The Monday 5-31-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 1, 2010 - 1:00pm

The Monday show was a Best of the Factor (haha) spin show. It was a spliced together clips from past shows of all right-wing propaganda. With all Republicans, O'Reilly did not have one Democratic guest on the entire show. So somehow in a best of the Factor Billy could not find one segment with a Democratic guest that was worth showing.

O'Reilly had highlights from past segments with Glenn Beck, Bernie Goldberg, Mitt Romney, Megyn Kelly, Dennis Miller, Steve Doocy, and Martha MacCallum.

And this is called the fair and balanced no spin zone, with a nonpartisan independent host, which is just laughable. It was all Republican spin, all the time. And the Friday re-run last week was almost the same thing, all republican guests. If that's a no spin zone, I'm God.

Honor The Troops On Memorial Day
By: Steve - May 31, 2010 - 2:00pm

Despite what you have heard from O'Reilly and the right, liberals love the troops as much as conservatives do. I am as liberal as it gets, and I support the troops 100 percent.

I believe that anyone who joins the military is a hero, even if you are a cook, or you work a desk doing paperwork. In my book everyone in the military is a true Patriot, and a real hero.

And what better way to honor the troops then to make a donation to a good military charity. I like the Wounded Warrior Project, they help severely injured service members. If you want to visit their website to look around, or to make a donation you can click the link below.

Great Example Of Republican Bias By O'Reilly
By: Steve - May 31, 2010 - 1:00pm

Someone should send this e-mail to O'Reilly and ask him to explain why he only has a Right-Wing media bias analyst.
Dear Bill,

If you are fair and balanced, as you claim, how come your only media bias analyst is the far right partisan Bernie Goldberg. How come you do not have a far left media bias analyst, and how come you never discuss any bias at Fox News, or any other right-wing media outlet.
Now that is a good question, and the fact that O'Reilly only has a far right media bias analyst proves he also has a Republican bias. O'Reilly claims to be a nonpartisan independent, but he has no independents on the show, and almost all his regulars are partisan Republican spin doctors. He rarely ever has any experts on, it's almost always paid right-wing political spin doctors, to put a right-wing spin on everything.

And in the rare times when a Democratic guest does get on, O'Reilly only has them on to tell them how they are wrong about everything. An actual nonpartisan independent would also have a Democratic media bias analyst to balance out Bernie Goldberg. And they would report on bias at Fox News, which O'Reilly and Goldberg never do. This is not being fair and balanced, it's being biased partisan right-wing spin doctors.

Maybe if enough people send O'Reilly an e-mail about this he will answer it, haha, that's not gonna happen. He will never answer it, he will just ignore it like he does with any valid charge of bias against him, or claim it's a lie by some liberal that never watches his show.

Hey Billy, I watch your show every night, 5 days a week, and I have for 10 years, so I know what I'm talking about. And yet, you never read my e-mails on the air, and you never address the charges of bias I document against you. That's because you are a biased right-wing fraud, and you have no answer to my charges because they are true, so you just ignore them.

Another Sarah Palin Poll O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - May 31, 2010 - 11:00am

Last week a polling company called ran a poll on Sarah Palin, and of course O'Reilly never said a word about it, because it shows what the majority of Americans really think of Sarah Palin.

And btw, they are a non-political polling company. It says this about their company:
We at Issue Watch Daily are totally independent and not affiliated with either the right or left wing nor any part of the political establishment and entrenched media.
Here are a few of the results from the Sarah Palin poll:

Does Sarah Palin possess the necessary intellect to be US President?

54% said no.

Does Sarah Palin possess the necessary experience to be US President?

62% said no.

Which political party best represents your political beliefs:

33% - Independent
24% - Democratic
18% - Republican
16% - Tea Party
8% - None of the above
1% - Green Party

NOTE: If you add the Republicans and the Tea Party, you get 34%, which is more than the Independents or the Democrats. So a lot of Republicans took this poll, and yet, the majority of Americans still see Palin an unqualified to be the President.

If you had lunch with Sarah Palin what would you choose to say?

41% - I certainly hope you go away soon
36% - I admire and support you

Do you believe Sarah Palin could win an election for national public office?

45% - Not a Chance
39% - Potentially
16% - In a Landslide

And not only does this poll show that the majority of the American people do not think Sarah Palin is experienced enough or smart enough to be the President, it shows that O'Reilly will lie to the people and claim that she is. Because he has said many times that she is qualified, and that she is smart enough to be the President.

Only a biased Republican who loves Palin would say that, because the majority of Democrats and Independents do not think she is qualified to be the President. Proving that O'Reilly is a Republican, and proving he is a right-wing spin doctor.

If Palin was a Democrat, O'Reilly would be saying wow, how can anyone think a woman as dumb as Palin could be the President. All you have to do is listen to her speak in an interview, and you can clearly see that she is stupid.

And btw, I would have no problem with a smart Republican winning an election, if that's what the people want. I would not like it, but I would respect it. With Palin, it's ridiculous, because she is stupid. Everyone knows it, but people like O'Reilly try to coach her up to fool the people into thinking she is smart.

Guess what Billy, it's not working, and you are not fooling anyone. The majority of people know that Palin is a dummy, and all the polls prove it. That is why you ignore them, and spin out your propaganda that she is qualified to be the President.

Republican Senate Candidate Lied About Navy Award
By: Steve - May 30, 2010 - 10:00am

Last week O'Reilly spent 3 straight nights talking about Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, a Democratic candidate for the US Senate, who lied about serving in Vietnam. He was in the military, he just never served in Vietnam.

Now we have a similar story, except it's a Republican. The Republican candidate for President Obama's old Senate seat has admitted to inaccurately claiming he received the U.S. Navy's Intelligence Officer of the Year award for his service during NATO's conflict with Serbia in the late 1990s.

Rep. Mark Kirk, a Navy reservist who was elected to Congress in 2001, acknowledged the error in his official biography after The Washington Post began looking into whether he had received the prestigious award, which is given by top Navy officials to a single individual annually.

Notice that he did not admit the error until after the Washington Post found out he was lying about the award.

Kirk, whose campaign has emphasized his military service as a reservist, similarly misstated the award during a House committee hearing in March 2002. In a remark recorded by C-Span, he said, "I was the Navy's Intelligence Officer of the Year," an achievement he depicted as providing special qualifications to discuss national security spending.

AAfter getting busted for the lie, Kirk wrote in his blog that "upon a recent review of my records, I found that an award listed in my official biography was misidentified" and that the award he had intended to list was given to his unit, not to him individually.

Yeah right, and I'm Elvis too. Kirk is a liar, and a bad one. He told a House committee he was the Navy's Intelligence Officer of The Year in 2002. That award is given to one person, not an entire unit. So he flat out lied, and he knew he was lying, because he knew he did not win that award.

And now the question is this, will O'Reilly report this even one time, let alone 3 nights in a row. And the answer is hell no, O'Reilly will ignore the entire story and never say one word about it. Because Kirk is a Republican, so O'Reilly will never say a word about this story, not once, not ever.

Megyn Kelly Proves Her Bias Once Again
By: Steve - May 30, 2010 - 9:30am

Now remember this, O'Reilly and Fox News both claim Megyn Kelly is a straight news journalist with no bias, they claim she is an objective fair and balanced journalist. Which is just ridiculous, and anyone who makes that claim is lying to you. Just look at this, and you will see what I mean.

On Friday Megyn Kelly spent 1.5 hours of her 2 hour show talking about the Joe Sestak job offer scandal. In her 1.5 hours of reporting it, not one Democratic guest was put on to discuss it. She had 3 Republicans, and 0 Democrats.

We are currently struggling to deal with what may be the worst man-made environmental catastrophe ever in the BP oil spill. We are still dealing with the current economic conditions. There are two wars going, and the threat of terrorism. And yet, Megyn Kelly spends almost her entire 2 hour show on a non-story with everyone except a few partisan Republicans.

Sestak had previously said that the White House offered him a job if he would decline to challenge Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary for senator in PA. Sestak turned down the offer and eventually defeated Specter. Now Fox News is trying to blow this up into a Watergate-style controversy despite there being no evidence of any wrongdoing. Their tactic to escalate this story is to run it 24/7 and imply there was criminality, that they fail to support.

The worst offender is Megyn Kelly. Her Friday two hour show was almost all Sestak. She never brought up the gulf oil spill, Afghanistan or the economy one time.

That was no accident, it was an exercise of editorial discretion by Fox News. It wasn't that there was not any other news occurring, it was that they had already decided to make Sestak the primary story for the day. Never mind that there was very little to report, which resulted in Kelly repeating the same right-wing talking points over and over.

During the course of her Sestak bashfest, Kelly interviewed three guests: Dana Perino, George Bush's press secretary, Michael Mukasey, Bush's Attorney General, and Republican congressman Darrel Issa, who has been hammering on Sestak and President Obama, who even claims that an impeachable offense may have been committed.

Despite Kelly's grilling, Mukasey would not indict Sestak or the White House. He repeatedly said that there does not appear to be any criminal act. He even pointed out that Kelly had misrepresented the law when she supposedly quoted the U.S. code that prohibits promising any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit.

Mukasey provided the additional context that the code only applies to positions created by Congress, which was not the case in this matter. And even as he said this, Kelly nodded and agreed, which means that she knew of her own dishonesty.

But the most disturbing part of her show happened while she was discussing it with Fox News Major Garrett. During this discussion Kelly asked Garrett why this is such a big story, with reporters asking about this instead of the Deep Horizon oil spill?

Of course the real answer is that it's only reporters like her who are doing the asking. How insane is it for her to wonder why so much attention is being given to the story when she had just devoted 75% of her own program to it? The funny and sad part is that when she was wrapping up the segment with Garrett she praised him for being the only reporter who asked a question about this at the President's press conference. So she basically admitted it is not a big story, that all the reporters are asking about, it's just Fox News.

The whole Sestak scandal is a political story invented by Fox News. There are no legal authorities or experts who believe that anything illegal occurred, even Bush's Attorney General. This is just another attempt by the right and the right's smear machine, Fox News, to smear the President.

And this was done by a woman who Fox News and O'Reilly claim, is a straight news journalist with no bias.

Top Kill Fails & BP Still Spinning
By: Steve - May 30, 2010 - 9:00am

Not only did top kill fail to plug the leak, now BP has been caught in a dog and pony show during the Obama trip to the Gulf Coast.

Increased national attention was on the Gulf Coast yesterday when President Obama made a visit to assess the oil spill response effort. An official in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, are reporting that BP "bused 400 cleanup workers into Grand Isle" -- at a rate of $12 an hour -- to be there when Obama arrived. From New Orleans NBC affiliate WDSU:
Jefferson Parish Councilman Chris Roberts didn't buy into the cleanup effort.

"They must think we're all fools," he said.

Roberts called BP's efforts "shameful."
Roberts said that since oil started coming ashore in Grand Isle last week, no more than a dozen workers hired by BP have been seen on the beaches in the area, until Friday when the president arrived.

Yahoo News adds that Roberts said the "overnight contingent of workers was there mainly to furnish a Potemkin-style backdrop for the event -- while also making it appear that BP was firmly in command of spill cleanup efforts."

A BP contractor, insisted that it wasn't just a dog and pony show, but a sheer coincidence that all the workers arrived on the day the President came to inspect the company's work.

Yeah, and I'm Donald Trump too. What a coincidence, after 40 days the 400 BP workers just happened to show up on the very same day President Obama made a visit. As Chris Roberts said, they must think we are all fools.

And let me add this, I do not think anything is going to plug the leak, until they get the new well drilled. And I think all this stuff BP is doing is a pure dog and pony show to make people think they are tryint to stop the leak. I also think they know they can not stop the leak, but they have to say they can so the heat is not so bad on them.

Let me also say this, I have no idea if what I just wrote is true, it's a 100% guess by me, and total speculation. I have no evidence to back it up, none. It's just a gut feeling, and nothing more.

Conservative Media Fear Mongers Strike Again
By: Steve - May 30, 2010 - 8:30am

Right-wing media a-holes -- especially Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh -- have attacked critics of the Arizona immigration law by invoking the idea of a civil war. For example, Beck suggested President Obama is "trying to destroy the country" and pushing America toward a new civil war.

During the May 19 edition of his syndicated radio program, before reading a letter about the City of Los Angeles boycott of Arizona, Beck said that "we're being pushed into an area where civil war" is possible. He later suggested that President Obama is "trying to destroy the country."

And remember this, Friday night Beck was on the Factor and O'Reilly said he is not one of the right-wing bomb throwers on the radio who attacks President Obama non-stop with violent hate speech. Then what the hell do you call that O'Reilly. Beck is the 2nd in line, behind Rush Limbaugh. They both do nothing but spew out lies and use scare tactics to smear Obama and make people fear him.

On the May 20 edition of his syndicated radio program, Limbaugh said of the Los Angeles boycott of Arizona that "this is the kind of stuff that starts civil wars, folks."

On the May 28 edition of Fox & Friends, Peter Johnson Jr. said this: "Obama is engaging in the kind of sectionalism that destroyed the United States in the 19th century."

Even the so-called moderate on Fox, Greta Van Susteren said this: "They don't like what Arizona did, and it's beginning to look like war between Arizona and the United States."

This is all right-wing propaganda, from Beck, Limbaugh, and almost everyone on the right. None of it is true, none of it has happened, and none of it will ever happen. And yet these right-wing idiots claim it will anyway, and O'Reilly not only defends it, he ignores most of it and says they are not doing it.

Which just proves once again how much of a right-wing stooge O'Reilly is, because a real nonpartisan independent journalist would be reporting this stuff, and not defending it.

Fox & Friends Dishonestly Attack Obama Again
By: Steve - May 30, 2010 - 8:00am

Earth to Fox News Idiots, this is another example of why Democrats and the Obama administration hate Fox News. Because you make shit up and report lies to smear the President.

Fox & Friends guest hosts falsely suggested that there was a "lack of cleanup going on" in the Gulf Coast oil spill and falsely suggested Louisiana's barrier plan had been ignored. In fact, cleanup of the oil spill has been ongoing for more than a month, and the Army Corps of Engineers responded to the barrier plan -- the effectiveness of which is being questioned -- and raised concerns that it would push oil into Mississippi.

On the May 28 edition of Fox & Friends, guest host Dave Briggs claimed the president "should be taking some accountability for the lack of cleanup going on." Co-guest host Clayton Morris added: "We all know that it's BP's fault. I mean, there's no discounting that. But what's at blame now is the cleanup process and the government's reaction to it."

Now think about this, a couple months ago Fox News and everyone on the right were saying Obama should keep his nose out of the business of private corporations. They told Obama to keep the Government out of their business, and to leave them alone. Now they criticize Obama for not stepping in to takeover the oil spill from a private corporation.

The BP oil spill was supposed to be cleaned up by BP, that's what the laws say. Yet the Fox News Idiots hammer him for not taking over sooner. When it's all a lie, and he did take over, as fast as he could, even though by law BP was in charge of the cleanup. Which shows just how dishonest these right-wing stooges at Fox are. They do nothing but put out lies to make the President look bad, as if they were working for the RNC as a paid political group, and if you are truthful, that is exactly what they are.

This right-wing jerk Briggs, also suggested that the administration is ignoring Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's request for resources, saying, "The people in Louisiana are saying, hey, we want you to give us some resources. We've been asking for them for weeks and not getting them."

Co-guest host Alisyn Camerota later added: "Thirty-eight days. I mean, had they done anything -- just try anything, even if it didn't work. We've seen other examples here on the show, even, of people with little gadgets, little ideas for sponges, for hairnets -- for anything. Bobby Jindal has been down there saying, just help me build some barrier islands -- man-made barrier islands to keep it from coming ashore. Anything that could have been done in the past 38 days."

Hello, it's a lie. And Jindal is one of the guys that told the Federal Government to leave him and his state alone, he even refused the Federal stimulus money. Now the hypocrite is crying because the Federal Government is not helping him fast enough. it's just laughable, you can't say leave me alone one day, then ask for help the next day. Jindal is a right-wing moron who does not know what he wants. All he does is try to smear the President any way possible.

And btw, the Associated Press reported on May 26 that the Army Corps of Engineers released documents that day that "signaled support for parts of the state plan, including berms that would be built onto existing barrier islands," but stated that parts of the plan "could inadvertently alter tides and end up driving oil east -- into Mississippi Sound, the Biloxi Marshes and Lake Borgne."

Not to mention the AP also reported this: "Experts and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have questioned whether the barrier system could be completed in time." The May 26 AP article also quoted Len Bahr, who "served as a coastal adviser to five Louisiana governors, including Jindal," saying, "The horses are already out of the barn. The oil is already out there."

And this: During a May 24 press conference, Adm. Thad Allen was asked about Jindal's "frustration that the federal government was not being responsive to the requests." Allen responded that the Corps was working on a review of "cost and the schedule, the feasibility, the engineering issues associated with" the plan and that "building a set of barrier islands and berms that large is going to take a very, very long time even by the state's own estimate -- six to nine months in some cases -- and a significant amount of resources associated with that that might be applied elsewhere."

None of which was reported by Fox News. So even if they could build the barriers, it could take 9 months, and it might make things worse for other places. So they are in the review process. Yet Fox blames it all on Obama and says he is doing nothing. Which is a 100% right-wing lie.

Beck Attacked Obama's 11 Year Old Daughter
By: Steve - May 29, 2010 - 9:30am

Before I show you what Beck said, think about this, Beck has a rule against using kids for political reasons. He said kids should be left alone and never used to attack someone for political reasons, that is his own rule.

Then on Friday he broke his own rule, and later that day he even put out an apology for it. Glenn Beck, who repeatedly and angrily tells his alleged persecutors to "leave the families alone," spent a good chunk of his radio program Friday morning mocking and attacking the intelligence of President Obama's 11-year-old daughter, Malia.

Obama remarked during his press conference that Malia asked him of the Gulf oil spill: "Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?" Beck, taking off on this, mockingly affected Malia's voice, asking "Daddy" why he "hates black people so much." Then Beck attacked Malia's intelligence, saying: "That's the level of their education, that they're coming to -- they're coming to Daddy and saying, 'Daddy, did you plug the hole yet?'"

This routine continued for several minutes, as Beck and his co-hosts touched on a variety of topics and laughed the entire time, all of it at the expense of an 11-year-old girl.
BECK: (imitating Malia) Daddy? Daddy? Daddy, did you plug the hole yet? Daddy?

PAT GRAY (co-host): (imitating Obama) No I didn't, honey.

BECK: (imitating Malia) Daddy, I know you're better than--

GRAY: (imitating Obama) Mm-hmm, big country.

BECK: (imitating Malia) And I was wondering if you've plugged that hole yet.

GRAY: (imitating Obama) Honey, not yet.

BECK: (imitating Malia) Why not, daddy? But daddy--

GRAY: (imitating Obama) Not time yet, honey. Hasn't done enough damage.

BECK: (imitating Malia) Daddy?

GRAY: (imitating Obama) Not enough damage yet, honey.

BECK: (imitating Malia) Daddy?

GRAY: (imitating Obama) Yeah?

BECK: (imitating Malia) Why do you hate black people so much?

GRAY: (imitating Obama) I'm part white, honey.

BECK: (imitating Malia) What?

GRAY: (imitating Obama) What?

BECK: (imitating Malia) What'd you say?

GRAY: (imitating Obama) Excuse me?

BECK: (laughing) This is such a ridiculous -- this is such a ridiculous thing that his daughter-- (imitating Malia) Daddy?

GRAY: It's so stupid.

BECK: How old is his daughter? Like, thirteen?

GRAY: Well, one of them's, I think, thirteen, one's eleven, or something.

BECK: "Did you plug the hole yet, daddy?" Is that's their -- that's the level of their education, that they're coming to -- they're coming to daddy and saying 'Daddy, did you plug the hole yet?' " Plug the hole!

GRAY: (imitating Obama) Yes, I was doing some deep-sea diving yesterday, and--

BECK: (imitating Malia) Daddy?

GRAY: (imitating Obama) Yeah, mm-hmm, mm-hmm, I was doing--

BECK: (imitating Malia) Why--

GRAY: (imitating Obama) Yeah, honey, I'm--

BECK (imitating Malia) Why, why, why, why, do you still let the polar bears die? Daddy, why do you still let Sarah Palin destroy the environment? Why are -- Daddy, why don't you just put her in some sort of a camp?
Not only did the low life scum smear the President's daughter, he was also being racist in his ridiculous attack. And here is the lame apology Beck put out later in the day.
BECK: In discussing how President Obama uses children to shield himself from criticism, I broke my own rule about leaving kids out of political debates. The children of public figures should be left on the sidelines. It was a stupid mistake and I apologize--and as a dad I should have known better.
And btw, the Beck apology is laughable. Because Beck involved Obama's children in another attack on the president earlier this week, comments Beck did not address in his apology Friday.

Beck limited his apology to just "my own rule about leaving kids out of political debates." But he has repeatedly stated that entire families are off-limits -- and he has dragged President Obama's family into "political debates" several times over the past year.

Good job Beck, not only are you a proven right-wing liar, who uses fear tactics to scare people, now you are lower than low, for attacking the President's 11 year old daughter.

The Friday 5-28-10 O'Reilly Factor Re-Run Review
By: Steve - May 29, 2010 - 9:00am

There was no full review because the Factor was a re-run from May 17th. But I do have a couple things to say about the re-run, and what O'Reilly did.

1) O'Reilly picked a show to re-run where he did an entire TPM slamming Posner and Obama for the so-called China apology, and O'Reilly even called Posner a moron. The re-run was all right-wing guests, who spent the entire show slamming Obama. This May 17th show was about the so-called apology to China by Michael Posner for the Arizona immigration law.

When there was no apology, that part was made up by O'Reilly and the right-wing bloggers. Posner and P.J. Crowley even put out a statement saying there was no apology, and yet, O'Reilly picked this show to re-run that implied there was an apology.

2) O'Reilly had the far right blogger John Hinderaker on the show to discuss it, during the segment O'Reilly said I do not want to make this an Obama bashfest because that gets us nowhere.

Then after Hinderaker was on O'Reilly put Brit Hume on to continue the Obama bashfest for another 4 minutes.

3) So the first 20 minutes of the show was nothing but an Obama bashfest, with no Democratic guests to give the counterpoint. O'Reilly even said he was sorry for calling Posner a moron, and said he should not have done that.

4) But he put Hinderaker on who not only called Posner a moron, he called Obama a moron, and many other names too, like idiot, etc. And O'Reilly knew exactly what Hinderaker had said because he admitted he put him on because of what he wrote about it in his blog. So he knew Hinderaker was a right-wing blogger who was going to bash Obama non-stop, and yet he put him on anyway.

Then he has the nerve to say he does not want it to be an Obama bashfest, when that's exactly what it was. Including the TPM, it was a 20 minute non-stop Obama bashfest with all Republican guests.

5) And finally, during one of the Posner/Obama bashing segments O'Reilly said he does not want to speculate about what Posner was thinking, when he made the so-called apology that never happened. O'Reilly said he does not want to speculate because he does not do that on the Factor. Okay, so he never speculates, and speculation is not allowed on the Factor, got it.

Then about 15 minutes later, O'Reilly speculated his ass off in the Bernie Goldberg segment. Goldberg said he would bet that if thay took a poll, most of the so-called liberal media would be opposed to the new Arizona immigration law. So O'Reilly jumps in and says 80/20, he speculated that 80% of the media would be opposed to it, and 20% would support it.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, that is speculation you giant idiot, 100% pure speculation. Not 15 minutes after you had just said there is no speculation allowed on the Factor. You are so ridiculous you do not even follow your own rules, 15 minutes after you had just stated them for the viewers.

The fact that O'Reilly picked that show to re-run says a lot about him, it says he is a partisan right-wing hack who wants to bash Obama as much as possible, who has a re-run with a blogging right-wing hack like John Hinderaker, and not one Democratic guest to give the counterpoint. It was basically an hour long Obama bashfest, with all right-wing spin doctors, and nobody to give the other side.

Ingraham On Bush & Obama Disaster Response
By: Steve - May 28, 2010 - 9:00am

Ingraham praises Bush response to Katrina, says Obama oil spill response a lot worse.

After watching that you now have 100% proof that Laura Ingraham is a total right-wing spin doctor. because nobody in their right mind thinks Obama has handled the BP oil spill worse than Bush handled hurricane Katrina. And if you do, you should be locked in a padded room right next to Glenn Beck.

The Thursday 5-27-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 28, 2010 - 8:30am

The TPM was called Offshore Grilling. O'Reilly said the oil well has been capped, which I do not believe is true. I am pretty sure it's working, but it has not been capped yet, so I think O'Reilly is wrong. The rest of the TPM was O'Reilly talking about politics, and how Obama has handled the oil spill. Obama did admit he made a few mistakes, but he said most of the criticism is politics. Obama also said he does not approve of the Arizona immigration law, which O'Reilly slammed him for.

Then Carl Cameron and Major Garrett were on to discuss it, with no Democrats of course. The President is a Democrat, and O'Reilly does not even have one Democratic guest on to discuss it, which is an outrage, and proves beyond a doubt that O'Reilly is a biased Republican. Because a real nonpartisan independent would have at least one Democrat on to comment on what the Democratic President said, especially when we have a Democratic President. I will not go into details of what they said, but I will say they basically attacked Obama for everything, with nobody from the other side to give the counter point. They spent almost the entire segment talking about the woman (Elizabeth Birnbaum) at the MMS who resigned.

Then O'Reilly had the far right Laura Ingraham on to discuss it. And btw, have you noticed that O'Reilly is working every Friday now, and that Ingraham has not been hosting for him. That's to try and get his ratings back up, because they have dropped, and they really drop on Fridays when Ingraham fills in. Funny how he never mentions any of that, but when his ratings go up for a short time he talks about it every night.

Ingraham did her usual far right spin/smear job on Obama. No matter what Obama does she hates it, even if it's good for the country, she will find some insane way to spin it as a bad thing. O'Reilly asked Ingraham to grade the Obama press conference, she said she will grade everything he has done, then she said he gets a D+, but that she would give him an F, but she wanted to be fair, haha, yeah right. Ingraham kept saying this is the no spin zone, then she went on to spin out nothing but right-wing propaganda.

Basically Ingraham had nothing good to say about Obama, over anything, which is the same thing she always does. When we all know if this had happened under Bush, Ingraham would defend him, and make excuses for everything he did. At the end Ingraham said enough with the politics from Obama, and called it embarrassing. Crazy Ingraham even said Obama's handling of the oil spill is worse than what Bush did with Katrina. Which is just insane, and it proves exactly what a right-wing idiot Ingraham is. The whole segment was bash Obama, all the time, with nobody there to give the other side.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about Joe Sestak and the bribe rumors. They claim Obama tried to bribe Sestak to not run against Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary. Kelly admits it is a rumor, and that it has not been proven. And on Thursday President Obama personally said nothing illegal was done. Remember that this is a rumor, and yet O'Reilly devoted almost an entire segment to it with Megyn Kelly. Get back to me when it has been proven, until then it's a non-story with everyone but the right-wing spin doctors. The rest of the segment was not even worth reporting on. Just more right-wing illegal immigration garbage.

The next segment was with the two Republican culture warriors, Juliet Huddy and Gretchen Carlson. And of course O'Reilly does not have any Democratic culture warriors, they are both Republicans, just as he is. Billy cited a Gallup poll on morality, adultery, abortion, death penalty, gays, etc. They took each issue one by one, and Carlson said she thinks a lot of people lied in the poll. Because in a lot of the results the majority said it was ok. Which is funny because when Carlson agrees with polls, she says they are real and valid, but when she does not like a poll result she says they probably lied in the poll. Proving she is a partisan hypocrite.

Huddy is a little less to the right than Carlson and O'Reilly, but not much. Basically they all agreed on everything, whatever the Republican position is they supported it. Except on having a child out of wedlock, Huddy said that would be ok with her, because she is single and might want to have a child using In Vitro Fertilization.

