The Thursday 3-31-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - April 1, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Why The Factor rules. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A front page article in the New York Times today proclaims that U.S. operatives are now on the ground in Libya. The Factor reported this one week ago, we were far ahead on the story. We also nailed the Japanese nuclear situation while many other news organizations ran wild with hysteria and speculation.

On another front, we've been discussing American exceptionalism. Some Americans don't want us to be exceptional; they want us to do nothing about righting wrongs throughout the world. We can't do everything, but we can save lives, and if we can do it without damaging the country, we should.

And finally, here is something really exceptional: We have reached the $1 million mark in our campaign to help the Fisher House military charity. The campaign came about after Col. David Hunt, Geraldo Rivera and I visited Walter Reed Hospital last year.

The families of our wounded warriors often can't afford to fly to hospitals around the country to be with their loved ones, so I knew I had to do something. I thought we would raise a half-million dollars, but The Factor audience is so exceptional that we have now reached a million dollars plus.
You nailed the the Japanese nuclear situation, really? How, you basically cried about the media coverage, when they were right, and you were wrong. You said the media was hyping the danger from the radiation, now we find out it's 10,000 times worse than they said it was. How is that nailing it, when you got it wrong.

And some people do not want America to be an exceptional country, really? Name them, name one person who does not want America to be exceptional. O'Reilly is a joke, he is wrong about most of this, then he writes a TPM praising himself for it, when he mostly got it wrong. The Factor not only does not rule, it's a laughing stock of a so-called news show.

Then O'Reilly had part 3 of the Trump interview, which I will report on in another blog posting. But I will say this, Trump said if he was the President the rest of the world would do whatever he wanted them to, because he is Donald Trump. It was just ridiculous, and even O'Reilly laughed at him. When it was funny, and Trump is an idiot. He said he would tell OPEC to lower the price of oil, and they would, because he is Trump, what a joke.

Then Laura Ingraham was on, who applauded Donald Trump's candor and his overall message. She said this: "Think about all the elites who dominate American politics today. None of them will really go at China the way Trump did, and he's getting a lot of traction because no one else is talking about it.

He says China has to play by the rules or we have to respond, and that message is attractive to a large percentage of the public. Somebody has to make the argument that we are seeing our economic and military and even our cultural power eroded."

Ingraham also theorized that Trump has a legitimate chance at being a force in presidential politics. She said this: "If there were ever a time, it might be now because neither party is addressing trade and globalism. The country has been sold a bill of goods and they're not buying it anymore."

And the insane O'Reilly agreed that Trump's bluntness resonates with many Americans, Billy said this: "90% of the people watching tonight agree with his message, and I certainly do. It's bold and fresh and it puts the other weasel-like politicians on the defensive. There's not a phony bone in his body."

Wow are you two clueless. Trump is a fool, and so are the both of you. He is a right-wing idiot who will never be elected to anything. And btw, when Obama ran for President O'Reilly and all of Fox slammed him for not having a lot of experience. At least Obama was a Senator, Trump has not been elected to anything, ever, so he has no experience at all, none, and yet neither O'Reilly or Ingraham never said a word about it.

Not to mention, I would bet the farm Trump does not even run for President, I think it's all a publicity stunt. And one last thing, Trump also called George W. Bush the worst President in history, but O'Reilly never asked him about it.

Then O'Reilly had the Culture Warriors Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover on to do another smear job segment on Planned Parenthood. Which I will not report on because it was partisan garbage.

In the next segment O'Reilly talked about how some Republican Congressmen want to take away tax exempt status from AARP. Megyn Kelly was on to discuss it, she said this: "They say AARP is not living up to its mission, which is to protect the social welfare of its members, and that this organization has morphed into an agency that is concerned primarily with its bottom line. AARP came out in favor of the health care law which is going to eliminate Medicare Advantage coverage, and AARP offers an insurance product that fills that gap. These Congressmen say that AARP, as a result of this, will make $1 billion in ten years, and they want the IRS to investigate."

Basically the Republicans want to punish the AARP because they see them as a liberal group, and they supported the Obama health care plan. it's all politics, but neither O'Reilly or Kelly gave you the real story. And that is the Republicans re trying to use their power to punish every liberal person and group in America. It's wrong, and it's unethical, and yet Kelly and O'Reilly have no problem with any of it.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had the totally lame Factor News Quiz with Martha MacCallum and Steve Doocy. This segment is so lame I may not even mention it the next time they have it.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as hell pinheads and patriots vote. Take note that once again not one Democratic guest was on the entire show. Not one Democrat was on to talk about Trump, or anything, and that is just ridiculous, especially when O'Reilly claims to be a non-partisan Independent who is fair and balanced.

The Wednesday 3-30-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 31, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called President Obama and leadership. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A new Gallup poll says just 52% of Americans believe President Obama is a 'strong and decisive leader,' which is down 21 points since he took office. Mr. Obama's overall capacity for leadership is in question, but why?

If you analyze independent Americans, you see a common theme emerging. Many non-ideological people simply do not know what Mr. Obama thinks of his country.

Does he believe we are an exceptional nation, as he said the other night? Or does he think we have an unjust society? Certainly Obama-care and other liberal programs he champions are designed to redistribute wealth to those who have not prospered in our capitalistic system.

And in seeking consensus, the President has diminished American power. Countries like Iran openly defy us, and Pakistan does not vigorously cooperate in fighting the Taliban, despite the billions of dollars we give it.

President Obama will have to convince the majority of voters that his deliberative style is what's best in a complicated world. He's a smart man who often sends mixed signals to the American people, and his leadership is certainly in question.
Wow is O'Reilly a partisan idiot, yes the Obama leadership numbers are down, but most of the drop is with Republicans, which O'Reilly failed to mention. Then he says Independents do not know what Obama thinks of his country. What a load of garbage, because of course they know what he thinks, not to mention there are no real Independents, they wither lean right or lean left.

The main reason the Obama leadership numbers are down to 52% is because the Republican views of Obama's leadership, are the least positive of the three groups, and they are down the most since last year (32% to 19%), that's a 13 point drop in a year. Billy never said a word aout that. O'Reilly also said the President has diminished American power, which is just ridiculous, because Obama is #1 in world leadership polls, which O'Reilly never reported on.

Now get this, O'Reilly then had Dick Morris on to comment on it, with no Democratic guest. That is ridiculous, and O'Reilly never did this when Bush was in office. It's a violation of journalism 101, to only have a Republican on to comment on a Democratic Presidents leadership ratings.

And btw folks, O'Reilly did not have one Democratic guest on the entire show, which is the exact opposite of what he used to do when talking about Bush, back then he had almost all Republicans on so they could spin for Bush. Now when a Democrat is the President O'Reilly has all Republicans on to slam Obama. That is ridiculous, and one of the worst things O'Reilly does, when talking about Obama he should have at least 2 Democratic guests, but usually he has none, and that is an outrage.

Then O'Reilly basically gave Donald Trump free air time to help his run for President. So I will not say much about it in this blog posting, because I have another blog about it already. I will say this, Trump came off as a far right loon, and he will never be the President, in fact, I am betting he does not run, and if he does, he will not even win the Republican nomination. I will also say that even O'Reilly said some of the stuff Trump was saying is crazy, and O'Reilly also gave him 2 segments, with 2 more probably Thursday night.

Then O'Reilly had another Republican on, Karl Rove was on to talk about Trump. Rove said this: "He's straightforward with simple and strong explanations that make sense, and he comes across as non-political. Those are his strengths, but the cons are that he is very thin on policy and people want to know what you're going to do. And at times he comes across as the rich guy who thinks he's really smart. The question is whether he's willing to go out there and shake hands in Iowa and New Hampshire and Nevada and South Carolina."

O'Reilly said that Trump can not be counted out, Billy said this: "People are so fed up and angry that a guy like Donald Trump might be able to break through." And I am saying that is a joke, and Trump can be counted out, he has 2 chances, none and none. Remember that O'Reilly also said Sarah Palin can not be counted out either.

Then Dennis Miller was on to talk about Trump, Libya, etc. And I do not report what he says because he is a COMEDIAN, and it is not news.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly talked about Janelle Evans, who is featured on the MTV show Teen Mom, who was videotaped as she repeatedly punched another girl in North Carolina. Dagen McDowell watched the tape and commented on the sordid video. She said this: "Evans attorney says she was a target of this incident. The district attorney got wind of this because the video wound up on the Internet, he started investigating, and three girls were charged. They were fighting over a boy."

McDowell also viewed a racy Internet commercial featuring tennis star Serena Williams scantily clad in black leather. "That's how I want to play tennis, wearing a black leotard and some fishnet stockings. This was an advertisement for a video game that has Serena as a character. The company said they're pursuing 'creative avenues' for their marketing."

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

Donald Trump Is A Total Right-Wing Idiot
By: Steve - March 31, 2011 - 9:30am

Trump was on the Factor Wednesday night, and wow is he an idiot. He said so many far-right crazy things, he probably ruined any chance he had to win anything. And it was all right-wing propaganda.

O'Reilly even laughed at Trump being a birther, and he tried to help him by asking him if he really believes Obama was not born in the USA, but Trump would not take the hint, and he said it is possible. So Trump is now an official far-right birther loon. Which makes him worse than Palin, and that is hard to do.

Trump even defended the birthers, and called them good Americans. He said he hates how people trash the birthers for simply wanting to see the Obama birth certificate. He even said he hates the word birther, and how he wished people would not call them birthers.

Who would have thought Trump was a birther loon, he might as well not even run now, because he will be hammered with the birther talk. And btw folks, I do not think Trump will run anyway, I think he is just doing it to get publicity and to get more famous. he may run, but he knows he can not win, especially now with the birther talk.

The Republican crew at Morning Joe even made fun of him for being a birther. Morning Joe mocked Trump's birther claims; Brzezinski even said Trump "promotes hate" by pushing birtherism.



And that was not all, even Karl Rove (who was on the Factor after Trump, said the stuff he was saying puts him on the fringe, which is saying a lot. Because if Karl Rove thinks you are on the fringe, you are really out there in looney toon land.

Trump even doubled down on the birther talk, by saying there is a Muslim problem in the world, which O'Reilly agreed with. Making them both right-wing idiots. Because the correct way to say it is that there is a Muslim terrorism problem in the world.

When you say there is a Muslim problem in the world, you imply it's a problem with all Muslims, which is just wrong. So O'Reilly led Trump down the Muslim problem in the world trap and Trump fell right into it.

Trump even said liberals will not admit there is a Muslim problem in the world, which is a 100% right-wing lie, we do admit it, but we say it's a Muslim terrorism problem. So Trump is also a liar, who puts out right-wing propaganda.

He even had more crazy stuff to say, and we will see more of it on the Thursday Factor, O'Reilly said his plan for Iraq will blow your mind, meaning it is crazy. O'Reilly is milking it for ratings, so trump will be back on the Thursday show.

And I will report what he says on Friday. I can say this much now, before going on the Factor I said Trump had 2 chances to be the next President, slim and none. Now I would say he has 2 chances, none and none. He is crazy, with insane ideas, and now he is a proven right-wing liar, and a proven right-wing propagandist.

Massive Republican Hypocrisy On Afghanistan War
By: Steve - March 31, 2011 - 8:30am

Congressman Don Young (R-AK) held a town hall meeting at the Alaska Business Roundtable last week where he covered a variety of issues in discussions with his constituents, including his intention to vote against any funding for combat operations in Libya.

At one point, a member of the Juneau Chamber of Commerce, asked Young for his feelings on military intervention in Libya. Before the congressman addressed Libya, he pointed out that he supported the war in Iraq but opposes the war in Afghanistan, citing blunders by previous world powers in the region:
YOUNG: I'm a hawk. I supported the Iraqi war. I think it was the correct thing to do. But this (referring to Libya) deeply disturbs me. I do not support the war in Afghanistan. Because there is no way you can be successful in that arena. Alexander the great tried it, the British tired it, the Russians tried it, now we're trying it.
But there is one problem with that, Young is a massive hypocrite. Because Young's voting record does not match his rhetoric. Exactly one week before the event at the Alaska Business Roundtable, Young voted against a resolution calling for an end to the war in Afghanistan, and when he was campaigning for his seat last fall, he claimed that leaving Afghanistan would be the same as a surrender.

The people deserve to know the truth about his voting record and he shouldn't tell them he believes one thing and then vote a different way.

And of course O'Reilly never says a word about any of this stuff, because Republicans are doing it. And he helps to cover for them, but not reporting all this kind of news, but if a Democrat does the same thing, O'Reilly is all over it.

The Tuesday 3-29-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 30, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Libya, hypocrisy and doing the right thing. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A new Pew poll says more Americans support the Libyan action than oppose it, but no matter what side you're on, the fog coming from the far left is simply staggering.

Anthony Weiner, the liberal Congressman from New York, endorsed the U.S. stepping in 'against tyrants who are slaughtering their people.' Are you kidding me? What about the Iraq war? Just five days ago Congressman Weiner said he regrets voting in favor of it, even thought one of the great tyrants in history was captured and killed.

Then there's MSNBC, the uber-liberal anti-war network. Not any more! That network's Rachel Maddow praised President Obama for saying our goal in Libya is not to "topple the dictator there.' Again, are you kidding me? President Obama has said time and time again that Qaddafi has to leave.

There's no question that our military is being used for regime change in Libya, and every honest person knows that. Talking Points has supported the Libyan action from the beginning. If we can get guys like Qaddafi without using ground troops, we should do it. So I am fed up with the hypocrisy on the far left, it is disgraceful.

But I also want conservative Americans to understand that we do have an obligation to protect people when we can. That's what makes us an exceptional nation.
Wow, O'Reilly complaining about hypocrisy is like a race car driver complaing that other racers drive too fast, it's ridiculous. And the comparisons by O'Reilly about liberal hypocrisy are stupid, because there is no hypocrisy. The Iraq war was based on lies and we know the real Libya situation, so there is no liberal hypocrisy by Congressman Weiner. Then O'Reilly calls Maddow a hypocrite, for what, Obama said that Qaddafi has to leave, but on his own, he is not going to use ground forces to invade and remove him, like Bush did with Saddam in Iraq. So there is no hypocrisy.

O'Reilly said he is fed up with the hypocrisy on the left, when there is no hypocrisy, he just made it up and used flawed comparisons. Not to mention, O'Reilly is the king of hypocrisy, so for him to complain about hypocrisy from anyone is laughable.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to talk about what O'Reilly claims is the hypocrisy among Iraq war opponents who now endorse the bombing of Libya. Colmes said this: "Iraq is not Libya. We went into Iraq with 'shock and awe' - we were told mushroom clouds were coming, we were told Al Qaeda was there and they were going to kill us if we didn't go in and get Saddam Hussein. We went in with full force for a multi-year effort, but what is happening in Libya is a much more limited mission."

Crowley said this: "What you're hearing from Anthony Weiner and others on the far left is rank partisanship and hypocrisy. These are some of the same Democrats who piled on President Bush during Iraq and attacked him as a 'war criminal' for removing a homicidal maniac who was in many ways a far bigger monster than Muammar Qaddafi."

Are you for real, the Democrats piled on Bush because he said Iraq had WMD's, then they did not find any, and Bush also said they were a threat to the United States. it was all lies and they knew it, because Scott Ritter was saying they did not have any WMD's, and they ignored him, so he knew the truth, which means Bush had to know the truth. Crowley is a stone cold idiot for that comparison.

Then O'Reilly had Democratic Congressmen Keith Ellison and Rob Andrews on to talk about how President Obama should deal with other problem nations. Ellison said this: "There are a lot of things we can do short of military engagement, in order to stand up for our values of human rights and respect for life and liberty. The real difference in Libya is that we have the Arab League, we have the United Nations, and I think it was the right thing for the President to do."

Andrews explained why he opposes the President's action, he said this: "Until you come to the Congress and ask for the authority to engage in combat, you shouldn't. The only exception to that rule is an emergency, and I don't think this is an emergency." And I personally agree with Rob Andrews, I think the President should have to get approval from Congress to use the military for anything, period.

Then O'Reilly had Charles Krauthammer on to cry about something Hillary Clinton said about Bashar Assad. She called him a reformer, a description that made Krauthammer mad, he said this: "Assad is a thug and a murderer, and this was a scandalous statement. But it reflects the policy of this administration to be completely hands-off with Syria, which is strategically incomprehensible and morally indefensible.

They're hands-off with Syria exactly the way Obama was hands-off with Iran in 2009, and these are the two worst regimes in the area. Why is it that these two get a pass when the administration will go to war over Libya and will try to get Mubarak out of Egypt? The Assad regime has a history of repression that makes Qaddafi look like a Boy Scout."

Then O'Reilly had Muslim spokesman Harris Zafar on to ask if the Koran condones sexual abuse of women. Which I will not report on, because it does not happen in America. This is not an American problem, and frankly it's none of our business.

In the is it legal segment O'Reilly had Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle on to talk about Rand Paul. He said a president can engage in military action "only when authorized by Congress."

Wiehl said this: "As Commander-in-Chief, the President has the authority to deploy troops where and when he decides for up to 60 days before getting authorization from Congress. He has done everything he is supposed to." But Guilfoyle disagreed, she said this: "He violated the Constitution and the War Powers Act - there was no imminent threat to the United States that we needed to defend. The right way to do this was to go to Congress."

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had David Schwimmer on to promote his new movie. Which I will not report on because it is not news. What's really funny is how O'Reilly says we should not listen to any of those hollywood pinheads, then he has them on his show every chance he can, it's ridiculous, and massive hypocrisy.

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

Fox News Executive Admits To Lying About Obama
By: Steve - March 30, 2011 - 10:30am

Here is some more real news O'Reilly and the so-called Factor media analyst Bernie Goldberg have ignored, because it's about Fox, and it proves they have an anti-Obama bias.

In newly uncovered audio, a Fox News executive boasts that he lied repeatedly during the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign when he speculated on-air "about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism."

Speaking in 2009 onboard a pricey Mediterranean cruise sponsored by a right-wing college, Fox Washington managing editor Bill Sammon described his attempts the previous year to link Obama to "socialism" as "mischievous speculation."

Sammon, who is also a Fox News vice president, acknowledged that privately he had believed that the socialism allegation was "rather far-fetched."

"Last year, candidate Barack Obama stood on a sidewalk in Toledo, Ohio, and first let it slip to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to quote, 'spread the wealth around,' " said Sammon.

"At that time, I have to admit, that I went on TV on Fox News and publicly engaged in what I guess was some rather mischievous speculation about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism, a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched."

In the weeks leading up to the 2008 election, Sammon used his Fox position to engage in a campaign to tie Obama to Marxists and socialism. A Media Matters review found that Sammon - then the network's Washington deputy managing editor - repeatedly linked Obama's "spread the wealth around" remark to socialism during his October 2008 Fox appearances.

Sammon's "mischief" wasn't limited to his on-air appearances. Sammon also pushed Fox News colleagues to play the socialism card. On October 27, 2008, Sammon sent an email to staffers highlighting what he described as "Obama's references to socialism, liberalism, Marxism and Marxists" in his 1995 autobiography Dreams From My Father.

Shortly after sending the email, Sammon appeared on two Fox News programs to discuss his research and also wrote a FoxNews.com piece about Obama's "affinity to Marxists."

Now think about this, if an executive at CNN or MSNBC did this to a Republican who was running for President, O'Reilly and everyone at Fox would call for them to be fired. But when an executive at Fox does it, they are silent.

Stupid Sarah Gets Cost Of Libya Action Wrong
By: Steve - March 30, 2011 - 9:30am

Tuesday night on Fox News, Greta van Susteren had Sarah Palin on to discuss what Palin called the "squirmish" in Libya. And of course she got the facts about the cost of U.S. intervention wrong. Because she is stupid, and she does not have a clue. According to figures released by the Pentagon, the Libya action cost $600 million in the first seven days.

So we spent $600 million dollars in a week, but Palin claimed that the no-fly zone (which for the record, she called for) cost that amount a day:
PALIN: And that's the $600 million dollar-a-day question that is being asked now because that's the cost incurred by Americans as we support the no-fly zone, which, of course, the no-fly zone, the intervention or enactment is turning into more than that.
Wrong you idiot, and this woman wants to be the President, give me a break, I will be the President before she is, and my chances are zero.

And btw, Palins comments were so stupid that even the Former Bush administration official Dan Senor criticized Palin's Fox News appearance, saying this: "I don't think what Governor Palin said is terribly constructive. I don't think what many Republicans leaders have been saying over the last week have been terribly constructive."

Here is my question, does stupid Sarah ever get anything right. From what I can tell she has never told the truth about anything in the last 3 years. Every time she says something, she is either wrong, or flat out lying.

That means she is either too stupid to get anything right, or a liar, or both, and any of that would disqualify her from the job of President, or any job in my opinion. I would not even hire her to run a lemonade stand on the side of the road.

The Monday 3-28-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 29, 2011 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Analyzing Obama's address on Libya. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: After ten days of military action, the President finally addressed the nation on Libya.

His main points were these: Qaddafi is a monster who has killed Americans and would have massacred thousands of people; America responded to pleas for help from the Libyan people; we do not turn a blind eye to atrocities around the world; and finally, we will not directly engage in overthrowing Qaddafi and nation-building because we tried that in Iraq and the price was too high.

The President's explanation is logical - you may not agree with it, but he can defend his position. If the USA is indeed an exceptional nation and if we can save lives without harming our country, we should.

There is a valid criticism that President Obama did not lead in this matter. If he feels so strongly about stopping Qaddafi from killing people, he could have acted quicker and more decisively. I want the United States to be seen throughout the world as a noble country that knows right from wrong and will protect innocent people if it can.

The President seems to want that as well, but he is not loud enough about it. The speech tonight was good, but it should have been given earlier and with more passion.
What a joke, O'Reilly agreed with what Obama said, but then he slams him for not being loud enough, whatever the hell that means. And then he says there is a valid criticism that President Obama did not lead in the matter, but he fails to mention only Republicans are saying that. I do not agree with the decision, but I do think Obama is a good leader, and the Gallup poll shows I am right. The very same Gallup poll O'Reilly ignored.

So then O'Reilly did what O'Reilly does, he had the partisan Brit Hume on to discuss the Obama speech, with no Democratic guest on to give the other side. And btw folks, not one Democratic guest was on the entire show to discuss the Obama speech. How in the hell is that being fair and balanced, give me a break.

Hume said this: "I think the President did about as good a job as he could do. What struck me about the speech, though, was that the first part of it seemed to be an effort to praise American leadership, but before the speech was over he was telling us that the best part about this policy is that American leadership will end. So there is a contrast between what he said about American goals and the limited means he has proscribed for meeting those goals. Where I quibble with the President is that he has this idea that the American image around the world has been stained by prior interventions, and therefore the less visible the United States presence is, the better."

Then O'Reilly had Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams on to talk about Syria. Are you kidding me, we are already in 2 wars, military action in Libya, and now you idiots want to get involved in Syria too, hey O'Reilly, I thought we were broke. If we are broke, how can we start new wars all around the world every other day. And who the hell cares what Ham and Williams have to say about it, they are just paid right-wing stooges who know nothing about Syria.

Williams said this: "I talked to some people at the White House, and they said the rebel pressure is not in big cities like Damascus, and there is not the level of opposition that would force the U.S. to decide if it's our policy to go in." Ham accused the administration of denying reality, she said this: "Syria has been called the Grand Central Station of terrorism in the Middle East because everything goes through there. But Hillary Clinton called Assad a reformer and the administration has suggested that Syria would be its foothold for diplomacy in the Middle East."

Now get this, in the next segment O'Reilly had Wafa Sultan, a Syrian-born psychiatrist and author on to discuss a woman who claims she was raped in Libya. Really, with all due respect, who cares, it possibly happened in Libya, and we do not even know if it is true. Not to mention, why should anyone in America care if ONE woman in Libya was raped. I refuse to report this because it is not news here. Let's say she was raped, ok, why should I care.

Then O'Reilly had a book author on to talk about his new book about Ronald Reagan. And I will not name the author, or report on the segment. Because O'Reilly only had him on to promote the book. This is not news, it's a shameful book promotion. O'Reilly ignored real news to promote a right-wing book, now think about this, how many time has O'Reilly done this for a liberal book author, answer - NEVER! And btw folks, on the O'Reilly website he even put up a link to buy the book, now that is some big time bias.

Then O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to cry about the Obama administration not sending anyone to do Fox on Sunday to talk about Libya. They cried like the little bitches they are about it, and they claimed it was a bias against Fox. Except that is ridiculous, because they did not send anyone to CNN or MSNBC either.

They only sent them to the networks (NBC, ABC, and CBS) where they get the most viewers, they did not send anyone to any cable news networks. O'Reilly said they conspicuously avoided Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. Which is just laughable, because they also avoided everyone at CNN and MSNBC too. And during the segment O'Reilly even pointed out to stupid Goldberg that they did not send anyone to any cable news network. Then they both cried about it anyway, what a joke.

And finally the last segment was the totally ridiculous Factor Reality Check, that has no reality, and almost no checks. I normally do not report on this because it's just O'Reilly by himself putting his spin on what someone says, but I do have to report one check this time.

O'Reilly said this: "Socialists and anarchists protested in London's Trafalgar Square, smashing windows and spraying graffiti. The Factor's Check: "There were dozens injured and millions of dollars in damage. Once again the world sees what the far left wants - to impose chaos."

WTF? Are you kidding me, that is some serious crazy talk there. So let me get this straight, some nuts in London have a protest, and that shows what the far left wants, what a joke. And btw, when the far right protests something O'Reilly says that is great, and the people speaking. But when the far left protests something it means they want chaos. Now that is crazy right-wing propaganda, and it happened in London, so why the hell should we care about it in America.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame pinheads and patriots vote. For anyone that does not know it, O'Reilly edits the hell out of the e-mails sent to him, even after saying nothing on the show is ever edited.

O'Reilly Claims Obama Was Not Loud Enough About Libya
By: Steve - March 29, 2011 - 9:30am

Now this is classic Bill O'Reilly, he basically agreed with what Obama said, while complaining that he was not loud enough. Who says something like that, other than the right-wing idiots who hate Obama.

Here is the video:



Not loud enough? That's the best he can come up with. Nothing Obama does is ever good enough for O'Reilly, no matter what Obama does, even when O'Reilly agrees with him, he still finds something to complain about. Which is something he never did with Bush, in fact, it was the exact opposite, O'Reilly always praised Bush and defended him at every turn.

The best he can do is that he was not loud enough, that is just sad. O'Reilly pretty much agreed with everything Obama said, but he still had to say something negative about him, most likely just to keep his far right viewers from emailing him with complaints about being soft on Obama.

Chris Wallace Caught Lying About His Ratings
By: Steve - March 29, 2011 - 8:30am

Does anyone at Fox tell the truth, it sure dont look like it. And Chris Wallace is supposed to be an objective straight news reporter who always tells the truth. Yeah right, and I'm Elvis too.

It looks like Wallace is pulling an O'Reilly, if you do not like what your ratings are, just make it up. O'Reilly claims to get over 5 million viewers a night, and once even said he gets over 6 million night, when the facts show that he averages about 3.2 million total viewers a night.

On Sunday March 27th, Chris Wallace made the claim that his Fox News Sunday show gets higher ratings than 2 of the other 3 Sunday news shows.

During the segment, Wallace cried about not getting anyone from the Obama administration on to talk about Libya. And that was when he lied about his ratings, he said this:
WALLACE: We wanted to get the White House's view on Libya. However, they chose to offer Sec. of State Clinton and Defense Sec. Gates to ABC, CBS, and NBC, but not to Fox.

Despite the fact we routinely have more viewers than two of those Sunday shows, the Obama team felt no need to explain to the millions of you who watch this program and Fox News, why they have sent US servicemen and women into combat. We thought you'd like to know.
Notice how Wallace said the "the Obama team felt no need to explain to the millions of you who watch this program" when it's not millions, it's 1.4 million on a good day. That is a little over a million, not millions, to say millions you would need to get over 2 million, which he dont.

And now the facts: Chris Wallace is a 100% flat out liar, because his lame Sunday News show does not beat anyone, he is dead last every week, and he has been ever since they started the show. In fact, he only gets about 1.4 million total viewers a week.

Here are the actual ratings:
Meet The Press - 3.52 Million
Face The Nation - 2.69 Million
ABC This Week - 2.66 Million
Fox News Sunday - 1.41 Million
Call me crazy, but my math shows Wallace dead last out of 4 shows, and the 3rd place show beats him by more than a million viewers, so he is not even close to 3rd, let alone beat 2 of the 4 shows.

Now think about this, if Chris Wallace will lie about his ratings, when it can easily be checked by anyone with a computer in 2 seconds, how can he be trusted on anything else. It not only proves he lied about his ratings, it proves he has no credibility at all.

Wisconsin Republicans Defy Anti-Union Law Court Order
By: Steve - March 28, 2011 - 10:30am

Last week, a Wisconsin judge issued an order "restraining and enjoining the further implementation" of Gov. Scott Walker's (R) anti-worker law until she has time to fully consider a lawsuit claiming that the law was not validly enacted.

Yet, despite this clear and unambiguous order, Walker and his allies have decided that they are not bound by the law, so much for that rule of law the Republicans claim they live by:
Gov. Scott Walker's legislation limiting collective bargaining for public workers was published Friday despite a judge's hold on the measure, prompting a dispute over whether it takes effect Saturday.

"It's published," Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said. "It's law. That's what I contend."

Walker's top cabinet official, Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch, gave only a brief statement reacting to Friday's news.

"Today the administration was notified that the LRB published the budget-repair bill as required by law," he said. "The administration will carry out the law as required."
And btw folks, under Wisconsin law, someone who intentionally defies a court order is in contempt of court, and can be fined up to $2,000 for each day that they disobey the court or be imprisoned for up to six months.

More Republican Hypocrisy On Wasteful Spending
By: Steve - March 28, 2011 - 9:30am

To begin with, where is the Tea Party about this, and where is O'Reilly. They both claim to be against all wasteful government spending, but they only talk about and protest it when Democrats are doing it. They ignore it when Republicans do it, which just proves they are both biased right-wing stooges.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) is a self-professed fiscal conservative who often rails against government spending and the supposed fiscally imprudent policies of his progressive opponents. He recently put out a statement that said, "Washington must put its fiscal house in order. American taxpayers are rightly infuriated by the federal government's disregard for the same economic principles that govern every household and business budget."

Yet when it comes to pork barrel spending for his home state, he is willing to go to extraordinary lengths to waste taxpayers money. The Chicago Tribune reports today that a provision Shelby inserted into the 2010 budget that has survived both recent continuing resolutions is costing taxpayers more than a million dollars every single day.

The Shelby provision, as it is called, forces NASA to spend $1.4 million daily on the Constellation moon program, which it already canceled and doesn't even want:
Congress has again failed to rid a temporary spending bill of language forcing NASA to waste $1.4 million a day on its defunct Constellation moon program.

This so-called Shelby provision -- named for U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, who inserted it into the 2010 budget -- is expected to cost NASA roughly $29 million during the three-week budget extension through April 8th. It has already cost the agency nearly $250 million since Oct. 1st.
And this is not Shelby's only act of defending his home state's pork. He previously forced NASA to spend $500 million on the Ares 1 shuttle program, which was also canceled by the agency and considered defunct.

This comes at a time when Shelby and his Republican colleagues are voting to cut billions of dollars out of Pell Grants, slash funding for community health centers, send thousands of veterans into homelessness, force the firings of tens of thousands of teachers, gut funding for cancer research and the National Institute of Health, and de-fund public broadcasting.

It's pretty clear that Shelby is intent on cutting spending as long as it hurts Main Street Americans, but not if it sacrifices his pork barrel and electoral interests.

Republican Gets It Wrong With Obama Attack
By: Steve - March 27, 2011 - 10:30am

Republicans want to attack President Obama so much, they even attack him with the wrong information. This right-wing idiot Jim Hoft, said Duke losing was an Obama curse because Obama picked them to go all the way.

Hoft wrote this on his blog:
THE OBAMA CURSE LIVES ON: No. 1 Duke Destroyed in NCAA Tourney.

Poor Duke. They couldn't help it that Obama picked them to go all the way.
Except there is one small problem with that, Obama did not pick Duke to go all the way. President Obama picked Ohio State and Kansas to make it to the championship game, and he picked Kansas to win it all.

