict people every day, with no tape.

The next segment was about the heated health care bill debate on right-wing talk radio. Billy played part of a tape from a right-wing radio guy, John Gambling who called it Communism. O'Reilly even said that is going a little too far. Somehow O'Reilly claimed he is being Paul Revere, ummmmm, huh. This guy Gambling is a fricking nut, not Paul Revere. Then Mike Gallagher said you have not seen anything yet pal. Who is another right-wing talk radio nut. O'Reilly wanted to know when it goes over the line into hysteria, Gallagher said there is no line, and that they are just getting started. Then Gallagher said we are losing our freedoms, and on and on, which is all lies.

O'Reilly acted like these two guys are moderates that compare to Paul Revere. It was a friendly interview, and just pathetic. They are two out of control right-wing nut jobs, and O'Reilly kissed their ass. While they were sitting there calling it Communism and all kinds of crazy stuff. They even told O'Reilly you aint seen nothing yet. But he still pretended like what they were doing is ok. What a joke, if they were Democrats doing this to Bush O'Reilly would rip them to pieces. But since they are Republicans going crazy with hate speech and fear tactics, he says oh well, it's ok with me. Imagine what O'Reilly would say if a Democratic talk radio guy called Bush a communist, he would flip.

Then is it legal with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to discuss legal cases. Billy asked them what the odds are that the Supreme Court will overturn the Obama health reform bill, Wiehl said she thinks it will not be ruled unconstitutional. O'Reilly disagreed and thinks they will. Guilfoyle also said it will not be ruled unconstitutional. So O'Reilly and his crazy right-wing friends are the only people who think the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional. The vast majority of legal experts say it will not be ruled unconstitutional, including a lot of conservative legal experts.

Then they talked about the federal judge who might let a Gitmo prisoner go. Wiehl and Guilfoyle said the judge made the right ruling, and that he will be released. Because they do not have enough evidence to hold him. O'Reilly said if they do let him go he hopes the guy gets a job at the NY Times, haha, funny, not. Wiehl and Guilfoyle were back for a 2nd segment. And btw, for the new visitors here, notice that both the Factor legal experts are Republicans.

Then they talked about an ACLU case that wants to know where the drones are that we use to fire missiles in Afghanistan. And of course the ACLU will lose, as they should. O'Reilly said they should send a drone to bomb the ACLU headquarters. And fpr once I am with O'Reilly on this one, they should never tell anyone where those drones are, or what they do with them, because it's top secret. Then they talked about a lawsuit against Oprah, that I don't care about because it's tabloid garbage. Then another tabloid garbage lawsuit about Anna Nicole Smith. They also talked about the 11 year old shooting his Fathers girlfriend. So far he has not been charged, and they do not know why. They want the Father charged for letting the kid have access to the gun.

Then John Stossel was on to discuss the worst places in America to live. O'Reilly cited a Forbes article, that had Cleveland Ohio the worst place to live. Memphis was the 2nd worst, and Stossel of course blamed it on the Governement, he said they have too much Government. Stockton California was the 3rd worst, and once again Stossel blamed it on the Government being too big. And btw, O'Reilly disagreed with Cleveland, he said they are wrong. The crazy John Stossel blamed it all on the Government, he said they all have too much Government. This whole segment was just ridiculous, and Stossel is a fricking idiot. He blames everything on the Government. What a massive waste of tv time.

And finally Charles Krauthammer was on, another far right nut job, put on alone with no Democratic guest to counter his right-wing propaganda. Krauthammer was on to trash the Obama health reform bill, and he did. He lied about the cost, and everything, as he has been for a year. This far right loser spent the entire segment trashing everything about it, with all right-wing lies. Earth to Krauthammer, get over it you lost, it's over, shut up already, fool. Now think about this, O'Reilly gives this far right neo-con nut a forum to spew out all this right-wing propaganda, making him just as bad as crazy Krauthammer, if not worse.

For the record, before the Krauthammer segment started O'Reilly said all the polls show that the majority of the people oppose the Obama health reform bill. Which is a lie, and he knows it, because Colmes even told him about the USA Today/Gallup poll that says 49% support it, while 40% oppose it. Here is exactly what it says:
WASHINGTON — Americans by 9 percentage points have a favorable view of the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against it.

By 49%-40% those surveyed say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms, as "enthusiastic" or "pleased," while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."

The largest single group, 48%, calls the bill "a good first step" that should be followed by more action on health care. An additional 4% also have a favorable view, saying the bill makes the most important changes needed in the nation's health care system.
And yet, O'Reilly sat right there and lied his ass off that every poll says the majority of people oppose it, when a new poll out today says the exact opposite. Notice that O'Reilly refused to talk about, or report that poll, then he goes on to lie that all the polls show the people are opposed to it.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. With the usual factor guest list, 7 Republicans to 1 Democrat, with O'Reilly that's 8 Republicans. And btw, that 1 Democrat was Alan Colmes, who had to split his time with Monica Crowley and O'Reilly, so he was not even on alone. Fair and Balanced, haha!

And btw, Tuesday night O'Reilly did a segment on the Tea Party protest racism and the n-word use. With only a right-wing talk radio guest to discuss it. The right-wing guest said there is no proof it was said and she does not believe it, O'Reilly said it could have been said but he agreed with her that there was no evidence it happened.

Then on Tuesday, Congressman Lewis said he was told the n-word was used at the Tea Party protest, by the man who they said it to, two other Congressman confirmed to him that it was said, and they heard it. That's three people who heard it, and saw it happen, yet O'Reilly and his right-wing stooge guest both claim there is no evidence it happened.

Earth to O'Reilly, that's evidence dumbass, and it's direct eyewitness evidence. In once case two people were arrested by the Capitol Hill Police, which was never mentioned by O'Reilly, ever, not one time.

Republicans Send Death Threats To Children
By: Steve - March 24, 2010 - 9:00am

Rochester/Niagara Falls, N.Y. -- The same day a brick crashed through her Niagara Falls office, Rep. Louise Slaughter(D) says her staff discovered an assassination threat aimed at her family members. The Democratic headquarters in Rochester was also targeted.

Congressman Louise Slaughter has a different take about the violence and anger. "I think it says the misinformation that people were given has worried them to a frenzy. They're worried about their jobs and their health insurance and to have this perpetual whipping up of untruths has been very bad," she said by phone from Washington.

Last Thursday she received a chilling recorded message at her campaign office. "Assassinate is the word they used, toward the children of lawmakers who voted yes."

The FBI is now investigating.

O'Reilly claims that kids are off limits, and he also claims to look out for the kids, when Sarah Palins kids were called names etc. O'Reilly flipped out and reported it for a week. But now that a Democrats kids were threatened with assassination, O'Reilly says nothing, he never even mentioned it on his Monday or Tuesday show.

O'Reilly Ignoring Republican Calls For Violence
By: Steve - March 24, 2010 - 8:30am

O'Reilly claims all the hate in America is on the left, which is just insane. What's really funny is that every other day you see hate from the right, real hate, killing abortion doctors, killing liberals in churches, calling for violence against Democrats, and on and on. But O'Reilly never reports on any of it, he just ignores it all and acts like it never happened.

Now we have another story about a Republican blogger calling for violence against Democratic political offices, then it happened. Ok, now show me one liberal blogger who is calling for violence against anything Republican, you can't, because there are none.

The Kansas City star newspaper is reporting this:
Authorities in Wichita and some other cities across the country are investigating vandalism against Democratic offices, apparently in response to health care reform.

On Monday, a former Alabama militia leader took credit for instigating the actions.

Mike Vanderboegh of Pinson, Ala., former leader of the Alabama Constitutional Militia, put out a call on Friday for modern Sons of Liberty to break the windows of Democratic Party offices nationwide in opposition to health care reform. Since then, vandals have struck several offices, including the Sedgwick County Democratic Party headquarters in Wichita.

Vanderboegh posted the call for action Friday on his blog. Referring to the health care reform bill as Nancy Pelosi's Intolerable Act, he told followers to send a message to Democrats.

"We can break their windows," he said. "Break them NOW. And if we do a proper job, if we break the windows of hundreds, thousands, of Democrat party headquarters across this country, we might just wake up enough of them to make defending ourselves at the muzzle of a rifle unnecessary."
And that's not all. Over the weekend, a brick shattered glass doors at the Monroe County Democratic Committee headquarters in Rochester, N.Y.

Attached to the brick was a note that said, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice" -- a quote from Barry Goldwater's 1964 acceptance speech as the Republican presidential candidate.

And btw, this right-wing nut job Vanderboegh, also called for everyone to clean and load their guns and get ready to start the new revolution on a radio show Tuesday. His militia group is also listed at the Southern Poverty Law Center as a right-wing hate group.

But O'Reilly ignores it all, he has not said a word about any of it. As he claims all the loons and hate in the country are on the left. While the facts show that the loons and hate is all on the right. O'Reilly ignores it because it shows that he is a liar, and he also ignores it because it makes his people look bad.

New Harris Poll Shows Republicans Are Stupid
By: Steve - March 24, 2010 - 8:00am

Think back to February 3rd, 2010. Bill O'Reilly said this:
The radical-loon Web site Daily Kos has a new poll out.

The survey says 39 percent of self-identified Republicans believe President Obama should be impeached. Sixty-three percent believe he is a socialist. Only 42 percent of GOPers think the president was actually born in the United States. And 31 percent believe he hates white people.

Now, if you believe that poll, you also believe Nancy Pelosi once dated Dick Cheney. The poll is a fraud, as is the Web site.
What O'Reilly said is that the Daily Kos poll was rigged to make Republicans look bad, and that it is a fraud. He actually says the poll is a fraud. But now there is another poll that says the exact same thing, and even worse, done by the Harris Polling Company. Which is a nonpartisan independent polling company, that means O'Reilly can not aruge it was rigged. So what does O'Reilly do, he ignores the entire poll of course.

Folks, this poll is scary, even more scary than the poll Daily Kos had, it makes Republicans look like nuts, and that is why the great journalist Bill O'Reilly is ignoring it. Here are some of their results.

On the heels of health care, a new Harris poll reveals Republican attitudes about Obama: Two-thirds think he's a socialist, 57 percent a Muslim—and 24 percent say "he may be the Antichrist." Yes you are reading that right, 24% of Republicans think President Obama is the Antichrist. Here are some more crazy results.

-- 67 percent of Republicans believe that Obama is a socialist

-- 57 percent of Republicans believe that Obama is a Muslim

-- 45 percent of Republicans agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president"

Yes you are reading that right, 45% of Republicans still think President Obama is not an American citizen. Over a year into his Presidency, which is just stunning, that number should be zero. What say you O'Reilly, are you still claiming that almost half the Republican party is not crazy, do you still call the Daily Kos poll a fraud, when the Harris poll says the exact same thing.

And that's not all, here are some more Harris poll results.

-- 38 percent of Republicans say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did"

-- 24 percent of Republicans say that Obama may be the Antichrist

Wow, am I reading that right, yes I am. It's 100% true, it says that 24% of Republicans believe President Obama is the Antichrist. That is insanity, and any person who said yes to that poll question should be rounded up and locked in a padded room.

This is crazyland, and O'Reilly is ignoring all of it. The poll, which surveyed 2,230 people, also clearly shows that education is a barrier to extremism. Respondents without a college education are vastly more likely to believe such claims, while Americans with college degrees or better are less easily duped.

The full results of the poll, are even more frightening: including news that high percentages of Republicans believe that President Obama is racist, anti-American, wants the terrorists to win, and wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one-world government.

This Harris poll backs up the Daily Kos poll, and they both prove that 1/4 to 1/2 of the Republican party are lunatics who will believe anything. So O'Reilly ignores the entire poll, because it makes Republicans look stupid, and it shows that O'Reilly was wrong when he said the Daily Kos poll was a fraud.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Health Reform Bill Tax
By: Steve - March 23, 2010 - 12:20pm

This is classic O'Reilly, lie your ass off with right-wing talking points to make your position on an issue seem stronger.
O'REILLY: I mean, now we're going to have every -- unearned income, which is interest, capital gains -- now you've gotta pay three and a half percent more. People are going to be looking, "Whoa. I'm only making 1 percent on my bank interest anyway." People are going to get teed off.
Last night O'Reilly claimed the Obama health care reform bill would tax the investment income of ALL taxpayers. In fact, the new tax would apply only to a single person who makes more than $200,000 a year, and families making more than $250,000 a year.

So O'Reilly was wrong, because the extra tax does not apply to most Americans. O'Reilly acted like every American who makes an investment is going to pay the new tax, which is a flat out lie. And btw, only 3.6% of Americans make over $200,000 a year, and only 2% of Americans make over $250,000 a year.

That means the new tax will NOT apply to 96.4 to 98.0 percent of all Americans. Proving that Bill O'Reilly is a massive liar. And think about this, the new tax does not even take effect until 2013, that's 3 years from now.

The reconciliation bill that passed the House and is currently before the Senate would impose a 3.8 percent tax on the investment income only of individuals with income exceeding $200,000 per year and families with income exceeding $250,000 per year. From a March 20, Wall Street Journal article:
The levy, which would be effective in 2013 and apply to interest, dividends, capital gains, rents and royalties, represents a U-turn in tax policy.

The new tax would affect couples with more than $250,000 of adjusted gross income and singles with more than $200,000. It would apply only to income in excess of those limits. So if a couple earned $200,000 in wages and $100,000 in capital gains, only $50,000 of that would be subject to the new tax.
And one last thing, Juan Williams (the fake Democrat) was a guest during this segment, along with Mary K. Ham. And neither one of them pointed out the O'Reilly lie about the new tax, or the fact that he never disclosed all the details, they just sat there and let him lie his ass off. So you have three so-called journalists lying to you, and nobody to tell you the truth, except me.

In closing, think about this. If O'Reilly is not a partisan right-wing Republican, why is he lying about the new tax with right-wing talking points. Why did he fail to disclose all the facts, that the new tax does not start until 2013, that it only applies to singles making over $200,000 a year, couples making over $250,000 a year, and that 96% of Americans (up to 98%) will NOT have to pay the tax.

O'Reilly is crying about a tax on investments that does NOT even apply to 96 (or 98) percent of the people, and he had to lie about it to try and get people mad about the tax. This is not journalism, it's fraud, bias, and right-wing propaganda. Coming from the guy who claims to be a nonpartisan independent with a no spin zone.

More Proof Fox News Is A Biased Right-Wing Joke
By: Steve - March 23, 2010 - 12:00pm

Right now as I write this, it is 11:58am CST. I tune in to CNN and they are showing the live speech by President Obama after signing the health reform bill. I tune in to MSNBC and they are showing the live speech by President Obama after signing the health reform bill.

I tune in to Fox and they are not showing the Obama speech, Megyn Kelly is reporting on some airline cell phone security story, ACORN, and the approval ratings for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. While ignoring the approval ratings for Republican leaders, which are just as bad, if not worse. If Fox ever wants to be seen as a real news network maybe they should start covering the live speeches the President has.

And btw, right now Obama is debunking all the lies about the bill from O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. He said check what he says today, 3 to 6 months from now and see who was right, him or all the talking heads on the right.

One thing he wanted to point out is that it is not a Government health care takeover, as the right has claimed. He said if you like the health insurance you have now, you can keep it. Then he went on to explain some things that are in the bill, to debunk all the lies O'Reilly and his right-wing friends are putting out.

Obama also pointed out one important thing, that a lot of things in the bill are Republican ideas, yet they all voted no on the actual bill. Which proves they all voted no for political reasons, because they supported some things in the bill, but they all voted no anyway. Obama also said if you want the truth about what is in the bill, go to www.whitehouse.org and read it there.

The Monday 3-22-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 23, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Obama-Care Opposition. In the talking points memo Billy asked why so many Americans despise Obama-Care. And I have the answer, because for a full year every Republican in America (and the Fox News Network) lied to them about what is in the bill. So they based their opinion of the bill on lies, from O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Fox, and every Republican in the country. Most people support it, when they know what is actually in the bill, which is something O'Reilly never tells you.

Billy also said he does think the bill is unconstitutional. He also said some Congressman were bribed to vote yes, except when the exact ssme thing was done under Bush not once did O'Reilly call that a bribe. Then O'Reilly admitted that is how Washington works, but called them bribes anyway, two times. Which is funny, because the same deals were made when Bush was the president, but O'Reilly did not call them bribes then.

Now it's not a perfect bill, but it's better than nothing, and clearly better than what we had. And the reason a lot of people oppose it is because they were lied to about what is in the bill. So when they take a poll on the bill they make their vote based on bad information. In polls where they explain to people what is actually in the bill the majority of the people support it. But O'Reilly never reports that, instead he lies about the lack of support based on flawed polls.

Then Ed Rendell was on to discuss it. He pointed out that the polls have been driven by disinformation, and he is exactly right. O'Reilly never said a word, because even he knows it is true. Rendell also pointed out how the Republicans tried to use it as Obama's waterloo, instead of working to have a bi-partisan bill. O'Reilly admitted there are some good things in the bill, but it is still wrong. And btw, O'Reilly told Rendell he is not a partisan, that he is an independent. Yeah, and I'm Donald Trump too.

O'Reilly called it a welfare situation, and said that is driving the bitterness. Which is wrong, the bitterness is partisan, and based on lies. Then O'Reilly got mad and started yelling that they tried it in Massachusetts, and it failed. O'Reilly used the right-wing talking points to call it a Government takeover, Rendell disagreed and said he is wrong. O'Reilly disagreed and said he is wrong.

Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to discuss it. Billy asked Ham if the anger will go down now, she said maybe a little for a while, but that it will come back. Even O'Reilly was not so sure, he thinks the anger will drop because people are tired of talking about health care. And what's shocking is that O'Reilly admitted the Obama reform bill might work, when he has been saying for a year it will not work, and it will bankrupt the country. Williams said the anger over the health care bill will go down, but that the people will continue to be angry at other things.

Then O'Reilly cried about taxes again, shut up already, you are a millionaire so you can afford it. He also cried about Capitol Gains taxes, which very few people even get, and they are millionaires too. Basically Ham and O'Reilly cried about the bill passing, and Juan disagreed a little, sort of. O'Reilly once again called it a bribe, which is more right-wing propaganda. It's not a bribe for a president to make deals with members of Congress to get their votes, it happens every day, it's done by Democrats and Republicans, and O'Reilly never once complained when Bush did it.

Next up was Brit Hume, he was on to talk about possible legal cases over the Obama health care bill. They are bringing back the right-wing unconstitutional argument, that most legal experts say is a losing battle. But it's all they have now, so they have to talk about something. I guess O'Reilly put him on to keep Republicans in good spirits, that it's possible the bill might be ruled unconstitutional. They talked about some state Attorney Generals that may file lawsuits. But they never say that they are all Republicans, Billy does not report that, on his so-called news show. Hume said the lawsuits are serious, and that it will be ruled on in a matter of months.

And of course they both think it is unconstitutional, proving they are both right-wing stooges. Then O'Reilly compared Obama to Bush, and said they are both polarizing presidents. But the comparison is insane, Obama is nothing like Bush. And only a total right-wing idiot would even make that comparison. Bush lied us into two wars, and ruined the entire country, all Obama has done is pass a health care reform bill and a stimulus bill that worked to save the country. So the comparison is just ridiculous.

Then O'Reilly talked about the racially insensitive remarks during the health care protest. On his website Billy implied it may not have happened. He has this: Did angry protesters shout racially insensitive remarks during a health care demonstration over the weekend?

Notice the question mark, as if it may not have happened. The Congressman who had the n-word said to him sure as hell knows it happened, because he was there. Unless O'Reilly is calling him a liar, it sure did happen. Billy said things got heated, and then he had radio talk show host Dana Loesch on to discuss it, a Republican, with no Democratic guest. She is a Tea Party supporter, and she said it might have happened, but she does not think it did. Billy admitted it could have happened, but he can not find any evidence that it did.

Then O'Reilly said even if it did happen it's not a big deal and he does not understand why the NY Times reported on it. Losech said that she is not calling the Congressman a liar, but that she does not believe it happened. Hey moron, that's calling him a liar. O'Reilly disagreed and said he is not calling the Congressman a liar, but he qualified that by saying he can not find any proof it was said. Which is also basically calling him a liar. What a joke of a biased right-wing segment. In O'Reillyworld if he can not prove it then it never happened. And even if it did happen O'Reilly said it was just one or two right-wing loons so it's ok.

Then O'Reilly had the far right Bernie Goldberg on to discuss how the media covered the Obama health reform bill passing. Which is a joke to begin with, because Goldberg is a conservative, so the segment has no balance. And of course they hated the coverage, because they are conservatives who hate all the media except for Fox and the other conservative media sources. Here is my question, how can you have a fair and balanced media bias segment with two Republicans and no Democrats, answer that tough guy. Every week it's O'Reilly and Goldberg, and every week they trash all the media except Fox, where is the fricking balance O'Jerkoff.

let me break this segment down for you real quick, Goldberg said liberals were happy the bill passed, and conservatives were not happy it passed. Wow, thanks for nothing Bernie, now tell us something we don't know. Basically Goldberg attacked the media, except for Fox, which he never attacks for anything. Goldberg also reported that the far right is really upset, wow, thanks again Bernie. O'Reilly claims it will lead to the Republicans getting the majority back in the Senate and the House. Which is very doubtful, and I predict O'Reilly will be wrong. It depends on what the economy does, and if the jobs start coming back by November.

The last segment was the totally ridiculous no-reality Factor Reality Check. It's a fantasyland segment where Billy puts his spin on something a Liberal said. There is no reality, and almost no checks. One check was on Tiger Woods, when that is tabloid garbage. And one check was how you can bid on the new O'Reilly book, how that was a check on anything is beyond me.

Then the pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, think about this. For the first time O'Reilly admitted the Obama health care reform bill might work, but then later in the show he said the people are so mad it passed, they are going to vote all the Democrats out of office in November. So he contradicted himself in the very same show. Billy, if it works the people will not be mad, dumbass.

The Sunday 3-21-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 22, 2010 - 4:00pm

O'Reilly had a special Sunday show. The TPM was of course on the Obama health reform bill. I do not need to report what O'Reilly said because you have heard it a million times already. He is opposed to it, hates it, and hoped it would not pass.

Then O'Reilly had the braindead hick from Alaska Sarah Palin on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest of course. Palin said this: "What I dislike most is this notion that the leftists in Washington think they can cram this thing through with disregard to the will of the people and traditional processes. If these leftists believe Obama-care can be crammed through, then what's coming down the pike? Next will be the 'cap-and-tax' energy restrictions and amnesty for illegals and card check that union bosses want."

The usual right-wing propaganda, which is not even worth talking about. All I will say is that Palin is nothing but a right-wing idiot, and if you believe anything she says I feel sorry for you. She is a conservative spin doctor, and a stupid one at that, at least Gingrich and Rove are half way smart, Palin is just stupid, a stupid right-wing liar.

Then Billy had the two Fox stooges Carl Cameron and Major Garrett on to give their report on the bill. They basically reported that Obama had made a deal with Stupak, so it was going to pass with more than the 216 votes needed. Which it did, and that was information we already knew. So they did not have any news to report that we did not already know.

Then O'Dummy had Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman and Republican Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann on to discuss it. And of course Sherman said the bill was a good thing, and Bachmann said it was a disaster. For once O'Reilly actually had a balanced segment, with one Democrat and one Republican. But you know what they say, a broken clock is even right twice a day. O'Reilly simply puts a Democrat guest on once in a while so he can use them to claim he is fair and balanced. But when you look at the big picture, the Republican guests outnumber the Democratic guests by almost a 4 to 1 margin. The average Factor show has 6 to 7 Republican guests, but only 1 to 2 Democratic guests, with a lot of shows that have 0 Democrats.

Then O'Reilly had Frank Newport of Gallup and political analyst Larry Sabato on to assess the impact of health care reform on the President and his party. "This is going to surprise people," Sabato said, "but President Obama will go up temporarily. When a president wins a big one, he tends to gain in the polls. But the people who will do worse are the Democratic congressmen in districts won by John McCain. Some of them are going to walk the plank."

Newport disagreed with Sabato's prediction that President Obama will get a temporary lift. "A lot of Americans have already factored this health care reform effort into their thinking, so I'm not sure he'll get a bump because Americans have already taken into account that health care reform is going to pass. If the economy starts getting better by the summer or fall, that will swamp a lot of discussion about health care reform."

Billy said President Obama will face withering criticism from some precincts: "Conservative radio talk show guys are going to go wild this week and there will be a lot of anti-Obama stuff on cable. There will also be cheerleading, but nobody watches the cheerleading cable stations. I think the anger will go higher and higher."

O'Reilly got one thing right, there will be a lot of anti-Obama stuff on cable this week, but what he failed to mention is that it will all come from the Fox News Network. And a lot of people do watch Fox, as far as cable news ratings go, but it did not do any good because they spent a year trying to defeat the bill and it never worked. Most people watch the Network News, NBC, ABC, and CBS, or get their News off the internet, not Fox. So you idiots can cry all you want on your high rated shows, nobody cares, because you have no power on your little cable news network.

Then Billy had A.B. Stoddard on to gauge the political mood in Washington and beyond. She speculated the Democrats have 3 to 4 months to try and gain some popularity with the people to save some seats in November. She is not sure if they can do it or not, and wondered if the Seniors would vote a lot of Democrats out of office. The usual political speculation, then O'Dummy predicted that Republicans will pound their opponents as radicals, Billy said this: "The right is selling Obama as a socialist who wants to take your freedom away. It's a simple message and a powerful message if it takes root."

The last segment was just O'Reilly talking about the Tea Party protests, and as I predicted O'Reilly did not say a word about the Democratic Congressman being spit on and called the n-word. He never said a word about any of it, nothing. Billy totally ignored the racist protest signs, the hate speech, the violent signs with guns on them, the arrests, he ignored everything that made the Tea Party look bad. Because he is a Republican himself, and he looks out for his brothers.

Billy called it the sights and sounds of the weekend. Here is what the biased coward said: Health care reform inflamed the passions of both advocates and opponents, and these were just a few of the pithier sound bites: "This is a sledgehammer that's going to destroy the greatest medical system in the world" ... "We will have health care reform in America" ... "We have the most arrogant people in the world running this Congress" ... "We will vote for the health care bill, it is not an unfunded mandate" ... "this bill is a fiscal Frankenstein."

Billy described the long and arduous debate as unprecedented: "Other than wars, there's more discussion about this health care issue than anything I've ever seen. This is the biggest political discussion I've ever seen on a policy question."

Notice that he sugar coated the whole weekend, not a word about all the racism, the hate speech, nothing. In O'Reillyworld it was just your standard protest with average everyday Americans. In O'Reillyworld there was no racism, no hate, no arrests, because it was done by Republicans. But if a Democrat had done any of that at a protest in Washington about a Republican president, O'Reilly would spend half the show reporting it.

Update On Health Reform Tea Party Protest
By: Steve - March 22, 2010 - 10:00am

This morning I wrote that the crowd estimates for the Tea Party protest over the weekend were 8 to 10 thousand, well it turns out that was a rough estimate that was wrong.

According to a report by Luke Russert, that was published at 4:15pm Saturday March 20th, the Capitol Hill Police say the protest had between 1,500 to 2,000 Tea Party protesters. Which is not even close to the 8 to 10 thousand reported, or the 30,000, the 100,000, or the more than 100,000 reported on numerous right-wing blogs.

Which makes their protest even more ridiculous, after all they did only 2,000 people showed up, that's a joke. And btw, Fox News covered the Tea Party protest almost non-stop, but there was another protest in Washington at the same time. And Fox totally ignored it, because it was an anti-war protest.

A crowd estimated to be 2,500-strong by Capitol Hill police officers marched through the streets of Washington to mark the seventh anniversary of the war in Iraq and to call on Obama to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and focus all of his efforts on domestic priorities like health care and education.

Fox News did not find the larger march to be as newsworthy as the tea party demonstration. A search on the keyword "protest" found that the tea party protests were covered 31 times between March 19th and March 21st, but zero coverage for the anti-war protest at Fox.

And btw, Fox News reported the Tea Party protest was 25,000, which is what the Tea Party said it was, now we know that was a lie, and yet Fox News reported it as a fact anyway. What Fox News did was go by what the Tea Party told them, without waiting for the actual crowd number to be reported by the Capitol Hill Police. One lies, the other one swears to it. Is that journalism, not hardly.

Fox News Lie Machine Cranked up To 11
By: Steve - March 22, 2010 - 9:30am

Here is a great article that details some of the lies put out by Fox News over the last year on the Obama health reform bill. It was written last Friday by Terry Krepel at Media Matters. He does what we call journalism, as in, reporting the facts, something we do not get from O'Reilly or anyone at Fox News.

Media Matters: On health care reform, the Fox News noise machine is cranked to 11

You know those special amps used by Spinal Tap that go to 11, in order to provide "that extra push over the cliff"? It appears Fox News has gotten a hold of some and hooked them up to its coverage of health care reform.

As the reform bill moved closer to a vote in the House, the Fox News noise machine went into overdrive, hurling every false and misleading claim it could muster.

The week in Fox News health care hysteria began with an oldie-but-goodie -- Steve Doocy, Bill Hemmer, and Bill O'Reilly all claimed or suggested that the bill will, in O'Reilly's words, "require American taxpayers to fund abortion." But it doesn't, at least not beyond what is currently permitted under current law. Fox News, unfortunately, is not alone in repeating this falsehood.