Then the crazy fool Glenn Beck was on for his regular weekly segment. Beck is the biggest right-wing nut in America, and O'Reilly gives this fool a forum every week to spin out his right-wing garbage. And he wonders why people call him a Republican, just look at the guest list and it's clear why. O'Reilly asked Beck if all this criticism of President Obama is hurting the country, and of course Beck said no. O'Reilly said Beck is not a partisan, which is just insanity. Beck is as partisan as anyone in the country. Proving that O'Reilly is just a fool. I will not go into details of what Beck said, because it's a waste of time.

But I will say this, remember back to when Bush was in office, and the Democrats criticized what Bush was doing. O'Reilly said it was un-American and they are guilty of treason and sedition. But now that Obama is in office, O'Reilly has no problem with Republicans slamming Obama every day. Because he is one of them, and Beck is a friend who works for the same network he does. So O'Reilly defends him over everything, while ignoring all the Hitler and Nazi stuff Beck is spewing out. Not to mention the hate speech Beck spews out, and the stuff Beck is saying that calls for revolution and violence, O'Reilly ignores it all.

The last segment was the total waste of time Factor News Quiz, with Bill Hemmer and Martha MacCallum. O'Reilly has two Fox News employees on to take a News Quiz, for one simple reason, to give Factor gear away to the winner. It's not news, and has nothing to do with any news.

Then the pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And once again, not one Democratic guest was on the entire show. O'Reilly had 9 Republicans guests, 10 including himself, and zero Democrats, as in none.

O'Reilly Tells Dr. Hill He Looks Like A Coke Dealer
By: Steve - May 28, 2010 - 8:00am

Wednesday night, during a conversation about sending military forces to the U.S.-Mexico border, Bill O'Reilly suggested that a larger show of soldiers would intimidate drug dealers from entering the country.

But as he made his point about cocaine dealers, O'Reilly said Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, an African American Studies professor from Columbia, "kinda looks like one a little bit."

Hill, who was dressed in a suit and tie, laughed off the awkward moment, retorting "as do you," and joked that to be even, O'Reilly looks like a cocaine user:
OREILLY: I don't need IEDs. If I have 10,000 guard down there, that's an intimidating force. That intimidates. Say you are a cocaine dealer, and you kinda look like one a little bit.

HILL: As do you, you, in fact, you look like a cocaine user. So we're even.

OREILLY: I know, I'm too thin. I'm twitchy.
And then he wonders why people say he is a racist, and a biased right-wing racist at that. It's exactly because of things like this, can you imagine O'Reilly telling a Republican guest that he looks like a cocaine dealer, it would never happen.

Right-Wing Nuts Pulling Guns On Census Takers
By: Steve - May 27, 2010 - 10:30am

UPDATE - 5-28-10 - As I pedicted O'Reilly never said a word about this story.

Here is another big story O'Reilly has ignored. Because it involves Republican gun nuts who are pulling guns on Census takers that come to their house.

For months, conservatives like Michelle Bachmann, Glenn Beck, etc. have spread unfounded fears and rumors about the Census, and some have even endorsed intimidating Census workers. In April, the conservative RedState editor Erick Erickson threatened on his radio show to "pull out my wife's shotgun" if a Census worker approached his home.

And now the Washington Post's Ed O'Keefe is reporting that last week, a routine visit by a U.S. Census worker in Yuba City, California ended in violence when police officers shot and killed a woman they said had first threatened the worker with a gun, then later confronted officers with a shotgun.

In response to inquiries by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), Census Director Robert Groves said the bureau's temporary workers knocking on doors to collect information have faced 29 threats involving a gun, four robberies and three instances of being held against their will or carjacked.

So here you have a bunch of right-wing nuts pulling guns on Census workers, because a bunch of right-wing nuts in Congress and on tv told them the Census workers are evil. And yet, O'Reilly says nothing, while denying that the words spoken by Bachmann or Beck ever cause anything bad to happen.

O'Reilly even put Bachmann and Beck on his show, to denay that nothing they have ever said has caused anyone to do anything bad. Earth to O'Reilly, when you go on tv and tell stupid people that Census workers are the devil, and then they pull guns on them, your words caused it.

And as usual, when the facts come out and show that they are partly to blame for it, they just ignore the entire story and pretend it never happened. Then if someone says they are partly to blame, O'Reilly and Bernie Goldberg do a media analysis segment and deny it, then claim the people reporting it are in the wrong.

It's the classic O'Reilly strategy, deny reality then attack the messenger and make them the bad guy. It's dishonest, and nothing but a cheap diversion trick. But standard for O'Reilly, it's his go to plan when he is caught in a lie, or caught doing something he knows is wrong, he just never admits it, or totally ignores it, then makes the person who reported it into the bad guy.

The Wednesday 5-26-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 27, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Send In The National Guard. O'Reilly talked about Obama sending 1,200 troops to the border. Which O'Reilly has called for, and yet, he still criticized Obama for doing it. He said it was too late, and not enough, that 10,000 are needed. This is classic O'Reilly, call for Obama to do something, then he does it, and O'Reilly hammers him for it anyway. O'Reilly said he just don't get it, and I agree. Then he called it awful, when Obama has done exactly what O'Reilly asked him to, and he gets smeared for it anyway.

Then John McCain was on to talk about the meeting with Obama and the Republicans. McCain basically said Obama is a bum, and he does not like anything he is doing, or not doing. Of course no Democratic guest was on to give the other side, so it was just another one sided biased smear job segment on President Obama. The President had a meeting with Republicans who asked him to send troops to the border, so Obama says ok, and they still complain. He is damned if he does, and damned if he don't.

And of course O'Reilly is at the front of the line to smear Obama, when he did exactly what O'Reilly called for. In O'Reillyworld that's called being fair to Obama, in the real world it's being a partisan right-wing hack. And btw, O'Reilly and McCain also complained that Obama did not tell the Republicans (during the meeting) that he was going to send troops to the border. Wow, what right-wing nonsense. Most likely Obama had to talk to his military advisors before he made the decision, and then he made the decision after the meeting was over.

In the next segment Dr. Marc Lamont Hill was on, and they talked about illegal immigrants. O'Reilly continued his 10,000 troops on the border smear. O'Reilly mentioned cocaine, and then told Dr. Hill he looked like a cocaine dealer, which was out of line. What's funny is then Dr. Hill said O'Reilly looks like a cocaine user, haha. Dr. Hill said even 10,000 troops would not stop the illegal immigration. I guess O'Reilly does not understand they would just get in another way, as in fly in on planes, or come in some other way. Dr. Hill said it will not help anything, O'Reilly called it crazy. Hill said the Guard are not trained for the job, and O'Reilly said bull.

Then Dick Morris was on to talk about Obama, and the job he is doing. Morris said the reason Obama did not tell the Republicans he was going to send troops to the border, is so they would not say it's not enough, before he even made the announcement. O'Reilly said that makes sense. Then Morris claimed Obama sent the troops to the border to try and get his job approval ratings back up. He of course cited the biased Rasmussen poll, that both O'Reilly and Morris dishonestly use to claim his approval is down to 42 percent. When the other polls show almost no drop, and still have his approval around 50 percent. Gallup has him at 48 percent, which is only a 2 percent drop over the last 9 months. At the end Morris pimped his website, and told everyone to go there to see more, haha, no thanks idiot.

Then O'Reilly put the crazy far right nut Ann Coulter on to discuss a story about attorneys at the John Adams Project. O'Reilly sent a Factor producer to ambush one of the attorneys. Which is frankly ridiculous, because Coulter is just an Obama hating right-wing propagandist. And yet, O'Reilly gives her time on his show to spin out all her liberal smears. As expected Coulter spent the entire segment spinning out right-wing propaganda. I will not report what Coulter said, but I will say this. O'Reilly only puts these right-wing idiots on to smear Obama and to try and hurt him politically. That way he gets the biased smears out, and he does not get his hands dirty. They basically do his dirty work, without having him linked to the smear job.

Then O'Reilly had the Miller Time segment with Dennis Miller. Basically O'Reilly gives the right-wing Comedian Dennis Miller roughly 4 minutes to make jokes about liberals. Which I have no problem with, the problems I have are with O'Reilly. Who complains when liberal Comedians make jokes about conservatives, especially Sarah Palin, then he has a conservative Comedian on his own show to make jokes about liberals. The 2nd problem I have is that he does not have a liberal Comedian on the Factor to make jokes about conservatives, it's only Dennis Miller, with no liberal Comedian. Making it one sided bias, and hypocrisy, from O'Reilly.

In the last segment O'Reilly had Stacy Kaiser on to talk about what he claims is an epidemic of women sex offenders. I would say there is a little more of it, but it's clearly not an epidemic. They talked about a story about a female teacher having sex with a male student. Notice that neither O'Reilly or Kaiser cited any stats or numbers, that show it's on the rise, or that it's happening more now than it did 5,10, or 20 years ago. I would bet that it's not on the rise, that it just gets reported more now.

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

Help Stop O'Reilly's Immigrant Crime Rate Lies
By: Steve - May 27, 2010 - 9:00am

Bill O'Reilly has repeatedly singled out one reason to support Arizona's draconian new immigration law: the state's exploding crime rate. But there is no documented crime wave in Arizona, and O'Reilly's attempt to link immigrants to crime is equally unfounded.

There is no rising crime rate in Arizona. The same is true of Phoenix--despite the oft-repeated (and thinly sourced) description of the city as a kidnapping haven. The city of Phoenix reported that crime in 2009 was at its lowest rate in 15 years, and violent crime had dropped 18 percent from 2008. Mayor Phil Gordon told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (4/20/09) that "crime is actually down, in every category."

What's more, there is no evidence linking immigrants (documented or undocumented) to increases in crime, in Arizona or anywhere else. In fact, much of the research indicates the opposite-that immigrants commit crime at a lower rate than the population at large (Immigration Policy Center, 4/28/10).

As for the state being "bankrupt," Arizona does face budget shortfalls-along with some 46 other states (CBPP, 2/25/10).

Thanks to people like Bill O'Reilly, laws like Arizona's SB 1070 are discussed in a media environment of fear-mongering and bigotry. Stand up and demand that O'Reilly show his evidence--or retract his slurs.

Click here to sign FAIR's petition today!

Crazy Rand Paul Sticks Foot In Mouth Again
By: Steve - May 26, 2010 - 11:00am

How bad did Rand Paul screw up this time, so bad even Republicans are disagreeing with him. On Friday, GOP Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul told ABC News that the Obama administration's promise to keep a "boot heel on the throat of BP" was un-American."

"I think it's part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it's always got to be someone's fault. Instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen."

Earth to Rand Paul, you are a fool, and if you want to have any chance to win this November you should pull a Palin and refuse to talk to the media. Because every time you open your mouth you prove what a right-wing morn you are. And remember this folks, this guy won the REPUBLICAN primary, and he is running as a Republican. This is the kind of far right idiot they are running for the Senate. Would you want this guy in the Senate.

And btw, BP caused the oil spill, so they are to blame, and they are supposed to clean the spill up, so how the hell is it un-American to blame them, and to say you are going to keep a boot heel on their throat. In fact, they are lucky Obama does not have them put on trial for crimes. I say it is American to pressure them to get the leak stopped, and to get them to spend money to make things right. I would even say Ran Paul is un-American for saying what Obama said is un-American.

On CNN Tuesday night, John King asked Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), if he agreed with Paul's un-American comment. McConnell said he did not. And you know you screwed up when other Republicans do not even agree with you.
KING: One of the things Rand Paul has said that has generated quite a bit of controversy, as you know, is he said that he found some of President Obama's criticism of B.P. after the oil spill to be un-American. Do you agree with that?

MCCONNELL: I think the criticism of B.P. is obviously well-founded. There's no question that B.P. or the two other companies involved in this drilling are responsible for what happened. And the government now is subjected appropriately to have questions about what its role was, and not only in approving the drill site but also in approving the spill response plan which was filed with MMS, the Mineral Management Service.

So, there's plenty of blame to go around between the government and B.P. And I don't - I don't - I don't say that in any way what B.P. has done is excusable.
Later in the interview, McConnell chastised Paul's post-primary gaffes, saying, "I think he's said quite enough for the time being in terms of national press coverage."

And McConnell is not the only GOP senator to disagree with Paul's attack on Obama. Yesterday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), said that anyone who "doesn't get angry at what has happened has no emotion, and I can see where the Secretary is coming from," said Murkowski, referencing Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who first made the comment about keeping a "boot heel on the throat of BP."

Rand Paul is just an idiot, and if anyone votes for this moron in November, you need to be put in a padded room next to Glenn Beck. He's like the male version of Sarah Palin, stupid and unqualified.

The Tuesday 5-25-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 26, 2010 - 10:00am

The TPM was called President Obama And The Economy. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: After a nice run-up last year, the Dow is down almost 900 points over the past three weeks. Along with the market's fall comes a drop in President Obama's job approval ratings - the Rasmussen daily tracking poll has just 42% of Americans approving.
And that is 100% dishonest right-wing propaganda. Because O'Reilly used the one poll that has Obama at 42% approval, while ignoring all the other polls that have the Obama job approval much higher. What he does is cite the biased Rasmussen poll, to claim the Obama job approval numbers are dropping. Which he has been doing for at least a year. Except the Obama job approval numbers are not dropping, they were around 50% in August of 2009, and they are still around 50% now. The Gallup poll had Obama at 48% approval, which is only a 2 point drop in the last 9 months, yet O'Reilly cites the Rasmussen poll only, while not telling you other polls do not have Obama that low. It's bias, and right-wing spin from O'Reilly.

O'Reilly also blamed Obama for the stock market drop, but he did not give him any credit for it going up 2,000 points since he took office. Not to mention he blames it on Obama, when the experts say the chaos in Europe is behind the stock market tumble. And yet the dishonest partisan smear merchant O'Reilly, blames it all on Obama.

Then O'Reilly had Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes on to discuss it. Crazy Crowley said this: "There are a lot of elements to his economic policy, that are suffocating or retarding this recovery. Big government, big taxes, and oppressive regulatory practices are all putting a wet cloth over any kind of economic recovery, and a lot of people are very worried about debt and taxes to come."

Which is insane right-wing nonsense, because the economy is on the road to recovery, jobs are coming back, and things are improving. Crowley must be on another planet, because the economy is doing good, all because of the Obama stimulus, and his economic policies. The very same policies that Crowley said would not work, and to this day still dishonestly claims they are not working.

Alan Colmes brought some reality to the debate, he said this: "Consumer confidence is up, housing starts are up, but the employment issue is really the key as to whether or not President Obama and the Democrats do well in November."

Then O'Reilly had the crazy Obama hating Col. Ralph Peters on to talk about a NY Times story. Peters blasted the New York Times for revealing that the U.S. will be using more covert operations in the Middle East. He said this: "They tipped off our secret operations, to the Syrians, to the Iranians, and to the terrorists. It makes it much more dangerous for our agents to collect intelligence, and this tells Iran that we are now looking at taking direct action on their soil. They will now see every Westerner as a potential spy."

The problem is not the NY Times, the problem is the guy who leaked the story to them. He should be mad at the leaker, not the media. And O'Reilly gives this fool a forum to spew out his nonsense.

Then O'Reilly had John Stossel on to defend Rand Paul. Where there is no defending him, but of course Stossel tried. Stossel and Rand Paul both claim private corporations should be able to discriminate against people of color if they want to, simply because they are a private company. Which is just ridiculous, and against the law, it's called the Civil Rights Act that was made the law in 1964. Even the right-wing O'Reilly disagreed with Stossel and Rand Paul. O'Reilly said this: It is not equality if a certain segment of the population is denied the pursuit of happiness because their skin color prevents them from going to a swimming pool or a beach or a restaurant. I want the government to try to give everybody the same amount of freedom."

Think about this, if Rand Paul and John Stossel could make the laws, they would let private corporations ban black people from their business, if they want to. Imagine that, not only would they lose business, most of America would probably boycott them for being racists, and they would either cancel the ban, or go out of business. Basically Stossel and Rand Paul want to bring racism back, proving they are both giant right-wing racist idiots.

Then O'Reilly had Comedian and actor Jay Mohr on to talk about his new book about being a parent. Why, when did he become an expert on being a parent, and how is this news. I am guessing O'Reilly simply put him on to promote his book because he is a Republican. Because I can not think of any other reason to have him on.

Then is it legal with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle. O'Reilly cried about an organization called the International Justice Network that has filed suit against the government, demanding enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan be granted civilian rights. Wiehl said this: "A lower court gave the insane opinion that enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan have rights in America. But a higher court reversed that, saying that if you are an enemy combatant in a theater of war you don't have any rights."

FNC's Kimberly Guilfoyle turned to the case of Seattle rapist Jose Lopez Madrigal. "A 28-year-old woman was raped by Madrigal, an illegal immigrant who has re-entered this country nine times and has been arrested for domestic violence, narcotics and other crimes. He is a poster boy to show that our immigration system is broken. Some people are outraged about Arizona, but the bottom line is that Arizona is trying to enforce federal laws because of this kind of problem."

So Guilfoyle used one case of rape by an illegal, to justify the racist immigration law passed in Arizona. Good job Guilfoyle, for that you should be named the pinhead, because you are one. Crime rates in border states are down over the past few years, and illegals do less crime than Americans, funny how you never mention that, Pinhead.

In the last segment O'Reilly had the far right Obama hater Charles Krauthammer on to smear Obama over the BP oil spill. Crazy Krauthammer said even though President Obama had nothing to do with the oil spill, he will be blamed for it, and suffer politically. Which is just ridiculous, and nothing but more right-wing propaganda from O'Reilly's insane right-wing friends. And of course there was no Democratic guest to counter the right-wing spin from Krauthammer. Only the right-wing Obama haters are blaming Obama, and that is a fact. And this kind of nonsense is why all the liberals hate O'Reilly, because of biased one sided segments like this.

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

Factor Regular Col. Peters Says Hang The Leaker
By: Steve - May 26, 2010 - 9:00am

Col. Ralph Peters is a right-wing neo-con lunatic, and he is one of the O'Reilly Factor regular guests. O'Reilly has him on the Factor as a military expert, along with another right-wing nut, Col. David Hunt. Who once said we should invade Saudi Arabia, take over their banks, steal all their money, and take all their oil.

Col. Peters wrote an op-ed recently for the NY Post, in it he talked about someone in the Government who leaked a classified document. It was an order signed by Gen. David Petraeus authorizing black operations against adversaries and such as Iran, Syria, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Peters said he would hang the leaker by the neck, then cut down the body and give it a fair trial.
PETERS: The document was handed over in a cynical attempt to score political points. There's no other plausible explanation. Some party hack with a security clearance believed this order would show that the Obama administration's doing something about Iran.

The only question is whether this betrayal was the act of an individual, or if it was orchestrated.

I'd hang the leaker by the neck, then cut down the body and give it a fair trial.
These are the kind of people O'Reilly uses for military experts. Crazy right-wing loons that want to steal everyones oil and money, and who want to hang people before they have even had a trial. And btw, Fox News has a Democratic military expert on the payroll, they have General Wes Clark, but O'Reilly never uses him, he only uses the two Obama hating right-wing military experts.

The fact that O'Reilly uses these two nuts also shows how O'Reilly thinks, because only another right-wing nut would use either one of them. Remember that back a few years ago when Libya was doing some bad things, O'Reilly said we should bomb the whole country, cut off their water supply, the food supply, and let them eat sand. Which would be war crimes, and human rights crimes, not to mention a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

I would say if they find the leaker put him on trial, and if he is found guilty put him in prison. Which is how the legal system works, we do not hang people before a trial, and anyone who wants to should be deported to Iran, or somewhere they do, then they would feel right at home. And the fact that O'Reilly and Fox News use this nut as a military expert is ridiculous. If they use him, they should at least have a Democratic military expert on with him, which they never do.

Beck Shows Everyone What Scare Tactics Look Like
By: Steve - May 26, 2010 - 8:30am

Just last week Beck told O'Reilly that he never uses scare tactics, and that anyone who claims he does is a liar. Ok, so explain this.

Call me crazy, but if you have a radio show, and you tell your listeners that President Obama is going to use anti-terrorism policies (including assassination) against members of the Tea Party, you are using scare tactics, and that is a fact. Especially when none of it is true, and you are using the lies to make Obama look bad.

O'Reilly Ignoring Rand Paul Civil Rights Story
By: Steve - May 25, 2010 - 9:30am

As most people know Rand Paul stuck his foot in his mouth during an interview with Rachel Maddow. She found out he supports taking civil rights away from blacks in private business, so she asked him about it, and he admitted it.

Rand said he supports private corporations blocking black people from their business, if they want to. He claims a private business should be able to discriminate against someone because of the color of their skin. Which would be a violation of the Civil Rights Act, and it's illegal.

Then after he screwed up, he put out a statement saying he mis-spoke. And that he does not really support racism, or that he would vote to makes it legal to discriminate against black people.

Sorry Rand, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. You are busted, and nobody is ever going to forget it. In fact, you can bet your answers to the question will be used this year in campaign ads against you, bet on it sparky.

It's 100% flat out racism, Rand Paul believes in racism if you are a private business owner. So anyone who votes for this idiot in November will be voting for a racist. In fact, he was so mad he screwed up he cancelled his Meet The Press interview.

First, he expressed opposition to parts of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act. Then on Friday, he attacked President Obama's criticism of BP as un-American, and refused to say whether or not the minimum wage is legal. MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell joked that Paul is the "gift that keeps on giving."

But he is giving no more. He simply does not want to answer direct questions about the proper role of the Federal government in regulating the private sector, the Washington Post's Greg Sargent reported. "He visibly bristles when asked to clarify his views on these matters," Sargent added.

After his upset victory Tuesday night, Paul agreed to appear on NBC's Meet The Press Sunday for what would surely be wide ranging interview that would delve into these issues.

The Washington Post reports that Paul has canceled because "he's had a long week." A Paul spokesperson explained, "Rand did Good Morning America Friday, set the record straight, and now we are done talking about it. No more national interviews on the topic."

Paul joins Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and Saudi Arabia's Prince Bandar as the only guests to cancel a Meet the Press interview in recent history.

Republican MSNBC host Joe Scarborough said this about Paul's embarrassing interview with fellow host Rachel Maddow:
SCARBOROUGH: "If a politician can't handle an interview, they can't handle the Senate."
And the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly, is not reporting any of this, not a word, nothing, nada, zip, zero. O'Reilly ignores the story because he does not want to embarrass his buddy Rand Paul, who he gave a softball interview with last week. In the interview O'Reilly fawned all over Paul, and even congratulated him two times for the primary win.

The Monday 5-24-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 25, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Oil Spill Politics. O'Reilly talked about the month old oil spill, O'Reilly said nobody knows what to do. O'Reilly also said Obama does not take over because he does not know what to do. Then he quoted Palin attacking Obama for taking money from the oil companies. Except Obama only got $800,000 from the oil companies, McCain got $3.2 million, and they gave 77% of their money to Republicans, none of which O'Reilly reported. And btw, BP employees gave money to Obama, not the corporate PAC.

Then Brit Hume was on to discuss it, and of course Hume said he agrees with Palin, and he went on to slam Obama for not doing more to clean up the spill. O'Reilly sort of defended Obama, by saying nobody knows what to do, and O'Reilly also mentioned that Republicans get a lot of oil money, including Palin. The people that want Obama to take over are just stupid, BP is supposed to clean it up, and they are dragging their feet. Obama can do things to help, but he can not take over, and btw, these same people that want Obama to take over are the same people that also say keep the Government out of the private sector. O'Reilly said Obama should step up the clean up, and Hume agreed.

Then Congressman Weiner was on to give the facts on his attack on Beck for his Goldline conflict of interest. Beck claims Weiner attacked Goldline for simply selling gold, when that is not true, he attacked Beck for using fear tactics to scam people into buying Gold from Goldline. The attack was mostly on Beck, not Goldline. O'Reilly asked Weiner why he is bothering Beck. Weiner did say Goldline was over-charging for Gold, so he did attack them a little. He also pointed out that there are a lot of complaints about them.

During the interview O'Reilly constantly cut him off and would not even let him finish a sentence. Weiner said the facts show he is accurate, and that Beck is not. O'Reilly defended Beck and Goldline, and implied Weiner is spinning it to make them look bad. Weiner even called O'Reilly a shill for Goldline. O'Reilly said it smacks of a witch hunt. Weiner said Goldline charges 112% more than other places that sell gold. Weiner said his website has the facts, and that everyone should check it out. What was funny is O'Reilly said as long as the BBB gives them an A+ rating, he does not care if they are ripping people off by selling them gold at a 112% higher price than anyone else. That's how much of a stooge he is for Beck and Goldline.

Then O'Reilly had Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham on to discuss it. O'Reilly said it was complicated, and he explained what the controversy is with Beck and Weiner. Juan Williams said the gold selling industry is full of crooks, and that most of them have an F rating with the BBB, he also pointed out that Beck does use fear to sell gold. So for once, Juan Williams disagreed with O'Reilly. Juan said Beck scares his viewers into buying gold, O'Reilly denied it, and he defended Beck by saying that is just his opinion.

Then of course Mary K. Ham agreed with O'Reilly and defended Beck and Goldline, as she always does. She said it looks totally legit to her, of course it does, because she is a Republican. O'Reilly said he thinks Goldline can charge whatever they want to charge, so he could care less if they rip people off, so much for looking out for the little guy. At the end of the segment O'Reilly said he does not think Beck did anything wrong. And btw, O'Reilly said he would have Weiner and Beck together on his show to debate it, haha, and I bet that will never happen, Weiner agreed, but I bet Beck never does it.

Then O'Reilly had a segment on Arizona talking about passing a law dealing with anchor babies. And of course he had the Republican State Senator Russell Pearce on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest. Pearce said the anchor baby law is wrong, and O'Reilly disagreed with him. Pearce said the anchor baby law is unconstitutional, and that he is going to get the law changed, even though the Supreme Court already ruled on it, so he is in dreamland. O'Reilly told him it will never happen, but the guy would not listen. This guy Pearce is a total right-wing nut, he is so far to the right that even O'Reilly looked like he thought he was a little crazy. I would compare him to the birthers, which O'Reilly did not do, he is trying to get a law changed that has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court, so he is a nut in my book.

Then Bernie Goldberg was supposed to be on, but he was not on. So O'Reilly did the Weekdays With Bernie segment with two other people, Caroline heldman and Jeff McCall. They talked about Palin slamming Obama over the oil spill, one of them said Palin was biased and wrong, the other said she had no problem with what Palin said. O'Reilly was also mad that the media reported how much money the oil companies gave to the Republicans during their report on what Palin said, he said there was no need to report it because they had nothing to do with it. It was in an ABC news report, and O'Reilly called it bias, both guests disagreed with him. Then O'Reilly talked about the Sarah Ferguson bribe story, and McCall said it was not news, haha, I agree. Heldman said it was a news story, so she agreed with O'Reilly.

The last segment was the totally biased and ridiculous Factor Reality check. Where Billy sits there all alone putting his spin on something a liberal said, there is not much reality, and almost no checks.

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

Republicans Now Lying About Deportation Numbers
By: Steve - May 25, 2010 - 8:30am

Wow, these guys have no credibility, especially Bill Kristol. On Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, conservative pundit Bill Kristol slammed the Obama administration for denouncing Arizona's immigration law. According to Kristol, the fact that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) head John Morton has indicated that his agency may not help Arizona enforce its likely unconstitutional law demonstrates the Obama administration's overall reluctance to enforce the immigration laws that are already in place:
KRISTOL: The Obama administration is full of people who are at best reluctant to actually enforce the laws on the book - using the excuse that we can't enforce anything until we have comprehensive immigration reform.
And Kristol is a flat out liar, during fiscal year 2009, 100,000 more immigrants were deported than during the last full fiscal year of the Bush presidency. Deportations have went up every year since Obama took office, way more than Bush deported. So Kristol is just a political hack who would not know the truth if it hit him in the face.

Obama actually increased deportations, in 2009 and 2010. They went up, proving that Obama has no problem deporting illegals, which is the exact opposite of what Kristol said. Kristol also said that all his Latino friends say they have no problem with the new Arizona law, which is most likely another lie. Because polls show that 67% of Latinos oppose the law.