This right-wing idiot Jim Hoft hates Obama so much, he had to make up an Obama curse by spewing out a lie that he picked Duke to go all the way. Now that is pathetic, and the worst part is that the idiots who read his blog probably believe it.

The National Journal Caught Lying About Palin
By: Steve - March 27, 2011 - 9:30am

More bad news for Sarah Palin. A new CNN poll shows that among Republican and Republican-leaning voters, only 12 percent want her to be the party's presidential nominee in 2012, which puts her in a statistical tie with Donald Trump.

The good news for Sarah Palin. Some right-wingers continue to hype her presidential chances. Outlets like the National Journal, who this week tagged her as a "rising" player in the Republican presidential field.

Here is what they wrote about Stupid Sarah:
The basic formula for compiling these rankings is to take a candidate's likelihood of winning and divide by the likelihood that he or she will run in the first place.

We're very skeptical that Palin will run, but her chances of securing the GOP nomination if she does are high.
So basically they are saying Palin's chances of winning the nomination remain "high," even though polling among Republican voters suggests it's not. Really, that's ridiculous. And I think it's about time for the media to start telling the truth about Palin's chances, as I say, slim and none. I predict Palin will not even win the Republican primary, let alone beat Obama in 2012.

Sarah Palin is stupid, and not qualified to be the President. And most people who vote can see that, so she will never win, anything, ever again.

The Friday 3-25-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 26, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Is Obama an effective Commander in Chief? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A Canadian general will take control of the Libyan operation over the weekend; President Obama has made it quite clear that he wants NATO to run the military action against Qaddafi.

In light of that, there is a new Reuters poll showing that only 17% of Americans describe the Commander-in-Chief as 'strong and decisive,' while 36% call him 'indecisive' and 48% say he's 'cautious.'

In Libya, he clearly does not want to lead the fight, even though he understands that Qaddafi has to go. Now, another poll: According to Rasmussen, 45% of Americans do not believe the USA should get involved in a conflict for humanitarian reasons alone, while 35% do believe we have that obligation.

This goes to 'American exceptionalism.' For decades we have tried to do the right thing around the world, but now we are nearly bankrupt and clearly we can not take on wars like Iraq any longer. But an American president should be able to persuade the nation that confronting evil surgically is a worthy endeavor.

If we can save lives without damaging our country, we should do so. If America is indeed an exceptional country, our leaders need to have that mindset. Does President Obama? You make the call.
Then O'Reilly had two retired Army generals on to assess Obama's performance as Commander-in-Chief. Jack Keane said this: "I would characterize his leadership as being uneven and inconsistent. He's clearly strong and decisive in stepping up the war against Al Qaeda and in escalating the war in Afghanistan over the objections of people in his own party. But in Iran, when there were one million people on the streets in 2009, we didn't hear a word out of the Commander-in-Chief in support of the oppressed."

Paul Eaton praised President Obama's caution and general temperament, he said this: "We expect a president to be very decisive when a vital national interest is at stake and the country is at risk. We haven't seen much of that in the last couple of years, and soldiers like to see a president go after military action with some deliberation."

So O'Reilly portrayed President Obama as a reluctant warrior, he said this: "He clearly doesn't like military action and he clearly doesn't want to get involved around the world."

In the next segment O'Reilly was back to his usual tricks, he attacked GE for not paying any taxes, while ignoring the other 150 or so corporations that do not pay any taxes either. And he never said a word about why it's happening, because the Republicans vote against removing all the tax loopholes that allow the corporations to do it.

Lou Dobbs was on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest at all, none. Dobbs said this: "GE spends a small fortune creating tax loopholes, and the system allows GE to book its profits offshore and not repatriate them to the United States, no matter where the profits are made. They bought the loophole, they're using the loophole, and they're going to continue to do just that."

I do have to give Dobbs some credit, he pointed out that almost all the big corporations do the same thing, while O'Reilly only attacked GE for doing it. O'Reilly made the segment about GE, when it should have been about all the corporations who get out of paying taxes.

Then O'Reilly even turned the segment into a political attack on Obama, he complained that President Obama, who advocates taxing the rich, is allowing corporate supporters to skate, Billy said this: "GE, which at the time owned NBC, supported President Obama's election campaign as much any media company has ever done in the history of this country. Shouldn't President Obama, if he's an honest man, try to close these loopholes? They've got to pay something, this is outrageous!"

Are you kidding me, Obama did try to close the loopholes, but O'Reilly and his right-wing friends opposed it. Now O'Reilly is crying for Obama to do something he opposed, and something the Republicans are blocking. It was ridiculous, and talk about hypocrisy, that is some massive hypocrisy from O'Reilly. In fact, O'Reilly cries about taxes and income redistribution non-stop, so for him to suddenly say they should pay more in taxes is insane. I think he needs to up his meds.

Then O'Reilly had Mark Potok from the Southern Poverty Law Center on to tell O'Reilly he lied about what he said, but of course O'Reilly denied he did anything wrong, when he did. Potok said this: "I said the biggest domestic threat to America, is from the domestic radical right, not domestic jihadists. That was twisted on your show, you mischaracterized what I said. As an external matter, Al Qaeda is a far greater threat."

O'Reilly then said this: "I don't believe the right-wing radicals are a bigger threat, and I don't think Americans believe that either. But there are white supremacist groups that are a bunch of idiots and the FBI is all over them."

Basically Potok busted O'Reilly for lying about what he said, then O'Reilly denied that is what he said, when he did, and Potok stood his ground. He even told O'Reilly two times that he twisted his words around, and Potok also said he did not appreciate it.

Then the idiot John Stossel was on to talk about freeloaders, Stossel posed as a homeless man begging for money, he said this: "There is evidence, that beggars make $100 a day and some make more. People just assume they're in need and they give money, but you shouldn't because it just enables them to perpetuate their bad habits."

So let me get this straight, because some homless people beg for money and make up to $100 a day, then nobody should ever give them money. I am not sure what Stossel was trying to prove, but I know it was a massive waste of time. What happened to freedom, if someone wants to give a homeless person money, why should I care, and how the hell is this news. When did it become a national issue that a homeless person might make $100 a day, and how is it my business.

Then the crazy Glenn Beck was on, Beck said this: "On the 21st of April. I'm asking people to gather groceries and maybe go to the unemployment office or somewhere else where people are a little depressed. I want them to go in and give food and groceries to people and say, 'Brother, we love you, don't give up.' We need more examples like we saw in Japan where people are good to each other."

Okay, why April 21st, why not just do it today or tomorrow, or next week, why wait? And why not just do that any time you want.

Beck also expressed his disapproval of the administration's actions in Libya. Beck said this: "We are now sowing the seeds of even greater hatred against the United States, England and France. I believe we are protecting bad guys against another bad guy. This is going to end badly."

But even O'Reilly strongly disagreed, Billy said this: "It's going to enhance the United States reputation as an exceptional nation. When you're faced with mass murder by a butcher, you stop it!"

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Geraldo on to talk about the letter the teacher wrote about Mexicans. Geraldo said this: "This teacher had the audacity, to say that 'most of the Hispanic students hate America.' This is the biggest bunch of crap I have ever heard - this is racist, this is scurrilous, this is slanderous, and I reject it entirely. To suggest that the Mexican children are unique and they want to grow up to be gangsters, this can not be true! We have problems enough in this country and we can't give a guy like this too much credit."

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

O'Reilly Ignored Most Facts In DOJ Lawsuit Story
By: Steve - March 26, 2011 - 9:30am

Here is a great example of how O'Reilly spins a story to agree with his right-wing position, he has another right-winger on to talk about it, and he leaves out a lot of facts in the case.

Bill O'Reilly and Jeanine Pirro, recently did a segment attacking the Justice Department for suing a school district for discrimination on behalf of a Muslim teacher who resigned after her request for time off to make hajj, a religious pilgrimage observant Muslims must take, was denied.

But O'Reilly never mentioned that the Justice Department is acting on the recommendation of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or that they had previously engaged in a similar lawsuit during the Bush administration, and they never mentioned that even Megyn Kelly has acknowledged that the DOJ may have a case.

O'Reilly And Pirro Slammed the "Foolish" Holder For Pursuing the "Crazy" Case:
O'REILLY: Fascinating. This is the first time I've ever heard about this getting to that level.

All right. On the same -- on the same street, OK, on the same street, our pal, Attorney General Eric Holder, big "Factor" fan, loves us, right? - - is litigating on behalf of a Muslim teacher in Chicago who said -- and we reported this a few weeks ago -- "I've got to go on the Hajj.

I've got to -- I've got to take three weeks off and go over to Saudi Arabia for my religion. And then I want to come back and resume my job."

And the school said -- the school district said, "No way you're taking three weeks off in the middle of the term. Kids will be hurt. You're out of here if you do it." She left; she got fired.

And now Attorney General Holder is litigating on her behalf. We should all be so lucky.

PIRRO: Well, look, I've always wanted to go to Lourdes. But I never had the gall to go my boss and says, "Look, I need 19 days off. I need to do a pilgrimage."

Here's what's outrageous about this. This is a political decision that is made by the Justice Department. This woman isn't on the job nine months. Can you imagine going to your first boss and saying, "Look, I need three weeks off, because I want to do a Hajj.

And by the way, I can do it at any point during my lifetime. But now I have a job with you, and you're paying me now. I can afford it. So the hell with the kids. Let's just go do the Hajj." That's hogwash.

O'REILLY: So why is Holder, if you -- if what you're saying is right, I mean, and I think it is, why would Holder put himself up to scorn, all right, by taking this woman and spending our tax money, by the way, on this case. It's going to run into hundreds of thousands of dollars.

O'REILLY: Holder is absolutely making himself look foolish.

PIRRO: And by the way, isn't she on probation her first year?

O'REILLY: I don't know.

PIRRO: Who gets three weeks off? That's crazy.

O'REILLY: I just think this is such an affront to the taxpayer that this would be the priority of the American Justice Department.
And now here are all the facts neither O'Reilly or Pirro reported. The DOJ Filed Suit Under Title VII Of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Following Referral From EEOC, from the press release:
The Justice Department announced it has filed a lawsuit against Berkeley School District, Berkeley, Ill., alleging that the school district violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of Safoorah Khan, a Muslim teacher at McArthur Middle School.

The United States further alleges that, because Berkeley School District denied her a religious accommodation, the district compelled Ms. Khan to choose between her job and her religious beliefs, and thus forced her discharge.

In the lawsuit, the United States seeks an order requiring Berkeley School District to adopt a policy designed to reasonably accommodate the religious observances, practices and beliefs of employees and prospective employees. In addition, the United States seeks back pay, compensatory damages and reinstatement for Ms. Khan.
Title VII Requires Employers To "Reasonably Accommodate" Employee's "Religious Observance Or Practice." Title VII states:
The term "religion" includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's or prospective employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business.

It also says this, It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
What a shocker, not. O'Reilly never reported any of that, even though it is information you need to know the facts in the case.

And that's not all, the U.S. Government, and the Courts Have Previously Supported The Right to Extensive Leave Based On Religious Beliefs.

The EEOC Filed a Lawsuit in 2007 Under the Bush Administration Against a Hospital That Refused To Allow an Employee to Take Three Weeks Of Leave For Hajj:
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed suit against a Nashville hospital alleging that it discriminated against a health-care technician because of his religion.

According to the suit, Wali Telwar requested paid time away from work he accumulated to attend the hajj.

Every Muslim is required to attend the hajj an annual pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia, birthplace of the Islamic religion and its prophet in their lifetime. The hospital allegedly refused to grant Telwar the time, according to the suit filed by the EEOC in Nashville's federal district court Sept. 28. Telwar also was allegedly told that if he insisted on attending the hajj he would have to quit and reapply when he returned.
And btw, Telwar won his lawsuit, and they paid him $70,000 in back wages. Not to mention the EEOC ordered the Hospital to change it's policy. Funny how neither O'Reilly or Pirro mentioned that, I guess they just forgot, yeah that's it, and if you buy that I have some land to sell you.

Here is part of the 2009 EEOC ruling:
In early November 2005, the employee, a medical technician who had worked for defendant since March 2003, submitted a written request to use accrued paid leave for a 3-week leave of absence beginning December 27 to make a pilgrimage (hajj) to Mecca with his family. Defendant denied the request, and told the employee he would have to resign and then reapply after he returned.

The employee resigned, and when he reapplied on January 17, 2006, defendant refused to rehire him. The 2-year consent decree provided the employee $70,000 and enjoins defendant from refusing to reasonably accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of any employee. Defendant must amend its policy manual to include specific instructions for accommodating a sincerely held religious belief.
Even Megyn Kelly said on her show that the school might lose the case:
KELLY: One final word for our viewers -- the school needs to prove that it could not spare this teacher for the three weeks during the school year.

It hasn't offered that evidence to date. It will have to prove that in a court of law, and if it can, it will win. If it cannot, the Department of Justice will win. Period.
And now you have all the facts in the case, not just what O'Reilly wanted you to see. It shows how O'Reilly spins a story to make it look like he is right, when in fact, he is wrong, and I predict the teacher will win her lawsuit.

Newt Gingrich Total Flip-Flop On Libya Attacks
By: Steve - March 26, 2011 - 9:00am

Here is one good reason why Newt Gingrich is a total partisan political stooge, who should never be elected President, or elected to any other office either. Because he is a total flip-flopping partisan idiot.

In February Gingrich said Obama should put a no-fly zone on Libya, and then the day after Obama does it, Newt suddenly changed his mind and said he would not have done it if he were the President.

It's total partisan dishonesty, he says one thing one day, then says another thing the next day. And he did it because he is a partisan hack. This is the kind of dishonest fools the Republicans have, they slam Obama no matter what he does, even when he does what they said he should do.

And it goes without saying, that O'Reilly never says a word about any of this, because Gingrich is a friend. But when John Kerry was seen as a flip-flopper during his run for President, O'Reilly reported the hell out of it for months. When Gingrich does it, O'Reilly says nothing.

Republicans Lied About Banning ALL Earmarks
By: Steve - March 26, 2011 - 8:30am

Republicans lied about banning earmarks, shocker, not! A USA Today story said that House Republicans crafted two short-term spending bills that made $5.3 billion in cuts by going after those congressional pet projects known as "earmarks."

But a new congressional report shows they left $4.8 billion in earmarks untouched -- and critics of congressional pork say they should go after all of it.

"Many Republicans promised taxpayers a full earmark moratorium, not a half moratorium," says Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., an earmark opponent who requested the report from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. "Protecting nearly $5 billion in earmarks from cuts sends the wrong message to taxpayers."

Most of the remaining funds that congressmen set aside for pet projects are in defense, military construction and veterans affairs, according to the report last week. They account for $4.1 billion of the $4.8 billion that could be cut.

"There's no reason defense earmarks should be sacrosanct," says Steve Ellis, an earmark watchdog with Taxpayers for Common Sense. "In fact, they're more insidious."

So where are the Tea Party protests at Republican offices, nowhere to be found. Where is O'Reilly in reporting this, nowhere to be found. They are all silent as a mouse.

More Proof O'Reilly Is A Partisan Right-Wing Hack
By: Steve - March 25, 2011 - 10:30am

A new Gallup poll proves that Bill O'Reilly is nothing but a partisan right-wing hack, who takes every chance he can get to smear President Obama.

Almost every day O'Reilly calls Obama a weak leader, says he has poor leadership, and not only that, he also puts a million right-wing partisans on the Factor, to also say Obama is a weak and poor leader.

Now get this, a new poll from Gallup released on 3-24-11 says this:

Worldwide Approval of U.S. Leadership Tops Major Powers

What it shows is that Obama is seen as the best leader in the world, which is the exact opposite of what O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends are saying. Gallup's worldwide survey shows that Obama is seen as the #1 leader in the world.

Now think about that for a minute, while O'Reilly is saying Obama is a weak and poor leader, the entire rest of the world voted him the #1 leader in the world.

This proves that O'Reilly sees things nobody else sees, except for other right-wing hacks who hate Obama. It also proves that O'Reilly has a strong right-wing bias in his opinion of what a leader Obama is, because the rest of the world disagrees with O'Reilly.

The Gallup survey says The United States continues to achieve higher global approval ratings than China, Russia, Japan, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany.

Obama is at 47% leadership approval, to only 25% disapproval, which is by far the #1 leader in the survey. The rest are not even close, and btw under Bush in 2007 the U.S. only got 33% approval, in 2008 under Bush it was at 34% approval of leadership.

As soon as Obama was elected it shot up to 49% in 2009, and then dropped slightly to 47% for 2011. So to everyone in the world (except O'Reilly and his dishonest right-wing friends) Obama is seen as the #1 leader in the world.

Another way to look at the image of a country's leadership is by the percentage of people who would like to move to that country permanently.

From year to year, people worldwide who said they would like to leave their country permanently if they had the opportunity most frequently named the U.S. as their desired destination.

Gallup calculates that based on surveys between 2007 and early 2010, roughly 166 million people would like to move to the U.S. permanently -- more than would like to move to any other nation.

Remember this the next time you hear O'Reilly or one of his right-wing friends say Obama is a poor leader. Remember that it is not true, because Obama was voted the #1 leader in the world. And remember that is shows what a dishonest lying partisan right-wing hack O'Reilly is, who constantly lies about President Obama for partisan political reasons.

The Thursday 3-24-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 25, 2011 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Three 'mavericks' consider run at White House. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Because Barack Obama came out of nowhere and is now President of the United States, other people who may not have considered running a few years ago are now in the game. Let's look at three of them.

Donald Trump, maverick businessman, is perhaps the most well-known financial personality in the world. Mr. Trump says he may run against Barack Obama and yesterday went after the President, demanding that he 'show his birth certificate.' Trump's central theme, that America is a diminishing nation, is shared by millions of Americans.

Then there's Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who says she is likely to set up a presidential exploratory committee. The Congresswoman is the closest thing to a tea party candidate, but her appeal beyond committed conservatives is unknown.

And finally, there's the maverick Sarah Palin. She has remained an outsider and the establishment Republican Party is not embracing her, primarily because she has very high negatives among independents. She is a feisty and controversial personality and Barack Obama does want to run against her.

So there you have the three wild cards in the presidential race - if any or all get in, I will personally send them flowers because it will be great for The Factor.
What a joke, notice that Trump is an insane birther, who just recently went on the View and called for Obama to show his birth certificate. So he has no chance to be the President, none. Bachmann is a right-wing loon, who if she somehow won the Republican primary she would get crushed in the general election. And Stupid Sarah is just that, too stupid to be President, and too far right to get any votes from anyone but Republicans. None of them have a chance, and yet O'Reilly called them mavericks. They are not mavericks, they are far right loons and idiots, who have no shot at being the President.

Then O'Reilly had Sandy Rios and political analyst Larry Sabato to assess them, beginning with Donald Trump. Sabato said this: "I can't see it. He's got enough baggage for a 747 - he has switched parties three times, he has changed positions on abortion and lots of other issues, and he's just too controversial."

Rios agreed that Trump is a long shot, she said this: "I love that he's in the race because he has no fear and we need his voice, but I don't think he can win."

When Sabato said that Bachmann "doesn't have the breadth of experience," Rios strongly disagreed. She said this: "She's a federal tax litigator. Michele Bachmann is an intellectual and she knows more about finance than just about anybody in the capital."

Which is just laughable, Michele Bachmann is a far right nut that most of the Republican party will probably not even vote for. She is a known liar, and a massive Obama hater, who has less of a chance then Trump.

As for Sarah Palin, Sabato predicted she won't run, while Rios said Palin will get in the race "if she feels she is needed." Needed? who the hell needs Sarah Palin, that is just ridiculous.

Then O'Reilly had Col. David Hunt and Col. Tony Shafferon on to talk about Qaddafi's forces being hammered by NATO planes. President Obama said no U.S. ground troops will not set foot in Libya, but American personnel are already in Libya. Col. David Hunt revealed that some U.S. specialists are working under cover, he said this: "We do not conduct large scale air operations like this without people on the ground. We've got intelligence gathering and special operations guys on the ground."

Okay, so what. Obama said no U.S. troops will be on the ground, and he meant a ground invasion with thousands of troops, he did not say not one person from the U.S. would be on the ground.

Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer concurred with Hunt's revelation, he said this: "I got a call from one of my key sources and that's exactly what's going on. And let's be clear - you've got to have these individuals there when the stated goal is humanitarian support. You don't want to have weapons hitting the wrong targets, so we have special operations guys sitting there with laser designators that identify targets."

Then O'Reilly said this: "It would be great if one of these laser guided missiles could go right on the forehead of Qaddafi."

In the next segment O'Reilly had the culture warriors Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover on to talk about the teacher letter. After a substitute teacher in Arizona wrote a letter portraying Mexican American students as unpatriotic and future gang members, a Republican legislator read the letter on the floor of the state Senate.

Hoover said this: "It was enormously irresponsible of this legislator to read the letter, without talking to the teacher. It has inflamed race relations in an area of the country where race relations are already inflamed. I utterly disagree with the language of the letter." Carlson disagreed, and said the teacher should be fired. Then they talked about Charlie Sheen, which I do not report on because it's tabloid news.

Then O'Reilly had the big boob blonde bimbo body language woman on, which I also do not report on because it's garbage, and not real news.

A Florida judge ruled on a dispute between two Muslims, using Islamic law to reach his decision. Former prosecutor Jeanine Pirro was on to discuss it, and she said this: "What this judge said, is that there was apparently an arbitration agreement between the parties and they had previously agreed to settle disputes under Sharia law. This is a reflection of what's going on throughout the nation, which is why states are saying they don't want Sharia law under any circumstances."

Pirro also talked about the Muslim school teacher who demanded time off for a trip to Mecca. The teacher was fired and Attorney General Eric Holder is litigating on her behalf. Pirro said this: "What's outrageous about this, is that this is a political decision being made by the Justice Department. This woman wasn't on the job nine months - can you imagine going to your first boss and saying you need three weeks off for a Haj?"

And of course O'Reilly denounced Holder for siding with the teacher, because he hates the man, Billy said this: "He is putting himself up for scorn by spending our tax money on this case. He is absolutely making himself look foolish."

And finally the Factor news quiz with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum, that is a massive joke so I do not report on it.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, that nobody cares about, and the lame pinheads and patriots, that is so stupid it's not worth reporting on.

Major Tea Party Convention Draws Only 300 People
By: Steve - March 24, 2011 - 9:30am

A big tea party convention in Tampa, FL last weekend, headlined by such conservative favorites as Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), Fox News Judge Andrew Napolitano, and former GOP Congressman Tom Tancredo, attracted only about 300 people.

The Save America Convention's website lists 25 guest speakers, meaning there was one speaker for every 12 attendees.

Joseph Farah, the founder of the website World Net Daily, who spoke at the event, promised lots of opportunities for interactivity between participants and presenters.

And he got it, as this photo from the convention posted by Saint Petersblog suggests attendees would have little competition to meet Farah and the other speakers:



Aimed at the farthest right of the far right, the three-day event touted a sponsorship from the John Birch Society and an appearance by Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the Oath Keepers militia.

But this kind of ultra-conservative event has had no trouble attracting bigger crowds not long ago. And btw, there is no video of the event, which did not include a single female speaker. Probably because they do not want people to see how crazy they are.

And for the record, O'Reilly never reports any of this stuff, because they are his friends and he knows it makes the Republican party look bad. But when any far-left group has a convention, O'Reilly reports it for a week and calls them all loons.

Right-Wing Media Says Obama Backing Al-Qaeda
By: Steve - March 24, 2011 - 8:30am

And before you say that can not be true, it is, the right-wing in this country is now saying Obama is backing Al-Qaeda with his Libya actions, even though a lot of the right agree with it, and a new poll says 67% of the people agree with Obama on Libya.

That does not stop the dishonest right from using it to attack Obama anyway. Following President Obama's announcement that he has authorized "a limited military action in Libya" to "protect Libyan civilians," the right-wing media has absurdly declared that Obama is "essentially backing Al-Qaeda" and is "making the world safe for jihad."

In a March 21 Big Government post, blogger Pamela Geller claimed "Throughout Obama's presidency and all of the Islamic revolutions sweeping the Middle East and Africa, he has sided with the Islamic supremacists at every turn," and that "Obama continues to side with America-haters and Jew-haters."

In a March 21 post on Andrew Breitbart's Big Peace, blogger Diana West claimed that the "war in Libya" is "making the world safe for jihad."

On March 21, Fox Nation linked to Geller's Big Government blog under the headline "Geller: Obama is 'Essentially Backing Al-Qaeda in Libya.'"

These people are far right nuts, and yet O'Reilly never says a word about any of it, but when Bush was in office O'Reilly attacked anyone who said anything negative about him. It just shows how biased O'Reilly is, because he ignores all this insane right-wing hate against Obama.

The Tuesday 3-22-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 23, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Libya helping or hurting Obama politically? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Listening to talk radio today, the theme was that President Obama is a wimp because he did not lead the Libyan action. Talking Points believes some of the criticism is valid - the United States was tentative about what to do and, lacking a leader, the world waited far too long to deal with Qaddafi.

Also, there are questions about what takes Qaddafi's place, and nobody knows. This is just another frustrating situation in the chaotic Arab world and the whole thing is maddening - we are again spending billions in a faraway place with no end in sight. As we reported last night, the American left is divided.

The mainstream liberal media, which has a lot invested in President Obama, is generally supporting him, while the far left despises the action. In the end, the question should be what's best for the USA?

The answer is fairly simple: Qaddafi killed Americans, he's a terrorist and he has to go. What happens after that, God only knows.
O'Reilly said listening to talk radio they said Obama is a wimp, and then he said he agrees, and even said Obama was not a leader. And that is all right-wing propaganda, by O'Reilly, and the stooges on talk radio. Nobody else thinks that, but O'Reilly and his right-wing friends. Because they want to use the Libya situation for political reasons.

The folks, do not see Obama as a weak leader, they see him as a smart man who thought about what to do, and then did it. I may not agree with what Obama did, but at least he thought about it before doing it. Unlike Bush, who just did what the far right wanted, even when most of it was wrong. In O'Reillyworld he would rather have a stupid President make quick and wrong decisions, then have a smart President take his time and think about what to do. It's ridiculous, and that is not being weak, it's being smart.

O'Reilly and the right just try to use everything that happens in the world to smear Obama, which is the lowest of the low partisan politics.

Then O'Reilly had Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes on to discuss it. Crowley said this: "It largely depends on how this military action turns out, If it has a successful conclusion, if Qaddafi steps down and if Libya doesn't slip into being an Al Qaeda safe haven, then it will help him."

Colmes said this: "Your heart is never in having to send Americans into battle. The problem I have is that he has to explain what the end game is. If you're going to send people into harm's way, we have to know that."

Now get this, O'Reilly said that President Obama made the right move, Billy said this: "I don't see a big downside. The worst thing that could happen is that Qaddafi sits on his butt in Tripoli and we can't get him."

Really Billy? My God man you make no sense sometimes. Two minutes ago you said Obama waited to long to act, that he was not a leader, and he looks weak. Then 2 minutes later you say Obama made the right move. Wow!

Then Sarah Leah Whitson of Human Rights Watch was on, she outlined her organization's position on the military operation in Libya. "What we support, are actions taken by the international community to protect civilians. We recognize that there's a great interest in protecting the civilians of Libya from Qaddafi's forces, so we think it's a positive measure that the international community is taking direct action to uphold its responsibility."

Then Megyn Kelly was on to say what Obama did was a violation of the Constitution. Kelly said this: "It looks like the law does require him to get Congressional approval before he does something like this, but every President before him has ignored the law as well. Harry Truman did this too - he said I can go into Korea even though I don't have Congressional approval because the United Nations says I can. Presidents have gotten away with this for decades."

Then Medea Benjamin of Code Pink was on to talk about the media's handling of the story. "The word hypocrisy comes to mind. If this were under President Bush they would be asking a barrage of questions about why he didn't go to Congress, what's it going to cost, is it really going to help the Libyans, and all kinds of things. People who support President Obama want to see him as a reluctant warrior, but he was the one who gave us the surge in Afghanistan and we still have troops in Iraq and we are killing innocent people with drones in Pakistan. This is a President who has given us more war, not less war."

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to talk about the high school smut list, which I will not report on because it's tabloid news. I will say this, they wasted the entire legal segment on that garbage, when there are real legal cases they could have talked about.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Charles Krauthammer on to consider the dilemma facing U.S. presidents when American citizens are attacked by agents of foreign governments. Krauthammer said this: "There are a lot of different cases. Ronald Reagan retaliated and tried to kill Qaddafi when there was a clear attack on Americans. And 9/11 was the ultimate retaliation - we went into a country and deposed the regime. But if it's a terror group like Al Qaeda, often you don't have a return address and you often have to wait a decade to retaliate."

Krauthammer also theorized that a retaliatory attack on Muammar Qaddafi is morally justified. "When Americans are seized or killed the President should retaliate. Qaddafi has a price on his head because of what he did in 1988 and if we kill him in the course of this war it will be justice."

What O'Reilly failed to mention is the hypocrisy from the right, for weeks they have called for Obama to put a no fly zone on Libya, so he does, and they hammer him for it anyway. With the right, Obama is damned if he does, and damned if he dont. It shows that they are partisan hacks, who attack Obama for anything, even when it's what they wanted him to do.

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

Republican Caught Violating State Constitution
By: Steve - March 23, 2011 - 9:30am

You know how all these Republicans run around talking about how much they worship the Constitution, well think about this, it's all a load of bull. Because Republicans get caught all the time, either violating the Constitution, or trying to violate it. And of course you never hear a word about this from O'Reilly.

And now it's happened again, a judge ruled that the Republican Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, made education cuts that violated the state Constitution.

New Jersey has one of the most progressive education laws in the country -- the Abbott v. Burke case produced several rulings requiring the state to equalize public education funding for all students, meaning that poor, urban districts must receive the same relative amount of funding as wealthy suburban districts.

Abbott vs. Burke requirements have been characterized as "one of the most remarkable and successful efforts by any court in the nation to cut an educational break for kids from poor families and generally minority-dominated urban neighborhoods."

Tuesday, a judge found that Gov. Chris Christie(R) violated Abbott v. Burke requirements when he slashed $820 million in state aid to schools last year, because the cuts were slanted too heavily towards poor districts:
Judge Peter Doyne, who was appointed as special master in the long-running Abbott vs. Burke school funding case, Tuesday issued an opinion that also found the reductions "fell more heavily upon our high risk districts and the children educated within those districts."

"The difficulty in addressing New Jersey's fiscal crisis and its constitutionally mandated obligation to educate our children requires an exquisite balance not easily attained," Doyne wrote.

"Something need be done to equitably address these competing imperatives. That answer, though, is beyond the purview of this report. For the limited question posed to the Master, it is clear the State has failed to carry its burden."
"A special master's report like this carries great weight," said David Sciarra, the executive director of the Education Law Center. "The evidence was exhaustive, detailed thorough and its conclusions are sobering about the impact of the funding cuts on students across the state, particularly poor students, regardless of where they live."

Basically you have a right-wing Governor who cut education funding in mostly the poor areas of the state. While saying he cares about education and the Constitution, proving that Republicans are liars and dishonest.

Megyn Kelly Proves Again She Is A Partisan Hack
By: Steve - March 23, 2011 - 8:30am

Remember folks, this is a woman that O'Reilly and Fox try to sell as an impartial objective journalist who does straight news with no bias. Which is just laughable, because she is almost as biased as O'Reilly, who also claims to be an impartial objective journalist.

Last week Kelly called the Wisconsin union busting bill a budget law, even though that is a total lie. Kelly deceptively called the anti-collective bargaining law recently passed in Wisconsin a "budget law."

In reality, GOP lawmakers stripped out spending provisions to force a vote on the measure without Democrats present, and state lawmakers have yet to pass those spending provisions that were removed from original proposal.
KELLY: Fox News alert. On the docket today in Kelly's Court, an emergency hearing on a legal ruling that blocks Wisconsin's new budget law that cracks down on collective bargaining in the state. The Democratic district attorney in Dane County, Wisconsin, filed a lawsuit last week claiming Republicans broke the law when they called a meeting to vote on that union bill without giving 24 hours notice to the Democrats.
All during the segment on the court ruling, the Fox News graphics said this: "Wisconsin Judge Temporarily Halts Controversial Budget Law."