Then, Doocy and Hemmer, joined by Neil Cavuto and several other hosts, jumped on the idea that a legislative procedure the House is reportedly considering to pass the Senate's version of health care reform would allow them to do so without a vote. Wrong again -- the House would need to vote to implement that procedure.

Carl Cameron, however, broke through the noise on this issue, pointing out that the process would simply pass the bill "in one vote instead of two" and that the process "has been used, literally, for centuries" -- indeed, Republicans made copious use of the "self-executing rule" when they controlled Congress. Even Charles Krauthammer conceded that it's constitutional. Still, that didn't keep Alisyn Camerota from scoffing that the rule "might as well be a self-immolating rule."

Fox News then pounced on a survey claiming to have found that 46 percent of primary care physicians would consider leaving their profession if health care reform passes. O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and contributor Dr. Marc Siegel all portrayed the survey as having been published by the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine.

Except it wasn't. The article was written by the physician-recruiting firm that conducted the survey, and it actually appeared in an employment newsletter produced by the publisher of the New England Journal of Medicine, not the Journal itself. Further, the survey itself was not all that scientific -- done via email contacts taken from the recruiting firm's database -- so any claim that the survey's results accurately reflect the view of the American medical community is dubious at best.

Fox News' Megyn Kelly did eventually note that the survey was "not a scientific poll." But that didn't keep Glenn Beck from insisting -- hours after Kelly corrected the record -- that "The New England Journal of Medicine says that if this bill is passed nearly one-third of doctors will quit practice medicine."

(Beck, meanwhile, is keeping up the long tradition of Fox News hosts pushing partisan political agendas by joining with Republican Rep. Steve King to promote an anti-reform rally in Washington.)

Fox News contributor and serial misleader Dana Perino made her own non-contribution to the health care debate, asserting that the reform bill's Medicare investment tax on those making over $200,000 a year is "so disturbing ... because the people who make that money are the small business owners." In fact, fewer than 1.3 percent of small business owners would be affected by the tax.

When the Congressional Budget Office released new numbers detailing how the reform bill would reduce the deficit by $130 billion over 10 years, Fox News didn't want to talk about that -- it spent far more time highlighting how much the bill would cost instead of how much it would save. And when that didn't seem to work, it tried to discredit the CBO as untrustworthy and unreliable. Never mind that when the CBO issued "favorable" numbers last fall on a Republican health care reform plan, Fox News praised the CBO as "nonpartisan."

The Fox News spin is even confusing its own hosts. Brian Kilmeade can't quite comprehend how a bill can cost money yet reduce the deficit, and Kelly admitted, "I don't understand anything they're talking about when it comes to this potential law."

Fox News' inept war against health care reform, while in keeping with its function as the communications arm of the Republican Party in exile, is making itself look like the Spinal Tap of news. It doesn't really need that "extra push over the cliff" -- after all, that's what it's been speeding toward for years.

At this rate, it probably won't be too long before a Fox anchor spontaneously combusts.

Health Reform Passes: Fox Attacks With Lies
By: Steve - March 22, 2010 - 9:00am

O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, and virtually every single person who works at Fox News spent a year lying about what is in the Obama health reform bill. And Fox News was not alone, every Republican in Congress, and every right-wing group in the country also spent a year lying about the bill. They bought internet ads, websites, started the bogus Tea Party, sent out e-mails and newsletters, and none of it worked.

Showing that O'Reilly and Fox News are not as powerful as he thought. Because last night the bill passed the House on a 219 to 212 vote. The health reform bill will extend coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans, reduce deficits and ban insurance company practices such as denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions.
"This is what change looks like," Obama said later in televised remarks that stirred memories of his 2008 campaign promise of "change we can believe in."
So O'Reilly, his Republican friends, and all of Fox News lost, it's over, Obama and the Democrats in Congress won, that means we move on to the economy and jobs, Wrong. Fox News and the Republicans are still fighting it, and they are still lying about what's in the bill.

I am watching Fox & Friends right now on the Fox Fake News Network. And they are still spewing out their right-wing propaganda about the Obama health reform bill as if it had not even passed. They are saying the CBO numbers are a lie, and that you can never trust the CBO again.

Remember this folks, the next time we have a Republican president, Fox says the CBO can NEVER be trusted again.

The Fox & Friends stooges are also saying your taxes will now go up, lie. Your health care premiums will go up, lie. Federal money will fund abortions, lie. The deficit will go up, lie. And on and on, Fox is still pumping out their lies on the Obama health reform bill, even after it has already passed.

And instead of doing some honest objective reporting on the bill passing, they are smearing Obama and the Democrats for passing it. Their reporting is 100% negative and full of lies, they do not have one good word to say about it. Even though the bill does a lot of good, like cover 30+ million more Americans, remove the pre-existing conditions, etc.

So it's official: Fox News is a fraud, they are not a News Network. They are basically working for the Republican party. The last year has proven it, they did not report the news, they helped the Republican party lie about the bill, and worked with them to try and keep it from passing.

Every single show host at Fox News opposed the Obama health reform bill, and spent a year lying about it, including O'Reilly, who claims to be a nonpartisan independent, that alone proves they are a biased one sided News Network. That is not objective journalism, it's partisan bias, and 100% proof that Fox News is a bought and paid for arm of the GOP.

Republicans Lie About Weekend Protest Crowd Size
By: Steve - March 22, 2010 - 8:30am

You know your protest is a joke when you have to lie about the crowd size, and you know it's a joke when you claim to have a national Tea Party movement, but you can only get 8 to 10 thousand people to show up. Which are the crowd estimates for the protest.

The Tea Party protest organizers said it was 25,000, so what did the Republican bloggers do, turn that into 100,000 of course. But that's not all, they also claim it was 30,000, and more than 100,000, so it goes up and up with every new report.

Notice that there are no overhead crowd photos of the entire protest, all the photos they have are close up shots that only have 50 or 100 people in them. That's what you do when you have to lie about the size of your crowd.

Instapundit writes this: "Reader Alan Poston sends this pic and reports a crowd estimate of 30,000 was given at the scene. Not sure of the source." The photo shows about 100 people in a close up shot. Then Instapundit writes this: Randy emails: "They announced 25K about 15 minutes ago."

Who is they, as expected no source was given. And all the photos are close up crowd shots that do not show the entire crowd. They we get to the biggest liar of them all, so far, Gateway Pundit, his headline says this:

100,000 RALLY IN WASHINGTON AGAINST OBAMACARE

But then right below that suddenly it's jumped to more than 100,000, and he wrote this:

Over 100,000 Patriots Rallied in Washington DC Today Against Obamacare-

And he also has 4 or 5 close up crowd shots that show about 100 people in each photo. Which is just sad, they spend a week putting a protest together and they have to lie that 25,000, 30,000, 100,000, and more than 100,000 people showed up.

When the actual crowd estimate is thousands, even Fox News reported thousands. So you know if Fox News did not even say 10,000, that it's less than 10,000. Political also reported thousands, nobody is saying it's over 10,000 except the people who ran the protet, and right-wing bloggers.

Eric at Media Matters is in Washington and he said the estimates are 8 to 10 thousand, with 10 thousand being the limit. That is why Fox News and Politico are only reporting thousands.

But what's really funny is how they think 10,000 is a lot, and that it shows what the American people want. But when Liberals had protests of 100,000 to 250,000 during the Bush years, they said nobody cares because they are just a small percentage of the country.

They can not even get 20,000 people to a protest, so why is anyone supposed to care. The whole thing is a joke, if you can only get 10,000 people to a national protest, you should just shut the whole thing down and give up.

What O'Reilly Does Not Report On Immigration
By: Steve - March 22, 2010 - 8:00am

O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, and almost everyone on the right argue that we should protect our borders and not allow anyone in the country illegally. They also argue that we should deport any illegal immigrants, but they never tell you how much that would hurt the economy, the GDP, or how much it would cost.

Now I agree that we should protect our borders and try to keep people from entering the country illegally. But it is impossible to deport all the illegal immigrants that are here now. You can not find them all, and the cost would be insane.

None of this is ever reported by O'Reilly or Dobbs when they have their biased discussions on the issue. They just demand we protect the borders and deport all illegal immigrants. While ignoring all the details, like these.

A new study released last Thursday by the Center for American Progress shows that the enforcement-only approach is not sustainable in the long-term. The CAP study says that a strategy aimed at deporting the nation's population of undocumented immigrants would cost $285 billion over five years. A deportation-only policy would amount to $922 in new taxes for every man, woman, and child in the country.

O'Reilly and Dobbs never report that fact, O'Reilly has even recently said the country is broke, and that we can not afford any new spending, he even called for Obama to put a spending freeze in place. Which does not explain how we could spend $285 billion to deport all the illegal immigrants.

The study also said this:
The undeniable conclusion from these findings is that the federal price tag to deport all undocumented immigrants currently in the United States is prohibitive.

The operational feasibility of such a massive effort is dubious at best. It would require an unprecedented deployment of resources, and the problems currently plaguing our detention system and immigration courts would be exacerbated in the extreme.

Moreover, a mass deportation strategy would have a crippling impact on economic growth.
Here is more from the study that O'Reilly and Dobbs never mention.

Even if the U.S. did not try to deport every single undocumented immigrant, the costs associated with any large-scale deportation program like the O'Reilly/dobbs and the anti-immigration groups propose are significant. The CAP study estimates that it would cost $23,148 for each person to be apprehended, detained, legally processed, and finally transported out of the country. Now take that $23.000 dollars times 12 million, and that is a lot of money, that we do not have.

Ultimately, anti-immigration groups couldn't even wish undocumented immigrants away for free. In a paper released in January, UCLA professor Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda published research which found that if undocumented immigrants were removed from the economy, it would reduce our GDP by $2.6 trillion over ten years.

Hinojosa-Ojeda also showed that if undocumented immigrants were put on an earned path to legalization as part of a comprehensive immigration reform package, it would result in at least $1.5 trillion in added U.S. gross domestic product over 10 years.

funny how O'Reilly and Dobbs never report any of that information. They fail to report it because they do not want you to have all the facts, they just want you to know what they tell you. It's called bias, they only report what they want you to see, not all the facts.

More Racism & Hate O'Reilly Will Ignore
By: Steve - March 21, 2010 - 10:30am

Today was a sad day for the Tea Party crowd, they showed their true colors, and you can bet the farm O'Reilly will not report a word of this on Monday, as he never does. Because it involves racism and hate from the right, which O'Reilly is a part of as a Tea Party supporter and promoter.

Abusive, derogatory and even racist behavior directed at House Democrats by Tea Party protesters on Saturday left several lawmakers in shock.

Preceding the president's speech to a gathering of House Democrats, thousands of Tea Party protesters descended around the Capitol to protest the passage of health care reform. The gathering quickly turned into abusive heckling, as members of Congress passing through Longworth House office building were subjected to epithets and even mild physical abuse.

A staffer for Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told reporters that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) had been spat on by a protestor. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a hero of the civil rights movement, was called a 'ni--er.' And Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was called a "faggot," as protestors shouted at him with deliberately lisp-y screams. Frank, approached in the halls after the president's speech, shrugged off the incident. But Clyburn was downright incredulous, saying he had not witnessed such treatment since he was leading civil rights protests in South Carolina in the 1960s.
"It was absolutely shocking to me," Clyburn said. "Last Monday, this past Monday, I stayed home to meet on the campus of Claflin University where fifty years ago as of last Monday... I led the first demonstrations in South Carolina, the sit ins... And quite frankly I heard some things today I have not heard since that day. I heard people saying things that I have not heard since March 15, 1960 when I was marching to try and get off the back of the bus."
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver's office released the following statement:
For many of the members of the CBC, like John Lewis and Emanuel Cleaver who worked in the civil rights movement, and for Mr. Frank who has struggled in the cause of equality, this is not the first time they have been spit on during turbulent times.

This afternoon, the Congressman was walking into the Capitol to vote, when one protester spat on him. The Congressman would like to thank the US Capitol Police officer who quickly escorted the others Members and him into the Capitol, and defused the tense situation with professionalism and care. After all the Members were safe, a full report was taken and the matter was handled by the US Capitol Police. The man who spat on the Congressman was arrested, but the Congressman has chosen not to press charges. He has left the matter with the Capitol Police.

This is not the first time the Congressman has been called the "n" word and certainly not the worst assault he has endured in his years fighting for equal rights for all Americans. That being said, he is disappointed that in the 21st century our national discourse has devolved to the point of name calling and spitting. He looks forward to taking a historic vote on health care reform legislation tomorrow, for the residents of the Fifth District of Missouri and for all Americans.
ThinkProgress is reporting that they saw racist, offensive, and threatning signs at the protest. One sign had an image of a semi-auto Browning pistol, and the text said this: If Brown can't stop it, a Browning can. Other signs had Obama as Hitler, Obama as a voo-doo witch doctor, an undocumented worker, a socialist with his head coming out a horses ass, etc.

Now think about this, these are the people Fox News and O'Reilly support. Remember when Ann Coulter was simply heckled during a speech O'Reilly reported on it and called it hate from the left. But the Tea Party people spit on Democratic Congressman and call them the n-word, and O'Reilly will most likely not say a word about any of it, because he never does.

And btw, if O'Reilly is a nonpartisan independent as he claims, why did the Tea Party protesters make a sign thanking, Fox, Rush, Glenn, Sean, and Bill. What say you Billy?

I will report back on Tuesday and let everyone know if O'Reilly reported any of this, or not. I am betting he ignores it, just like he does anything that makes the Tea Party or any other Republicans look bad.

The Friday 3-19-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 20, 2010 - 10:00am

Laura (far right) Ingraham hosted for O'Reilly. Here is my question, how can you claim to be a nonpartisan independent with a no spin zone, when your show is on the Fox News Network, your fill in host is the far right Ann Coulter wanna be Laura Ingraham, and no Independents or Democrats ever fill in, only Republicans, just asking.

The TPM was called New Obama Health Care Strategy. Ingraham claimed that Obama is changing the focus of the health care debate away from the content of the bill to what it's going to do to the quality of our health care. This is ridiculous, and nothing but right-wing propaganda from the crazy lying Laura Ingraham. What Obama is doing is telling the people the truth about what is in the bill, to counter all the lies Ingraham, O'Reilly, and everyone at Fox News are saying about it. She is right about one thing, Obama is trying to change the focus, to what is actually in the bill, instead of all the lies the right is putting out on it.

And as usual Ingraham lied about the bill increasing abortions with federal money, that's a lie, no federal money will be used for abortions. Ingraham also said the "Obama health care plan is the biggest con job that has ever been foisted on the American people. This bill will become the platform for reaching the real goal President Obama has wanted all along - a single-payer system." And my God that would be the worst thing ever, not. We should have a single payer health care system for all, then everyone would pay a set amount and have health care. Then God forbid we give all our people health care, it would be the end of the world, not.

Then Dick Morris was on to spew out his Glenn Beck type insanity, Morris said: "If Obama passes this, I think he's going to use reconciliation to run the table. He'll pass amnesty for illegal immigrants, he'll pass cap-and-trade, he'll pass a public option, and he'll pass financial regulation. He's got his own little Constitution going here."

Then Ingraham had two Democrats on, Mary Anne Marsh and Nancy Skinner. Ingraham asked if their party will be routed in November. Marsh said: "Democrats want health care reform, while Republicans and independents don't. But independents care more about the deficit than anything else, so if Democrats can convince some independents that the health care bill will reduce the deficit, they can win in November."

And Skinner pointed out that the GOP is also wildly unpopular. "People think Republicans in Congress are just trying to block Obama and that they're doing a lousy job. As soon as this bill passes, all the fear-mongering will be over, people will be happy and the polls will change."

Ingraham suggested that Democrats will pay a huge price for health care reform in November. The two guests disagreed, as I do. I think once it's passed and the people see what they are actually getting most of them will be happy, so Ingraham is just full of it. She is saying what she hopes will happen, not what is most likely to happen. If it's passed, then some jobs come back and the economy approves, the Obama approval and the approval for Congress will go back up and the Democrats will do ok in Novemebr.

Then crazy Ingraham had Democratic Congressman Luis Gutierrez on, who said he will vote "yes" on health care reform. Gutierrez said: "Now I see a President who is more focused and energetic and committed. He can not unilaterally solve the plight of 10-million undocumented workers in this country, but we are going in the right direction." Ingraham implied that Gutierrez was promised something in exchange for his vote on health care. he denied that and said: "I got a commitment," Gutierrez replied, "that immigration reform will be pursued with vigor and energy. The White House is going to be engaged."

Then Ingraham said he is not a good catholic because the Bishops and the church oppose abortion. Gutierrez killed her lies and spin real quick, he said he was elected to Congress by the people to represent them, not the church, and he also told crazy Ingraham to remember that there is a separation of church and state he must go by. Which crushed Ingrahams right-wing abortion nonsense real fast, then the segment was over.

Then crazy Ingraham had another segment on the health care bill. She had the Fox News doctor, Manny Alvarez on. He said: "I know thousands of doctors, and I can count on one hand those who agree with this health care bill. Doctors will leave the practice if this socialized medicine bill passes, which will destroy health care as we know it in America." What a shocker, the Fox news medical analyst is opposed to the Obama health care bill, shocking, not!

The other guest, emergency room physician Dr. Mark Morocco came down strongly in favor of the bill. He said: "100% of doctors have considered leaving medicine over the last fifteen years because of what's happening in this completely market-driven system we have now. What we have now is worse than socialized medicine and we have to get back to pure doctor-patient relationships."

And btw, Dr. Morocco also said that a lot of people he operates on now have no health care at all, so we pay for it already, and pay more than we would under the Obama plan. Ingraham admitted that is true, but dismissed it anyway, and moved on real quick to let the Fox News guy talk again. It was sort of a balanced segment, but Dr. Morocco barely got a word in, both Ingraham and Alvarez constantly talked over him, and tried to keep people from hearing what he was saying. Ingraham and Alvarez dominated the time.

Then Ingraham had two more segments on health care, where they just said the same things as in the other segments. And one segment on closing Gitmo, she said the White House is reportedly close to a deal that will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay in exchange for trying suspected terrorists in military courts. But we do not know if that is true yet or not, and if it applies to all terrorists. Only time will tell, and nobody knows for sure yet. If it is true, I would say Obama made a mistake and caved in to right-wing pressure. Which is not good, and will most likely cause his approval rating to go even lower.

And btw, Ingraham was far more balanced than O'Reilly ever is, even though she is a far right nut job, she had 6 Democratic guests, to only 3 Republicans guests, 4 if you include her, which I do. This never happens when O'Reilly is the host, he usually has 6 to 8 Republican guests, and 1 to 3 Democratic guests, he never has more Democrats than Republicans, ever, not one time.

O'Reilly Ignoring Republican Senator Affair Story
By: Steve - March 20, 2010 - 9:30am

As we all know O'Reilly has devoted a lot of reporting to the John Edwards affair story, even though he is not in the Senate anymore, or in any elected office. I would guess O'Reilly has done at least 10 segment on the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter affair story. And of course John Edwards is a former Democratic Senator.

Now guess how many stories O'Reilly has done on the Republican Senator John Ensign's affair. Answer, none, zero, zip, nada. And John Ensign is a current Senator, he is serving right now, yet O'Reilly has totally ignored the story, because he is a Republican.

And that's not all, just two days ago on March 18th, The National Republican Senatorial Committee was subpoenaed by a federal grand jury to provide documents from when Ensign was its chairman and having an extramarital affair with the wife of Doug Hampton, one of his top aides.

But O'Reilly has still ignored the entire story, even though he does a legal segment every week with two lawyers.

And that's not all, The recent issuance of subpoenas by the U.S. Department of Justice in addition to the Senate Ethics Committee indicates a new phase in the investigations, casting further doubt on the political future of Ensign, who a year ago was a rising GOP star.

But O'Reilly has still ignored the entire story.

This is a big story, involving a sitting Senator, sex, corruption, bribes, payoffs, and on and on, yet O'Reilly ignores it all because the Senator is a Republican. Here is more.

3-18-10 -- The subpoenas stem from probes into the allegations that Ensign tried to illegally solicit lobbying contracts from Nevada firms for his former aide. Ensign has acknowledged a nine-month extramarital affair with Cindy Hampton, who was also in the senator's employ, from December 2007 to August 2008.

The two-term senator, who turns 52 on March 25, has become a somewhat isolated figure in the Senate, fighting to be heard on health care and other issues while some colleagues are hesitant to be seen with him, according to reports in the Capitol Hill press.

One Nevada Republican insider who didn't want to be identified by name said people in political circles are angry at Ensign over the entire episode.

"What he has done is jeopardize a U.S. Senate seat and bring embarrassment to his state, not to mention subpoenas to people who have nothing to do with it," the insider said.

And that's not all, Apart from whether Ensign improperly aided Hampton in finding work, investigators area also looking into a $96,000 check that Ensign's parents made out to the Hamptons in April 2008.

But O'Reilly has ignored the entire story, on a sitting Republican Senator, as he reports all the time on the John Edwards affair, who is a former Democratic Senator. This is basically the same thing John Edwards did, and yet O'Reilly never says a word about it. If that's not bias, what is?

Republicans Caught Lying About Pelosi Approval
By: Steve - March 20, 2010 - 9:00am

The lies just never stop, yesterday while discussing the political fallout from health care on Hannity, The right-wing nut S.E. Cupp jumped in to hammer Pelosi when Sean Hannity brought up Obama's and Congress' approval ratings; Cupp falsely suggested that Pelosi has a 3 percent approval rating. Cupp announced that a new poll had Pelosi at 3 -- 3 -- 3" Hannity interjected: Percent? Cupp, laughing, replied: "Yeah -- 3," adding, "Terrible." Then she laughed some more.

Too bad it's all a lie, and just more proof that nobody can trust anything a Republican on Fox News says. Here is the actual poll question:
3. Do you approve or disapprove of the job Nancy Pelosi is doing as speaker of the House?

Approve - 31%
Disapprove - 57%
Don't Know - 13%
Do you see a 3% in there, I sure as hell don't. Her approval rating is 31%, not 3% as S.E. Cupp claimed. Now later in the very same poll the question asked who do you have the most RESPECT for, Obama, Pelosi, or Supreme Court Justice John Roberts. Here is question #9:
9. Which one of following people do you have the most respect for -- President Barack Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts?

Obama - 46%
Pelosi - 3%
Roberts - 37%
That is where the 3% comes from, it was not her approval rating, it was in the question that asked who you have the most respect for. Proving that S.E. Cupp and Sean Hannity are about as dishonest as you can get. Because they knew exactly what was in the poll, yet they still lied about it. You may ask, how did they know, because the poll was done by Fox News, the very network they both work for.

Then O'Reilly jumped on the smear Pelosi bandwagon with lies, last night he did almost the same thing as S.E. Cupp. O'Reilly couldn't help himself, saying this on his show:
O'REILLY: One poll said -- you know what Nancy Pelosi's approval rating is? Three percent. It's not a straight approval rating question -- it's who do you trust? And they listed Obama, and somebody else, and then Pelosi at 3 percent."
Lies, Lies, Lies. First O'Reilly used the lie that her approval rating was 3%, then he admitted it was not a straight approval rating, then he lied again by saying it's a who do you trust poll. Both lies, because it asked who do you have the most respect for, the word trust was not used anywhere, ever.

Not to mention, O'Reilly never once disclosed the fact that it was a FOX NEWS POLL. Hey Billy, what happened to full disclosure, not only was there no full disclosure, there was no disclosure at all. It was a fricking FOX NEWS POLL, so of course nobody taking it is going to have any respect for Nancy Pelosi. Making that poll worthless, and yet O'Reilly, S.E. Cupp, and Hannity all lied about it.

Folks, this is dishonest and biased journalism. Right here in black and white, one lies and the other one swears to it. They just make it up, and then fail to disclose that their own News Network ran the poll. O'Reilly is a biased fraud, and this just puts another nail in his coffin. It goes on forever, every day it's just more lies and more bias from O'Reilly and everyone at Fox News.

Notice what O'Reilly and S.E. Cupp are not reporting, that the approval for Congress is always around 30%, because everyone hates the Congress, hell I even hate the Congress. They do not report that approval for Republicans in Congress is 25%, with 59% disapproval, they never report that. What they also fail to report is that the Repubublican leader John Boehner has a far lower approval rating than Pelosi, she is at 31%, he is at 15%, but O'Reilly and Fox never report that. Republican Mitch McConnell is even lower at 22% approval, yet they never tell you that.

And this is the guy who tells he is a nonpartisan independent with a no spin zone. Which is just ridiculous, he is a partisan spin doctor, with an all spin zone, who is not even close to fair and balanced. Just read what I wrote here, it's 100% conclusive proof that O'Reilly is a liar, and a right-wing liar.

Rush Limbaugh Shows How Stupid He Is
By: Steve - March 20, 2010 - 8:30am

I normally do not report on anything Rush Limbaugh says, just as I normally do not report what Sean Hannity says either. But this one time I will, to show what idiots Limbaugh and all the people on the right like him are. Here is the set up, on his Thursday 3-18-10 radio show Limbaugh said that Planned Parenthood is giddy because of all the new abortions that will happen if the Obama health care bill is passed.



To begin with, Limbaugh is lying. There will not be any extra abortions if the Obama health care bill is passed, nothing will change, the abortion law will stay exactly the way it is right now. In fact, the bill specifically says no federal funds can be used for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or the health of the mother, which is exactly what the law says now.

But I want to address the fact that Limbaugh said Planned Parenthood will be giddy if there are more abortions. This is ridiculous right-wing propaganda, liberals that are pro-choice do not get giddy if someone has an abortion. I am pro-choice, but I do not get giddy when any woman gets an abortion. Especially if she is not married, and can not financially support the child.

I believe if she does not want the child she should have it anyway, then put it up for adoption. But that is just my opinion, and I would never tell a woman what to do with her body. If she has an abortion I do not like it, but I support her decision. I am not happy, or giddy, when a woman gets an abortion, as Limbaugh claims.

I am pro-choice, but that does not mean I like it when a woman gets an abortion. It means I support whatever the woman decides to do with her body, it's called freedom. In fact, I am insulted when right-wing idiots like Rush Limbaugh say liberals are giddy when women get abortions. Nothing could be further from the truth, we are not giddy, we just think it's a decision the woman should make.

Idiots on the right think liberals like it when women get abortions, which is just insane. I am writing this to defend pro-choice Americans, to say Rush Limbaugh is wrong, and to say he is an idiot. What a pro-choice person supports is freedom, real freedom, not the pretend freedom the right-wing idiots like Limbaugh claim to support.

I support a woman having the freedom to decide what to do with her own body, that's real freedom. Limbaugh and the pro-life idiots want to supress their freedoms, by telling them what to do with their own body, that's not freedom, it's communism. I do not support abortions, and I do not oppose them, I support letting the woman decide what she wants to do.

And it would not make me happy if abortions increased, in fact, it would make me sad. Because I think that future child has a right to be born, but that is just my opinion. Who knows, a child that is aborted could grow up to cure cancer, or do something else like that, but if they are not born that can clearly never happen. That is why I believe every possible child should be born, but that is my personal opinion that I would never impose on anyone else.

They also claim pro-choice means pro-abortion, this is another lie. It means just what it says, pro-choice, we support the womans right to choose whether to have an abortion or not. We are not pro-abortion, we are pro-choice and pro-freedom. And we do not run around telling women what to do with their body, or go get a gun and kill an abortion doctor. That's what they do on the right, kill doctors. Talk about radical, that's radical. And they do it over what someone they do not even know did with their own body.

In closing, Rush Limbaugh is a fricking idiot. Liberals do not get giddy at the thought of increased abortions, we simply support freedom, we do not just talk it like Republicans, we actually live it and believe in it. that is why I am pro-choice, because it equals freedom.

O'Reilly & Beck (The Two stooges)
By: Steve - March 19, 2010 - 9:30am

In video #1 Beck proves that he is a biased partisan idiot, he is saying you should leave your church if the preacher tells you to help your fellow man, which is what Churches do, yet Beck seems to not understand that.



In video #2 Beck claims progressives view of social justice is a perversion of religion. When Beck can barely even spell religion, and O'Reilly is just as bad as he is for putting this nut on the air.



It's amazing that Fox News can call this garbage journalism, when it's nothing more than right-wing propaganda and lies. And the sad part is that Fox is proud of Beck, hell they even defend him. When he should probably be in a mental institution getting professional help.

The Thursday 3-18-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 19, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Obama-Care Closing In. Once again O'Reilly talked about the Obama health care bill for the hundredth time. And as usual O'Reilly spent the entire talking points memo spewing out right-wing lies to get everyone to oppose it. The only thing he reported about it that was true is that there might be a vote on the bill this weekend, most likely on Sunday. O'Reilly talked about the CBO numbers and said the Republicans do not believe those numbers, which includes him because he does not believe them either. Basically he just trashed the Obama health care bill again, for the hundredth time. But he did admit it might pass, Billy said the odds are it will pass.

Then O'Reilly had Fox News Major Garrett and Carl Cameron were on to discuss it, number of Democrats on to discuss it, zero. Billy claims they are 4 votes short, but he thinks they will get those 4 votes by Sunday. Garrett and Cameron basically agreed with O'Reilly, and what they reported is nothing new. O'Reilly just reports the same old crap every night, to kill time I guess. As usual this segment was biased and one sided, with no Democrats to provide any balance. Because O'Reilly only wants the Republican point of view to be put out on the issue.