Hemmer Admits He's Part Of the Republican Party
By: Steve - May 25, 2010 - 8:00am

Oops, on Monday morning Bill Hemmer from Fox News, one of the so-called nonpartisan News Anchors O'Reilly claims they have, accidently said this to Republican Tom Price of Georgia:
HEMMER: As you evaluate things right now, some five a half months out, I mean, where do we stand? How strong a position are Republicans?
Notice he said "WE" where do "WE" stand, as in him and the Republican party. The dumb ass just admitted he is part of the Republican party, when they claim he is a nonpartisan objective anchor.

During an a segment about the upcoming midterm elections, Fox News host Bill Hemmer asked Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) about the GOP's prospects. But in formulating his question, Hemmer suggested that he is part of the Republican party, the full quote:
HEMMER: I want to know from you how you evaluate all these primaries we've been watching now. As you evaluate things right now, some five a half months out, I mean, where do we stand? How strong a position are Republicans? Or what happened in Pennsylvania, in Jack Murtha's old district, does that give people like you pause and say, hang on here, we've got a lot of work to do still.
Imagine what O'Reilly would say if Brian Williams of NBC News did that, and said where do "WE" stand, as he was talking about elections for Democrats to a Democratic member of Congress. O'Reilly would flip out and report it for a week, with segments saying it proves their bias, with Bernie Goldberg, and everyone else on the Factor.

So Bill Hemmer from Fox does it, and who wants to bet me O'Reilly never says a word about it, anyone?

Palin Bombs At Commercial Real Estate Convention
By: Steve - May 24, 2010 - 3:30pm

Over the weekend the great Sarah Palin gave a speech at a real estate convention, and from all reports she bombed big time. You might expect Palin to tailor her message to her audience, instead of giving the same tea party propaganda.

But her keynote speech at a commercial real estate conference in Las Vegas this weekend was disastrous, it went over like a ton of bricks. Industry blog The Dirt Lawyer reported this:
Speaking of disappointment, let's talk about the keynote address from Sarah Palin. In short, it was a standard stump speech with a few superficial comments about shopping centers and retail real estate. It was awful and a borderline train wreck in my opinion.

All Palin had to do was add in a paragraph about the pending disaster of carried interest and she would have not only won over the crowd but gotten significant fundraiser cash from the industry if she runs in 2012. As it stands, I do not know if she knows what carried interest is.
David Bodamer of TrafficCourt, another industry blog, reported this:
"Most people I spoke with were massively disappointed with Sarah Palin's keynote. Many felt disappointed that Palin didn't make more of an effort to talk about issues important to the industry."
In her speech, Palin rolled out the standard right-wing spin saying President Obama is ruining the country with big government, and also said he is an "addict of other people's money" OPM, which she pronounced opium.

And you can bet the farm O'Reilly will not say a word about any of this, because he has to ignore it to cover for Palin's stupidity.

O'Reilly Has A Solution For The Oil Leak
By: Steve - May 24, 2010 - 11:30am

He said we should take every member of NBC News and stuff them in the hole.

And I say a better idea would be to stuff every Republican who supported and voted for oil drilling off the coast, because they are the idiots that let it happen. The people at NBC News had nothing to do with it, so of course it's just insane to say they should be stuffed in the hole. But in O'Reillyworld it makes sense, because he wants to do away with everyone who has a different political view from him.

Even though O'Reilly was making a bad joke, there is something very troubling here. The massive hypocrisy, from O'Reilly, Fox, and a lot of Republicans. These are the people who, just a few weeks ago were whining and crying about the Federal Government. They claimed the Government was too involved in the private sector, and now they are whining and crying because the Federal Government is not involved enough.

O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends have been saying the Government should leave the private sector alone, and let them do what they want. Then BP, who is the private sector, has a massive oil spill and these same right-wing idiots cry about the Government for not doing enough to clean it up.

When under the law, BP is supposed to clean it up, so the hypocrisy is stunning. You can't have it both ways, you either want the Government to stay out of the private sector, or you don't. And another thing that drives me crazy, is O'Reilly claims he is paying too much in taxes, and that he does not want his money going to pay for all the Government programs.

Yet he calls for the Government to do more to clean up the oil spill, but he does not want to pay for it with his tax money. Earth to O'Reilly, you are not only a massive hypocrite, you are a total idiot.

O'Reilly wants all this stuff to happen, total border enforcement, deport illegals, bomb Iran, arrest everyone for everything, including pot possesion, etc. While at the same time he complains about paying more in taxes, and says no Democrat should raise taxes. Earth to O'Reilly, how can you call for all that stuff, and then refuse to pay more in taxes to pay for it.

If we do all that we will need more prisons, more prison guards, more border agents, more judges, more court rooms, etc. All that cost money, so how the hell can we do it if idiots like you call for all these unfunded mandates. Then you say the Government should stay away from the private sector, and yet, as soon as there is an oil spill you right-wing a-holes scream where is the Government.

It's like calling for States to have their own rights, and saying the Federal Government should stay out of their business. But as soon as they have a flood, or a hurricane, or a tornado, they call the Federal Government for help. While at the same time, saying they refuse to pay any more in Federal taxes. This is exactly what O'Reilly and his idiotic right-wing friends do, and it's ridiculous.

No Peabody Award For O'Reilly (Or Fox News)
By: Steve - May 23, 2010 - 11:00am

The 2010 Peabody awards are out, and neither O'Reilly or anyone at Fox News won. What a shocker, NOT!

Of course O'Reilly did not win a Peabody, because he does not do journalism, he does partisan political propaganda. The O'Reilly Factor is not a news show, it's an arm of the Republican party. Bill O'Reilly is a Republican who spins everything to the right, and a man who does everything he can to smear President Obama and the Democratic party.

O'Reilly should be getting a paycheck from the RNC, because the Factor is all right-wing propaganda and spin, all the time. And if O'Reilly would just admit he is a Republican, that would be fine. Instead he does his laughable denial that he is not a Republican.

O'Reilly opens the show saying "Caution, You Are Entering The No Spin Zone." He claims to be a nonpartisan independent, who has been fair to President Obama. Then he has 8 Republican guests on, and 0 Democratic guests. The whole show is unfair to Obama, with 99% right-wing guests, who O'Reilly also agrees with 90% of the time.

Once in a while O'Reilly will have a Democratic guest or two on, usually once or twice a week. But most shows have all Republican guests, putting out right-wing spin and lies. And even when O'Reilly does have a Democratic guest on, they are only on for O'Reilly to scream and yell at, and to tell them how they are wrong about everything.

But when one of the 7 to 8 Republicans that are on each show talk to discuss an issue, O'Reilly agrees with them 99% of the time. The O'Reilly Factor is a fraud, and Bill O'Reilly is nothing but a right-wing con man. The whole show is a lie, there is no truth, it's all right-wing propaganda, spin, and lies. And I document them here in this blog every day.

O'Reilly claims to be a nonpartisan independent with a no spin zone. Those are his words, he says it all the time. In fact, a while back Dr. Marc Lamont Hill called O'Reilly a Republican to his face, and O'Reilly stopped the interview to deny it. Then he even told Dr. Hill that if he was not such a nice guy he would sue him for defamation, for calling him a Republican.

Which is just laughable, I say go for it O'Reilly, because any judge in the country would laugh you out of court. Your defamation lawsuit would be dismissed as soon as the judge reads it. Not to mention, Dr. Hill could prove you are a Republican in 2 seconds. All he has to do is tell them to visit, and you will find 10 years of documented evidence that Bill O'Reilly is a 100% die hard Republican.

Better yet, just tell them to watch one O'Reilly Factor show. If you just look at the segment topics, who 99% of the guests are, and what side O'Reilly takes on the issue, you can clearly see he is a Republican. When you agree with Karl Rove, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, etc. 99% of the time, you are a Republican.

In a court of law the judge will tell the jury that if a witness is caught in one lie, just one lie, they have destroyed their credibility, and you can dismiss and throw out their entire testimony. If we used the same rules for Bill O'Reilly, 5 seconds into the show his credibility would be gone. Because he lies at the open of every show when he says you are entering the no spin zone.

Then all through the show O'Reilly spins or flat out lies, all his spin or lies are about Obama and the Democrats, he never spins or lies about any Republicans. And he does this every night, it's all spin, all lies, and all right-wing propaganda, all the time. Which he calls the no spin zone, making him a joke, with no credibility.

And it's exactly why O'Reilly has never won a Peabody, and he never will. And btw, O'Reilly even lied about winning a Peabody once, many years ago Inside Edition won a Polk award. O'Reilly claimed they had won a Peabody, but they did not, it was a Polk award, and they won it a year after O'Reilly had left the show. So he even lies about winning Journalism awards.

O'Reilly Factor Video Propaganda
By: Steve - May 22, 2010 - 11:30am

Here are two examples of right-wing propaganda from O'Reilly, and do not just believe what I say, watch it for yourself. And as you watch the videos, remember that this is the guy who claims to be a nonpartisan independent with a no spin zone, who has been fair to President Obama.

In O'Reillyworld if you are a Democrat in Government you are putting the American way of life in Danger. Even though Obama has done nothing, except pass a tax cut, pull us out of the Bush recession, pass a stimulus bill, help to get the stock market back to 10,000, and pass a health care bill.

Notice that O'Reilly said none of that when Bush and the Republicans took us off a cliff, and almost destroyed our economy. In fact, O'Reilly defended everything Bush did for 7 years, it was only in year 8 that he finally spoke out against Bush, because he had to, when Bush ruined the economy, and caused us to lose 19 million jobs in 2 years.

O'Reilly on sending Posner to China: "Was Raul Castro not available?"

So now we have a Castro comparison, which is almost as bad as a Hitler comparison. Funny how O'Reilly calls Democrats loons and far-left zealots, simply because he disagrees with their political views. And what's really funny is how O'Reilly has said when you call people names it means you have nothing, no valid complaints or arguments, so you lower yourself to name calling. Then O'Reilly does it every night, which means he has nothing, except hatred for anyone to the left of him.

And think about this, O'Reilly slammed the liberals on the Supreme Court, just because they have a different political view than he does. Especially Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who he said does not even care about the Constitution. Which is just ridiculous, and even the Republican Megyn Kelly told him so. But in the recent 7 to 2 ruling about allowing States to keep convicted sex offenders in prison even after their sentence is up, the two conservatives on the Court were the no votes.

And yet O'Reilly said nothing, even though he is the king of sex offender stories and court cases, and when a liberal judge votes no to a sex offender crime O'Reilly flips out, names them, puts their photo on the screen, and tells people to vote them out, or try to get them impeached. When two conservative judges vote no, O'Reilly says nothing, not a word. Talk about bias and hypocrisy, there it is, big time.

The Friday 5-21-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 22, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called American way of life in danger. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: In my book I said secular progressives want to change our traditional Judeo-Christian heritage, which they believe is oppressive and unfair. That was years before the rise of Barack Obama. Now Newt Gingrich has a book out in which he says secular socialists are trying to alter the country.
Which is flat out ridiculous, progressives just want to give equal rights to everyone, even gay people. O'Reilly calls that putting the American way of life in danger, and Gingrich calls it socialism. Notice that O'Reilly mentioned Newt Gingrich, and his new book, but did not mention that Gingrich compared Obama to the Nazis. Which O'Reilly had said is wrong, when liberals did it to Bush, but when republicans do it to Obama O'Reilly says nothing. O'Reilly has even said that if you do not speak out against hate, you support it.

O'Reilly also said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama has been labeled a 'socialist' in some precincts, but we have not done that here because I believe the description is far too simplistic. What troubles me, however, is that we are seeing some far-left people working within the administration. The latest is Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner, whose remarks about the new Arizona immigration law to the Chinese have caused controversy. So what is Posner doing in the State Department? That kind of situation gives credence to people who say the President is lining up a bunch of far-left loons in order to change the country.
O'Reilly is a joke, he says some people have labeled Obama a socialist, but he has not done that on the Factor. Ummmmm, yes he has, and he does it every night. O'Reilly has had every right-wing nut in America on his show to call Obama a socialist. He may not have said it himself, but he does not need to, he just puts a million right-wing nuts on the Factor to do it for him. Then he can pretend that he does not think Obama is a socialist, which he does. Then he claims the Posner remarks caused controversy, when it was only a made up controversy by a few far right bloggers, it was not a controversy with anyone else.

Then O'Reilly calls people in the Obama administration far-left loons. Guess how many times he called someone in the Bush administration a loon, never. Obama is a Democrat, so he puts Democrats in his administration, then O'Reilly claims they are far-left loons, simply because he disagrees with them politically. This is classic O'Reilly bias, hypocrisy, and double standards.

So then O'Reilly had the State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley on, who defended Posner, Crowley said this: "Mike Posner is pursuing the national interest, and doing exactly what the American people would want him to do. He took the Chinese delegation to a Catholic charity center here in Washington and showed them what faith-based organizations do in our society. He took them to the Supreme Court, where Sandra Day O'Connor talked about the importance of the rule of law. Posner is a compelling advocate for human rights, not only around the world but also in the United States."

Posner met with the Chinese, and simply admitted that Obama and his administration do not like the Arizona immigration law. O'Reilly and the right-wing bloggers called that an apology, which it was not, and Posner has even denied it was an apology. So O'Reilly ignores all that, as in the facts, to spin out his right-wing propaganda that Posner made an apology. Then he calls it a controversy, when its not a controversy with anyone but O'Reilly and a few right-wing bloggers. Near the end of the segment O'Reilly said Posner should not even have his job, basically calling for him to be fired, simply because O'Reilly does not agree with his liberal views. How many times did O'Reilly call for far right people in the Bush administration to be fired, never.

Then O'Reilly did another segment on the new Arizona immigration law, he said the majority favor it and asked Chris Wallace to comment. First let me say this, just because a majority of people support something in a poll does not mean it's right. Back in the days of slavery I am sure some polls showed a majority of people supported slavery, but that did not make it right, and we changed the laws to make it illegal. So just because a majority support something, does not prove it's the right thing.

Then Chris Wallace said this: "A majority of Democrats are opposed to states enforcing immigration laws, and I think this is all about mobilizing the liberal base and the Hispanic base." That's because the Constitution states that the Federal Government is in charge of immigration enforcment. Now if the Constitution said the States should enforce the immigration laws, I would support it. Democrats simply want the Federal Government to enforce the immigration laws, as it says in the Constitution. In O'Reillyworld, there is something wrong with that, even though he claims to support the Constitution.

O'Reilly said this, which is very disturbing:
O'REILLY: I'm seeing an increasing gulf between President Obama's philosophy of what the country should be and the regular folks.
This is ridiculous, Obama has a 50% approval rating, that means half the country like what he is doing. Then O'Reilly says the regular folks, like people who like what Obama is doing are not regular folks. This is insulting, and nothing but right-wing propaganda. O'Reilly implies that if you agree with Obama you are not one of the regular folks, and by regular folks he means conservatives, he is just too much of a coward to say it. And O'Reilly never said any of this garbage when Bush took the country to the right for 8 years, because he agreed with it all.

Then O'Reilly had a strange segment, he had Imogen Lloyd Webber on to talk about France considering a law that will prohibit Muslim women from wearing veils in public. They have not even passed the law yet, and it's in fricking France. Who cares, I mean why am I supposed to care what laws France "might" pass. Earth to O'Reilly, this is not news in America. We do not care what laws France does or does not pass. And they have not even passed it yet, so doing the segment was totally ridiculous. Even if they did pass it, nobody in America would care, because it did not happen here. What a moron.

Then O'Reilly talked about satire, he played clips from two new satirical videos - one by country singer Ray Stevens lampooning our lack of border security, another by comic Will Ferrell, who mocks the new Arizona law. O'Reilly offered this summary: "Both of those satirical deals are good for the country. Satire is an excellent tool to make political points, as long as there is no malice."

Which is so funny, because when Democrats like Al Franken made fun of O'Reilly using satire, O'Reilly said it was bull, and he objected to it. Now he is trying to act like he does not have a problem with it, which proves what a two faced liar he is. Not to mention, any time a comedian does a Sarah Palin joke, using satire, O'Reilly complains about it and tells them to leave her alone. So his claims of support for satire are just laughable. I think the old fool is getting so old he forgets what positions he took in the past. One day he complains about satire and calls it bull, the next day he says satire is a great tool to make political points. Give me a break, O'Reilly is a joke. And maybe he should hire someone to remind him what his positions are.

Then O'Reilly had Glenn Beck on to spin out his lies about Congressman Weiner attacking him for using his show to scare people into buying gold, when he is a spokesman for Goldline, and they run commercials on his show. Beck talked about it, as he took bites of an actual wiener, which he thought was really funny, and so did O'Reilly. Beck said this: "Congressman Weiner has an objection to the company Goldline, which sells antique gold coins at an 18% profit."

Which is just ridiculous, and a flat out lie from Beck. Congressman Weiner has no objection to Goldline selling gold, none at all, and neither do I, or any liberal I know of. What he objects to is Beck being a paid spokesman for Goldline, who then uses his show to try and scare people into buying gold, by telling them Obama is going to destroy the dollar. It's wrong, it's unethical, it's fearmongering, and it's a conflict of interest.

And O'Reilly ignored all that, to let Beck spin out his right-wing lies with nobody there to give the other side. As in the facts. And nobody has a problem with Goldline selling gold, not me, not anyone, they have a problem with Beck using fear tactics to sell gold for them. O'Reilly defended Beck, and claimed that Congressman Weiner is trying to destroy Beck, whatever that means. All Weiner is doing is trying to get Beck to quit dishonestly using fear tactics to sell gold. That's not trying to destroy him, it's trying to get him to do the right thing. But in O'Reillyworld, that's trying to destroy him.

And finally it was dumbest things of the week with Greg Gutfeld and Courenty Friel. She talked about the troubled actress Lindsay Lohan, who missed a court appearance for her drunken driving arrest in L.A. Gutfeld nominated the Florida high school teachers who created a "humorous" music video aimed at students. O'Reilly picked the Wisconsin bar owner who organized an anti-Obama protest in which the President was burned in effigy.

Billy actually admitted that kind of stuff can be used to incite idiots, and he said it was incredibly stupid. Notice he did not say right-wing idiots, which is what they are, he just said idiots. And in the past O'Reilly has defended stuff like that as free speech, or he just ignores it and never says a word about it.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. When I say lame, just look at this to see why. The Patriot was the Singer Taylor Swift, who O'Reilly said was exceptionally gracious to everyone she met backstage after a recent concert. How is it being a Patriot for being gracious to people you met backstage at a concert, so being nice makes you a Patriot now.

Gingrich Hypocrisy Over Nazi Comparisons
By: Steve - May 21, 2010 - 9:30am

Newt Gingrich published a new book, in it he argues that the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress are a “secular-socialist machine” that “represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.”

So he is using a Nazi comparison, after he said people that use Nazi comparisons are unhinged.

In 2005, during an appearance on Hannity & Colmes, Hannity asked Gingrich what he thought about and Democrats comparing George Bush to Adolf Hitler. Gingrich replied, “maybe they’re becoming the unhinged party.”

Then on Thursday, during a press conference in the Capitol Hill visitor center, ThinkProgress asked if Gingrich’s standard for being “unhinged” applied to his own frequent comparisons of Obama to Nazi Germany:
TP: In your new book, you argue that Obama and liberals quote “represent as great of a threat to America as Nazi Germany."

GINGRICH: Not here, but I’m happy to talk about that.

TP: Just really quickly though, but during the Bush years, you said people who make Bush-Nazi comparisons were quote “unhinged.” By your own definition, are you unhinged?

GINGRICH: No. Nice try.
Yes, and it was a great example of the total hypocrisy from right-wing idiots like Newt Gingrich. Even the conservative Joe Scarborough ripped Gingrich’s Nazi-Obama comparison as “sick” and “pure wingnuttery.”

An Wednesday, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) called on the GOP to condemn Gingrich’s new book for his “dangerous anaology” between Obama and Nazi Germany. “Gingrich’s linkage not only diminishes the horror of the Holocaust, it also licenses the use of extremist language in contemporary America,” remarked David Harris, executive director of the AJC.

Jerks like Gingrich speak out against Nazi comparisons when it's a Democrat comparing a Republican to a Nazi, they the very same person makes Nazi comparisons himself. Making him the ultimate hypocrite, and someone that should not be trusted. O'Reilly has not spoke out against it either, which means he supports it. Because O'Reilly said if you do not speak out against bad things, it means you support them.

And btw, O'Reilly is a partisan hypocrite too. Because when Bush was the President and ANY Democrat made Nazi comparisons to Bush, O'Reilly reported it, said it was wrong, and slammed them for doing it. But now that Obama is the President. and Republicans make Nazi comparisons, O'Reilly does not report any of it, let alone slam them for it. Especially when it's his good friend Newt Gingrich, O'Reilly ignores it because he is a Republican smearing a Democrat, and a regular on the Factor.

The Thursday 5-20-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 21, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Mexico vs. Arizona. O'Reilly cried about the Mexican President Felipe Calderon speaking out against the new Arizona immigration law. Then O'Reilly cited a Fox News poll, that said 84% support asking people who may be suspected of being an illegal to show their papers. Good job Billy, a Fox News poll, give me a break. What next, you gonna cite a poll by Frank Luntz. Then O'Reilly used the Mexican President's speech to trash Obama and the Democrats for their illegal immigration position. While saying nothing about Republicans who vote against immigration reform because they want cheap labor. Proving his right-wing bias once again.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to discuss the new Arizona immigration law, for the millionth time. At this point O'Reilly has turned the Factor into the immigration spin zone. Kelly said she read the law, and then she talked about it. For the millionth time, haha. Basically she said the law is ok with her, and she does not think it's a bad law. And we have been over this a million times, so there is no need to talk about it any more, and yet, O'Reilly still talks about it every night.

And btw, no Democratic guest was on to give an opposing view. At the end, O'Reilly claimed there are checks and balances in the law all day long. What was really funny is O'Reilly kept repeating over and over that 86% support the Arizona law, when it's 84%, and it's from a Fox News poll. not two minutes ago O'Reilly said it was 84%, and then all the suddent it was 86%, what a joke. O'Reilly is getting so senile his memory is only good for about 30 seconds. Not to mention, O'Reilly was spinning his ass off. The biased Fox News poll asked if you support asking suspected illegals for their papers, not if you support the new Arizona immigration law.

Kelly was held over for a 2nd segment to talk about a lesbian who got kicked out of the military after she said she is a lesbian. O'Reilly and Kelly were outraged, and they both want her to pay back the $80,000 the military gave her to go to college. O'Reilly said the Army should sue her to get the money back. Then they talked about the Supreme Court saying the States can keep sex offenders in custody even after they have served their jail time, in a 7 to 2 ruling, with all 4 liberals voting yes.

The two conservatives dissented, and O'Reilly never said a word about it. When you know if the 2 dissenters were liberals, O'Reilly would have slammed them hard. And finally they talked about a big, big, big, story, NOT. A Hooters girl was told to lose weight or be fired. Which is not even worth talking about because it's tabloid garbage. Kelly said if she is fired and she files a lawsuit she will lose.

Then O'Reilly talked about a rumor that Arizona may pull the plug on the power supply to Los Angeles. O'Reilly had two right-wing radio guys, John Phillips and Barry Young to discuss it. And of course they both said Arizona will not pull the plug on their power supply, basically because it would be illegal, and everyone knows it's all talk. LA has power supply contracts with the Arizona power suppliers, and if they violate those contracts they will be sued, so it's never going to happen, and O'Reilly knows it. Yet O'Reilly wasted all that tv time doing an entire segment on a non story.

Then the culture warriors were on, Juliet Huddy and Margaret Hoover. O'Reilly complained about a dance video with 6 year old girls wearing sexy outfits and dancing to a Beyonce video. As he showed the video, over and over, they talked about it. Carlson and Huddy both hated it, and thought it was wrong. O'Reilly said he would not let his daughter do it, and that the parents should not have allowed it. Then they talked about people cursing to a policeman, Huddy said she does not like it, but it is legal. O'Reilly hates it, and said they should be arrested. O'Reilly also claims it's disturbing the peace, and said if they allow it you have chaos and anarchy. Hey O'Reilly, it's called free speech. Look it up, it's in the first amendment.

Then crazy Laura Ingraham was on to discuss the Richard Blumenthal served in the military story, again, even though it's old news. O'Reilly brings it up again because the guy is a Democrat, if he was a Republican O'Reilly would not have even reported it one time, let alone two times in two nights. Ingraham and O'Reilly trashed the guy once again, for simply saying he served in Vietnam, ok he lied, but it's not like he murdered someone, or robbed a bank. And btw, Blumenthal did serve in the Marine reserves, he just did not serve in Vietnam. And then Ingraham said it should disqualify him for the Senate, because of one lie. What a joke.

The last segment was the worthless Factor News Quiz, with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum. Which I do not report on because it is not news, and has nothing to do with any news. It's just a ridiculous segment to give away Factor gear to his right-wing viewers.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. Wow, 9 Republicans on the show, 0 Democrats, good job Billy, NOT!

Fox Nation Claims Obama Rejected On Tuesday
By: Steve - May 21, 2010 - 8:30am

Once again the biased Fox spin doctors are demonstrating their preference for fantasy over reality. Their top featured post-electoral story is a pathetic attempt to spin the results of Tuesday's voting. Fox Nation headlines their story: Obama Rejected, Coattails Disappear, Americans Empowered.

Here's a quick recap of the election results: Joe Sestak, an Obama supporter, wins in Pennsylvania. Bill Halter, an Obama supporter, wins in Arkansas. Trey Grayson, the Republican establishment's candidate in Kentucky loses to Tea Bagger Rand Paul.

Republican Tim Burns loses in the race to replace John Murtha, a race that Republicans bragged would be evidence of their strength in November. And Fox still spins this as a rejection of Obama? That's a pretty severe case of denial on their part.

I would agree with them on one thing, that Americans were empowered. They rejected some of the party-approved candidates and made their own choices as to who would best represent them. In the case of Sestak and Halter, they demonstrated very good judgment.

In the case of Rand Paul, I'm sure that the Tea Baggers in Kentucky are happy, but they may have screwed themselves in November. Because Rand Paul may be too far right to win the General election.

O'Reilly Spins Democratic Victory Into Obama Defeat
By: Steve - May 20, 2010 - 9:30am

If you ever wanted conclusive proof that Bill O'Reilly is a 100% right-wing spin doctor, here it is. Tuesday was primary election day, they have a primary for each party and they vote for the candidates they like. Those primary wins mean almost nothing, because the actual election is not until November.

But there was an election, a real election. They had a special election to replace the late Democratic Rep. John Murtha in Pennsylvania's 12th District. And in the only election of the day the Republican got his ass kicked.

So guess what O'Reilly said about the Tuesday primary elections on Wednesday night. He said Obama's "biggest defeat" last night was in Kentucky, because Rand Paul won the GOP nomination. Which makes no sense at all, it was a Republican primary, so it had nothing to do with President Obama.

Ask yourself this, how is it a defeat for President Obama that Rand Paul beat another Republican in a Republican primary. It's insane, and the only thing I can think of is that O'Reilly is losing his mind.

In the only actual election, the Democrat Mark Critz managed to pull off an eight-point victory, 53 to 45 percent, over Republican Tim Burns in a district that John McCain won in 2008. This was the story of the night, and yet O'Reilly ignored it to claim it was a bad night for Obama, when it was actually a good night for Obama.

Just look what Politico wrote about the Tuesday election:

All the evidence pointing to monster Republican House gains this fall-the Scott Brown upset win in Massachusetts, the scary polling numbers in once-safely Democratic districts, the ever-rising number of Democratic seats thought to be in jeopardy—was contradicted Tuesday.

In the only House race that really mattered to both parties-the special election to replace the late Democratic Rep. John Murtha in Pennsylvania's 12th District-Republicans failed spectacularly, losing on a level playing field where, in this favorable environment, they should have run roughshod over the opposition.

Given the resources the GOP poured into the effort to capture the seat and the decisiveness of the defeat-as it turned out, it wasn't really that close-the outcome casts serious doubt on the idea that the Democratic House majority is in jeopardy and offers comfort to a Democratic Party.