FACT: The State Assembly Can't Legally Pass Bills Including Fiscal Measures Without A Quorum Of At Least 20 Present.

FACT: Wisconsin Republicans Stripped Fiscal Measures From Original Bill So It Wouldn't Require A Quorum.

FACT: Walker's Proposed Anti-Union Measures "Wouldn't Save Any Money This Year."

FACT: Wisconsin GOP Still Has Not Passed Those Fiscal Provisions From Actual Budget Law.

FACT: A Wisconsin judge on Friday temporarily blocked the state's new and contentious collective bargaining law from taking effect, raising the possibility that the Legislature may have to vote again to pass the bill.

So it was not a budget bill, making Megyn Kelly and everyone at Fox News liars, because they do not do this stuff accidently, and it happens all the time.

The Monday 3-21-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 22, 2011 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Liberal dissatisfaction with Obama over Libya. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Talking Points is almost numb from the foolish analysis of the Libyan action - never have so many said so much useless stuff. The goal of the mission is to remove Qaddafi; why else would a coalition force be attacking him? But President Obama and all the other leaders won't say that because they're afraid to anger the Arab world.

I am tired of the obnoxious verbal game being played. Inside the USA, the far left has once again turned on the President. Louis Farrakhan warned President Obama that he is being influenced by 'wicked demons,' and Ralph Nader accused the administration of 'war crimes.'

There's angst on the right as well - George Will says we have intervened in a civil war 'on behalf of people we do not know or understand.' That is true, but what Mr. Will fails to appreciate is that Qaddafi is a terrorist who has ordered Americans killed and who allowed terrorist training camps on his soil for decades.

Talking Points supports the coalition against Libya and, according to a new poll, 70% of Americans agree with me. To leave him in power is flat-out wrong.
O'Reilly said "Talking Points is almost numb from the foolish analysis of the Libyan action - never have so many said so much useless stuff." For people that do not know it, O'Reilly is talking points, and the foolish analysis has been from him too. I disagree with Obama on this, because I think Congress should have to approve the use of the military, no matter who is the President.

And of course O'Reilly supports it, because he is a right-wing neo-con who wants to use the military for everything. Hey O'Dummy, what happened to going by the constitution, oh yeah I forgot, that only counts when you agree with it.

Then O'Reilly had the Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich on to discuss it, he said this: "The President has to have Congressional approval, and he didn't ask for it. This is about the Constitution - you have to come to Congress if you attack another country. That's not a small matter and I'm not going to back off from that."

Kucinich vowed to do whatever he can to stop the offensive, he also said this: "There's no immediate or imminent threat to the United States, and I'll be moving forward with an amendment to cut off funds for the Libyan attack. We have to stop spending the treasure of the United States in these military adventures."

O'Reilly reminded Kucinich that Muammar Qaddafi was responsible for the passenger jet bombing over Scotland in 1988, Billy said this: "You're not willing to pay the price to avenge the death of 190 Americans and to send a message to other terrorists."

Earth to O'Reilly, that was 23 fricking years ago. And what happened to we are broke, if we are broke how can we afford to get into another war where we were not attacked. It's a joke, and O'Reilly is an even bigger joke for saying a 23 year old jet bombing is justification for America to bomb Libya. We were not attacked by Libya, so we should leave them alone.

Then Karl Rove was on with his analysis of President Obama's decision to attack Libya. Rove said this: "I think it was the right move to make, but if he had acted properly earlier this would have been unnecessary. He dithered, he sent the wrong signals, and he encouraged behavior on the part of Qaddafi that was reprehensible. But yes, I think this was the right action to take and is in the interest of the United States."

What a load of garbage, he dithered? give me a break, Obama did the right thing with Libya, except for not asking Congress to approve the military action.

Then Britt Hume was on to put out some more right-wing spin. Back in 1986 Reagan ordered the bombing of Libyan targets. Hume said this: "Reagan's attack involved a direct assault on Qaddafi's compound, and had Qaddafi not been warned ahead of time he probably would have been killed. U.S. forces hit a number of other military targets and gave Qaddafi a very bloody nose. Qaddafi piped down after that, he was basically silent for a couple of years."

In the next segment O'Reilly had Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham on to cry about the Factor guest host Juan Williams getting punked by Professor Caroline Heldman about NPR Friday. Heldman told Juan he deserved to be fired from NPR, and also accused him of making a "bigoted comment" about black-on-black crime. And she was right, so O'Reilly had Williams and Ham on to say Heldman was wrong, without asking her to be on to defend herself. It was basically a lame attack on Heldman, while she was not there.

Juan said this: "She was involved in politically correct posturing. She was the one who introduced race into this and she was way off base. She was telling me that, despite the fact that I'm black, I'm not allowed to say critical things about what's going on in my own community."

Ham said this: "It was almost reflexive - she's a sensitive white liberal and that's what they say in that situation. There's nobody more secure in their sensitivities to racial issues than a white liberal, so we had this ridiculous spectacle where a white liberal was lecturing Juan Williams, a black man who grew up during the civil rights era."

O'Reilly characterized Heldman as a totalitarian liberal, Billy said this: "In the world of totalitarian liberals, you can not criticize any minority for anything. Ever! That's the world that most of our universities are involved with, and that's the world that almost every liberal I know lives in."

Then O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to talk about what the media is saying about Obama for his Libya actions. Goldberg said this: "Liberals generally don't feel comfortable with the use of American force, but I think they'll say that, unlike Bush, President Obama got an international coalition. And unlike Bush, he got the United Nations and France and the Arab League behind him. Liberals will support him because he went about it in a way liberals can live with. And this is their candidate, the guy they fell in love with, and they have too much invested in him."

And Goldberg is an idiot, because I am a liberal and I am comfortable with the use of American force, when it's justified, like when we were attacked in WWII, etc. I am fine with using the military, when it's needed, and after Congress approves it. So Goldberg got that wrong, as usual. Then he says liberals will support Obama, which is also wrong. I oppose the Libya attacks, because they did not attack us, and because Congress did not approve it.

Goldberg also predicted that Katie Couric's tenure as anchor of the CBS Evening News is nearing its end. "She has lost three million viewers in five years, and I say this without fear of being wrong: When her contract is up, she is out!" Really Bernie? Who cares what you think! Beck lost a million viewers in a year, but you two right-wing stooges never say a word about that.

And finally the last segment was the lame and ridiculous no-reality Factor Reality Check. Which I do not report on, because it has no reality, and almost no checks. It's just O'Reilly by himself putting his right-wing spin on what other people said, mostly liberals. For example, here is one reality check, Billy said this: "A 3-year-old thoroughbred named The Factor has been dominating races and making the competition look like MSNBC. The Factor's Check: "We hope The Factor is now on to the Kentucky Derby."

Are you kidding me, who cares about a stupid horse named the Factor, and how the hell is that a reality check on anything. Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame pinheads and patriots.

CNN Correspondent Calls Fox News Liars
By: Steve - March 22, 2011 - 9:30am

Monday afternoon, Fox News reported that the Qaddafi regime used foreign journalists, including teams from CNN and Reuters, as a human shield to thwart an attack on Qaddafi's compound last night.

The compound had already been hit by allied missiles, but in its exclusive report, which is FoxNews.com's most read and commented story, Fox alleges that British sources told them that allied forces were planning a second attack, which was called off due to the journalists presence.

But on the Situation Room Monday night, a visibly frustrated CNN senior international correspondent Nic Robertson, who was on the CNN team that visited the compound, called the report "untruthful and outrageous."

Robertson acccused Fox of "lies and deceit" for claiming none of their staffers went on the same trip when one in fact did:
WOLF BLITZER: I want you to explain what you know about this suggestion Fox news reporting that you, a Reuters crew, some other journalists were effectively used by Qaddafi as a human shield to prevent allied fighter planes from coming in and attacking a certain position. Explain what you know about this. ROBERTSON: Wolf, this allegation is outrageous and it's absolutely hypocritical. When you come to somewhere like Libya, you expect lies and deceit from a dictatorship here. You don't expect it from the other journalists.

They sent a member of their team. He was not editorial. He was nontechnical, not normally a cameraman.

I see Fox's corespondent more times at breakfast than out on trips with government officials here. So for them to say and call this -- to say they didn't go and for them to call this and say this was government propaganda to hold us there as human shields when they didn't even leave the hotel, it's ridiculous.
Robertson also called Fox's team in Libya lazy and uninformed, saying they rarely leave the hotel to do reporting. And he also said his colleagues from other networks have the same regard for Fox.

O'Reilly Hypocrisy Over Obama NCAA Attacks
By: Steve - March 22, 2011 - 8:30am

Now this is a good one, O'Reilly is pretending that he is slamming the Obama bashers for the attacks on Obama for his NCAA picks. When he is one of the Obama bashers himself, he just refuses to admit it, or he is in denial. In fact, I could fill this website with examples of Obama bashing from O'Reilly, and I have documented a lot of it.

Here is what the fraud said:



O'Reilly calls them an industry of Obama bashers, but he fails to mention they are all on Fox News, and that he is one of them. It would be like me attacking all the O'Reilly bashers, and I say I am not one of them, when I am.

O'Reilly is either a stone cold liar, or he has lost his mind, or both. Because he bashes Obama as much as anyone, and that is a fact.

Fox News Idiots Are Saying Obama Went On Vacation
By: Steve - March 21, 2011 - 9:30am

Over the last 48 hours, as President Obama authorized U.S. military strikes in Libya (in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians) the Fox News talking heads have attempted to foment domestic political opposition to the president by questioning his priorities and his leadership.

Seizing on Obama's current five-day trip to Brazil and other Latin American countries, Fox pundits have repeatedly said he is distracted in Rio de Janeiro and not adequately focused on the military action in Libya.

"He's going on vacation; he's going to Rio!" an incredulous Steve Doocy commented. "He's on vacation in Rio," Fox contributor Ralph Peters said, echoing the network's attack.

To begin with, it's not a vacation, it's a business trip to do the business of the American people. And btw, what happened to you can not criticize a President when we are at war. Oh yeah I forgot, that only counts on Fox when we have a Republican President.

Obama’s pre-scheduled Latin American trip is intended to strengthen the U.S.’s trading role with some of the world’s fastest growing markets. But the agenda of the trip has been overshadowed, as Obama has turned his focus to Libya. Perhaps Fox News should read it's own website. Here's how Fox's White House reporter Eve Zibel, who is traveling with Obama on the trip, reported on the president's priorities on his first day:
Libya Dominates President Obama's First Day in South America.

On the first day of President Obama's first trip to South America, it was not relations with Brazil or its president that was front and center, but instead, attention was directly focused on Libya and the start of military action.
A Reuters report says, "Obama's only planned sightseeing in Rio will be to the city's iconic Christ the Redeemer hilltop statue, and even that had to be postponed from morning until evening to give him time for early briefings on the Libyan situation."

Despite the evidence from news reports on Fox's own websites that Obama is focused on Libya, network pundits continue to seize on any shallow criticism of the President.

George W. Bush did this same thing for 8 years, all President do it, they mix a little pleasure with business. But Fox never says a word when a Republican President does it, even when Bush did it more than anyone.

They only criticize it when we have a Democratic President. Not only are we in one war, we are in two wars, and now we have started military action in a possible 3rd war.

And yet, these un-American jerks at Fox criticize the President. While Bush was President they said it was wrong to criticize the President during a time of war. They should be supporting the President, to send a message to the world that we are unified.

Where is O'Reilly, he should report on this un-American attack on Obama and slam them for it, haha, yeah right, that will never happen, because his friends at Fox and on the right are doing it.

Defunding NPR Will Not Save Us A Dime
By: Steve - March 21, 2011 - 9:00am

Did you know that if we defund NPR like O'Reilly and the right want to do, it will not save us a dime, I bet you did not know that, because O'Reilly and the right never report it.

Last week, the House narrowly voted to defund NPR by prohibiting taxpayer dollars from being used by local radio stations to purchase NPR content. Every single Democrat voted against the bill, joined by seven Republicans, and one, Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), who voted present.

Amash opposes taxpayer funding for NPR, but explained his opposition in a statement to Fox News by noting that the bill voted on yesterday would not save a dime of taxpayer money:
The federal government does not subsidize NPR directly. Instead, the government funds the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a government entity, which has discretion to provide funding to whichever private radio producers it chooses.

H R 1076 does not actually save taxpayer dollars; it merely blocks CPB from exercising its discretion to send funding to NPR. The funds CPB does not send to NPR under the bill are returned to CPB to be spent subsidizing other private radio producers.

I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to require that any funds not sent to NPR be redirected to pay down the deficit, but the amendment was ruled out of order. Therefore, public broadcasting will not see any reduction in federal funding even if this bill becomes law.
Republicans have claimed stripping taxpayer dollars from NPR is about the need to cut spending and rein in the deficit. "We are all about looking for ways to cut right now and save," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) said after the vote last week.

"We've got to listen to the executives at N.P.R. that say they don't need taxpayer funding."

But as Amash and many Democrats have correctly pointed out, the bill doesn't actually save taxpayer money -- it merely moves around money already allocated to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, away from NPR and to other public broadcasting operations.

Amash also wrote that the bill is "arguably unconstitutional and definitely violates the Rule of Law, because it likely is a bill of attainder."

But you never hear a word about this from O'Reilly, or anyone at Fox, because they are helping the Republicans cover it up. They do not want you to know that if we defund NPR it does not save the taxpayers a single dime.

More Proof Newt Gingrich Is A Total Idiot
By: Steve - March 21, 2011 - 8:30am

Newt Gingrich has proven once again that he is a total right-wing stooge, who is in the back pocket of the Corporations. He said he supports Corporate tax dodgers, and that the employees should pay it.

Now think about this, Newt is a good friend of O'Reilly, he has him on the Factor all the time as a political analyst. O'Reilly still calls him Speaker, and even said he is one of the smartest men in Washington. But when Newt says crazy stuff like this O'Reilly ignores it and never says a word about it.

One of the top priorities for Republicans is to preserve and extend corporate tax breaks. This includes GOPers like former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) who have eagerly defended corporations like Bank of America, ExxonMobil, and GE which have avoided paying anything in corporate income taxes in recent years, but rake in huge annual profits.

Another one of those companies making millions in profits but failing to pay any corporate income tax at all is Arch Coal. In 2009, for instance, the corporation made over $42 million in profits, yet was able to use tax loopholes and gimmicks to avoid contributing anything in corporate income taxes.

ThinkProgress asked Gingrich about these corporate tax-dodgers this week at a St. Patrick's Day breakfast in Nashua, New Hampshire. Gingrich defended Arch Coal and other corporations who avoided paying income taxes because they don't owe that to the U.S. government.

Striking an anti-populist note, the former House Speaker also praised the fact that even though many corporations were avoiding taxes, their employees would still be forced to contribute to the government's coffers.

Gingrich concluded by enthusiastically championing corporate tax loopholes, saying that corporations were using "an incentive, not a loophole. And we should celebrate that as a good thing."

And btw folks, last year, Arch Coal made a $100,000 corporate donation to Gingrich's political committee American Solutions for Winning the Future.

What's funy is they made $42 million in profits, and Gingrich says they do not own anything. WTF? If I made $42 million dollars I am sure I would owe something. If I won $42 million dollars in the lottery I would have to pay taxes on it.

And yet, in the world of Newt Gingrich corporations that make $42 million in profits do not owe anything. Then he says the employees pay it, what an idiot. So the guy making $40.000 a year pays in something, but the Corporation that makes $42 million pays nothing, wow!

Proof O'Reilly & Morris Lied About President Obama
By: Steve - March 20, 2011 - 9:30am

Here it is folks, conclusive proof that Bill O'Reilly and Dick Morris are lying right-wing hacks who lie about President Obama to make him look bad.

This was not accidently misquoting anyone, or any kind of mistake. This was done on purpose, to fool the American people into thinking the Obama job approval rating was dropping.

When in fact, it is not dropping at all, it went up 4 points. Think about that the next time O'Reilly tells you what a fair and balanced non-partisan Independent he is, and remember that he also said he has been fair to Obama. How is it fair to lie about the Presidents job approval numbers.

Here are the details:

On the Wednesday March 16th O'Reilly Factor O'Reilly and Morris said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama's job approval ratings have declined by 5% in just a week, and The Factor asked political strategist Dick Morris why.

MORRIS: There's been a total crash in consumer confidence in the economy. It's oil prices, it's the failure to reach a budget deal in Congress, it's the sense of stubbornly high unemployment, and it's a general lack of confidence in presidential leadership.

He's seen as dithering and not in control of events. He's not in control of the Arab insurrection, of Libya and of the Japanese nuclear disaster. There is a sense of weakness in the White House.

O'REILLY: Certainly the leadership of President Obama is a lot different from past presidents, and I agree with you that he's going to have a problem with the leadership factor in 2012.
Now think about this, it's all a lie. O'Reilly and Morris claim the Obama job approval numbers dropped 5 points in a week, which is a lie, it never happened. Then they use the false claim to attack Obama as weak and a poor leader.

When the facts show the exact opposite, not only did the Obama job approval numbers not go down 5 points in the last week, they actually went up 4 points, yes I said they went up 4 points.

The Gallup daily tracking poll has Obama at 51% approval right now, as of 3-19-11, and that is a 4 point increase over the last week. It went up from 47%, to 51%, so the Obama job approval is up over the last week. Making everything O'Reilly and Morris said a total lie, they lied to you, both of them.

Folks, this is about as dishonest as you can get. And it was done by Bill O'Reilly, who complains that the rest of the media is dishonest, and that he is the only truth teller you can believe. He even made the ridiculous claim that the Factor was the news show of record, simply because he gets good ratings.

Not only is his show not the news show of record, he is not a truth teller, and he can not be trusted. In fact, if you go by ratings NBC News is the news show of record, because they get 10 million viewers a night, while O'Reilly only gets 3 million.

The evidence above proves it, O'Reilly is no better than Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc. They are all partisan right-wing spin doctors. And they are not even close to truth tellers, because most of what they say is spin or a flat out lie.

Make a copy of this blog posting and e-mail it to yourself, and save it in your inbox, the the next time someone says O'Reilly is an honest journalist who has been fair to President Obama, show this to them.

Republican Pension Hypocrisy & Double Standards
By: Steve - March 20, 2011 - 9:00am

Now this is something, Republicans cry about state union workers getting too much in pension benefits, while they get more than the state workers, but yet, they claim their undeserved pensions are justified.

They say public workers are lavishly overpaid and that it justifies cutting their middle class wages, benefits, pensions, and labor rights.

And during an appearance on C-Span earlier this week, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) continued this line of attack on public worker pensions. But at one point, the C-Span host pointed to a Washington Post article noting that Congress own pension plans are hefty and allow lawmakers to retire with generous benefits packages.

When the host asked King what he thought about that, the congressman laughed off the question and said that his own pension is slim pickins:
HOST: Here's a story in today's Washington post, coming to us from the McClatchy Tribune Services, with pension plans under attack, congress's own benefits are hefty, lawmakers can retire with generous packages with less buy-in.

KING: Um, you know, the packages we have today are not the packages that many people think we have. I believe it's five years to be vested in a retirement plan at all.

The federal employees who make a career out of this their plan is one that accumulates over their working career of their lifetime, the average time here in congress as I recall I have to go back to check this, is about 10.8 years.

The pension plan for the average member of Congress is not that great. If I were going to retire off of what's here, it would be pretty slim pickins.
King's defense of congressional pension plans as inferior to other public employee pension plans leaves out important facts about how generous congressional pension plans really are. While it's true that members of Congress may not serve as many years in the government as some public workers, it's also true that their pensions are in many ways actually far more cushy than those of the public workers they are attacking.

For example, lawmakers only contribute 1.3 percent of their salaries into their 401(k) retirement plan, while the midpoint for defined-benefit pension contributions from state workers is actually almost 4 times higher, at 5 percent.

The accrual rate, a calculation used to determine the rate at which a beneficiary accrues full retirement benefits, is much more generous for federal lawmakers than for most Americans. Federal employees have an accrual rate of 1 percent for their pensions. However, members of Congress have an accrual rate of 1.7 percent.

King's attack on the pensions of public employees while defending his own congressional pension plan and downplaying its generosity is reminiscent of the many conservative lawmakers, including King, who are against government-subsidized health insurance for Americans but choose to keep their own federally subsidized plan. Both cases are reminders of conservative hypocrisy.

And of course, you never hear a word about any of this from Bill O'Reilly, I guess he is too busy reporting on Tiger Woods going on the Jimmy Fallon show.

Beck Now Claims Obama Is Sympathetic With Terrorists
By: Steve - March 20, 2011 - 8:30am

Beck has really gone off the deep end on this one, now he is saying that President Obama, the President of The United States, is sympathetic to the terrorists.

Beck said this on his 3-17-11 Radio Show:
BECK: But here is - here is the point on that. I believe that's because he just sees us as the oppressor nation. He just sees us as a nation who is and has oppressed the Native Americans and, and the Muslim communities around the world. And so he's - he's - he's not with the terrorists, I'm not saying that, but he is sympathetic to their cause, which slows people down. You know what I mean?

GRAY: Mm.

BECK: You agree with that or disagree with that?

GRAY: Well, I don't know if sympathetic to the cause is the right -

BECK: Sym -

GRAY: - phrase.
It's so crazy that even his far right co-host does not agree with him. Now think about this, President Obama has killed more terrorists than any President in history, even more than George W. Bush did.

He increased the troop numbers in Afghanistan, so they could kill more terrorists. He also increased the number of drone attacks, so they could kill more terrorists. Obama is killing terrorists at a steady pace, so how the hell could he be sympathetic to them when he is killing them in record numbers.

It's crazy, and Beck is just a lying idiot. If you watch him and believe anything he says, you are an idiot too. And think about this, Beck is saying Obama supports the terrorists, which is just ridiculous, and O'Reilly never says a word about it. But when Bush was the President and liberals said something bad about him, O'Reilly always reported it, and slammed them for saying it.

Judge Blocks Wisconsin Anti-Union Law
By: Steve - March 19, 2011 - 10:30am

A Wisconsin judge just issued an order temporarily blocking Gov. Scott Walker’s assault on collective bargaining rights from going into effect:
Judge Maryann Sumi issued the order to temporarily block the law as Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne had requested as part of his lawsuit.

Ozanne filed a lawsuit on Wednesday accusing Republican legislative leaders of violating Wisconsin's open meetings law during the rushed run-up to a Senate vote on the measure last week.

Ozanne filed the lawsuit contending that a legislative committee broke a political stalemate that had kept the law in limbo for weeks met without the 24-hour notice required by Wisconsin's open meetings law.

The Republican majority voted last week to pass the legislation without Senate Democrats, who had left the state to block just such a vote. and the Republican Gov. Scott Walker signed it into law last week.
Friday's decision is only a temporary order suspending the law until the judge has more time to consider the case, but it will prevent Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law -- and allowing it to take effect -- until the judge can rule on the merits of the case.

That could be quite some time, as Ozanne plans to call as many as 20 witnesses and supporters of the law will likely want to present their own evidence in response.

And btw, a Wisconsin judge has the power to invalidate government business which takes place in violation of the state's open meetings law. While Friday's order is only temporary, it buys time for supporters of workers rights in Wisconsin to present their arguments to the court and to gather additional protesters if the Wisconsin GOP attempts to repass the law with proper notice.

The Friday 3-18-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 19, 2011 - 10:00am

Juan Williams filled in for O'Reilly, probably because O'Reilly got drunk on St. Patricks day and did not want to go to work Friday. There was no TPM, and Juan went right to the Top Story.

Juan talked about the United Nations decision to establish a no-fly zone in Libya and President Obama's threat of "military action" against Muammar Qaddafi. So Juan has the Obama hating right-wing loon Col. Ralph Peters on to discuss it, and of course he ridiculed the President's saber rattling. Because he is a right-wing hack who never has anything good to say about Obama no matter what he does.

Think about this folks, for weeks O'Reilly and the right have been slamming Obama for not talking tough about Libya, they said he is a weak leader. So Obama talks tough about Libya, then they slam him for that, and criticize him for saber rattling, when he did exactly what they were calling on him to do. He is damned if he does, and damned if he dont, it's ridiculous.

It shows how dishonest O'Reilly and his right-wing friends are. They slam him as weak, so he does what they want, then they slam him for saber rattling, which is about as dishonest as you can get, especially from this idiot Col. Peters. The crazy Peters said Obama projects weakness to the max. Because he has not invaded Libya, when we are already in 2 wars and we do not need a 3rd one. Not to mention 65% of the people are opposed to war with Libya, crazy Peters wants it anyway. So much for going by the will of the people.

Then Juan had another segment on Japan, which I will not report on very much, he had 2 experts on to talk about radiation, and of course the right-wing expert basically agreed with Ann Coulter that the radiation is not very dangerous. The more liberal guest disagreed and said it is dangerous. And then the right-wing Juan Williams agreed with the Republican, as he almost always does.

The next segment was totally ridiculous, and it shows how partisan bias is involved with political analysis. Now get this, when Bush was the President he took more vacation time than any President in history. But not once did a Republican criticize him for it, not once in 8 years. In fact, when Democrats said Bush takes too many vacations, the Republicans defended it.

But now that a Democratic President wants to take a vacation, suddenly it's an outrage to Republicans. Then on top of that, they even slam him for doing his NCAA picks on tv, like he can not take 5 minutes out of his time to do that without the country falling apart. Are you kidding me, why do you think Presidents have a staff of hundreds of people, so he does not have to be on the job 24/7. What next, do they plan to slam Obama for sleeping. He sleeps probably 8 hours a night, so he is not on the job then either.

Juan had the total nut-job Andrea Tantaros on to discuss it. She said this: "This guy just has a priority problem. We have a government that needs to be funded, we have issues in Libya, and he's heading for Rio. I'm all for the President getting rest and relaxation, but he has a real perception issue. He doesn't know when to stay here and not fill out the brackets, not golf, and not go to Rio."

But Leslie Marshall brought some sanity to the table, she strongly defended the President's Brazil trip. She said this: "This was planned a long time ago and it's not just a vacation - he's there regarding oil and technology that we will benefit from greatly. We can benefit in the long term from exporting our goods to Brazil, which means more jobs."

Then Juan had 2 waste of time segments that I will not report on, the first one was with a Republican who is running for President. I will not even mention his name, because the entire segment was only done to get him on the #1 cable news show, get people to know who he is, to help his campaign, and to put out more right-wing propaganda.

In the next segment Juan had Geraldo on to talk about some tabloid garbage, Geraldo said he THINKS that the FBI is investigating computer hackers who have allegedly been stealing revealing photos of some big name stars. But then he admitted he can not even prove there is an FBI investigation. What kind of journalism is that, if you can not prove it, do not report it. Then at the end of the segment Juan said he can not believe how many women take nude photos, really, then you are an idiot pal.

And finally in the last segment Juan had professor Caroline Heldman on to talk about NPR and to defend what Congressman Anthony Weiner said about them. Heldman, who endorsed Weiner's display, said this: "He's making a very important point, in that we're acting like this is a priority when the world is falling down around us. NPR is a really important source of mainstream news - they cover stories that no one else covers and they include viewpoints from across the political spectrum. Even conservatives and tea party members are coming out to defend them."

Heldman also told Juan that his dismissal by NPR was warranted, she said this: "I happen to agree that your comments were bigoted. If I were to say that I clutch my purse every time I walk by a black man, that might resonate with a lot of Americans, but it's a bigoted statement."

And she is 100% right, what Juan said was bigoted and he deserved to be fired. But of course Juan disagreed, and then he dug the hole deeper with another bigoted comment, he said this: "I can't believe that you just said that. With the amount of black-on-black crime in America, I get nervous and I'm a black man. I think you're way off base!"

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as hell pinheads and patriots. And here is another great example of why I say the pinheads and patriots is lame. Here is what Juan said: "The baby who reacted with fear, then laughter, when her mom blew her nose. Is the mom patriotic for making the tyke laugh, or pinheaded for scaring the little girl? You can make the call by voting."

Are you kidding me Juan, the mom is neither a pinhead or a patriot for blowing her fricking nose, and the whole thing is ridiculous. Drop thislame garbage and report some real news.

And btw folks, on Thursday a Judge in Wisconsin put a block on the Republicans anti-union bill, and Juan never said a word about it. It was real news, that makes the Republicans look bad, so he ignored the entire story. But he sure had time to report on nude photos, and women blowing their nose.

Another Poll O'Reilly Has Totally Ignored
By: Steve - March 19, 2011 - 9:30am

For the first time in history, the Washington Post-ABC News survey has found that a majority of Americans back gay marriage. Five years ago, support for gay marriage was at only 36 percent, but now 53 percent say it should be legal.

Now here is my question for O'Reilly, he says we must go by the will of the people, so now there is a 53% majority who support gay marriage.

What say you Billy, since the majority now support gay marriage, will you also support it, or will you prove what a liar you are by opposing it, even when the majority of Americans support it.

Here is my prediction, O'Reilly will ignore the poll and not report it at all, or he will report it and claim it's a biased left-wing poll so do not believe it.

The Thursday 3-17-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 18, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Is Japan misleading the world about the nuke situation? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: According to a number of reports, there is disagreement between the USA and Japan over how dangerous the nuclear leak situation really is.

The U.S. military has ordered military personnel to be 50 miles away from the leaking reactors. Japan has an 18-mile warning zone. And the Obama administration is sending private planes into Japan to evacuate Americans if they want to leave.

In public, both governments say they are in sync with each other. But some in the media dispute that:

CHUCK TODD, NBC NEWS: The Obama administration and the American government clearly isn't trusting what's coming out of the Japanese government and is now taking upon itself to warn American citizens what to do in Japan.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Tokyo Electric Power Company, TEPCO, is preaching calm, that a catastrophic radiation leak can be averted. But they have said that before.

That private concern is the Tokyo Electric Power Company, or TEPCO, the fourth-largest power company in the world.

In 2002, five TEPCO executives were forced to resign for falsifying nuclear plant safety records. In 2003, all 17 Japanese nuke plants were shut down for a time because of false safety reports. In 2006, there was another falsification scandal. And in 2007, a much smaller earthquake caused a radiation leak in a TEPCO nuke power plant.

So the company's credibility is shaky to say the least. U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu admits he does not know what's going on, saying he's getting conflicting reports on the nuke danger. Obviously, that's very troubling as the Japanese government should be speaking in one voice about the matter.

So summing up, the truth remains elusive, and the USA should continue to be supportive of Japan. But as Ronald Reagan once said: Trust but verify.
And how exactly do we verify what they are doing in a foreign country. Basically we have to trust what they say, because they have control of the information. Then O'Reilly had another segment with two experts, which I will not report on, because they have no new information, and it's just the same crap we heard the night before.

Then Lou Dobbs was on for the stupid Lou's the boss segment. Basically he slammed Obama and talked about the Japanese tsunami and nuclear crisis. It was the usual partisan biased garbage, with no Democratic guest to counter any of it. What gets me is how O'Reilly pretends Lou is an objective analyst, when we all know he is just another partisan hack who is on to agree with O'Reilly to make him look like a genius.

And the next segment was totally ridiculous, Ann Coulter was on, she wrote an article arguing that people are overreacting to the Japan nuke situation. Basically she said radiation is not that bad, and sometimes it can even be good for you. Wow, what a lunatic. Ann Coulter? are you kidding me, to even report her nonsense would be a waste of time, what a joke.

Then O'Reilly had the culture warriors on to talk more about Rev Wright. I guess the whole show was just a waste of time, because none of this garbage is even worth reporting on. Who cares about Rev. Wright, except for O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck, nobody that's who. O'Reilly even admitted that nobody cares what Wright says, then he does an entire segment on the guy anyway. My God man, get a clue and report on some real news.

Then O'Dummy had Glenn Beck on to talk some more about Japan. Beck went into some insane rant about how the whole world is falling apart because of liberals, or something like that. It's hard to report what Beck says because it never makes any sense. They spent half the time talking about some stupid sweater Beck was wearing that had a big bee on it, and I never did figure out what that was about. It was just garbage, no news, no nothing, except insane crap from Beck.

In the last segment Dagan McDowell was on for did you see that. O'Reilly showed two videos from the Japan earthquake etc. Then they talked about it. And to this day I still do not know why they showed them, what good does it do. This did you see that segment was maybe the biggest waste of time segment in the entire show, and that's saying a lot. Because the whole show was pretty much worthless, and I could barely come up with anything to say about it.