Then Laura Ingraham and Leslie Marshall were on to discuss it. And for once, O'Reilly had a balanced segment, almost, it was still a 2 on 1 with O'Reilly and Ingraham against Marshall. Ingraham said it still might not pass, so she is not sure it will pass yet. Marshall said it looks like it will pass, and O'Reilly agreed with her. O'Reilly said even if it does pass O'Reilly said it will hurt Obama, Marshall said she disagrees. Then O'Reilly said talk radio will hammer him, yeah because they are all right-wing loons. Ingraham of course agreed with O'Reilly that it will hurt Obama if it passes, which may be true, or not, nobody knows yet, and most people say it will not hurt him. Only Republicans think it will, and they are biased.

Then O'Reilly had the far right loon Bernie Goldberg on to attack the people who said Bret Baier was disrespectful to President Obama during his interview. Billy called them pinheads, when all they did was report what happened. It's true that he was disrespectful, Baier even said he was sorry for all the interruptions at the end of the interview, which O'Reilly has never reported btw. So if Baier had to say he was sorry, then he clearly did something wrong. O'Reilly said Baier had to interrupt because Obama was long winded. Can you imagine O'Reilly saying that about a Republican President who was being interviewed by a Democratic journalist, haha, he would never say that.

Goldberg actually took Obama's side on it, and O'Reilly instantly cut him off to tell him how he is wrong. For once Goldberg disagreed with O'Reilly, then he also defended Baier, so he sort of took both sides. Goldberg said he was bothered by the constant interruptions. Then Goldberg compared it to Brian Williams interviewing Bush, and he pointed out that if he interrupted him like Baier did Obama the right would go crazy. And Goldberg was right, yet O'Reilly blew it off and dismissed it. Basically Goldberg said he thinks both sides have a point. Except Obama is the President, Baier is just a lame reporter for a biased news network. Goldberg made the same point I did, that O'Reilly would flip if a Democratic journalist interrupted Bush that much, yet he says it's ok when a Fox reporter does it.

Then the culture warriors Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson were on to talk about a girl scout story. Some catholic group claims planned parenthood sent out some sexual material to the girl scouts, and the girl scouts deny it. Hoover said she believes the girl scouts, Carlson said we do not know for sure. then O'Reilly moved on real quick to some Lady GaGa story, he showed a Lady GaGa video and then they talked about it. billy said it was sexual, and Carlson said it was bad. Carlson is a prude, let's face it. She thinks anything sexual is wrong and bad. Hoover was not upset, and disagreed with Carlson. Hoover called it art, and said she is an entertainer. Carlson was outraged, and called it porn, lol. It's a fricking music video, that is not porn, moron.

Then O'Reilly had the crazy Glenn Beck on for his regular weekly segment. beck just said his usual crazy right-wing propaganda, but O'Reilly asked him if he is going to leave the country if Obama-Care passes. Beck said no, that he is here to stay. O'Reilly said Pelosi will not be speaker of the House this time next year, hey Billy, what happened to that no speculating rule. I guess it was just wishful thinking.

Billy asked Beck about his religious nonsense, where he told people to leave any church that talks about social justice. Becks reply to O'Reilly was even dumber than his first statement on it, and he basically just dug the hole deeper. None of it made any sense, because Beck is nuts. This Beck segment is a total waste of time. It's not news, O'Reilly just does it to get ratings from the people who like Beck.

The last segment was the total waste of time Great American News Quiz, where Billy gives two Republicans (Steve Doocy & Martha MacCallum) that work for Fox a news quiz, a quiz in which they get half the answers wrong sometimes, even though they work for a News Network. It's a total waste of time that I do not report on, because it's not news, and it has no news value at all.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, O'Reilly had 9 Republicans on the show, Garrett, Cameron, Ingraham, Goldberg, Hoover, Carlson, Beck, Doocy, and MacCallum, with O'Reilly himself that's 10 Republicans, to 1 Democratic guest, Leslie Marshall. That is the most Republicans he has ever had on one show, it's a new record. Hey Billy, is 9 to 1 balance in your world.

Biden was named the pinhead for making a joke about Fox News. But no conservatives are ever named pinheads for making jokes about CNN or MSNBC, which is just more evidence that O'Reilly is a biased Republican.

Right-Wing Coward Sends Me An E-Mail
By: Steve - March 19, 2010 - 8:30am

Now this is funny, yesterday I got an e-mail from a right-wing idiot calling me a lefty douche. Here is a copy of that e-mail, notice he does not talk about anything on the website that is not true, it's just all personal insults.
Subject: Nice Job
Date: Thursday, March 18, 2010 12:14 PM
From: marty wickman - mwickman@sprynet.com
To: no-spam-oreillyspins@yahoo.com

Not!!! Your a lefty douche.

Your Probly out their pontificating socialist feel good bullshit/save the world crap, while choking down your veal and brie, and sipping a chardonnay.

Elitist
I like how he put "Nice Job" in the subject line, pretending it was a positive e-mail. Like that is gonna fool me into opening it, when I have seen that trick a million times over the last 10 years. I think probly is probably, but as O'Reilly would say, I could be wrong. And for the record, I have never had Veal, Brie, or Chardonnay in my life.

So I replied to the moron, and this is what I got back.
Re: Re: Nice Job
Thursday, March 18, 2010 12:47 PM
From: mwickman@sprynet.com
To: no-spam-oreillyspins@yahoo.com

I apologize for this automatic reply to your email.

To control spam, I now allow incoming messages only from senders I have approved beforehand.
So the coward sends me an e-mail with nothing but personal insults, but he was too scared to approve me for a reply, what a loser coward. This is that great and powerful Republican party we hear about, not!

Right-Wing Media Lies: O'Reilly Silent
By: Steve - March 19, 2010 - 8:00am

Before I show you some of the lies the right-wing media is putting out, think about this. Bill O'Reilly does a once a week media bias segment with Bernie Goldberg, they discuss bias in the media, but they never discuss any right-wing bias at Fox or any other right-wing sources.

Think about that, O'Reilly does a media bias segment where he complains about bias in the media. As he is doing a biased segment, that never goes after Fox or any other right leaning media outlet. Proving that it is not a fair and balanced segment, that it's nothing but a one sided biased segment with no Democratic media analyst. It's complaining about media bias, as you are being biased yourself.

Now look at the partial list of lies I found just today that are being put out by the right-wing media.

The Abortion Lie

The right-wing media, Fox, Newsmax, Hannity, Rove, Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, etc. have all reported the false claims that the Senate health care bill provides federal funding for abortion beyond the limited cases allowed by current law: rape, incest, and conditions that endanger the life of the pregnant woman.

FACT: The Senate bill does not allow federal funding for abortion. The ABC World News Truth Squad even fact checked the bill and said this: "The bill makes it clear there can be no federal money for abortion."

And yet, O'Reilly and the right-wing media continue to spread the lie that it does use federal money for abortion. O'Reilly even lied about it just two days ago, even though it has been proven to be a lie.

The Slaughter Solution Lie

The right-wing media has falsely claimed a legislative proposal being considered to finalize health care reform in the House as unprecedented, undemocratic, and unconstitutional. But the rule in question is an accepted part of House procedure, and Congress repeatedly used the rule under Republican leadership.

They also report that if it is used there will not be a vote, which is another lie, because there will be a vote. The self-executing rule requires a vote to use it. And btw, not only did the the Republican Party use the self-executing rule, they "set new records" for its use.

When Republicans gained power in 1995, they proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich. There were 90 self-executing rules used in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998).

Under Speaker Dennis Hastert there were 112 self-executing rules used in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses. And yet they complain it's un-American, unconstitutional, and wrong to use it now, when they set records for using it when they had power.

The New England Journal of Medicine Lie

This is the most recent lie from the right-wing media, including O'Reilly who lied about it Tuesday night, and to this day has still not issued a correction. The New England Journal of Medicine did no such survey, and in fact, it was a non-scientific survey, not a poll.

O'Reilly said the The New England Journal of Medicine did the survey. Which is a 100% lie, because the Medicus Firm, a medical recruitment firm did the survey, and it was not even published by the New England Journal of Medicine, which O'Reilly also claimed. It was a 3 month old unscientific e-mail survey, so it's basically worthless.

And yet, O'Reilly and all his right-wing frieds are reporting the lie with no corrections, except for the one correction Megyn kelly put out. And then even after that, three hours later Glenn Beck reported the lie again.

Those lies are just a small sample of the hundreds of lies that are put out every day by O'Reilly and numerous right-wing media sources, then they say trust us, we are the truth tellers. As they complain about bias and dishonesty in the media, while they are being more biased and more dishonest than anyone.

The amount of lies from the right-wing media are stunning, yet O'Reilly never says a word about any of it, in fact, he is putting out most of the lies himself, so it would be hard for him to complain about something he is also doing. It's the ultimate hypocrisy, they complain about something they are also doing, and they are doing it more than the people they are complaining about.

Another thing O'Reilly does is when some other right-wing media source puts out a known lie, he ignores it, and does not call them out for that lie. Leaving it out there so people can think it is true, he does that to help Republicans hurt Obama. Notice that he never reports on these lies, he just ignores them. That is done to make people think they are true, and to hurt Obama and the Democrats.

Then he claims to be a nonpartisan independent with a no spin zone, that is fair to both sides. Yeah and I'm Tiger Woods too.

Still No NEJM Survey Correction From O'Reilly
By: Steve - March 18, 2010 - 9:00am

Tuesday night O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: What I'm about to tell you is simply stunning.

A new survey published by The New England Journal of Medicine, a prestigious magazine, says that nearly half of primary care doctors in America could leave the medical profession if Obamacare is passed.

According to the Journal, 63 percent of physicians feel that health care reform is needed but should be done in a more gradual way. And an astounding 72 percent of doctors believe a public option, that is a government-run health insurance company, would have a negative impact on medical care in the USA.
Then on Wednesday the New England Journal of Medicine said the 3-month-old email survey was not published in or conducted by the New England Journal of Medicine. So you would think O'Reilly would do a correction on the Wednesday night show, haha, not. In fact, I predicted he would not do a correction, and I was right. On the Wednesday night Factor O'Reilly had no correction, proving that he is a fraud, a biased, lying, right-wing fraud of a pretend journalist.

The New England Journal of Medicine even put out a statement saying they never did any such survey, and O'Reilly still did not do a correction. Which is about a big of a violation of journalist standards anyone could possibly do. Here are more details on the lies from O'Reilly, and the statements from NEJM.

NEJM spokeswoman confirms: Survey has nothing to do with the "original research" published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Media Matters for America contacted The New England Journal of Medicine and received confirmation from spokesperson Jennifer Zeis that the study had "nothing to do with the New England Journal of Medicine's original research." Zeis also made clear that the study "was not published by the New England Journal of Medicine."

The Medicus Firm conducted the survey in December 2009. The Medicus Firm is a Dallas and Atlanta based firm that recruits and places physicians in jobs, they were responsible for conducting the survey. It issued a press release about the results on December 17, 2009.

The article actually appeared in an employment newsletter. The report appeared in "Recruiting Physicians Today," an employment newsletter produced by the Massachusetts Medical Society. Zeis also said that this article "was written by The Medicus Firm." Both versions of the write-up clearly indicate that the source for the survey is The Medicus Firm and provide contact information for its media relations department.

List of people who reported the lie, notice it's all Republicans:

Bill O'Reilly
Brian Kilmeade
Ed Morrissey - hotair.com
Sean Hannity
Marc Siegel - on Cavuto

Glenn Beck also put the lie out, but he did it hours after Megyn Kelly reported it was not a New England Journal of Medicine survey. As Megyn Kelly had noted three hours earlier, the NEJM did not conduct the "survey" -- and it was "not a scientific poll."

And yet, Glenn Beck reported the lie anyway. On the March 17 edition of Fox News America Live, host Megyn Kelly noted that the survey "was conducted by the Medicus Firm, which is a national physician search firm." She also added "It's not a scientific poll; it's a survey."

So O'Reilly reported the lie, then found out it was a lie, and then still refused to do a correction. That's called biased and dishonest journalism of the worst kind. Bill O'Reilly, the worst journalist in the world.

The Wednesday 3-17-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 18, 2010 - 8:30am

The TPM was called health Care Intensity. Once again O'Reilly talked about the Obama health care plan. But he did not do a correction from last night, on the New England Journal of Medicine survey lies. Only 300 people showed up for the lame protest, O'Reilly never once reported that. He also cited another right-wing poll from the Wall Street Journal that had a majority of people opposing the Obama health care plan, while ignoring all the polls that have it closer. Basically O'Reilly is a broken record, every night he just repeats his right-wing talking points on the Obama health care plan.

The top story was about Dennis Kucinich changing his vote to yes. Dick Morris was on to discuss it, and the Obama health care bill, with no Democratic guest of course. Morris said the back door health care deal will not happen, and O'Reilly agreed with him. Morris predicted there will be an up or down vote on the bill, by Friday or this weekend. Morris did say he thinks it might pass by one vote, for whatever that is worth. Then 30 seconds later he said he is not sure if it will pass or not. So he does not know anything, he is just guessing. Then O'Reilly cried about Kucinich changing his vote, and said he knew he would change it, yeah right, as if he can read minds.

Then O'Reilly had Brett Baier on to discuss his interview with President Obama. Baier had a testy interview with Obama, and Obama complained that Baier interrupted him too much. Which O'Reilly loved, and praised Baier for doing. Billy said it caused a big stir in Washington. Baier even admitted he interrupted Obama a lot. Then he said he was sorry for it at the end of the interview, but of course O'Reilly never showed that part. Here is what the Washington Post said about it.
President Obama's interview Wednesday on Fox News Channel was a testy affair in which Obama repeatedly appeared exasperated at being interrupted and frustrated with the focus on legislative process rather than the substance of his health care proposals.

Prodded repeatedly by interviewer Bret Baier to discuss the parliamentary procedures that House Democrats are using to pass his legislation, Obama scolded Baier at several points, telling him, "Bret, let me finish."

At one point near the end of the interview, Obama shook his head and turned away when Baier cut in.

Later, Baier apologized for interrupting him, getting a smile and a firm handshake in response.
Obama even had to tell Baier he can not answer his questions because he keeps interrupting him. O'Reilly loved it, and said he was very amused. After O'Reilly played the clip of Obama scolding Baier for all the interruptions O'Reilly laughed at it, because he loved the way Baier interviewed him. Baier even said it was an O'Reilly style interview, which is why Billy loved it so much.

Then O'Reilly had the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano on for an interview. O'Reilly asked her about the virtual border funding, they claim it is not working, so they are using the money for something else. She said there is a better way to spend that money. O'Reilly called it a fraud and a waste, and wanted to know who did it, she said Bush did, so he instantly changed the subject. Then they talked about the drug war in Mexico, and she agreed with O'Reilly that we should work with Mexico to fight the border drug war.

Then they talked about Gitmo, O'Reilly said Obama made a mistake with Gitmo, and it should not be closed. She disagreed and said Gitmo has to go, and that it has been a recruitment tool for Al Qaeda. O'Reilly said it has not been a recruitment tool, and she disagreed 100 percent. Then O'Reilly talked about Military trials vs civilian trials, and of course he wants the military, and she wants the civilian trials. Bascially she disagreed with everything O'Reilly said, except the part about working with Mexico on the border drug war. In other words, he spewed out his right-wing talking points spin, and she knocked it all down with facts.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about Attorney General Eric Holder who was grilled yesterday on Capitol Hill about his opinions on the rights of terror suspects. Holder said our constitution gives people rights, and O'Reilly somehow had a problem with that. O'Reilly claims a terrorist has no rights, none, and that the constitution only applies to American citizens. Megyn Kelly said Holder is right, and O'Reilly is wrong.

She then said the Supreme Court ruled that once a person in in American control they have specific constitutional rights, O'Reilly said when did that happen, she said a couple years ago. Billy acted like he did not know that, which proves he is an idiot, because even I knew that. Then they talked about a stupid perfume lawsuit it Detroit, huh? Who cares about a stupid perfume lawsuit in Detroit. This segment shows just how stupid O'Reilly is, because he claims to be the best journalist in the world and he does not even know what the fricking laws are. And btw, that Supreme Court ruling was made while Bush was the President, by a right leaning court.

Then the best of Dennis Miller, if there is such a thing, in my opinion there is no such thing. O'Reilly showed clips of re-runs from past Dennis Miller segments. It was old clips of Miller making jokes about liberals, and most of them were not even funny. While Miller was making his jokes O'Reilly had music playing and had his graphics people add images and sound effects, and it was lame as hell. In fact, most of it was Miller making jokes about Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, and the Democratic party. One of the so-called jokes by Miller was that the Democrats have a war room for everything but war. Hahahahaha, that was so funny, not!

The last segment was did you see that with Jane Skinner. They talked about Bogota Columbia, and a commercial they are running about President Bush. I mean, who cares, it never even ran in America. Not to mention, Jane Skinner said she did not even have a complaint about it, so why even report on it. O'Reilly attacked Tom Hanks once again, and then he admitted he is over-doing the Tom Hanks story. So why keep reporting it, moron. O'Reilly said Jane Skinner wanted to talk about it, yeah right, liar. O'Reilly is just mad that Hanks will not go on the Factor, and that he does not like Hanks being a liberal.

In the pinheads and patriots segment O'Reilly cried about the U.S. military not flying an American flag in Haiti, Billy said what's up with that, and called them pinheads. I say who cares, what does it matter if they fly a flag or not, and that only right-wing idiots like O'Reilly would even waste time reporting on it. Miley Cyrus was the patriot for telling kids to not go on the internet.

And btw, O'Reilly loved the disrespectful interview Bret Baier did with President Obama. Now imagine what he would say if someone like Keith Olbermann did the same type of interview with George W. Bush, O'Reilly would flip out, call him un-American, and call for Olbermann to be deported for being disrespectful to the President.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About NEJM Health Care Survey
By: Steve - March 17, 2010 - 1:00pm

What I'm about to tell you is simply stunning. Not really, it's just more lies from O'Reilly about the so-called New England Journal of Medicine Doctor Survey. Here is what the lying O'Reilly said last night, I quote:
O'REILLY: What I'm about to tell you is simply stunning.

A new survey published by The New England Journal of Medicine, a prestigious magazine, says that nearly half of primary care doctors in America could leave the medical profession if Obamacare is passed.

According to the Journal, 63 percent of physicians feel that health care reform is needed but should be done in a more gradual way. And an astounding 72 percent of doctors believe a public option, that is a government-run health insurance company, would have a negative impact on medical care in the USA.

From the jump, "Talking Points" has been telling you about the unintended consequences of Obamacare. But if half the nation's doctors are considering getting out, that's by far the most frightening offshoot of health care reform.
Too bad it's all lies, Here is what Media Matters wrote about the so-called survey.
Members of the Right-wing media have seized on a dubious, three-month old email "survey" that purports to show that physicians are concerned about health care reform and that 46 percent of the primary care doctors surveyed "indicated that they would leave medicine - or try to leave medicine - as a result of health reform."

Many media figures have falsely attributed this survey to the New England Journal of Medicine. For example, on Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade said: "The New England Journal of Medicine has published a report and did a survey, and they said the impact of reform on primary care physicians, 46 percent, they say, feel reform will force them out or make them want to leave medicine."

This is false.

Media Matters for America contacted the New England Journal of Medicine, which confirmed it neither conducted nor published the "survey."

NEJM spokesperson Jennifer Zeis told Media Matters that the study "was not published by the New England Journal of Medicine," and said that "we are taking steps to clarify the source of the survey."
Now think about this, O'Reilly claims to have a crack staff of 10 people that research everything and never make a mistake. Yet they make a massive mistake like this, which is about as big of a mistake a so-called journalist can make. The question is, will O'Reilly do a correction tonight. The fact that he would even make that dishonest claim shows what a partisan right-wing hack he is, because only right-wing spin doctors are saying it was a NEJM survey.

And btw, the actual survey was also bogus, because it was an unscientific e-mail survey. It was not a real scientific survey, a real survey is random and done by phone. Internet and e-mail surveys are bogus because they are not scientific. The whole thing is dishonest garbage, by O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends.

It shows that O'Reilly and his right-wing friends will do anything to make people oppose the Obama health care plan, including lie about a NEJM survey that never happened. And if O'Reilly does not do a correction tonight, his credibility is zero.

Rove Caught Lying On The Factor Again
By: Steve - March 17, 2010 - 10:00am

Monday night O'Reilly put Karl Rove on the factor to set the record straight on people who have said he lied in his book. And btw, nobody was on with Rove, it was just Rove and O'Reilly.

So during the segment Rove even lied again, as he was setting the so-called record straight. Karl Rove said this:
ROVE: But let me give you an example. There are a lot of liberals, including his boss, Rick Stengel at TIME magazine, who accused Bush of saying "Go shopping" after 9/11 and condemned him for it. The only problem was Bush never said "Go shopping."

It was actually said by a colleague of Joe Klein's, a writer at TIME named Pellegrino, who wrote that Bush said go shopping in a laudatory article about the president's speech to the Congress following 9/11.

So I try and set the record straight, and you're right: The thinnest-skinned people in our political world are political journalists. And Joe Klein just demonstrated that in his snarky little comment.
Okay, in the world of Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove that is setting the record straight. Too bad it's all lies, Rove lied and O'Reilly went along with it. After 9-11 George W. Bush told people to go to Disneyland and to shop more, this is a fact.

John McCain (The Republican) even criticized Bush for saying it. Here is what McCain said about it in October of 2007 while he was running for President:
McCain: John McCain said Wednesday that President Bush made a mistake after the Sept. 11 terror attacks by encouraging people to shop rather than urging citizens to join the military or volunteer.

"I believe that the big mistake that our leadership of our nation made after 9-11 is we told people to go shopping and we told them to take a trip," McCain told students at a military prep school in this early voting state.

A month after the attacks, Mr. Bush said, "We cannot let the terrorists achieve the objective of frightening our nation to the point where we don't conduct business or people don't shop."

People would have joined the military or volunteer groups had the president urged them to do so, McCain said. "I think Americans would have responded overwhelmingly and I believe they still will," he said.
So right there you have John McCain admitting Bush told people to go shopping, and he even criticized Bush for saying it. Yet Karl Rove claims it never happened, and that Bush never said it. Then Bush said it again in 2007. Here is what Bush said in 2007:
BUSH: As we work with Congress in the coming year to chart a new course in Iraq and strengthen our military to meet the challenges of the 21st century, we must also work together to achieve important goals for the American people here at home. This work begins with keeping our economy growing. And I encourage you all to go shopping more.
So not only did Bush say it one time, he said it two times. Proving once again that Karl Rove is the king of liars, and nothing he says can ever be believed. And the great journalist O'Reilly sat there and let him lie his ass off when he knows Bush said it, so he is as bad as Rove.

The Tuesday 3-16-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 17, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Physician Opposition. O'Reilly implied that as many as half the doctors in America could leave the medical profession if the Obama health care bill passes. Which is just ridiculous, and nothing but right-wing propaganda. He said the New England Journal is reporting that. O'Reilly called it stunning, when it's not even true. Then O'Reilly spent the entire talking points saying what he has said a hundred times using right-wing talking points, the Obama health care bill is bad, so everyone should be against it.

And for the record, O'Reilly based his TPM on a bogus IBD poll that was not even scientific. Several Fox News media figures highlighted a recent Investor's Business Daily poll which found that "hundreds of thousands of doctors would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted." However, according to statistician Nate Silver, the poll is "simply not credible," and Fox News itself acknowledged that the poll is "not scientific." And yet, O'Reilly never reported any of that information, he implied it was a valid poll, and never once said it was not scientific.

Then O'Reilly had Carl Cameron and A.B. Stoddard from the Hill on to discuss it. Cameron said he has the real scoop, that Pelosi does not have the votes, so they will use political tactics to pass it anyway. O'Reilly said he does not believe that will happen, and if it does it will doom the Obama administration. Stoddard said if they pass it by using gimmicks the people will not like it. She disagreed with O'Reilly that if they do that Obama is done. O'Reilly said if they do not pass it with an up or down vote Obama is done. Stoddard said as of today the Democrats do not have the votes, she said they have it 212 to 219 against it. Cameron agreed that they do not have the votes, but he said Obama may use political tactics to back door the bill to pass it. O'Reilly said no way, but then admitted he could be wrong.

Then O'Reilly talked about moveon.org pressuring Democrats to vote for the Obama health care plan. O'Reilly called that radical, when it's simply what political groups do, and he had no problem when right-wing groups pressured Bush to do things. Monica Crowley and Ellis Henican were on to discuss it. Billy played the moveon.org ad, and then said it was not too bad, after he called them radical. Henican said it was just hardball politics, and claims O'Reilly is going overboard in the attacks on moveon.org. Billy called them a pressure group that is so far out there they should be living in Havana.

Henican said it's Democracy in action, and pointed out that big money is being spent to oppose it but O'Reilly never says a word about that. And of course Crowley agreed with O'Reilly, so as usual it was a 2 on 1 against Henican. And btw, Henican says it will pass, and it may be done with a back door deal. O'Reilly told him he was wrong, and said if Obama does it he is done. Crowley also disagreed with O'Reilly on Obama using the back door deal to get health care passed.

Henican also disagreed with O'Reilly that if Obama does the back door deal he is done. What's funny is every time Obama might do something O'Reilly don't like, he claims if he does it he's done, haha. Proving that O'Reilly is just an idiot. Not to mention he has no problem with the Insurance companies spending a million dollars a month to defeat Obama-Care, but he has a problem with moveon.org spending money to get it passed.

Then Brit Hume was on to discuss it. Hume also disagreed with O'Reilly, that Obama might back door the health care bill to get it passed. Then O'Reilly said every poll says the people do not want Obama-Care. Which is a lie, once again proving that O'Reilly is just a partisan hack. Hume did agree with O'Reilly that if Obama does the back door deal it will hurt him. Hume said it will hurt them politically in the short term, but that long term it will be good for them. O'Reilly mis-stated the bill and claimed it will not take effect for 4 years, Hume corrected him and said some of it does take effect right away.

Wow, O'Reilly just told Brit Hume that 6 million people watched the Factor last night, which would be the Monday 3-15-10 show. That is a 100% flat out bold faced lie. I am looking at the Monday ratings right now as I write this, O'Reilly had 3.769 million total viewers Monday.

And btw, the 11pm Factor re-run had 1.520 million total viewers, so even if you add the 11pm re-run to the 8pm numbers (which is never done in the ratings business) it's only 5.289 million, which is still not 6 million viewers. Earth to O'Reilly 3.7 million is not 6 million, and 5.2 million is also not 6 million, you lying jackass.


Then John Stossel was on to talk about bottled water, and if it is a rip off. And before I even report what Stossel said I can tell you that of course it is a rip off, bottled water is no better than tap water, and in soame cases it is even worse than tap water. They talked about a movie called Tapped, they said bottled water is a fraud. Stossel said tap water is just as good for you, if not better. And that 30 to 40 percent of the bottled water is tap water.

Then the is it legal segment with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle. They talked about the Erin Andrews stalker getting 2.5 years for taking nude photos of her and putting them on the internet. Erin Andrews was mad that the guy only got 2.5 years. Wiehl, Guilfoyle and O'Reilly all said it was not enough, and he should have got the 5 years. Then they talked about another teacher/student sex affair, the teacher was a woman who had sex with her 14 year old male student. Then they talked about an 11 year old boy who shot and killed a woman who was pregnant. The judge has to decide if he will be charged as an adult, the minor cut off age is 10 years old. Guilfoyle said 11 years old is too young to be charged as an adult, Wiehl said he should be charged as an adult.

The last segment was with Charles Krauthammer. He was on to talk about the Government programs that give money to students for school etc. And of course the far right Charles Krauthammer thinks it is out of control. Both O'Reilly and Krauthammer think the Government should not pay for anything, except building roads, the military, etc. Because they are both right-wing partisans, who are opposed to the Government spending taxpayer money on anything. This segment is garbage, it's Charles Krauthammer the far right neo-con, who is only on to promote the Republican view of everything, and no Democratic guest is ever on to counter anything he says.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And for the record, O'Reilly had a whopping 1 Democratic guest on the show, while he had 6 Republican guests, making it 7 Republicans when you include O'Reilly as 1 person.

The State Of The News Media (2009)
By: Steve - March 17, 2010 - 9:00am

The Pew Research Center has put out their annual Project For Excellence In Journalism Media Study for 2009, and they have some key finding I will report here. Almost all of their findings disprove what O'Reilly has said about the media, especially Fox.

After President Obama took office on 1-20-09, O'Reilly said the media is kissing his butt with nothing but positive coverage about him, except for Fox of course, who he claimed was truly fair and balanced in their reporting on Obama. The PEJ study shows the exact opposite of what O'Reilly claimed.

Under their Tone of Obama coverage, in the first 100 days after Obama took office they show a good balance of positive, negative, and neutral stories, except for Fox, where it was more negative than anyone else.

For the media overall it was 37% positive, 23% negative, and 40% neutral. So the winner was neutral, with 40%, yet O'Reilly claimed the media was doing nothing but positive stories on Obama, as the PEJ study shows that overall the media had 23% negative stories on Obama.

And btw, in the first 100 days of a new President it would be strange to not have mostly neutral or positive stories, because 100 days is not enough time to cause any negative stories, yet the media still had 23% negative stories on Obama.

If you only look at cable news only, it's even more balanced. For cable news it was 32% positive, 30% negative, and 38% neutral. That is about as balanced as it gets, yet O'Reilly claimed the media was doing nothing but positive stories on Obama, when the facts show the exact opposite. Not to mention, the media should do mostly positive stories on a new President in his first 100 days. Because he has not had enough time to generate any negative stories yet.