The district itself couldn't have been more primed for a Republican victory. According to one recent poll, President Barack Obama's approval rating in the 12th was a dismal 35 percent, compared to 55 percent who disapproved. His health care plan was equally unpopular-just 30 percent of those polled supported it, while 58 percent were in opposition.

The race marked the third highly-contested, special House election that the GOP has dropped in the last year.

So the Republicans lost another actual Congressional election, and the real story was that the Democrats held the Murtha seat. Even after O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends predicted the Republicans would win every election from now until November, because the people hate Obama and the Democrats. Then the exact opposite happened, and the Democratic candidate won.

The lead story from O'Reilly was that there seems to be little good news for Obama after Tuesday's election. Which is just laughable, because in the only election of the night it was great news for Obama and the Democrats.

Not to mention Joe Sestak beat Arlen Specter, who will have a much better chance of beating the Republican in November, so that is good news for Obama and the Democrats too. In fact, I can not find anything from Tuesday that was bad news for Obama, there is no bad news, except in the warped right-wing mind of Bill O'Reilly.

It was primary night, so those primary wins were almost meaningless. What counts are the actual elections in November. And btw, Both of the Democratic candidates posted higher numbers than Rand Paul did. The total number of people voting in the Democratic primary was about 170,000 more than those voting in the Republican primary.

The "conventional wisdom" from O'Reilly and the right has been that Democratic voters were not engaged and energized. O'Reilly even said the people hate Obama and his big spending so much, the people are going to vote against all the Democrats.

And he was WRONG. Because in the only actual election of the day the Democrat in Pennsylvania won, and won big. Then O'Reilly does a TPM that claims Obama had little good news and he suffered a big defeat. Which is total right-wing lies and spin, and 100% proof that O'Reilly is a Republican spin doctor.

The Wednesday 5-19-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 20, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Political Shakeup. Billy called it a big victory for the Tea Party, when it was only a Republican primary. O'Reilly mentioned the Democrat winning the Murtha seat, but mostly dismissed it. He basically went through the election results and put his right-wing spin on it to claim Obama has no power anymore to sway voters. Billy admitted the GOP got it's butt kicked in Kentucky. And that's about the only thing he admitted to.

Check this out, the elections on Tuesday were pretty much good news for the Democrats, Sestak beat the pretend Democrat Arlen Specter, and a Democrat won the Murtha seat, beating the Republican. Now look what O'Reilly had on his website Wednesday:
President Obama and yesterday's election: There seems to be little good news for Obama and the Democrats after yesterday's election.
Little good news, haha, O'Reilly is just stupid, and a liar, because it was mostly good news. O'Reilly and the right said the people hate Obama and the Democrats so much they will lose every election, and yet that did not happen. Just look at the Murtha seat, O'Reilly said it would go to a Republican, and he was dead wrong.

Then O'Reilly had the Tea Party guy Rand Paul on to discuss his primary win. And of course O'Reilly did not have one Democrat who won on. Basically O'Reilly gave Rand Paul free air time to promote his views and his campaign for the Senate. It's a sneaky way to give the Tea Party guy free campaign promotion. There was not much to report, because it was simply two Republicans kissing each others ass.

Then the far right Fred Thompson was on to cry about Richard Blumenthal lying about serving in Vietnam. O'Reilly sure loved this story, because it makes a Democrat look bad. So he put Fred Thompson on to smear Blumenthal, with nobody from the other side to give the Blumenthal side of the story. As I call it, the standard one sided biased right-wing spin you usually get from O'Reilly.

And btw, Thompson was also on to promote his new book. I would say ok he lied about serving in Vietnam, that should not disqualify him from being a Senator, because they all lie, we just do not catch most of it. if every politician who lied was disqualified nobody would be able to run. I say vote on him based on his record, not because of one lie he told about military service. All politicians lie, so it's not that big of a deal, except to O'Reilly and Thompson. Then, as expected they turned the segment into an Obama bashfest, until they got to promoting the Thompson book.

In the Impact Segment O'Reilly was on alone to talk about the Mexican President Felipe Calderon meeting with President Obama at the White House. And of course he talked about the new Arizona immigration law, which they are both opposed to. Obama said his administration is taking a close look at the law, and they might file a lawsuit against Arizona. O'Reilly claimed Obama misrepresented the law, and said Obama does not know what he is talking about. He basically played video clips of Obama and the Mexican President speaking, then he put his right-wing spin on what Obama and the Mexican President said, like he does in the bogus reality check segment. No guest, just O'Reilly spinning out right-wing propaganda all alone.

Then O'Reilly had the total waste of tv time body language segment, with the right-wing blonde bimbo body language reader. This segment is a joke, it's not news, and it has nothing to do with news. She is simply put on to do negative body language readings of liberals. Just as the Dennis Miller segment, it's only done to get ratings from the mostly right-wing Factor viewers. I do not report anything she says, because it's meaningless, and frankly partisan mumbo jumbo garbage.

Then the far right "has been comedian" Dennis Miller was on to make jokes about liberals, which I refuse to report on, because they are not funny, and because O'Reilly does not have a liberal comedian on to make jokes about conservatives. It's a one sided biased comedy segment, to simply get ratings from the mostly old right-wing Factor viewers. For anyone that does not know it, about 80% of the Factor viewers are Republicans over 70 years old.

And finally the did you see that video segment with Jane Skinner. One video was a girl fight, don't care. I will say that O'Reilly sure loves those girl fight videos, in a creepy old man kinda way. O'Reilly claims that it shows how the American culture is getting worse, except one girl fight in a country of 320 million proves nothing. Get back to me when it happens a thousand times, one girl fight means nothing. Skinner said they know of 2 girl fights in the last two months, wow, 2 is nothing.

Then they showed a video of Robert Redford doing an oil spill PSA. And of course O'Reilly hates him, because he is a liberal, he said all Redford does is talk, while being opposed to Nuclear and everything else. At the end O'Reilly called him a pinhead. O'Reilly said he hates Redford because he never does anything, but he failed to mention that nothing gets done because the corporate owned Republicans, who get all their money from big oil vote against everything. O'Reilly blamed it on Redford, which is just insane.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, O'Reilly talked about the Tuesday elections on this show, and not one Democratic guest was on to discuss it.

Truth Alert: Tuesday Elections Good News For Obama
By: Steve - May 20, 2010 - 8:30am

Last night crazy O'Reilly said the Tuesday elections had very little good news for Obama, proving what a right-wing stooge he is, because the Tuesday elections were mostly good news for Obama.

Here are the facts:

O'Reilly and his right-wing shills wanted to get all excited about Rand Paul's big win in Kentucky -- but then there's a little problem with Paul's win being a big fiasco for the Republican party.

Look at what they did not talk about: If you look at the complete Kentucky results, the liberal Democrat, Jack Conway, who Paul will face in the general election got 22,000 more votes than Paul did, and Democrats in general had about 170,000 more total votes than Republicans.

It was also tough to spin conservative Democrat Blanche Lincoln's runoff with progressive Bill Halter in Arkansas as a conservative win, considering that Lincoln had screwed herself with the Democratic base by playing games with health-care reform and financial reform. She did not even get 50% of the vote, forcing a runoff.

And then there was Joe Sestak's win over Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. Again, it was a little difficult to spin this as a win for conservatives, considering that Sestak is a progressive Democrat and Specter had just switched parties after decades as a Republican. Instead we heard a lot of talk about anti-incumbent sentiment.

But the biggest defeat was in Pennsylvania's 12th District, where Republican Tim Burns -- a Tea Party fave who got heavy media play at Fox for the past couple of weeks -- still couldn't pull off the victory against Democrat Mark Critz, a longtime John Murtha staffer.

This was a race that had been promoted on Fox as a likely pickup for Republicans. Tory Mazzola, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, which dumped $200,000 into the race said this: "The fact that we have a strong GOP candidate, Tim Burns -- committed to job creation and repealing ObamaCare -- combined with a favorable Republican environment has turned this historically Democratic seat into a swing district."

RNC chairman Michael Steele had even guaranteed a Burns victory. Ouch!

So of course, having invested heavily in promoting the "Mini Super Tuesday" election as a referendum on President Obama, O'Reilly and Fox had to figure out some way to spin the results that way. This meant getting out their right-wing spinmaster Frank Luntz.

Luntz managed to turn PA-12 into an anti-Obama referendum by pointing out how Critz ran to the right during the campaign. So the liberal Democrat won a former liberal Democrats seat, beating the Republican, and Luntz claims he won by running to the right. Ok, and I have some land to sell you too. this is Glenn Beck nonsense, maybe even worse, if that's possible.

You knew O'Reilly and the stooges at Fox would spin it as a victory for the Tea Party somehow. Just as O'Reilly did on Wednesday. But what happened to the truth O'Reilly, oh yeah, he ignored it.

Political Election News Update
By: Steve - May 20, 2010 - 8:00am

Tea Party member Rand Paul defeated Secretary of State Trey Grayson to win the GOP nomination in Kentucky's U.S. Senate race. The win is a blow to the Republican establishment, with both Mitch McConnell and Dick Cheney having endorsed his opponent. Paul will now face Democratic nominee and Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway in the general election.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) was forced into a runoff with former Lt. Governor Bill Halter (D-AR) following her failure to net 50 percent of the vote in the U.S. Senate primary in her state. "Working families all over the state of Arkansas have sent a clear message: They will not stand up for those who fail to stand for them," said Halter, who earned just 7,000 votes fewer than Lincoln.

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) defeated five-term Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) in the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary last night, despite Specter's backing from "organized labor, the state party and, for a while at least" the national party. Sestak brilliantly exploited Specter's inability to articulate why he switched parties, running a commercial which said Specter switched to "save one job, his."

In a district that couldn't have been more primed for a Republican victory, Democrat Mark Critz managed to pull off an eight-point victory to replace the late Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). Politico writes that Critz's victory over Republican Tim Burns contradicts all the evidence pointing to monster Republican House gains this fall as Republicans failed spectacularly, losing on a level playing field.

Remember this, O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends predicted the Republican would win the Murtha seat, wrong!

Assistant Secretary Of State Denies China Apology
By: Steve - May 19, 2010 - 11:30am

Just as I wrote here in this blog, there was no apology to China over the new Arizona immigration law, as O'Reilly all all the right-wing liars have claimed.

Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley has denied the Right-wing claim that the U.S. "apologized" to China. P.J. Crowley said this on Tuesday:
CROWLEY: Sarah Palin claims we apologized to China for the Arizona law. We did no such thing. We showed China what open political debate means.
So right there you have the Assistant Secretary of State saying there was no apology, and yet O'Reilly and everyone on the right still say we did. They are not making a correction, or even reporting the denial. Which is dishonest partisan journalism, from O'Reilly, and the idiots on the right-wing blogs.

And btw, I know I say this a lot, but I do it for a reason, to make sure people who are new to this website know what O'Reilly is doing. O'Reilly denies he is a Republican, and he denies that he uses right-wing talking points. He claims to be a nonpartisan independent who has been fair to President Obama. He says that almost every week.

When it's a lie, a stone cold flat out lie. O'Reilly has 90% right-wing guests, 95% right-wing views on the issues, and almost all his political regulars are Republicans, including Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, etc. On top of all that O'Reilly himself hates liberals, and smears them almost every night. Then he is caught using right-wing talking points that Michael Posner gave an apology to China over the Arizona immigration law.

That spin/propaganda was started on the far right blogs, by Michelle Malkin and Powerline, and only Republicans are saying we gave China an apology. As soon as it was put out, O'Reilly went to the front of the line to use it to smear Obama and Posner. That's what a partisan Republican does, and it's exactly what O'Reilly did. Making him no different than Michelle Malkin, Hinderaker, etc.

And O'Reilly did not just report what the far right blogs were saying, he said it himself, and even called Posner a moron for the apology, when there was no apology. Then he went a step farther and put John Hinderaker from the far right powerline blog on the Factor to spin out the lie/smear. This is what a Republican does, and it's proof that O'Reilly is a Republican.

Not to mention, O'Reilly has never used anything from a left-wing blog, in fact, he has trashed the left-wing blogs and claims they have no credibility at all. While he has no problem taking a lie from a right-wing blog to smear Obama and Posner with it. In the real world we call that partisan politics, which is what O'Reilly did. In fact, he smeared Posner two nights in a row with the apology lie. Making him a a joke, and a right-wing partisan.

The Tuesday 5-18-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 19, 2010 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Obama's Troubles With Voters. O'Reilly spun out some right-wing garbage that American voters are having trouble with President Obama, based on the latest (biased right-wing) Rasmussen poll that says 53% of registered voters disapprove of the President's job performance. This is bull, and nothing but total right-wing propaganda, based on ONE biased poll.

O'Reilly claims that 53% of the voters do not like Obama, but in the Gallup poll it's only 45%, so the polls vary, yet O'Reilly only cited the ONE poll that has Obama at 53% disapproval, and it's the biased Rasmussen poll. Which is 100% right-wing spin, as he ignores another poll that has different numbers. And he claims to be a nonpartisan independent, while he cherry picks the ONE poll that makes Obama look bad, and that poll was put out by a biased Republican pollster. Proving once again the right-wing bias from O'Reilly, and how he uses it to unfairly smear President Obama.

Then O'Reilly had two guests on to talk about the Arizona immigration law. He had two opponents of the legislation. Cathy Areu said this: "The status quo is working fine in Arizona, immigration is down, crime is down, so things are better. I want a law that says we have to have some kind of amnesty." Ruben Navarrette said this: "I'm sick to my stomach of hearing Arizona whine about how it's a victim. Arizona brought this crisis upon itself. All those employers who hire illegal immigrants is why you have so many of them. Arizona should go after employers, including small businesses, and start locking people up."

And I agree, if you go after the employers who hire the illegals, they could stop the illegal immigration. As long as they have jobs, they will keep coming in. But the Arizona law does nothing to the employers, so it will not stop anything. O'Reilly and the right say nothing about that, because the corporations give big money to Republicans to let them use the illegals as cheap labor.

Then O'Reilly had Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley on to discuss the so-called Posner apology to China. O'Reilly said the Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner has been lambasted after seemingly apologizing for Arizona's immigration law to Chinese officials. This is a lie, and he has only been lambasted by a few right-wing idiots who misrepresented what he said. O'Reilly knows this, but he lies about it anyway. Colmes sort of nailed O'Reilly, he said this: "You're playing a game of guilt by association, and you're trying to assassinate this guy's character. You don't like something he did, so you're making him into a left-wing radical so you can attach him to Obama."

Which was not bad, but Colmes never once pointed out that Posner did not give an apology to China, so the Colmes analysis was kind of weak. Crowley said this: "He's very close to Soros and we know that he, along with Soros, played a major role in 2005 to get the World Trade Center memorial site turned into an America-bashing fest. He wanted a very small corner of the big memorial to be devoted to 9/11."

So what the hell does that have to do with the so-called apology to China, nothing. O'Reilly and Crowley are trying to pull a Pastor Wright, by linking Posner to Soros to make him look bad, the same way these right-wing idiots did it with Pastor Wright and Obama.

Then O'Reilly had a stupid segment asking if the people fear big government. He had A.B. Stoddard on, who of course agreed with him. O'Reilly said this: "Taxpayer dollars are spent by the 'colossus' Washington and the money is going down the drain. But when you get to the border, the 'colossus' government disappears." So he used the segment to cry about illegal immigration again. That's almost all he ever talks about anymore, proving he is a right-wing partisan. Because the right is using illegal immigration, in an election year, to try and gain seats back in the Congress. That is why O'Reilly talks about it so much, to try and help the Republicans.

Then the crazy John Stossel was on to cry about anti-bullying laws, he claimed it was a violation of free speech, which is just ridiculous. If they pass a law that makes it a crime, it's a crime, and not a violation of anyones speech. Proving that Stossel has a few screws loose. If you stop a bully from beating someone up, that is not violating their speech, it's stopping them from a crime, you fricking moron. And if you arrest them for beating someone up, you have still not violated their speech. O'Reilly even disagreed with Stossel and agreed with me, he said bullying is a criminal act. Stossel is right sometimes, but on this one he is insane.

Then O'Reilly had the is it legal segment with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle. They talked about San Francisco considering a law that would allow illegal aliens to vote, but is it legal? Wiehl said this: "There have been a few places, where a non-citizen who is a permanent resident is allowed to vote in local elections. But this law says anyone with a child in school can vote."

Guilfoyle, who practiced in San Francisco, said this is largely the work of one man. "This is so political I can't even tell you. David Chiu, the head of the Board of Supervisors, wants the votes of the Asian community. A lot of people in San Francisco do not like this." And they talked a little about American Eagle Outfitters, who has been forced by New York State to hire transgendered employees, which Wiehl agreed with: "You can not discriminate based on gender identity, that's what the law says." Of course O'Reilly did not like it, and wonders how such a law was passed.

The last segment was with Charles Krauthammer, O'Reilly asked if the long-running "war on drugs" is worth fighting. Krauthammer said this: "The costs are huge, in terms of corruption and money spent and imprisonment. Nonetheless, the social cost of legalized drug use would outweigh that. Do you really want to live in a society where you can walk into a store and buy cocaine or heroin or methamphetamines? The answer, I think, is no."

Which misrepresents the issue, because almost nobody wants to make cocaine or heroin legal, they are only talking about marijuana. I do not support making cocaine or heroin legal, but I do support making pot legal. O'Reilly said this: "70% of child abuse and neglect is attributed to drug abuse. If it's legalized, that number is going to go up, which is my argument against it." But what percent of them smoke pot, I would bet none. You never hear of a pot smoker abusing a child, it's the heroin and hard drug users. O'Reilly and Krauthammer dishonestly lump them all in together, and misrepresent the issue.

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

Gingrich Compares Obama To The Nazis
By: Steve - May 19, 2010 - 10:30am

Now think about this, back when Bush was the President and a few Democrats compared Bush and Cheney to Hitler, O'Reilly said it was wrong, and that nobody should use Hitler comparisons to political leaders in America. O'Reilly slammed the left for doing it, and said it should never be done by anyone.

So then you have Newt Gingrich doing it, and O'Reilly says nothing, not a word, which means he supports what Gingrich said because he did not speak out against it. Gingrich is a Factor regular, he is one of O'Reilly's go to guys for political analysis. And here he is comparing Obama, Pelosi, and Reid to the Nazis. Which is what O'Reilly said nobody should ever do, but only when Bush was in office.

With the release of his latest book, former House speaker Newt Gingrich has been on a media tour, arguing that liberals in Congress and the Obama administration are trying to create a country which no longer resembles America. Gingrich claims the secular-socialist machine, by which he means the Obama, Pelosi, Reid, team, represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did.

On Fox News Sunday this past weekend, host Chris Wallace challenged Gingrich on that quote, asking if it was a wildly over the top comparison. Gingrich said it wasn't:
WALLACE: You also write this, and let's put it up on the screen. "The secular-socialist machine represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did." Mr. Speaker, respectfully, isn't that wildly over the top?

GINGRICH: No, not if by America you mean the historic contract we've had which says your rights come from your creator, they're unalienable, you're allowed to pursue happiness. I mean, just listen to President Obama's language.
Then Joy Behar asked former GOP congresswoman Susan Molinari - who served in Congress while Gingrich was speaker of the House - if Gingrich was losing his marbles by making such comparisons. Molinari replied that Gingrich's comments were outrageous and crazy:
BEHAR: Susan, when Bush was called a Nazi, the right wing went berserk. And yet, Gingrich just throws the word around as if it's nothing. What is up with him? What is he, losing his marbles?

MOLINARI: This has always been, let me distance myself from that remark first of all in all seriousness. To compare anything that is going on in this country to the atrocities of Nazi Germany in any way, shape or form is just crazy.
Later in the show, Molinari tried to change the subject, saying, "let's just take Newt off the table because that's just not even worth talking about." Let's put him under the table, replied Behar. Exactly. Thank you, responded Molinari.

And now here is my question, when is O'Reilly going to condemn the Nazi comparisons by Newt Gingrich. Answer, when hell freezes over. I predict O'Reilly will ignore the entire story, and never say one word about it. Even when he has Gingrich on the Factor, he will not condemn him, or even ask him about it.

O'Reilly Caught Using Right-Wing Talking Points
By: Steve - May 19, 2010 - 10:00am

On the Monday night Factor O'Reilly slammed the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy Human Rights and Labor Michael Posner for what he called an apology. During two days of talks about human rights with China last week, the US raised examples of problems on its own soil and cited Arizona's controversial new immigration law as an example of "racial discrimination."
"We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session and as a troubling trend in our society, and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination. And these are issues very much being debated in our own society," Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy Human Rights and Labor Michael Posner, who led the US delegation to the talks, told reporters on Friday.
All he did was mention the Arizona law during talks about human rights with China, which made some conservatives really mad, because they see the US as apologizing for the law to a country that persecutes its own dissidents and minorities.

“China murdered millions of its citizens who opposed the government's Communist policies and allows most of its people little or no freedom. We, on the other hand, enforce our immigration laws. No, wait--actually we don't. That's why Arizona had to take a shot at it,” the conservative blog Powerline wrote on Sunday.

So what happened is only conservatives are calling it an apology. O'Reilly pulled this garbage off the right-wing blogs and took it to his cable news show. So he was caught using right-wing propaganda to smear Michael Posner and President Obama. then he has the nerve to claim he has been fair to President Obama, which is just laughable.

Hey O'Reilly, using propaganda from right-wing blogs to claim the Obama administration said we are sorry to China is not being fair to the President, and it's not even close. You are not only a lying right-wing spin doctor, you are not fair to President Obama. This garbage was started by Michelle Malkin and the far right Obama haters on the internet. And yet O'Reilly jumped right on the bandwagon and used it, which he said he never does.

E-Mail To Me Proves How Stupid Factor Viewers Are
By: Steve - May 18, 2010 - 1:00pm

I got another great e-mail today, and by great I mean stupid uninformed garbage, full of spelling errors. Not only does the moron think O'Reilly tells the truth, he is as dumb as Sarah Palin, maybe dumber.
Subject: no he doesn't
Date: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 9:56 AM
From: marty thompson - [email protected]
To: Steve

Only truth comes from the O'REILLY FACTOR. All smart informed people know this. If you wanna' hear spin and nonsense, listen to the stupid Eric Holder who was made a fool of concerning the great Arizona law finally inforced because the federal socialist government wouldn't do their job. Everyone I know of will be vacationing in the great honest state of Arizona this summer. Or listen to liars like Kieth Olberman, Tim Mathews or Rachael Maddow who wouldn't know the truth if it slapped them across the face.


And btw, what has Obama done to make him guilty of Treason. That is just insane, he only saved the economy from Bush, gave 95% of the people a tax cut, and got the stock market back up to over 10,000, yet these right-wing lunatics claim he is guilty of Treason. If this guy Martin could be locked up for stupidity, he would be put away for a long time, maybe forever.

O'Reilly Gives Right-Wing Spin Doctor Air Time
By: Steve - May 18, 2010 - 10:00am

Okay get this, O'Reilly put this right-wing nut (John Hinderaker) on the air to claim the Obama administration is full of anti-Americans. Then later in the show O'Reilly dared to say to Brit Hume that he has been fair to President Obama, if by fair you mean not fair at all, then I agree.

And btw, the great John Hinderaker called Michael Posner an idiot, a moron, and a dope on his crazy right-wing blog.
HINDERAKER: What an idiot! China murdered millions of its citizens who opposed the government's Communist policies and allows most of its people little or no freedom. We, on the other hand, enforce our immigration laws. No, wait--actually we don't. That's why Arizona had to take a shot at it. Oh, by the way, Michael Posner, you clueless moron--China actually does enforce its immigration laws.

These dopes are actually proud of themselves for being morally and historically ignorant.
He also said the Obama administration "consists of a bunch of anti-American ignoramuses" on his blog. And yet O'Reilly still put this disrespectful right-wing propagandist on his show. Even though Michael Posner did not give an apology to China for the Arizona immigration law. That's all right-wing spin put out by the conservative blogs. And nobody is saying it was an apology but them.

All Posner did was say we have a discrimination law in Arizona, which we do, he did not give an apology for it, O'Reilly and his right-wing pals made that part up. Imagine what O'Reilly would do if we had a Republican President, and a left-wing blogger said they are all anti-American. O'Reilly would slam him, but when a Republican blogger says it, he not only does not slam him, he puts him on his show to do it on tv.

Then he tells Brit Hume he has been fair to Obama, which is beyond laughable. When what he did was being as unfair to Obama as you can be. And if a left-wing blogger said it about a Republican administration, O'Reilly would go nuts and hammer the guy. Talk about bias, this is it, from O'Reilly and his right-wing blogger friend John (THE IDIOT) Hinderaker.

The Monday 5-17-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 18, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Human Rights Criticism. O'Reilly was flipped out that China said America has a human rights problem, and they mentioned the new Arizona immigration law. O'Reilly could not believe it, and said it was an outrage for China to slam America over human rights, he called it the twilight zone. And then of course he also used it to slam Obama, when Obama had nothing to do with what China says. Then O'Reilly called it a huge political issue, when I only see a few right-wingers even talking about it. And btw, I also think China is ridiculous to slam America over human rights.

O'Reilly slammed a guy in the Obama administration, Michael Posner, the assistant secretary of state. He called him a moron, then later said he was sorry and that he should not have said that. According to O'Reilly, Posner told China he was sorry for the Arizona law, which I am not sure happened, but if I had to bet, I would say O'Reilly is spinning, or flat out lying. So what does O'Reilly do then, he has the right-wing spin doctor John Hinderaker from the powerline blog on to discuss it.

Then O'Reilly said he does not want it to be an Obama bashfest because it does not get us anywhere, after he spent 9 minutes bashing Obama. Hinderaker said there are anti-Americans in the Obama administration. Which is just ridiculous, but the most O'Reilly would say to that is that's interesting. The correct answer should have been no, there are not any anti-Americans in the Obama administration. But O'Reilly never said that, he just said that's interesting. And I did a google search on Posner, he did not say he was sorry to China, he just said we do have some discrimination in Arizona. So as I thought, O'Reilly was spinning out the right-wing talking points on it, just as Michelle Malkin is.

Then O'Reilly had Brit Hume on to discuss it. With no Democratic guest of course. O'Reilly asked Hume if the AG Eric Holder will keep his job, when he had nothing to do with it. O'Reilly also called Posner a left-wing zealot. Hume was also outraged that Posner would admit to China that was have a discrimination problem in Arizona. Folks, this is right-wing propaganda, from the right-wing spin doctors. And of course Hume jumped on the bandwagon and slammed Posner and Obama for it. And then O'Reilly said both him and Hume have been fair to President Obama, which is just laughable.

The last 2 segments are a perfect example, because this is not even a story except with the right-wing Obama haters. Not to mention, O'Reilly had zero Democratic guests on to discuss it. Then Hume agreed with O'Reilly that Holder should be fired, when he has not done anything wrong. If you do a google search on the issue all you get are right-wing blogs, O'Reilly pulled the story right off the blogs. At the end of the segment he says I could be wrong about this, and if you have any information get it to him. What a joke, he should have had a Democrat on to give the other side, and you know if he did get the info he would just ignore it.

Then O'Reilly did an entire segment about the internet. O'Reilly cried about people spending too much time on the internet, he cited youtube who has been online for 5 years. He even showed some of the stupid videos that are on youtube. How is this news, and who cares. Nothing O'Reilly says will have any impact on what people do on the internet. It was just another waste of time segment where O'Reilly showed videos and then talked about them, with no guest. Then O'Reilly said you should only spend 2 hours a day on the internet, and I say who does he think he is, this is a free country and we will do whatever we want. And we sure as hell are not going to listen to Bill O'Reilly about it.

Wow, O'Reilly even did a 2nd segment on it. He had Juan Williams and Kate Obenshain were on to discuss it. O'Reilly said Juan has a facebook page, and Juan said he does not, so O'Reilly did not even have that right. but Juan agreed with O'Reilly that people spend too much time on the internet. Juan said it takes away from our humanity and it's a bad move. Kate slammed Obama for being the king of technology, and she pretty much agreed with Juan and O'Reilly.