I do know this, watching this show took an hour of my life away that I can never get back. It was a wasted hour on a so-called news network, by a so-called journalist.

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

How Stupid Is Dick Morris: This Stupid
By: Steve - March 18, 2011 - 9:30am

On the Wednesday Factor show O'Reilly warned that "there's a war going on" between Fox News and The New York Times, which served as the backdrop for an interesting revelation from Dick Morris. Morris claimed he and other Fox News authors are being kicked off the Times bestseller list and reassigned to the separate, less prestigious list of "How To" books, to which O'Reilly responded, "that's wrong."

Morris suggested that his book, along with books by Mike Huckabee and Frank Luntz have all been booted from the main bestseller list, which will impact the sales of their books since bookstores will not feature them as prominently.

O'Reilly said of course these are political books, not "How To" books, but laughed when he realized that the Morris book has "how to" in the title. But then O'Reilly said this: "I don't like The New York Times and their shenanigans, because this is another example of not honest expositions."

Really? NOT HONEST. Are you kidding me, O'Reilly and Morris are two of the most dishonest people in America. The two of them calling the NY Times dishonest is the ultimate pot calling the kettle black situation.

Now think about this, the Morris book, the Huckabee book, and the Luntz book are all, you guessed it, HOW TO books. That is why the NY Times put them on the HOW TO book list, because they are HOW TO books.

The Morris book is a HOW TO book on HOW TO defeat Obama and repeal his programs. As O'Reilly pointed out, the Morris book even has HOW TO in the title. The Huckabee book is a HOW TO book on HOW TO have a simple Government. And the Luntz book is a HOW TO book on HOW TO use words.

So all three of their books are HOW TO books, making the complaints from O'Reilly and Morris totally dishonest. And they call the NY Times dishonest, when what they did is accurate, and while they are being dishonest. The whole thing was ridiculous, and just laughable.

More Bad Ratings News For Glenn Beck
By: Steve - March 18, 2011 - 9:00am

Last week Glenn Beck took a week off for vacation. In his absence the Beck show was hosted each day by Andrew Napolitano, except last Friday when Fox News interrupted Glenn Beck in favor of breaking news coverage of the earthquake and tsunami catastrophe in Japan.

And guess what, Fox did just fine without him. In the wake of the recent New York Times report suggesting Fox News executives might be looking ahead to a lineup that does not include Beck once his contract expires at the end of the year, coupled with Beck's soft 2011 ratings, news that Glenn Beck basically drew the same numbers of viewers without Beck as the host probably isn't good news for him.

Not that long ago when Beck was off work and didn't host his show, the ratings reflected that and a smaller audience tuned into Fox News at 5 p.m. But not last week.

For those four rated days, the Napolitano-hosted program averaged 1.83 million viewers. The week prior to that, the Beck-hosted show drew an audience of 1.98 million, which meant there was just an eight percent dip in the audience while Beck was on vacation.

And during the entire month of January, Beck averaged 1.76 million viewers, his worst month ever.

Considering that Fox News finds it impossible to find a single nationally recognized advertiser who's willing to be associated with the program, and the fact that the channel might be able to get roughly equal ratings without Beck, there might be the possibility of a Beck-free lineup in the future.

If I were Beck, I would save my money, because if Fox dumps him he is done on tv.

How Republicans Tell You Flat Out Lies
By: Steve - March 18, 2011 - 8:30am

Here is a great example of how a Republican will say one thing to your face, then do the opposite behind closed doors, hoping you will not find out what they are really doing. And of course, O'Reilly never says a word about any of it, because it would expose his friends as the frauds they are.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) made the case for reducing the size of government at an event hosted by Politico Thursday morning. Ryan said the government needs to prioritize its spending, giving three examples of worthy core mission functions: scientific research, job training, and defense:
RYAN: Personally, I think you've got to get government back to focus on its core mission, its core ideas. You know, basic scientific research. In education, we have less of a role money-wise, one K-12, but more of a role post-secondary.

You know, get job training going so we can have that can kind of system that we should focus on for life-long learning.
It's funny that Paul would single out job training and scientific research, since the GOP's spending proposal, H.R. 1, which Paul voted for, makes drastic cuts to both. It would cut funding for job training programs in half, slashing over $2 billion from an effort that Paul seems to think is essential.

A broad coalition of labor, social justice, religious groups, and the United States Conference of Mayors wrote Congressional leaders in opposition to bill:
We are writing to oppose in the strongest possible terms, the draconian cuts to employment and training funding that were included in H.R. 1, the House-passed FY 2011 Continuing Resolution (CR).

These funds help to create and fill jobs, prepare workers whose jobs have disappeared for new careers, and train the American workforce for the demands of a 21st century, global economy.

The cuts included in the House CR impact current and future workers at all ages, incomes, and skill levels, and will be felt across the entire country.
H.R. 1 also slashes government funding of scientific research. The cuts are so severe that it prompted a former Bush administration official to speak out, warning that "the massive cuts in research contained in the bill passed on 19 February would effectively end America's legendary status as the leader of the worldwide scientific community."

Particularly noteworthy in the wake of the devastating tsunami in Japan, the cuts to science would also impact the government's ability to monitor tsunamis.

The Wednesday 3-16-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 17, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Continuing confusion of Japan's nuke situation. Confused O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Japanese authorities continue to test the air and the folks for radiation contamination, but forget about getting a clear picture as to that danger. We do know some radiation has leaked into the atmosphere, but officials are playing down the danger, even as they tell people living near the damaged nuclear reactors to stay inside.

There is no certainty here, but that has not stopped the bloviating. Talking Points believes the Japanese authorities should plan for the worst and pray it doesn't happen. Right now workers are frantically trying to cool down the damaged reactors, and they may succeed in doing that. In the meantime, let's report the story methodically.
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, how are you confused, I am not confused, and I am not even a Harvard graduate. Let me make it simple for your dumb ass, Japan has a bunch of Nuclear power plants on fire, and they are leaking radiation. What part of that do you not understand, and are you really this stupid?

Then O'Reilly had two nuclear experts on, one speculated like crazy, and the other spoke the truth. Richard Muller said this: "The key thing the public needs to know is that there have been no deaths from the radioactivity, and the best estimate is that there are going to be no deaths. We can't say that for sure, but there will be no immediate deaths. There is not going to be a nuclear explosion and there is not going to be a runaway chain reaction."

Rita King, a journalist specializing in nuclear issues, argued that it's too early to be overly optimistic, King said this: "There appears to be a fire that is starting and stopping with exposed fuel rods, and that has never happened in the history of the industry. The situation is nascent - it is dangerous and dynamic and unfolding, and nobody can predict right now how bad the damage will be."

Then O'Reilly had another segment asking if we should donate to Japan, Suzy DeFrancis of the American Red Cross was on who said of course we should. To even ask the question is stupid, and O'Reilly is an idiot for asking it, not one night, but two nights in a row.

In the next segment with Dick Morris it was like watching an episode of the Twilight Zone, because none of it was reality. O'Reilly and Morris claim the Obama poll numbers have dropped 5% in the last week, which is just a flat out lie. I am looking at the Obama job approval numbers at Gallup right now, as of 11:00 am CST Thursday, it is 48% approval a 3% increase.

Not only have the Obama poll numbers not gone down, they are up, in the last 3 days the Obama job approval is up 3%, proving that O'Reilly and Morris are nothing but lying dishonest right-wing idiots. They just make it up and hope someone falls for it. And dont just believe me, go to www.gallup.com and look for yourself.

And btw folks, the Obama job approval rating has only changed 4 points over the last 5 months. From a low of 47% to a high of 51%, and the current number of 48%, so it has virtually stayed the same for the last 5 months. Not to mention, there is a plus or minus of 3% in the poll margin or error, which O'Reilly and Morris never mention, so he could be at 51% approval right now.

Then O'Reilly had a segment about the falling Palin poll numbers, which are actually falling. Republicans Tammy Bruce and pollster Kellyanne Conway were on to discuss it. And my God was it a right-wing spinfest. I will not say much about this ridiculous segment now, but I will have another blog with details on what they said. And wow was it insane.

In the next segment O'Reilly had the COMEDIAN Dennis Miller on to talk about Japan etc. Which I do not report on, because Miller is a COMEDIAN, and I do not care what COMEDIANS say about political issues. Unlike O'Reilly, I can tell the difference between a COMEDIAN and a JOURNALIST.

And in the last segment O'Reilly had Shepard Smith and Greg Palkot on to report about Japan. Smith said this: "The most important thing, is the report that the spent nuclear fuel rods that were being contained in a pool of water are still in the pool but there's no more water. Scientists tell us that unless they can get water on those fuel rods the rods will eventually melt down and the material within them will be propelled in all directions. It will contaminate the water, the earth and the air, and we have a disaster beyond imagination if they're right."

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, what part of that has you confused, and how is that hyping the situation, when it's a fact. Not to mention, if the media is hyping it, then so is FOX. In fact, if accurate reporting on the Japan situation is hype, then Fox is hyping it more than anyone.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame pinheads and patriots vote. And I usually do not report the pinheads and patriots, but this one was so ridiculous I had to.

Tuesday's Pinheads and Patriots asked about Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who mistakenly claimed the 'shot heard round the world' that ignited the Revolution was fired in New Hampshire, not Massachusetts. 81% of you called Bachmann patriotic for quickly admitting her error.

Are you kidding me, she is so stupid she got it wrong, and that's being a patriot with 81% of the Factor viewers. WOW! How can you be a patriot for getting simple history wrong. And if a Democratic Congresswoman had said that, 81% of the Factor viewers would vote her a pinhead. That vote shows just how biased the Factor viewers are.

More Proof Conway & Bruce Are Clueless Republicans
By: Steve - March 17, 2011 - 10:30am

On the Wednesday O'Reilly Factor Billy reported on some new polls that show Sarah Palin's approval rating has dropped with both Republicans and independents. So what does O'Reilly do, he of course has two right-wing spin doctors on to explain it.

And there answers were just laughable, not to mention what O'Reilly said about Palin was even dumber than what Conway and Bruce said.

Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway blamed it on Palin for putting herself out there too much, Conway said this:
CONWAY: A few things, particularly among Republicans, Bill. One is just the overexposure. Usually when a politician leaves public office they diminish their exposure they don't increase it. And Sarah Palin has certainly taken a larger portion of the spotlight since she resigned as Governor of Alaska in July of 2009.

Secondly, you know Republicans really bore the celebrity culture and politics. Remember the famous ad the Palin McCain campaign ran against Barack Obama, that's he the most popular celebrity in the world. And that got a little traction.

The other thing going on with Republicans is some of them are critical of her choices. She has every right to go and do a reality show, to resign as governor early, to do the monologue after the Tucson shooting but folks have been somewhat critical of those choices.
Are you for real, overexposure? You are insane, the reason Palin is dropping in the polls is because the more she talks the more people see what a stupid far right extremist she is, it has nothing to do with overexposure. People do not like her because she is stupid, then on top of that she is a far right pro-life nut-job.

Tammy Bruce thinks that people just do not know her well enough, Bruce said this:
BRUCE: Palin is, I think, what's very much considered an unknown known. While people know of her, they know about her, but they have never really heard from her on a political framework on a consistent basis in an unfiltered way.

So the real question becomes not where the polls are now but the fact that she has the most to gain when she moves in, if she does move in to a political primary season.
Wow, I did not think it was possible to make a dumber statement then Kellyanne Conway about Palin, but Bruce did it. She is an unknown known? WTF? Tammy Bruce is insane.

How the hell can you be an unknown known when you are all over the place, she was a Vice Presdential candidate for almost 2 years, she is on Fox News all the time, she talks on Facebook almost every day, she has a reality show, and the media reports every word she says. Only a mental patient would call her an unknown known.

And we have heard from Palin In a political framework on a consistent basis in an unfiltered way, during the campaign with John McCain, in her Fox News segments, and on her Facebook page. Even O'Reilly disagreed with Bruce and said this:
O'REILLY: "the governor has a platform here at Fox News to get any point that she wants across."
Here are the facts for Conway and Bruce, Sarah Palin is stupid, and she is not qualified to be the President. The more she talks the more people hate her, and not because she is a woman, or her looks, it's because of her political positions on the issues, because she is a far right loon, because she lies a lot, and because of all the stupid things she says.

O'Reilly also said something really stupid about Palin, he said this: "One day they don't like her. The next day they do like her because she says something that they like. I think that that's what is in play here."

Which is also ridiculous, Nobody likes Palin except a few people on the right, with everyone else she is a stupid far right nut. People do not change their mind and like her one day, or not the next day, they either like her, or they dont. And the polls show that most people do not like her.

I would also like to point out who O'Reilly had on to discuss the issue, two of the biggest lying right-wing spin doctors you could find, Conway and Bruce. With no Democratic guests at all, none. How the hell is that being fair and balanced O'Reilly, what say you?

And btw, to counter the Palin polls showing her dropping even more, O'Reilly had the lying Dick Morris on in another segment to claim the Obama poll numbers are dropping too, even when it's a lie, and they are not dropping. I guess that's what O'Reilly calls fair and balanced, haha, give me a break. For the record, on that show O'Reilly had 7 Republican guests, and only 2 Democratic guests.

O'Reilly Admits Fox Is In The Tank For Sarah Palin
By: Steve - March 17, 2011 - 9:30am

O'Reilly is so much of a Sarah Palin lover that he admitted Fox will let her say anything she wants. O'Reilly said this on the Wednesday Factor: Sarah Palin Has A Platform Here At Fox News To Get Any Point That She Wants Across."



Now think about this, imagine what O'Reilly would say if someone at MSNBC said that about a liberal who worked there, and was most likely running for President. He would call it an outrage, and call for MSNBC to be investigated by the FEC.

It's just another example of the right-wing bias, and the ridiculous double standards O'Reilly has for Republicans and Democrats. He lets Palin say anything, even when most of it is lies, and never lets a Democrat get away with anything. While saying the Democrat is a liar, and yet, Palin can lie all day and O'Reilly never says a word.

Stupid Sarah Blames Obama For High Gas Prices
By: Steve - March 17, 2011 - 8:30am

Notice that under Bush gas went up to over $4.00 a gallon, and yet, not one Republican blamed it on him. In fact, under Bush when liberals said gas is so high because Bush and Cheney are oil men, the Republicans said the President has nothing to do with the price of gas. Now that Obama is in office they sing a different tune, that tune is partisan attacks, because Obama has nothing to do with the price of gas, it's OPEC, and the corrupt oil speculators that control the price. Even O'Reilly has admitted that.

Here is what the crazy Sarah Palin said.

In her latest Facebook post, Sarah Palin claimed that President Obama's "anti-drilling mentality" and "war on domestic oil and gas exploration and production" are to blame for the recent rise in gasoline prices.

And btw, Media outlets that find Palin's Facebook postings newsworthy should note that this allegation has zero basis in economic fact.

Several economists and energy experts were recently asked if there was any truth to the claim that the Obama administration's drilling policies are responsible for the recent surge in gas prices.

guess what? Not a single expert said the claim is valid, including those aligned with the oil industry. Here are a few examples of what they said:
Chris Lafakis, economist at Moody's Analytics and expert in energy markets, said this: I received your question about whether or not federal drilling policies are responsible for the current rise in gas prices.

There is absolutely no merit to this viewpoint whatsoever. Near-term fluctuations in gasoline prices are determined by two primary factors: crude oil prices and seasonality. Since the deepwater drilling delay applies only to exploration and production, it would take years, maybe a decade to get any amount of crude oil out of the ground and into our gas tanks.

In the meantime, global crude oil supply is exactly the same as it would have been if the government were giving away permits like candy.

Michael Canes, research fellow at the Logistics Management Institute and former chief economist of the American Petroleum Institute said this: It's not credible to blame the Obama Administration's drilling policies for today's high prices because of the relative scales involved.

He further stated that world oil prices are determined in a market of around 85 million barrels per day of production and consumption, while the consequences of domestic drilling, particularly in the Gulf, likely would be more in the range of several hundred thousand to one million barrels per day, and most of that production would not occur for a number of years.

Lou Crandall, chief economist of Wrightson ICAP LLC said this: Higher oil prices today are a global phenomenon, and the additional supply from increased drilling by the U.S. would not alter the global balance of supply and demand greatly.

Gasoline prices at the pump would be higher either way. The only difference is that a somewhat larger share of the revenue would accrue to domestic interests (governmental and private) rather than to foreign suppliers.
And finally, even the right-wing stooge at Fox Stuart Varney shot down the Palin claims. On Wednesday morning Varney explained that "we would still have $4 gas no matter what we do in the Gulf because higher gas prices are the result of an expanding global economy and turmoil in the Middle East."

So Palin is all on her own on this one, because even the right-wing spin doctors at Fox are calling her a liar.

The Tuesday 3-15-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 16, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Nuclear crisis in Japan: Real threat or too much hype? The insane O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Talking Points believes that the worldwide media is hyping the nuke situation in Japan a bit too much. We know that some radiation has leaked into the air at four nuclear reactors which were damaged by the earthquake and the tsunami that followed.

Authorities say a couple of dozen people have been treated for radiation exposure, and about 70,000 people have been evacuated from the power plant areas. The truth is that no one knows how bad this is, but that doesn't stop the hype.

All the uncertainty is leading to semi-chaos in the stock markets and apprehension among the Japanese people, but we have seen no looting, little craziness and no panic. Japan is one of the few countries in the world where order could prevail in the face of catastrophe.

The culture emphasizes cooperation and obedience to authority, even in the face of death and destruction. The struggle to contain the radiation continues to be the biggest story in the world.
Are you kidding me, you are an idiot pal. They had to evacuate 70,000 people, which is everyone within 12 miles of the reactor. And you say the media is hyping the story, my God man are you clueless.

Then O'Reilly had Karl Rove on, he asked Rove what we should be doing to help the Japanese people. Rove said this: "We should do whatever the Japanese want us to do, which thus far is providing disaster response teams, experts from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and elements of the 7th Fleet, which can ferry food and water into the area. But it's not up to the United States to try and stabilize the Japanese stock market."

And of course O'Reilly could not leave it there without some Obama bashing, so Billy asked Rove about Libya. Rove said this: "The President said we want regime change, but don't expect us to do anything about it. We have France saying we need a no-fly zone and the Arabs saying we need a no-fly zone. Last Wednesday the momentum shifted from the rebels in Libya to Qaddafi, and this will be an utter disaster for the United States if that stands. Our adversaries will be emboldened."

Hey Rove, here is an idea jackass. If France and the Arabs want a no-fly zone, why dont they do it. Not to mention, we are already in 2 wars, you idiot. And we sure do not need a 3rd war, plus what happened to we are broke, so how can wee afford to start a 3rd war with Libya.

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on. O'Reilly reported that a Reuters columnist says we should not send money to Japan because it's a wealthy nation. Crowley said this: "Part of the problem when you talk about donating in the wake of natural disasters, is that so many governments are incredibly corrupt. Japan is a different situation - it's has solid institutions and good government." Colmes said this: "Organizations like the Red Cross will put the money where it's needed - if they need it in Japan they'll put it there."

So guess what O'Reilly did, he used the segment to attack Bill Clinton and Sean Penn for the Haiti situation. Without reporting that Fox News did not even show the Haiti telethon, so they have no right to criticize anyone for anything. Not to mention Bush was also part of the Clinton fundraising initiative, but O'Reilly never mentioned him one time. O'Reilly said this: "It was outrageous - all these guys like Sean Penn and Bill Clinton were grandstanding down there. Clinton has not explained one time what the Clinton Initiative has done to make sure the money gets to the Haitian people. Not one time!"

Then O'Reilly had Charles Krauthammer on to talk more about NPR, which I will not report on anymore, except to say this. A hell of a lot of people have said NPR is fair, including many conservatives. But O'Reilly does not have any of them on the show. He only puts people on who are biased and who want to defund NPR, which is bad journalism, and total bias. O'Reilly is a biased hack, and that is a fact.

The next segment was also ridiculous and not even worth reporting on. O'Reilly had John Stossel on who went to Washington and stood on the steps of the Capitol with a megaphone shouting this: "Why are you spending all our money?"

Really, are you kidding me. Who cares what Stossel did, it was a total waste of time, and a total waste of time to do a segment about it. With all the real news out there this is what O'Reilly picked to report on, what a fricking joke.

Now get this, O'Reilly says the left is sympathizing with a potential traitor, talking about the case of PFC Bradley Manning, who gave a trove of classified documents to WikiLeaks. Billy asked Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle why some liberal Americans are sympathizing with an alleged traitor.

Wiehl said this: "They don't necessarily like him, but they think he's being mistreated. He's been given no trial date and he's in isolation for 23 hours every day." Guilfoyle said this: "He is being treated the same as every other individual in these circumstances. He's looking at a potential death penalty and the Army is going through all the voluminous information of putting together a very solid case."

Then O'Reilly agreed with Wiehl that Manning is being handled in a cruel and unusual way, Billy said this: "I have no use for this guy if he did what they say, but I wouldn't put him in 23-hour lockdown. This is harsh, and if the Army were smart they'd be more benevolent."

Are you for real, so you claim liberals are sympathizing with a potential traitor, which is mostly not true. I am a liberal and I am not sympathizing with him. Then you agree that he is being handled in a cruel and unusual way, which is sympathizing with a potential traitor. My God man, are you senile. O'Reilly has gone off the deep end, he claims the left is sympathizing with a potential traitor, then he does it too.

And in the last segment O'Reilly talked to Greg Palkot and Adam Shapiro from fox, both of whom are in Japan. Palkot explained why he was forced to vacate the area where nuclear plants have been damaged. "Radiation levels went up quite high today," he reported. "At one reactor there was an explosion and at another there was a fire. We were fifty miles down the coastline when that happened doing our live shots."

Sounds pretty bad to me, but if you remember O'Reilly said the media is hyping the story. Which is just insane, if you evacuate 70,000 people for anything, let alone radioactive fallout from a nuclear reactor, and your reporters who were 50 miles away had to move, how they hell can you hype that. O'Reilly is a total idiot.

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

More Republican Hypocrisy O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - March 16, 2011 - 9:30am

O'Reilly and the Republicans claim we must all sacrifice something to balance the states budgets, and he supports the Governor in Wisconsin. But he fails to mention that the wealthy, the corporations, and most Republicans are not part of the so-called shared sacrifice.

And now we have more evidence of that, Gov. Paul LePage (R-ME) has called for shared sacrifice when it comes to balancing his state’s budget.

"If you want prosperity, you have got to make sacrifices," LePage said.

However, as Zaid Jilani pointed out, LePage's proposed budget asks the middle-class and public employees to bear the brunt of filling the state's budget gap, while cutting taxes for the state's wealthiest residents.

As part of his budget, LePage proposed raising the retirement age for public employees and freezing their cost-of-living adjustments. He also increased the amount that public employees are required to pay into their pension fund from 7.65 percent to 9.65 percent, which constitutes a cut in take-home pay for these employees.

However, as Mike Tipping at the Kennebec Journal reported, the change doesn't apply to LePage's own compensation:
One public employee currently paying 7.65 percent, however, won't see an increase.

The governor has exempted himself. If LePage faced the same increase as state employees, it would cost him $5,880 over his term.
LePage, upon leaving office, will be eligible for a $26,000 annual pension. A Maine teacher has to work for 25 years to receive the same benefit.

Adding insult to injury, the money raised from increased employee contributions won't even go towards immediately shoring up the state's pension system, but "will instead pay for other budget priorities, including $203 million in tax cuts."

Hard Evidence That Fox Lied About Unions
By: Steve - March 16, 2011 - 8:30am

Now think about this, Bill O'Reilly actually said Fox has been fair in their reporting on Wisconsin and the state unions. While all the evidence shows the exact opposite, and the facts show that Fox has had a clear anti-union bias.

Here are just a few examples:

Glenn Beck claimed that protests in Madison, Wisconsin, as well as in the Middle East and Mexico are part of "evil spreading around the globe." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 2/16/11]

Fox Nation described pro-union protesters in Wisconsin as "Rabid Leftists." [Media Matters, 3/9/11]

A Fox Nation headline referred to the protesters as "leftist bullies." [Fox Nation, 3/8/11]

A Fox Nation headline referred to pro-union protesters at a GOP-hosted town hall event as a "Shrieking Leftist Mob." [Media Matters, 3/8/11]

Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin accused the protesters of an "immense amount of power and thuggery." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/17/11]

Fox Nation called the protesters "Despicable Union Supporters." [Fox Nation, 3/4/11]

Fox News host Andrew Napolitano called the pro-union protests in Wisconsin "union temper tantrums." [Fox Business, Freedom Watch, 2/17/11]

Bernard McGuirk, producer of Fox Business' Imus in the Morning, said that the protesters were acting " like a bunch of selfish spoiled Europeans," which he said was "almost embarrassing." [Fox News, Hannity, 2/17/11]

Fox Business' Tracy Byrnes claimed that protests in Wisconsin are "actually, borderline gonna get violent, it sounds like." [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 2/16/11]

Brian Kilmeade introduced a segment on a Republican Wisconsin lawmaker, Sen. Glenn Grothman, being heckled by a chanting crowd of protesters by baselessly claiming the protesters were "getting restless and, dare I say, violent." Co-host Steve Doocy claimed that, "If you put yourself in Grothman's shoes...it's absolutely scary." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 3/3/11]

FACT: There Is No Evidence To Support The Claim That The Protesters Were Violent.

No Violence Is Shown On The Video. The video, which was shot by Wisconsin area photographer Phil Ejercito, show that Grothman was heckled by protesters, but no violence occurred. In fact, at one point during the video, a protester can be heard to shout "don't touch him" and at another, the protesters chanted "peace" and "peaceful."

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Grothman "told the [Cap Times] he didn't think he was ever in any real danger." [The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 3/2/11]

In a statement to Media Matters, Phil Ejercito, the local photographer who shot the footage of Sen. Grothman being heckled by the crowd, said he "condemn[ed] the use of my work to distort the truth about the spirited but non-violent protests here in Madison," calling it a "a genuinely dangerous narrative that Fox News is helping to create." [Media Matters, 3/3/11]

And that's not all, here are some more examples of bias at Fox:

Mike Huckabee claimed Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's efforts to end collective bargaining power for public sector unions is important because "he's having to balance the budget." As evidence, Huckabee falsely claimed public union workers make "30 percent better wages" and "70 percent better benefits than their private sector counterparts." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/25/11]

Tucker Carlson said this: "Public Sector Workers Make More Than You Do And Won't Even Consider Taking Any Kind Of Cut."

Both lies, a study published February 10, 2011, by the Economic Policy Institute found that when "comparisons controlling for education, experience," and other factors are taken into account, "Wisconsin public employees earn 4.8% less in total compensation per hour than comparable full-time employees in Wisconsin's private sector." [EPI, "Are Wisconsin Public Employees Over-compensated?" 2/10/11]

Workers with a bachelor's degree or more--which constitute nearly 60% of the state and local workforce in Wisconsin--are compensated between $20,000 less (if they just have a bachelor's degree) to over $82,000 a year less (if they have a professional degree, such as in law or medicine). [EPI, 2/18/11]

I could go on and on, but O'Reilly still denies it all. And think about this, O'Reilly has not reported any of this, he just ignores it all.

The Monday 3-14-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 15, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Japan on the verge of a nuclear meltdown? O'Dummy said this:
There is amazing video coming out of Japan showing the devastating tsunami that swept inland, destroying everything in its path. It is estimated that more than 10,000 people have been killed and the damage estimate could reach $50-billion.

Millions of Japanese are without power, without water, and without food, and almost a half-million people are living in shelters as thousands have been evacuated because of the nuclear danger.

On that front, four nuclear power plants were damaged by the quake and one is close to melting down this evening. More than 1,500 people have been scanned for radiation exposure and almost 200 have been found to be somewhat contaminated.

So far Japan has been spared a nuclear meltdown, but the situation remains tenuous. The American Red Cross is leading the private efforts to help the victims and everybody hopes the death toll will stabilize.
Then O'Reilly had two nuclear experts Daniel Branovan and Rita King on, he asked them about America's vulnerability to nuclear disaster. King said this: "Most of the nuclear plants in the United States, are in the east, but there are at least two plants in California that are in very active and dangerous seismic zones. They were only built to withstand a 7.5 magnitude earthquake. And the oldest nuclear plant in the U.S. is Indian Point here on the Hudson River, and 8% of the nation's population lives within fifty miles of it."

Branovan outlined the dangers of radiation poisoning, he said this: "Radiation is invisible, it's insidious, you breathe it in with contaminated air. If we've learned one thing from Chernobyl, it's that we don't know a heck of a lot. Hundreds of people died from acute radiation exposure and tens of millions suffered low-level radiation exposure. The one cancer that showed up years down the road is thyroid cancer."

Then Brit Hume was on to discuss it, Hume said this: "The principle political consequence of this horrible calamity, is to retard the nuclear plans in the U.S. and other countries that are even more dependent on nuclear power." Then O'Reilly expressed hope that America's nuclear industry won't be abandoned, Billy said this: "We're not going to get away from foreign oil unless we get an expansion of nuclear power, and the alternative fuels are not going to be ready for decades on a mass level."

The next segment was just totally ridiculous, O'Reilly had Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham on to cry about something Bill Maher (THE COMEDIAN) said about Muslims. O'Reilly asked them why the media has been conspicuously silent about the episode. And I'll tell you why, because Bill Maher is a COMEDIAN, he tells jokes for a living, and he has a comedy show. O'Reilly, Williams and Ham, all cried foul and said it was a double standard, and they also claimed that if O'Reilly had said the Koran was a hate filled holy book he would be slammed by the media.

Wow, are these people really this stupid. Of course O'Reilly would be slammed by the media, and he should be, because he is a journalist, or should I say so-called journalist. The reason Bill Maher can say it without getting slammed by the media is because he is a COMEDIAN, plain and simple. Bill Maher is a COMEDIAN, idiots.

Then O'Reilly had Megyn Kelly on to hammer Attorney General Eric Holder, who has ordered the police force in Dayton, Ohio to lower testing standards so more blacks can qualify. Kelly said this: "The NAACP defended Eric Holder and this whole program. They say that if the test is bad and it's discriminating against minorities, then the Department of Justice has to do something.

Not enough African Americans and Hispanic Americans were passing the old test, so Dayton hired an outside company to revamp the test to make sure it's fair." And of course O'Reilly argued in favor of tough standards for cops because he said you have a gun and you have to make decisions. But mostly because he is not black, and he is not trying to get a job as a police officer. I bet that if O'Reilly was a black man trying to be a police officer he would sing a different tune.

Then O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to talk some more right-wing spin about NPR, boring, and he also asked him about how the media is covering the Japan earthquake story. Really, you asked Bernie, the lying, spinning, right-wing hack, Goldberg about it, are you kidding me. Who cares what Goldberg thinks about the media, no matter what they do he hates it, because he is a far right idiot, so anything that is not far right spin on the news is not good enough for him.

Goldberg basically cried about the so-called bias at NPR, even though most people say they are not biased, even a few Republicans have said they are fair, but you never hear about any of that from O'Reilly or Goldberg. And they talked a little about the Japan earthquake story, but all he said was that he applauded the media's use of technology to cover the Japan disaster.

And finally, in the last segment O'Reilly had Shepard Smith and Adam Housley from Fox on to talk more about Japan. Which was frankly a waste of time, because they did not tell us anything we did not know already. I think O'Reily just had them on to give them some air time on the #1 rated cable news show, because they sure did not report any new news about Japan.

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

Republicans Prove Again They Represent Corporations
By: Steve - March 15, 2011 - 9:30am

As I am sure everyone knows, the people elect Congressman, Senators, Governors, etc. to represent the actual people. Someone should tell that to the Republican party, because every day they prove over and over, that they only care about the wealthy and the corporations that fund their elections, and re-elections.

People who vote Republican are frankly brainwashed, or just stupid. Because they could care less about the people, as an example read this.

Several conservative governors have proposed placing the brunt of deficit reduction onto the backs of their state's public employees, students, and middle-class taxpayers, while simultaneously trying to enact corporate tax cuts and giveaways. Govs. Rick Scott (R-FL), Tom Corbett (R-PA), and Jan Brewer (R-AZ) have all gone down this road.