The Networks and Newspapers were a little less negative. But when you look at their positive and neutral coverage it's balanced. Networks were 40% positive, 41% neutral, and 19% negative. Newspapers were 41% positive, 38% neutral, and 22% negative. And they did run negative stories on Obama, 19 and 22 percent of the time, but O'Reilly said they did not run any negative stories on Obama. He specifically said Fox was the only media source that was doing any negative stories on Obama, and now we know O'Reilly was lying.

The PEJ study also pointed out that Fox was the only media outlet in America that had a majority of negative stories on Obama in his first 100 days. Quote: "On Fox, the majority of Obama stories were clearly negative in tone, the only outlet studied where that was the case."

The PEJ study also covered the Obama vs McCain presidential election. And their findings on that show a lot.

On Fox News, coverage of Obama was more negative than the norm (40% of stories) and less positive (25% of stories). For McCain, the fox news channel was somewhat more positive (22% vs. 14% in the press overall) and substantially less negative (40% vs. 57% in the press overall). Yet even here, his negative stories outweighed positive ones by almost 2 to 1.

The negative McCain stories on Fox were all because he was seen as too moderate by a lot of Fox anchors and analysts, who mostly supported Romney or other more conservative Republicans. Otherwise his negative stories would have been almost zero.

And btw, the PEJ study also clearly shows that MSNBC is a liberal leaning news network. Which everyone already knows, and they do not claim to be a fair and balanced news network as Fox does. So they are not lying to anyone, as Fox does when they claim to be fair and balanced.

CNN fell distinctly in the middle of the three cable channels when it came to tone. In general, the tone of its coverage was closer than any other cable news channel to the press overall, though also somewhat more negative than the media overall.

The distinct tone of MSNBC-more positive toward Democrats and more negative toward Republicans-was not reflected in the coverage of its broadcast sibling, NBC News. Even though it has correspondents appear on their cable shows and even anchor some programs on there, the broadcast channel showed no such ideological tilt. Indeed, NBC's coverage of Palin was the most positive of any TV organization studied, including Fox News.

The PEJ study also noted that Fox is a conservative news network. In talking about ratings the study says this: "And Fox, whose talk show hosts promote a populist brand of conservatism, further distanced itself from the competition. Its prime-time viewership was nearly bigger than both CNN's and MSNBC's combined."

They also report that for 2009 the O'Reilly Factor averaged 3.3 million total viewers a night. Which kills the lie from O'Reilly that he is getting almost 5 million viewers a night, 3.3 million is not even close to 5 million. They killed another lie from O'Reilly too, he said ratings for liberal news show were all down, that's not true, the Rachel Maddow show had a 13% ratings increase from 2008 to 2009, which almost matched the 16% increase O'Reilly had during the same time.

And btw, overall the liberal news shows on MSNBC had a 3% ratings increase. As for MSNBC, the median audience for its prime-time programming, now filled with liberal talk shows, rose 3% to 786,000 for the year. O'Reilly claimed the ratings for liberal cable news shows were crashing, when the facts show they actually had a 3% ratings increase.

So as you can see, most of the media was pretty much balanced, except for Fox, who was mostly unbalanced. And the finding of the media study show that O'Reilly lies his ass off when he complains about bias from the rest of the media. What he does is measure their coverage against what Fox does, then he claims they have this giant liberal bias, because they did not report things the same way Fox did.

This is a faulty and biased analysis of the media by O'Reilly. In other words, he wants all the media to be as biased to the right as Fox News is, and anyone that is not as biased to the right as Fox, he labels a liberal news source. When the facts show that most of the media is pretty much balanced, except for a few shows on MSNBC. Most of the bias is at Fox, yet O'Reilly denies that. Proving that his bias has blinded him to the truth, that most of the media is balanced, except for Fox.

In O'Reillyworld, every media source that is not as biased to the right as Fox, is a liberal media source. Which is just ridiculous, and only proves what a partisan right-wing hack O'Reilly is, because only a partisan Republican would make that ridiculous claim.

Tea Party Using RNC Signs At Protests
By: Steve - March 17, 2010 - 8:30am

I wonder if the great journalist Bill O'Reilly reported this, ummmmm, of course not. Because it is more evidence the Tea Party is a right-wing conservative movement, which O'Reilly has denied time and time again.

Tea Party activists from across the country are going to Washington for a three-week long "Take The Town Halls to Washington" rally, an effort to lobby undecided House Democrats to vote against health care reform. At a press conference for the event on Friday, the Daily Caller spotted signs and buttons clearly paid for by the Republican National Committee.

Tea Party activists distributed red-white-and-blue buttons and signs with the words Listen to Me! - an official RNC slogan - with disclaimers at the bottom of the signs reading Paid for by the Republican National Committee:
Michael Patrick Leahy, an organizer of the Take the Town Halls to Washington protest admitted that the RNC did provide the signs.

An RNC official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told The Daily Caller that the signs were given to the group at its request.
The Tea Party movement claims to be an independent, grass roots coalition unrelated to either party, but this is not the first time they have been caught using materials or logistical support provided by Republican operatives or Republican-aligned corporate front groups. Many large Tea Party protests have used signs and buses provided by right-wing groups like Americans for Prosperity.

Notice that Bill O'Reilly never reports any of this news. He ignores it all, because he has claimed the Tea Party is not just a bunch of right-wing nuts. And because he wants you to think it's an independent grass roots group of Americans. So he avoids reporting any news that proves he is lying, which also proves he is a biased right-wing partisan.

And btw, after it was reported that the Tea Party was using protest signs paid for by the RNC they blacked it out by putting a sticker over the part of the signs that say paid for by the RNC. Which shows that they want to hide the fact that the RNC provided them signs to use.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Health Care Bill
By: Steve - March 16, 2010 - 9:00am

Want more proof Bill O'Reilly is a biased, lying, right-wing hack of a pretend journalist, here it is. Last night O'Reilly claimed the country can not afford the Obama health care bill, and that it will use federal funds to provide abortions.
O'REILLY: "We now have taxpayer money linked up with the termination of a fetus. After much reflection, Talking Points would not vote for Obamacare mainly because the country can't afford it. In addition, it is grossly unfair to require American taxpayers to fund abortion if they believe it's wrong."
Both of those claims from O'Reilly are lies. Because the Obama health care bill actually saves the country money, the CBO said the bill cost $950 Billion over 10 years, and it cuts the deficit by $118 Billion. That will save money, so not only can we afford it, it actually saves the Government money. Which is the exact opposite of what O'Reilly claimed.

Here are the facts, O'Reilly and his Republican friends are lying to you about the cost of the bill, so you will oppose it. It's a Republican talking point lie, because if the majority of the people oppose the bill, they can claim the people are against it because of the cost. So they put out a lie about the cost, then claim we can not afford it. It's called propaganda, and only Republicans are doing it.

The proof of their lies is the CBO report, it says the bill cost $950 Billion over 10 years, and cut the deficit by $118 Billion, O'Reilly claims it will cost $2 Trillion, and add to the deficit. Which just happens to be the exact same amount the Republicans in Congress and the RNC are saying it will cost. And if you think that is just a coincidence I have a bridge to sell you.

And here is an important point, the CBO is the Congressional Budget Office, they are the nonpartisan Government agency that figures out how much a bill will cost. During the 8 years of George W. Bush, the CBO figured the cost of many many bills, and not one time did O'Reilly or any Republicans question their numbers.

Now we have a Democratic President, and suddenly O'Reilly and the Republicans claim the CBO is lying, that their numbers are wrong. Which proves that their claims of the bill costing $2 Trillion are right-wing lies, and nothing but a partisan political smear job. Because they never once questioned the CBO numbers on anything when Bush was the president.

As far as federal money being used for abortions, it is not in the bill, O'Reilly and his right-wing friends are lying to you on that too.

Fact Check: The Senate bill does not allow federal funding for abortion.

The Senate health care reform bill, as passed states that if a "qualified health plan" offered under the health insurance exchange provides coverage of abortion services for which public funding is banned, "the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable" to the subsidies created under the bill "for purposes of paying for such services."

What part of that does O'Reilly not understand, right there it says no federal money can be used for abortions.

The Senate bill establishes a separate premium to segregate funds used to pay for abortions from federal funds. The Senate bill also requires issuers to "collect from each enrollee" in plans that cover abortions a "separate payment" for "an amount equal to the actuarial value of the coverage of" abortion services. All such funds are deposited into a separate account used by the issuer to pay for abortion services; federal funds and the remaining premium payments are used to pay for all other services.

And there it is again, it says no federal funds will pay for abortions. And yet O'Reilly and his right-wing friends are still lying about it.

O'Reilly is talking about the 17 states that provide coverage under Medicaid for all or most medically necessary abortions. Those states "use their own funds" -- not federal funds -- "to pay" for the abortions. So O'Reilly is lying to you, no federal money will be used to pay for abortions. And btw, O'Reilly also claims he never uses Republican talking points, but here we have him using the Republican talking points for about the 1000th time.

The Monday 3-15-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 16, 2010 - 8:30am

The TPM was called Health Care Cliffhanger. O'Reilly talked about counting votes for the Obama health care bill. Robert Gibbs said they will have the votes, but O'Reilly and the Hill say they do not have the votes. Billy said according to Fox they are 4 votes short. Then O'Reilly went into his right-wing talking points to say it should not pass, and cited a Rasmussen poll, while ignoring all the other polls that have it closer. O'Reilly said if it passes Obama loses, if it does not pass Obama loses. So in O'Reillyworld no matter what Obama does he loses.

Karl Rove was on to discuss it. What a joke, Roves is a biased right-wing jackass who is not even close to being objective. Rove trashed the bill, and then he said he is not sure if it will pass or not. Rove once again lied about the bill allowing federal money for abortion, which is a lie. Rove gave it a 40% chance of passing. O'Reilly talked about the CBO numbers, and said you can not trust them. But when Bush was in office not one time did O'Reilly question the CBO numbers.

Rove and O'Reilly basically trashed the bill, said it was too complicated and too expensive. O'Reilly said it's all so complicated he can not understand any of it. Maybe he is just stupid, haha, but in reality O'Reilly just pretends to not understand it, because he wants to use that excuse to say people should oppose it. And btw, I am not totally for this Obama health care bill, but O'reilly is also lying about the bill to get people to oppose it. I do not think it's a very good bill, but it's better than nothing, and it should be passed.

O'Reilly held Rove over for a 2nd segment to let him defend the lies in his book, and they even attacked Tom Hanks some more. What a joke, as if Rove is going to admit they are right that his book is full of lies. O'reilly just gave Rove a forum to attack the people who are honestly reporting on the lies in his book. As if they are the bad guys, when it's Rove who was caught lying. The book is full of lies, yet O'Reilly never put anyone on to debate Rove about them, it was just Rove by himself. They trashed Joe Klein for his criticism of the Rove book, O'Reilly laughed at what Klein said, Rove said Klein is snarky, and not even worth talking about.

O'Reilly asked Rove this hard hitting tough journalism question, "why does the far-left hate you so much." That's journalism, wow, not in my world. This whole 2nd segment was just laughable, Rove did not prove anyone was wrong about what they said, they just smeared the people who reported on the Rove lies. Then they attacked Tom Hanks, for simply making a joke about buying the Rove book when it gets to the 99 cent section. Rove trashed Hanks as a mindless partisan who has no thoughts of his own.

Then O'Reilly had Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams on to talk about the Mexican drug war. O'Reilly claims the media is not reporting on it enough. Juan was in Mexico City and he said it's a war, haha, yeah we already know that genius. Juan said it's a dangerous situation, ok we already know that too. So basically Juan reported what we already know. O'Reilly asked Mary K. Ham what Obama should do, and she really had no answer to that question, she just rambled on about how dangerous it is, sort of like what Juan did. O'Reilly asked Juan if Obama should send troops to help out, Juan said we already have some DEA agents there, and that he has to do something to help Mexico fight the drug war.

O'Reilly said Obama should send some special forces troops to help them. But are we supposed to send our troops to another country to fight their drug war, I am not so sure, it sounds like a bad idea. Some people think it's ok to have troops on the border, but most people do not think we should send troops into Mexico, so of course O'Reilly is for it, because he is on the wrong side of most issues. Even most Republicans oppose sending troops into Mexico.

Then O'Reilly did another segment on kids sexting, the far right Wendy Murphy was on to discuss it. Here is my question, why is O'Reilly reporting on this, what good does it do. His reporting on it will not stop one kid from doing it, so about all it does is waste time on a so-called news show. I think it's a little creepy, why is a 70 year old man doing stories on kids sexting, when it's not news, and nothing he reports will have any effect on them doing it. O'Reilly even called it an epidemic, when a Pew Research Poll says only 15 percent of teens are sexting, is that an epidemic. Even if it is, how can you stop it, and why is O'Reilly reporting on it.

Then Billy had the far right Bernie Goldberg on to discuss the media reporting on the John Edwards scandal. Now that's a good one, in the past O'Reilly has said he does not cover the John Edwards story very much because it's a tabloid type story, and he also said he did not report it very much out of respect for Elizabeth Edwards. Even though that's a lie, because O'Reilly has covered the Edwards story a lot.

In my opinion this story should not be reported on any real news show, it's a tabloid news story. Goldberg said if he ran a newspaper called the Goldberg times he would report it, but only his political reporters would report on the possible indictment, not the entertainer reporters. Goldberg said he would nut run the sexy photos of Rielle Hunter, which O'Reilly did, haha. So he basically said it was a tabloid story, but that he would run it, except for the sexy photos, which O'Reilly and Fox news did.

And remember this, O'Reilly said he would never report on Edwards again, unless he is indicted. O'Reilly even called it a creepy story, as he was running the sexy photos and talking about the story, what a jackass. He does a story on her sexy photos, shows the sexy photos, then calls it creepy and says he will never do it again. Ummmmm, ok, so why do the story in the first place.

The last segment was the totally ridiculous Factor Reality Check. I do not report what O'Reilly says, because it's usually just stupid, but I will tell you what the segment is all about. It's O'Reilly playing clips of something a liberal said, then he gives you his opinion about it, and he calls that a reality check. It's not reality, and there are usually no checks.

Basically it's sort of a 2nd talking points memo, that gives O'Reilly another segment to spin out right-wing propaganda with no guest. And one important thing to know is that 99% of the so-called reality checks are on liberals, almost none are on conservatives. Proving that O'Reilly has a right-wing bias, because a real nonpartisan journalist would have an equal 50/50 balance of reality checks. I will say this, O'Reilly used the reality check to attack Tom Hanks again, he is obsessed with him. O'Reilly even admitted he may be overdoing the Tom Hanks thing, wow, finally an actual reality check, on O'Reilly.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And another 100% right-wing biased O'Reilly Factor was over. Not one Democratic guest was on the entire show.

Advertisers Have Left Fox Because Of Beck
By: Steve - March 15, 2010 - 3:30pm

Since Glenn Beck called President Obama a racist with a deep-seated hatred for white people in July 2009, more than 200 companies have decided to boycott Beck's show.

In August, when only 33 companies had left the program, Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti told AP that the network was not losing any revenue from the boycott because the companies had "simply requested the ads be moved elsewhere." But the Washington Post reports today that Apple, along with a handful of other advertisers, have abandoned the entire network:
More than 200 companies have joined a boycott of Beck's program, making it difficult for Fox to sell ads. The time has instead been sold to smaller firms offering such products as Kaopectate, Carbonite, 1-800-PetMeds and Goldline International.

A handful of advertisers, such as Apple, have abandoned Fox altogether. Network executives say they believe they could charge higher rates if the host were more widely acceptable to advertisers.
And notice that nobody at Fox News is reporting this story, or even admitting to it. O'Reilly and Hannity have totally ignored the story, and nobody at Fox will even admit it's true. Now imagine what they would do if Keith Olbermann had advertisers who left MSNBC because of crazy things he has said.

It would be a 24/7 story on Fox for a week, O'Reilly and Hannity would report on it every night, with follow up segments. But when it happens to Fox because of Beck, they are silent as a mouse.

What this shows is that Fox News is willing to lose valuable advertisers, to put out right-wing propaganda and right-wing hate speech. Which is just more proof they are a right-wing News Network. Because a real News Network would have fired Beck a long time ago, in fact, a real News Network would have never hired Beck in the first place.

Fox Cut Away From Obama Health Care Speech
By: Steve - March 15, 2010 - 3:00pm

And they wonder why they get attacked for being a right-wing News Network, because of stuff like this. There are three Cable News Networks, and Fox is the only one that cut away from the speech early. CNN and MSNBC covered the whole speech.

Howard Kurtz even wrote about it on his twitter account.
KURTZ: Fox breaks away early from Obama health care speech, MS & CNN still with it. This is part of the reason why FNC seen as tilting against WH.
And btw, Fox cut away from the Obama speech to report on the that the Erin Andrews peephole stalker was to be sentenced in the afternoon. When it had not even happened yet, they cut away from Obama to report that they will report on it later. I could understand it if they had some breaking news to report, but they had nothing, they just cut away because he is a Democrat, and they did not want to air his speech on health care.

Here is a message to Fox, if you cut away early from a speech by the Democratic President, you can not deny you are a right-wing News Network. If you are going to lie about it, at least try to pretend you are not a right-wing News Network, that is not even trying.

Republicans Lie So Much It's Ridiculous
By: Steve - March 15, 2010 - 10:00am

What's worse is that they go on tv and spew out these lies, and nobody in the media calls them on it. You have to read it on the internet, because the so-called journalists on tv are cowards who never call them out for their lies. Making these stooges in the media as bad as the Republicans who spin out all these lies. Here is a small sample of Republican lies that nobody on tv calls them out on.

Lie #1: Republicans claim it's wrong for Obama to use reconciliation to pass his health care plan, they even claim they never used reconciliation during the Bush years for anything, and never voted for any reconciliation bills. Which is a flat out 100 percent lie, Bush used reconciliation at least 5 times in his 8 years, and almost every Republican voted yes each time.

Lie #2: Republicans claim they support health care reform, they just do not like the plan that Obama wants to put in place. They also claim they tried to work with Obama on his health care plan but Obama refused to deal with them. Which is all lies, the Republicans had the White House and or Congress for the last 15 years, and they did not even come up with a health care reform bill, let alone try to pass one. And their plan for Obama was vote no, they just vote no on everything. They are simply stalling until November hoping they will get a majority back in the House or the Senate.

Lie #3: As polls show increased support for the Obama health care reform Republicans claim support is dropping. Support for President Barack Obama's health care plan has been building in the wake of his State of the Union speech in late January. Since February, 44 percent of those tested in national surveys support the bill while 45 percent oppose it - a change from the 38 percent favor, 52 percent oppose average of polls conducted in the three months prior.

Lie #4: Rove claims that NOBODY in the Bush administration ever said the Iraqi oil revenue would help pay for the war. This is a 100 percent lie. Days after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told a congressional panel that Iraqi oil revenues would help pay for the cost of the war. He said, "The oil revenue of that country could bring between 50 and 100 billion dollars over the course of the next two or three years. We're dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

One month before the war, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Iraq "is a rather wealthy country. And there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction."

Lie #5: The Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said this talking about the Obama health care plan, "No way in the world is what they did in Massachusetts like what we're about to do in Washington."

In fact, the plan implemented by former Republican Gov. Mitt Romney in Massachusetts is very similar to the Obama plan. Both plans require people to purchase coverage and both provide affordability credits to those who can't afford insurance. Both create insurance exchanges, both establish minimum creditable coverage standards for insurers, and both require employers to contribute towards reform.

And that is only 5 recent Republican lies, I could go on forever. I could fill this website with examples of Republican lies, that nobody on tv ever says a word about. They just ignore it and let them spin out their right-wing propaganda.

Especially O'Reilly, he not only ignores all their lies, he puts most of them on his very own show to help them spew out their lies. And you wonder why the majority of Americans hate the media, this is one reason why. Because so-called journalists on tv let these people spew out lies, without calling them on it.

O'Reilly proves Once Again How Stupid He Is
By: Steve - March 13, 2010 - 1:00pm

During the Friday night segment with Geraldo about minorities having more babies than whites, which was a racist segment to begin with. O'Reilly went on to prove that he is not only a racist, he is a stupid racist. O'Reilly said this: "You always hear the cops are picking on African-Americans, but whites are arrested way higher than African-Americans."

Basically O'Reilly is trying to deny there is racial profiling by saying more whites are arrested, which he failed at big time. Instead of proving there is no racial profiling, he just showed everyone what a biased and stupid fool he is. Because only a braindead 5 year old would believe the lame argument he made. If you look at the population numbers, then compare it to what percent of whites and blacks are arrested, you see the real truth.

In 2008, 69.2 percent of all persons arrested nationwide were white, 28.3 percent were black, and 2.5 percent were other races.

Reality Check: Of course more whites are arrested than blacks, because we have far more whites than blacks in the country. In 2008 (the year of the report that Oreilly is quoting from) the census bureau listed the white population to be 79.8 percent, and the black population only 12.8 percent. So of course more white people will be arrested than blacks, because there are far more white people in America.

The real issue is the percent of blacks arrested compared to their percent of the population. That is the real measure, and when you look at that it's ridiculous, it shows that O'Reilly is just an idiot. Blacks are only 13 percent of the population, yet 50 percent of the people in prison are black. While whites are 79.8 percent of the population, but only 1.5 percent of whites are in prison.

Here is the video of O'Reilly showing how stupid he is.



Fox Health Care Plan: Treat People Like Dogs
By: Steve - March 13, 2010 - 12:30pm

It's funny how O'Reilly never reports on the crazy garbage put out by the Fox & Friends crew in the mornings. He hopes most people will ignore it, because it makes them look like lunatics, which they are.

Less than two weeks after Rush Limbaugh proposed eating applesauce as a solution for not being able to afford dentures due to lack of health insurance, Fox's Steve Doocy endorsed a right-wing veterinarian's idea to fix health care by treating people like dogs. Rush Limbaugh has also cited a lack of a federal dog health care plan as evidence that health insurance is not necessary.

On the March 12th Fox & Friends, Steve Doocy reported on a Newsweek column by what he called a "very brilliant" veterinarian Karen Oberthaler entitled "Treat People Like Dogs" which suggested that the health care system should resemble the veterinary one. Doocy said the idea "makes a lot of sense," because we're on the hook for our pet's medical costs.

Doocy said: "There's only 3 percent of Americans who have pet insurance and so we're on the hook for the charges. So, if Americans were on the hook for all the tests and stuff, it would be a lot different."

Citing Oberthaler's column, Doocy added: "if you've got a golden retriever and you know that the dog has got cancer and it's -- you know, there really is no getting any better, would you order a bunch of tests that are going to be costly and right out of your pocket because chances are you don't have the insurance...it also has to do with, you know, putting the dog through pain at the end of the road."

Earth to Steve (Dog-Man) Doocy, you are so fricking stupid it's beyond belief. People are different from dogs, they work, dogs do not, people need to have health care to do their jobs and support their family, dogs do not, should I go on. Okay I will, the most important thing a dog does in a day is lick his privates, hump anything that moves, eat, and sleep.

Dogs do not have to make money to support a family, and if something happens to your dog you just go buy a new one for $50.00, or get one free from the dog pound. Should I go on, okay I will. If you are a person you need to be in good health to work a job that pays the bills, dogs do not have any of those problems. I could go on forever, but I think you get the picture, that Doocy is about as stupid as it gets.


Steve Doocy, the dumbest man on earth.

The Friday 3-12-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 13, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Did Fox News Sabotage Obama-Care. In the words of Bill O'Reilly, are you kidding me with this? The answer is not only YES, it's hell YES. Now look what O'Reilly said:
O'REILLY: "Writing in the Washington Post, former New York Times editor Howell Raines accuses Fox News of sabotaging Obama-care and waging a jihad against the entire Obama administration. Raines writes that FNC has not lived up to 'standards of fairness and objectivity.'

Are you kidding me with this? 'Standards of fairness' at the New York Times and other liberal media organizations? Right now liberal columnists at the Times outnumber conservatives ten-to-one. That sounds 'fair,' doesn't it? Mr. Raines himself is a committed left-wing guy who surrounded himself with like-minded people in his short tenure as Times editor.

Now, incredibly, Howell Raines is casting himself as the keeper of the journalistic flame. The Factor is the signature broadcast of the Fox News Channel and we have covered the Obama-care debate carefully and with fairness, as have most of my colleagues.

So what's really going on here? Well, it's simple: Howell Raines is finished, the New York Times is bleeding, and the elite media in general has lost enormous power. In the meantime, Fox News continues to rise. There you go."
Notice what O'Reilly does, first he lies that Fox News has not helped to turn people against Obama-Care by doing a 24/7 attack on the bill with lies about what is in it. O'Reilly himself has constantly lied about what is in the bill, he said it would cost $2 Trillion, when the CBO said $950 Billion. O'Reilly also said it would bankrupt the country, when the CBO said it would cut $113 Billion from the deficit. O'Reilly has also said the bill is so confusing that nobody knows what's in it, and that if you do not know what is in it you should be opposed to it, he has even cited the Rasmussen poll on Obama-Care, to claim EVERYONE is against it. And btw, all of that is talking points the Republican party is using, which O'Reilly has said he never uses.

When a Gallup poll taken just 5 days ago has it at 45% for it, to 48% against it. That's a tiny 3 point difference, and the margin of error in the poll is + or - 4 points. So if it was - 2 points to the for it side, it would be 47% for it, with 46% against it. If you take the entire 4 point MOE and put it to the for it side you have 49% for it, and 44% against it. Yet O'Reilly claims EVERYONE is against it, when it's really a 3 point difference, which is hardly everyone, and neither side has a majority over 50 percent.

That alone proves that Howell Raines is right, that Fox News has helped to make Obama-Care look bad by using spin and lies about what is in the bill. Then O'Reilly pulled his old diversion trick, he does not discuss the bias by him and everyone at Fox News on Obama-Care, instead he attacks Howell Raines for his bias, and the bias at the NY Times. This is an old trick used by O'Reilly, attack the attacker. Then O'Reilly claims everyone at Fox News has covered the Obama-Care debate fairly, including himself, which is just laughable, you have to be deaf, dumb, and blind to believe that. Fox News has smeared and lied about Obama-Care 24/7, from the bogus death panels, to the bogus cost, to the lies that it will bankrupt the country, Fox has done it all.

What Howell Raines did was simply point out the obvious, and every word he wrote about it is 100% true. And to show you more proof that O'Reilly has not, and is not, being fair in the Obama-Care debate, O'Reilly then had the biased far right Bernie Goldberg on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest to give the other side. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Howell Raines declined to appear, but The Factor interrogated Bernie Goldberg about his accusations.
In the words of Bill O'Reilly, Are you kidding me with this? Bernie Goldberg, he's about as fair and balanced as having Karl rove on to discuss it. You interrogated him, Are you kidding me with this? How can you interrogate someone who agrees with you, it's impossible. This is how you have a fair and balanced debate, have Bernie Goldberg on, Are you kidding me with this? Doing that is just more evidence that Howell Raines was right, because not only are you not fair in the Obama-Care debate, you are not even fair when you debate what Raines said about your reporting on it.

Needless to say Goldberg joined with O'Reilly to attack Raines, without once discussing the issue, that Fox has not been fair in their reporting on Obama-Care. They just used a diversion tactic to attack Howell Raines, with no Obama-Care supporters on to discuss it, and nobody on who agrees with Raines that Fox has been unfair. This is a violation of Journalism 101, and a violation of the rules of ethics, that say always give both sides of the story. O'Reilly and Goldberg is not both sides, it's one side, which is even more proof that raines was right. O'Reilly can not even do a fair debate on whether or not Fox has been fair to Obama on his health care bill, they even stack the deck with only right-wing guests on that debate.

And since that was so long I'll try to cut the rest of my review as short as possible. Then O'Reilly had another racist segment on minority babies being born, if he does not care why is he reporting on it. O'Reilly had Geraldo on to discuss a new study that says the number of minority babies being born in America has surpassed the births of white babies. I will not go into detail, but it sure was a racist segment, I mean who cares that more minority babies are being born than white babies, except racist white guys. At the end Billy predicted that non-white citizens will continue to pursue the American Dream. Whatever the hell that means, the whole segment was just creepy, and O'Reilly is clearly a racist. And btw, I am a white person, and even I can see that O'Reilly is a racist.

Then O'Reilly continued his biased one sided right-wing smear job on Tom Hanks, for like the 3rd night in a row. And this time he not only had one right-wing guest on to discuss it, he had two segments and two right-wing guests on to help him smear Tom Hanks. In the first biased and one sided smear segment O'Reilly had Professor Jennifer Burns on to attack him. And remember this folks, O'Reilly has a Factor Producer do a pre-interview of each guest, so they know what they plan to say before they are even put on the air. That means Billy put her on to specifically attack Hanks, with no guest to defend him. Which is exactly what she did.

At the end Billy criticized Hanks for refusing to appear on Fox News and answer tough questions, O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It's hard for me to believe that Mr. Hanks believes racism actually played a major part in the Japanese situation, or the current war on terror. If any American thinks the war on terror is racist-driven, they're out of their minds.
Notice how O'Reilly misrepresents what Hanks actually said, then attacks him for what he claims Hanks said, when he never said that. Hanks did not say WWII or the war on terror is/was racist-driven, he never once said that, ever. What Hanks said is that there is SOME racism in the war on terror against Muslims, and that there was SOME racism after WWII started against the Japanese. Both of which are true, yet O'Reilly has to distort what he said to attack him and make his position look better.