She said kids spend over 7 hours a day on games, but that is not really being on the internet. They did admit some of it is positive, but mostly they hate the internet. yeah because people like me expose their bias and their lies. O'Reilly wants to get rid of the internet so nobody can expose his bias and lies. He wants to be able to spin out his right-wing bias without anyone calling him on it. Kate said it has some bad, but let the market sort it out, and I agree with her. Basically O'Reilly and Williams are two old gimmers who need to remember it's 2010 not 1910.

Then the far right Bernie Goldberg was on for the media bias segment. And of course he only talked about what he claims is a liberal bias in the media, with no Democratic media analyst. Goldberg was on to talk some more about the media coverage of the Arizona immigration law. I will not go into the details of what the biased Goldberg said, because it's the same thing we have heard a hundred times. Basically Goldberg cried about how what he calls the liberal media has covered the story. Then O'Reilly said the people who work in the media is 80/20 against the Arizona law. Hey Billy, what happened to that no speculation thing you claim to have, that's speculation sparky. And then of course Goldberg hammered Obama over the Kagan Supreme Court nomination.

And the last segment was the totally one sided right-wing bias Factor Reality Check. It's where O'Reilly puts his spin on something a liberal said, there is no reality, just right-wing spin from O'Reilly.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And once again not one Democratic guest was on the entire show, it was all right-wing spin, all the time.

Brit Hume Proves He Is A Right-Wing Hack
By: Steve - May 18, 2010 - 9:00am

Remember when O'Reilly used to say Brit Hume is not a partisan right-wing spin doctor, based on the fact that he did a so-called unbiased news show on Fox. Even today Hume is put on the Factor as an objective news analyst, almost every week, in a segment called the Hume zone. We all knew it was ridiculous to claim Hume is a non-partisan, and every time Hume does an analysis we see that he is a partisan, and that O'Reilly was lying.

Just look at what he recently said about the BP oil spill. Sunday morning, Fox News analyst Brit Hume scoffed at the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, wondering, "Where is the oil?" Hume followed the lead of Rush Limbaugh and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour(R), who have been aggressively downplaying the disaster and bristling at comparisons to the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill. During the Fox News Sunday roundtable, Hume dismissed the expert analysis that many times more oil have spilled already than the Exxon Valdez disaster.

Independent experts, believe the vast sea of oil gushing from multiple leaks on the seabed surpassed the Exxon Valdez weeks ago. Scientists are finding enormous oil plumes in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, including one as large as 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick in spots.

The slick on the surface of the Gulf is now about 4,922 square miles, larger than Los Angeles County, Delaware, or Rhode Island. On the surface, oil contamination has reached the barrier islands of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida.

After Hume repeated the natural seepage talking points to falsely imply the oil industry's catastrophic record of spills is unimportant, he then mirrored Rush Limbaugh's argument that the ocean will take care of this on its own:
WILLIAMS: But I think it will damage the environment in the gulf and damage tourism and damage fishing. I don't think there's any question this is in excess of anything we've previously asked the ocean to absorb.

HUME: We'll see if it is. We'll see if it is. The ocean absorbs a lot, Juan, an awful lot. The ocean absorbs a lot.

WILLIAMS: I think Rush Limbaugh went down this road, "The ocean can handle it." I think we have to take some responsibility for the environment and be responsible to people who live in the area, vacation in that area, fish in that area. It's just wrong to think, "You know what? Dump it on the ocean and let the ocean handle it." HUME: Who said that? Who is saying that? No one's making that argument.
You are, moron. Crazy Hume says the ocean can absorb a lot, then he denies anyone said that, when he said it, and his buddy Rush Limbaugh said it too. This is right-wing Rush Limbaugh talking points, from the so-called non-partisan Brit Hume. It's ridiculous, and Hume of just as much of a partisan as Rove, Gingrich, or anyone on the right.

The problem is they do not disclose his partisan bias, O'Reilly and everyone at Fox label him as an objective news analyst, when it's clear he is a biased spin doctor. So not only are they failing to disclose his bias, he then goes on to agree with the right on every issue. It's called bias, spin, and dishonesty, from Hume, Fox, and O'Reilly.

O'Reilly Still Ignoring Coal Mine Disaster Story
By: Steve - May 18, 2010 - 8:30am

Because if he reported it, he would have to report the CEO is a Republican who donated big money to Republicans in the Senate and House during the Bush years to let him get away with violating safety rules. And to keep the fines small, while taking years to appeal them. Now there may be criminal charges, and O'Reilly is still ignoring the entire story. Federal prosecutors are investigating possible willful criminal activity at the Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia where 29 miners died in April. The criminal probe is looking into alleged violations of federal mine safety law from 2007 to 2010, and involves directors, officers and agents of a subsidiary of Massey Energy Co.

O'Reilly even does a weekly legal segment called is it legal, and to this day he has not had one segment to talk about the coal mine disaster that killed 29 mine workers.

Newt Gingrich Is A Flat Out Liar
By: Steve - May 18, 2010 - 8:00am

I have not reported much on the Obama Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan, because it's clear she is going to get at least 60 votes, and she got 61 in her last nomination. But Sunday Newt Gingrich was on that lame Fox Sunday show with Chris Wallace, and he just lied his ass off, with no dispute by Wallace. Proving that it's just a right-wing propaganda outlet.

On the May 16 Fox News Sunday, Newt Gingrich called for President Obama to withdraw Elena Kagan's nomination:
GINGRICH: I think the president should withdraw her. I think the -- you don't need a whole lot of hearings. The very fact that she led the effort, which was repudiated unanimously by the Supreme Court to block the American military from Harvard Law School -- we're in two wars. And I see no reason why you would appoint an anti-military Supreme Court justice or why the Senate would confirm an anti-military Supreme Court justice.

The American military didn't have a policy. The Congress of the United States and the Clinton administration she served in had a policy. And for her to single out the military was an extraordinarily myopic position, and if you read what they said at the time it was consistently focused on the military. And I just think at a time when we have two wars, that's a very inappropriate behavior for somebody to end up as a justice of the Supreme Court.
And now the facts:

Throughout Kagan's tenure as dean, Harvard law students had access to military recruiters -- either through Harvard's Office of Career Services or through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association. Kagan became dean of Harvard Law in June 2003 and continued the school's policy of granting the military a special exception to its nondiscrimination policy so that the military could work with the law school's Office of Career Services (OCS).

In accordance with the nondiscrimation policy, Kagan barred OCS from working with military recruiters for the spring 2005 semester after the U.S Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that law schools could legally do so. During that one semester, students still had access to military recruiters via the Harvard Law School Veterans Association.

So what happened is Kagan barred OCS from working with military recruiters for one semester in 2005, and she did it based on a 3rd Circuit Appeals Court ruling. Abd btw, the number of graduates from each of those classes who entered the military was equal to or greater than the number who entered the military from any of Harvard's previous five classes.

And another thing Gingrich did not mention is that military recruiters were restricted in their access to Harvard Law School under the school's nondiscrimination policy long before the introduction of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or Kagan's tenure as dean.

Newt also failed to mention that 5 other law schools did the very same thing. The dispute started last May, when a high-ranking army official warned the institutions that they could lose any future defense contracts if they continued to keep army recruiters off their law campuses. All six schools enforced the ban because the army violates their on-campus recruiting policies by refusing to accept homosexuals and handicapped persons for military service. So it was not just Kagan and Harvard doing it.

Gingrich also failed to mention the Harvard policy was put in place before Kagan got the job as dean. Supreme Court expert and attorney Tom Goldstein wrote in a May 8 SCOTUS blog post: "Some commentators have claimed that Kagan's position on the Solomon Amendment reflects an anti-military bias. That criticism is unsound. Harvard's position -- which predates Kagan's tenure as dean -- was not directed at the military but instead is a categorical nondiscrimination rule applicable to all potential employers. It is a position that is widely shared among American law schools."

Gingrich even claims she is anti-military, which is just ridiculous. During Kagan's October 17, 2007, speech at the United States Military Academy at West Point, Kagan said this: "I am in awe of your courage and your dedication, especially in these times of great uncertainty and danger. I know how much my security and freedom and indeed everything else I value depend on all of you."

Kagan further stated that she has been "grieved" by DADT because she "wishes" that gays and lesbians "could join this noblest of all professions and serve their country in this most important of all ways."

Kagan even spoke out against the policy, hoping the military would change their discrimination so they could allow the military back in. At an October 2004 rally protesting against military recruitment on campus, Kagan said this: "These men and women, notwithstanding their talents, their conviction, their courage, cannot perform what I truly believe to be the greatest service a person can give for their country. And that's just wrong, that's just flat out wrong."

In a 2008 statement on the military recruiting issue, Kagan wrote, "The military is a noble profession, which provides extraordinary service to each of us every day."

She simply enforced a non-discrimination policy at Harvard, that applied to every employer in America, including the military, and it was put in place before she even got the job. So Newt Gingrich turns that into she hates the military and Obama should withdraw her nomination. Proving how dishonest he is, because nothing could be further from the truth, and nobody should ever believe a word Gingrich says ever again.

Then you also have to remember that this is one of the political experts O'Reilly has on, he is on the Factor all the time, and he is a paid analyst by Fox. The top two political analysts at Fox are Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich, two of the biggest liars in America. And yet O'Reilly uses them as non-partisan truth tellers, when the facts show they are proven right-wing liars.

The Friday 5-14-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 15, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Suffering For Your Country. O'Reilly talked about the Wounded Warrior Project having its annual fundraiser Thursday in New York City. And for once O'Reilly did not have a TPM attacking Obama, shocking. He said everyone should donate to them, and I agree. But instead of going to the O'Reilly website to get the link, I suggest you go right to their website.

Then O'Reilly had George Stephanopoulos on to discuss Obama getting mad at BP oil. President Obama railed against the cozy relationship between the oil companies and the federal agency that permits them to drill. And then of course O'Reilly asked Stephanopoulos if the administration bears responsibility for the spill. Which is ridiculous, because that oil rig was built while Bush was the President, and Bush set up all the rules they were going by, not to mention O'Reilly never says a word about the whistleblower who said they faked the safety tests, none of which Obama had anything to do with.

Stephanopoulos said, "It's a stretch to compare this to Hurricane Katrina because of the differences between the two disasters." O'Reilly said President Obama is now on the defensive: "I don't have any use for the oil companies, but it seems to me that this might have been a little bit of grandstanding by the President. It was his agency that failed to oversee British Petroleum in the Gulf of Mexico."

So there you have it, O'Reilly blames it all on Obama because his agency failed to oversee it. Even though the people running the agency were all put there by Bush, who all have friends in the oil business, and all the regulations were put in place by Republicans. The only thing Obama failed at, was kicking all those crooks out and putting honest people in there to monitor them. And BP was rigging the safety testing, so nobody knew what they were doing, it was all done under the rules Bush had in place. Of course Obama does have a little blame, but O'Reilly blames it all on Obama, which is just ridiculous right-wing spin.

Then O'Reilly had the far right J.D. Hayworth, who was kicked out of Congress in the 2008 election for his radical immigration views, on to discuss the boycott of Arizona over their new immigration law. If you could have anyone on to discuss it, this would be the last guy you want, and yet O'Reilly did it. Hayworth is the Republican who is challenging John McCain for his party's Senate nomination.

Hayworth said, "There are some cities with leftist city councils that are boycotting, but more than a dozen states are moving to pass legislation modeled on Arizona's. I think you're going to see a 'buycott' - Americans will decide to visit the Grand Canyon and actually support Arizona." O'Reilly suggested that Arizona may actually profit from the controversy: "Wouldn't it be interesting if the Chamber of Commerce started to market this and say, if you believe we have the right to protect ourselves, please come here and show these pinheads they're wrong."

What they fail to report is that the Austin Texas City Council also voted to boycott Arizona, which is hardly a liberal group. And notice how they do not say a word about the Arizona tourism board estimate that they have lost $90 million dollars already from the boycotts. The whole segment was one sided right-wing bias, with Hayworth and O'Reilly implying it's no big deal, and that they could end up making money, as they lose $90 million dollars in a month or so, with a lot more to come. Proving that Hayworth and O'Reilly are nothing but right-wing spin doctors. Where are the facts O'Reilly, you only reported one side of the story, you fraud.

Then O'Reilly had Leslie Marshall and Nancy Skinner on to discuss it. Skinner said, "Enforcement of immigration law, is the purview of the federal government - states can't do this. And we're really concerned about the rights of Americans who will be unduly stopped."

Marshall added that boycotting Arizona is a reasonable response to the new law. "If people don't support what's happening they have every right to boycott. And if you and I go on vacation there, who is going to clean our hotel room and keep the landscaping nice if we don't have all of these Mexicans doing the lawn and cleaning the hotel rooms?"

And of course O'Reilly disagreed with Marshall's argument, he said this, "There are enough legal immigrants and Americans who need jobs. To say that the United States economy can't function without illegal immigration is a fallacy."

Notice what O'Reilly did there, Billy disputed a statement that was never made, nobody said the United States economy can't function without illegal immigration, except O'Reilly. Of course it can function without illegal immigration, but it will hurt the economy big time. Without illegal immigrants working here and spending money here, the economy would lose billions every year, not to mention, the higher labor cost would force prices for food up, etc. Right at a time when we need to add to the economy, not take away from it.

Then O'Reilly did a segment all by himself, he slammed Attorney General Eric Holder, because he would not use the term "Islamic terror" at a Congressional hearing. All the Republicans are flipped out because Holder would not use the words "Islamic Terror" including O'Reilly. When he did it because Obama told him to do it, they do not want to make it look like all Islamic people are terrorists, which is smart. But crazy O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends hate it, O'Reilly even said this, "I can't predict when Eric Holder is going to leave the Obama administration, but he's going to leave. Count on it."

Then O'Reilly had Glenn Beck on to talk about miranda rights. Beck said suspected terrorists must be read their Miranda rights. Billy disagreed and confronted Beck: "If you believe these terrorists should be read their Miranda rights right away, I think you're wrong."

Beck's reply: "This is a police action and if the police bust you, when does a citizen become guilty? I thought we had to prove that. When this government decides to declare war, then you can talk to me."

So there it is, Obama is damned if he does, and damned if he don't. The Republicans have decided to play both sides of the fence and attack Obama no matter which way he does it. If he reads them their miranda rights some Republicans slam him for it, and if he don't, some Republicans slam him for it. So it's a no win situation. I personally believe in the public safety exception, if you arrest someone and they are a suspected terrorist who may know about more bombs, you should be able to talk to them without reading them their rights.

The question is at what point do you read them their rights, it's a complicated situation, and I sure as hell do not want Beck or O'Reilly saying what to do, or not do. And if they refuse to talk and want an attorney, you must give them one. At the end of the segment Beck made a crazy statement, he said Obama is trying to silence free speech, because Obama said there can be too much information. Which is just insane, Obama was talking about the biased media outlets like Fox who put out too much wrong information, and he did not say he would try to stop the from doing it, he just pointed out it was happening. To claim that is trying to silence free speech is laughable. When Bush said MSNBC was lying about him nobody said he was trying to silence free speech.

And the last segment was Greg Gutfeld and Juliet Huddy to name the dumbest people of the week. Which is kind of ironic, to have a couple of the dumbest people at Fox on to slam someone else for doing something dumb. Gutfeld and Huddy are about as dumb as Sarah Palin, ok maybe that's going too far, haha, but they are both pretty dumb.

Huddy picked the German researchers who claim women who date younger men are at greater risk of death. "I've dated a lot of younger men, and I'm still alive and kicking.

Which proves my point, that Huddy is stupid. Because the study did not say ALL women who date younger men will die, it just said some will die sooner. Not to mention, who fricking cares what some German study says.

Gutfeld singled out rapper L.L. Cool J, who demonstrated his strength by using the women of The View as barbells. "We're in a recession," Gutfeld joked, "and what he's showing is that you can use other human bodies as weights. This is a fantastic idea! And by the way, it's much better to lift 'The View' than to watch it."

I told you so, look at what those two fools picked as the dumbest things of the week. I could think of a hundred things that are dumber, and they ignored them all, proving the dumbest thing of the week was this segment.

There was no pinheads and patriots, just the Factor e-mails. Where O'Reilly read 2 e-mails that said Megyn Kelly crushed him in the Ginsberg debate, and 2 that said he won. Which is laughable, because I bet it was 10 to 1 in Kelly's favor, but O'Reilly would not say, and made it look like the viewers were split on who won the debate.

Bill O'Reilly vs Megyn Kelly (Ginsberg Debate)
By: Steve - May 14, 2010 - 11:30am

O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: On Tuesday Megyn Kelly and I had a shoot-out over liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Megyn believes Ginsburg is responsible and tries to base her decisions on the Constitution; I do not believe that.

So let me back up what I said: In 2007, Justice Ginsburg dissented from banning partial birth abortion and objected to a fetus being described as an 'unborn child.' Well, if it isn't an unborn child, what exactly is it, Judge Ginsburg, and what gives you the right to define a fetus?

It's clear that Ginsburg supports the gruesome partial birth abortion procedure because she doesn't feel a fetus has any rights. Where is that in the Constitution? Also, a group of Connecticut firefighters were denied promotions because less-qualified African Americans were given preference.

Judge Ginsburg said New Haven had practiced 'undisguised discrimination' in the past, and therefore promoting minorities now should supersede test results.

And one more: Justice Ginsburg has given speeches saying the Supreme Court should consider foreign law when making decisions. Are you going to tell me that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson wanted the Supreme Court to look at Portugal for guidance? Talking Points believes Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an ideologue."
Then Megan Kelly gave a rebuttal. Kelly began by defending Justice Ginsburg's legal posture in the partial birth abortion case:
KELLY: Her point was simply that if you call it an 'unborn baby' you've already announced your decision. She was taking the position that the language being used was not helpful to the legal debate.
Kelly moved to the case of the white New Haven firefighters who were denied promotions despite having superior test scores:
KELLY: You totally mischaracterized what she said. All the justices agreed that the history in New Haven was extremely relevant to the case, and she was well within her rights in discussing the history of discrimination. You can disagree on how she came out on the case, but examining the history in New Haven was something all the justices did.
Kelly concluded that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whatever her decisions, is not a rogue justice:
KELLY: To some extent, all judges have an ideology and a legal philosophy that they bring with them. And Bill, you've picked on the wrong justice - she's not even the most liberal justice on the high court.
And let me add that the only thing O'Reilly did was point out that he disagrees with Ginsberg on a few of her rulings. He did not prove she does not care about the Constitution, or show that other judges would have ruled the same way she did, which they did. She was not the only person who ruled that way, because 3 other judges agreed with her. The rulings were 5 to 4, and Ginsberg was one of the 4 no votes.

The main thing O'Reilly showed is his right-wing bias. Basically he slammed one liberal judge as being a radical, simply because he disagreed with her rulings, when he said nothing about the 3 other judges that agreed with her. And when right-wing judges make a ruling based on their political ideology, which they do all the time, O'Reilly says nothing, and he never slams a right-wing judge for his right-wing ideology based rulings.

And finally let me say this, Megyn Kelly is a Republican, so she does not like Ginsberg, but she knows a judge can make a ruling that someone does not like, but that does not mean the judge is wrong. Most of the time it just means the people who does not like the ruling has a bias, and they simply disagree based on their political ideology.

That is what O'Reilly did, he did not prove anything, all he did was slam a judge because he does not like her rulings, based on his political ideology. In O'Reillyworld, if you are a judge that makes a ruling he does not like, you are considered a far left radical. Even though he is not an attorney, never went to law school, and he was never a judge.

The whole topic is ridiculous to begin with, because right-wing judges make rulings based on their political ideology, and left-wing judges do the same thing. We all know this happens, because all the rulings come down 5 to 4, with the 4 liberals voting one way, and the 4 conservatives voting the other way. Then you have one swing vote that decides it, with most of them going 5 to 4 to the right.

The problem here is O'Reilly, he never says anything about the 4 right-wing judges, that always rule based on their conservative ideology. He only attacks left-wing judges, and he then goes after one liberal judge, and claims she does not care about the Constitution. Which is ridiculous, and he never says any radical right-wing judges do not care about the Constitution, after they make a ruling based on conservative ideology. It's bias, and a double standard, by O'Reilly.

The Thursday 5-13-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 14, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Keeping The Supreme Court Honest. As if the biased Bill O'Reilly could do that, especially when he loves all the right-wingers on the court, and hates all the left-wingers. O'Reilly talked about Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and his argument with Megyn Kelly, then he had Kelly on to discuss it. And it's a long story so I will do another posting about it.

After the TPM and the Megyn Kelly segment O'Reilly had Steve Greenberg and Tamara Holder on to talk about some cities that have announced they will protest Arizona's new immigration law by no longer doing business with the state, and an Illinois high school that won't allow its girls basketball team to compete in Arizona. Greenberg, whose daughter attends the school, said it is unfair to the girls.

But Tamara Holder argued that school officials are doing the right thing. O'Reilly accused the superintendent of political posturing, O'Reilly said it is imposing a political point of view on the students and denying them a very worthwhile activity. I agree with Greenberg and O'Reilly, I do not think the school should punish the girls for political reasons.

Then O'Reilly had the 2 right-wing culture warriors, Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson on to discuss another new law in Arizona, banning high school courses that emphasize ethnicity. "They can have classes teaching the history of a particular group," Hoover explained, "but they can't have classes promoting ethnic solidarity." Carlson focused on a California high school where two boys stripped to their underwear in a so-called talent show. "They simulated sexual positions," Carlson said, "and at one point students came up and put tips in their underwear. The district says the assistant principal who was present has been placed on administrative leave."

They barely talked about the ethnic course ban, O'Reilly spent 90% of the segment showing video of the boys stripping, while the bible thumping Carlson talked about what an outrage it was that the school let it happen. I wonder if she knows that kids in high school do 10 times worse than that, I agree it should not be done at school, but the outrage from Carlson was laughable. The boys stripped to their underwear, but there was no nudity, so it was not as big a deal as O'Reilly and Carlson made it out to be. O'Reilly and Carlson were outraged, and they want everyone fired. When it was a talent show, get a grip you old gimmers.

Then O'Reilly talked about something that was a real outrage, kids having actual sex in school, now that is wrong, and if a teacher let it happen they should be fired. At a California middle school, a cafeteria worker claims she saw tape of two students engaging in oral sex while other kids looked on. Local television reporter Lu Parker shed more light on the story. "I met this woman," Parker said, "and she says she has actually seen the video on cell phone. She's angry and she feels like the district did not tell parents anything about this. I also spoke with a couple of kids who said they've seen the video."

O'Reilly urged school officials to stop dodging: "The superintendent and principal are running away, everyone's running and hiding. If it's true, this is pretty shocking." What I have a problem with is that the story has not been confirmed, so far you one cafeteria worker who claims they saw a tape. Until the tape is proven, I say this is not a story yet. I think O'Reilly jumped the gun on this story to try and get ratings. Real journalists do not report a story based on one persons statement, when it has not been confirmed. Until the tape is verified, this is not a story, and I think it's wrong to report it until then.

Then O'Reilly had the partisan right-wing spin doctor Laura Ingraham on. They talked about the guy Obama has nominated (Donald Berwick) to head the Medicare and Medicaid programs. But get this, they slammed what he said two years ago, they claim Berwick said any equitable health care system "must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer."

Ingraham said this: "What I found most disturbing, wasn't the redistribution angle. It was more his over-the-top praise for England's health care rationing panel, which is what we're all afraid of in the United States. That should tell us where we're going when we go down this road of a centralized bureaucracy managing our health care."

Which is just crazy insane right-wing propaganda. It does not matter what the guy said two years ago about the health care system in England, or what they do. Because this is America, and the Obama health care plan is nothing like what they have in England. Not to mention, no matter what Berwick's personal opinion of health care is, he will be put in place to run the program we have, and do it the way Obama tells him to. As usual Ingraham put her insane right-wing spin on it, and talked about what she thinks will happen. And O'Reilly pretty much agreed with her, even when she said Obama is violating the first amendment, which is just laughable.

Then O'Reilly wasted our time with the lame Factor news quiz, with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum. This segment is not news, has nothing to do with news, and is a total waste of time.

And finally the lame pinheads, and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. For anyone that does not know it, O'Reilly edits the hell out of the e-mails he gets. I have seen many un-edited e-mails to him, that after he edited them for the show there was nothing left, and the e-mail was nothing like it should have been.

He edits 100 word e-mails down to 20 words, and takes out anything he does not like that might prove he lied about something. Then he will tell the writer he did not provide any evidence of his claims, after he edited out all their evidence.

O'Reilly Still Lying About Obama Job Approval
By: Steve - May 14, 2010 - 9:30am

This week, and about every other week, O'Reilly claims Obama did something because his job approval numbers are dropping. This week O'Reilly said Obama had AG Holder do a flip flop by saying they will use the public safety exception when they catch a terrorist, before they give him his miranda rights.

According to O'Reilly Obama had Eric Holder do that because his job approval ratings were dropping.

It's ridiculous, because the Obama job approval ratings are not dropping, and have not dropped since August of 2009. So O'Reilly is lying about both things.

I am looking at the Gallup poll that shows the Obama job approval ratings, from the day he took office, to today. Right now it has Obama at 51% approval, on 5-13-10. then you look at August 17 to the 19th of 2009 and it was at 51% back then.

That means the Obama job approval has not changed at all, in the last 10 months, it has not dropped at all, zero, no drop. It went up a few points, and it went down a few points, but it's still at 51%, which is no drop at all.

But every other week O'Reilly claims the Obama job approval ratings are crashing, in a freefall, etc. Those are his words, he said it. When it's all a lie, they go up a little, and down a little, then it goes right back to 51%, where it's been for 10 months straight.

What happens is every time there is a few point drop O'Reilly reports it and called it a freefall, but then a couple days later it goes back up a few points and it's right back to 51%, which O'Reilly does not report.

He only reports it when it goes down a little, but he never reports it when it goes up a little. Which just proves what a dishonest right-wing spin doctor O'Reilly is. It's called dishonest poll cherry picking to make Obama look bad. And only a corrupt Republican would do it, which is exactly what O'Reilly is doing.

O'Reilly Wins Gold In Worlds Worst Persons
By: Steve - May 14, 2010 - 9:00am

From the Wednesday 5-12-10 Countdown With Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: But our winner, in one of the all time great definitions of the Shakespearean term, hoist on his own petard, Bill O'Reilly. Take it away, Bill.


BILL O'REILLY: Time for our follow up segment tonight. Most Americans can't name the nine Supreme Court justices, even though they are the most powerful people in the country, with the exception of President Obama.

Here's my problem: I think the speculation about Elena Kagan is foolish. And I don't want to waste the audience's time. We don't know how this woman is going to behave on the Supreme Court. We do know she'll be confirmed, unless there is some big skeleton in her closet we don't know about.

But she will join Sonya Sotomayor. She will join Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter as four hardcore liberals.

KELLY: Breyer.

O'REILLY: Breyer. I'm sorry, OK. As four hardcore liberals.


OLBERMANN: First off, he sounds drunk. Can you name the nine Supreme Court justices? Secondly, there are the four liberals on the court, Sonya Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Meinhoff, Bruce Souter, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Holland, Venezuela, Africa, Hanging Gardens of Babylon, Switzerland.

OK, here's my problem-Bill O'Reilly, justice league-there I got one, justice league-today's worst person in the world.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Poll Results
By: Steve - May 13, 2010 - 10:00am

Lie #1:

On Monday night O'Reilly said that 70% of ALL AMERICANS support the new Arizona immigration law.
O'REILLY: If 70 percent of the country supports the Arizona law, according to the latest polls -- 70 percent! If the Obama administration sues Arizona, that's it for them! They're done! To me, it's a bluff!
That's a lie because, it's 70% of the people in Arizona that support the law, overall only 51% of the American people support it.

So then on Tuesday night O'Reilly tried to correct his Monday lie, and he lied again in the so-called correction. Here is what he said on Tueday:
O'REILLY: It's clear the American people have had enough; 70% of Arizona residents support the state's tough anti-illegal alien law and 60% of all Americans support it as well. The Obama administration could introduce a national immigration reform bill right now, but won't because the issue is too hot.
Notice that on Tuesday he said 70% of Arizona RESIDENTS support it, but on Monday he said 70% of ALL AMERICANS support it. So that was lie #1.