Following them, Gov. Rick Snyder (R-MI) has proposed ending his state's Earned Income Tax Credit, cutting a $600 per child tax credit, and reducing credits for seniors, while also cutting funding for school districts by eight to ten percent.

At the same time, as the Michigan League for Human Services found, the state's business taxes would be reduced by nearly $2 billion, or 86 percent, under Snyder's plan:
Business taxes would be cut by 86 percent from an estimated $2.1 billion in FY 2011 to $292.7 million in FY 2013, the first full year of the proposed tax changes.

Taxes on individuals from the state income tax would rise by $1.7 billion or nearly 31 percent, from an estimated $5.75 billion in FY 2011 to $7.5 billion in FY 2013, the first full year of the tax changes.
It's the opposite of Robin Hood, instead of taking from the rich and giving to the poor, these corrupt Republicans are taking money from the poor to make the rich richer.

As the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found, the practical upshot of Snyder's tax increases is to place even more of a burden on Michigan's poorest residents, who will see a bigger hike than those at the upper end of the income scale.

Michigan already has a regressive tax system, which Snyder's proposal will only make worse. Currently, someone in the poorest 20 percent of Michigan taxpayers pays a tax rate of 8.9 percent, while someone in the richest one percent pays 5.3 percent.

In addition to trying to make an unfair tax system even more problematic for Michigan's low-income residents, Snyder has also asked that the state be given the power to dismiss local government and appoint emergency town managers who could break contracts and strip powers from elected officials.

And of course you never hear a word about any of this from O'Reilly on the Craptor. Because it shows how corrupt the Republican party is, and O'Reilly can not allow that because they are all his friends, and he has to cover for them by ignoring news like this.

Now think about this, O'Reilly does that while saying he is looking out for the folks.

King's Anti-Muslim Hearings Are helping Al Qaida
By: Steve - March 15, 2011 - 8:30am

Here is something you will never see reported by O'Reilly, because he does noting but defend King and the hearings, and it's not being said by some liberal, a former Bush administration official is saying it. The former Bush official is saying the King hearings are helping Al Qaida to recruit new terrorists.

Last week, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman peter King began his personal quest to scrutinize the patriotism of American Muslims through his hearings on the radicalization in the U.S. Muslim community. King insists that his pursuit is the logical response to the threat level posed by the community, adding "it makes no sense to talk about other types of extremism, when the main threat to the United States today is talking about al Qaida."

But not only are King's assumptions incredibly inaccurate, a former Department of Defense official in the Bush Administration states that his crusade is helping terrorism. Jennifer Bryson, who spent a few years doing counter-terrorism work while working for the Defense Intelligence Agency from 2003 to 2008, pointed out that King's fear-mongering is "dividing the world between Muslims and non-Muslims," the same tactic used by Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda to recruit:
BRYSON: King risks helping to promote precisely the narrative Osama bin Laden and his sympathizers try to promote, namely dividing the world between Muslims and non-Muslims. Al-Qaeda has used the same tactic as a recruiting tool.

While the issue merits attention by Congress, said Matthew Levitt, former deputy chief of the Treasury Department's Office of Intelligence and Analysis, King's approach is semantically shaped to point a finger at an entire community.
Matthew Levitt served as the Treasury Department's deputy assistant secretary for intelligence and analysis under the Bush Administration. The American Muslim community's practices and participation in mainstream society has not only served to successfully combat homegrown terrorism but to help eliminate the risk.

For instance, the Center for Strategic and International Studies points out that families of the Northern Virginia Five extremists reached out to CAIR -- the group that King paints as extremist -- who then alerted the FBI, cooperation that has proved vital in facilitating authorities initial investigation of the plot.

Even the U.S. attorney general in a New York district not far from Ground Zero is disturbed by King's hearings. He told the Daily Beast's Jonathan Alter that the Muslim community there routinely provide the FBI and prosecutors with valuable leads and evidence but that now he must spend valuable time reassuring local imams who are terribly worried about the stigma coming from King's hearings that the U.S. government means them no harm.

As Bryson indicates, by aggressively marginalizing Muslims in America, King actively complicates the vibrant cooperation between the Muslim community and law enforcement and disseminates stereotypes that foment the us-vs.-them mentality feeding homegrown terrorism in the first place.

Doing so not only emboldens the small extremist minority within a community but tramples on the patriotism and humanity of the majority.

So where is O'Reilly on this part of the story, nowhere to be found, he is too busy defending the King hearings with made up and unproven stats by the far-right propagandist Frank Gaffney.

O'Reilly Cited Frank Gaffney's Made Up Stats
By: Steve - March 13, 2011 - 9:30am

Think about this folks, O'Reilly has said over and over that he only deals in proven facts, and if he can not prove it he does not use them. And now we know that is a lie, because last week O'Reilly used the made up numbers from the far-right loon Frank Gaffney, to justify the King hearings on Muslims.

That's when you know someone is a far-right spin doctor, when they use a bogus stat put out by Frank Gaffney. Here is what happened.

On the Friday Factor show O'Reilly said this to the Muslim/American Congressman Keith Ellison:
O'REILLY: All right now, look, Frank Gaffney, do you know Frank Gaffney --

ELLISON: Well --

O'REILLY: -- do you know him and his group?

ELLISON: No. I'm not familiar with him.

O'REILLY: Ok, you should be and I'm not saying that in a condescending way because you would be very interested in -- in what Mr. Gaffney has to say. He and his organization allege that violent extremism and Sharia law is being condoned in 75 percent of the American Muslim mosques.

ELLISON: That's absurd. That's absurd and ridiculous.

O'REILLY: Ok, now that is his contention.

ELLISON: He's wrong.

O'REILLY: Isn't it worthy -- isn't it worthy if Congressman King and I hope he calls Gaffney. And I hope he calls Gaffney and say back this up. Isn't it worthy if that committee, the Homeland Security Committee could debunk this? Now, I don't know if it's true or not but I would like to know if it's true.
Look at what O'Reilly said, he said Gaffney and his organization "allege" that violent extremism and Sharia law is being condoned in 75 percent of the American Muslim mosques. Then O'Reilly said "I don't know if it's true or not but I would like to know if it's true."

Are you kidding me, they allege, and you do not know if it's true ot not, what the hell is that. What happened to you only deal in the proven facts, what a joke.

O'Reilly is so much of a right-wing hack that he has to cite a statement from the far-right propagandist Frank Gaffney, to try and justify the King Muslim hearings. Then he even admits they only "allege" it, that they have not proven it, and that he does not know if it is true or not.

What the hell kind of journalism is that, it's ridiculous. Now remember this folks, this is the same Frank Gaffney who was banned from speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) because he accused it of having been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood.

And by the way, Gaffney also advocated taking out Al Jazeera, said President Obama is a Muslim and compared the NY City Ground Zero Imam to Al Qaeda. So on a credibility scale of 1 to 10, Gaffney is at a one, maybe a minus one.

Not to mention, all the Muslim experts say the Gaffney numbers are pure nonsense.

Karen Leonard, Professor of Anthropology at the University of California, Irvine, and author of numerous books, including Muslims in the United States: The State of Research, called the claim that 85 percent of mosques are run by extremists "nonsense."

American University Professor Akbar Ahmed, who has written extensively on Islam in America in his book Journey into America, said a lot of these comments and observations are really not based on any studies. I mean these are just comments, impressions. But 85 percent, I'm not sure at all, because the vast majority of mosques we went to were very self-consciously trying to project the post 9/11 image.

The CAIR-Hartford study found that about 20 percent of mosques say they interpret the Koran literally, but 7 in 10 follow a more nuanced, nonfundamentalist approach.

And what makes it worse is that O'Reilly only reported what Frank Gaffney said, he did not cite anyone else who has the opposite opinion. When the people with the opposite opinions did actual studies, unlike Gaffney who just made it up.

O'Reilly violated the first two rules of journalism, research the facts, and report both sides of an issue. He did no research, even though he claims to have a crack staff that never gets anything wrong, and he did not report both sides of the issue.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About NPR Liberal Bias
By: Steve - March 13, 2011 - 8:30am

For years O'Reilly has been saying this: "NPR is a biased liberal organization that uses its power to advance left-wing and defamatory causes." And it's not just O'Reilly, pretty much everyone at Fox has said the same thing. Here are some quotes:

O'REILLY: "The truth is that NPR is a liberal organization and always has been. At times they do good reporting, but the culture is left-wing. That's why the feds can no longer fund it."

O'REILLY: "How much longer do I have to pay for this outfit which is so blatantly unfair, and uses its power to, you know, advance left-wing and defamatory causes? What do I have to pay for this?"

On his old radio show O'Reilly asked if NPR should "be called the National Propaganda Radio Network." He later said "for my money, NPR is an exclusionary, politically correct propaganda machine not at all interested in free speech."

Okay, now get this, the company that owns Fox News donates money to NPR, and not just a few dollars, almost $2 million. So if NPR is so biased, why is the parent company of Fox news giving them $2 million dollars in donations.

News Corp. Subsidiaries Have Given At Least $2 Million To Fund And Sponsor NPR.

According to annual reports and donor lists posted on its website, NPR has received at least $2 million from News Corp. subsidiaries, including from the media company's cable, film, television, and publishing operations. They donated the money from 2002 to 2008, the last year for which NPR has made its annual reports available on its website.

And to show even more that O'Reilly is a total liar about their liberal bias, a lot of conservatives have said NPR does a good job, and they are fair. Here are some quotes:

Tony Blankley, a conservative syndicated columnist and former Newt Gingrich press secretary said this about NPR: "I've been on NPR regularly for a very long time. From a personal perspective they have always given me plenty of access, I am clearly a right-wing commentator so I cannot complain. There's a conservative on and there's a liberal on, so that's all fair."

Conservative radio host Michael Medved said this about NPR: "NPR is not like ABC or CBS or NBC. I think they make a genuine, constant attempt to try to play it up the middle."

Conservative blogger Glenn Reynolds said this about NPR: "My own interaction with them has been fine. I have found them to be fair. I think their coverage is often quite good. I think NPR does a good job."

Dallas Tea Party official Katrina Pierson said this about NPR: "Its 2009 profile on her particular group was fair."

Tea Party Activist Lisa Davis said this about NPR: "We are all very pleased with NPR's story on the Dallas Tea Party."

So there you have it, even a lot of conservatives think NPR does a good job. Which is proof that O'Reilly is a right-wing spin doctor. Because only the dishonest right-wing spin doctors are slamming NPR as having this big liberal bias.

How O'Reilly Puts Out Right-Wing Propaganda
By: Steve - March 12, 2011 - 10:30am

Here is a great example of how Bill O'Reilly helps to put out right-wing propaganda to fool the American people. First let me show you the truth.

Here is what honest journalists are reporting:

Wednesday night, Wisconsin GOP lawmakers called a surprise conference committee meeting and then rammed an anti-union bill through the state senate. Even though, by forcing the bill through without legally required public notice, the senators may have ensured that the bill will be declared void.

The Wisconsin open meetings law requires all government meetings to be conducted publicly and with advance notice except under very limited circumstances.

State Rep. Peter Barca (Democrat) even informed his colleagues of this legal requirement during the conference committee, the committee's Republican majority ignored his protests and voted to approve the bill while Barca was still explaining why their actions were illegal.

Those are the facts, the vote was illegal. And now let's look at how O'Reilly reported it. It is a 3 step propaganda plan by O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly, first he did a TPM about it at the start of the show.

Step one:

O'Reilly said this Thursday night: "Last night, the Wisconsin state senate voted to limit the bargaining power of the public unions in that state. They did this using a procedure that allowed the vote despite the absence of Democratic senators who fled the state to avoid the union vote."

Notice that not once did he say the vote was illegal, that was done on purpose so that later in the show he could have a Republican guest on to say it was a legal vote. So anyone who saw his TPM would have no idea the vote was illegal.

Step two:

Later in the show O'Reilly had Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly on, and she was asked if it's true, as some Democrats are contending, that the vote in Wisconsin to deny unions full bargaining power was illegal because the Democrats weren't present. Kelly stated that special sessions do not have the same rules as regular sessions, therefore the vote was legal as far as she could tell.

And that is a lie, because the vote was illegal and she knows it. So if you watched the Factor you now think the vote was legal, when in fact, it was not, and you are now misinformed on the issue.

Step three:

To make sure his viewers did not know the facts, O'Reilly did not have any Democratic guests on the show to say the vote was illegal. That way nobody is on to report the truth, so it's like killing two birds with one stone.

And that is how O'Reilly put out right-wing propaganda in three easy steps. Now if someone who watched the Factor is asked in person, or in a poll, if the Wisconsin vote was legal, they will say yes, because they are misinformed. Thanks to Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly, who put out the right-wing propaganda that misinformed them.

The Friday 3-11-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 12, 2011 - 9:30am

O'Reilly oped the show talking about the earth quake in Japan, Geologist James Roddey was on to discuss it. Basically he said it was a very bad earthquake, and that something like that could also happen in the USA.

The TPM was called Death threats in Wisconsin. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The Attorney General's office in Wisconsin is investigating a number of death threats against Republicans who voted to diminish union power.

The situation is symptomatic of the bitter nationwide war going on between Republican cost-cutters and Democratic pro-union forces.

Death threats and the destruction of property have to be prosecuted. The media is partially at fault here, particularly the left-wing press, which has whipped its crowd into a fury.

Remember that Governor Walker's law diminishing union power can be overturned and the Governor can be recalled - we have ways in our system to deal with unjust laws.

Talking Points does not think the new union rules in Wisconsin are unjust, but they're tough and workers are going to get hurt in the quest to bring costs under control. But this violence is troubling and should be condemned by all loyal Americans.

We'll see if the left-wing press does that. I doubt it!
Wow, where do I start. To begin with, death threats are wrong, and the people who made them should be prosecuted. Then O'Reilly blamed the media, are you kidding me. When O'Reilly whipped up his right-wing base with Tiller The Baby Killer stuff for years, then Tiller is killed, O'Reilly said he had nothing to do with it, and you can not link him to the killing at all.

But now he wants to link the media to the death threats in Wisconsin. What a hypocrite, I guess it only counts when liberals do it. And finally Mr. I am a union guy thinks the new union rules in Wisconsin are not unjust, really, that does not sound link a union guy to me, in fact, it's anti-union. Proving once again that O'Reilly was lying when he said he was a union guy.

Then O'Dummy had Lou Dobbs on, and of course no Democratic guest to counter his right-wing spin. Dobbs said this About Governor Walker: "He is stripping away collective bargaining powers and constraining the size of government, which will save jobs because they won't have to raise taxes."

Dobbs also said President Obama's claim that domestic oil production is at a seven-year high is a lie. Dobbs said this: "The fact is that just about half the rigs in the Gulf of Mexico have been taken out of service. But I want to give the President credit because he talked about, for the first time in my memory, domestic oil production. Halelujah!"

Notice that O'Reilly let Dobbs call President Obama a liar, but when Bush was the President O'Reilly would not let anyone call him a liar. Because Bush is a Republican, proving once again the bias from O'Reilly.

Then O'Reilly had Chris Wallace on to ask if interruptions should be part of interviews. Which was a total waste of time that I will not report on. But I will say this, with all the important news out there right now, this is what O'Reilly decided to discuss, what a joke.

Then Geraldo was on to talk about the KKK and terorism. Democratic Congressman Al Green, while complaining about the hearings on Muslim terrorism, advocated a similar investigation of the Ku Klux Klan. Geraldo endorsed Green's overall sentiment, he said this: "I understand his larger point, which is that it's unfair to single out this one group. These hearings have divided people and they have made Muslims feel assailed. The last act of attempted terror in the United States was a neo-Nazi who planted a weapon of mass destruction. Why wouldn't a hearing on domestic terror include a heinous act like that?"

And of course O'Reilly disagreed, he told Geraldo that his comparison was way off the mark, Billy said this: "To raise this to the equivalency of the jihad is insane. If you look at the totality of the problem in the world, it is Muslim jihad generated."

And then it should have been the weekly Glenn Beck segment, but Beck is on vacation so instead of doing some real journalism for a change, O'Reilly played clips of past Beck segments. Are you kidding me, it was a waste of time to hear that Beck garbage the first time, now we have to see it again. What a joke, O'Reilly could have reported some real news, instead he made us watch re-runs of Beck nonsense.

And in the last segment O'Reilly had Tokyo radio host Kamasami Kong on to discuss it. Kong said this: "Last night you could hear people screaming and you could hear buildings creaking. Many people were stranded because trains and subways were shut down, but they're handling it about as well as can be expected. People are very well-behaved and everybody is most helpful."

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

Congressman King Caught Lying About Mosque Statement
By: Steve - March 12, 2011 - 9:00am

At Thursday's House Homeland Security Committee hearing, a parade of Democratic members, such as Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), and Rep. Lauren Richardson (D-CA), have reminded the public that Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is someone who previously said there are too many mosques in America.

At one point during the hearing, a colleague of King's, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), claimed that no one who was attending the hearing has ever claimed that there were too many mosques in America.

Congressman King then interrupted to assert that he had at one point claimed that there are too many mosques not cooperating with law enforcement, but not that there are too many mosques in America:
ROGERS: At no point have I ever heard a member of this committee on either side of the aisle assert that we have too many mosques, or too many Muslims, or anything of that kind, so I don't know where the ranking member got that idea.

KING: If the gentleman would yield from I think what the ranking member was doing I said that there are too many mosques that don't cooperate with law enforcement. I think testimony today has backed that up. I never said there were too many mosques in America.
And Congressman King is a 100% flat out liar. Because four years ago, Congressman King said that there were too many mosques in the United States:
KING: We have unfortunately, we have too many mosques in this country, too many people that are sympathetic to radical Islam. We should be looking at them more carefully. I think there's been a lack of full cooperation from too many people in the Muslim community. There's a real threat here in this country.
Bingo, King is officially busted. And now that he is a proven liar, he no longer has any credibility on the issue, and nothing he says about it can be trusted.

The Thursday 3-10-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 11, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Governor Walker wins in Wisconsin. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Last night, the Wisconsin state senate voted to limit the bargaining power of the public unions in that state. They did this using a procedure that allowed the vote despite the absence of Democratic senators who fled the state to avoid the union vote. The Wisconsin public unions are now diminished and there is mayhem in Madison.

Americans workers need protections, there's no question about that. But as we've said, some unions have struck corrupt bargains with politicians leading to enhanced worker benefits states cannot possibly pay.

Governor Walker and Republicans were voted in last November to get the financial situation under control. That's what the voters want.

Walker says he will add 250,000 jobs in Wisconsin because the unions are diminished. If that doesn't happen, Wisconsin voters should throw him out and reinstate union power. That's how democracy works.
Notice that O'Reilly failed to mention the procedure that allowed the vote was illegal. Then he said the states can not afford to pay the unions, when the pay they get is only about 3% of the states budget. O'Reilly also said Walker was voted in to fix the states financial problem, but he did not say that Walker never ran on taking collective bargaining rights away from the unions, so he was not voted in to do that.

Then O'Reilly said Walker will add 250,000 new jobs, but if he dont they should throw him out, as if that would justify taking the bargaining rights away from the unions. Does that sound like something a union guy would say, not to me. If O'Reilly is a union guy, I'm a Palin supporter.

Then the Liberal radio talk show host Sly Sylvester argued that Gov. Walker won the battle, but the workers of Wisconsin will win the war when Walker is recalled. Conservative commentator James Harris took issue with Mr. Sylvester and other Democrats who fled the state leading to the chaos.

O'Reilly also asked how quickly the recall effort could get on the ballot, it takes 500,000 signatures starting in 2012. The Factor concluded that Gov. Walker would not only avoid recall, he would get re-elected if he lives up to his promise and adds 250,000 new jobs.

And I predict Walker will be recalled, because all the polls show a vast majority of people in America, and Wisconsin, disagree with what Walker is doing. But as usual, O'Reilly supports the Republican.

Then O'Reilly had Keith Ellison on to talk about the King hearings on Muslim terrorism. Ellison (D-MN), a Muslim, broke into tears when he testified about a 23-year-old Muslim-American paramedic who was killed on 9/11, he said this: "Mohammed Salman Hamdani was a fellow American who gave his life for other Americans. His life should not be identified as just a member of an ethnic group, but as an American who did everything for his fellow Americans."

Ellison expressed concern that Muslims are being singled out by Rep. King. But of course O'Reilly challenged the Congressman on the difference between today's hearings and Bobby Kennedy's investigation of Italian-Americans linked to the Mafia. Ellison said that he would have no problem if his colleague in the House had decided to investigate al-Qaeda as an organization. Ellison also warned that, in the hearings, Congress needs to keep the focus on high-value information, not just supposition by witnesses without credibility.

Then the crazy Laura Ingraham was on to slam Obama, as she always does. She cried about Jeb Bush taking the stage with President Obama at an education forum last week, she said this: "Jeb Bush knows his state is a battleground state in the next election. He knows the President, for all intents and purposes, has kicked off his re-election bid. So it's a little interesting, to say the least, for Jeb Bush to offer his own credibility and his own gravitas to the President at this event."

And of course O'Reilly defended Bush, saying the two men were working towards one goal. Ingraham then accused the Obama administration of hypocrisy when it comes to advancing public education, citing its refusal to fund the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship to the tune of a mere $11 million.

Which is just laughable, because Ingraham and the Republicans want to get rid of the entire education department, talk about hypocrisy, that is the ultimate hypocrisy. She cries about Obama not funding an $11 million dollar scholarship when she wants to get rid of the entire department.

The White House initiated an anti-bullying campaign, the President even said he was bullied himself as a child. Ingraham said this: "The world is blowing up...and yet the administration spends an entire day on a school behavioral problem that is best left to localities and school districts."

What a joke, as if the President can not do more than one thing at a time, he's not George W. Bush, who could barely do one thing at a time. Obama is a smart man, and he can clearly do more than one thing at a time. Even O'Dummy disagreed with Ingraham, saying the administration can deal with multiple issues at the same time.

Then the culture warriors Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover were on to talk about a new Gallup poll that says 27% of Americans are now obese, with the most overweight people residing in West Virginia, Mississippi and Kentucky. The thinnest Americans live in Colorado, Hawaii and Utah.

They also talked about the spokesman for the Heart Attack Grill, who died before reaching his 30th birthday. The Boston Globe says the Heart Attack Grill should be closed down as a health hazard. Carlson said this: "Well this is America and this is a free country, so I do not agree with that." But Margaret Hoover thought the point of the restaurant is actually to make a mockery of this sort of food.

Then O'Reilly had Megyn Kelly on to talk about some Democrats are contending, that the vote in Wisconsin to deny unions full bargaining power was illegal because the Democrats weren't present. Kelly stated that special sessions do not have the same rules as regular sessions, therefore the vote was legal as far as she could tell.

Yeah right, and if you believe her I have some land to sell you. The vote was illegal, and she knows it. But of course you never hear that from O'Reilly or Kelly. They also talked about Charlie Sheen, which I will not report on because it's tabloid garbage.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum on for the ridiculous News Quiz. Which I do not report on because it's not news, and it's a total waste of time.

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

Photographer Slams Fox News For Their Dishonesty
By: Steve - March 11, 2011 - 10:00am

On March 3, 2011, Fox News used footage shot by a local Wisconsin photographer to falsely label Wisconsin union protesters as violent. The video showed protesters confronting Republican State Senator Glenn Grothman as he attempted to enter the Wisconsin capitol building.

Even though the video clearly showed no violence being committed, and also showed the protesters breaking into chants of peace and peaceful, Fox still depicted the crowd as "violent protesters" and an "angry union mob" who ambushed Grothman.

In a statement, Phil Ejercito -- the photographer who shot the video -- responded, slamming Fox News distortion of his material:
EJERCITO: It sickens me to see the truth so willfully distorted. In deciding to release this video, I considered how it would be used, but I (perhaps naively) believed that the facts in the video would speak for itself - the people of Wisconsin are angry, Senator Grothman got a well-deserved ribbing, the Walker administration's lockdown of the Capitol is misguided, and Representative Hulsey acted honorably.

It is simply astounding that the same faction of the right-wing that would claim that torture in Abu Ghraib was "fraternity hazing" would equate heckling as a "violent attack."

I initially refused to license my footage to Fox News, politely citing "qualms about the quality of Fox's reporting from here in Madison." Only upon receiving assurances that both Sen. Grothman and Rep. Hulsey would be available to provide context did I acquiesce.

Let there be no ambiguity: I condemn the use of my work to distort the truth about the spirited but non-violent protests here in Madison. I believe that this is a genuinely dangerous narrative that Fox News is helping to create.

I am deeply disturbed to consider that my work is being misused to establish a fictional narrative of violence by the working families of Wisconsin, and I encourage people to watch the entire clip on YouTube for themselves to understand the full context and decide for themselves what truthfully took place.
And as usual, O'Reilly never said a word about any of this. Because he approves of it, and he does the same stuff, because he is a biased partisan right-wing hack.

O'Reilly Said The AG Eric Holder Should Commit Suicide
By: Steve - March 11, 2011 - 9:30am

Think about this, when a Democratic member of Congress said the Republicans are using Hitler type propaganda in the Obama health care bill debate, O'Reilly went nuts and said it was wrong to use such a comparison.

Okay, so how is it then ok to call for the Attorney General of The United States to commit suicide. Simply because the President made a decision he does not agree with. That is exactly what the ridiculous Bill O'Reilly did.

After non-stop attacks on the Obama administration for saying they will close Guantanamo Bay prison, President Obama has changed his mind and decided to keep it open, so Fox News, rather than praise the decision, is now attacking Attorney General Eric Holder for not resigning because he has stated it should be closed.

In fact, resignation wasn't good enough for O'Reilly. He repeatedly suggested that Holder should commit suicide over this dishonor.

O'Reilly talked about Holder with attorneys Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle in the Is It Legal segment. O'Reilly said this: "Honorable people in Roman times killed themselves, in Japanese culture as well."

And that was not all, O'Reilly also said this: "In America, they resign... Shouldn't Holder resign because it violates his core principles of decency?"

When Lis Wiehl argued Holder should stay on, O'Reilly said this: "So he's a toady."

Now think about this, the Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was a total Bush toady, who did whatever Bush wanted for partisan reasons, even though the Attorney General is supposed to be objective and impartial. And not once did O'Reilly ever complain about what he did.

It's ridiculous, the Attorney General does not always agree with the President, but he does his job anyway, and he has no say in the decision to keep Gitmo open, or close it. To call for him to commit suicide simply because he thinks Gitmo should be closed is just laughable. He should not resign either, it's a simple political disagreement, not an ethical violation or anything.

Guilfoyle said Holder should resign "for this and many other reasons."

Then O'Reilly said this: "Now, you're a tough cookie, but you wouldn't go so far as to say Holder should commit seppuku."

"I don't think he should do that," Guilfoyle said.

O'Reilly sure loves to joke about beheading people, and calling for them to commit suicide, but when someone jokes that he should be killed, he calls for the feds to investigate, and says it is wrong.

Proving once again that not only is O'Reilly a total right-wing idiot, he is the king of hypocrisy and double standards.

Wisconsin GOP Anti-Union Vote Violated The Law
By: Steve - March 11, 2011 - 8:30am

Wednesday night, Wisconsin GOP lawmakers called a surprise conference committee meeting and then rammed an anti-union bill through the state senate. Even though, by forcing the bill through without legally required public notice, the senators may have ensured that the bill will be declared void.

Wisconsin law requires all government meetings to be conducted publicly and with advance notice except under very limited circumstances. And of course O'Reilly never reported a word about any of it.

According to a guide to Wisconsin's open meetings law prepared by the state's Republican attorney general:
The provision in Wisconsin requires that every public notice of a meeting be given at least twenty-four hours in advance of the meeting, unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical.

If good cause exists, the notice should be given as soon as possible and must be given at least two hours in advance of the meeting. If there is any doubt whether good cause exists, the governmental body should provide the full twenty-four-hour notice.

19.97(3) provides that a court may void any action taken at a meeting held in violation of the open meetings law if the court finds that the interest in enforcing the law outweighs any interest in maintaining the validity of the action.
When state Rep. Peter Barca (D) informed his colleagues of this legal requirement during the conference committee, the committee's Republican majority ignored his protests and voted to approve the bill while Barca was still explaining why their actions were illegal.

And of course O'Reilly reported on the vote, without saying a word about it being illegal, because he was covering for his right-wing friends, as he always does.

The Wednesday 3-9-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 10, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called The media wars in America continue. The biased Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Last night on the Factor we showed you the tape where two NPR fundraisers were seen to be sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and they don't like Republicans very much either. So why should Republicans pay their salaries or at least a portion of them? No longer can funding for public broadcasting be justified in this country.

And then there's the continuing Muslim controversy. As you may know, Congressman Peter King will begin holding hearings tomorrow. The House will look at the impact the jihad is having in America. Many on the left are appalled, comparing King to Joseph McCarthy and demonizing people who favor the hearings.
Akbar Ahmed, Ph.D., a professor of Islamic studies at American University, appeared on the show to answer for his op-ed in the New York Times which claimed O'Reilly had once compared the Koran to Mein Kampf.

O'Reilly argued that his comments were taken out of context, in a discussion of mandatory readings of the Koran after 9/11 being similar to mandatory readings of Mein Kampf after WWII.

Okay now get this, O'Reilly admits he did make the comparison, but he still claims professor Ahmed was wrong, and that he took his comments out of context. Dear O'Reilly, you compared the Koran to Mein Kampf, so shut up and take it like a man.

Then O'Reilly had another segment on Rep. King's Muslim hearings. O'Dummy said Americans are sick of the Obama administration "pussy footing" around when it comes to the Muslim terror situation. And Dick Morris was on to agree with him, Morris claimed that Obama is a hostage to the events over the Muslim problem, he said this: "As long as we're not hit, it won't be a big deal for him. But if we are hit, the minimizing of Muslim terrorism in America will hurt him."

Which is funny, because when we were hit on 9-11, Morris and all the Republicans turned Bush into a hero, even though he did nothing to stop the attacks, after he had the PDB that said Bin Laden plans to strike in America. So that's how it works, if we have a terrorist attack when a Republican is President, he is a hero, but if it happens under a Democratic President, then he gets the blame, even if he is using the same tactics Bush used after 9-11.

Then O'Reilly had a segment slamming Hillary Clinton, and he used the biased, partisan, Obama hating Col. Ralph Peters to do it. With of course no Democratic guests to counter the right-wing spin from O'Reilly and Peters.

In a Sky News interview, Clinton said the Gulf countries are now in support of a no-fly zone. When asked if she'd support a no-fly zone, she said she wants to see the international community endorse it instead.

This comment disturbed O'Reilly because Qaddafi is a terrorist and if he survives without the U.S. doing anything, it will send a terrible message. And what a shocker, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters agreed with O'Reilly, saying Arabs are begging the U.S. to intervene.

He thinks that America's lack of assertive action is essentially endorsing the way Qaddafi is tormenting his people. Peters said this: "It is so rare in the world of geo-strategic affairs to have such a black and white case of good and evil. Qaddafi is a terrorist chieftain, and until the advent of al Qaeda, responsible for more American deaths than any other terrorist chieftain. His own people are rising up against him with rocks and rifles, fighting his tanks, begging for our help. And Obama votes present."

Now ignore all that right-wing spin, and remember that both O'Reilly and Peters hate Clinton and Obama because they are Democrats, so they never have anything good to say about either one of them. It's nothing but right-wing propaganda, so their views on the issue have no credibility.

Then O'Reilly had Factor producer Jesse Watters hit the streets at Columbia University looking for answers to the so-called Muslim problem. Which was such a joke it's not even worth reporting on. This was not journalism, and it was not even close. Nobody is saying there is not a Muslim terrorism problem, what they are saying is that when O'Reilly says it is a Muslim problem, he makes it sound like all Muslims are terrorists, which is just not true. And they just want him to say it's a Muslim "terrorism" problem, instead of "Muslim" problem.

Then O'Reilly had Dennis Miller on, which I do not report on because it is not news, and he is a comedian. But I will say this, O'Reilly, Miller, and the right-wing in America are now slamming Obama and Holder for changing his mind on Gitmo. Which is what they wanted him to do in the first place, so Obama is damned if he does, and damned if he dont. It shows that O'Reilly and the right slam Obama even when he does what they wanted him to do, for purely partisan political reasons.