Then as if that was not enough O'Reilly had the crazy far right neo-con nut-job, Col. Ralph Peters on to smear Tom Hanks some more, with no guest to defend Mr. Hanks of course. Which is once again a biased one sided segment that violates the rules of Journalism. The crazy Col. Peters basically joined in with O'Reilly and accused Hanks of historical illiteracy, and said he has no idea what he's talking about. When Hanks is right, no matter how many times O'Reilly and crazy Col. Peters say he is wrong.

Then O'Reilly had the crazy far right nut Glenn Beck on for his regular weekly segment, At Your Beck And Call. O'Reilly asked Beck why he devoted an entire hour to interrogating loopy former Congressman Eric Massa. Beck said, "He had talked to me on the phone, and claimed that the Obama administration was out to get him and there was some kind of bribery involved. I asked if he had details and facts, and he said he did."

And as usual Beck was lying, he had no details, no facts, and no bribery evidence, nothing. In fact, afte the hour long joke, Beck even said he was sorry to his viewers for wasting an hour of their time with the Massa interview. But he put the guy on anyway, for an entire hour. Simply because he was hoping the guy had some actual evidence that Obama did something wrong, so he could smear him. When the guy had nothing, Beck just did it to get ratings, which it did, he almost beat O'Reilly that day. But then the next day his ratings went back down to their normal levels.

The last segment was dumbest things of the week. Which is funny because this segment is the dumbest thing of the week. O'Reilly had Greg Gutfeld and Juliet Huddy from fox News on to report their dumbest things of the week, and of course they all picked something a Democrat had done. Including O'Reilly, which is what they do every week. Not once is a Republican ever mentioned in the dumbest thing of the week segment. It's always Democrats, because three Republicans are doing the segment, so they always pick Democrats, when Republicans do way more dumber things, they just never report any of it.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. The patriots were everyone who bid on the signed bold/fresh tour posters by O'Reilly and Beck. Yeah right, if that's being a patriot I'm Elvis. O'Reilly sure has a strange idea of what a patriot is, a patriot to me is someone in the military, a policeman, a fireman, an EMT worker, a emergency room doctor who saves lives every day, etc. Those are real patriots, yet you never see O'Reilly name them patriots, instead he names the morons who bid on his signed poster a patriot.

The Thursday 3-11-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 12, 2010 - 11:40am

The TPM was called Patrick Kennedy's Afghanistan Anger. O'Reilly did an entire talking points memo on Patrick Kennedy saying the media is wrong to talk about Congressman Massa 24/7, while failing to report on Afghanistan. Then O'Reilly said he was right about the Massa reporting, but wrong on the Afghanistan reporting. Billy said this, "The Congressman is right about Massa, but he's wrong about press coverage of Afghanistan, which has been extensive. Apparently Mr. Kennedy, who will not debate the issue with me, has some problems about the way the war is being waged."

You are wrong O'Reilly, and Kennedy is right about everything. His point is that the media covers lame scandals about unknown Congressman 24/7, while pretty much ignoring real news like what is happening in Afghanistan. O'Reilly claims the reporting on Afghanistan has been extensive. Which is a total lie, O'Reilly and Fox News barely mention Afghanistan. O'Reilly spends 100 times more on tabloid news stories about naked people in commercials, skinny models, regular models, strippers, prostitution, etc. than he does Afghanistan. So basically O'Reilly spent 3 minutes telling Kennedy he was wrong, when he was exactly right.

And btw, during the segment O'Reilly complained that Kennedy would not come on the Factor to talk to him, O'Reilly said if you will not talk to him about it then shut up. Who made you God, if Kennedy does not want to talk to your biased right-wing ass, he does not have to. O'Reilly acted like if Kennedy will not do the Factor he should just be quiet, which is just ridiculous, and if I were Kennedy I would never do the lame right-wing spin Factor either.

Then O'Reilly had the far right Laura Ingraham on to discuss their speculation that there is tension between Pelosi and the White House. O'Reilly and Ingraham basically speculated about all of it, after O'Reilly has claimed he never speculates. In fact, O'Reilly even used the word speculate, he said he is speculating the Obama health care bill may never even come up for a vote. I guess in his old age he forgot he said in the past that he never speculates. Ingraham said Pelosi does not have the votes to pass it, that the whole thing is falling apart, and she gave it a 30% chance of passing.

When the smart money is saying it will pass, and that it might even have some kind of a public option. Ingraham and O'Reilly just say what they want to happen, not what might happen. They are supposed to be doing an analysis of the Obama health care bill, instead they just say what they hope will happen. It's biased right-wing spin, and nothing more. I do not know if it will pass or not, but I do know this was not an analysis, it's was just O'Reilly and Ingraham saying what they want to happen.

Then O'Reilly did another one of his classic smear job segments on a liberal, that he claims is not a smear job, but it really is. During the segment they report something, imply it is a bad thing, then admit the liberal did nothing wrong, but they do the segment anyway. And it's always done with one Republican guest, and no Democratic guest. O'Reilly had Dana Perino on to discuss a legal brief that Eric Holder filed in 2004, arguing that the president can not hold a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant. In 2004, that's 6 fricking years ago.

Remember this, after Bush left office and Democrats tried to go back in time and report on things Bush did, O'Reilly said no, that we can not go back in the past and waste time talking about history. So here he does a segment with Perino where they go back 6 years just to report he filed a legal brief. Perino criticized Holder for failing to disclose that information when he was nominated by President Obama. "When he was confirmed by the Senate," Perino said, "Holder was asked whether his questionnaire was complete and thorough. Under oath, he said that it was, but now we know that he had filed this brief. I'll take him at his word that it was inadvertent."

O'Reilly said maybe he just forgot, and said it was no big deal, that he did not really care about. Holder has said he just forgot to include it in his information. And nobody really cares if he did or not, except O'Reilly and Perino. Lawyers file thousands of legal briefs, and they can not possibly remember them all. So O'Reilly did an entire segment on it, just to smear Holder, with a right-wing guest. Then during the segment O'Reilly said it was no big deal, and Perino said she believes he just forgot. So where was the scandal, there was none, it was just another one sided biased right-wing Factor smear job.

Then O'Reilly did another segment on Patrick Kennedy with Sally Quinn. She said, "Kennedy is clearly passionate about this, he called the press 'despicable' and I'm sure every politician has waited for that moment. My sense is that he just erupted with frustration - it's really frustrating to talk in the gallery when no one is there and you're talking about something you're passionate about."

Then again, maybe he was right, and the media is a joke. Quinn is an idiot in my opinion, because Kennedy was clearly right, the media is a joke. They spend 24 hours a day talking about Congressman Massa, and about 5 minutes a day talking about Afghanistan and other real news stories. It was not only about frustration, it was mostly about hammering the media for not doing their job. They care more about ratings then informing the people with real news, that's what Kennedy was saying.

Then crazy O'Reily again invited Congressman Kennedy to debate the issue, he said this, "If he has a serious beef about Afghanistan, I wish he would come and tell me what it is. This program covers Afghanistan, your newspaper covers it, so what else does he want? I think there is something else bothering him about the press, maybe that his late father wasn't treated well."

Which is ridiculous, Kennedy is never going to do the Craptor, his late Father was treated well, and the media barely covers Afghanistan at all.

Then O'Reilly had the Culture Warriors Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson on to discuss some ridiculous study that claims marriage is better if the woman is 27% smarter then the man. This stuff is tabloid garbage, yet O'Reilly wasted half the segment talking about it. Both Hoover and Carlson said it was bull, but they still wasted time talking about it. Then they really went off the deep end. The Warriors theorized why alcohol and marijuana abuse is rising among teens. "The message of society," Carlson claimed, "is that it's cool and it's okay. Just this past weekend Woody Harrelson wore a tux made of hemp and everybody talked about it." But Hoover disagreed, saying "the cultural cues in the past year have been of major celebrities with drug problems."

Carlson is an idiot, so drug use is up because Woody Harrelson wore a tux made of hemp. Give me a break, that is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. O'Reilly even made a joke about him smoking his tux, which is even dumber than what Carlson said. Earth to idiots, smoking hemp does not get you high. Hemp has no THC in it, so the best it would do is give you a headache, or maybe even make you sick. And I would bet that not one teen in America knew that he wore a tux made of hemp, or cared, if they did know. The whole segment was stupid, and all it did was prove how dumb O'Reilly and the Culture Warriors are.

Then O'Reilly had Megyn Kelly on to talk about a skinny Victoria's Secret model, and of course he had plenty of video and photos of models half naked in underwear and bikinis on the screen as they were talking. Here is a thought, I wonder what the Factor ratings would be if he never ran video and photos of sexy women in their underwear, bikinis, stripping, etc. Half the show now is women half naked doing something. And clearly it's simply done to get ratings.

They did talk about real news, Kelly explained why conservatives are opposed to Goodwin Liu, who has been appointed by the President to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals. "This is what you would expect from President Obama. Liu has said that the Constitution is a document that should be adapted and he has a left-wing ideology. But his qualifications are unassailable." So basically she is saying he is qualified, but he should be rejected anyway, because he has some liberal views.

Which is the opposite of what O'Reilly and the Republicans said when Bush nominated conservative judges. Back then they said if the judge is qualified it's the right of the President to have him on the court. Now they sing a different tune, when a Democratic President nominates a liberal judge. Now they oppose him because he is a liberal, proving they are massive hypocrites.

The last segment was the total waste of time Great American News Quiz, with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum. Which I do not report on because it's not news, and has no news value at all. It's just O'Reilly asking two right-wing Fox News morons some questions about what has been in the news. And they get half the questions wrong, even though they work for a news network.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And in case you did not notice there were 8 Republicans to 1 Democrat on the show, that's fair and balanced, not!

The Wednesday 3-10-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 11, 2010 - 11:30am

The TPM was called NY Times Fabricated Story. O'Reilly claims the NY Times put out a bogus story about the split in the Republican party over what crazy Liz Cheney (and O'Reilly) are doing with the smears on the DOJ lawyers. O'Reilly called it a fraud, and said there is no split. O'Dummy said this:
O'REILLY: The article says Liz Cheney's group 'Keep America Safe' has alienated some on the right because the group is criticizing American lawyers who have defended captured terrorists. But we can find no high-profile conservative who has criticized attorneys for defending incarcerated terrorists. So there is no controversy within the conservative community; I believe 90% of those on the right support attorneys for jihadists.
O'Reilly said this: "But we can find no high-profile conservative who has criticized attorneys for defending incarcerated terrorists."

And what O'Reilly just did is dishonest, because they are criticizing Liz Cheney, her right-wing group, and you, they are not criticizing the DOJ attorneys, dumbass. I could show you 10 or more Conservatives who have criticized Liz Cheney and other people on the right for attacking the DOJ lawyers. So there is a split, and the NY Times is correct. And btw, O'Reilly is defending the DOJ attorney attacks by Liz Cheney because he is doing it too, so of course he is going to defend her, when he is guilty of the same biased attacks. For more information on it just read my blog, I document many Conservatives who have spoke out against the DOJ attorney attacks.

Then O'Reilly had Dick (hooker toe sucker) Morris on to discuss it, number of Democratic guests on to discuss it, zero. And the first thing the dishonest right-wing idiot Morris said to O'Reilly was, "I agree with you that there's no split in the conservative movement."

Proving that he is a lying right-wing fool, just like his hero O'Reilly. And do not just believe me, do a google search on the issue, and you will see the truth. Here are just a few headlines I found with a simple 2 second google search.

Conservative lawyers criticize attacks on DOJ lawyers - Ben Smith: To defame these lawyers like Liz Cheney is doing is shameful. (Politico)

Republicans scold Liz Cheney - Ken Starr, Liz Cheney and Larry Thompson among those criticizing Liz Cheney and others for attacks on lawyers. A group that includes leading conservative lawyers and policy experts. (Politico)

Conservatives Condemn Liz Cheney's 'Al-Qaida 7' Attack Ad - Conservative legal minds criticize an ad that suggests US Attorney General Eric Holder has hired al-Qaida sympathizers. (aolnews.com)

Fmr. Bush attorney general slams Liz Cheney - Michael Mukasey, President George W. Bush's last attorney general, has added his voice to a growing conservative chorus of condemnation against Liz Cheney's attacks on Department of Justice lawyers who represented Guantanamo Bay detainees. (rawstory.com)

I could go on forever, yet O'Reilly claims it's all bogus and that the NY Times just made it all up. When he is the liar who can not even admit the truth. Then he thinks if he puts Dick Morris on to agree with him that makes it true, haha.

Then O'Dummy attacked Tom Hanks some more because Hanks is a liberal and O'Reilly does not like what he says. Billy said that Tom Hanks implied that America's war on terror is partly motivated by religious bigotry. Hanks refused an invitation to appear, so liberal attorney Mark Levine served as a stand-in for the actor. Levine said, "I think he's getting at the fact that there was a lot of racist propaganda during World War II, when we took an entire people and condemned them for what their leadership did.

Levine also said, "There has been anti-Muslim sentiment in this country and we should distinguish between Osama Bin Laden and the ordinary peaceful Muslim." O'Reilly disputed the notion that ordinary Muslims are being targeted. And said this, "Mr. Hanks falls into the far-left trap of demonizing his country for a legitimate war against terror, that's what this pinhead is doing. That is irresponsible and Hanks should be ashamed. We haven't demonized the Muslim world."

O'Reilly also said there was no racism against the Japanese people in WWII, which is just laughable on it's face. Then he said Hanks is lying when he says there is also racism against Muslims in the war on terror. When Hanks is right, there was racism against the Japanese in WWII, and there is racism against Muslims now. O'Reilly is just an idiot who spins out all this right-wing garbage because he does not like Hanks, because he is a liberal, because he is telling the truth, and because most of the racism is from Republicans like O'Reilly and his right-wing friends.

Basically O'Reilly demonized Hanks and lied about him, for simply telling the truth, and O'Reilly did it because it makes him and his right-wing friends look bad. Billy even said Hanks does not have the balls to go on his show, haha. Like Tom Hanks is scared of Bill O'Reilly, the lame biased cable news talk show moron. Hanks just does not want to lower himself to do a bogus and biased right-wing propaganda cable news show.

Then O'Reilly put some right-wing Priest on to discuss a story about a Catholic school in Colorado that banned two kids because their parents are lesbians. O'Reilly asked Father Jonathan Morris about the theological issues involved. Morris said, "It is a question about a religious institution being able to preserve its identity on fundamental issues. The primary objective of Catholic education is teaching the faith, and when parents decide to send their kids to Catholic schools, they become equal partners in teaching the faith. These two parents are very public dissenters who disagree with the fundamental teachings of the church."

O'Reilly disagreed and said the church should put the children first. Billy said, "As a practicing Catholic, this seems to be a bit harsh and I don't know if Jesus would have made the same call. Kids have no power over who their parents are and I don't want to see the kids punished." So for once O'Reilly is on the right side of an issue, those kids should not be punished because their parents are lesbians.

Then O'Jerkoff had the big boob blonde body language bimbo on. Which I refuse to report on because the body language stuff is not news, it's garbage. Which I never report on, ever.

Then Dennis Miller was on, who made gay jokes about Congressman Massa, when he has refused to say if he is gay or not. And if a liberal COMEDIAN had made gay jokes about a Republican who was not out of the closet, O'Reilly would go crazy and scream bloody murder. But when Dennis Miller does it to a liberal, O'Reilly does not say a word, and even enables it by having Miller on his show.

I usually do not report what the right-wing moron Dennis Miller says but this time I will. Miller said this:
MILLER: I'm not saying this guy is fireman-calendar-on-the-refrigerator gay, but he is a little quirky. How many times have you and I been in the same studio over the years, and how many times have we laid hands on each other's DMZ?

This guy got caught with his hands on the cookie jar, and I don't mean the ceramic one - I mean one of his senior aides, Cookston Jar III. I think the reason he voted no on Obama-care is because he found out it would not finance twice-daily prostate exams."

Then O'Reilly pretended to be a comedian and said this, "Massa's well-honed frisking skills should enable him to get a job at the airport."
Yeah you two are real funny, not. They complain about COMEDIANS making jokes about Beck and Palin, then they do gay jokes about a man who is not out of the closet. If that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

The last segment was the did you see that with Juliet Huddy, O'Reilly cried about the naked people tennis shoe ad, and of course he ran the edited video of the naked people over and over while they talked about it. What a fricking joke, O'Reilly simply does these bogus news stories to run video of naked people for ratings. O'Reilly even claimed he had to show the ad, so he put out a viewer warning. Earth to O'reilly, you can talk about an ad without showing it, moron.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. The pinhead was funny, Billy played a clip of Jesse Ventura on Fox & Friends saying the three stooges at Fox will not have him on their shows, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck. Jesse said they are scared to have him on, so O'Reilly named him the pinhead. When Jesse is right, O'Reilly is afraid to have him on, notice O'Reilly did not invite him on, he just called him a pinhead.

Proving that Jesse was right, and that O'Reilly named him a pinhead for simply stating the facts. Jesse is a former Navy Seal that tells it like it is, and O'Reilly is scared to death of him. That is why he is never on the Factor, because O'Reilly knows that Jesse will tell the truth about him and his right-wing propaganda, so O'Reilly never has him on. Billy is a coward, and he wants no part of people like Jesse who he can not intimidate.

O'Reilly & Dobbs Lie About Immigrants & Taxes
By: Steve - March 11, 2010 - 9:30am

The great Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs were caught lying again. If lying made you money these two guys would be billionaires. On the Tuesday March 9th O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs suggested that undocumented immigrants dodge taxes, with O'Reilly claiming that the notion they pay taxes is "crap."
O'REILLY: Right. But it's getting better down on the southern border. I mean, that fence is working, and partially due to the economy, there are much fewer aliens. But, look, here's the big deal on this ID card: the money that would come in to the U.S. Treasury would be enormous because you can't dodge taxes anymore. You can't get paid off the books anymore --

DOBBS: Bill, what are you talking about?

O'REILLY: -- you know.

DOBBS: All of the open borders advocates -- all of the unconditional amnesty advocates say that illegal immigrants are already paying taxes.

O'REILLY: No, that's all talk. You know it's crap.
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Social Security Administration, undocumented immigrants pay all kinds of taxes, including individual income, sales, property, and social security taxes.

Earth to O'Dummy, illegal immigrants work in America, they get a paycheck, and that check has taxes taken out of it. They buy food, there is a tax on that food. They live in houses, and there is a property tax on that house. So they pay all kinds of taxes, federal, City, and state taxes, you lying right-wing idiot.

In a December 2007 report detailing the impact of undocumented immigrants on the budgets of local and state governments, the CBO found that there are about 12 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States at the time, and those immigrants pay individual income, sales, and property taxes. The CBO also reported that the IRS estimates about 6 million unauthorized immigrants file individual income tax returns each year.

Other researchers estimate that between 50 percent and 75 percent of unauthorized immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes.

The Social Security Administration also put out reports on it:

In a December 2005 brief by the Social Security Advisory Board on immigration, the section examining the impact of immigration effects on social security finances stated that "among illegal immigrants, SSA actuaries currently assume that about half actually pay social security taxes although they are very unlikely to collect benefits."

In a November 2008 piece summarizing a report on immigration by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, senior fellow Paul N. Van de Water wrote that, according to Stephen Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, "unauthorized immigrants paid as much as $13 billion in Social Security payroll taxes in 2007."

And yet, O'Reilly claims they do not pay any taxes at all. Proving once again that O'Reilly is not an objective journalist, he is a lying, partisan, right-wing spin doctor.

The Tuesday 3-9-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 10, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Evil Industry. O'Reilly claimed Obama is attacking the insurance companies unfairly, and claims Obama said they are evil, when he never said that. All he did was mention how they are openly robbing people, and that they do not have any competition. As usual Obama is right, and O'Reilly is wrong. And btw, O'Reilly never said a word about the stock analyst memo about Insurance stocks, O'Reilly ignored the entire story. It basically said they are going to raise rates even though they know they will lose customers, so buy insurance stocks. O'Reilly said yes they are unfair, but the Obama health care plan will be worse.

O'Reilly is ignoring the Pentagon shooting story and the leaked RNC fundraising memo story. Both big news stories that have been in the news for a week, and yet O'Reilly has ignored them both to talk about the Obama health care bill every night. Frankly I am bored with all this health care talk, and I will limit my reporting on it.

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to discuss it. Crowley just spewed out the Republican talking points and said the Obama plan is garbage, when she is biased and never supports anything Obama does. Colmes disagreed with O'Reilly and Crowley and said they are wrong. Then Crowley and O'Reilly cited a Rasmussen poll on the health care bill, which is a biased poll, and they never cited any other polls. O'Reilly said for the good of the United States we should try interstate competition and tort reform for a couple years, and Colmes said no. O'Reilly and Crowley spin the issue so much it gives me a headache. Colmes actually made a good point at the end of the segment, he said O'Reilly only believes the polls and numbers he wants to believe.

The next segment was about American companies doing business in Iran. O'Reilly cited a NY Times story on it, and said for once they did a good job. Charles Gasparino was on to discuss it. But before he talked about the NY Times story, O'Reilly had Gasparino trash the Obama health care plan. They talked about Tyson foods, Conoco, Ingersoll-Rand, Dresser-Rand, and a couple other American companies who are secretly doing business with Iran through shell companies. And btw, the Bush administration also let these companies do business with Iran, O'Reilly disclosed that.

In the next segment O'Reilly talked a national ID card with Lou Dobbs. O'Reilly is all for it, and claims it will reduce illegal immigration. And of course Lou Dobbs agreed with O'Reilly. What they fail to mention is that both O'Reilly and Dobbs are anti-immigration, and some people say they are racists about it. O'Reilly claims the national ID card would raise a fortune for the U.S. Government. Basically O'Reilly and Dobbs sat there and agreed with each other for 4 minutes. They also talked about a new immigration bill from Obama, Dobbs said Obama will do it this year, O'Reilly does not think so. Then Dobbs predicted that the Obama health care bill is going to fail.

Then O'Reilly had the crazy far right John Stossel on to talk about whether you should be able to sell your body, as in prostitution. Stossel basically said it should all be legal, including having more than one wife or husband, and O'Reilly called that crazy. For once I sort of agree with Stossel, we claim to be a free country, land of the free, home of the brave. But then it's illegal for a woman to sell her body, and you can only have one wife or husband, that's not freedom. I say real freedom would mean you can do anything you want with your own body, and have as many wives or husbands as you want. And of course O'Reilly disagreed, he is opposed to all of it, so I guess he hates freedom, haha. Stossel also said you should also be able to sell your body parts, and O'Reilly disagreed with that too.

Then the is it legal segment with the two Republicans, Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle. They talked about the Lindsay Lohan lawsuit against E-Trade over a super bowl ad, which I refuse to report on because it's tabloid garbage. They also talked about the court case with the guy who tried to blackmail Letterman. Which is more tabloid garbage and I refuse to report on that too. They also talked about a lawsuit by a military man (Jeffery Sarver) that they made the movie about, who filed a lawsuit against the Hurt Locker movie. Wiehl and Guilfoyle claim he has no lawsuit, and that it will be settled out of court. And finally they talked about John Edwards again, the story O'Reilly said he never reports on. The entire segment was tabloid garbage, except for one case.

The last segment was with the crazy far right Charles Krauthammer. He talked about some crazy Glenn Beck conspiracy type nonsense about a Government takeover. This crap is nothing but right-wing propaganda to try and scare you into thinking the Obama administration is trying to take over everything in your life. It's crazy talk, from right-wing partisans. I guess it works for Beck, so all the right-wing nuts are jumping on the bandwagon.

Basically it's fear tactics, from the right, which O'Reilly claims to oppose, then he does it himself. Krauthammer claims that because there is some education spending in the Obama health care bill, the Government would take over the student loan program. Crazy Krauthammer said Obama wants to control everything through the Government, he called it social Democracy. Then they both claimed that the American people have rejected everything Obama wants to do, which is the biggest lie of the night. And since it's a biased one sided segment with two Republicans there was nobody there to give the Obama side of the issue. And as O'Reilly has said himself, it's a violation of the ethics rules of journalism. The one that says you must present both sides of the issues.

The majority of the American people support Obama on almost everything, except for the current health care bill. And the reason most people do not support it is because most people do not know what is in the bill, because of all the propaganda the right has put out about it. When you tell people what is actually in it, the majority support it. O'Reilly and Krauthammer are flat out lying when they say the American people have rejected everything Obama wants to do.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, where liberals are almost always named the pinheads, and conservatives are almost always named the patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails.

O'Reilly Defends Attacks On DOJ Attorneys
By: Steve - March 9, 2010 - 9:00am

Last night O'Reilly attacked the DOJ attorneys once again, this time he had the far right nut Bernie Goldberg on to join him. O'Reilly and Goldberg tried to justify the partisan attacks, they defended Liz Cheney and the dishonest ads she is running.

O'Reilly and Goldberg dishonestly tried to claim they are just asking journalistic questions, which is a 100 percent lie. They are part of the right-wing smear job to attack the DOJ attorneys as un-American terrorist supporters. They even implied that only liberals are upset over the reporting O'Reilly and Fox News are doing. They cited a NY Times article as evidence that only liberals do not like the Fox reporting on the story.

For people that do not know the details of this story, here is a quote from the NY Times op-ed on the controversy.
Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, has been pressing Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. since November to reveal the names of lawyers on his staff who have done legal work for Guantanamo detainees. The Justice Department said last month that there were nine political appointees who had represented the detainees in challenges to their confinement. The department said that they were following all of the relevant conflict-of-interest rules. It later confirmed their names when Fox News figured out who they were.

It did not take long for the lawyers to become a conservative target, branded the "Gitmo 9" by a group called Keep America Safe, run by Liz Cheney, and William Kristol, a conservative activist (who wrote a Times Op-Ed column in 2008). The group released a video that asks, in sinister tones, "Whose values do they share?"

In order to attack the government lawyers, Ms. Cheney and other critics have to twist the role of lawyers in the justice system. In representing Guantanamo detainees, they were in no way advocating for terrorism. They were ensuring that deeply disliked individuals were able to make their case in court, even ones charged with heinous acts - and that the Constitution was defended.
And now the American Constitution Society is getting in on the action, they wrote an article about the attacks. Here are some quotes from it:

Backlash Builds Over Conservative Attacks on DOJ Lawyers

A backlash continues to build over attacks launched by Sen. Grassley and a conservative organization on Department of Justice attorneys who represented Guantanamo Bay detainees. Politico, Slate and The Blog of Legal Times all have stories on the dust-up over the YouTube video produced by a group affiliated with Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol, Keep America Safe, which questions the loyalty of the DOJ attorneys, dubbing them "The Al Qaeda Seven."

As noted last week on the ACSblog, a growing chorus of conservatives are questioning the organization's tactics. Now "leading conservative lawyers and policy experts, and former Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr," have issued a statement blasting the attacks on the DOJ lawyers as "shameful." (Also signing the letter was Charles "Cully" Stimson, a senior Pentagon official who resigned his post in 2007 after he sharply criticized U.S. law firms that had represented military detainees.)

In an article for Slate, Dahlia Lithwick says the methods used by Cheney and Kristol are beyond over-the-top. Their attacks, especially Liz Cheney's, are part of the "ever-expanding war on the Bill of Rights." Lithwick maintains that the DOJ attorneys who represented the Guantanamo Bay detainees were doing so on justified grounds.

She wrote this:
They were defending the U.S. Constitution - the great whomping chunks of the Bill of Rights that Cheney and her friends are so eager to write out of existence. They did it because - as Spencer Ackerman points out - the Military Commissions Act of 2006 expressly provided that detainees get defense lawyers.

And they did it, as Jay Bookman notes, for the same reason John Adams agreed to represent British soldiers charged with killing civilians during the Boston Massacre in 1770. Because long before Liz Cheney was born and long after she's gone, the Bill of Rights requires serious people to take it seriously.
Attorneys at leading national law firms are also joining the fray, as the Legal Times blog reports. Brian Brooks, managing partner of O'Melveny & Myers Washington Office tells the Legal Times, "From the perspective of our firm, providing representation for unpopular causes is a long and noble tradition in the law, and that kind of criticism is not going to affect our firm's commitment to that cause. If the private bar doesn't step up and show that kind of courage, then I think our whole system of justice is in question."

And yet, O'Reilly claims the attacks on the DOJ attorneys by Cheney, Kristol, O'Reilly, Hannity, and virtually all of Fox News is just doing good journalism. Yeah right, and I'm Elvis too. It's a shameful partisan right-wing smear job by a bunch of right-wing idiots. Notice that only Republicans are involved in the attacks on the DOJ attorneys, nobody else cares, it's only an issue with a few partisan Republicans.

The Monday 3-8-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 9, 2010 - 8:30am

The TPM was called Fury On The Far-Left. O'Reilly claims there is a fury on the far left, and it said this on his website today before the show even started, "Why the far left is growing increasingly agitated and perhaps dangerous." The O'Reilly evidence that the far left is dangerous is a joke from Bill Maher about Glenn Beck, a Kathy Griffin joke about Sarah Palin, and a statement from Sean Penn who was on the Bill Maher show, lol. O'Reilly even admitted it was satire, when he used himself to defend Dennis Miller, but somehow it's wrong when liberal comedians use it.

Wow is he insane, the left is not shooting conservatives they disagree with in churches, the left is not killing abortion doctors they disagree with in churches, the left has not had a 244% rise in hate groups since Obama took office, the left is not starting racist Tea Party protests, the left is not going to protests with handguns strapped on their belts, the left is not doing anything dangerous, it's the right that's doing it all.