Lie #2:

In the 2nd lie he claims that 60% of ALL AMERICANS support it. Notice he does not cite a poll name, what poll says that, where is it. Is that good journalism, I don't think so. If you cite a poll you must name it.

Gallup ran a poll on the issue on April 29th, in the poll they found that only 51% of Americans who have heard of the law, support the new law, while 39% of ALL AMERICANS support it. But here is the information O'Reilly never reported, ever.

In the same Gallup poll they asked this question:
Do you favor or oppose the new Arizona immigration law?

Favor - 39%
Oppose - 30%
Not Heard of/No Opinion - 31%
Notice that more people have never heard of it, or have no opinion than oppose it. And only 39% of ALL AMERICANS support it. This is information O'Reilly has never reported. Instead he cites an un-named poll to claim 70% of ALL AMERICANS support it.

Then the next night he changes it to 70% of Arizona RESIDENTS support it, with 60% of ALL AMERICANS supporting it as well. This is about as dishonest as a so-called journalist can get. Especially when you have a show called the no spin zone, and you claim to be an honest nonpartisan independent journalist.

And when you break it down by Political party, only a majority of Republicans support the law, everyone else in America is opposed to it.

Views of the Arizona immigration law, by Political Party/ALL AMERICANS:


Favor - 27%
Oppose - 45%
Not Heard of/No Opinion - 29%


Favor - 37%
Oppose - 29%
Not Heard of/No Opinion - 34%


Favor - 62%
Oppose - 14%
Not Heard of/No Opinion - 24%

Notice that only a majority of Republicans support the law, a fact that O'Reilly has never reported, and never will.

If that's no spin nonpartisan independent journalism, I'm Donald Trump. In reality, it's total right-wing spin, using an un-named poll source.

The Wednesday 5-12-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 13, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called A Spike In Racial Tension. Once again O'Reilly reported on racial tension in California, over the white kids being sent home for wearing American flags on their t-shirts. Wow, let it go man, this story is a week old, move on already. And I refuse to report on it anymore.

So then O'Reilly talked about it some more in a full segment, which I refuse to report on any more. I will say this, O'Reilly had Enrique Morones and Francisco Hernandez on to discuss it. Hernandez did say that O'Reilly is wrong, and that the media is overblowing the story. Which I agree with, O'Reilly is blowing this story up to get ratings from his mostly right-wing viewers. It was one incident at one high school, and O'Reilly reports on it every fricking night for over a week.

Then O'Reilly had the far right Karl Rove on to discuss the Arizona immigration law, again, for the millionth time. They talked about the polls on it, and of course all you got was right-wing spin, because they did not have any liberals to give the other side of the polling results. They talked about a Pew poll, while ignoring the Gallup poll that shows different results. They basically cherry pick the polls they like, that agree with them.

After spinning the poll, Rove went back to smearing Obama, which is what he always does. O'Reilly said Obama doing nothing about illegal immigration is causing his job approval rating to drop, which is a lie, it's the same today as it was back in August of 2009, so it's not dropping at all. Then Rove predicted McCain will beat J.D. Hayworth in the Republican Primary.

Then the crazy right-wing Obama hater Dick Morris was on to spin out some more right-wing propaganda, that he will be proven wrong on. And btw, O'Reilly never said a word about Morris having to give refunds to people for a contest he ran on his website, that was illegal. He had people buy his book to get in the contest to have dinner with him, which is illegal, haha. Then the dumb ass had to refund their money and cancel the contest. Which O'Reilly failed to report, of course.

So get this, Hillary Clinton said something about having a strong fiscal nation. So O'Reilly and Morris twisted that into Hillary is going to run for President in 2012. Wow, what happened to the no speculation zone, that is 100% pure speculation, based on one statement, what a joke. Morris also said that it's possible Obama will lose control of the Congress, and that his job approval ratings could drop into the 20's or 30's, haha, what an idiot. In fact, Morris said Oabama will not only lose the House, he will also lose the Senate.

What's funny is O'Reilly pointed out that Morris is wrong all the time, and that he has won so many dinners from him winning bets he could eat for a year. Then O'Reilly switched the topic back to Hillary so Morris could smear her some more, and speculate that Hillary could run for President in 2012. O'Reilly even admitted he created this segment, just to talk about Hillary running for President. Except it's all speculation, even though O'Reilly said he never speculates. Morris claims Obama will tank, and Hillary will run for President in 2012 against Obama. I personally do not think either one of those things will happen. I do not think Obama is going to tank, and I do not think Hillary will run for President again until 2016. We will see who is right, me or Morris.

Then O'Reilly had Sally Quinn to talk about a rumor that Elena Kagan is a lesbian. The White House is mad at CBS for reporting it on a blog, so they took it down. O'Reilly said it's a big story, and Quinn agreed. Then she said it's ok for her to be a lesbian, if she is one. And that it should not be an issue, but O'Reilly disagreed and said it is an issue. The Wall Street Journal put a photo of Kagan playing softball, to imply she is gay.

But of course O'Reilly defended them, and claimed it does not imply she is gay, when of course it does, and O'Reilly is lying to defend the right-wing Wall street Journal. Billy claims it is a valid issue, because of the gay marriage controversy. Except O'Reilly is contradicting himself again, because in the past he has said gay people should just keep quiet and never talk about being gay. Now he wants to know if she is gay or not, because of the way she might vote on gay marriage. Which makes him a massive hypocrite, and a flat out idiot. Why you ask, because he would never want to know if someone was straight before they get on the Court, haha. If I were Kagan and someone asked if I was a lesbian, I would say none of your business, next question.

Then the great Dennis Miller was on to make jokes about liberals, and by great I mean, worthless, unfunny, right-wing, has been comedian. Which I refuse to report on because it's not news, and it's one sided bias to only have a right-wing comedian on to make jokes about liberals. If O'Reilly had a left-wing comedian on with Miller, to balance the segment I would report what they say. But that is never going to happen, because O'Reilly only likes right-wingers doing jokes about liberals.

And then finally it was did you see that with Jane Skinner. They showed a video of a Teacher beating a student, but ignored the video of the Cop kicking the Mexican in the head and saying he will beat the Mexican piss out of him. Who later turned out to be innocent, and not the right guy. The Cop later gave a tearful apology, and might be fired. Yet O'Reilly ignored that video, as I predicted he would. The Teacher was fired btw, as she should have been. Then they showed an anti-texting and driving video with a car crash in South Carolina. And it will only be shown after 9pm.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. O'Reilly actually had 3 Democrats on the show, what a miracle, usually it's 0 to 1, or 2 at the most.

Republican Wants Hunting Permits To Hunt Liberals
By: Steve - May 13, 2010 - 9:00am

Here is another right-wing hate story you will never see reported on the Factor. O'Reilly has ignored it, as he claims there is no hate on the right, and that they never do anything dangerous to fire up the base.

In California's 11th congressional district, there are four people running for the Republican nomination in the June primary election. One of the front-runners is Brad Goehring, who posted a message on his Facebook page, declaring hunting season open on liberals. It said this:
GOEHRING: If I could issue hunting permits, I would officially declare today opening day for liberals. The season would extend through November 2 and have no limits on how many taken as we desperately need to "thin" the herd.
And here is the kicker, Goehring has now removed the posting. But only after ThinkProgress reported it and made it public.

Local Fox station KTVU went around Pleasanton, CA and interviewed a few Republicans, almost all of whom condemned Goehring's post. Even a man wearing a t-shirt with President Obama's face crossed out said that what Goehring wrote was pretty insane.

In fact, KTVU said the only person it found to agree with Goehring was a young woman sporting a confederate flag in her car. She said, "Yeah, I like it, because there's too many liberals."

And btw, the Tea Party is now selling Most Wanted playing cards, like the ones used in Iraq for Saddam Hussien etc. And of course O'Reilly has ignored that story too.

Great Example Of Republican Hypocrisy
By: Steve - May 13, 2010 - 8:30am

And it's not just hypocrisy, it's a great example of their massive double standards too. If you want to see just how dishonest a lot of Republicans are, look at this.

Right after President Obama nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, Republican Senators Mitch McConnell (KY) and Jim DeMint (SC) attacked his choice because Kagan has never served as a judge:
MCCONNELL: She's the least qualified in terms of judicial experience in 38 years. I saw a survey indicating that about 70 percent of the American people think that judicial experience is a good idea for somebody who is going to be on the Supreme Court.

DEMINT: I'm concerned that she has no judicial experience to give Americans confidence that she will be impartial in her decisions.
Okay, they both claim that if you have no judicial experience, you are not qualified to be on the Supreme Court. Now look what they said about Harriet Miers after George W. Bush nominated her to the Supreme Court.

Back in 2005, both DeMint and McConnell praised the Miers nomination to the Supreme Court. Like Kagan, Miers had no previous judicial experience, yet both GOP senators expressed admiration for Miers, specifically citing her experience.
MCCONNELL: Ms. Miers has an exemplary record of service to our country. She will bring to the Court a lifetime of experience in various levels of government, and at the highest levels of the legal profession. She is a woman of tremendous ability and very sound judgment. She is well qualified to join the nation's highest court. She will make a fine addition to the Supreme Court, and I look forward to her confirmation.

DEMINT: Ms. Miers would bring a wealth of personal experience to the Supreme Court. I expect she will show that she has the intelligence, fairness, and open-mindedness needed to serve on the Court.
And that is not all, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) criticized Kagan's nomination because "she lacks judicial experience." Yet in 2005, Cornyn thought the fact that Miers had not served as a judge "would fill some very important gaps in the Supreme Court."

Now think about this, of the 111 justices who have served on the Supreme Court, 41 had no prior judicial experience before Senate confirmation, including former Chief Justice Earl Warren and conservative William Rehnquist.

McCain Border Fence Ad Has The Wrong Sheriff
By: Steve - May 13, 2010 - 8:00am

John McCain is running a dishonest border fence ad to make himself look more conservative, even though in the past he was opposed to the fence. Not to mention, O'Reilly also ran this ad on the Factor, and he called it a great ad.

But O'Reilly failed to report that the ad is misleading and dishonest. Which just goes to show you what a right-wing ass kisser he is for McCain, he ran the ad to help McCain by giving him free air time, but did not report that it's dishonest. And notice that O'Reilly is not giving J.D. Hayworth, the Republican running against McCain, free air time for his ads.

In his attempt to portray himself as more right-wing than his far-right senatorial competitor J.D. Hayworth, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) put out a new ad this past weekend called Complete The Danged Fence.

In the ad, McCain is walking along the border in the southern Arizona town of Nogales, telling Sheriff Paul Babeu about his 10-point border security plan:
BABEU: We're out-manned. Of all the illegals in America, more than half come through Arizona.

MCCAIN: Do we have the right plan?

BABEU: Plan's perfect. You bring troops, state, county, and local law enforcement together.

MCCAIN: And complete the danged fence.

BABEU: It'll work this time. Senator, you're one of us.
There is one big thing wrong with McCain's video. Nogales is in Santa Cruz County. Babeu, is from Pinal County, which is 115 miles north in central Arizona. The Sherrif he used is not even from a border town.

As Andrea Nill from the the Wonk Room said: "Chances are McCain didn't feature a local border town police chief because that person probably would've told him his ten-point plan is a waste of manpower and resources."

The assistant police chief in Nogales has said that they have not "witnessed any spillover violence from Mexico." And the Santa Cruz County sheriff has also said that the state's new anti-immigration law, which McCain called a "good tool" is downright racist.

O'Reilly Gets The Constitution Wrong!
By: Steve - May 12, 2010 - 10:00am

O'Reilly said this in the Tuesday Megyn Kelly segment:
O'REILLY: The constitution was not forged to impose social justice.
And most people would disagree, in the Preamble to the Constitution it says this:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I am not a Constitutional expert, but it seems to me that when you say "insure domestic tranquility" and "promote the general welfare" that is calling for social justice. Those words are keywords of a Social Democracy, Union, Justice, Tranquility, and Welfare.

The Tuesday 5-11-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 12, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Immigration Politics. O'Reilly cited the poll numbers on the Arizona again, this time he almost got it right. He said 70% in Arizona support it, and overall 63% support it, but that's still wrong. It's 51% who support it overall, which is barely a majority. O'Reilly used two different polls to spin it, by using the Fox poll to get the 63%, which is very dishonest.

Then he slammed Nancy Pelosi for saying the church should support immigration reform. O'Reilly claimed that is a violation of the separation of church and state. Which is just ridiculous, all she did was say the church should support immigration reform. And as O'Reilly would say, it's not an establishment of a religion to ask the church to support immigration reform. So O'Reilly breaks his own rules when it suits him.

Then O'Reilly had Barry Lynn on to discuss it. Lynn said he has a problem with Pelosi (or anyone in the Government) telling the church what to do, but that it is not a big deal, because she is not violating the separation of church and state in the constitution. Then O'Reilly brought abortion into it somehow, which made no sense. And btw, O'Reilly hates Barry Lynn, and the only reason he was put on was to trash Pelosi. O'Reilly called Pelosi a strident lady, and said technically she is not violating the constitution, but in his opinion she is doing it in the wrong way, according to Bill O'Reilly. So one minute O'Reilly says she is violating the separation of church and state, then the next minute he admits she is not, what an idiot.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on. Colmes said he did not like Pelosi asking the church to support immigration reform. And of course Crowley hated it, and slammed Pelosi. Crowley said it's crossing the line of separation of church and state, and O'Reilly said it is not. But in the last segment he said it was, so he don't have a clue. Crowley said Obama will not do immigration reform, because he is afraid of the issue. Colmes agreed with Crowley, that Obama will not do immigration reform this year. Colmes told O'Reilly we should have open borders, and O'Reilly called him insane for saying that. Colmes asked O'Reilly what Jesus would do, and O'Reilly did not answer, then he made a stupid unfunny joke and went to commercial.

And btw, O'Reilly complained about the Miss USA contest promoting sex, as he promoted sex all through his show. O'Reilly ran sexy video of the Miss USA women in their underwear all through the show, 5 or 6 times, as he was crying about them using sex.

Then crazy O'Reilly had Megyn Kelly on to talk about the Supreme Court and Elena Kagan. O'Reilly complained about the 4 liberals on the court, and how they do not follow the Constitution. But he had no problem with the 5 conservatives on the court, and how they do not follow the Constitution either. O'Reilly showed his bias once again, by only having a problem with the liberals on the court. And btw, O'Reilly said most people can not name the 9 Supreme Court Judges, Then O'Reilly named Souter as a judge, when he is not on the court anymore. What a dumb ass, he just slammed the people for not knowing their names, when he did not even know their names.

Then O'Reilly went to abortion again, and he said the founding fathers would have never allowed abortion. How the hell does he know, what an idiot. I though he never speculated, after he speculated. O'Reilly also complained that Kagan will be there for 30 years. But he did not complain when Bush put Roberts on the court for 30 years. O'Reilly even said once again that Ruth Bader Ginsberg does not care about the Constitution, and Megyn Kelly went wild, she told O'Reilly he is wrong, and that he does not know what he is talking about. Kelly told O'Reilly that he can not prove she does not care about the Constitution, O'Reilly said he can, and she said no you can not. Then she hammered O'Reilly for saying it.

Then the right-wing nut John Stossel was on to talk about gambling. Stossel said gambling should be legal, O'Reilly disagreed and said it should not be legal. Stossel pointed out that making gambling illegal does not stop it, bingo, O'Reilly just got nailed, haha. Earth to O'Reilly, nobody cares that gambling is illegal, they do it anyway, dumb ass. And for once I agree with Stossel, people gamble no matter if it's legal or not, so it makes no sense to have it illegal. Once again O'Reilly is wrong, and his argument makes no sense. Stossel was dead right, and as usual O'Reilly was dead wrong. If you are over 18 gambling should be legal, and they are going to do it anyway, so having it illegal is a joke, and un-American in a so-called free country.

Then O'Reilly had Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle on to talk about the woman charged with child molesting, Tonya Craft, and she was found not guilty. O'Reilly felt sorry for the woman, and said the prosecutor was nasty for doing a tough examination. O'Reilly did not believe the woman did it, and he did not like the way the prosecutor handled the trial. Which is ridiculous, because if it was a man accused of doing it and he was found not guilty O'Reilly would flip out. But because it was a woman he was sympathetic to her. He even called it a heart breaking situation.

Then they talked about the Lindsey Lohan lawsuit against E-Trade. O'Reilly called the lawsuit insane, but it is going forward. Wiehl predicted the case will be dismissed, O'Reilly agreed. And finally they talked about an illegal immigrant who was put in Rikers Island for 35 days, when he was supposed to be taken care of within 48 hours, so he sued and won $145,000, then he got deported. O'Reilly's only complaint was that his tax money paid for it, then he said he would have given the guy a row boat and said see ya. Wiehl said he was right to get the money because the state violated his rights and the law. O'Reilly called her a bleeding heart, when all she did was agree with the law. So now O'Reilly don't care about laws, when illegals are involved. What a giant idiot.

The last segment was finally about the Miss USA sexy photo shoot. The one O'Reilly has been showing sexy video of all during the show. Jill Dobsen and Lauren Green were on to discuss it. What's funny is O'Reilly said the new Miss USA show is coming up soon and they are just doing this to get publicity. Bingo, and it worked, because here you have O'Reilly doing an entire segment on it on the #1 rated cable news show. Basically they turned it into a moral thing, Dobsen and Green said it was wrong to exploit the women like this. When O'Reilly only did the segment to get ratings, and Trump did it to get free publicity. So they are both guilty, except Trump admits it, and does it honestly.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. O'Reilly cried about Henry Winkler (The Fonz) slamming Sarah Palin, and named him the pinhead. Just shut up already, Palin is a big girl who can defend herself. O'Reilly defends her like she is his wife, when she is just another right-wing idiot. O'Reilly loves him some Sarah Palin so much he defends her almost every fricking night, it's sad and really pathetic.

O'Reilly Gets Supreme Court Justice Name Wrong!
By: Steve - May 12, 2010 - 9:00am

The problem is, he had just made fun of people who could not name the 9 Supreme Court Justices, saying most Americans can not name the 9 justices. In a segment complaining about Kagan, O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Most Americans can't name the nine Supreme Court justices, even though they are the most powerful people in the country, with the exception of President Obama. Kagan will be confirmed unless there is some big skeleton in her closet we don't know about. But she will join Sonia Sotomayor, she will join Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter as four hard-core liberals.
Wow, what a dumb ass. Souter is not one of the nine Supreme Court justices. He retired last year, and he was replaced by Justice Sotomayor. Earth to Bill O'Reilly, remove foot from mouth.

After he got the name wrong, Megyn Kelly had to correct the moron. Kelly said it's Breyer not Souter. Now that's funny, the dumb ass gets one of the names wrong, after he slammed most Americans for not knowing who the 9 justices are.

And btw, who cares what their names are, it's not like they run for election so you need to know. They rule on legal cases and they are appointed for life, so nobody really needs to know their names. Not to mention, O'Reilly is basically calling most Americans stupid, for not knowing their names. But when Bill Maher said Americans who would vote for Palin are stupid, O'Reilly attacked him and said he should not call the American people stupid. Then O'Reilly does the very same thing he attacked Maher for.

Megyn Kelly Slams O'Reilly For Ginsberg Smear
By: Steve - May 12, 2010 - 8:30am

This was great, after O'Reilly repeated his insane speculation (which he says he never does) that Justice Ginsberg does not give a damn about the Constitution, Kelly told O'Reilly he does not know what he is talking about.

Okay now get this, O'Reilly is the same guy who told Judge Andrew Napolitano that he does not care about the Constitution.

Here is what O'Reilly said in November of 2009.

When AG Holder decided to try the five terrorists in New York, O'Reilly said that was wrong, and that they should be tried by the Military. Judge Andrew Napolitano disputed that view on the Factor, citing their constitutional right to be tried in the place where the crime has been committed. Then O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: I don't care about the Constitution!
Then O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: So why is he entitled to come to New York City to be tried in the civilian criminal court if he's arrested in Pakistan?

NAPOLITANO: Because the document you don't want me to talk about says when the government is going to prosecute you, it must do so in the place where the alleged harm was caused.
Later in the program, Brit Hume said he'd "been scouring the columns of various people opining about this to see if somebody makes a good argument for doing it, and I really haven't heard one." Hume then noted Napolitano's opinion and said, "I'm not certain I agree with that.”"

So neither O'Reilly or Hume care about the Constitution. And now here he is crying about the Constitution, which is it O'Reilly, you either care about it, or you don't, make up your fricking mind a-hole.

More Proof The Tea Party Is A Joke
By: Steve - May 12, 2010 - 8:00am

As O'Reilly would say, one of the main problems the Tea Party have with Obama is taxes. The problem is, they are nuts, because Obama lowered taxes for 98% of all Americans.

Despite protests from Tea Party activists regarding high taxes, a USA Today analysis of federal data has found that Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency.

Federal, state, local, property, sales, and other taxes only consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950.

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950
Average rate has fallen 26% since recession began in 2007

By Dennis Cauchon

Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.

Federal, state and local taxes, including income, property, sales and other taxes, consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the past half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.

"The idea that taxes are high right now is pretty much nuts," says Michael Ettlinger, head of economic policy at the Center for American Progress.

Individual tax rates vary widely based on how much a taxpayer earns, where the person lives and other factors. On average, though, the tax rate paid by all Americans, rich and poor, combined, has fallen 26% since the recession began in 2007.

That means a $3,400 annual tax savings for a household paying the average national rate and earning the average national household income of $102,000.

And now you have the tax cut facts, the facts you never see O'Reilly report. Just like the April jobs report O'Reilly ignored, he also ignored this story. Because he wants to keep his viewers in the dark when it comes to taxes and the economy.

O'Reilly calls that nonpartisan independent journalism, which is just laughable. It's called ignoring any news that makes Obama look good. That's not journalism from an independent, it's bias from a partisan right-wing spin doctor.

O'Reilly Dishonestly Smears Justice Ginsberg
By: Steve - May 11, 2010 - 10:00am

Last night the insane Bill O'Reilly said Justice Ginsburg "doesn't care one whit about the Constitution" and he can prove it all day long. Simply because she has liberal views, to O'Reilly that means you do not care about the Constitution.

I say ok, show me all day long how she does not care about the Constitution. Where is it, quote her, instead of just shooting your crazy right-wing mouth off back up what you claim. If you do not, then you are a coward, and a traitor.

Just imagine what O'Reilly would say if Keith Olbermann said Justice Scalia did not care one whit about the Constitution. O'Reilly would scream bloody murder and call for Olbermann to be tried for treason. Not to mention, the 5 right-wing judges on the Supreme Court do the exact same thing the 4 left-wing judges do, they vote based on their political ideology.

They all do it, that is why all the rulings come down 5 to 4, with the 5 conservatives voting one way, and the 4 liberals voting the other way. Here is the problem with O'Reilly, he has no problem with the way the 5 conservatives vote, because he agrees with them. He only has a problem with the 4 liberals on the court, because he disagrees with them. And that makes O'Reilly a partisan right-wing hack, who is biased and who has double standards.

The Monday 5-10-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 11, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Sanity Prevails. O'Reilly said AG Holder was right to limit miranda rights to suspected terrorists. But he still thinks they should be turned over to the military, except that is illegal, if you are an American citizen you have rights, and you can not be turned over to the military. For some reason O'Reilly does not seem to understand that. Basically O'Reilly mocked Holder, even though he wants to do part of what O'Reilly said he should do.

Then O'Reilly had Brit Hume on, he said Kagan will be confirmed easily to the Supreme Court. O'Reilly and Hume both said it's one liberal replacing another liberal, so things will stay about the same. O'Reilly said conservatives are worried, but that's just crazy, because she is not replacing a conservative. Then O'Reilly trashed Ruth Bader Ginsberg for being a liberal activist judge, why who knows. O'Reilly even said Ginsberg does not care one bit about the Constitution, when even Brit hume said he would not agree with that.

Then O'Reilly said he could prove it all day long, but he failed to do it, he provided no proof, because he does not have any. Then O'Reilly trashed Holder again for reversing his decision on the miranda rights, and called Holder a liberal zealot. For some reason O'Reilly hates Ginsberg and Holder, simply because they are Democrats who have liberal views. But he has no problem with any right-wingers on the court, who always side with the Corporations. Proving once again what a biased right-wing jackass he is. His bias and the double standards are stunning. In O'Reillyworld you are great if you have far right views, but you are the devil if you have far left views.

What's really funny is O'Reilly saying Ginsberg does not care about the Constitution, as he calls for Holder to ignore the Constitution, and not give suspected terrorists their miranda rights at all, and turn them over to the military, even when they are American citizens. What a joke, O'Reilly is just a total idiot.

Then O'Reilly did another story on the high school kids getting sent home for wearing t-shirts with an American flag on them on Cinco De Mayo. Boy O'Reilly sure loves this story, because he reports on it every fricking night, it's like there is no other news to report. Enough already, this story is a week old, get over it and move on. O'Reilly wasted another entire segment on it just to report that the superintendent admitted it was a mistake to send them home.

Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to discuss it. And there was nothing new to report, so it was pretty much old news. I will say this, I think you should be able to wear a t-shirt with an American flag on it anywhere, any time, when you are in fricking America. Crazy O'Reilly defended the school for sending them home, he said it could have caused a fight. I say bull, and that it's ok to wear a flag t-shirt any time. And the school even admitted they were wrong to send them home, yet O'Reilly the lunatic still defends it.

Then Lou Dobbs was on to talk about the Arizona immigration law, as if anyone cares what the racist right-wing Lou Dobbs thinks about it. Dobbs is a racist, so nobody cares what he thinks about it, except O'Reilly. And of course Dobbs loves the new law, and thinks it is just great. He also predicted the law will stand up in court, and not be ruled unconstitutional. What he failed to mention, is that they changed the law since it was first passed, because they knew it was unconstitutional. But I think there is still a good chance it will not be ruled constitutional. Then O'Reilly lied about the polls, he said 70% of the country support the law, which is a lie, it's 51% of the country that support it, the 70% number is people in Arizona only. Bill (no facts) O'Reilly strikes again. At the end O'Reilly predicted the feds will not sue over the Arizona law.

O'Reilly mentioned that the Dow was up 400 points on Monday, and he had the right-wing Stuart Varney on to discuss it. O'Reilly said it was a rigged drop for the fat cats to get rich real fast, and Varney defended the Wall street guys, he said it might have been funny business, when everyone knows it was. Varney is the standard Fox News Wall Street ass kissing stooge. Then O'Reilly cried about gas prices, when he's a fricking millionaire. But he did make a good point, that the oil companies are price fixing at the pump, and he is exactly right. But Varney defended the oil companies, and denied there is price fixing, which is just ridiculous, and Varney is a fool. Varney is an english Neil Cavuto, but even more of a Corporate stooge than Cavuto.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to spin out his biased right-wing media analysis. With no Democratic media analyst of course, just Bernie and Billy crying about all the so-called liberal bias in the media, as they ignore all the conservative bias. Not once have they ever talked about any right-wing bias in the media, because it's almost all at Fox, which is the very network they both work for.

Goldberg and O'Reilly cried about how the so-called liberal media is always has sympathy for terrorists. Which is beyond ridiculous, I am a liberal, as liberal as it gets, and I have no sympathy for any terrorist, especially if they are an American citizen. I say if he is convicted, put him away for life, busting rocks with a hammer on bread and water. What gets me is one or two liberals had sympathy for the guy, so Goldberg and O'Reilly claim all liberals do, when they have criticized liberals for making general claims about conservatives, then they do it.

And the last segment was the ridiculous Factor Reality Check, which I do not report on very much, because it's basically O'Reilly putting his spin on what some Democrat said, it's not reality, and there are no checks. It's right-wing spin by O'Reilly, with no guest to counter what he is saying. Mostly it was just clips of Betty White on SNL, how the hell is that a reality check on anything. O'Reilly said the Factor Reality Check is where the truth will set you free. How is it the truth to play clips of an old lady saying bleeped out profanity on SNL.