And finally in the last segment Dagen McDowell was on for did you see that. The two videos they showed were ridiculous, the first one showed Sen. Harry Reid saying he opposes federal spending cuts to programs like NPR and the National Endowment of the Arts, claiming that the programs create jobs and put on events like the Cowboy Poetry Festival.

The second video was about a meeting in 1983 where Saddam Hussein gave Donald Rumsfeld a video of Syrian women biting the heads off of snakes and stabbing puppies. The Secretary of Defense released the video on his website to illustrate the problem that is the Middle East. Really O'Reilly, who cares. And those are must see videos, are you kidding me, with millions of videos floating around, that is the best you could do.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, that O'Reilly and his staff hand pick then edit, and the lame pinheands and patriots vote, that is just stupid and a total waste of time.

Fox News Town Hall Protester Hypocrisy & Double Standards
By: Steve - March 10, 2011 - 9:30am

On Wednesday morning Fox & Friends responded to a video of Wisconsin union supporters protesting at a town hall hosted by GOP lawmakers by calling the protesters a "mob" and complaining that they weren't "civil."

But the same Fox & Friends crew promoted and encouraged similar protests by opponents of health care reform at Democrats town hall meetings in August 2009.

On the March 9th Fox & Friends, the co-hosts responded to video of a town hall meeting held by GOP lawmakers in Wisconsin that was disrupted by labor protesters. Co-host Steve Doocy complained that "they're there to talk about things and talk about what's going on and, ultimately, these lefty interrupters shut down the debate. Actually there was no debate, they shut down all conversation."

Co-host Gretchen Carlson stated: "The problem was they had been given ground rules before, but that some people didn't follow the rules."

But when Republicans did the very same thing, Fox & Friends hosted another Fox analyst Peter Johnson, who said this to the Protesters: "We Thank You For Representing Americans, And We Hope That Other Americans Get Out There."

Johnson also said this about the Republicans who protested at a Democratic town hall meeting: "We Need To Have This Every Day Throughout August."

So on Fox you are a great American if you are a Republican protesting what a Democrat is doing. But if a Democrat does the very same thing, they are an out of control mob who are not being civil.

It's the ultimate hypocrisy, and a giant double standard. But you never hear a word about any of this from O'Reilly, or Bernie Goldberg, as they deny that Fox has a right-wing bias, and attack anyone that says they do.

Morning Joe Panel Calls O'Keefe Video A Non-Story
By: Steve - March 10, 2011 - 9:00am

If you want a perfect example of the right-wing bias from Bill O'Reilly, here it is. O'Reilly used the edited and worthless video to claim it justifies cutting all the funding for NPR.

But the Morning Joe Panel, which includes the Republican Joe Scarborough dismissed the video as a non-story.



So in O'Reilly world, the bogus video is proof we should defund NPR. While at the very same time, honest journalists are dismissing the video as a non-story. And notice that when O'Reilly reported on the video Tuesday night, he never disclosed who is funding the partisan and dishonest James O'Keefe.

But when a liberal reports something about a Republican, the first thing O'Reilly does is report who is paying them.

Top 10 Things Newt Gingrich Does Not Want You To Know
By: Steve - March 10, 2011 - 8:30am

The former Fox News political analyst, and the good friend of Bill O'Reilly, Newt Gingrich, who O'Reilly said is a very smart man, and who still calls him Speaker, has a lot of things he does not want you to know about him.

As Gingrich begins the long process of possibly running for President, he is likely to take every effort to mold his image to make himself palatable to American voters. Yet the public deserves to know every important detail about the history of the man who may seek to be their leader.

ThinkProgress has assembled a list of ten things Gingrich probably doesn't want you to know about him

1) One of Gingrich's main themes over the past few years has been the need to stop the secular socialist takeover of America, which he blames for the demise of the family. Yet he had several affairs while attacking President Bill Clinton for his own. He justified his hypocrisy to his second wife once, telling her, "It doesn't matter what I do."

2) The politics of the mid-1990's was marked by the right's attempt to decimate the social safety net. As Gingrich waged his campaign to destroy unemployment insurance and aid for needy families, he made his own district the recipient of huge amounts of federal aid.

Under Gingrich, his district in Cobb County, GA received more federal subsidies than any suburban county in the country, with two exceptions: Arlington Virginia, effectively part of the Federal Government, and Brevard County Florida, the home of the Kennedy Space Center.

3) Talking to PBS just four years ago, Gingrich said, "I think if you have mandatory caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, then there's a package that's very, very good. And frankly, it's something I would strongly support."

He even cut an ad with House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) warning of the dangers of climate change. But two years later, Gingrich flip-flopped in favor of pandering to far-right views on the environment.

4) Showing that his cynicism knows no bounds, Gingrich blamed "the liberal academic elite, the liberal political elite" for the Columbine shootings in Littleton, CO. He followed the same script after the massacre at Virginia Tech, saying liberalism is responsible for the "dehumanization" that led to the killings.

A group of crazy high school kids shoot up a school, and Gingrich blames it on liberals, even though it's the right that is in the back pocket of the NRA. Not to mention, after the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and the media reported the Palin rifle scope crosshair map with her name on it, Gingrich said it was ridiculous to link Palin to it.

5) During last winter's debate over extending the Bush tax cuts, Gingrich said that we should "have the business leadership of the country decide the number" of months that the cuts for the wealthiest should last. Which is like saying we should let a bank robber decide if he should go to jail for robbing banks or not.

6) One of the things Gingrich has pushed over the past year is that Democrats are the party of food stamps because they believe in federal food assistance. But in 2002, when President Bush proposed expanding some food stamp programs, Gingrich backed him, saying that the welfare reform law he helped author in the 90's went too far in cutting food assistance for the poor.

Basically he is saying that he supports food stamps, but only when we have a Republican President in office.

7) Gingrich helped found a number of major businesses, including a for-profit health care firm called the Center for Health Transformation, and a communications firm called the Gingrich Group. CHT serves approximately 94 health industry corporations and lobby groups. Despite many meetings with Republican lawmakers to shape health care legislation, Gingrich refuses to register as a lobbyist.

8) During the debate over the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor, Gingrich took to his Twitter account to say that Sotomayor, is a "latina woman racist" so she should withdraw from the nomination. It was so stupid that even most Republicans said it was a bad thing to say.

9) In 2008, Gingrich suggested "insurance mandates for people who earn more than $75,000 a year." Yet in 2010, when Obama was the President, he was blasting the mandate as unconstitutional.

Basically he was saying he supports the mandate when a Republican is in the White House, but when a Democrat gets in he is opposed to the mandates.

And the worst one yet, Gingrich does not want anyone to know he said this.

10) During a book tour, Gingrich told an audience in a speech that the Bush administration had been very successful at intercepting terrorists, but had not gotten credit for it, explaining that maybe we should've "allowed an attack to get through to remind" Americans about the danger of terrorism.

Yes he actually said that, he wanted to see Americans die in a terrorist attack to remind people about the dangers of terrorism. As if we do not know that terrorism is a danger. That may be the dumbest thing Gingrich has ever said, and of course O'Reilly never mentioned it one time in all the times Gingrich was on the Factor over the last 2 or 3 years.

Now here is my question, the next time Gingrich does the O'Reilly Factor, will O'Reilly bring up any of this, or ask him questions about any of it.

Are you kidding me, or course not, O'Reilly will ignore it all and even help to cover it up for his good buddy Newt. Because if anyone else in the media reports it, O'Reilly will attack them as partisan smear doctors, even though it's all true.

The Tuesday 3-8-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 9, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called House hearings on Muslim terrorism in America. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: This week, the House Homeland Security Committee will begin hearings on whether Muslim terrorism is gaining ground in America...But some on the left adamantly oppose the hearings and go even further than that - they are denying that the Muslim jihad is the world's biggest terror threat.

The far-left believes that the U.S. has provoked Muslim extremists by backing Israel and doing business with the oil sheikhs. To radicals on the left, the jihadists are simply misguided and would stop their terrible killings if only we understood them and changed our foreign and domestic policies.
As usual O'Reilly is lying, the left does not deny that the Muslim jihad is the world's biggest terror threat, in fact we admit it, we just do not want to label all Muslims as terrorists, for what 1% of the Muslim terrorists do. And as Colmes pointed out since 2001 the Muslim terrorists have only killed an average of 3 people a year. So it's not this big threat O'Reilly and the right make it out to be.

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to discuss it. Colmes compared Rep. Peter King's upcoming hearings on Muslim terrorism in the U.S. to the House on American Activities Committee sniffing out Communists. He said Congressman King is pointing fingers at Muslims only.

Monica Crowley, argued that the left is engaging in moral equivalency, trying to make the radical right similar to Muslim jihadists. She defended Congressman King, saying he is just trying to identify the root causes of radicalization in America.

And of course O'Reilly agreed with the Republican nut Crowley, then O'Dummy said this: "I just wants to see what evidence is presented at the hearings before I decide whether it's a worthwhile endeavor."

The hearings are a joke, it's just right-wing garbage to appeal to their far-right base. And O'Reilly is a joke for supporting them, what good with they do, no good as far as I can tell. Except to probably make more Muslims mad at us, which is not helping our cause.

Then O'Reilly had Karl Rove on to talk about Gitmo. Obama ordered the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. But this week, he announced that he is resuming military tribunals at Gitmo and reinforced the fact that the USA can detain suspected Muslim terrorists captured overseas indefinitely. Crazy O'Reilly wondered why the media has been silent on President Obama's reversal, except it's been reported everywhere, O'Reilly just ignores it.

Rove said he does not think the change of course will look like a severe flip-flop unless military tribunals are ramped up at Gitmo. Rove also said President Obama has finally faced the reality that civilian courts are not designed and were never intended to handle illegal enemy combatants.

Then O'Reilly had a segment on the new James O'Keefe edited tape. And of course O'Reilly supports O'Keefe, even though he has no credibility, and all his tapes are highly edited.

James O'Keefe, arranged an undercover sting of a luncheon between two NPR fundraisers and what they thought were potential Muslim donors, wanting to spread Sharia law worldwide. Ron Schiller was on the tape and he said that there's an anti-intellectual movement in a significant part of the Republican party, he called the Tea Party scary.

Schiller also said Juan Williams deserved to get fired because he lost all credibility. Ok, so tell me what part of that is not true O'Reilly, it's all true. Schiller was fired by NPR after the sting video came out. But NPR points out that the two fundraisers did not accept a bogus $5 million check from the "donors" at the luncheon.

O'Reilly argued that public money can longer flow into an organization with a committed left tilt, and NPR and PBS should compete in the marketplace. Yeah because they do reports on O'Reilly and the right that expose their lies, which is the real reason O'Reilly and the right want to cut all their funding.

Then John Stossel was on to talk about Charlie Sheen, which I will not report on because it's tabloid garbage. But I will say this. Last week O'Reilly was complaining that the media was exploiting Charlie Sheen for ratings, and yet, he reports on the man almost every damn night, so he is as bad as the rest of the media, maybe worse.

In the next segment O'Reilly had Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle on to talk more about Gitmo. Wiehl said Holder's authority has not been undermined because his job dictates that he be beholden to the President. Guilfoyle said Holder should resign.

They also talked about a story about a Worcester gentlemen's club, a bouncer savagely beat a patron he believed was selling drugs in the club. The bouncer is facing state prison time for falsely imprisoning the man in the club's bathroom, and whole incident was caught on tape. They also talked about Lindsay Lohan, which I will not report on because it's more tabloid garbage.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Charles Krauthammer on to talk about the 2012 Republican frontrunners. George Will listed five men he believes are top contenders for the Republican nomination in 2012: Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, John Huntsman, Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty. All the men are either governors or former governors.

Krauthammer contended the names missing from the list are not serious candidates: Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin. Krauthammer said that while it looks like Gingrich will in fact run, he doesn't have much of a chance because he's undisciplined and he has a lot of baggage.

O'Reilly said that the fact that nobody has heard of most of these five men must make President Obama feel pretty confident, but Krauthammer reminded him that at this time in the 2008 process, most Americans didn't really know Barack Obama.

But none of them were African American, and it is not at a time when the economy is in crisis, like it was after Bush had ruined the country, when Obama ran. I predict none of those right-wing stooges will beat Obama. And Gingrich just runs to increase his speaking fees, he even admitted it to Palin.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame pinheads and patriots vote that nobody cares about.

O'Reilly Proves How Stupid He Is Again
By: Steve - March 9, 2011 - 10:30am

This is so stupid I am stunned that a Harvard graduate would even say such a thing. O'Reilly said that Barack Obama had the "huge advantage of being the first black ever running."



Really, Obama had this huge advantage because he was the first black to ever run for President. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

To begin with Barack Obama was not the first African American to run for President. In fact, there are so many African Americans who have run for President in the past it makes O'Reilly look like a giant fool.

In 2 seconds using a google search, I found a listing of the first African American to run for President. In 1960 Frank R Beckwith, the Civil Rights leader from Indianapolis, was the first African American ever to be nominated by his home state to become a National Convention Presidential candidate. He was a Republican and made a second bid for President in 1964.

Now remember this, O'Reilly makes a reported $10 million dollars a year, and he has a staff of people who research this kind of stuff, but I found this in 2 seconds from a home PC all by myself. The list is very long, showing that O'Reilly would not know the facts if you paid him.

Here is a list of all the other African Americans who ran for President:

1960 Clennon Washington King, Jr.
1964 Jazz great Dizzy Gillespie
1964 Clifton DeBerry - he ran again in 1980
1968 Charlene Mitchell
1968 Dick Gregory
1972 Shirley Chisholm
1972 Water E Fauntroy
1980 Clifton DeBerry
1984 & 1988 Reverend Jesse Jackson
1984 & 1988 Larry Holmes
1984, 1992, 1996, 2000 Isabell Masters
1988 Lenora Fulani ran for President and was the first African American to be on the ballot in all 50 states
1992 Joan Jett Blakk (a.k.a.) Terence Smith
1992 Ronald Daniels
1992 Helen Halyard
1996 & 2000 Alan Keyes
1996 & 2000 James Harris
1996 & 2000 Monica Moorehead
2004 Carol Moseley Braun
2004 Reverend Al Sharpton
2004 John Parker
2008 Elaine Brown
2008 Cynthia McKinney
2008 Barack Hussein Obama

On top of being so wrong about Obama being the first African American to ever run for President, it was not a huge advantage. In the mostly white America, with a lot of white people who hate African Americans, it was not an advantage at all, it was a disadvantage.

If it was an advantage to run for President as the first African American, Jesse Jackson or some other African American would have won a long time ago. So on both points O'Reilly was really wrong, and dead wrong.

O'Reilly Spins The Quinnipiac Temperature Poll
By: Steve - March 9, 2011 - 9:30am

Now get this, on the Monday O'Reilly Factor show, durIng the so-called Reality Check segment O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: New Quinnipiac temperature poll: Which politician do you feel warmest about? Michelle Obama 60.1 degrees, Bill Clinton 59.2 degrees, Chris Christie 57 degrees, Barack Obama 56.5 degrees.

And the politicians bringing up the rear in the warmth category: Harry Reid 34.8 degrees and Nancy Pelosi 32.9 degrees.
Think about that for a minute, O'Reilly said bringing up the rear is Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. He implied that only Democrats were bringing up the rear, and that was done in the Reality Check segment.

But what he did not report is that right above Reid at (34.8%) is Sarah Palin 38.2%. So she is bringing up the rear too, but O'Reilly never said a word about her, because she is a friend, and a right-winger.

And that's not all, out of the 23 people listed the 5 next lowest people after Reid are all Republicans, funny how O'Reilly just forgot to mention that. Here are the bottom 7, in order.

17) Rick Santorum - 43.9
18) George W. Bush - 43.9
19) Haley Barbour - 43.5
20) Newt Gingrich - 42.7
21) Sarah Palin - 38.2
22) Harry Reid - 34.8
23) Nancy Pelosi - 32.9

And here are some more facts O'Reilly left out, the list has 18 Republicans and 5 Democrats. Other than Reid and Pelosi all the other Democrats came in at 56.5 degrees or higher.

Out of the 18 Republicans only 5 Republicans came in at 50 degrees or higher, the other 13 Republicans were at less than 50 degrees.

Funny how O'Reilly just forgot to report all those facts, yeah he just forgot, and I'm Donald Trump too.

The Monday 3-7-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 8, 2011 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Far left steps up to help American union workers. crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There is no movement in Wisconsin as the union stalemate goes into its fourth week. And Americans remain divided somewhat over Governor Scott Walker whether he is right in trying to diminish union power or the workers are correct in trying to maintain their status.

Enter far-left bomb thrower Michael Moore who traveled to Wisconsin over the weekend ... So the question is does Mr. Moore help or hurt the union cause in the court of public opinion? "Talking Points" believes that independent Americans see Moore's presence as evidence that union demonstrators are not mainstream. Especially when Moore says stuff like this:

MOORE: America is not broke. Not by a long shot. Wisconsin is not broke. It's one of the three biggest lies of the last decade.

O'REILLY: Well, if facts mean anything, Moore is not telling the truth. The nation owes more than $14 trillion and Wisconsin has a $3.6 billion short fall... There's no question that public union benefits are breaking the bank. So, on this very intense controversy there is truth, Michael Moore, and it is grizzly."
So let me get this straight, one far-left guy (Moore) goes to Wisconsin to speak out for the unions, and that equals the entire far-left, so the Independents will turn against the unions. What a ridiculous load of right-wing garbage. Independents will either support or oppose the unions, depending on whether they lean left or lean right, Michael Moore going to Wisconsin will have no effect at all on what Independents think.

Then O'Reilly had Ellis Henican and Andrea Tantaros on to discuss it. Henican argued that Michael Moore is helping the union cause. Ellis reminded O'Reilly that he is not Moore's target demo, but many people actually listen to the filmmaker when he says the middle class is being squeezed, and he's successful at energizing and focusing the base. The conservative Andrea Tantaros disagreed of course, arguing that Michael Moore hurts the union cause.

What a shocker, she agreed with the right-wing spin O'Reilly put out. And Moore told the truth, as usual O'Reilly put a spin on what Moore said by showing a partial quote from Moore, while not showing what he said after that. Moore said America has plenty of money, but all the crooks at the top now have it all, and he is right. If not for the housing scandal, the finance scandal, the wall street scandal, none of the states would be so far in debt.

Then O'Reilly had Brit Hume on to talk about Obama and Libya. Qaddafi is using violence against his own people to hang onto power. Monday, President Obama said the violence is unacceptable and warned Qaddafi's inner circle that they will be held accountable for the continued violence.

Hume said this: "The first thing President Obama should do is stop making threatening statements without any sort of sense of what he's going to do to back them up." Brit also thinks Obama should set up a no-fly zone over Libya as soon as possible.

But even O'Reilly said he was worried that the Arab world and al Qaeda will use any military intervention by the USA against us. And for once O'Dummy is right, and Hume is of course a total idiot. Because a week ago the right said Obama was not being tough enough with Qaddafi, so Obama got tough, and now the right is slamming him for getting tough. What a joke, with Hume and the right, Obama is damned if he does, and damned if he dont. When he does what they want him to, they still slam him, it's ridiculous.

Then O'Reilly had Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham on. O'Reilly said this: "With union conflict raging in the USA and the Middle East in chaos, President Obama is perceived in some quarters as not being aggressive enough in addressing both problems. But is that fair?"

Juan Williams cautioned that we don't want to be involved in a third war in Libya or give Qaddafi ammunition against the "imperialist" Americans. Mary K. Ham (AKA The Joker) accused the President of being all talk: "Barack Obama, since the campaign, has been a guy who makes grand pronouncements, and then he's sort of done."

Which is the same thing Bush did for 8 years, but she had no problem with him doing it. President make grand pronouncements, that is what they do.

On the subject of Michael Moore, O'Dummy asserted the documentary filmmaker is hurting the unions by showing up in Wisconsin. Juan thought the move makes the unions happy because they're desperate for media attention; Mary K. Ham said Moore is making the union protesters look like the fringe rather than the mainstream.

Proving that O'Reilly and Ham are idiots. Because Moore showing up in Wisconsin does not make the protesters look like they are on the fringe, that is just crazy right-wing propaganda, and only right-wing loons believe it. Especially when all the polls show the majority of Americans support the unions, how can that be on the fringe Ham you moron.

Then O'Reilly had Erica Payne and Stuart Varney on to talk oil prices. And I have another blog post about what they said, it was mostly lies and right-wing propaganda.

In the next segment O'Reilly had the total right-wing loser Bernie Goldberg on to cry about what the NY Times editor Bill Keller said about Fox News, even though what he said is true. Keller slammed their fair and balanced slogan, and basically said the Fox viewers are the most uninformed people in America. Ok Billy and Bernie, tell me what part of that is not true, it's all 100% true. Goldberg and O'Reilly basically spent the entire segment crying about what Keller said, when it's all true.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had his fraud of a Reality Check propaganda. Which I do not report on, because it's pretty much just right-wing spin from O'Reilly on something someone else said. But I will say this, in one check O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: New Quinnipiac temperature poll: Which politician do you feel warmest about? Michelle Obama 60.1 degrees, Bill Clinton 59.2 degrees, Chris Christie 57 degrees, Barack Obama 56.5 degrees. And the politicians bringing up the rear in the warmth category: Harry Reid 34.8 degrees and Nancy Pelosi 32.9 degrees.
O'Reilly put a spin on that poll, and I will have a blog posting about it tomorrow, showing the bias from O'Reilly, by who he left out of the poll, and what place they were at.

O'Reilly & Varney Speculate About Oil Prices
By: Steve - March 8, 2011 - 9:30am

Before I show you what O'Reilly and Varney said, think about this, O'Reilly said he does not speculate, and that he does not allow any speculation on his show. Then O'Reilly and Varney speculated that President Obama is conspiring to keep oil prices high.

They have no evidence that any of that is true, and they did not provide any evidence, so it's 100% pure speculation, breaking O'Reilly's own rules.



On top of the speculation Stuart Varney was making some crazy statements. At one point in the segment Varney said this: "We don't have a supply problem."

Then a few minutes later the lunatic said this: "we need to increase supply to get prices lower."

Which makes no sense, if there is not a supply problem, how will increasing the supply get prices lower, it's crazy talk. And of course O'Reilly just let him spin out that right-wing nonsense.

They even both called for drilling in ANWR, and anywhere else we have oil. Which also makes no sense and we have been through all this before.

Experts have said that expanding domestic production of fossil fuels would not shield the U.S. from volatility in the global price of oil. The DOE also agrees that domestic off-shore drilling will not affect Oil and gas prices.

Even the expert at the right-wing American Enterprise Institute said it will not lower oil and gas prices. Ken Green from AEI wrote this on 1-14-11:
If gas prices keep increasing, Republicans probably will make a push on increased fossil fuel production, said Ken Green, resident scholar with the American Enterprise Institute think tank.

Crude oil is a global commodity.

"The world price is the world price," Green said. "Even if we were producing 100 percent of our oil," he said, if prices increase because of a shortage in China or India, "our price would go up to the same thing.

"We probably couldn't produce enough to affect the world price of oil," Green added. "People don't understand that."
Other experts said this:
U.S. production could be negated by decisions that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries makes, said Philip Verleger Jr., energy economist, and David Mitchell EnCana, professor of management, at the University of Calgary's business school.

"Suppose the U.S. were to boost production 1 million barrels a day," Verleger said. "OPEC has the capacity to cut 1 million barrels."
From PolitiFact's evaluation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's statement that a 5 percent increase in domestic production would increase the world supply by less than 1 percent and do almost nothing to our dependence on foreign oil.

This would also have virtually no effect on the price of gas at the pump:
For starters, the lead time for oil exploration takes years. Even if offshore drilling areas opened up tomorrow, experts say it would take at least 10 years to realize any significant production. And even then, they say, the U.S. contribution to the overall global oil market would not be enough to make a significant dent in the price of gas.

"Drilling offshore to lower oil prices is like walking an extra 20 feet per day to lose weight," said David Sandalow, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and author of Freedom from Oil. "It's just not going to make much difference."

We ran Wasserman Schultz's claim by Jamie Webster, a senior consultant with PFC Energy, which tracks oil production and demand globally and whose clients are governments, including the United States, and oil and gas companies.

We also heard from Daniel J. Weiss, who has written extensively about oil prices and policy and is a senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress. Both Webster and Weiss agreed with Wasserman Schultz.

Wasserman Schultz's math adds up -- Gulf drilling does indeed represent about 5 percent of current domestic production, and a 5 percent increase would barely register in terms of the world supply.

And the experts we found for this Truth-O-Meter as well as ones cited in the past about McCain's claim agree that expanding drilling now would have little effect at the pump any time soon. We rate this claim True.
And btw folks, O'Reilly and Varney also said the government makes more money the higher gas prices go, when that is a lie. Because the federal government makes 18.4 cents a gallon, so it's a fixed rate not a percentage. And in fact, the government actually loses money when gas prices get close to $4.00 a gallon, because people drive less. So O'Reilly and Varney were dead wrong.

Which proves beyond a doubt that Bill O'Reilly and Stuart Varney are nothing but lying, speculating, right-wing spin doctors.

O'Reilly Ignoring The Main Street Movement Story
By: Steve - March 8, 2011 - 8:30am

O'Reilly claims to look out for the folks, he says he is a watchdog for the average working man, which he calls the folks. But it's all a scam, and a fraud, because he ignores all the news about the folks, and defends the wealthy, the corporations, and the Republican Party, who do not give a damn about the folks.

There is a group called the main street movement, who actually defend the middle class, and O'Reilly has not said a word about them.

Last week, the National People's Action and the Public Accountability Initiative, both of whom are organizing the Make Wall Street Pay protests, put out a report, "Big Bank Tax Drain."

The report lays out the costs that average Americans -- who are being asked to sacrifice their education, their health, and their pensions -- incur from the egregious tax dodging by the big banks.

And O'Reilly never said a word about any of it.

Then on Monday, hundreds of people from Make Wall Street Pay, one member of a larger Main Street Movement that seeks to defend the American middle class, shut down a Bank of America branch in Washington, D.C. over the bank's tax dodging.

In 2009, the bank used loopholes in the tax code to avoid paying any taxes. The protesters, many of them homeowners who had been abused by the bank's mortgage policies, were outraged that the nation's biggest bank was paying less taxes than they were in 2009.

In one really shocking statistic, the report notes that the six biggest banks in the United States together paid "income tax at an approximate rate of 11 percent in 2009 and 2010.

If they had paid 35 percent, which is the legally mandated rate without loopholes, the federal government would have received "$13 billion in tax revenue" -- a sum which would cover the salaries, for two years, of every single one of the 132,000 teachers laid off since the beginning of the economic recession:
Six banks -- Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley together paid income tax at an approximate rate of 11% of their pre-tax US earnings in 2009 and 2010.

Had they paid at 35%, what they are legally mandated to pay, the federal government would have received an additional $13 billion in tax revenue.

This would cover more than two years of salaries for the 132,000 teacher jobs lost since the economic crisis began in 2008.
As the Wonk Room's Pat Garofalo writes, "Though the U.S. has a high statutory corporate tax rate, the effective tax rate that corporations actually pay is far lower, due to the myriad loopholes and credits in the corporate tax code, as well as the widespread sheltering of income in tax havens.

As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found, 'corporate tax revenues are now at historical lows as a share of the economy.'"

In addition to shutting down a local Bank of America branch, Make Wall Street Pay protesters also demonstrated outside the convention of the National Association of Attorneys General, demanding action on the foreclosure crisis.

They also flooded the offices of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), demanding that both support policies that would make big Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup pay their fair share before attacking investments and crucial services in Main Street America.

And the great journalist, the man who claims to look out for the folks, Bill O'Reilly, has not reported one word about this story.

Pension Facts You Will Not See On The Factor
By: Steve - March 7, 2011 - 9:30am

For weeks O'Reilly has said the Republican Governor in Wisconsin is right, and that state wages, pensions, and benefits are bankrupting the state. Even though it is not true, and the facts prove it. O'Reilly still spins out the right-wing talking points on it, because he is a Republican.

O'Reilly uses biased stats and right-wing talking points from partisan sources, with roughly 90% right-wing guests on to discuss it. but he never reports any of these facts, because they prove him wrong, and they prove that the Governor of Wisconsin is lying to but the unions he hates.

Here are a few quotes from a McClatchy Newspaper article about the issue, this is the headline:

Why Employee Pensions Aren't Bankrupting States.

WASHINGTON -- From state legislatures to Congress to tea party rallies, a vocal backlash is rising against what are perceived as too-generous retirement benefits for state and local government workers. However, that widespread perception doesn't match reality.

A close look at state and local pension plans across the nation, and a comparison of them to those in the private sector, reveals that there's simply no evidence that state pensions are the current burden to public finances that their critics claim.

Pension contributions from state and local employers aren't blowing up budgets. They amount to just 2.9 percent of state spending, on average, according to the National Association of State Retirement Administrators. The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College puts the figure a bit higher at 3.8 percent.

Though there's no direct comparison, state and local pension contributions approximate the burden shouldered by private companies. The nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute estimates that retirement funding for private employers amounts to about 3.5 percent of employee compensation.

So anyway you look at it, it's less than 4% of a states budget. Which means it could not possibly be the cause of most of the debt. In fact, 96% of the state debt is not from state pensions.

States having the biggest problems with pension obligations tend to be struggling with overall fiscal woes -- New Jersey and Illinois in particular. Many states are now wrestling with underfunding because they didn't contribute enough during boom years.

Defenders of the public pension system say anti-government, anti-union elected officials and interest groups have exaggerated the problem to score political points, and that as the economy heals, public pension plans will gain value and prove critics wrong.

"There's a window that's closing as market conditions improve and interest rates rise, the funding of these plans is going to look better than depicted by some," insisted Keith Brainard, the director of research for the National Association of State Retirement Administrators in Georgetown, Texas.

Ironically, in Wisconsin, where Republican Gov. Scott Walker is trying to weaken public-sector unions and reduce pension benefits, he's exempted police and firefighters, who are among the most unionized public employees. And Wisconsin's public-sector pension plan still has enough assets today to cover more than 18 years of benefits. Also fueling backlash is the perception that state and local workers don't contribute to their own retirement funds the way private sector workers do. But only four states have non-contribution public pension plans; Florida, Utah, Oregon and Connecticut.

Notice that none of this information is ever reported by O'Reilly, instead he cites polls from Rasmussen and Dick Morris that are biased to the right, and virtually worthless. With non-stop right-wing guests on to spin it with him.

But the big story O'Reilly ignores, is how this is a plan by the Republican party to take money away from the unions, who mostly give money to Democrats, and vote for Democrats. That way they can win more elections by outspending the Democratic candidate.

Union money helps to balance out the corporations and the wealthy who mostly give money to Republicans. And the Republicans hate that because it cost them a lot of elections, so they want to bust the unions and cut the money they have to give to candidates. Making it an unfair playing field, where the Republicans get all the money.

O'Reilly never mentions any of this, or the prank call by a fake Koch brother to Governor Walker, that shows Walker is a lying con-man who is part of the Republican party plan to bust the unions and take money away from them.

O'Reilly even claims to be a union guy, but when you look at the stats and the evidence I just showed you he ignores, it's clear that he is not a union guy, and that he is as big of a right-wing spin doctor on the issue as Hannity, Limbaugh, or Beck, etc.

O'Reilly Ignores Republican Dirty Tricks Story
By: Steve - March 7, 2011 - 8:30am

Last Wednesday, just moments before a key committee in the Ohio State Senate was to vote on a GOP bill that would effectively dismantle public employees right to collectively bargain, the Senate's Republican leader replaced a GOP committee member who opposed the bill with someone who supported it to ensure the measure passed.

It was a brazen and nearly unprecedented move, and even more so considering that State Sen. Bill Seitz (R) told ThinkProgress that he is good friends with, and has been roommates for ten years with State Senate President Tom Niehaus, who yanked Seitz off the committee.

In a telephone interview with ThinkProgress yesterday afternoon, Seitz recounted how he was informed of the move by his good friend Niehaus just a half hour before the vote.

Seitz, a conservative Republican who proudly noted that he works for a management-side law firm founded by the namesake of the very pro-management Taft-Hartley Act, said he supports 85 percent of Senate Bill 5, but ultimately opposed it because it goes to far.