The TPM should be about how dangerous the right has become. But instead O'Reilly does a talking points memo on how dangerous the left is, proving that he is a biased hack that's lost his fricking mind. O'Reilly had Brit Hume on to discuss it, and it was so ridiculous I will barely say anything about it. O'Reilly said the far-left is hurting Obama and the Democratic party.

Which is crazy, because he cited Bill Maher, Kathy Griffin, and Sean Penn, who are not elected officials in Congress or anywhere, they are hollywood celebs. Basically O'Reilly and Hume took a couple jokes about conservatives and turned it into it hurts Obama and the Democratic party, plus they are dangerous. Which is just pure 100% right-wing propaganda. O'Reilly even compared his reporting on Dr. Tiller, to the jokes Maher and Griffin made. When O'Reilly is a so-called journalist, who reported on Tiller for years, calling him Tiller the Baby Killer, etc. Maher and Griffin are COMEDIANS. My God O'Reilly is a joke, he even said it was evidence that the media is corrupt because they did not report on the JOKES Maher and Griffin made about Beck and Palin.

Wow, please get mental help O'Reilly, you are insane. And take Brit Hume with you, he is almost as crazy as you are. And btw, where is the dangerous part, how is it dangerous for liberal COMEDIANS to make jokes about conservatives. I never did see how a couple liberal COMEDIANS making jokes about conservatives is making the far-left dangerous.

O'Reilly actually said the far-left is melting down. Then he had Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams on to discuss it, and of course she agreed with O'Reilly 100 percent. Ham said the lefties are on the highway to the desperation zone, and boy did O'Reilly love that line. The the so-called Democrat, who is not a Democrat, Juan Williams agreed with both O'Reilly and Ham. And btw, I do not count Juan Williams as a Democrat, because he is a conservative, and he has even admitted he is more conservative than liberal. And yet O'Reilly puts him on as a liberal, when he agrees with O'Reilly 90% of the time, making him a conservative.

What makes me laugh more than anything is how O'Reilly claims the Democratic party is melting down, based on a couple jokes about Republicans from two liberal COMEDIANS, as they have total control of Congress and the White House. And btw, Bill Maher is not even a Democrat, he is a Libertarian. Yet O'Reilly has him in the Democratic party, which s a lie. And O'Reilly knows it, yet he puts Bill Maher in the Democratic party anyway.

Then O'Reilly did another segment on the John Edwards scandal, the same John Edwards he said he never reports on, even though he reports on him all the time. O'Reilly claims to never report on this Edwards stuff because it's tabloid type news, then he reports on it every other week. While ignoring all the stories about Republicans who have done the same thing. O'Reilly had the editor of the National Enquirer on to discuss it, Barry Levine. Who is btw, married to a Fox News executive, which O'Reilly actually disclosed.

I will not report the details, because it's tabloid garbage, but Levine did say Edwards will be indicted. O'Reilly said if that's true, he's done. Earth to O'Reilly, Edwards is not in Congress anymore, or running for President, so he has been done for a long time you moron, and nobody cares but you. Not to mention, if Edwards was a Republican O'Reilly would not even report the story, he would ignore it, as he has with the Mark Sanford affair scandal.

Then O'Dummy reported some more on the week old story nobody cares about, the "Living Legends" program that Rev. Jeremiah Wright put together in Chicago. And btw, it was not an awards program, no awards were given out. It was a benefit to raise money for their charities, no awards were given to anyone. But O'Reilly keeps calling it an awards program. O'Reilly said he will give you the real story on what happened at the event. Yeah right, and I'm the Pope too.

Tamara Holder was at the event, and she was on the Factor to report what happened there. Which nobody cares about but him, she had nothing radical to report, because none of them spoke, and none of them got any awards. O'Reilly asked her about the awards, and she admitted there were no awards given out. Proving that O'Reilly lied about the whole damn thing. O'Reilly claimed the three of them, Wright, Farrakhan, and Fleger would be on the stage together to give speeches saying radical things and to get awards, when none of that happened. And btw, O'Reilly did not say he was sorry for blowing the whole event out of proportion, or for getting all the facts wrong.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about, of all things, the Academy Awards. As if anyone cares what Bill O'Reilly and Bernie Goldberg have to say about it. Goldberg said O'Reilly asked him to watch it, and that he watched every minute of it, Goldberg said he would rather be waterboarded than have to do that again. This is great, O'Reilly has a guy review the Academy Awards show who hated every minute of it, only O'Reilly would do something like that. With nobody to give the other side of the story.

Then O'Reilly and Goldberg cried about the NY Times slamming O'Reilly and Fox News for smearing the DOJ lawyers. Which is stupid, because the NY Times is right, Fox is wrong to smear them. Of course O'Reilly and Goldberg defnded the reporting O'Reilly and Fox News did on the smear job by all the right-wing media. Goldberg somehow compared it to lawyers in a Republican administration who worked for clients from the KKK. Which was ridiculous, but O'Reilly said it was a great point. They also defended Liz Cheney and her crazy ad about it, of course, because they are halping Liz Cheney do the smear job on the DOJ lawyers. Notice that O'Reilly never said a word about all the Republicans who worked for the Bush DOJ saying it was an outrageous smear job from the right, he only mentioned the NY Times being against it, as if only the left has a problem with it.

The last segment was the totally ridiculous Factor reality check. Which I refuse to report on, for two reasons. It's not reality, and there are very few checks. The so-called Factor reality check works like this. Billy plays a clip of something a liberal said, then he gives you his opinion of what they said, and half of them have no check, it's just O'Reilly saying what he thinks they meant. He almost never does any reality checks on conservatives, they are almost all on liberals. Not to mention there are no Democratic guests, it's only O'Reilly. Making it a one sided biased segment. It's like a 2nd talking points memo, it is nothing more than O'Reilly by himself giving you his opinion of what someone said.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. In closing, I laughed my ass off at the O'Reilly talking points memo. He claims the left could possibly be getting dangerous, when it's the nuts on the right who are all getting their guns and killing all the liberals. It's the nuts on the right who are out buying more guns in record numbers, with truckloads of ammo to go with the guns, and O'Reilly says the left is getting dangerous. Wow is he biased, and really really stupid.

Videos On The DOJ Attorney Controversy
By: Steve - March 9, 2010 - 8:00am

In this video Ken Starr, the Republican, criticizes Republicans for the attack on DOJ lawyers who represented Gitmo detainees.



And then to top that you have the crazy Bernie Goldberg comparing it to the DOJ hiring attorneys who have represented members of the KKK, which they have btw, Goldberg is just too stupid to know that.



After Goldberg made the dishonest and crazy comparison, O'Reilly said, "That's a very, very good analogy. That's an excellent analogy."

Proving that he is just as insane as Goldberg. And the 100 percent proof this partisan right-wing smear job is dishonest, is the fact that attorneys who worked at the DOJ during the Bush administration also represented some Gitmo detainees. But Cheney, Kristol, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. never said a word about it then, they only have a problem with it when there is a democratic President and a Democratic Attorney General running the DOJ.

O'Reilly Still Ignoring RNC Feargate Story
By: Steve - March 9, 2010 - 7:30am

This story has been going for a week, and it was still going over the weekend, but O'Reilly has ignored the entire story, and not said one word about it.

Last week, an RNC fundraising presentation was leaked, and it immediately became a headache for the party. The RNC's message -- filled with donor insults, offensive caricatures, and an admission that the party will rely on little more than "fear" -- has already put many Republican officials on the defensive. It's even driving donors away.

The subject even came up during the Sunday talk shows, and GOP lawmakers continued to distance themselves from the controversial party materials.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) blasted the Republican National Committee on Sunday for producing a fundraising presentation that mocked the President and congressional leadership as cartoon villains and socialists.

Asked about the document -- which outlines how "ego-driven" wealthy donors could be persuaded to take out their checkbooks -- the Kentucky Republican called it "certainly not helpful" to the Republican cause.

"I can't imagine why anybody would have thought that was helpful," McConnell added. "Typically the way parties raise money is because people believe in the causes they advocate. I think the way we raise money from donors across America is to stand for things that are important for the country."

McConnell dodged the question about whether anyone at the RNC should lose their jobs over this, but he added, "I don't like it and I don't know anybody else who does."

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) added, "There is no excuse for that type of stuff." When Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) offered some tepid praise for the underlying message of the RNC materials, his office soon after issued a statement describing the presentation as "juvenile and insulting."

What I find interesting about this is the fact that some Republicans actually seem embarrassed. Which is very rare. Generally, Republicans in Congress, or anywhere, will say or do something completely indefensible, and when Democrats complain, the usually say so what. No matter what the issue, or the hypocrisy involved, Republicans generally reject the very idea of being sorry about anything.

But this RNC fear-gate controversy is proving to be unspinnable, probably because it includes insulting comments about GOP donors. This is a big story, that has been in the news for a week, and all over the internet, but O'Reilly has not said one word about any of it, not one time, nothing.

O'Reilly's Shameful Attacks On DOJ Lawyers
By: Steve - March 8, 2010 - 11:30am

A group of leading conservative lawyers and policy experts are denouncing Liz Cheney's McCarthyite attacks on Justice Department lawyers as shameful.

The group includes leading conservative lawyers and policy experts, former Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and several senior officials of the last Bush Administration, they are denouncing as shameful Republican attacks on lawyers who came to the Obama Justice Department after representing suspected terrorists.

Senate Republicans have demanded details of the lawyers past work and Liz Cheney's group "Keep America Safe" has questioned their values. A drumbeat of Republican criticism forced the Justice Department to reluctantly identify seven of them last week. But the harshness of the criticism - Keep America Safe labeled a group of them the "Al Qaeda Seven" - has provoked a backlash from across the legal establishment.

"We consider these attacks both unjust to the individuals in question and destructive of any attempt to build lasting mechanisms for counterterrorism adjudications," wrote the 19 lawyers.

Notice who else has jumped on the bandwagon in attacking the DOJ lawyers, Bill O'Reilly that's who. These attacks on the DOJ lawyers are a partisan right-wing political smear job. Republicans and Liz Cheney are doing it, for political reasons. And yet Bill O'Reilly is right there with them, proving once again that he is a partisan right-wing hack who should be getting his paycheck from the RNC.

Last week O'Reilly did three segments on the issue, with all Republicans on to discuss it, including Liz Cheney herself. He had another segment on it with the far right Charles Krauthammer. O'Reilly also talked about one of the DOJ lawyers (Tony West) in his reality check segment. O'Reilly attacked him for having legal connections to captured terrorists.

But O'Reilly failed to mention Tony West is the Assistant Attorney General, which is a SENATE confirmed position. When he came up for confirmation 82 Senators voted yes, and he was confirmed by a mile, 28 REPUBLICANS even voted yes for him, with only 4 REPUBLICANS voting no. O'Reilly implied that he did something wrong by representing John Walker Lindh. When they all voted yes for him, and they had all that information before they voted.

So as you can see O'Reilly is pretty much working with the Republican party to dishonestly attack these DOJ lawyers for partisan reasons. And here is more about it from the statement the 19 lawyers called shameful.

"We consider these attacks both unjust to the individuals in question and destructive of any attempt to build lasting mechanisms for counterterrorism adjudications," wrote the 19 lawyers whose names were attached to the statement as of early Monday.

The statement cited John Adams's defense of British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre to argue that "zealous representation of unpopular clients" is an important American tradition.

The attacks on the lawyers "undermine the Justice system more broadly," they wrote, by delegitimizing any system in which accused terrorists have lawyers, whether civilian courts of military tribunals.

The letter's signers include some of the top officials of a Bush Justice Department that wrestled at length with the legal questions surrounding terrorist detentions.

The Bush officials clashed repeatedly with some of the detainee lawyers, such as the current deputy Solicitor General, Neal Katyal, whom they are now defending. The signers include former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, John Ashcroft's number two, and Peter Keisler, who served as Acting Attorney General during President Bush's second term.

They also include several of the lawyers who dealt directly with detainee policy: Matthew Waxman and Charles Cully Stimson, who each served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs; Daniel Dell'Orto, who was Acting General Counsel for the Department of Defense; and Bradford Berenson, a prominent Washington lawyer who worked on the issues as an Associate White House counsel during President Bush's first term.

The letter's other signatories include top advisors to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Philip Zelikow and John Bellinger III.

Also signing were David Rivkin and Lee Casey officials in the Justice Department in the first Bush Administrations. Rivkin and Casey's participation underscores the depth of discomfort with the attacks, as they have been among the most vocal defenders of Bush Administration detainee practices.

Former Bush administration Solicitor General Ted Olson also rose to the defense of lawyers representing detainees.

You should take note of two things here, O'Reilly only attacked the DOJ lawyers after Obama became the President, he failed to mention that some Bush DOJ lawyers also represented captured terrorists, but O'Reilly never attacked any of them, and never even reported that some Bush DOJ lawyers have done the same thing. And the second thing to notice is that only Republicans are involved in these dishonest partisan attacks.

That is important because O'Reilly claims to be a nonpartisan Independent, with a no spin zone, who never uses GOP talking points, and who is fair to both sides. Then he joins the Republican party to be a part of their dishonest partisan smear job on these DOJ lawyers. He uses all their talking points, and does three segments on it over a 1 week period. With no Democratic guests on to discuss it, none.

Then a big scandal story comes out about the leaked RNC fundraising memo, with Obama as the joker, which is racist btw, and it shows that the Republicans plan to use fear to win elections, which O'Reilly has said is wrong. But he ignored the entire story, and never said a word about it. Even though it was the biggest story in the country last week.

More Racism Against Obama O'Reilly Will Ignore
By: Steve - March 7, 2010 - 11:00am

As most people already know, O'Reilly claims there is no racism against Obama from the Republicans, or the Tea Party people. Despite hundreds if not thousands of examples of that racism, O'Reilly still denies it. From racist protest signs, t-shirts, racist fake Obama Bucks money, bumper stickers, cereal boxes, watermelon patch white house graphics, and on and on, O'Reilly still denies it.

One Tea Party President even got caught holding a sign that said nigger on it, and he even spelled it wrong, he wrote niggar, yet O'Reilly ignored it all, to claim there is no racism against Obama on the right.

Well this morning I found something really disturbing, and so racist it's stunning, it is so offensive I am shocked a web hosting server would allow it to stay online. Most web hosting servers have a policy against racism and hate speech, but I guess they must be racists too, so they allow it.

Before I show you how racist and offensive this blog is, first look at the company that allows this offensive and racist hate speech. It's called smartpunters.com. On their contact us page it says this:
Uncensored Anonymous blogs - Even the most controversial blogs are welcome and no log of your identity is kept on our servers. (Premium account required for certain content)
I'm thinking people may want to contact them and tell them what they think of a company who allows this racist hate speech, but that's up to you of course. The owner is Bill Braxton President/CEO of Smartpunters.com. On his letter from the president page it says this:
Censorship - 11:56 PM, July 19, 2008

Smartpunters at this time does not censor blogs based on a racial, political, social, sexual, or religious basis. If this were so then some of our more artful members' anti-christian drawings would be flagged as unacceptable and removed, as well as some of our pro-chinese blogs based on the political climate of that region.

Smartpunters is not the Government, we support freedom for everyone.

Blog on-

-The Smartpunters Team
And now before I get to this offensive and disturbing blog, if you have kids reading this you may want to have them leave the room.

There is a blog at smartpunters.com called "Obama is nothing but a fucking nigger."

On their about us page it says this:

Name: Fuck Obama
Gender: Male
Birthday: January 3, 1981 (Age: 29)
Location: United States
Entries Written: 68 entries
Signup Date: June 23, 2008
Last Login: March 5, 2010

At the top of the blog it says this:

Content below reflects the views of the individual blogger and does not reflect the opinions of Smartpunters.com nor it's affiliates.

Then as you could imagine, the entire blog is racist cartoons and blog postings about President Obama and other Democrats in office, especially the black ones. And not only is it a racist blog, the owner uses the word "Nigger" in the headline of every single posting he makes.

I will not publish all the headlines, but I will show you a few so you can see what this racist writes. These are actual blog headlines:

March 5, 2010 - Obama Nigger Still Doesn't Get It, More Citizens Revolt
March 4, 2010 - Obama Nigger Tells Senate To Commit Suicide, Citizens Rebel
February 17, 2010 - Obama Nigger Says Worst Behind Us, Citizen Has Enough, Unspent Stimulus Worked, Need Jobs Bill Though
January 19, 2010 - Obama Nigger Celebrates Nigger Inauguration Day
December 17, 2009 - Obama Nigger Teaches Children About Gay Sex With Pics, Surprised You're Out Of Work


That is only 5 of 68 postings he has made. And the content of the postings is even more disturbing, it is so racist and so filled with hate speech it's almost hard to believe scum like this still live in America. It's a non-stop racist attack on blacks and the President.

And if you think I am making this up, just go look for yourself:

www.smartpunters.com/obamaisanigger/

In closing, I have to say that this is one of the most disturbing and offensive things I have ever seen on the internet in the last 15 years or so. And O'Reilly refuses to report it, or say anything about a company that would allow this racist hate speech. If he would go after them and report it on the Factor, they just might take this blog down, but O'Reilly says nothing.

I also have to say I believe in free speech 100 percent, but this is hate speech, nothing more than racist hate speech. I am not a constitutional attorney, but I am pretty sure hate speech can be taken down from the internet, and has been. But I am guessing the owner of the server is also a racist that hates Obama, so that is probably why they allow it to be online.

Here is my question, how come O'Reilly does not report on this, how come he does not go public with the web host name and the racist blog, and hammer them for their racist hate speech. Because he does not want you to see the racism and the hate coming from people on the right. What say you Billy?

O'Reilly Attacks Tom Hanks For Mocking Fox News
By: Steve - March 7, 2010 - 10:30am

Before I show you what O'Reilly said, guess who else attacked Tom Hanks, the conservative blog Newsbusters.org. On their about us page it says this:
Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.
For anyone that does not know it the Media Research Center is a Brent Bozell founded right-wing joke, that only finds what they claim is liberal media bias. They claim Fox News really is fair and balanced, and that everyone else has a liberal bias. So in their view any media outlet that is not as biased to the right as Fox, has a liberal bias, which is everyone, but Fox.

They are so biased in one study they put out they even counted what a REPUBLICAN Senator said about George W. Bush (on MSNBC) as an example of liberal bias. Which proves they have no credibility, yet they join in the attack with O'Reilly on Tom Hanks. For simply making a joke about Fox News. While O'Reilly puts Dennis Miller on his show once a week to do the very same thing, except he mocks CNN and MSNBC, mostly MSNBC.

So somehow it's ok for Dennis Miller to do it, but it's not ok for Tom Hanks to do it. As I like to say, pot meet kettle, the hypocrisy and the double standards are stunning.

Tom Hanks Hanks was on "Morning Joe" Friday morning mocking Fox News, Ann Coulter, and the Tea Party crowd. O'Reilly devoted an entire segment (Friday Night) with no guest, to attacking Mr. Hanks for simply making a joke about Fox News. O'Reilly and the Newsbusters guy called Hanks a pinhead. Here is what O'Dummy said:
O'REILLY: For some reason, actor Tom Hanks, who's had a great career, has moved far to the left politically. Now Mr. Hanks is promoting an HBO program. But he won't appear on FOX News, by far, the highest rated cable network.

Instead, he goes to a very low rated, left-wing network, where he poses as a producer playing off a video that showed a fight in an Italian TV newsroom. The whole thing was beyond bizarre.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM HANKS: We can go back to the Italian FOX Network.

I want to show that again because I'll add the translation. I think the problem with the Tea Party members is that right now, they're not going to get along. We have to all be - I tell you right now, you know, you put that on the Internet like that, I'm going to kill you. That's not the right story. You can't do that to Ann Coulter. She's a pretty woman.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: A real riot, Alice. And here's the deal with Mr. Hanks. If he has a political beef with FOX News or conservatives or whomever, he should state it. Be a man. Tell us what you think. Most Americans respect that.

But over the years, Mr. Hanks has become an ideological sniper. And I still don't know why he's like that. What's his beef? What's he talking about? Nobody knows. Now, that doesn't diminish his talent, which is major, but it does make him kind of a mindless partisan. Again, state your case, Tom. Don't be a pinhead.
The sad part of this is the hypocrisy and the double standards, O'Reilly says nothing about things Republicans say about Democrats, or MSNBC and CNN. And in fact, he has Dennis Miller on his very own show every week in a regular segment called Miller Time. Miller goes to town trashing every Democrat, Liberal, and Progressive in America. Some of it is offensive, raciist, homophobic, etc. Yet O'Reilly has no problem with that, hell he enables it.

But if Tom Hanks makes a little joke about Fox News, O'Reilly wets his panties and does an entire segment on his show to attack him. Proving his bias, his double standards, and his childishness. Earth to O'Reilly, Tom Hanks is not only a serious actor, he is a COMEDIAN. Get a life man, a COMEDIAN made a joke about Fox News, and you lose your mind over it. While you let stupid Dennis Miller do the exact same thing every fricking week.

You have a News show, or at least you say you do. So report the news jackass, and stop crying about what jokes any COMEDIANS are doing about you, Sarah Palin, or anyone at Fox News. It's not news, and you are the laughing stock of America with this non-news garbage. I could care less what any COMEDIAN says about anything, it's a free country and they have free speech rights.

I don't even care what crazy Dennis Miller says, because he is a COMEDIAN. I only use him to point out your hypocrisy and double standards on the issue. So get a clue man, and stop wasting the people's time with your vindictive childish attacks on Actor/Comedians who make jokes about Fox News.

You are only making a fool of yourself, and it's not going to stop liberals from making jokes about Fox, in fact, it might just encourage them to do more jokes about Fox News. You act like a little kid, instead of a so-called man with a real news show, and frankly you should be ashamed to do these petty attacks on Actor/Comedians for making a joke.

O'Reilly Lied About Pastor Wright Awards Show
By: Steve - March 6, 2010 - 2:30pm

Billy boy said this on March 3rd:
O'REILLY: An unbelievable show this Friday night in Chicago. Together on one stage: Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright and radical priest Michael Pfleger. They will all be receiving an award called "Living Legends," and you can see it as a VIP if you have a hundred bucks.

The spectacle is being driven by Rev. Wright, who is actually giving himself the "Living Legend" award, as well as the other two guys. There's no third party involved.

All the money people pay to see this dog-and-pony show will go to Rev. Wright's charity. Pfleger will get a bit of it, and so will the Haitian singer Wyclef Jean.

Don't you love this?

Rev. Wright is honoring himself, Farrakhan and Pfleger, and is charging money for the exposition. Is America not a great country?

The serious part of the story is Father Pfleger, a radical-left Catholic priest who runs St. Sabina parish on Chicago's South Side. Pardon the pun, but what in God's name is Pfleger doing on the same stage as Farrakhan, a race-baiting anti-Semite? Why is the archdiocese of Chicago permitting that?

Are you kidding me? This is a scandal. You can't have a Catholic priest whose message should be peace on earth, goodwill to men, standing there with a hateful guy like Farrakhan. I mean, Wright is bad, but Farrakhan is nuclear. This is unbelievable.
What a shocker, O'Reilly was lying. They were not on the stage together, and none of them spoke at the benefit. Julie at Newshounds wrote this today, she was there at the benefit. Unlike O'Reilly who was not there, and who speculated last Wednesday what would happen there, with no facts to back him up.

From Julie at Newshounds:
JULIE: Last night (3-5-10), I was granted a media pass to attend the Living Legends benefit in Chicago.

Despite Bill O'Reilly's numerous segments to the contrary that Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Minister Louis Farrakhan and Father Michael Pfleger would be on stage together and Wright was presenting himself with an award, the three men were not on stage together, they were not speakers, and no awards were given.

It was a night of music and short speeches, a benefit planned and presented by Grace of God, NFP, in celebration of Black History Month.

It was held at the Regal Theater, located at 79th & Stony Island -- incidentally, the heart of Chicago's south side that O'Reilly compared to Haiti.

WVON's Cliff Kelley, co-hosted the event along with Grace of God's Jeri Wright. The key performers were Grammy-nominated musician, Kirk Whalum and Shannon Stevenson. There were some short speeches given in honor of the three men, and the words spoken most often were diversity, humanity, and education.

The crowd was polite and engaged, security tight (an indication that, even on the south side of Chicago, nobody underestimated a determined wingnut) and, though largely an African American audience, white faces (one of which was mine) were interspersed -- and welcomed warmly.

After the event, I was fortunate enough to exchange a few words with Father Pfleger in the lobby. I noted O'Reilly's recent, nightly crusade against Pfleger, Wright and Farrakhan -- which he indicated he knew about, and seemed amused by -- and I asked him why he felt O'Reilly targeted them.

"O'Reilly doesn't want to hear the truth we speak. I'll hang around Wright and Farrakhan any day rather than O'Reilly."
So as you can see the three men were not on the stage together, and no awards were given, as O'Reilly claimed. Proving once again that he is no journalist, that he is a right-wing hack, and that he just makes it up and hopes someone believes it.

Actor Rejects Patriot Award From O'Reilly
By: Steve - March 6, 2010 - 2:00pm

Actor Patrick Warburton says that Bill O'Reilly incorrectly stated he had come to the defense of Sarah Palin when he expressed his discomfort with a Down syndrome joke on Fox's animated sitcom "Family Guy" and that he wants no part of "The O'Reilly Factor's" Patriot game.
WARBURTON: I wasn't defending Sarah Palin per se. She is an adult, a politician, and a public figure. She is subject to satire. She can handle herself, Warburton told The TV Column by e-mail Thursday.

My objection was the depiction of a specific 1 year old special needs child who could not defend himself. In my opinion, that violates the artistic norms of satire.
Warburton's referring to the "Pinheads & Patriots" segment of O'Reilly's Fox News program in which he puts people-in-the-news into one category or the other. On Monday, O'Reilly homed in on Warburton:
O'REILLY: Mr. Warburton has come to the defense of Sarah Palin. It's very unusual for any actor to go against the liberal Hollywood orthodoxy, so Mr. Warburton is a Patriot.
And this is just more proof that O'Reilly is not a journalist who reports the facts. Because a real journalist would have contaced Mr. Warburton and asked him if he was defending Sarah Palin. Instead O'Reilly just makes it up and names him a patriot, then the guy rejets his so-called patriot award, haha.

It also shows that O'Reilly was lying when he said no liberals found the joke offensive, because there is one right there, and I know of many more. I also thought it was offensive, I do not think it's funny to make jokes about disabled people, especially because I am one myself. And it's even worse to do a joke about a disbled child.

Yet O'Reilly claimed that no liberals were offended by it, and he had the right-wing liar Frank Luntz on the Factor to agree with him. Making them both dishonest liars who would not know the truth if it hit them in the face.

O'Reilly Ignores More Right-Wing Extremism
By: Steve - March 6, 2010 - 1:30pm

Not only is O'Reilly not calling this guy a terrorist, as he did with the guy in the Fort Hood shooting, O'Reilly is not reporting it at all. Because the guy is a right-wing extremist, and he most likely watches O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck every night.

Yesterday it was reported that a California man armed with two semiautomatic weapons and many magazines of ammunition opened fire on police officers at the entrance to the Pentagon, wounding two before being killed by police. The shooter, 36-year-old John Patrick Bedell, was well dressed in a suit and very calm, walking very directly to the officers before engaging them, a police spokesman said.

The Christian Science Monitor is reporting that he was a right-wing extremist. In one website posting, Bedell urged potential collaborators to contact him at an email address with the domain name _______@mises.com -- which belongs to the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, a right-wing think tank with ties to Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).

A Mises senior fellow led an official event at CPAC last month. Bedell's connection to Mises is unclear, but he stated he was a fan of the organization on his Facebook page.

But you would not know any of this information if you watch the Factor, or Fox News, because they are not reporting any of it. Compare that to the coverage O'Reilly had on the Fort Hood shooting, he reported on it every night for a week, with follow up segmant later that month. O'Reilly called it terrorism, when it was simply a shooting by one man, and the military did not call it terrorism.

Then O'Reilly attacked the rest of the media for not calling it terrorism, after he had decided it was. Now a right-wing guy shoots at Pentagon Police Officers and not only does O'Reilly not call it terrorism, and report it for a week, he ignores the entire story. While he complains that the media ignores important news because they did not report on the lame Pastor Wright awards dinner in Chicago.

He sure had time to attack Tom Hanks for simply being a liberal with a left-wing opinion, but he did not have time to report the leaked RNC fundraising memo story, or the right-wing guy shooting up the Pentagon story. Pot meet kettle, you are the king of hypocrisy. O'Reilly ignores every story that makes a Republican look bad, then he cries about the media ignoring every story that makes a Democrat look bad.

And there is a big difference, the RNC memo story and the Pentagon shooting were big national news stories, which O'Reilly had totally ignored. The Pastor Wright story is a low level local news story in Chicago, it's not a national news story. Nobody cares about it but O'Reilly and Fox News. So O'Reilly ignored real news stories, making what he does far worse.

The Friday 3-5-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 6, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Giving up Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Billy talked about the Obama administration possibly giving KSM to the military, and moving the trial out of New York, for the millionth time. He just repeats this story over and over, enough already, we already know all this information. Try reporting some real news, like the leaked RNC fear tactic fundraising plan. Oh yeah, I forgot you will never do that because you are a biased right-wing tool. To this day O'Reilly has totally ignored the story. So much for that nonpartisan journalism thingy, it's a joke, you betcha.