In one check O'Reilly complained about a Tea Party woman on tha View crying about President Obama using the word Tea Baggers, except the other night Bernie Goldberg used the word Tea Baggers and O'Reilly never said a word. Another check was about Andy Rooney and Lady Gaga, huh? How the hell is that a reality check.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And what a shocker, not one Democratic guest was on the entire show, except the pretend Fox News Democrat Juan Williams. Who btw, agreed with Mary K. Ham the conservative. I would say Juan agrees with the conservatives 80 to 90 percent of the time, that's no Democrat, it's a Republican. But on Fox, it's called being a Democrat, which is just laughable.

O'Reilly Still Ignoring April Jobs Report
By: Steve - May 11, 2010 - 9:00am

The April jobs report came out last Friday, it showed that 290,000 new jobs were created in April. The biggest one month gain since 2006, which proves the Obama stimulus plan is working, and that his economic policies are working.

But O'Reilly ignored it all, he never said a word about it on Friday, or yesterday. That's because it shows O'Reilly was wrong, when he said the stimulus was a waste of money and that it's not working. Plus it makes Obama look good, so O'Reilly does not want to report it.

If you want proof that O'Reilly is a biased right-wing partisan hack, here it is. After the biggest recession we have had in the last 50 years, we get a great jobs report like this, that is the biggest news of the year and O'Reilly does not even mention it. What a joke, it's total bias, and it is clear proof that O'Reilly hates Obama, because he refuses to report any good news about the economy, or jobs.

So if you do not read the news on the internet, or watch any other news show but the O'Reilly Factor, you have no idea the April jobs report showed that 290,000 new jobs were created in one month. Which is just pathetic, it was the biggest story in the country on Friday, yet O'Reilly still did not report it. Because he does not want his viewers to know the truth, that the Obama stimulus is working, and that the Obama economic policies are working. If that's a nonpartisan independent, I'm Elvis.

O'Reilly Lied For Lou Dobbs
By: Steve - May 11, 2010 - 8:30am

As usual O'Reilly is covering for his right-wing friends with lies, last night he claimed Lou Dobbs became a very controversial guy with his tough stand against the illegal alien intrusion. That's a lie, Lou Dobbs was fired from CNN for being a birther, and for putting crazy birther idiots on his show every other night.

Dobbs had a bunch of birthers on his CNN show, and he even called for Obama to prove he is an American citizen. That is what got Dobbs in trouble. But of course Dobbs did say some crazy things about illegal immigration too, but the main thing he got in trouble for was the birther nonsense. Which O'Reilly ignores, and never talks about.

O'Reilly basically covered for his right-wing friend Lou Dobbs, then he has him on the Factor as a guest. Because O'Reilly does that for right-wing nuts, but he never does the same for anyone on the left, in fact, he bans most far left partisans, because he hates them.

Republicans Caught Lying About April Jobs Report
By: Steve - May 10, 2010 - 9:30am

Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the U.S. economy added a better than expected 290,000 jobs last month. The BLS also revised the jobs number for both February and March upwards, putting both of those months into the black in terms of job creation.

The continued turnaround of the labor market is a strong sign that the economic stimulus package passed last year is doing what it is supposed to. But Friday's report also disproves one of the favorite Republican talking points about the stimulus, which is that it only preserved government jobs. Numerous Republicans have lied about it, and O'Reilly never even mentioned the it, here is what some Republicans have said:
-- Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN): These are mostly government jobs, you know the idea that government grows the economy when all they really do is extract money from taxpayers, bring it into the bureaucracy and put it back out into the economy on a political agenda is not growth.

-- Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY): The stimulus bill has done "little or nothing" to stimulate the private sector. "It probably did save a lot of state government jobs."

-- Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS): State government has benefited by the stimulus package, because it's poured in billions of dollars. The problem is we need private sector jobs.

-- Rep. John Boehner (R-OH): Most of the so-called jobs that have been saved or created are government jobs, even though the President promised that 90 percent of these jobs would be private sector jobs.

-- Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA): We've got to begin focusing not just on jobs, but on private sector jobs.
And now the facts, something they know nothing about. Of the 290,000 jobs created in April, 231,000 of them were in the private sector. And the private sector has actually added 523,000 new jobs in 2010.

This includes 44,000 manufacturing jobs, which is the most manufacturing jobs added to the U.S. economy since August, 1998. Not to mention, April was the strongest month for job growth since March, 2006.

So what you have are a group of Republicans that just flat out lie about the jobs report, and another group of Republicans like O'Reilly, who just ignore the entire story, because it makes Obama look good. O'Reilly never said a word about the jobs report on Friday, which proves what a biased right-wing hack he is, because a real journalist would report those numbers, and then give Obama credit for it.

O'Reilly instead says nothing, because it goes against what he has been saying for a year and a half since Obama took office. That the stimulus is not working, and that the Obama economic policies are bad. So what O'Reilly does is just ignore it all, while not giving Obama credit for any of it. Which is almost as dishonest as lying about the actual April jobs report.

The Tea Party Plans 9-11 Protest
By: Steve - May 10, 2010 - 9:00am

Last year, the Tea Party movement gathered in Washington for a widely publicized rally on Sept. 12, called the 9-12 Project. Glenn Beck, the brains behind the march, implored people to attend by saying that they "may be the only thing that stands between freedom and slavery."

Instead of recreating the patriotic unity that characterized the country following the 9-11 attacks, protesters carried signs reading "Bury Obamacare with Kennedy." This year, Tea Partiers have decided to just have a rally on Sept. 11:

An event described as the "Woodstock" of tea parties is planned for Sept. 11 at the Monona County Fairgrounds in Onawa in western Iowa.

Craig Halverson of Griswold, who is helping to organize the event, said supporters hope to attract at least 1,000 people from Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, Minnesota and other states. He said they are inviting prominent conservative speakers and plan to have bands perform patriotic music.
The event will have a "Take back our country" theme, Halverson said. Notice that they do not plan to invite any prominent liberal speakers, it's conservative speakers only. Making the claims from O'Reilly that the Tea Party movement is not a conservative movement a laughable claim.

And btw, Beck has said in the past that he is against capitalizing on a historical terrorist attack. On 9-11-09, Beck criticized supporters of the Ron Paul Revolution who did a fundraiser on Guy Fawkes Day:
BECK: It's really not the way I would go, tying my movement in with a historical terrorist attack, especially in post-9/11 America.
And now that the Tea Party is going to have a protest on 9-11, Beck says nothing. He has not said one word against them.

The Facts On Border State Crime
By: Steve - May 8, 2010 - 2:00pm

O'Reilly and almost every Republican on TV or in the media is still lying about crime rates in border states.

O'Reilly and pretty much everyone at Fox News have suggested that violence is out of control in the United States along the Mexican border because of illegal immigration, citing, among other anecdotal evidence, the murder of an Arizona rancher. In fact, The Arizona Republic reported that border violence in the U.S. has not increased recently, and violent crime in border states has decreased over the past decade.

During a discussion on the May 4th edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Scarborough said it was "a stupid false choice" to suggest that a border fence shouldn't be built to stop illegal immigration because doing so would hurt cross-border commerce. In response, Barnicle said, "We've seen the highest homicide rates along the Mexican border in drug cartel wars. Enforcement has to be priority one. And enforcement priority one has to mean, you can't come into this country illegally."

In response to Barnicle, Scarborough stated, " 'Border security isn't the problem'? Tell the rancher's family that was killed there, tell the parents of teenage girls who have been kidnapped over the past five years, the family members whose daughters and sons have been shot to death with their grandchildren in cars that border security isn't the problem, Mike? I don't get this."

And now the facts: Crime rates in Arizona border towns "have remained essentially flat for the past decade." In a May 2nd article, The Arizona Republic reported that, "FBI Uniform Crime Reports and statistics provided by police agencies, in fact, show that the crime rates in Nogales, Douglas, Yuma and other Arizona border towns have remained essentially flat for the past decade, even as drug-related violence has spiraled out of control on the other side of the border. Statewide, rates of violent crime also are down."

The Pima County sheriff said this:
Since the murder of Cochise County rancher Robert Krentz by a suspected illegal immigrant in March, politicians and the national press have fanned a perception that the border is inundated with bloodshed and that it's escalating.

Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff of Pima County, said there always has been crime associated with smuggling in southern Arizona, but today's rhetoric does not jibe with reality.

"This is a media-created event," Dupnik said. "I hear politicians on TV saying the border has gotten worse. Well, the fact of the matter is that the border has never been more secure."

Even Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever, among the most strident critics of federal enforcement, concedes that notions of cartel mayhem are exaggerated. "We're not seeing the multiple killings, beheadings and shootouts that are going on on the other side."
Fact: The article also reported: "In fact, according to the Border Patrol, Krentz is the only American murdered by a suspected illegal immigrant in at least a decade within the agency's Tucson sector, the busiest smuggling route among the Border Patrol's nine coverage regions along the U.S.-Mexican border."

Fact: FBI statistics show U.S. border towns have rates of violence comparable to non-border towns. Acting deputy commissioner for Customs and Border Protection, said that Juarez, Mexico, is widely regarded as the 'deadliest city in the world' because of an estimated 5,000 murders in recent years. Yet right across the border, El Paso, Texas, is listed among the safest towns in America."

Fact: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, crime rates in Arizona are at their lowest point in decades. So when you hear O'Reilly and his right-wing friends saying crime is out of control because of illegal immigration, you now know he is LYING.

The Friday 5-7-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 8, 2010 - 1:30pm

The TPM was called Stock Market Obama And Greece. O'Reilly said this about the stock market:
O'REILLY: After stocks dropped about 1,000 points Thursday in just a few minutes, President Obama has ordered an investigation. But don't expect any smoking gun - the market was manipulated, but the guys behind it are far too smart to get caught. Instead, millions of honest investors got hammered. Talking Points thinks the whole thing was contrived and that wise guys made billions as the market recovered.
Except wall street has canceled all big stock trades during the time of the big 1000 point drop, until after it went back up 600 points. So no wise guys made billions, proving what an idiot you are. Some people did lose money because of the drop, but none of the wall street guys made billions, because all the trades they made during that time were canceled.

Then crazy O'Reilly said this about Obama, Liberals, and Greece:
O'REILLY: Here in America, the federal government owes $13 trillion, but liberals want expanded health care and higher taxes, which will strangle the already shaky economy. President Obama is the leader of that crew, but Talking Points believes he will be a one-term president if he doesn't wise up fast. No country can afford the entitlement culture any more. We must work for what we get or what happened in Greece will happen here.
Which is totally ridiculous, and nothing but right-wing spin. To begin with, Greece has 11 million people, which is the size of one state in America. In fact, New York has 19 million people. So they do not have enough people to make up for the deficit. America has 320 million people in 50 states, so if we need to we can make up for the deficit and make that money back. And the economy is not shaky, we just created 290,000 new jobs in April, which O'Reilly failed to report, as usual. Not to mention, what happened in Greece will never happen here, and O'Reilly knows it.

Dr. Marc Lamont Hill was on to discuss it, and he told O'Reilly he was wrong. Professor Hill said this:
HILL: Greece is such a bad example. Greece is in the state that it's in because of corrupt European bankers. People on both sides of the aisle agree that corporate corruption had a large part to do with what's going on in Greece. We're nowhere near where they are - Greece has been unable to grow its way out of debt, but the United States is able to do that.
Hill pointed out that comparing Greece to America is ridiculous, but O'Reilly acted like Hill was wrong, and just kept spewing his right-wing propaganda out. Then O'Reilly had Ann Coulter on to talk about media bias on the SUV bomber at CBS. Which I refuse to report on because it's a joke to have Coulter on to talk about media bias, when she is an insane right-wing nut. Not to mention, CBS did nothing wrong. All they did was report that Shahzad's financial problems may have partly led to his alienation with America. And that is probably true, yet O'Reilly and Coulter slammed CBS for reporting the truth.

Then O'Reilly did another segment about the kids being sent home for wearing t-shirts with the American flag on them on Cinco De Mayo. Boy O'Reilly sure loves this story, he had done 3 segments on it, but he had no time to talk about the improving economy, or the jobs report that said 290,000 new jobs were added in April. It all makes Obama look good, and shows that his stimulus plan is working, so O'Reilly ignores that to talk about kids who wore flag t-shirts to school.

Then Geraldo was on to talk about LT getting arrested for having sex with the 16 year old hooker. Which I refuse to report on because it's tabloid garbage. I will say this though, the girl told LT she was 19, so he did not know he was having sex with a 16 year old girl. And the great Geraldo never reported that, proving that he is just as bad as O'Reilly in reporting ALL the facts. They also talked about the Virginia lacrosse player who killed a girl, but just barely, it was mostly about LT and the hooker.

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing idiot Glenn Beck on, he is a staunch supporter of Arizona's tough immigration law, and O'Reilly asked him if millions of illegal immigrants should be deported. Beck said this:
BECK: It doesn't seem reasonable, that we can take 12-million people and bus them out. I'm not going to round anybody up unless they've done something criminal, but I am going to round up all those companies who are hiring illegal immigrants. We should be sealing the border off and stopping all this nonsense.
It doesn't seem reasonable, haha, how about impossible, not to mention it could crash the economy because they do a lot of work Americans will not do, and do it for less money. Just in Arizona alone the illegals add $6 billion dollars a year to the economy. Now take that times 50 states, and it would crash the economy. And Beck is just full of it when he says he will go after the companies that hire them, when the Republicans allow it. He is never going to do a thing to the companies that hire illegals, because all his right-wing friends want cheap labor.

Beck also talked about his recent encounter with Time's Joe Klein, who had accused Beck of being seditious. Beck said Klein got his finger in his face and was complaining that he make stuff up. Beck claims he got tough with him and said any time pal. Yeah right, I would bet that Beck ran away from him and tried to hide somewhere. Klein is right, and he can back it up, and he never said Beck was guilty of sedition, he said Beck was getting close to being seditious. I agree, Beck is getting close, but he is not there yet, which is exactly what Klein said. Not to mention, you can not be guilty of sedition unless we are officially at war, which we are not.

And the last segment was the ridiculous dumbest things of the week. Which is the same as the Factor did you see that segment with Jane Skinner, except it has two people instead of one. Huddy singled out Saturday Night Live alum Dan Aykroyd. "He went on Larry King's show, and said he's an absolute believer in UFOs. He's totally serious and he's into it. Gutfeld named the Spanish researchers who studied how men react to beautiful women. "They found that men's stress hormones go up to high levels. And how is that news, it's not. It's just more garbage with 2 right-wing guests, for O'Reilly to try and get ratings.

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

Barkley Calls Arizona Immigration Law Disgusting
By: Steve - May 8, 2010 - 1:00pm

Yesterday, the Phoenix Suns basketball franchise announced that the team's players will be wearing Los Suns jerseys for their Game 2 playoff game tonight at home against the San Antonio Spurs. Team owner Robert Sarver said the move is meant to honor our Latino community, but that it was also meant as a political statement against Arizona's new anti-immigration law.

Yesterday on the Dan Patrick radio show, NBA Hall of Famer Charles Barkley disparaged the law and said he is very disappointed in Sen. John McCain (R-AZ):
BARKLEY: As a black person, I'm always against any form of discrimination or racial profiling. I really respect Adrian Gonzalez for coming out and saying something. I didn't realize that in the major leagues there's 30 percent Hispanic players, and in the minor leagues it's like 50.

Those are some daunting numbers. Living in Arizona, I'm disappointed that we came up with the law. I'm very disappointed in John McCain. He used to be somebody I really admired and respected. Most of those immigrants here are busting their hump, doing a great job, and to go after them every couple years because you want to raise hell doing something to get re-elected, that's disrespectful and disgusting.

Jane Skinner Nails Rove For Lying
By: Steve - May 7, 2010 - 10:00am

Now think about this, you know it's a really big lie when someone from the same news network you work for calls you out on your lies. That's exactly what Jane Skinner from Fox News did to Karl Rove. And I think she probably did it because the Obama administration has been slamming Fox for all the right-wing lies they put out.

Thursday on Fox News during an interview with Karl Rove, host Jane Skinner noted that many in the media (and on the right) claim that the oil rig explosion in the Gulf is President Obama's Katrina. Rove said he "wouldn't compare this to Katrina," but he then ran through a timeline of the events as if to accuse the White House of having a delayed response to the disaster. However, Skinner didn't buy it, noting that the White House was involved from the beginning:
SKINNER: Before we get too far into this time line, I just want to read this because the press secretary Robert Gibbs has been asked so many questions about this and this was his response, "The morning after the Interior Secretary deployed his deputy to the region to coordinate it all and on the 22nd when it sank, the national response team was activated and later that day the President convened a meeting in the Oval Office with all those involved."
Rove then complained that the Interior Department Secretary's chief of staff went on a work vacation after the oil spill, suggesting that it was somehow indicative of a hands-off approach from the Obama administration. Then Skinner killed that right-wing argument as well:
SKINNER: Karl I know a lot of people are making a big issue about that but, first of all, he's not the Interior Secretary, he's not the Deputy Interior Secretary, those are the bosses of the department. He's a chief of staff. You know what the job of a chief of staff is. It's not like the Interior Department can't run without the chief of staff.
And it's not just Rove, other conservatives are trying pin the blame on the Obama administration or to make the spill Obama's Katrina. Newt Gingrich said this Wednesday:
GINGRICH: "I think the parallels to Katrina are very real."
But then on Thursday former GOP congressman Joe Scarborough called such a comparison absolutely obscene, adding that "anybody that draws that analogy is an idiot."

Some people on the right are not buying the delayed response argument either. Charles Krauthammer, the Weekly Standard's Steve Hayes, and even Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) have all noted that the Obama administration responded appropriately to the Gulf oil spill.

And even Bill O'Reilly defended Obama, so you know he did nothing wrong, because O'Reilly almost never defends Obama. Billy said this:
O'REILLY: "What could Obama have done? This is insane."
And btw, this is about lie #2,420 that Rove has been caught spinning out. But they still put him on Fox every day, which just goes to show they do not care about the truth, all they care about is getting their right-wing propaganda out. But at least this one time they actually called him on his lies.

Not to mention, they knew about Hurricane Katrina 2 or 3 days before it was going to happen, yet Bush still waited 4 days before sending the National guard in, while people were suffering with no food and water, and dying. Nobody knew the oil rig was going to explode, and nobody was suffering with no food or water. And when he found out what happened Obama acted that day, not 5 days later as Rove and the right have claimed. As Joe Scarborough said, anybody that makes that comparison is an idiot.

The Thursday 5-6-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 7, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Immigration Chaos Dividing Americans. Once again O'Reilly talked about the new Arizona immigration law, and cited the polls that say most people support it. When it's 51%, which is barely most people, not to mention you can not always go by the polls. If the majority of the people supported public hangings we would still not do it. O'Reilly said he is mad that anyone who supports the law is called a racist, haha, because you probably are a racist.

Then Karl Rove was on to discuss it. Rove said he agrees with some of what O'Reilly said, and disagrees with some of it. Rove said the border is more protected now than it's ever been, so he disagreed with O'Reilly on that. Now get this, O'Reilly was a big supporter of the fence, but in this segment O'Reilly said Bush spent $50 Billion on the fence and it was wasted. What a joke, O'Reilly spent years arguing for the fence, so they do it, then O'Reilly slams them for the fence, and says it was a waste of money, what an idiot.

Then O'Reilly yelled at Rove about immigration not working, he said we are the most powerful country in the world and we can not control immigration. O'Reilly was mad, and screaming, lol. What's really happening is O'Reilly got mad because he supports the Arizona law, and he was called a racist. So he took it out on Rove, which was so funny to watch, because he usually kisses Rove's ass. I loved it, O'Reilly flipped out because he was called a racist for supporting the law, and Rove looked like a deer in the headlights trying to respond to him.

Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about it. O'Reilly asked Ingraham if he was too hard on Rove, and Ingraham said he was not hard enough on him. Ingraham said the federal government has been too easy on immigration for 20 years, including Bush and Rove. Then Ingraham claimed that people who oppose the Arizona law are being demonized by President Obama. Which is insane, Obama just said it's a bad law, and he did not demonize anyone.

Ingraham blamed it everyone, saying the Democrats want to get their votes, and the Republicans look the other way to get cheap labor. And then she pulled the rancher got killed, so all illegals are killers spin, when it was one guy, and illegals rarely ever kill anyone. So then O'Reilly quoted Morris who said the Arizona law will hurt Republicans, and Ingraham admitted it will. For once I would say Ingraham is right, the illegals vote Democratic, and the Republicans want them for cheap labor.

What gets me about O'Reilly recently, is how come O'Reilly does not talk about the oil spill, or have any environment experts on to talk about the damage it will do. And he has also not had any business people on to talk about how it will put them out of business. He is pretty much ignoring the entire story because it makes Republicans look bad, because they are the drill baby drill crowd. He claims to be an environment guy, but he never has any environment experts on.

The next segment was about some American students that were sent home for wearing t-shirts with the American flag on it, in response to Mexican/Americans who wore some Mexican shirts on Cinco Da Mayo. Megyn Kelly was on to discuss it. O'Reilly said they were probably right to send them home because it could have caused a fight, or a riot. Kelly disagreed and said they had no right to send them home. And I agree with Megyn Kelly.

I think it's wrong to send kids home from school just for wearing t-shirts with American flags on them. What's shocking is that O'Reilly disagrees with me and Megyn Kelly. He is usually Mr. Flag, so it's strange that he got it wrong. And then of course they talked about LT raping the 16 year old girl, because O'Reilly loves sex scandals. Except when they involve Republicans, then he ignores them. Just like he is ignoring the gay sex scandal with the founder of the Family Research Council, the story, O'Reilly totally ignored it.

Then O'Reilly had the culture warriors Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson on. Then of course they talked about Erin Andrews and her skimpy clothes on dancing with the stars. O'Reilly only talks about her because she is a hot blonde. It's not real news, so I really do not report it much. I will say this, they spent way too much time talking about Erin Andrews. This kind of stuff is for Geraldo to report on. In fact, they spent the entire segment talking about Erin Andrews.

And then the great Sarah Palin was on, and by great I mean stupid. I am guessing O'Reilly had her on to get the ratings up with the far right nimrod crowd. Because everyone knows she is a dummy, so nobody cares what she says, except her braindead followers, who are also a lot of the same people that watch O'Reilly. Palin was on to cry about the National Day of Prayer legal ruling. Palin spoke out against the ruling, so O'Reilly had her on to talk about it.

Billy asked her this hard hitting question, why do you think American is a Christian nation. Then Palin gave some 2 minute long answer that sounded like something a 10 year old would say, proving how stupid she is. O'Reilly noticed that her answer was kind of stupid and rambling, so he jumped in and cut her off, and spelled it out for her, to help her. Palin called the legal ruling ridiculous, and said the judge is wrong. This whole segment was garbage, especially having Palin on to discuss it. It looks like O'Reilly just used her to get the ratings up, because she had no idea what she was talking about. And if you read the transcript not knowing it was her, you would say who is the nut that said that nonsense. And what's really funny is O'Reilly still calls her Governor, when she quit, she's a quitter, not a Governor.

And the last segment was the total waste of tv time on a so-called hard news show, Factor News Quiz, with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum. I do not report this nonsense because it is not news, and it has nothing to do with the news.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And if you ever wanted to see what right-wing propaganda looks like, you could have just watched this show, because it was 9 Republicans and 0 Democrats. Not one Democratic guest was on the entire show, none.

O'Reilly & Brit Hume Wrong Again
By: Steve - May 7, 2010 - 9:00am

On Monday night O'Reilly and Brit Hume both speculated that Obama would not try to pass a new national immigration bill this year. But before I go into the details, remember this, O'Reilly claims to never speculate, and he even says he does not allow anyone to speculate on the Factor. He has even called it the no speculation zone.

So what did he do on Monday night, he put Brit Hume on to speculate that Obama would not try to pass a national immigration bill this year. O'Reilly asked him if Obama would try to pass it, and here is what he said.
HUME: "Every indication so far, is that he will not. He said he doesn't think there is much 'appetite' for it and appeared to take the whole matter off the agenda. This is striking because it was one of his campaign promises."
And now, here is what President Obama said on Wednesday, just two days after Hume said he would not try to do immigration this year. President Obama called for progress on comprehensive immigration reform this year.
OBAMA: "I was pleased to see a strong proposal for comprehensive reform presented in the Senate last week, and I was pleased it was based on a bipartisan framework. I want to begin work this year. And I want Democrats and Republicans to work with me."
O'Reilly agreed with Hume that Obama would not try to pass an immigration bill this year, he then made a joke about Congress being tired, that was not funny btw. Then O'Reilly said the President looks scared, why you ask, because Karl Rove said the Democrats could lose 8 Senate seats in November. Which is just more speculation, the speculation O'Reilly claims to not do.

And then you have to think about this, before the November 2008 Presidential election with Obama and McCain, Karl Rove predicted McCain would win, even though all the polls had Obama 5 to 10 points ahead. So Karl Rove is not exactly an expert at predicting election results.

But O'Reilly speculated that Obama looks scared anyway, based on what Karl Rove said. That alone tells you all you need to know about O'Reilly, because only right-wing stooges listen to anything Rove says, let alone claim the President looks scared based on what Rove said.

The Facts On The SUV Bomber Arrest
By: Steve - May 6, 2010 - 10:00am

Since O'Reilly and Fox News have a hard time reporting the facts about the attempted NY City SUV bombing by Faisal Shahzad, I have decided to do it for them. Here are the facts:

After Faisal Shahzad was arrested late Monday at JFK International Airport, conservatives began following the political playbook they used to criticize the Obama administration's handling of the attempted Christmas day bombing, complaining that authorities might read him his Miranda rights. "Don't give this guy his Miranda rights until we find out what it's all about," said Sen. John McCain.

While at the same time you had other Republicans on Fox saying they must give him his miranda rights as soon as he is arrested, including Glenn Beck and Judge Napolitano. So as I have reported here, Obama is damned if he does, and damned if he don't. They criticize Obama for not reading him his miranda rights, and they criticize Obama if he does have them read him his miranda rights.

What O'Reilly and Fox news have not reported is that Shahzad eventually had his rights read to him, but not until after he was questioned extensively under the "public safety exception" to the Miranda rule. A source on the Homeland Security Committee said that Shahzad was read his rights nine and a half hours after questioning.

Deputy FBI director John Pistole said that Shahzad continued to cooperate after hearing his rights:
Shahzad was not immediately Mirandized after authorities yanked him off a Dubai-bound flight from New York Monday night. John Pistole, deputy FBI director, said Tuesday that agents interviewed him under the public safety exception to determine whether there was an imminent threat.

He was later read his rights and waived them. Officials have described the suspect as cooperative and talkative ever since.

"He was cooperative and provided valuable intelligence and evidence. He was eventually transported to another location, mirandized and continued talking," Pistole said.
None of this was reported by O'Reilly or any of the right-wing spin doctors on his show. They questioned him under the public safety exception, which is what they should have done to make sure there were not other bombs we did not know about. That is why they have the public safety exception.

Then even after he was read his rights, he continued to talk. It was reported that once Shahzad was Mirandized, he also waved his right to counsel, and he waved his right to an appearance.

So, despite conservative complaints, reading a U.S. citizen his Miranda rights has not impeded information-gathering. But this hasn't stopped conservatives from complaining. Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey told Fox News that despite claims that Shahzad "kept spilling the beans, the question is how many beans he spilled."

What's funny is how some republicans are now complaining that the FBI did not read him his rights as soon as he was arrested. When that is what they did in the shoe bomber case, they read him his rights right after he was arrested. Then you have O'Reilly saying he should never be read his rights, and the military should get him. And you have other Republicans now saying he should not ever be read his rights.

Some conservative lawmakers are saying that even though he's an American citizen, authorities should deprive him of his Miranda rights. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said that Mirandizing Shahzad would be a serious mistake, and Rep. Peter King (R-NY) said, "Did they Mirandize him? I know he's an American citizen but still."