Asked about his abrupt removal from the committee, Seitz said it was not unheard of, but not commonplace. He couldn't recall a time when something similar had occurred in the Senate. Moreover, he noted that his abrupt removal sends a bad signal to Ohio workers concerned about their own future:
SEITZ: I told Niehaus I'm not sure it looks real good, particularly in the context of a management rights bill, to have you exercise management rights over your own roommate, friend, and fellow party member.

Because if that's what can happen to a sitting state senator, what's going to happen to you if you're a nervous firefighter, teacher, or policeman -- what's going to happen to you if this bill passes?
Asked whether Niehaus's move may have violated Senate rules because the president failed to officially declare the committee change before it went into effect, Seitz said that while he has not independently researched it, he was of the opinion that an official declaration was required.

Seitz said he raised the concern with Niehaus, who said that he had been advised by his legal counsel that he had the legal authority to do it whenever he wanted to.

"I didn't feel like arguing about it," Seitz added.

Seitz said he firmly supports the right of state employees to collectively bargain, but that there needs to be reforms -- he just thinks S.B. 5 overreaches.

"I don't think you need to so totally eviscerate collective bargaining to achieve those results," Seitz said. "And I say that informed by an employer's perspective of labor law," he added.

Most objectionable for Seitz is the bill's replacement of a binding arbitration process with one that greatly favors management over employees. "It's tantamount to someone being both a judge and advocate in their own case. It's tantamount to heads I win, tails you lose," Seitz said.

This is a big story about Republican dirty tricks in Ohio, and yet, O'Reilly totally ignored it. But if a Democratic State Senate President had pulled a stunt like this O'Reilly would lose his mind, call for the feds to investigate, and do a week of shows on it.

O'Reilly & Fox Unfairly Attack Obama Administration
By: Steve - March 6, 2011 - 11:30am

Fox News has repeatedly attacked President Obama for not using the word "terrorism" to describe a recent attack on U.S. soldiers in Germany.

But in fact, U.S. officials have repeatedly said that the attack -- which is still being investigated -- appeared to be motivated by Islamic extremism and could be an incident of terrorism.

Now think about that, they are still investigating the shooting, and they are not 100% sure yet that the shooter is a terrorist, but they said it could be terrorism anyway. And of course that is not good enough for O'Reilly and all the right-wing smear doctors at Fox.

Appearing on 3-4-11 Fox & Friends show, Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Nobody understands why the Obama administration simply will not call incidents what they are and they just -- it's just inexplicable at this point. But I'll hearken back to my View appearance. I mean, you've got a strain of people -- I don't think many, I really don't -- who simply for whatever reason are not getting -- they don't want to put a label on, you know, Muslim killers. They don't want to do it.
Which is just ridiculous, what the women on the View were saying is that O'Reilly implied all Muslims are terrorists when he said we have a Muslim problem in the world, instead of saying we have a Muslim terrorist problem in the world. As usual O'Reilly spins what they said to make his point.

Their point was that when a white christian man who is pro-life kills an abortion doctor, O'Reilly does not imply all christian white men were terrorists, or that when a right-wing white male blows up a building and kills hundreds of people, O'Reilly did not imply all white males were terrorists.

But every time a Muslim does something, O'Reilly implies all Muslims are terrorists, when 99% of them are not terrorists.

On the March 4 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy said, "He shouted 'Allahu Akbar before allegedly gunning down two servicemen earlier this week, but the administration refusing to call the shooting in Germany terrorism. Why?"

Later on Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson claimed that "German authorities did call it an act of terrorism and yet, the Obama administration, as usual, did not call it an act of terrorism." After playing a clip of State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, Doocy said, "It sounds like terror to me."

In Fact, U.S. Officials Repeatedly Described Incident As Tied To Islamic Extremism, Terrorism.

In a March 3, 2011, article on the shooting, the Wall Street Journal reported this:
A lone gunman killed two American servicemen and wounded at least two others on a U.S. military bus outside Frankfurt Airport in what officials described as a possible terrorist attack.

A U.S. official said early indications suggested that the shooting was a terrorist assault and not a random act of violence.

German police said they had no evidence of a terrorist motive but couldn't rule one out. A senior military official in Washington said the suspect has "some kind of Islamic ties, but we do not know exactly what those are or how deep they are."

The official said it was too early to tell if the suspect was aligned with Al Qaeda or localized Islamic organizations in Kosovo, a former Yugoslav territory that is majority Muslim.
A March 2, 2011, New York Times article reported this:
An American military official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that the United States was not ruling out terrorism, although it was unclear if the suspect was acting alone or with partners. "I don't know if he's tied to a group," said the official.

"But there is enough information at this point to indicate that he identifies with Islamist terrorist ideology."
That looks like a lot of people saying it could be terrorism, but according to O'Reilly and Fox nobody is saying it is terrorism, because they are still investigating the shooting.

When Democrats say something about Republicans, O'Reilly will say wait until the investigation is over before we slam them. But when it involves a Democrat, O'Reilly and everyone at Fox slam Obama before the investigation is over.

And remember this folks, O'Reilly is the guy who said Fox is not out to destroy Obama, he also said he has been fair to Obama. But if you look at the facts, you see that O'Reilly is lying.

Because Fox attacks Obama non-stop, no matter what he does. Then O'Reilly has 7 to 8 Republican guests per show every night, who do nothing but attack Obama, with usually 1 or 2 Democratic guests, or sometimes zero Democratic guests per show. Then he attacks Obama for not calling someone a terrorist, when the investigation into the shooting was still in progress.

On top of all that, guess how many times O'Reilly has had 7 to 8 Democratic guests on a show, with zero Republicans, never. In fact, the most Democratic guests he has ever had on one show is 4, that was 2 segments with 2 Democrats per segment, and he still had 6 Republicans on to counter what they said. In the history of the Factor, O'Reilly has never had more Democratic guests than Republicans, ever, not once.

Now does that look like someone who has been fair to Obama, it sure dont to me.

Fox Promotes Gingrich Fundraising Website
By: Steve - March 6, 2011 - 10:30am

Earlier this week, Fox News announced that it was suspending contributors Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum as the two considered presidential runs. Tonight, Sean Hannity hosted Gingrich for a 14-minute interview, complete with information on how viewers can find Gingrich's Website where they can give him money.

They also put the name of the website (which I will not mention) on an on screen graphic under the name of Newt Gingrich. So Hannity was like someone working for the Gingrich campaign, and using the Fox News Network to raise money for him.

After returning from his first commercial, Hannity even reminded viewers who may have missed the initial mention of the Gingrich site to visit it.

New York Times reporter Brian Stelter pointed out the concerns of Gingrich's relationship with Fox:
STELTER: Fox News is run by Roger Ailes, a former Republican strategist, who was personally involved in the contracts for Mr. Gingrich and others.

Although there are no federal prohibitions against people being on the payroll of a television or radio station while running for office -- or contemplating such a run -- executives at competing networks have watched Fox's handling of the could-be candidates with some astonishment.

One such executive on Tuesday called it unethical to have a presidential candidate on a network payroll.

If a candidate is thinking about running, as Mr. Huckabee and Ms. Palin have said they are, they should be treated as de facto candidates, this executive said. He requested anonymity for fear of retribution by Fox.

A Federal Election Commission spokesman said the commission would not comment on any particular cases, but said, "There are some issues that a candidate should be aware of so that air time isn't considered a prohibited contribution to his or her campaign for federal office."
Fox News has donated the equivalent of $55 million in free advertising to five of their employees who are potential presidential nominees in 2010, including about $7.41 million dollars for Gingrich alone.

This is nothing new for the so-called fair and balanced news network, who have previously promoted the fundraising efforts of GOP candidates John Kasich, John Gomez, Sean Bielat, Jim Demint, and Carly Fiorina.

As the 2012 election season gets closer, Fox News resembles more of an RNC candidate promotion network, than it does an actual news network.

And of course O'Reilly does not say a word about any of it. But if MSNBC were doing the same thing, O'Reilly would lose his mind and call it an outrage. It's just one more example of his double standards and his right-wing bias.

The Friday 3-4-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 5, 2011 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Senate considers defunding NPR & PBS. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As the battle over government spending continues to rage, subsidies for PBS and NPR are at the top of the cutback list.

Republican Senator Jim DeMint points out that Kevin Klose, President Emeritus of NPR, received more than $1.2 million in 2008, and the head of Sesame Workship Gary Knell is paid close to a million bucks a year.

The Sesame Street operation alone made $211 million in three years from product sales, so why on earth is the taxpayer subsidizing PBS? The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is getting $420 million this year and President Obama wants to give them another $30 million next year.

Two words: Not needed! The House passed a bill to defund Planned Parenthood, which gets $360 million a year. That's bad news for the President of Planned Parenthood Cecile Richards, who makes about $350,000.

Things are obviously very good for first class passengers on the federal gravy train. Many Democrats have no problem with this spending, and every time a program is targeted, liberals start screaming. Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz says cuts to Head Start 'will lead to kids becoming criminals.'

Most of us understand that cutbacks have to be made, but polls show we don't want cuts directly affecting us. But big cuts are coming, no question about it.
Let me be clear about something, I understand things need to be cut, but O'Reilly and the Republicans want to cut the money for PBS and NPR to zero, while not wanting to cut anything from the Wealthy. O'Reilly acts like all the liberals oppose any cuts, but that is a lie, we do support some cuts, we just disagree on how much to cut, and who to cut most of it from.

Liberals want to do most of the cuts on the corporations and the wealthy, because they can afford it. O'Reilly and the right want to cut it all from the lower and middle class, while letting the wealthy do not have to suffer at all. In fact, they got more tax breaks at a time when most people are making less money, they got richer, and O'Reilly is fine with that, because he is a right-wing idiot.

Then O'Reilly had Sarah Palin on to say how she would cut spending on Medicare and Social Security. Which is like asking a mental patient how to solve the debt problem. A 5 year old could probably give a better answer than Stupid Sarah. Notice that Palin did not give any specifics, because she dont have any.

Palin said this: "Entitlement programs have to be reformed, because they will consume our entire federal budget by 2035 if we don't. For new enrollees, everything must change. When we talk about increasing the retirement age, there is a good proposal on the table to raise it for people now under 55. We need to allow personal accounts for new enrollees and allow them to invest according to their priorities."

O'Reilly even called her out for not answering the question with specifics. O'Reilly said Palin sidestepped The Factor's request for more specifics, but she put forth a general prescription. O'Reilly said this: "We are going bankrupt and the only way we're going to get out of the problem is to cut budgets, reform entitlements, and start a pro-growth agenda based on cutting taxes and incentivizing production."

The the far right Lou Dobbs was on to give his biased opinion, and of course O'Reilly did not have a Democratic guest to provide the balance. Dobbs said this: "Why is Social Security suddenly the number one issue, when in fact Medicare is by far the larger problem? Speaker Boehner and the President are right to focus on this, but they've got to bring the nation along, they're going to have to act and not just talk. You can start with raising the retirement age, but what is so frustrating is the national media saying it can't be done."

And the media is saying it can not be done, what they are saying is that any politician who votes for tough cuts will probably be voted out of office. So they are not saying it cant be done, they are saying it will not be done by the politicians. Which is a big difference, and the media is just reporting the truth. Not to mention the polls all say the majority of people do not want big cuts to anything ,except foreign aid. The people in Congress are cowards, and I bet they never pass big cuts to the big social programs, because if they do they can kiss their re-election good bye, because all the older Americans vote.

Then the right-wing hack O'Reilly had a segment with Geraldo about the 21-year-old Muslim jihadist who shot and killed two members of the U.S. Air Force in Germany. Geraldo defended the State Department's choice of words. He said this: "These things require probing and facts. It turns out that this guy has connections with jihadists and he did attend a radical mosque. But this word 'terrorist' has become synonymous with Islam and Muslims. Why don't we just use 'murderer?' This was a murder."

And of course O'Reilly hated it, and slammed Obama for it, just as all the other right-wing spin doctors are doing. The right has some fixation with using the word terrorist, and they say if you do not call everyone a terrorist then you are weak. Except of course when a far right nut kills someone, then they do not use the terrrorist word for him.

Then O'Reilly had the body language bimbo on to do her stupid body language readings, which I do not report on because it's not news, it's nonsense. And as I reported in another blog posting, O'Reilly ignored all the good economic news that came out Friday, unemployment dropping to 8.9%, and the jobs report that said the economy added over 200,000 jobs last month, but he sure had time to do the ridiculous body language segment.

Then O'Reilly had the ridiculous Glenn Beck on to illustrate what's happening to the U.S. dollar. And I kid you not, he used two cupcakes to do it, yes I'm serious. O'Reilly played a clip from Beck's show where he used cupcakes to show what is happening to the dollar. Then as if that was not stupid enough, Beck was on the Factor to explain it some more, and he had two cupcakes with him. It was so stupid that even O'Reilly laughed at him, but he had him on anyway, so they are both idiots, and the entire segment was a massive waste of time.

And finally is the last segment it was dumbest things of the week with Arthel Neville and Greg Gutfeld. Neville nominated actress Meredith Baxter, who said this: "I could have been a Republican, but thank goodness, I'm just gay." Gutfeld picked a guest who went into an anti-government rant on The View. "This guy made the women on The View look sane. He thinks America is a police state, yet he has a radio program and is allowed to say whatever he wants."

Then O'Reilly picked Michael Moore, who said all money "is a national resource," yet is suing a movie studio so he can fatten his own bloated bankroll. And I pick, Neville, Gutfeld, and O'Reilly, for doing this stupid and biased segment. It's 3 Republicans, and they never find anything dumb that a Republican did. When I could find 50 dumb things a day that Republicans do.

Then the highly edited, and hand picked by O'Reilly and his staff e-mails, and the lame as hell pinheads and patriots vote.

O'Reilly Ignores More Good Economic News
By: Steve - March 5, 2011 - 8:30am

On Friday March 3rd a new jobs and economy report came out with more good news, and of course O'Reilly ignored it all because it makes President Obama look good. But he sure had time to have the body language bimbo on, which is a total waste of time.

Here are some quotes from the article at finance.yahoo.com/news:

Private employers add the most jobs in nearly a year as unemployment slips below 9 percent

(AP) -- Companies added more workers in February than in any month in almost a year -- a turning point for the economy that finally pushed the unemployment rate below 9 percent. Economists say the stronger hiring should endure all year.

The 222,000 jobs the private sector created more than offset layoffs by financially squeezed state and local governments.

The unemployment rate sank to 8.9 percent, the lowest since April 2009. The rate has now fallen almost a full percentage point in just three months -- the sharpest drop in a generation.

Now think about this, O'Reilly does not report any of this, even though it's real news. Because it makes Obama look good, so he ignores it for partisan political reasons. While complaining that the rest of the media ignore news for partisan reasons, he is doing the very same thing.

Here are some more quotes from the article:

The figures suggest the economy has entered a healthier phase typical of what economists call a virtuous cycle: Americans are spending more, which raises corporate profits, which leads to hiring and then more spending and growth.

At UPS, for example, revenue and profits have both risen because of the growing economy. The company has nearly 250 job openings for salaried positions, up from 100 this time last year, and is hiring hourly workers at 150 locations.

Normally, the company just rehires its temporary employees from the holidays if it needs them. But this year, "we've already hired a lot of those folks back, and we still have more needs," said Matt Lavery, UPS' head of recruiting.

Economists now think private companies will feel comfortable enough to add 200,000 jobs a month through the rest of this year. That would be an improvement from the average of 150,000 jobs created over the past three months.

It takes about 125,000 new jobs a month just to keep up with population growth and hold the unemployment rate stable. Stronger job growth should put the economy on track to grow at a roughly 4 percent annual rate in the first three months of this year.

Factoring in the government layoffs, the economy added 192,000 jobs last month. January's job gains were revised upward, to 63,000. Some of February's increase was due to people returning to payrolls after dropping off because of severe weather earlier this winter.

This was big news with the real journalists, which is why O'Reilly failed to report it, because he is not a real journalist. He is a partisan hack who ignores all the good economic news because it proves the Obama economic policies are working, and it makes him look good.

If we had a Republican President right now, O'Reilly would have spent half the show reporting this news, and saying how great the economic policies of the President were working. But when it happens under a Democratic President O'Reilly just ignores it.

Because he knows it makes Obama look good, and it shows that his economic policies are working. O'Reilly can not admit that, because he has been saying for 2 years that the Obama exonomic policies are not working. Which is 100% proof that O'Reilly is a biased partisan hack.

I guess that body language segment was more important than informing the people the unemployment rate went down, and the economy is improving rapidly.

Another Poll On Spending Cuts O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - March 5, 2011 - 8:00am

And this is not some left-wing poll O'Reilly can try to dismiss for partisan reasons, it was done by the Republican Wall Street Journal, and NBC news.

O'Reilly claims that the people want across the board spending cuts to help balance the federal budget, and that they oppose raising taxes on the wealthy. Too bad it's all lies, to begin with the polls show that the only think the majority of the people support cutting is spending on foreign countries. On every other major issue the majority of people oppose cuts.

And now a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that "less than a quarter of Americans support making significant cuts to Social Security or Medicare to tackle the country's deficit."

Eighty-one percent said that placing a surtax on millionaires is either a "totally" or "mostly" acceptable way in which to reduce the deficit.

Which is the exact opposite of what O'Reilly and his Republicans friends claim. Not to mention, O'Reilly says he always goes by the will of the people, except in this case when the will of the people does not agree with him. Then he just ignores the will of the people, to put out his right-wing propaganda.

In the poll, Americans across all age groups and ideologies said by large margins that it was "unacceptable" to make significant cuts in entitlement programs in order to reduce the federal deficit. Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security "unacceptable."

Funny how O'Reilly never reported any of this, I guess he just forgot, yeah right.

In the same poll it said that more than 60% of poll respondents supported reducing Social Security and Medicare payments to wealthier Americans.

Wow, what a shocker, O'Reilly never reported any of that either.

The poll also found that 62% of Americans oppose efforts to strip unionized government workers of their rights to collectively bargain.

The results suggest that public opinion is tipping against Wisconsin Republican governor Scott Walker in his prolonged faceoff with the unions.

And O'Reilly has not reported a word about any of it, even though the Wall Street Journal is one of his favorite newspapers, that he reads every day. It all goes against what O'Reilly has been saying, so he just ignores it.

The Thursday 3-3-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 4, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Is liberal America going to win union controversy? Billy said this:
O'REILLY: There is no question that the American left is energized by the controversy over union pay and bargaining power. So you see thousands of liberals taking to the streets, demonstrating in support of public unions.

You also see the left-wing media spinning the story in favor of the left, but the truth is more elusive. On Tuesday we reported on a New York Times poll saying that 61% of Americans believe union employees are being compensated fairly.

But, as we reported, 20% of those polled are part of union homes. Now comes a Quinnipiac poll that contradicts the Times - that poll says 42% of Americans believe public union workers are making 'too much,' while 35% say compensation is 'about right.'

Also, 63% of Americans believe government workers should pay more for their benefits and retirement. Talking Points believes the left-wing media will not give you the straight story. Today the New York Times said this: 'A country with a deficit is not necessarily any more broke than a family with a mortgage or a college loan.'

Are you kidding me? America owes more than $14 trillion and the Times says it's 'scare tactics!' Is there an opium den in the editorial room over there? Like Greece, Ireland, Spain and many other countries, the USA has bankrupted itself through a series of entitlement programs. If we continue down this road, the American dollar will collapse and so will our entire economy.
Wow, there is so much right-wing spin in that Talking Points Memo it would take me 2 days to de-spin it all. To begin with, it's the right who is spinning the story, I have documented their spin on my blog. O'Reilly talking about truth is laughable, he can not even spell truth. O'Reilly said he believes the left-wing media will not give you the straight story. Are you kidding me, they are reporting the story with facts, unlike O'Reilly and Fox who lie about it and ignore the facts.

In O'Reillyworld if you are not spinning a story like he does, and Fox does, then you are the left-wing media and you are lying. It's ridiculous, because O'Reilly and Fox are spinning the story, while the rest of the media reports the truth. And Greece, Ireland, Spain etc. went broke because the rich, wall street, and the banks lost all our money making bad and risky investments. O'Reilly claims the USA bankrupted itself through a series of entitlement programs. That's a lie, and only right-wing spin doctors are saying that.

Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about the glaring discrepancies between various polls on public sector unions. Really, are you kidding me, the far-right proven right-wing liar Laura Ingraham, give me a break, was Ann Coulter not available. And btw, no Democratic guest was on to give the counterpoint, not just for this segment, in the entire show.

Ingraham said this: "The sampling is what counts, and this New York Times poll is about as accurate as Joe Biden tracking stimulus dollars. Union households are oversampled, public employee households are oversampled, and Democrats are oversampled, so you have a poll that's skewed. In the end, the folks understand that things can't continue the way they're going, and they will decide in favor of smart cutbacks over continued union largesse."

Ok, so one poll cancels all the other polls from gallup, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, etc. that all say the majority of people support the unions right to bargain. That is just ridiculous, and Ingraham is a proven liar and a proven right-wing hack, nothing she says can be trusted. And yet, O'Reilly has her on to spin and lie for the right, with no Democratic guest to counter her spin, what does that say about O'Reilly.

And if it's the sampling that counts, why dont they report on the way Rasmussen rigs his polls. He does it in the way he asked the questions, and in what order, so it's not always the sampling that counts, it's usually how the questions are worded, and who takes the poll. Not to mention, Ingraham ignores all the other polls that disagree with her, even the Gallup poll that nobody disputes.

Then O'Reilly had the former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on to promote his book, which I will not name, or report on. But I will say this, O'Reilly did a softball interview and never asked him about the WMD lies, the report that they had no evidence of WMD's, or anything. It was pathetic. O'Reilly even had him on for a 2nd segment, and still did not ask the big questions.

Then O'Dummy had Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover on to talk some more about Charlie Sheen, which I will not report on because it's not real news. It's tabloid garbage to get ratings, and O'Reilly has jumped all over that bandwagon.

In the next segment O'Reilly had Megyn Kelly on to talk about John Edwards, who is suspected of illegally funneling campaign money to his mistress. Which I will not report on, because O'Reilly did not say a word about the Republican Christine O'Donnell being investigated for illegally spending her campaign money. This show the bias from O'Reilly, he reports possible illegal campaign money use when it's a Democrat, and ignores it when it's a Republican. Not to mention, to this day O'Reilly has still not said one word about Tom Delay getting 3 years in prison.

And finally O'Reilly had the total waste of tv time Factor News Quiz with Steve Doocy and Mahsa Saeidi-Azcuy. Which I do not report on because it's not news, in fact, it's a joke, and the two Fox stooges usually get most of the questions wrong, even though they work for a news network.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame pinheads and patriots vote. Take note of the guest list folks, not one Democratic guest was on the entire show, not one. So it was all right-wing spin, all the time. And it happened in the so-called no spin zone.

O'Reilly Lied About Fox Wisconsin Reporting
By: Steve - March 4, 2011 - 9:00am

O'Reilly claims that he has been fair and balanced in his reporting on the Wisconsin story, about the Republican Governor Scott Walker trying to take collective bargaining rights away from the state union workers.

O'Reilly also claims that Fox News has been fair and balanced in their reporting on the story, that the people protesting Fox with signs that say "Fox Lies" are wrong, and that they have no evidence Fox has lied.

O'Reilly even sent his stooge Producer Jesse Watters out to ask the protesters at the Fox headquarters to name one lie Fox has told, when they did not have an example at the time, O'Reilly said they can not cite a lie because they have never told any.

All that is ridiculous, in fact, I would bet someone did cite a lie they told, and O'Reilly had it edited out of the video he used. They sure can not be trusted to report it honestly, because I have personally seen how O'Reilly edits video to back up his arguments.

The truth is this, Fox has told many many lies about the situation in Wisconsin. O'Reilly just will not have anyone on the Factor to discuss it, then he claims they have not told any lies. When it is documented, and I will show you a few of them.

I could go on the Factor as a guest by phone and cite these lies, but the dishonest O'Reilly will not let me, as he tells the viewers Fox has not told any lies. Here is a small list of their lies, from almost everyone at Fox, and I can not list them all, because it would take up the entire front page of this website.

Fox News Lies About Wisconsin:

1) During the February 24 edition of On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich said the Republican Governor Scott Walker is "Actually Doing What He Campaigned On."

That's a lie, Walker did not campaign on taking the collective bargaining rights away from state unions.

2) During the February 25 edition of America's Nightly Scoreboard, host David Asman said Walker "Did Announce When He Was Running For Governor This Is What He Was Going To Do."

That's a lie, Walker did not campaign on taking the collective bargaining rights away from state unions.

On February 22, PolitiFact.com gave a "false" rating to the claim that Walker campaigned on the proposal to sharply curtail collective bargaining rights. And O'Reilly himself has cited PolitiFact.com, so he can not say they are some left-wing website, when he has used them.

PolitiFact: Walker, who offered many specific proposals during the campaign, did not go public with even the bare-bones of his multi-faceted plans to sharply curb collective bargaining rights. He could not point to any statements where he did. We could find none either.

We rate his statement False. [PolitiFact, 2/22/11]

3) During the February 21 edition of America Live, host Megyn Kelly stated "A closer look at the salaries of public and private sector employees in Wisconsin reveals quite a gap." A graphic showing "average annual pay" in Wisconsin in 2009 was then aired.

After reading the graphic, Kelly said this: "What a difference. It used to be if you went to work for the state government, you would make less, but it was worth it, because you would have good benefits, good health care, nice fat pension, that kind of thing. So your salary would be lower. You can see from that full-screen we just showed you, that graphic, that that's no longer the case."

That's a lie, a study from the Economic Policy Institute found that when "comparisons for education, experience," and other factors are taken into account, "Wisconsin public employees earn 4.8% less in total compensation per hour than comparable full-time employees in Wisconsin's private sector."

4) Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee falsely claimed that public union workers make "30% better wages" and "70% better benefits than their private sector counterparts."

Another lie, it's all a right-wing talking point lie to make it look like public union workers are making way more than union workers in the private sector. I't a Fox news smear job on public union workers, and none of it is true.

In fact, they make less in a public union than they do in a private sector union. Workers with a Bachelor's Degree or more are compensated between $20,000 to $82,000 a year less than their private sector counterparts.

Remember that this is the same guy who said Obama grew up in Kenya, when he has only been there 3 times in his life, the first time was when he was about 19 years old, and the fact is he grew up in Hawaii. So nothing Huckabee ever says again can be trusted.

5) On the February 23 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade discussed the results of a recent USA Today/Gallup poll to falsely claim that 61 percent of those polled are "in favor of taking collective bargaining rights away."

That's a lie, the Gallup poll he cited actually said Sixty-one percent oppose taking collective bargaining away from those people in Wisconsin, 33 percent favor it. Kilmeade reversed the numbers, and even had the graohics department put a graphic on the screen with the numbers wrong.

And btw folks, O'Reilly just ignored it, not once did he report on the Kilmeade poll numbers mistake. As he tells you Fox never lied about anything, when I have shown you 5 lies already.

6) On the February 28 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade asked, "If union bargaining is breaking the public piggy bank, should it be abolished all together?"

That's a lie, because there is no correlation, according to the statistics, between a state's ability to collectively bargain with its public employees and whether or not they have a budget deficit.

7) On the February 20 edition of Fox News Sunday, Liz Cheney stated that "when you've got collective bargaining in place and when you've got the benefits that are basically sealed in, and no ability by those local officials to touch those or affect them, it reduces their ability to actually manage their own budget."

That's a lie.

8) On the February 20 edition of Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace hosted Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to claim that state governments are facing budget crises because of collective bargaining.

That's a lie. In a February 19 New Republic article, Joseph McCartin, an associate professor of history and director of the Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor at Georgetown University, wrote that the contention that "we can no longer afford collective bargaining is bogus."

Contrary to Walker's assertion, there is no direct correlation between public-sector collective bargaining and state budget deficits.

According to data gathered by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, while Wisconsin projects a state budget deficit of 12.8 percent for FY 2012, North Carolina, which does not allow government workers to bargain, faces a significantly higher deficit of 20 percent.

Ohio, whose Republican governor John Kasich has also made clear his desire to roll back collective bargaining, has a deficit that is only about half the size of non-union North Carolina's.

A February 28 Fortune article quoted University of Toledo College Of Law professor Joseph Slater as saying: "It's easy to paint a portrait of public workers as overpaid, not working very hard and being fat cats on the tax dollar. But there's no correlation between collective bargaining and the state budget crises."

Clearly, state budget deficits we are now witnessing are not the product of collective bargaining, but rather reflect the differential impact of the current recession on individual states, as well as the integrity of state fiscal practices (such as whether they raise enough in taxes to pay for the essential services they provide).

"Unionized workers didn't sow the seeds of the economic downturn, deregulation of the financial industry did," says Robert Bruno, a University of Illinois professor of labor and employment relations. "We've suffered billions in losses because of greed, gross mismanagement and illegal activity in the financial industry."

Joseph Slater at Toledo's law school agrees: "It's easy to paint a portrait of public workers as overpaid, not working very hard and being fat cats on the tax dollar. But there's no correlation between collective bargaining and the state budget crises."

For example, huge state pension obligations - which have grabbed headlines because of state underfunding, and which Sherk points to as a major deficit-maker for states, are not the result of collective bargaining.

"The vast majority of states have pensions set by law, not by collective bargaining," Slater says. "So it's a common misperception that these costs are a result of collective bargaining."

And none of the above information is reported by Fox, so not only are they lying about the situation, they fail to report the facts, which is guilt by omission.

Fox also put dishonest guests on the air to discuss the Wisconsin situation. Fox News hosted Dave Westlake and Amber Hahn to trash the unions, who were both identified as simply "Wisconsin parents."

But Fox did not disclose that Westlake was a 2010 Republican Senate candidate and Hahn was the treasurer for the Columbia County, Wisconsin, Republican Party.

Fox also lied that a CEO of a Multinational Company represented "Small Businesses."

Fox hosted Gary Reynolds, the CEO of GMR Marketing to criticize protesters for "attacking small businesses who supported and support Governor Scott Walker," in the words of Fox co-host Brian Kilmeade.

However, GMR Marketing is not a small business, they have 24 offices in 12 countries and it's "the world's largest engagement marketing agency." The company lists Sony, Microsoft, Bank of America and Visa among its clients.

So not only does Fox lie about Wisconsin and the unions, they do not report key facts in the story, as they host frauds who pretend to be concerened parents, when they are actually Republican party operatives, and fake small business owners.

It is all done to fool the people, smear the unions, and make the Republican Governor look better. It's about as biased and dishonest as a so-called News Network can get. And yet, O'Reilly claims Fox does not lie, and nobody can show any lies they have told.

Proving that O'Reilly is also a liar, because I just showed you 8 lies they put out, and I could show you 20 more if I had to. But O'Reilly will never report it, or admit it, because he is a dishonest right-wing spin doctor, just like Hannity or Beck, or any of them.

And btw, I contacted the O'Reilly Factor Show and asked them to put me on the air by phone to discuss these lies, and they would not even reply to my e-mail. I even sent a copy to every Factor Producer, and none of them replied to my e-mail. So not only are they biased and dishonest right-wing hacks, they are cowards, especially O'Reilly.

Scheuer Called Obama A Coward & A Stooge
By: Steve - March 4, 2011 - 8:30am

On the March 3rd edition of Fox & Friends the (biased & partisan) right-wing hack Michael Scheuer called the President of The United States Barack Obama, a coward, and a stooge. He also accused Obama Of "Weeping Crocodile Tears" while Americans are vulnerable.



This guy Scheuer is a low-life, biased, Obama hating, right-wing piece of garbage. He is disrespectful to the President, and an embarrassment to all political analysts. He never has a good word to say about Obama no matter what he does. He is the classic right-wing idiot.

Nothing he says can be trusted, because he is so partisan all his analysis is biased. It's no different than Ann Coulter, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, etc. They are all partisan hacks who lie and spin about Obama to make him look bad, and none of them have an objective bone in their body.

Now think about this, Scheuer is a regular on the Factor, he is one of the people O'Reilly puts on for political analysis. Now imagine if Scheuer was a Democrat, and he called Bush a coward and a stooge, do you think he would be a regular on the Factor.