O'Reilly claims the Obama administration is making a deal with the GOP to give him the money to close Gitmo if he has the military deal with KSM. That may be true, and it may not, I sure as hell would not believe it until I hear it from a real journalist, not O'Reilly. Billy also said this:
O'REILLY: Talking Points believes Gitmo is a useful tool in fighting terrorism, but prisons are prisons so these thugs could be held in military facilities anywhere. Also, we do not believe Guantanamo Bay causes people to sign up for the jihad. Are you telling me once Gitmo is closed Al Qaeda's membership will dry up? Give me a break!
Notice how O'Reilly lies and totally misrepresents the issue at hand. To begin with Gitmo is not a useful tool in fighting terrorism, it has nothing to do with FIGHTING terrorism, it's a prison, not a terrorism fighting agency, like the CIA and Homeland Security are. In fact, Gitmo has hurt us in the war on terror, because the enemy has used it to help them gain more terrorists.

Not to mention many Republicans also support closing Gitmo, including Colin Powell and George W. Bush himself. But O'Reilly does not report that, he ignores that to imply only Democrats want to close Gitmo, when it's a total lie. Colin Powell said this about it:
Gen. Colin Powell strongly condemned the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, calling it "a major problem for Americas perception" and charging, "if it was up to me, I would close Guantanamo - not tomorrow, this afternoon."

He also called for an end to the military commission system the Bush administration has created to try Guantanamo detainees. "I would simply move them to the United States and put them into our federal legal system," Powell said. He scoffed at criticism that the detainees would have access to lawyers and the writ of habeas corpus: "So what? Let them. Isn't that what our system's all about?"
Then O'Reilly said that Democrats claim if we close Gitmo Al Qaeda membership will dry up. Which is just insane, because no Democrat or Liberal has ever said that. I do not believe that, and nobody I know believes that, so O'Reilly is lying when he makes that claim. Gitmo should be closed because it makes us look bad for housing those prisoners in a foreign country, because torture was used there, and because it is used to recruit new members, not because it will dry up membership in Al Qaeda. The terrorists use Gitmo to recruit new members by saying the USA uses Gitmo to torture our guys, and yet O'Reilly said he does not believe that, making him a fool in denial.

Notice that O'Reilly never has Gen. Powell on to discuss it, he only has Rove, Gingrich, Morris, Ingraham, etc. on to discuss it, because they agree with him. He ignores what the military man says about Gitmo, who is a Republican btw. Not to mention O'Reilly claim to be a nonpartisan, while his position on Gitmo is about as far right as it gets.

Then O'Reilly had Major Garrett and Alan Colmes on to discuss KSM and Gitmo. Garrett said the Obama administration can't get the money from Congress to move the detainees from Gitmo to the facility in Illinois. Then O'Reilly said they would most likely make a deal with Republicans on KSM to get the money for moving the Gitmo detainees to Illinois. Alan Colmes expressed great frustration with the administration's shifting position. he said, "I'm very disappointed because of the Constitution. This is not going to be the death knell of his presidency, but if these kinds of things continue it will hurt him on the left."

What O'Reilly, Garrett, and Colmes failed to mention is that one reason Obama can not get the money for Gitmo is that some moderate Democrats also refuse to fund the move. Because they are basically Republicans pretending to be Democrats, we call them DINO's. Democrats in name only. They run as Democrats in conservative districts just to win that seat, then they vote with the Republicans all the time. Funny how O'Reilly and his crew failed to mention that.

Then Geraldo was on, and for once he disagreed with O'Reilly, Geraldo said he objects to the change of venue. He said, "Moving the trial out of New York is a product of hysterical overstatement and hype over the danger involved. We are making Al Qaeda into supermen, but they can't even light their underwear on fire. I would love to see the trial within the shadows of the towers that these SOBs brought down."

And for once I sort of agree with Geraldo, I think KSM should be put on trial in a federal court, just as Colin Powell does. But I do not think the trial should be in New york, because of the cost, and the nightmare it will be for the people of New York, to deal with the security and the road closings, traffic jams, etc. The trial should be held in a smaller city somewhere near New York, not in the city. In fact, I do not think they should even disclose where the trial will be held, it should be a secret, until the trial is started.

They also talked about John Gardner, the man charged with killing Chelsea King. And remember how the other night in the is it legal segment O'Reilly said he will not convict the man on tv, well he just did. Geraldo reported they found his semen on the dead girls body, so O'Reilly proclaimed he is guilty. Before a jury has been selected, before the trial, before anything. So O'Reilly just convicted him on tv, which he said he would not do.

Hey Billy, you ever hear of innocent until proven guilty, dumbass. What if Geraldo is wrong, will you unconvict him on tv. And btw, finding semen on her body does not prove he killed the girl. Not to mention that information should not be reported until it is submitted as evidence in the trial, and nobody should say he is guilty until the jury has found him guilty. And you two nimrods claim to be journalists, haha, not hardly.

Then for some strange reason O'Reilly reported on Hollywood and political comedy. Why I have no idea, it's not news, and has no news value at all. I guess he did it just to trash Tom Hanks for being a Democrat. O'Reilly said this:
O'Reilly showed footage of actor Tom Hanks mocking Fox News during an appearance on MSNBC. Then he issued this challenge: "If Mr. Hanks has a political beef with Fox News, he should state it. Be a man, tell us what you think! Over the years Mr. Hanks has become an ideological sniper, and I still don't understand why he's like that. What's his beef, what's he talking about? Nobody knows. That doesn't diminish his talent, but it does make him kind of a mindless partisan. State your case, Tom. Don't be a pinhead."
So basically O'Reilly used the strange little segment with no guests to trash Tom Hanks, simply because he is a Democrat, and simply because he does not like Fox News for being a dishonest arm of the Republican party. And somehow he is a pinhead for that, and Billy can not understand why he is the way he is. As if he is not a man if he does not go on the Factor and talk to the right-wing jerk O'Reilly. Earth to O'Reilly, you are an idiot. You say Tom Hanks is a mindless partisan pinhead who is not a man, for mocking Fox, and telling the truth about the network. When you are the exact same thing, a mindless partisan, and you even have hundreds of mindless patisans on your show each month.

Then O'Reilly had Barbara Walters on to discuss her Oscars show, boring. I changed the channel until this segment was over. Then O'Reilly had the crazy Glenn Beck on to talk more about Pastor Wright, who is presenting "living legend' awards to himself, Louis Farrakhan, and Michael Pfleger. Beck said, "I would like to present this silver pen to the greatest broadcaster in human history ... me!

Which proves that Beck is nuts, because he is not the greatest anything, let alone the greatest broadcaster in human history. He is simply a right-wing spin doctor who takes advantage of stupid Republicans that believe his propaganda, to get rich and famous. He did not even go to journalism school, and he does not report actual news, he just spins out his right-wing propaganda, and hopes someone buys it. O'Reilly denounced the media for ignoring the Wright event, who cares. When did you denounce yourself for not reporting on the leaked RNC fear fundraising story, never, moron. So you do the very same thing you denounce the rest of the media for doing.

And the last segment was dumbest things of the week with two Republicans, Greg Gutfeld and Juliet Huddy. Juliet Huddy selected the Australian authorities who banned a sexually suggestive ad with Pam Anderson. She said, "It's for an Internet domain service, and we're here in the United States talking about it, so it was brilliant.

Wrong, it was banned in Australia, so why in the hell do we even care about it here is the USA. Only you are talking about it, nobody else cares, because it was banned in fricking Australia, so it's not brilliant at all, it's stupid to even mention it because it did not happen in America, and nobody cares about it but you. We live in America, so find something dumb here, or get off the show.

Gutfeld chose the "Jeopardy" contestant who thought George Carlin was a centenarian and that Al Sharpton was a 100-year-old Senator. O'Reilly selected filmmaker Michael Moore, who called his fellow Democrats a "bunch of wusses."

No pinheads and patriots, O'Reilly gave his Oscar picks instead, which he most likely got from someone else, here is what he said. Supporting Actor, Christoph Waltz; Supporting Actress, Mo'nique; Actress, Sandra Bullock; Actor, Jeff Bridges; Picture, Avatar; Director, Kathryn Bigelow.

More On The Leaked RNC Fear Strategy Memo Story
By: Steve - March 5, 2010 - 9:30am

This is a big story, it was talked about on Morning Joe, it's all over the internet, and it's the top story on Yahoo News. The question is, will O'Reilly report it, or prove his right-wing bias once again by ignoring it. And O'Reilly did in fact ignore the entire story, he did not say one word about it, ever, even after he did a fear TPM on Tuesday night saying it is wrong, and only hammering Democrats for using fear tactics.

Here is the Yahoo News headline, and some quotes from the article:

Leaked documents reveal GOP plan to use scare tactics to raise money

National GOP leaders are doing damage control today after Politico lifted the curtain on the party's plan to tap voters' "fear" in the coming campaign season. The PR problem started when an absent-minded attendee at the Republican National Committee confab on February 18, left a 72-page document from its 2010 strategizing session in a hotel room.

The memo tracks the fundraising presentation that RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart delivered to the RNC's $2,500-a-head annual retreat. The best path to victory in 2010, the document advises, is for Republican candidates to depict themselves as the best hope for resisting the "trending toward socialism" taking shape in a Democrat-dominated Washington.

And the document doesn't shy away from making its points graphically. MSNBC showed the images this morning on Morning Joe.



The presentation portrays the Obama administration as "The Evil Empire," including the now-infamous image of President Obama as the Joker." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appears as Cruella De Vil from "101 Dalmatians," and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is the witless cartoon dog Scooby-Doo. The memo candidly confirms that the aim of such caricature is to amp up "fear" among the GOP's conservative base. The memo also makes fun of major RNC donors, categorizing some as "ego-driven" and easily pacified with "tchochkes" (a Slavic word for toys).

The embrace of harsh rhetoric and the swipes at the large donor set seem to signal the GOP establishment's growing comfort with employing tactics associated with the activist Tea Party movement-and with plying Tea Party sympathizers for cash. Of course, it isn't unusual for parties out of power to court controversy and play with fire to rile up donors and grass-roots activists. The RNC has caught heat for fundraising tactics in the past, most recently when it was caught sending out fake census forms to raise money.

Which O'Reilly never reported on btw.

When asked by Yahoo News if the leaked presentation reflects a coordinated effort to appeal more to the Tea Party movement, RNC spokesman Doug Heye replied that the group's chairman, Michael Steele, "was recently invited by tea party activists to a meeting, which he was happy to do. Following the meeting, it was clear those in the meeting shared a common goal: stopping the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda."

And yet O'Reilly claims the Tea Party is not just a bunch of Republicans, when the facts show that is exactly what they are.

There's no question that the Obama-as-Joker image--long a familiar icon at Tea Party rallies--is a toxic association for the GOP establishment. Because it's racist, putting white face on a black man is racism. Now the GOP is doing it, making them just as bad as the Tea Party morons.

And one last thing, O'Reilly also claims that nobody in the Tea Party or the GOP are racists. When the facts show the opposite, that many people in the Tea Party and the GOP are racists, and not just because they used the Obama joker image, because of the hundred other racists t-shirts, protest signs, bumper stickers, hats, photos, cartoons, watermelon images, cereal boxes, etc. they put out all the time. But O'Reilly claims there is no racism, which is just laughable.

The Thursday 3-4-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 5, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Crunching The Numbers. O'Reilly talked some more about the Obama health care bill, he said he is giving you the real story on it, for the hundredth time. He called it truth and propaganda, when it's nothing but right-wing spin and talking points. O'Reilly does this to fool people into opposing the bill, just as all the other Republicans are doing. And he does it night after night, to drill it into your head, just as any good propagandist would do. If you say it often enough pretty soon some people will believe it.

If you want the real truth about it, read about it on an independent website, you sure are not going to get the truth from O'Reilly because he is opposed to it. O'Reilly also cried about taxes on the rich again, and he even said the rich can not afford any more taxes. I say this, for the hundredth time. Go back to 1980 when the top tax rate was 70%, now that is high taxes, the rich only pay 36% now, which is nothing, so shut up about your fricking taxes you cry baby millionaire.

Then Brad Sherman and Joe Sestak were on to discuss it. Sestak said the bill is paid for, and it will actually save the Government money, which directly disputes what O'Reilly claimed. So then O'Reilly disputed what he said by citing an article in the biased Wall Street Journal, haha. Sherman said the CBO numbers are correct, O'Reilly claims the CBO numbers are not correct, based on what he read in the Wall Street Journal.

And btw, when Bush was in office for 8 years O'Reilly never once disputed the CBO numbers on anything. Basically Sherman and Sestak disputed everything O'Reilly said, but he just kept spewing out the right-wing talking points. Then O'Reilly denied he is a partisan who is on the side of the Republicans, which is the most ridiculous thing he said in the whole show. Sestak and Sherman pointed out the CBO is nonpartisan and their numbers should be trusted. My main point is that O'Reilly never disputed any of the CBO numbers under Bush, he only disputes them under Obama. Not to mention he is opposed to the bill, and clearly he has not been objective when reporting on it.

So then after all that O'Reilly puts the far right Laura Ingraham on to discuss it. And of course she agreed with O'Reilly, called the two Democrats both liars, and then trashed the whole bill. That is why O'Reilly put her on, to spew out more right-wing propaganda and to dispute what the two Democratic Congressman said. O'Reilly said they really believe what they are saying, as if they are liars, he just did not call them liars. Ingrahm said they are liars, and who cares what they believe. What Ingraham said is propaganda, yet O'Reilly called it the truth. O'Reilly agreed with Ingraham that it's all lies, and the CBO is wrong. So if you want propaganda, that is it. And btw, O'Reilly now believes it will pass.

Then O'Reilly did yet another segment on what he calls the Jeremiah Wright fabricated awards show. Enough already, nobody cares about Pastor Wright, it's a dead story. Except with O'Reilly and a couple other right-wing fools. This is not news, it's red meat for Republicans, and O'Reilly only reports on it because his mostly right-wing viewers like to hear it. It is not news on any other news show, except for maybe Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh.

It's a ridiculous and biased segment that I will not report on, because it's not news. Billy cried about the media not reporting on it, haha, because it's not news you right-wing idiot. Notice that O'Reilly has two segment on this in two nights, but he does not say a word about the leaked RNC memo story that was all over the news today. O'Reilly claims it is a big story, but if it's a big story how come nobody is reporting it. Billy had Hermene Hartman on to discuss it, and she disagreed with everything O'Reilly said. Earth to O'Dummy, it's a local Chicago story, not a national story, moron. O'Reilly said it's a big story, it's huge, lol. She disagreed 100%, and said it's a local Chicago story and things like that in Chicago never get any media coverage.

What's really funny is O'Reilly crying about the media not covering a story he claims is huge, when he is the only person who thinks it is huge, as he is ignoring a really big actual news story. He is ignoring the leaked RNC memo story that shows they are using fear and racism to win in November. I saw it reported everywhere today, except on Fox News. Making him the biggest hypocrite in America, pot meet kettle.

Then the two Republican culture warriors were on, Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson. They talked about the 18 girls who all got pregnant at the same school. Boring, and that's about all I will say about it. O'Reilly has time for this nonsense, but no time to report real news. About all this segment does is give O'Reilly and his right-wing friends more time to spew out their right-wing ideology. It's not about culture, it's about spinning out the right-wing point of view on how the country should be. Then they cried about three teachers who said Dennis Rodman, Ru Paul, and O.J. Simpson should be honored for black history month. They were suspended for 3 days. O'Reilly called them loons.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to discuss a story about medical marijuana for fifth graders. And as usual O'Reilly misrepresented the story on his website. O'Reilly teased the segment before the commercial by saying medical marijuana for fifth graders, why not, why not. When no fifth graders are getting medical marijuana, the 10 year old fifth grader found the pot when it fell out of her 18 year old half sisters purse. So no O'Reilly, fifth graders are not getting medical marijuana, you moron.

Everyone is opposed to fifth graders getting medical marijuana, even me, and that is not what the story is about. No fifth graders got medical marijuana, the fifth grader stole it from her half sister, who is 18 years old. Kelly said that is misleading, and reported the actual story. Knocking down all the O'Reilly propaganda on the story. Then O'Reilly said Kelly is taking the story far too casually. O'Reilly then speculated the 18 year old does not need it, and that she gave it to the fifth grader. And btw, it was a brownie with pot in it, it was not actual pot the kid had.

Then they talked about a pregnant woman who worked in a topless bar getting fired, which is discrimination. The woman is going to sue, and will win because she taped her boss saying she was fired because she is pregnant. It's a slam dunk and she will win. Then they talked about a kid who decorated part of a school with a bunch of God writing on it. O'Reilly said it was wrong to remove the God stuff, and he was on the side of the kid who put up the God stuff. The kid sued and won, and O'Reilly loved it.

The last segment was the Factor News Quiz, with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum. I do not report on this segment because it's nonsense, it's not news, and it has no news value at all. O'Reilly does a news quiz with two Republicans who work for Fox, how is that news. All it does is show how uninformed they are, because they get half the questions wrong, and they work for a so-called news network, which is pathetic.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, as I predicted O'Reilly did not say a word about the leaked memo showing that the GOP is going to use fear to win in November.

It's about fear and racism, both things O'Reilly has denied the GOP is involved in, yet he ignores it when it happens. This was the biggest story on tv and the internet today, and O'Reilly totally ignored it. That's not journalism, it's bias.

Some O'Reilly Videos That Prove How Biased He Is
By: Steve - March 5, 2010 - 8:30am

In video #1 O'Reilly tells Congressman Sestak and Sherman that he would not have them on the show if they were the Sanchez sisters, because you are smart guys. Which implies the Sanchez sisters are stupid, and what a shocker they are both Democrats, and the first sisters to ever be in the House together.

You know that if they were Republican sisters O'Reilly would say how great it was, but since they are Democrats he insults them as stupid. When they are sisters in Congress, and he is just a lame cable news host on a fake news network. So they have done something to be proud of, while all O'Reilly does is spew out right-wing propaganda on a right-wing news network. And remember this, O'Reilly is the guy who claims Sarah Palin is smart and qualified enough to be the President.



The next video gets the award for dumbest statement of the night. O'Reilly said Obama sincerely believes in health care reform just like Bush sincerely believed Saddam was a threat. What a fricking joke, that comparison is ridiculous. O'Reilly should get an award for this one, the dumbest statement of the week award.



More On The O'Reilly DOJ Attorney Story
By: Steve - March 5, 2010 - 8:00am

Here is more proof that O'Reilly and the Republicans are doing a biased and unfair attack on the DOJ attorneys who have represented terrorists.

Bush administration lawyers also reportedly represented Guantanamo Bay detainees before working for the Justice Department. Yet O'Reilly and his right-wing friends never once complained about them.

And guess who reported it, FOXNEWS.COM.

In a March 3 article about lawyers currently working for DOJ who previously represented or advocated for terror suspects, FoxNews.com reported that "the Obama Administration is not the first to hire lawyers who represented or advocated for terror suspects."

Pratik Shah, an assistant to the Solicitor General hired by the Bush Administration, was part of the WilmerHale team that put together arguments for the Boumediene v. Bush case.

Trisha Anderson, an adviser in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel who was also hired by the Bush Administration, was previously an attorney at Attorney General Eric Holder's former firm, Covington & Burling, where she helped represent 13 Yemeni detainees.

Varda Hussain, an attorney hired in 2008 with the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, was an associate with the Washington-based firm Venable when she helped represent three Egyptians being held at Guantanamo Bay.

"Varda has spent over 500 hours in the past year fighting to bring due process to our clients," a firm newsletter said in 2006.

And yet O'Reilly never reported a word of that, he only attacks the DOJ lawyers who are there now under Obama. O'Reilly, Hannity, Crowley, Malkin, Fox & Friends, etc. All complained about it, but none of them said a word about the Bush attorneys who did the same thing. The foxnation.com website even called it the Department of Jihad.

And btw, Former Bush administration officials have pushed back against the ad by Liz Cheney that started the whole controversy.

"While it's legitimate for the public to inquire about the past work of DOJ political appointees, we need to recognize that our judicial system cannot function without pro bono counsel, and it doesn't make a lawyer less patriotic just because he or she has represented a criminal or terrorist suspect," former U.S. attorney and homeland security adviser Kenneth Wainstein told the Washington Post.

"It's beyond a cheap shot to suggest that a lawyer is an al-Qaeda sympathizer because he advocates a detainee's position in the Supreme Court," said former Bush White House lawyer Reginald Brown.

American Bar Association President Carolyn Lamm told TPMmuckraker's Justin Elliott today that Keep America Safe's ad is "a divisive and diversionary tactic" to impugn "the character of lawyers who have sought to protect the fundamental rights of unpopular clients."

Former Bush administration official Peter D. Keisler told the New York Times today that the attack on the Justice Department lawyers who defended detainees is "wrong" because "there is a longstanding and very honorable tradition of lawyers representing unpopular or controversial clients."

"It's wrong to suggest that people who took that position are somehow sympathetic to Al Qaeda," said Keisler.

John Bellinger III, a former legal adviser to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, is also defending the DoJ lawyers who formerly worked on behalf of detainees.

"I think it's unfortunate that these individuals are being criticized for their past representation, it reflects the politicization and the polarization of terrorism issues," Bellinger said.

"Neither Republicans nor Democrats should be attacking officials in each other's administration's based solely on the clients they have represented in the past."

And O'Reilly has not reported a word about any of it. Because he does not want you to know that some Republicans are even speaking out against the attacks, which are coming from O'Reilly himself, along with many other far right Republicans.

The Facts On The Chicago Handgun Ban Case
By: Steve - March 4, 2010 - 1:30pm

First let me say that I am a liberal and I oppose the Chicago handgun ban 100 percent, I believe it is unconstitutional. So I agree with the NRA on this one, it is unconstitutional to ban law abiding American citizens from owning a handgun, unless they are ex-cons or fail a background check. So I think the Supreme Court should strike it down as unconstitutional.

Here is the problem, O'Reilly did half a show on the case claiming that Obama and all the liberals support the ban. Which is ridiculous right-wing propaganda, because I am as liberal as it gets and I oppose the ban, in fact, I am shocked it was even passed in the first place.

The problem I have is the way O'Reilly used the issue to attack Obama and liberals for partisan political reasons. Because I would bet most liberals also oppose the handgun ban law, and also believe it is unconstitutional just like I do.

Another big problem with O'Reilly's argument is that this handgun ban law took effect in 1982, which is 28 years ago, yet O'Reilly waited until Obama was the president to argue that he supports taking your guns away. Which is more proof O'Reilly is using the issue as a partisan political attack.
Chicago's law took effect in 1982. While it allows ownership of long guns such as rifles, they must be registered annually with the city's police department. Concealed weapons, semi-automatic and automatic weapons are not permitted.
Hey Billy, why did it take you 28 years to complain about the handgun ban. Another problem with O'Reilly's argument is that two of the judges on the appeals court were Republicans, killing the argument from O'Reilly that only Democrats upheld the ruling. Another problem with O'Reilly's argument that Obama and the liberals want to take your guns away is this press release from November of 2009.
WASHINGTON, D.C.-- As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to review another landmark gun rights case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Jon Tester (D-MT) today filed a bipartisan, bicameral amicus curiae, or friend of the court, brief asking the Supreme Court of the United States to hold the Second Amendment applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Representatives Mark Souder (R-IN) and Mike Ross (D-AR) co-led the brief, which is signed by 58 Senators and 251 Representatives, more members of Congress than any amicus brief in U.S. history.
So you have bi-partisan support for the law to be ruled unconstitutional. With many Democrats joining Republicans asking the Supreme Court to strike the law down and rule it unconstitutional. Yet O'Reilly claims Obama and the Democrats want to limit your gun rights, when the facts show the exact opposite. In fact, the Democratic Senator Jon Tester said this about the ban:
TESTER: Working together, we're making our gun rights in this country stronger, said Senator Tester. This isn't about partisan politics. It's about the rights all law-abiding Americans have under our Constitution, and those rights are always worth fighting for.
Yet O'Reilly claims all the liberals and Obama want to limit your freedoms. When the facts show the exact opposite. Another problem I have with O'Reilly's argument is that the law was passed 28 years ago before Obama was even a politician in Chicago. So Obama had nothing to do with it, yet O'Reilly partially blames him anyway.

And to show what I say is true, just look at what O'Reilly said two days ago:
O'REILLY: Some Tea Party people, along with commentators like Glenn Beck and some other radio guys, believe the Obama administration and progressives in general want to curtail individual freedom.

And you know what? That might be true.

Right now there is a case before the Supreme Court, McDonald v. Chicago, where the right to bear arms is in play.
O'Reilly claims Obama and progressives in general want to curtail individual freedom. Which is ridiculous, because the law was passed 28 years ago, Obama had nothing to do with it, and most liberals (including me) oppose the ban, and think it's unconstitutional. Then O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Does the right to bear arms apply against city and state governments as well?"

Of course it does. Are you telling me the city of Chicago could restrict freedom of speech in violation of the Constitution? This case isn't even close, and I predict the court will rule 5 to 4 that Otis McDonald can own a handgun.

But the four justices who would violate Mr. McDonald's rights are troubling because they don't like guns. They don't like the Second Amendment, and therefore would restrict it.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is an assault on individual freedom.
And I agree it applies to city and state governments. Then O'Reilly goes off the deep end, he predicts a 5 to 4 ruling and hammers the 4 so-called liberals on the Supreme Court that he claims will vote to keep the ban in place. Which is totally ridiculous, he is hammering them before they even make a ruling, not to mention he says he never speculates, as he is speculating.

Then the O'Dumbass said this:
O'REILLY: It is interesting that in America today, it is the far left that wants the government to call the shots, not the folks. In the past, right-wing extremists like Hitler and Mussolini were in the forefront of state control. But with the exception of Burma, today's totalitarians are primarily on the left. Certainly that is the case in the USA.
Which is just pure right-wing insanity, and nothing but propaganda. O'Reilly compares liberals to Hitler and Mussolini, when in the past if a Democrat compared Bush to Hitler, O'Reilly said it was wrong and that nobody should use Hitler comparisons for political reasons, then he does it himself, breaking his own rules. Not to mention most Democrats also oppose the handgun ban, including me. So his argument is wrong, and a lie.

Then O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There is a movement underway in this country, led by so-called progressives, that would restrict individual liberty.
Wrong, O'Reilly is a liar. What he did was use the case to smear Obama and progressives for partisan political reasons. Because from what I have found almost everyone thinks the Chicago handgun ban is unconstitutional, that includes most Democrats, progressives, and liberals. I am as liberal as it gets, and I oppose the handgun ban 100 percent, in fact, I am shocked it even passed. I live in Illinois, and have for almost 50 years now, and I did not even know about the handgun ban until a few days ago.

The sad part is that it passed in the first place, and that O'Reilly waited 28 years to use the case to attack Obama and the Democrats. When almost everyone thinks the ban should be ruled unconstitutional. Now look at how O'Reilly reported the case, and then ask yourself if that is objective journalism. The only conclusion you can come to is that it's nothing but a partisan right-wing smear job by Bill O'Reilly.

After he tells you he is a nonpartisan Independent, which is even more ridiculous then claiming Obama and the Democrats want to curtail your freedoms and take your guns away.

The Wednesday 3-3-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 4, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Living Legends. O'Reilly talked about Farrakhan, Wright, and Pfleger getting awards in Chicago. O'Reilly called it a dog and pony show and trashed the whole thing, he even called it a scandal. How is this news, answer, it's not. It was simply a waste of time, and not evn worth writing about.

Then O'Reilly had a segment on the three worst things in the Obama health care bill. Dick Morris was on to discuss it. And what Morris did was simply lie about what's in the bill. He said Obama is going to cut $500 million from medicare, when that is a lie. Morris said he is 100 percent sure he is telling the truth, which means nothing, because his word is worthless. Morris also said their will be an expansion of 30 million people, but no expansion of doctors. So that will lead to rationing of care, which is also a lie.

And once again Morris said he is 100 percent sure he is right. Then Morris said Obama is going to raise taxe rates to 42.5 percent, and change the Cap gains tax from 15 percent to 22.5 percent, and raise the medicare tax too. It's all lies from Morris, nothing he said is true. Even O'Reilly said he does not believe everything Morris is saying, and asked someone in the office to check it out, but we never heard if it was or not. Then Morris wanted to give a 4th thing, when it was supposed to be the three worst things. O'Reilly let Morris give a 4th thing, he said the bill is not deficit neutral, so he is calling Obama a liar.

Then O'Reilly did a segment with Professor Caroline Heldman about the three best things in the Obama health care bill. She said one good thing is that 35 to 50 million more people will be covered. Then O'Reilly said he thinks the bill is unconstitutional. The second thing she mentioned was that the President has mandated the skyrocketing premium prices will be under control. O'Reilly asked her how he was going to do that, and she said she does not know, O'Reilly said that was disturbing. When it's not her duty to know how it is applied, she was just on to say what good things are in the bill. The third thing was the pre-existing condition part of it. O'Reilly questioned that too, he said it was murky. No it's not, if you have a pre-existing condition your doctor will know and have a record of it, how in the hell is that murky. O'Reilly sounded like Morris, just make it up.

Then O'Reilly did another smear segment on some of the attorneys in the Obama justice department. And guess who was on to help in the smear job, Dick Cheneys Daughter, Liz Cheney. The whole thing is a right-wing smear job. And what's funny is that when Bush hired right-wing attorneys to work for him O'Reilly never said a word. But now that Obama and his AG are hiring liberal attorneys somehow O'Reilly and the right imply that something is wrong with that. The whole segment was a biased joke. Let me add one last thing, O'Reilly has done three segments now on this issue, and not one Democratic guest has been on to discuss it. That shows what a witch hunt it is, and how biased O'Reilly is.

Then O'Reilly talked about the womens media center and focus on the family. O'Reilly cried about the NCAA pulling a focus on the family ad from their website. O'Reilly said he saw nothing wrong with the ad, and he had Jehmu Greene on from the womens media center on to discuss it. She said the NCAA was right to remove the ad, and of course O'Reilly defended the right-wing focus on the family group. Because he is a Republican who supports them. The NCAA has a right to show any ad they want, it's not up to O'Reilly to decide.

And you notice that O'Reilly never complains about any left-wing ads that are pulled from anywhere. He only complains when right-wing ads get pulled. O'Reilly called the NCAA cowards. O'Reilly also said she wants to shut them up and deny them their free speech, which is just ridiculous. Earth to O'Reilly free speech can only be denied by the Government, the NCAA has a right to run whatever ads they want. And you are an idiot to even say that. Then he said they claim she kills babies, which had nothing to do with an ad on the NCAA website, not to mention she does not kill babies, I have no idea what that garbage is. Abortion nonsense I guess, which is not killing babies, as per the Roe V Wade Supreme Court ruling.

Then it was Miller time with Dennis Miller. I do not report what he says, but I will say he is on once a week to make jokes about Democrats and Liberals. Which is total hypocrisy from O'Reilly, because he complains when COMEDIANS do jokes about Sarah Palin on their COMEDY shows. Then he does the exact same thing by having Dennis Miller on his show to make jokes about Democrats, and O'Reilly does not have a COMEDY show, so what he does is even worse than what the other COMEDIANS do on their COMEDY shows.

The last segment was did you see that with Jane Skinner. O'Reilly and Skinner discuss videos, most of them are stupid, and have nothing to do with the news, or politics. It's basically another worthless tabloid style segment to get another Fox News blonde on the air for ratings. The segment is not news, and has no news value at all. The whole segment was tabloid garbage, about Jessica Simpson on Oprah, a Paris Hilton beer ad in Brazil, it's too sexy, and of course O'Reilly showed it, then talked about how much he hated to report it, then he reported it anyway. What a joke of a tabloid garbage segment.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And of course Billy had to promote Palin from Tuesday night, so he played a tape of her on the Jay Leno show.

O'Reilly Ignoring Fear From The Right
By: Steve - March 4, 2010 - 9:00am

Last week O'Reilly did a talking points memo and the top story on using fear in politics. And of course O'Reilly said Democrats were using fear, while ignoring Republicans who are using fear almost non-stop. Like Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.

O'Reilly attacked the liberal Bernie Sanders for speaking about global warming. O'Reilly said this: "I could be wrong, but I believe old Bernie is trying to scare us."

Then he attacked Valerie Jarrett for saying the Tea Party is using fear to try and scare people to vote against Democrats. She said this:
JARRETT: It's always a lot easier, again, to scare people and to get them angry when they're already scared and they're already uncertain. I think that's what the Tea Party has tried to capture.
O'Reilly said this about it:
O'REILLY: All right. Now, unlike the statement from Sanders, Ms. Jarrett may have a point. Many Americans are frightened. They see the Obama administration spending record amounts of money, funds the country doesn't have. So yes, some Tea Party people are in the game because they're afraid. But "Talking Points" doesn't think that's a bad thing.
So O'Reilly attacks Jarrett for using fear, then admits she is right. He admits the Tea Party is using fear, but he does not attack them for it, he attacks Jarrett for making a true statement about them. Jarrett was not using fear, she simply pointed out that the Tea Party was using fear, so O'Reilly attacks her for that, and defends the Tea Party for actually using fear.

Then O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Fear is a tremendous motivator. If you think your roof's going to collapse and you build a stronger roof, that's positive, is it not?

It is a rational and distorted fear that is damaging, that can lead to violence and heartbreak. It can also paralyze people, making them incapable of correcting problems.

So fear is a double-edged sword, and there is no question it is being wielded all over the country these days.
In that statement O'Reilly attacked and defended fear at the same time. What he is saying is that sometimes it is ok to use fear, and he says the Tea Party is ok to use it, but if a Democrat uses it then it's wrong. This is classic right-wing bias from O'Reilly, when a Democrat does it it's wrong, when a Republican does it it's ok.

He attacks Democrats for using fear, with one example from Bernie Sanders, who is not even a Democrat, he is an Independent. Then the example he used for Jarrett is not even using fear, it's pointing out the Tea Party is using fear, and O'Reilly even agreed she makes a good point.

O'Reilly ignores all the fear from the right, nothing about Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, all of Fox News, the RNC, or anyone on the right. Including an article that came out yesterday at the Politico.

The 72-page RNC powerpoint presentation for donors and fundraisers obtained by Politico caricatures Obama as The Joker and portrays Democratic leaders as part of an evil empire. The document preys on "fear" of Obama moving the country toward socialism.

The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on fear of President Barack Obama and a promise to "save the country from trending toward socialism."

The strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO, which also outlines how "ego-driven" wealthy donors can be tapped with offers of access.

The presentation was delivered by RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart to top donors and fundraisers at a party retreat in Boca Grande, Florida on February 18.

The presentation explains the Republican fundraising in simple terms. "What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate...?"

The answer: "Save the country from trending toward Socialism!"

One page, headed The Evil Empire, pictures Obama as the Joker from Batman, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid are depicted as Cruella DeVille and Scooby Doo.

The RNC reacted with alarm to a question about it Wednesday, emailing major donors to warn them of a reporter's question, and distancing Steele from its contents.

And yet O'Reilly never said a word about any of it, no talking points memo on the right using fear, no top story about it, nothing. But if one Independent, who O'Reilly called a Democrat using fear (Bernie Sanders) and one actual Democrat (Valerie Jarrett) simply points out the Tea Party is using fear. O'Reilly does an entire TPM attacking them, while ignoring all the Republicans using fear.

This is called fair and balanced journalism by O'Reilly, when it's nothing but biased one sided right-wing propaganda. The vast majority of people using fear are Republicans, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, the RNC, Fox News, etc. are using fear every day, a thousand times a day, yet O'Reilly ignores it all.

O'Reilly Trashes Liberals Who Support Gun Control
By: Steve - March 3, 2010 - 10:00am

O'Reilly said liberals that support gun control are totalitarians, and he even compared them to Hitler. After attacking liberal "totalitarians" for supporting a federal appellate court's ruling that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments, O'Reilly falsely suggested that 270 years of Supreme Court precedent supports his position. In fact, the appellate court -- including two conservative Reagan nominees -- cited Supreme Court precedents dating back to 1876 in their opinion.



It looks like O'Reilly is running some plays now from the Glenn Beck playbook, most likely to try and get some of Becks viewers to increase his ratings. Now think about this, when Bush was in office and someone used the Hitler word O'Reilly said it was wrong, and that nobody should use Hitler comparisons.

So what does he do, he uses Hitler comparisons. Wow, someone should give O'Reilly a hypocrisy award, he would be crowned the king.

And to show you just how ridiculous O'Reilly is, he argued that there should be no gun control, ever. What about ex-convicts, should they be allowed to have guns. I bet O'Reilly would support gun control if it was for keeping an ex-con from having a gun.

What about all the people who fail a background check, and then they are denied a gun, they are not allowed to have guns. But you never see O'Reilly argue that they should have guns. I support the 2nd amendment, but there are limits, I do not support ex-cons having guns, and I do not support people that fail a background check having guns either. So that kind of destroys the argument from O'Reilly that anyone should be able to have a gun.

And btw, O'Reilly failed to mention one important thing. Two of the judges that made the appeals court ruling were Republicans that were appointed by Ronald Reagan. Funny how O'Reilly just happened to not report that fact.

The Tuesday 3-2-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 3, 2010 - 8:00am

The TPM was called Freedom Erosion. Billy talked about the Tea Party nuts, and Glenn Beck saying Obama is trying to take away some of their freedoms, one is gun rights, Billy called it an ultra controversial situation. Then he said it might be true, haha, what an idiot. O'Reilly mentioned the US Supreme Court case about gun rights in Chicago. O'Reilly predicted a 5-4 ruling in favor of gun rights. How this has anything to do with Obama, I have no idea. And then at the end O'Reilly said he will not say Obama wants to take your freedoms away, after spending 4 minutes saying he might.

This is so funny, a week ago O'Reilly did a segment about partisans using fear to scare the people into supporting their agenda, he said it was wrong. And now here he is doing a segment using fear about Obama, asking if our freedom is in danger. O'Reilly claims the Obama administration wants to curtail some of our individual freedoms. It's ridiculous, and nothing but fear tactics using right-wing propaganda. Not to mention, he is also using fear and lies about the Obama health care bill to scare people into opposing it.

O'Reilly had Penny Lee and Mark Levine on. She said Progressives do not want to take away any freedoms, so basically she said O'Reilly is full of hot air, and all his spin on it is nothing but right-wing propaganda. Levine read from the constitution and said nobody is trying to take away any rights. Then he pointed out that the people of Chicago voted to restrict gun rights for handguns. Both guests were Democrats and O'Reilly argued with them both. The whole TPM and the segment with the two guests was a joke, O'Reilly used it to imply Obama is trying to take away some of your freedoms. When Obama had nothing to do with the people of Chicago voting to restrict gun rights.

And btw, I disagree with some Democrats on this issue. I believe in the 2nd amendment 100 percent. I support guns for all, and I hope the US Supreme Court rules the Chicago law unconstitutional. I do not see how you can ban handguns when the constitution says we have a right to bear arms. But O'Reilly still misrepresented the issue, and used fear tactics to try and make people be scared that Obama is coming to get your guns, which is just ridiculous. The city of Chicago did it, not Obama, he had nothing to do with it.

Then O'Reilly had a segment on racism, and Louis Farrakhan. Billy talked about a speech by Farrakhan over the weekend where he said the white right is planning to kill Obama. O'Reilly attacked it as racist, and he hammered Farrakhan. Leo Terrell was on to discuss it. Terrell said there is racism against Obama, and it's real, and he said Farrakhan is tapping into that racism towards Obama. Then O'Reilly pulled his ridiculous comparison of Bush and Obama, and that they were both hated. Terrell blew that comparison out of the water by saying Obama is the first black President. But O'Reilly just can not admit there is racism against Obama by some people on the right, no matter what you show him O'Reilly will not believe it.

Terrell kept saying it over and over, there is racism on the right towards Obama. O'Reilly said he has to have bodyguards because people hate him, when that has nothing to do with the issue. Terrell said Obama is black, and there is racism towards him. O'Reilly said there is no difference in the hate for him or Obama, because they would both be dead. Which is a stupid statement that makes no sense, Terrell pointed out that one is hate over a mans color, so it is different, and O'Reilly said he does not buy it. Proving that he is a right-wing idiot who will never admit there is racism from the right against Obama.

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on for Barack & a Hard Place. Crowley said the deficit reduction board is bogus, then she put her right-wing propaganda out about who is going to be on the board. Colmes said it was a fair and balanced board, and pointed out that Crowley left out all the other people on the board, that she only had a problem with two of them. As usual Crowley had nothing, but biased spin and propaganda, as she left out most of the facts.

O'Reilly even made a joke that no matter what Obama does she will hate it. And then finally O'Reilly mentioned the Republican Senator Jim Bunning vote block, he played part of the tape of Bunning getting on the elavator, but he never showed him giving the finger to the reporter, he cut the tape before that. Colmes pointed out that Bunning gave the guy the finger, and O'Reilly just ignored it. Now imagine what O'Reilly would say if a Democratic Senator had given the finger to a Fox reporter. He would have spent a week reporting it every night to make them look bad, but when a Republican does it O'Reilly does not even show the whole tape showing it, let alone talk about it for a week.

Then O'Reilly had John Stossel on to talk about health care. O'Reilly asked if the federal Government should regulate the cost of premiums. Stossel said no, and then he defended the insurance companies. This guy Stossel is a far right nut, who thinks Corporations and insurance companies should be able to do whatever they want with no regulations. O'Reilly pointed out how the gas and oil companies have a monopoly and how it's a cabal, and crazy Stossel even denied that. Proving that he is a lunatic, because everyone knows the gas and oil companies are a corrupt monopoly, even O'Reilly admits it. Stossel says everyone is on their own, so tough shit. And let the corporations do whatever they want.

Then is it legal, with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle. They talked about a guy who molested a 13 year old girl, John Albert Gardner. He got 6 years, and served 5, then registered as a sex offender. Then he was recently arrested for the disappearance of Chelsea King. O'Reilly said we do not want to convict him on tv, but I believe he did it. Which is convicting him on tv you moron. Then they talked about a story in Wisconsin where a guy posed as a woman on facebook and got girls to send him nude photos, then made them have sex with him, O'Reilly called it stupid.

He is 19 years old and he was charged with assault for blackmailing them into having sex with him, he got 15 years and Guilfoyle said it was not enough, O'Reilly said he should have got 25 years. Then they talked about the 17 year old stripper case in Iowa, for about the 4th time, they said the law is going to be changed, and it was a 50 to 0 vote to change it. And of course O'Reilly ran more stripper video as they talked about it.

Then the far far right Charles Krauthammer was on to talk more about some lawyers in the DOJ who have worked for terrorists as lawyers. I refuse to talk about this nonsense any more, it's biased one sided right-wing propaganda to smear Obama and the Attorney General Eric Holder. And O'Reilly gives these right-wing idiots a forum to spew out this nonsense. And notice this, not once has O'Reilly had a Democratic guest on to discuss this situation. He only had right-wing partisans on to discuss it. Krauthammer called them radicals, which is the pot calling the kettle black. Krauthammer is the radical, he is a far right radical neo-con propagandist.

Krauthammer is a regular now on the Factor, just like Rove, Morris, Gingrich, Ingraham, Coulter, etc. All of them are always on alone, and they are all right-wing partisans who hate Obama, that do nothing but smear him for everything he does. None of them ever have anything good to say about Obama. Proving they are biased partisans that nobody should listen to.

Then the pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, for the first time ever, O'Reilly had 4 Democrats on one show. I have been doing this website since 2000, and I can not ever remember O'Reilly putting 4 Democrats on one show.

O'Reilly Caught Spinning About Tony West
By: Steve - March 2, 2010 - 9:50am

I normally do not report on the O'Reilly reality check segment he does on Monday nights, and here is one reason why. They are mostly lies and spin, where half the facts are left out, and there is no reality check.

Last night O'Reilly said this about Tony West:
O'REILLY: Check two. Washington Times reporting that Attorney General Eric Holder has on his staff nine lawyers who have legal connections to captured terrorists. The latest guy is Tony West, who worked on American Taliban John Walker Lindh's case. West was reportedly OK'd by President Obama.
Now look at that statement, O'Reilly is saying that nine lawyers who work for the AG Eric Holder have legal connections to terrorists, and that President Obama approved them. You think, my God, that is really bad, and you would be wrong. O'Reilly failed to mention a few things, like all the facts.

First, the Washington Times is a right-wing owned, right-wing biased Newspaper, that loses million of dollars every year. Yet it stays in business so Republicans like O'Reilly can use them as a source to do biased and dishonest attacks on Democrats, and even President Obama himself.

Second, the so-called legal connections O'Reilly talks about means that when they were lawyers in private practice they did legal work, and some of them even worked as an attorney for a terrorist, because that was their job, and they got paid for it. O'Reilly implies they did something wrong, when they did no such thing, they worked for a client to make money.

Third, Tony West is the Assistant Attorney General, which is a SENATE confirmed position. When he came up for confirmation 82 Senators voted yes, and he was confirmed by a mile, 28 REPUBLICANS even voted yes for him, with only 4 REPUBLICANS voting no. O'Reilly implied that he did something wrong by representing John Walker Lindh. When they all voted yes for him, and that had all that information.

O'Reilly acted like the whole thing was a secret appointment by Obama, that was made the Assistant AG without nobody knowing about it. When 82 fricking Senators confirmed him, and they knew all about him representing John Walker Lindh.

The whole thing was a dishonest and deceptive partisan right-wing smear job on Eric Holder and President Obama, by the so-called nonpartisan Independent journalist Bill O'Reilly.

O'Reilly called that a reality check. When the reality is that the whole thing was nothing more than a biased smear job to make Obama and Holder look bad. Billy left out all the facts, and never once mentioned that all but FOUR REPUBLICAN SENATORS voted to confirm him.

So clearly almost nobody had a problem with him representing John Walker Lindh, except the Washington Times and Bill O'Reilly. And let me add one more thing, John Walker Lindh is an American citizen. So under the constitution he has a right to an Attorney, somehow O'Reilly has a problem with that.

Brooklyn ACORN Cleared: O'Reilly Silent
By: Steve - March 2, 2010 - 9:30am

From the NY Daily News:

Brooklyn prosecutors on Monday cleared ACORN of criminal wrongdoing after a four-month probe that began when undercover conservative activists filmed workers giving what appeared to be illegal advice on how to hide money.

While the video by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles seemed to show three ACORN workers advising a prostitute how to hide ill-gotten gains, the unedited version was not as clear, according to a law enforcement source.

"They edited the tape to meet their agenda," said the source.

They were hailed as heroes by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and virtually everyone at the Fox News Network. And btw, O'Keefe never released the un-edited tapes to the media, which should have been a red flag, yet O'Reilly and everyone at Fox used the doctored tapes and hailed them as heroes anyway.

What do you know, O'Reilly never reported this story, he has ignored it. And btw, O'Reilly lives in New York, he reads all the New York papers, so you know he saw this story, and he still ignored it.

The Monday 3-1-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 2, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Political Money Trail. O'Reilly cited a Rasmussen poll talking about the Obama health care plan, and no other polls. Which is bias, because the Rasmussen poll has the worst numbers for Obama. Then he attacked Barney Frank once again for saying Fannie and Freddie are ok, when they lost $16 Billion in the last quarter of 2009. But that is misleading, because it was in the middle of a housing crisis, and a recession. O'Reilly misrepresented what Frank said, as usual. Then Billy said the Obama health care bill must not pass because we can not afford it. O'Reilly said it will bankrupt the country, when it is actually deficit neutral, so O'Reilly is lying to support his position.

Then Brit Hume was on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest to provide any balance. O'Reilly said he is not a math guy or a policy wonk, but he looked at the numbers and said if the Obama health care bill passes it will bankrupt the country. Earth to O'Reilly, you just admittted you do not know what you are talking about, and you also admitted you are a partisan right-wing spin doctor. Hume basically agreed with O'Reilly, and said nobody thinks it will only cost $950 Billion, but what he failed to say is that nobody is only Republicans. Then O'Reilly cited a Fox News poll said only half the Democrats are worried about spending, while 90% of Republicans are.

What's funny is that during the 8 years of big Bush spending O'Reilly never said a word, and even hammered Democrats for being worried about the deficit. Back then the Democrats were worried about the deficits under Bush, and O'Reilly called them whiners who should just shut up, he even said the country can never go bankrupt. But now that we have a Democratic President O'Reilly is singing a whole different tune. Now he is saying the country could go bankrupt, when he said it could never happen back then. And btw, we will never go bankrupt, the Government can always cut programs and raise taxes if they need to, so America will never go bankrupt, and O'Reilly knows it. Yet he fearmongers about it anyway, when just last week he hammered people for using fear. Hume said the Obama health care bill does not have the votes to pass.

Then O'Reilly did another segment asking if Obama is a socialist. Billy played a clip of David Gregory asking McCain if Obama is a socialist. McCain refuse to answer, so here we go again with the socialist nonsense. O'Reilly said he does not want to be repetitive, but that the story about Obama being a socialist is gaining traction. Yeah because O'Reilly and Fox News keep the story going. Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to discuss it, and even Juan Williams said Obama is not a socialist. O'Reilly even said Obama is not a socialist, then he does segments on it night after night. Which is repetitive, dumbass. Even ham said she will not call him a socialist, but she does think he is a socialist, she just refuses to call him that. Williams said they do have the votes to pass it. O'Reilly just keeps the story going because it makes Obama look bad.

It's like saying Obama is not like Hitler, but lets do 10 segments about it over the next week or so and talk about if he is or not. The whole thing is ridiculous, and a sneaky way to smear Obama as a socialist, without actually saying he is.

Then O'Reilly had a segment about getting more kids to graduate from school. Leslie Marshall and Dana Loesch were on to talk about it. Billy said we do not have the money to pay for it. Marshall said we do have the money, and it is a good way to get more kids to graduate. Then he went to the Republican guest who was on to agree with him. Loesch said it's the parents fault, and btw, she home schools her kids. O'reilly said liberals are off the rails to want to spend all this money on schools. then O'Reilly said they should all be home schooled because it's a better way to go.

Marshall disagreed, and O'Reilly said whoa, he was actually shocked that she would disagree with him. And then of course O'Reilly said he was a teacher, year 30 fricking years ago, and you only taught school to avoid the Vietnam draft you coward. Loesch pretty much agreed with O'Reilly in opposing the money, and said more home schooling is needed. O'Reilly said a Billion dollars is too much, and we can not afford it. Which is what he says to everything Obama wants to do, but when Bush was spending like a drunken sailor O'Reilly never once said we can not afford it, as he supported everything Bush did. It's just more right-wing propaganda from O'Reilly.

Then O'Reilly talked about the son of Marie Osmond killing himself, which I refuse to report on. O'Reilly had the right-wing friend of Glenn Beck, Dr. Keith Ablow on to discuss it. I will say this, Ablow is a regular on the Glenn Beck show, and a partisan, so his opinions are biased, and he can not be trusted. O'Reilly is no better than Nancy Grace for reporting on this stuff. And I do not think it should be used to get ratings on a tv show, it does nobody any good, and I see it as exploiting the family and the kids death.

Okay now get this, ABC News is laying off some people, so O'Reilly claims it is the death of network news. Which is one of the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. He called the network news programs dinosaurs that were dying off, and then he claimed Fox News is going to do their work after they are dead. He even had some lame cartoon video of a dinosaur and a Fox News logo. It was fricking insane, the network news are not dying, and not going anywhere. The biased right-wing fool Bernie Goldberg was on to discuss it. And of course Goldberg agreed with O'Reilly, so they both say the network news shows are almost dead.

Goldberg said it does not work, it's time has come and gone and they are done. What's funny is O'Reilly complained that they have no entertainement value, and no opinion, but if they had an opinion then he would complain they have a bias. The whole topic was ridiculous, and the network news shows are not going anywhere. O'Reilly even claimed they do not level with the folks, when that is just laughable, they report the news, with no bias. Then Goldberg said Fox is Fair and Balanced and they have people who know things, which implied that the networks do not have people that know things. It's ridiculous right-wing garbage put out by two right-wing idiots.

And let me remind people, this is a regular weekly media bias segment. With only a Republican media bias analyst, Bernie Goldberg, there is no Democratic media bias analyst, none, ever. That alone proves what a biased partisan O'Reilly is, because he only has a Republican media bias analyst, and they never find any right-wing bias in the media.

The last segment was the totally biased waste of time O'Reilly reality check segment. Where O'Reilly plays video clips of things a liberal said, then he puts his spin on what they said, it's not reality, and there are no checks, it's just more of O'Reilly all alone showing his right-wing bias. I do not report on this nonsense, because it's not reality, and it's not a check on anything. And btw, every single so-called reality check was about a Democrat or a liberal. Van Jones, Soros, Pelosi, and Harry Reid. Proving that it is a biased segment.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, as I predicted O'Reilly did not say a word about the Republican Senator Jim Bunning blocking the unemployment benifits bill, or that 2,000 people were also laid off because the bill did not pass by February 28th, O'Reilly has ignored the entire story. But he sure had time to talk about Obama being a socialist, and Jay Leno returning to his old time slot.

Republican Senator Gives Middle Finger To Reporter
By: Steve - March 2, 2010 - 8:50am

And the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly never said a fricking word about it.

On Monday, ABC News asked Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) about his decision last week to block the short-term extension of unemployment benefits and other measures that expired on Sunday.

Two thousand federal transportation workers were to be furloughed without pay and federal reimbursements to states for highway projects halted Monday as a result of Bunning's decision to block legislation granting a short-term funding extension to a variety of programs, including the Highway Trust Fund. Bunning complained that the legislation wasn't paid for.

Bunning angrily rebuffed ABC when it approached him as he was getting onto an elevator at the Hart Senate Office Building. Bunning told reporters to step out of the way because "this is a senator only elevator" to the Senate floor and said he had already explained his thinking.

According to ABC, when one of its producers saw Bunning leaving his office, the senator said "I'm not talking to anybody." He then "walked toward the elevator and shot the middle finger over his head."

Bunning, who is not seeking reelection this year, objected last week to Senate passage of a one-month extension of government benefits, including unemployment benefits, COBRA health care benefits and payments for Medicare doctors. Democrats pressured the senator to relent on Thursday and Friday, but he refused. Bunning is acting without the support of his fellow Republicans, and Democrats are casting him as out of touch with regular Americans.

At one point, Bunning said "tough s--t" when criticized for holding up the funding. He also reportedly "complained he had been ambushed by the Democrats and was forced to miss the Kentucky-South Carolina basketball game."

The Senate could use procedural motions to overcome his block and pass the short term extensions on Tuesday.

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

And remember this folks, it has already passed the House, with most Republicans voting yes, it will also pass easily in the Senate with most Republicans voting yes. Except one Republican Senator is blocking the vote. Not to mention he said tough shit when they asked him to cancel his block.

But the great Bill O'Reilly has not said one word about any of it, just imagine what he would say if a Democratic Senator told the Republicans tough shit and gave a Fox reporter the middle finger. O'Reilly and Fox would cover it for a week, but when a Republican does it they ignore the entire story.

And that's called journalism by O'Reilly and Fox, I call it bias by ignoring a big story that makes a Republican look bad.

Republican Spin On Reconciliation Is Stunning
By: Steve - March 2, 2010 - 8:30am

Sunday the Republican Senator Lamar Alexander appeared on ABC's This Week to discuss last week's health care summit. During the summit, Alexander urged the President and Congressional Democrats to renounce the idea of using budget reconciliation to pass health care reform. Alexander then claimed the use of reconciliation would be the end of the Senate.

That is ridiculous right-wing propaganda, If using reconciliation were the end of the Senate, the Senate would have died a long time ago, and Lamar Alexander would have helped to kill it.

Reconciliation has been used to pass at least 19 bills, including major pieces of health care reform legislation like the Children's Health Insurance Program, the Bush tax cuts, and the Medicare Advantage Program. Fourteen of those times reconciliation was employed it was used to advance Republican interests.

And Lamar Alexander himself has personally voted for reconciliation at least four times. During the Bush years reconciliation was used four times, and Alexander voted for it every time.
-- The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts: The Bush tax cuts increased budget deficits by $60 billion in 2003 and by $340 billion by 2008. The bill had a cost of about $1 Trillion dollars. [Alexander voted yes]

-- The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act of 2005: The bill cut approximately $4.8 billion over five years and $26.1 billion over the next ten years from Medicaid spending. [Alexander voted yes]

-- The 2005 Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005: The bill extended tax cuts on capital gains and dividends and the alternative minimum tax. [Alexander voted yes]

-- The 2007 College Cost Reduction and Access Act: The bill forgave all remaining student loan debt after 10 years of public service. [Alexander voted yes]
Alexander is a joke, he is just like O'Reilly. He has one standard for Republicans, and another standard for Democrats. Somehow it's ok for Republicans to use reconciliation, but if the Democrats use it suddenly it will be the end of the Senate. The Hypocrisy is stunning, and it just shows what a fool Alexander is.

It's the exact same thing with the filabuster, when Democrats used it while Bush was the President, the Republicans said it was bad and it should be ended. So now that the Democrats have control of the Senate and they talk about ending the filabuster, suddenly the Republicans are opposed to it. They are hypocrites with massive double standards.

This stuff is why politics and the Republicans get such a bad name, and why they are hated by so many people. Exactly because of situations like this, taking positions based on ideology and what party is in power, it's a flip-flop and ridiculous partisan garbage.

If you support ending the filabuster when you are not in power, you must support it forever, you can not change your mind because you lose that power. If you use reconciliation when you are in power, then you can not change your mind (and say it's wrong) when you lose that power. Let alone claim it will end the Senate, which is beyond ridiculous.

This is why a lot of Republicans are seen as partisan idiots, it's why the Democratic Underground does a top 10 conservative idiots list every week, it's why Keith Olbermann does a worlds worst persons award every night, and it's why a lot of Republicans have no credibility.

Fox Does Beck Fear Poll: Nobody Buys It
By: Steve - March 2, 2010 - 8:00am

Back in November of 2009, the New York Times published an article warning about the wave of debt payments facing the U.S. government.

Later that day, Glenn Beck used the article as a jumping off point to discuss the three scenarios that we could be facing: recession, depression, or collapse. In the case of potential collapse, Beck recommended his audience follow "the 3G system" of "God, gold and guns."

The 3G show was hardly the only time Beck warned of total breakdown of the U.S. economy. On June 5th, 2009 Beck declared that "if we don't come to some common sense, we're facing the destruction of our country."

Weeks later, he predicted that "we're all going to be living under a bridge soon, fending off bums with a bear bottle."

Now, it appears that Beck's employer is taking his fearmongering seriously. On Friday, Fox News released a poll in which it asked respondents if they have taken any actions out of concern the whole U.S. economic system could breakdown. The public, has largely ignored Beck's advice:



As you can see, only 6% have bought gold, only 18% have stocked up of food and bottled water, only 11% have bought a gun, and only 20% have taken money out of the Stock Market. Proving that nobody is taking advice from Glenn Beck, and remember this, it's a Fox news poll. If Gallup ran the poll, the results would most likely be lower than that.


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