Hell no, O'Reilly would not even let him on his show. But when Scheuer says that garbage about Obama, O'Reilly not only ignores it, he has the low-life on his show to give his political analysis. Proving once again that O'Reilly has Obama hating scum on his show, when they are not objective analysts.

The Wednesday 3-2-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 3, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Supreme Court rules on Westboro Baptist Church. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Today the Supreme Court ruled 8 - 1 in favor of the vicious Westboro Baptist Church protesters who roam the country screaming hatred at military funerals and other places.

These loons believe they're protesting because the United States does not persecute gays, and these vile idiots are happy that our soldiers are coming home dead. Enter Albert Snyder, whose son Matthew was killed in Iraq. Mr. Snyder sued Westboro for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and initially won $11 million from a jury.

But judges overturned the verdict and even made Mr. Snyder pay court costs. Today the Snyder family received the ultimate insult - the vicious Westboro crew won in the Supreme Court. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said America has chosen 'to protect even hurtful speech.'

Noble in theory, but what about the rights of Mr. Snyder to bury his son in peace? Talking Points believes the Supreme Court needs to think about what is really happening in the world. Because of the Internet, anonymous sociopaths can now smear and bully anyone they want.

The First Amendment is in place to protect the rights of Americans, but free speech can be abused. Slander is real, bullying is real, inflicting pain on others through words is real, but the Supreme Court doesn't seem to get that. It's not just about free speech anymore; it's about personal destruction.
Sorry Billy, but free speech is free speech, no matter what you think. I also think the Westboro church people are loons, but they still have a right to free speech, just like you and I do. We may not like it, but we can not punish them or shut them up because they use speech we do not like. That is what makes the 1st amendment so great, it protects speech for everyone, even if someone does not like what they are saying.

Notice what O'Reilly ignored, the court that ruled for the Snyder family, they were wrong. And the fact that these Westboro church people are right-wing loons who hate gay people and President Obama. If a liberal court had ruled against the 1st amendment O'Reilly would lose his mind and put their photos, names, and e-mail addresses on the screen. But when a conservative court rules the wrong way in a free speech case, O'Reilly says nothing.

Then on top of that he fails to mention the Westboro loons are right-wing loons. If they were liberals O'Reilly would mention it a hundred times, and call them left-wing loons, but when it's a group of right-wingers he does not call them right-wing loons.

In the next segment O'Reilly had Megyn Kelly, who correctly predicted that the Westboro folks would prevail, on to discuss it. Kelly said this: "I don't like what these Westboro people are doing, but I do like the First Amendment and the Supreme Court has a long history of vigorously upholding and protecting the First Amendment. And speech on matters of public concern gets more protection than speech on matters of private concern."

So what does O'Reilly say, he praised the one Republican justice who voted against the Westboro church. Alito was the only no vote, hey O'Reilly what happened to going by the constitution. You and Alito are both frauds, you say you support the constitution, but it's all talk.

Then O'Reilly had the Republican Assemblywoman Michelle Litjens from Wisconsin on to cry about Democrats screaming and yelling at her after a vote. One of her Democratic colleagues Gordon Hintz told her she is "f***ing dead." Which was very wrong to say, and he later apologized to her. And of course O'Reilly did not have Hintz or any other Democratic guest on for balance.

And I am sure he did not mean she is actually dead, it was a figure of speech, a bad one, but he was clearly not saying he was going to kill her. The other day my brother did something I had told him not to do, and I said if he did it again I would kill him, but I sure as hell did not mean it, and he knew it was not a serious threat.

Then O'Reilly had Dick Morris on to talk about Mitt Romney. O'Reilly said many polls and pundits see former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as the favorite to win the GOP presidential nomination, including me, I have predicted he will win it. But Morris disagrees, he said this: "There is no way this guy is going to get nominated, after passing the equivalent of Obama-care. He's saying it's working just fine, even though medical costs in Massachusetts are 24% higher than the national average. The party is never going to nominate somebody who's soft on this issue."

So then O'Reilly gave Romney some advice, O'Reilly advised Romney to step up with a definitive mea culpa, Billy said this: "He could say, look, we tried to do what was best for our people but it didn't work out financially."

Then O'Reilly had two segments I will not report on, in the first one he had Joachim Bamrud on to talk about if it is safe for college kids to go to Mexico for spring break. And the weekly Dennis Miller segment, that I never report on because Miller is a comedian, and nobody I know cares what he thinks about anything. He is just on to make jokes about Obama and other Democrats because O'Reilly's mostly right-wing viewers love it. I will only say this, of course Miller trashed the unions.

And in the last segment O'Reilly had Mike Huckabee on to spin his Obama grew up in Kenya statement. And of course O'Reilly defended Huckabee, he even let him use his show to spin his defense. Huckabee said this: "That was about the 40th media interview of the day, and it was a verbal gaffe. I immediately apologized, but that's not enough for the left wing media in this country. I've been one of those people who say I don't have any doubts about his American birth, I've been adamant about that."

What a load of bull, Huckabee said it on purpose on a right-wing radio show, so people would think Obama grew up in Kenya and he is not a real American. Then after getting caught by the media, he slams them for reporting it, and tries to say it was just a slip of the tounge. When he knew exactly what he was saying, because he said it two or three times, and even lied that Obama was raised by his Father and Grandfather in Kenya.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, that is edited and hand picked by O'Reilly and his staff. Hey Billy, why not let an Independent person pick the e-mails and show them un-edited. And the lame pinheads and patriots website vote, that usually makes no sense, and they are not pinheads or patriots.

O'Reilly Makes Dumbest Statement Of The Year
By: Steve - March 3, 2011 - 9:30am

While talking about the polls that show the majority of Americans support the unions right to collective bargaining, Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Unions are less popular if You subtract union households from the polls.
Really, and if you subtract republicans from every poll ever taken, they all favor the Democrats. What a ridiculous statement, how can you subtract union households when they are part of America. And right now only about 9 percent of the people are in a union, so they do not tilt the polls very much to begin with.

That may be the dumbest thing O'Reilly has ever said, and he is a Harvard graduate, I want proof. And think about this, O'Reilly claims to be a union guy, while saying we should not count the union members who vote in the polls. That does not sound like a union guy to me, that is anti-union.

It's like saying there is no racism in the Tea Party, if you do not count the racists. It's like saying Obama would not have won the election if you did not count the votes from African Americans. It's like saying McCain would have won the election if you did not count the Obama votes.

And finally, think about this. When O'Reilly reports a poll that Republicans like, he never says that if you dont count the Republicans the poll is a fraud. That alone shows what a biased right-wing spin doctor O'Reilly is, because only a right-wing hack would say a poll is no good because a percentage of union members took the poll.

And btw, if you did throw out all the Republican votes in the polls, every single one would favor the Democrats and the unions. But you dont see O'Reilly calling for the Republican poll takers to be ignored.

Bill O'Reilly, the dumbest man in America.

O'Reilly Spins/Lies About Union Support Polls
By: Steve - March 3, 2011 - 9:00am

As protests supporting Wisconsin's public employees continue around the country, the right-wing media have reacted by falsely suggesting that Americans support Wisconsin's Republican Gov. Scott Walker over the state's public employee union members.

Including Bill O'Reilly, who says the polls are mixed, and that it's about a 50/50 split. Which is just laughable, because almost every poll in America but Rasmussen, says the vast majority of the American people support a unions right to have collective bargaining.

The February 21 Rasmussen poll that has been widely cited by conservatives has been criticized by polling experts as containing questions that "have biased the responses."

Basically, only right-wing spin doctors are citing the biased Rasmussen poll. What happens is Rasmussen does a biased/fixed poll, then all the right-wingers in the country cite it as evidence that the people oppose the unions, which is total bias, and everyone knows it.

Folks, this is done on purpose by Rasmussen to give the right-wing spin doctors in America a poll to cite. And O'Reilly was first in line to jump on the bogus Rasmussen poll. He even denied Rasmussen is a Republican, which is more laughable than citing his polls.

And btw, in the Rasmussen poll from February 21, it said that 48 percent of those polled backed Walker in his methods to eliminate collective bargaining rights for union workers in that state.

That's 48 percent, which is not even half the people, it's less than 50 percent. So even Rasmussen could not get to 50 percent with his biased/fixed poll.

During the February 23rd O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly cited the Rasmussen poll in order to discredit a Gallup poll on the same topic:
O'REILLY: The New York Times continues to spin the Wisconsin situation in favor of the union and other media are doing the same thing. A new Gallup poll out today says that most Americans do not want unions to be destroyed.

However, a Rasmussen Poll released earlier this week says that most Americans who have an opinion side with Governor Walker in his quest to diminish union power.
Not only did O'Reilly cite the bogus Rasmussen poll, he lied about it, because 48 percent is not most Americans, to claim it was most Americans it has to be over 50 percent, more like 59 or 60 percent. So O'Reilly was even dishonest about the numbers in the Rasmussen poll.

Polling expert Nate Silver looked at the Rasmussen poll, and the questions he asked, and said this about it:
SILVER: The Rasmussen example is more blatant than most.

Because of the problems with question design, my advice would be simply to disregard the Rasmussen Reports poll, and to view their work with extreme skepticism going forward.
Pollster Mark Blumenthal's analysis of Rasmussen's poll similarly argued that the way the questions were asked biased the response. He also said this:
BLUMENTHAL: The more typical approach would involve asking a more general version of question one (how closely have you been following the dispute between the Governor of Wisconsin and the public employee unions in Wisconsin?) and then go immediately to something like question four.
Basically, Rasmussen used the questions he asked to bias the results to favor the Republican Governor. He had a series of biased questions before asking if you support the Governor or the unions. The questions were full of spin and right-wing talking points, which then caused a biased answer to the union or Governor support question.

And the great (haha) journalist O'Reilly, does not report any of this. Then he claims to be a union guy, while saying he is not pro-union, and spinning a Rasmussen poll.

O'Reilly even lied about the Rasmussen poll when he said "most people" support the Governor, when the actual poll only says 48 percent support the Governor.

While all the other polls show that a vast majority of the American people support a unions right to have collective bargaining, by 59 to 62 percent margins. Including the USA Today poll, Gallup, the NYT/CBS poll, and on and on.

O'Reilly ignores all that to claim it's a 50/50 split, based on ONE biased and bogus Rasmussen poll, that says less than 50 percent support the Governor.

He even said that Rasmussen is not a Republican, which is just laughable, and it shows that O'Reilly is a biased right-wing stooge. Do a google search on Rasmussen is a Republican and see what you find.

Huckabee Lies That Obama Grew Up In Kenya
By: Steve - March 3, 2011 - 8:30am

Now this is ridiculous, is there one honest Republican in America, I dont think so, because every one of them gets caught in repeated lies.

During a radio appearance Monday, Mike Huckabee repeatedly claimed that President Obama grew up in Kenya. After questioning Obama's so-called secrecy about his birth certificate, radio host Steve Malzberg asked Huckabee if "we deserve to know more about this man." Huckabee said, "I would love to know more. What I know is troubling enough."

Here is a partial transcript:
HUCKABEE: I would love to know more. What I know is troubling enough. And one thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, very different than the average American. When he gave the bust back to the Brits --

MALZBERG: Of Winston Churchill.

HUCKABEE: The bust of Winston Churchill, a great insult to the British. But then if you think about it, his perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather, their view of the Mau Mau Revolution in Kenya is very different than ours because he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather.
Now think about this, it is a well known fact that President Obama DID NOT grow up in Kenya, and that he barely knew his Father, or his Grandfather. Obama grew up mostly in Hawaii, and has only been to Kenya 3 times in his entire life.

This shows that Huckabee is a liar, who knew he was lying. This was no accident, or a slip of the tounge, it was a long and detailed lie, that could not have possibly been an accident.

Obama also did not grow up "with a Kenyan father and grandfather." In Dreams From My Father Obama's explains his struggles with the absence of his father. The AP even wrote in 2006 that Obama "was mostly raised in Hawaii and did not know his Kenyan father well."

In fact, President Obama did not even visit Kenya until sometime in the late 80's, and then he only went back two times after that in the last 20 years or so. He was raised in Hawaii, and then moved to Chicago.

Huckabee is a joke, and a typical Fox News liar. And nothing he ever says again can be trusted, because he is now a proven liar.

The Tuesday 3-1-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 2, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Still no winners in Wisconsin. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Americans are caught up in a very important conflict - cost-cutting vs. union benefits. According to a CBS poll, 37% of Americans favor cutting pay or benefits for public employees, but 56% oppose that.

And a New York Times headline reads 'Majority in Poll Back Employees in Public Sector Unions.' But the poll is misleading because 27% of the respondents say they're from union households. So the American public seems to be split.

Also, a USA Today study says public employees in Wisconsin make $1,800 more a year than their private sector peers. But the essential question remains: If the states do not have the power to control union costs, how will they ever balance their budgets?

Many liberal Americans don't see it as a problem, and they continue to demand tax hikes on corporations and the affluent.

But those things inhibit job creation. Talking Points believes most Americans are sympathetic to working men and women, but the cold truth is that the USA is going bankrupt, and union benefits and power - in both the public and private sectors - must be somewhat diminished for the good of everyone.
All the polls but One, the right-wing Rasmussen poll, support the unions, but O'Reilly spins that to an even split because union members voted in the polls. My God is that ridiculous, and I will have a blog on that issue tomorrow.

Notice how O'Reilly says the unions must be somewhat diminished for the good of everyone, does that sound like something a so-called union guy would say, not to me. And btw, when liberals say the power of the wealthy and the corporations should be diminished by taxing them more, etc.

O'Reilly calls that an outrage, and argues against doing that for the good of everyone. But when it comes to taking benefits away from the unions, somehow O'Reilly supports that for the good of everyone. And notice how O'Reilly says it is an outrage for unions to give money to get people elected, but he has no problem with billionaire Republicans giving money to get conservatives elected.

Then O'Reilly had Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes on to discuss it. Crazy Crowley said this: "Both the CBS/New York Times poll and the Pew poll, heavily oversampled Democrats and union households, so these results are somewhat skewed. American people understand that states are broke, there's no money. The American people are tapped out."

Now that's funny, because Rasmussen rigs his polls to favor the right, but Crowley and O'Reilly never dispute any of his polls, what a joke. And there was no oversampling of Democrats, it was done in a valid way, the polls are good, the only bad one is the Rasmussen poll.

Colmes said this: "Almost every poll shows people overwhelmingly siding with the workers, and a new poll shows that Governor Walker would lose if the election were held today."

So then O'Reilly put his spin on it and claimed the people are conflicted, when all the polls say the opposite. Crazy O'Reilly said this: "I believe this is an issue where most Americans are conflicted, just like me. I'm a union guy, but the unions have abused their power by taking dues and endorsing candidates. I want to modify the power to buy politicians."

Then John Stossel was on to talk about the issue, and he said most Americans are clueless about it. Stossel also said the unions should not even have the right to bargain for their wages and benefits, proving that he is anti-union. But it's what O'Reilly said that is strange, O'Reilly said this: "Most Americans inherently sympathize with unionized workers. There is a lot of suspicion that government is corrupt, Wall Street fat cats are corrupt, but workers just want enough to feed their families and send their kids to college."

Okay, but a few minutes ago O'Reilly said Americans are conflicted, then a few minutes later he says most Americans sympathize with unionized workers. Which is it O'Reilly, you spin so much you cant keep your spin straight.

Then O'Reilly had the so-called liberal Leslie Marshall on, who has called on Obama to send U.S. troops to Libya. Proving that she is not a real liberal, because no liberal I know of agrees with that nonsense. Hell even most Republicans oppose that, including O'Reilly. And that shows how liberal Marshall is, not very liberal.

Then O'Reilly had the mental health experts Keith Ablow and Karen Ruskin on to talk about Charlie Sheen. Which I will not report on because it's tabloid garbage.

And in the very next segment O'Reilly had Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle on for is it legal. And they talked about the Charlie Sheen lawsuit against CBS. Which I will not report on, except to say this. Wiehl thinks the lawsuit is garbage, and Guilfoyle thinks Sheen has a good chance of winning it.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Charles Krauthammer on to trash the unions. And of course the Republican neo-con Krauthammer supports the Republican Governor in Wisconsin. Krauthammer urged Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker to stand his ground, he said this: "If he caves, his career will be finished. I think he's right - he can get a giveback that lasts a year or two, but that's not the problem. The problem is a cozy and corrupt arrangement where the unions are helping elect the politicians that negotiate their contracts."

And as I point out, neither Krauthammer or O'Reilly have a problem with billionaire Republicans, or Corporations buying politicians. They only have a problem with wealthy liberals or unions doing it. Which shows their bias, and their hypocrisy.

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

Republicans Prove They Are Owned By Big Oil
By: Steve - March 2, 2011 - 9:30am

Here it is folks, and you too Tea Party, this is what you voted for, corrupt Republican Congressman who protect tax breaks for big oil companies, while calling for $60 billion in cuts from the poor and the middle class.

This story is 100% proof that the Republican party only cares about the wealthy, and the big oil companies. And of course O'Reilly did not say a word about it, because he helps to protect them from anger by the people.

On Tuesday, House Republicans voted in lockstep to protect corporate welfare for Big Oil, even as they call for draconian cuts to programs that everyday working Americans depend on each day.

As the House of Representatives moved toward approving a stopgap resolution to avert a government shutdown for another two weeks, Democrats offered a motion to recommit that would have stripped the five largest oil companies of taxpayer subsidies, saving tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds.

The motion failed on a vote of 176-249, with all Republicans voting against. A similar vote two weeks ago to recoup $53 billion in taxpayer funds from Big Oil was also voted down, with every Republican voting no.

The former CEO of Shell Oil, John Hoffmeister, recently said Big Oil doesn't need subsidies "in the face of sustained high oil prices." And yet, the Republicans are voting against removing the taxpayer funded tax breaks. Think about that for a minute, in the last few years, these big oil companies have made record profits in the billion and billion of dollars. But the Republicans still want to use taxpayer money to give them tax breaks, it's insane.

And think about this too, from 2005 to 2009, the five largest oil companies have made a combined $485 billion in profits.

Where is the outrage from O'Reilly and the Tea Party on this, nowhere to be found. They just ignore it, as they claim to oppose using taxpayer money for wasteful spending. Why are we giving tax breaks to big oil, when they are robbing the American people with gas prices that are way too high.

When will O'Reilly answer that question, never. Big oil is robbing us, and then on top of that we use taxpayer money to give them tax breaks. And that is just insane, but O'Reilly and the Tea Party approve of it, by not calling for it to be stopped.

Fox Dishonestly Hosted GOP Official As Concerned Parent
By: Steve - March 2, 2011 - 9:00am

Here is some more of that fair and balanced reporting O'Reilly claims Fox is doing about unions. They put a GOP official on the air who was pretending to be just a concerned parent, when in fact, she is a local GOP official.

And what makes it really bad, is that Fox did not disclose that she is a local GOP official.

Monday morning, Fox & Friends hosted a so-called "upset Wisconsin parent" to discuss her objection to Wisconsin public schools teaching of labor union history.

Fox & Friends, which asked last week if teaching labor history in Wisconsin schools is "pro-union propaganda," used the interview with Hahn to renew its attacks.

A graphic that aired during the segment asked if Wisconsin schools are "pushing the union agenda," and co-host Gretchen Carlson asked Hahn if she thought the lessons on unions are "biased."

At the end of the interview, Hahn thanked the hosts for "bringing light" to the issue.

And that is not the first time they have done this, it's the second time Fox has masqueraded a GOP activist as a concerned parent to attack unions.

On February 18, Your World guest host Chris Cotter interviewed "Wisconsin parent" Dave Westlake to attack teachers for calling in sick to protest, resulting in some schools in Madison, Wisconsin, being closed.

And Cotter never once mentioned that Westlake ran for Senate in Wisconsin, losing in the GOP primary.

Number of times Fox has put a Democratic guest on the air to pretend to be a concerned parent who spoke out for the unions, zero, zip, zilch, as in never.

More Proof Fox Is Biased Against Unions
By: Steve - March 2, 2011 - 8:30am

Special Report with Bret Baier is the so-called nightly straight news show on Fox, and even they are proving to have a right-wing bias. O'Reilly claims it is a straight news show with no partisan bias, and as usual he is lying.

On the 2-28-11 Special Report show they had a segment on unions, with no union supporters, none, only anti-union guests.



Okay O'Reilly, explain how a so-called straight news show does a segment on unions, with only anti-union guests. If that is not bias, what the hell is it. What say you Billy?

The Monday 2-28-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - March 1, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Money, America and the government. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It's a big week in the USA - the federal government might be shut down and pro-union demonstrators are refusing to leave the Wisconsin capitol building. It's all about money, and whenever money is involved, bad things can happen.

The most important issue for the country right now is President Obama's budget for 2012, which has a $1.1 trillion deficit. Republicans want deep cuts and if they don't get them, they could shut the government down by Friday, although Talking Points believes a compromise will be reached.

In Madison, Wisconsin, the chaos has reached a breaking point. Democratic senators are still out of the state, so the next move is up to Governor Walker. Will he begin laying off state workers? All over the country union supporters are growing increasingly angry.

It's interesting to note that the left-wing media is not criticizing union members when they get out of control, but any misstep by tea party protesters was widely covered. No doubt hypocrisy is in play.

This all comes down to one very simple equation - the United States can no longer afford to pay pensions and benefits to public union workers at the scale it is now.

Talking Points hopes a compromise can be reached in Wisconsin, because the public labor situation is getting out of control all over the country.
Notice that O'Reilly does not mention the report from Goldman Sachs that says if the Republicans get that $61 Billion in cuts, it will cost the economy 600,000 jobs. Which is not what we want to do right in the middle of an economic recovery, not to mention the Republicans ran on job creation, when their cuts lose jobs, so they are liars, and O'Reilly never says a word.

Then he compares the media reporting on union protests to the Tea Party protests, which is just ridiculous. Because the Tea Party made news with racist Obama signs, and their members taking guns to political protests. The unions are not doing any of that, and it's a totally different situation. The Republican Governor wants to take rights away from American workers who worked 60 years to get those rights. So the comparison by O'Reilly is just stupid.

And btw, Mr. Union guy O'Reilly said this: "This all comes down to one very simple equation - the United States can no longer afford to pay pensions and benefits to public union workers at the scale it is now. Talking Points hopes a compromise can be reached in Wisconsin, because the public labor situation is getting out of control all over the country."

What a joke, if that's a union guy I'm a conservative guy. The debt is not from union pensions and benefits, it's from tax cuts and other financial bad decisions by people who invested that money. And no real union guy would be blaming the state debt on the unions, because it's a lie, and yet, that is exactly what O'Reilly is doing. The unions already took cuts, and they are willing to take more, but O'Reilly wants them to lose almost everything, when they never caused the debt to begin with.

Then O'Reilly had two waste of tv time segments, the first segment had Mike Tobin from Fox, he was on to cry about his treatment covering the Wisconsin protests. Hey Mike, if you worked for a real news network they would not be bothering you so much, so shut up and take it like a man, or quit Fox and go work for a real news network.

Then Brit Hume was on to trash the unions, and basically continue the O'Reilly spin that they are the reason the states are in debt. Which is just ridiculous, and a Republican talking point lie. Hume pretty much just parroted what O'Reilly said, as if to imply he was right, when they are both wrong, and nothing but pure right-wing spin doctors.

Then O'Reilly had another Republican on, Karl Rove was on to assess President Obama's handling of the Libya situation. Rove said this: "Let me first compliment the President. On Friday night he issued an executive order that froze all the assets of Qaddafi and his family. Having said that, the administration is dithering - they've moved slowly, they've been behind the curve, and as a result America has looked weak."

What a joke, if Obama was a Republican Rove would praise him all day long, and have nothing but good things to say about him. Notice that O'Reilly had no Democratic guests on to assess the situation, just a partisan right-wing spin doctor who worked for Bush and hates Obama, yeah that's fair and balanced, NOT!

In the next segment O'Reilly had A.B. Stoddard and Juan Williams who also evaluated President Obama's recent performance, particularly regarding the volatile Middle East. Williams said this: "It's a plus so far, and polls show that people like the way he's dealt with the situation. There's been a lot of carping from the right, but it's a puzzle to me because it just comes across as petty."

And all of that shows the opposite of what Rove said, polls show that the people like how Obama has dealt with Libya.

Stoddard agreed that President Obama has so far played his hand just right. She said this: "We have no idea what will happen - this will consume most of this year and maybe the rest of his presidency. Thus far he did what he had to do, and people in both parties give him credit for putting the lives of Americans first. I don't know why there was so much criticism of his tepid statements last week - the administration is now putting its full force behind actions against Libya."

Of course O'Reilly disagreed, and said Obama is not doing enough, so Mr. I'm an Indpendent agrees with the far right spin doctor Karl Rove, even though the polls disagree with both of them. Hey Billy, what happened to your rule that you go by the will of the people, you lying biased jerk.

In the next segment O'Reilly actually disagreed with Bernie Goldberg about what Jesse Watters did. After Factor producer Jesse Watters walked outside the Fox News building in Manhattan to question some anti-Fox protesters last week, an analyst on CNN criticized Watters, saying, "That wasn't journalism!"

Bernie Goldberg said this: "It was a fun segment when Jesse Watters went out there, but I do agree that it isn't 'journalism.' He didn't go out there as an objective journalist; he went out there to defend the company that signs his paychecks. Jesse Watters is not an objective reporter."

Wow, stop the presses, Goldberg actually told the truth for once, it's a miracle.

But O'Reilly disagreed, he said this: "The role of a journalist is to get information - my mandate to Watters was to go out there and find out what was bothering these people. He found out that these people got an email 'blast' from MoveOn and other left-wing organizations telling them where to congregate. That's information, Bernie, and that's journalism!"

Haha, if that's journalism I'm Donald Trump. It might be journalism to O'Reilly, but it's not to anyone else, even Goldberg admitted it was not journalism. Proving that O'Reilly is even more dishonest than Goldberg, and that's pretty hard to do.

And finally the worthless Factor Reality Check, which has very little reality, and almost no checks. For people that do not know what I mean, it's basically O'Reilly sitting there alone, putting his right-wing spin on an issue, or what someone said, usually a liberal. It's not reality, it's O'Reilly's spin, and the checks are usually not checks.

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

Fox News Sunday Host Chris Wallace Proves His Bias
By: Steve - March 1, 2011 - 8:30am

O'Reilly and everyone at Fox tell us that Chris Wallace is a non-partisan straight news journalist. He does the Fox News Sunday news show, and he also claims that he is not biased. But that is just laughable, just look at how many union leaders he has on to talk about Wisconsin and the unions, none.

Now on 2-27-11 Wallace was caught spinning out two Republican talking point lies. Wallace said a new report prepared by Goldman Sachs has been discredited, which it has not been, except by a few partisan Republicans.

The report says spending cuts passed by the House of Representatives last week would be a drag on the economy, cutting economic growth by about two percent of GDP. And Wallace claims the report is wrong, which is a lie.

Then Wallace also claimed the Obama stimulus failed, which is another Republican talking point lie. Because every economist that is not a Republican, admits it worked, and even the few honest Republican economists have admitted it worked.

Wallace Dismissed The Goldman Sachs Report By Pushing Right-Wing Propaganda That The Stimulus Failed:
JUAN WILLIAMS: This is taking a hatchet to the budget. It's not doing something that's either going to produce jobs or grow the economy. And that's not Juan Williams talking, that's Goldman Sachs talking. So, when you stop and think about --

WALLACE: Wait, wait. The Goldman Sachs number has been somewhat -- that's been somewhat discredited.

WILLIAMS: No, no it's not.

WALLACE: All they did -- all they did is they took the multiplier and they said if you cut so much --

WILLIAMS: Yes --

WALLACE: -- and there's a number that's going to mean so many fewer jobs.

WILLIAMS: Thank you, Chris.

WALLACE: Yes. If that had worked, then the stimulus, we'd have unemployment under 8 percent.
Folks, that is not what a non-partisan journalist does, what Wallace did there is right-wing bias. Even though he claims to be a straight news journalist, what he did was no different than what O'Reilly or Hannity does, inject their opinion into a news report, and do it using right-wing talking point lies.

The Goldman Sachs report says that "Under the House passed spending bill the drag on GDP growth from federal fiscal policy would increase by 1.5pp to 2pp in Q2 and Q3 compared with current law."

The report, which is signed by Goldman economist Alec Phillips, goes on to predict that the House-passed bill is unlikely to become law because it won't pass the Senate and, in any case, the president threatened to veto it.

More likely, the report says, is a deal to cut spending by $25 billion this year, followed by a cut of $50 billion next year.

Even those more modest spending cuts, Goldman Sachs predicts, will cut economic growth rates by one percent of GDP.

And it's not just Goldman Sachs saying it, Mark Zandi of Moody's and the business writers at AP are saying it too.

Zandi said this:
By the end of the year, Zandi said, those spending cuts could cost the economy between 400,000 and 500,000 jobs.

"I think it's premature to engage in that kind of budget cutting," Zandi said. "We can't do that, I don't think, until the economy is off and running."
Associated Press business writers painted a gloomy picture in their analysis of the potential effects of the Republican spending cuts:
Deep spending cuts by state and local governments pose a growing threat to an economy that is already grappling with high unemployment, depressed home prices and the surging cost of oil.

The reduction in federal spending has a direct effect on states and municipalities. They depend on money from Washington to keep schools operating, put police officers on the street and subsidize public services like job training.
And btw, the non-partisan CBO said the Obama Stimulus Bill Raised GDP 1.1 To 3.5 Percent.

A February 2011 report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act "raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product by between 1.1 percent and 3.5 percent" and "lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.9 percentage points."

And now you have the facts, not that right-wing propaganda the so-called straight news reporter Chris Wallace put out.

Philly Budget Cuts Cause Two Child Deaths
By: Steve - March 1, 2011 - 8:00am

And I know I sound like a broken record ,but here is another story O'Reilly has ignored, and you will never see reported by O'Reilly or anyone on the Factor.

O'Reilly claims to watch out for the kids, so what does he have to say about this, nothing, because he will just ignore it.

All over the country, conservatives are complaining about the need to cut government spending at any cost, demonizing the government and its role in defending the public interest in the process. While truly taking aim at waste in government is an admirable goal, a recent story of out of Philadelphia provides a cautionary tale about why we must protect funding for certain social necessities.

As a part of Philadelphia's cost-cutting measures, the city has been closing down certain fire stations on a rotating basis in a process of rolling brownouts. Since these brownouts began, city firefighters have protested the policy, saying that they would harm public safety.

Philadelphia Fire Commissioner Loyd Ayers dismissed these warnings and defended the city's austerity plans, saying that the city "will continue to respond to your call and tend to any and every emergency that may arise in an urgent and timely manner."

Tell that to the parents of the two kids that died because the nearest fire station was closed the day their house caught on fire, what say you Billy?

The firefighters were proven right when a tragedy struck earlier this week. On Tuesday, a fire broke out at a home in the Olney section of the city. The closest fire station, which operates Engine 61, was closed that day due to the brownouts. So Engine 51, which was stationed further away from the site of the disaster, was dispatched to handle the situation. By the time two children were pulled from the ruins of the home, it was too late, and both kids tragically passed away.

While the Fire Department's Lt. Mike Grant maintains that Engine 51 got to the scene in good order, Mike Kane, who represents firefighters on behalf of Philadelphia Firefighters Union Local 22, estimated that the closer Engine 61 could've "been on the scene in half the time."

While Kane said that nobody can answer whether having a closer fire engine would've saved the lives of the children, he could say with confidence that the kids at least would have had a shot:
KANE: Whether that Engine 61, being browned out, if that company was in service, they would have made a difference? Nobody can answer that, because we don't have a crystal ball. What we can say is, maybe if they were there, they would have had a shot. Maybe them kids would have had a shot.
Scores of firefighters and paramedics protested the city's brownout policy at the site of the fire on Wednesday. "We need $15 million. I'm not saying that that's a pittance; that's a lot of money. But $15 million will stop the brownout policy and reopen all of the seven companies closed in January of 2009," said Ray Vozzelli, of International Association of Firefighters Local 22.

And btw, at least one Republican I know of agrees with Kane and Vozzelli. Friday night, The Big Picture's Thom Hartmann debated the Philadelphia brownout issue with conservative T.J. McCormack, who, while attacking public sector unions, opposed the brownout policy and said that conservatives should not champion cuts to services that maintain public safety.


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