Sen. Joseph Lieberman suggested that Congress should perhaps create a process to strip "American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorists" of their citizenship.

In a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on Terrorists and Guns, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said he wholeheartedly agreed with his colleagues and wanted to write legislation that would allow authorities to deprive them of their rights.
GRAHAM: I want to stop reading these guys their Miranda rights. Even if you're an American citizen helping the enemy, you should be viewed as a potential military threat, not some guy who tried to commit a crime in Times Square.
Earth to Senator Graham, to do that you would have to pass an amendment to the constitution. Because under the constitution every citizen of America has rights. Now if you do that, then I say ok, but until then you can not strip an American citizen of his rights because you want to.

It's important to remember that Shahzad has not been convicted of anything. Under our legal system you are innocent until proven guilty. But People like Senator Graham want to strip a person of all his rights as a U.S. citizen before they are even convicted of anything. What if he is put on trial and found not guilty, what then Senator Graham.

As Yglesias notes, "You can't have a system where a cop comes up to me and says 'you're a terrorist, therefore you have no citizenship rights, so I'm putting you under arrest and you don't get any due process, it's off to jail with you -- no rights, no warning.'" Does Senator Graham really want to make all of the United States into the equivalent of a battlefield in Pakistan?

O'Reilly Lied About Cavuto Defending Obama
By: Steve - May 6, 2010 - 9:30am

On the Wednesday O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly claimed that Neil Cavuto actually stuck up for the president during an interview with former FEMA Director Michael Brown, and concluded that the White House's objections to the interview were therefore phony.

In fact, Cavuto made no effort to challenge Brown's conspiracy theory that the Obama administration chose to let the BP oil spill get really bad so it would have an excuse to shut down offshore drilling.
O'REILLY: So, my question is, Why does the White House care what Michael Brown says? Look, we can't control what the guests say. Cavuto actually stuck up for the president during the interview with Brown. So Talking Points believes the deal is phony, a canard, a charade.
And now the facts, Cavuto did no such thing, and O'Reilly basically lied his ass off. Brown implied that President Obama deliberately let the oil spill get so bad, so they could step in and shut down any new offshore drilling. Not only did Cavuto not stick up for Obama, he let Brown's claims go unchallenged.

During the May 3rd edition of Your World With Neil Cavuto, Brown said this: "You're now nine days into the storm -- into the disaster, and actually now, only now is the president appearing to be engaged. And I think the delay was this. It's pure politics. This president has never supported big oil. He has never supported offshore drilling. And now he has an excuse to shut it back down."

Then Cavuto said this: "So, Michael, you don't take him at face value when he says a temporary halt in offshore drilling is just that, a temporary halt?"

Then Brown said this: "No, no. Look, Bill Nelson -- and, you know, they don't say these things without it being coordinated. And so now you're looking at this oil slick approaching, you know, the Louisiana shore, according to certain -- NOAA and other places, if the winds are right, it will go up the East Coast."

"This is exactly what they want, because now he can pander to the environmentalists and say, "I'm going to shut it down because it's too dangerous." While Mexico and China and everybody else drills in the Gulf. We're going to get shut down."

Then Cavuto said this: "So, by constantly referring to this as the BP spill, the BP leak, the BP disaster, that there's a method to that, right?"

Then Brown said this: "Oh, absolutely."

Cavuto did not stick up for President Obama at all, nothing, zero, zip. He just let Brown say it as if it was a fact, without disputing any of it. Proving once again that O'Reilly will lie his ass off to defend right-wing bias at Fox. Because the video and the transcripts do not lie, but O'Reilly sure does.

The Wednesday 5-5-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 6, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Obama Administration Angry Again. O'Reilly cried again about the Obama administration's Robert Gibbs calling out Fox News for reporting more lies. Earth to O'Reilly, if you don't like it, tell the right-wing stooges at Fox to stop reporting lies. As long as they report lies the Obama administration is going to call them on it, which they should, because it's wrong to lie about him. Gibbs was talking about Cavuto putting that right-wing nut Michael Brown on his show to lie about Obama and the oil spill. Brown called the oil spill Obama's Katrina, which is just ridiculous, and only people on Fox are saying it. The nut also said the leak was done on purpose so they could walk back on offshore drilling, and it's all insane right-wing propaganda.

Then O'Reilly had Dick Morris on to discuss it. Morris of course defended Fox and smeared Obama, because he hates Obama, and he makes a living doing it. Morris said Gibbs complaints about Michael Brown are phony, and an attempt to villainize their opponents. Morris also said it was a political strategy by Obama, and O'Reilly claimed it is a good strategy. Then they both admitted that Michael Brown was wrong, so they in fact admitted Gibbs was right. O'Reilly said thay can not control what a guest says, but he is lying, because they all do a pre-interview where they tell them the topic, and ask them what they plan to say, so they knew what he was going to say, and they put him on the air anyway.

Michael Brown is an idiot, and he should not be put on any show to talk about anything. Cavuto knew exactly what he was doing, and he did it, O'Reilly is just mad that Gibbs called them on it on national tv. And btw, at the end of the segment Morris called the Tea Party people Tea Baggers, and O'Reilly said nothing, but when Democrats called them Tea Baggers O'Reilly said it was wrong to use that disrespectful term. Showing what a double standard he has.

Okay now get this, O'Reilly teased this segment by saying the liberal media is disappointed that it was done by a muslim. When it turns out it was ONE idiot at MSNBC (Contessa Brewer) who said it on a radio show, she did not even say it on MSNBC. And all she said was that she was hoping it was not a muslim because it will make all muslims look bad.

O'Reilly had Daisy Khan and Hussein Ibish on to discuss it. They both said what O'Reilly is saying is ridiculous. O'Reilly claimed there are millions of muslim terrorists, and Ibish said that is not true, he said it may be thousands, but not millions. Basically O'Reilly did an entire segment about what Contessa Brewer said on a fricking radio show. This is not news, it's right-wing drivel to get ratings. Contessa Brewer is more guilty of not explaining what she was trying to say more clearly, and being stupid, then she is of having sympathy for muslim terrorists. But O'Reilly did an entire segment about it anyway.

Then O'Reilly had yet another segment on the media reporting about the attempted SUV bomber. Now O'Reilly is a media critic, what a joke. He finds media bias everywhere but Fox. Caroline Heldman was on to discuss it, and she disagreed with O'Reilly. O'Reilly said he was a bad guy and he does not care if he can not pay his mortgage. And O'Reilly was mad that the media is asking why he did it, which is just stupid. Why not try to find out why he did it, I don't see a problem with that. Then crazy O'Reilly compared it to Tim McVeigh, and admitted he was a right-wing nut. And I have to say this segment was worthless, it's not news. It was just an excuse for O'Reilly to yell at someone he disagrees with, most likely to try and get his ratings up, because they have dropped recently.

Then O'Reilly had the ridiculous non-news body language segment, and the Miller Time segment with Dennis Miller. Which I do not report on because it's garbage. This is not news folks, it's subjective body language nonsense, and it's Dennis Miller doing jokes about liberals.

And the last segment was did you see that with Jane Skinner. O'Reilly has videos of things he claims are a must see, and then they discuss them. When in reality they are usually just videos of stupid things that nobody really cares about. No videos they showed were even worth talking about so I will not report on them.

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

Beck & Napolitano Now Call For Miranda Rights
By: Steve - May 5, 2010 - 11:00am

This is unreal, back when the shoe bomber was caught trying to blow up the airplane the Obama Attorney General gave him his miranda rights when he was arrested. So the right flipped out, they said it was an outrage, hpw dare they not waterboard him to get information before they read him his miranda rights.

O'Reilly and almost everyone at Fox, and on the right, were outraged that Obama would actually read the man his rights. O'Reilly did two or three segments on it slamming Obama for not waterboarding information out of him before reading him his rights. He even ran with the right-wing propaganda that Obama gives more rights to terrorists than he does to American citizens.

But now Glenn Beck and Judge Napolitano are slamming Obama for not reading the attempted SUV bomber in NY his rights. This is unbelieveable, he is damned if he does, and damned if he don't. Here is the video.

What it shows is that no matter what Obama does, the idiots on the right are going to criticize him for it to score cheap political points. When he has them read the guy his rights they criticize it, and when he does not have them read the guy his rights they criticize that too. It's ridiculous, and it proves what dishonest right-wing partisan losers they are.

Good job Beck and Napolitano, once again you both prove what biased right-wing partisan hacks you are.

The Tuesday 5-4-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 5, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Times square Bomb Attempt. O'Reilly talked about the NY City SUV bomb attempt by 30-year-old Faisal Shahzad. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The reason the New York City police and federal authorities were able to catch the guy so quickly is partly because of surveillance cameras all over Times Square. Somebody call the ACLU and point that out! Also, Shahzad was on the 'no-fly' list and the feds acted quickly after he was flagged. So security tracking and electronic surveillance were the keys, and both methods are largely opposed by the left.
And that is wrong, the main reason they got the guy so fast is that Shahzad did not remove the VIN number from the engine, and the FBI used that to trace the SUV, so they found out real quick who he was, the security cameras just showed what he looked like, but it was not why they caught him so fast. And I believe a lot of people have a problem with security tracking and electronic surveillance, not just the left. In fact, a lot of Republicans also oppose it because it may violate the constitution. O'Reilly is just trying to make the left look bad.

Then O'Reilly slammed the Mayor of NY, and president Obama. Simply because he warned against anti-muslim backlash. He slammed Obama for not using the words islam or terrorist in his statements. Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to discuss it. Crowley said this: "We seem to have this suicidal inability to call the enemy what it is and talk about the nature of the threat. This show is the first major media outlet to put the words 'Islam' and 'terror' together, and when you have this inability to call the enemy what it is, there is no hope of defeating it."

Colmes criticized Crowley for focusing on Shahzad's religion. He said this: "You couldn't wait to say 'Islam,' you wanted to use this for political posturing to go after President Obama and Attorney General Holder for not using the words 'Islamic terrorism.' We are not being attacked by a religion, we are being attacked by people misusing a religion."

So basically O'Reilly and Crowley are right-wing idiots who think the exact same way. Why bring religion into it, and what good does it do to say islam and terrorist. When that will just make more islamics mad, and could lead to even more terrorism. Should they say it just to make O'Reilly and Crowley happy, I don't think so. As usual the right-wing O'Reilly agrees with Crowley, even though he claims to be an Independent. And they used the attempted bombing to smear Obama for political reasons. If this had happened under Bush they would have praised him, and called people who criticized him traitors.

Then O'Reilly had 2 of the most far right spin doctors/Obama haters on to discuss it more. He had Republican Congressman Peter King and Michael Scheuer on to smear Obama and attack him for political reasons. King said it a was a tremendous success, then he slammed the Obama administration for putting out so much information before before the suspect was in custody. Which is crazy, and only a few Republicans are complaining about it. And of couse the Obama hater Scheuer slammed everything they did. He even speculated they would strike again, even though O'Reilly said he does not allow speculation, he let Scheuer do it all night long.

O'Reilly agreed that Shahzad and like-minded zealots pose a genuine and growing threat, he said this: "The bombing was not carried out well by this clown, but he could have taken out a couple hundred people."

That is a lie, because the so-called bomb would have barely caused an explosion. The experts say the only thing that would have exploded is the two five gallon cans of gas, and that at the worst it would have just set the SUV on fire. So O'Reilly is lying when he says it could have killed a couple hundred people.

Then O'Reilly talked about the Arizona immigration law again. Peter Beinart was on to explain why he considers the law a travesty, he said this: "The law is racist, because it's going to lead to racial profiling of people who don't look white. Even some police in Arizona say they can't enforce this without racial profiling. Illegal immigrants are not more likely to commit crimes and they pay more in taxes than they take out."

And of course O'Reilly disagreed with everything he said. Then he tried to link crime rates to illegal immigrants again. Beinart pointed out that crime rates have actually went down, and that illegals actually do less crimes than Americans do. And the stats back him up, but that does not matter to O'Reilly. All he cares about is putting out the right-wing spin on it, and to hell with the facts.

Then O'Reilly did a segment with John Stossel where they basically accused Obama is being a socialist, Stossel said he would not use the word socialist, but that he is a socialist. Instead of using the socialist term Stossel said Obama was an 'arrogant interventionist' with 'lawyers disease' who wants to take all the money away from rich people. Which is not socialism, it's called the progressive tax code, that's been in place for hundreds of years. And under Ronald Reagan the rich paid more in taxes than they do now.

Not to mention back in the 60's and the 70's the rich paid up to 70% in taxes, but they do not say those presidents were socialists. Basically O'Reilly used Stossel to smear Obama as a socialist, and at the end of the segment O'Reilly claimed that Obama wants to get all his money and give it to the poor. Which is ridiculous, and even if it was true, it's not socialism.

Then is it legal with Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl. O'Reilly called for Shahzad to be turned over to the military. Wiehl said this: "He started to talk and he confessed, then was given his Miranda rights and kept talking." Guilfoyle told O'Reilly that Shahzad's U.S. citizenship mandates that he be handled by civilian authorities. She said this: "They can't hand him to the military, but they were able to get valuable information right away because they considered him a 'high value' terror suspect."

So they did give him his miranda rights, but after they talked to him for a while, which is what O'Reilly and the right wanted them to do, hell O'Reilly wanted him turned over to the military, even though he is a U.S. citizen. So they did what the right said they should do after the shoe bomber case, and they still criticized them for it. So as I say, they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. And talk about crazy, O'Reilly wanting to give him to the military is crazy.

Then O'Reilly had Charles Krauthammer on to talk about immigration some more. And Krauthammer has a plan, he said this: "You wait until a fence is built and until you get certification from the four states on the southern frontier saying illegal immigration has been reduced by 95%. On that day I would begin legalization for every illegal immigrant. They would have to learn English, study civics, pay a fine, and they would have to wait. This is a humane country and we understand that these are not evil people, but they broke our laws and jumped the line unfairly."

Which is pretty much the plan Obama and the Democrats wants to put in place. O'Reilly told Krauthammer that many conservatives will object to that plan, O'Reilly said this: "People are going to say you're justifying bad behavior and rewarding criminals with citizenship."

Okay, so what else are you going to do, deport 12 million illegals, that's impossible. Which the Republicans do not seem to understand, so they oppose it anyway. And if they could deport 12 million illegals, our economy would probably crash. Then the pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails.

Basically the whole show was a right-wing smear job on President Obama, with 95% Republican guests. Even though they caught the attempted bomber, and caught him fast. The bomb did not go off, nobody was hurt or killed, and they still slammed everything Obama did. But if this had happened when Bush was the president they would prasie it all. And O'Reilly did have 2 Democrats on the show, but one was only allowed to talk about the Arizona immigration law, and the other Democrat (Colmes) had to share his time with Monica Crowley. With O'Reilly it was 8 Republicans to 2 Democrats, which is not even close to balance.

O'Reilly Spinning Illegal Immigration Crime
By: Steve - May 5, 2010 - 10:00am

Billy was in his usual spin mode Monday night, O'Reilly linked crime rates to illegal immigration. Which is just crazy, because crime rates in border states are down over the last few years. And most illegal immigrants come here to work, not commit any crimes.

The Republicans (including O'Reilly) are spinning out the talking points that illegal immigrants are a big cause of crime, which is just not true. Putting things in perspective, most crime is actually down, and since 1993 violent crime has been sharply trending down.

While a small percentage of illegal aliens are committing some crimes, the vast majority of illegal aliens are decent people who work hard and are only trying to make a better life for themselves and their families, something you or I would probably do if we were in their place. With the exception of ID theft, for most illegal aliens their only crime is breaking the immigration laws of the United States and being in the country illegally.

So what O'Reilly and the right are doing is blaming the crime rates on illegals, to drum up support for the new Arizona immigration law, when most of them are not doing any crimes, except being in the country illegally. And btw, I am opposed to illegal immigration, but I believe it is a federal matter, and the federal Government should deal with it by increasing border patrols, etc.

But I am also opposed to people like O'Reilly lying about crime rates to make illegals look like they are doing all the crime. When it's just not true. Col. Ralph Peters and a lot of other right-wing spin doctors are spinning out these lies, saying the crime rates are bad in the border states, when the opposite is true. Peters said crime rates are "SOARING" in border states, when the facts say otherwise.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the violent crime rate in Arizona was lower in 2006, 2007, and 2008 -- than any year since 1983. The property crime rate in Arizona was lower in 2006, 2007, and 2008 than any year since 1968. In addition, in Arizona, the violent crime rate dropped from 577.9 per 100,000 people in 1998 to 447 per 100,000 people in 2008; the property crime rate dropped from 5,997 to 4,291 during the same period.

Crime rates have also dropped during the past decade in other border states. The BJS data also shows that violent crime rates and property crime rates in California, New Mexico, and Texas dropped from 1998 through 2008:

-- In California, the violent crime rate dropped from 703.7 in 1998 to 503.8 in 2008; the property crime rate dropped from 3,639.1 to 2,940.3 during the same period.

-- In New Mexico, the violent crime rate dropped from 961.4 in 1998 to 649.9 in 2008; the property crime rate dropped from 5,757.7 to 3,909.2 over the same period.

-- In Texas, the violent crime rate dropped from 564.6 in 1998 to 507.9 in 2008; the property crime rate dropped from 4,547 to 3,985.6 over the same period.

So as you can see, Col. Peters and Bill O'Reilly are both lying about the crime rates. Which is nothing new for O'Reilly and Peters, they do it pretty much every night, and when they are called out for their lies, they deny it and attack the person who has the facts. O'Reilly tells them they are nuts for disagreeing with him, when they are right, and he is the nut.

O'Reilly/Goldberg Factor Video Insanity
By: Steve - May 4, 2010 - 9:00am

If you want a good laugh, and you want to see some professional right-wing spin and lies, just watch these videos.

In this clip Goldberg admits there will be racial profiling under the Arizona immigration law, which O'Reilly said was not in it. Then the lunatic said racial profiling is the same as affirmative action so it's ok. And btw, only white Republicans think racial profiling is ok, it's called being a racist.

In this clip Goldberg rips off Rush Limbaugh and says they should send all the illegals in Arizona to San Francisco. All 460,000 of them, ignoring the fact that if they did, Arizona would lose $16 Billion dollars a year in revenue, and the state would go broke really fast.

Then Billy joined the right-wing propaganda party, O'Reilly blamed the left-wing media for reporting that the Arizona immigration law will lead to racial profiling. When Fox News has reported the exact same thing, including their senior judicial analyst Judge Napolitano, who btw, has never been a guest on the Factor to talk about the issue. O'Reilly will not have him on to talk about it, because he has said the law is unconstitutional, and that it will lead to racial profiling.

The Monday 5-3-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 4, 2010 - 8:30am

The TPM was called Truth About Arizona And Illegal Aliens. O'Reilly had a lie filled ridiculous TPM, he called it the real truth. When it was nothing but right-wing spin. It was an 8 minute long spin job that I can not possibly report all of what he said. Just think what Hannity or Beck would say, and you have what O'Reilly said about it. O'Reilly even denied there would be racial profiling and racism in the law, which is just laughable. O'Reilly showed video of protests in California, then he said 18 people were arrested for violence, and he smeared the left for it. But the 18 people were simply arrested for vandalism, that's not violence, it's property damage.

And he cherry picked 10 seconds of video of the property damage, without putting it into context or showing any video of the other 100,000 protesters who did not do any property damage. O'Reilly also claimed the crime rates are up in the border states, when they are actually down, and most illegal immigrants are not breaking any laws, except for being in the country illegally. O'Reilly used the Col. Peters lie about the crime rates, that I have already proven is a lie. Then O'Reilly attacked a bunch of people in the media for speaking out against the Arizona immigration law.

Then O'Reilly had Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham on to discuss it all. And of course they both pretty much agreed with O'Reilly, except Juan Williams disagreed with O'Reilly on one thing, about profiling. Then of course O'Reilly flipped out and told Juan he was nuts.

Then O'Reilly had Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik from Arizona on. Dupnik called the law stupid, and backed up his claims. He did not back down to O'Reilly. He also pointed out something that made O'Reilly look like a fool. O'Reilly claims it cost the state a fortune to deal with illegal immigrants, but he ignores the fact that the new law will cost the state 10 times more than under the old law. O'Reilly also made it political and smeared Obama, by saying if he does not do something it will hurt him politically.

Then the conservative Brit Hume was on, and wow did he spin his right-wing ass off. O'Reilly asked Hume if Obama will fast track a federal immigration reform bill, and Hume said no. But what they failed to report is that it is not going forward because the Republicans have said no way. But crazy Hume and O'Reilly blamed it on Obama, when the Republicans are blocking it because of the November elections. They want to stall it until after the elections, so Obama is not to blame at all. Basically they both put out non-stop right-wing spin, and tried to smear Obama with it.

Then O'Reilly said Obama looks scared, but then he said he wants to be fair to Obama, yeah that's being fair, not. Even Brit Hume would not agree with that O'Reilly speculation. Then crazy O'Reilly cited Karl Rove saying the Republicans would pick up 8 Senate seats, which is all speculation. Something O'Reilly said he never does. And citing Rove is insane, in the 2008 elections he was wrong about everything. At the end of the segment Hume said the Arizona immigration bill is tame, and nothing, he said it was pretty much the same as the federal immigration law. Except he forgot to mention that the constitution says states do not enforce immigration laws.

Then the right-wing stooge Bernie Goldberg was on to cry about the media coverage of the Arizona immigration law. O'Reilly cried like a baby because he claims the media was not using the words "Illegal" when they reported on the story. When there is a simple reason for that, because it's called the Arizona immigration law. Even reported it as the "Arizona immigration law" and did not use the word Illegal.

When you do a google search on "Arizona Immigration Law" you get 20.6 million results, that's because a lot of the media is reporting it that way. And if you do a google search on "Arizona Illegal Immigration Law" you get 14 million results. NPR, the LA Times, Reuters, Time, ABC News, and many more reported it using the word illegal, but if you listen to crazy O'Reilly you would think nobody said it, when they did. O'Reilly actually claimed the far left media is lying about the law on purpose to fire the latinos up, and even Bernie Goldberg said he does not believe that.

What's funny is watching O'Reilly and Goldberg complain about bias and dishonesty in the media, when they are two of the most biased and dishonest people in the business, who work for Fox News, the most biased news network in the country. O'Reilly and Goldberg both claim there will never be any racism or racial profiling because of the new law. When that is dreamland, we all know Mexicans and dark skin people who look latino are going to be profiled, to deny it is just laughable. O'Reilly even said if you are German or Irish and you get in a fender bender the police will round you up too, and if you believe that I have some land to sell you. At the end Bernie said there is a simple solution, send all 460,000 illegals in Arizona to San Francisco, and O'Reilly said he liked that idea.

The best part is when Goldberg said Obama did not do enough after the oil spill. Which is the right-wing talking points from Rush Limbaugh. Even O'Reilly said that was bull, and asked what Obama was supposed to do, put on a dive suit and dive down to cap the well. So even O'Reilly dismissed the Limbaugh talking points on that nonsense. Limbaugh and the right are even trying to say the left blew up the oil rig to kill offshore drilling. Which is so ridiculous it's beyond insane.

And the last segment was the totally laughable Factor Reality Check. In one check O'Reilly slammed Helen Thomas for being a liberal, even though she admitted it, and said she does an opinion column, which is the same thing O'Reilly does, except he does it on tv. O'Reilly complained about her disclosure, when she admitted to being a liberal, and he is the one who lies about being an Independent. Then O'Reilly mentioned a poll that said CNN is the most trusted news source at 32%, and Fox was 2nd at 29%, now he bragged about that, when only 29% of the people trust Fox. What an idiot. If only 29% trust you, then it means 71% do not trust you, and only a total spin doctor would brag about that.

Not to mention, O'Reilly failed to report that 50% of the people that picked Fox as the most trusted were Republicans. Among Democrats only 11% picked Fox as the most trusted. Funny how he failed to report that, I guess he just forgot, yeah right. And what's worse is that only 50% of Republicans said Fox is the most trusted.

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

Conservative Latinos May Leave The Republican Party
By: Steve - May 4, 2010 - 8:00am

Now this is funny, and it shows just how stupid Republicans are. The Republican party has already pissed off so many black people that they only get 4% of the black vote. So then they pass the racist immigration law in Arizona and now there is a good chance they are going to lose the Latino vote.

Which means the Democrats will get the black vote and the Latino vote, and most likely dominate elections for years. The Republicans will only have the white vote left, which is just stupid. Because they are already seen as the white is right party. Miriam Jordan wrote about this on Monday, here are some quotes.

Adam Bustos, a third-generation Mexican-American, has voted Republican since Ronald Reagan ran for president. But he has been reconsidering his party affiliation since Arizona State Gov. Jan Brewer signed the nation's toughest immigration law last month.

"I've been thinking I might leave the party," said Mr. Bustos, a 58-year-old Arizona native. "A lot of my Latino Republican friends have been talking about it after this law."

The new Arizona law requires police to question people whom they suspect are in the U.S. illegally. Supporters say the law is necessary to combat rampant illegal border crossings. Opponents say it can't be enforced without violating civil liberties.

Many Hispanic-Americans say they feel stung by a law they allege invites racial profiling, incites hatred and discriminates against all Latinos.

The law in Arizona was passed by a Republican legislature and signed by a GOP governor. Conservative Hispanic voters, in particular, say they feel betrayed by Republican Party leaders who have supported the law.

About 30% of Arizona's population is Hispanic, the fourth-highest proportion nationally, behind New Mexico, California and Texas. Latinos account for 17% of the state's eligible voters, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.


"When the Arizona law was passed, it quickly became the single most important issue to all Latinos in Arizona and nationwide," said Matt Barreto, a political science professor at the University of Washington who studies Latino voting patterns.

"Either party that pushes the issue too hard risks moving centrist voters in the other direction," said Dan Schnur, a former Republican strategist and director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California.

Massey Villarreal, a Houston businessman and past national chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly, an independent group with chapters nationwide, said, "It's insulting to have Republican leaders across the country applauding this racist law. I'm sure this is going to hurt the Republican Party."

Latinos are the fastest growing demographic group in the U.S. After spending the first part of this decade loosening their historical ties to the Democratic Party, Latinos have been returning to the Democratic fold over such issues as the economy and immigration.

Rodolfo de la Garza, a political scientist at Columbia University, said Republicans with an eye on midterm elections have overlooked the long-term negative impact of supporting an immigration law "that paints all Latinos with the same brush." He cautions that the Republican Party may feel the effect of these decisions at the polls for years to come, as was the case in California after that state attempted to enact a similar law in 1994.

But even some of the most conservative Latinos were jolted by the Arizona law. Deedee Blase, a Mexican-American resident of Phoenix who served in the Air Force, said she favored tighter border security and a conservative political and economic agenda. "Now I feel like we are living in the 1960s, and Arizona is the new Alabama," she said.


And I say good job Republicans, you have lost the black vote, and now you have probably lost the latino vote. But you still have the white vote, especially the racist whites, so good luck with that. The Republican party passed the law to get some street cred back with the far right Tea Party crowd. And they did, but they just might have lost the latino vote for years and years.

BP Opposed Stricter Oil Rig Safety Rules
By: Steve - May 4, 2010 - 7:30am

Just 5 months ago BP's top Gulf of Mexico official testified its practices were "both safe and protective of the environment."

In June, the U.S. Minerals Management Service proposed stricter safety and environmental rules, opposed by BP and the rest of the offshore drilling industry as unnecessary. In a Senate hearing on offshore drilling environmental stewardship policies on November 19, 2009, BP America's vice president of Gulf of Mexico exploration, David Rainey, opposed the proposed MMS rules and defended the existing regulatory system.

Rainey claimed that drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf has been shown to be both safe and protective of the environment. Rainey's testimony followed a September 14, 2009, letter from his predecessor Richard Morrison, which said "we are not supportive of the extensive and prescriptive regulations" in the proposed rule, because "we believe the industry's current safety and environmental statistics demonstrate that the voluntary programs have been and continue to be very successful."

What they do not ever talk about is how they could have installed a remote closure valve on that oil well, but they did not do it because it would have cost $500,000 dollars. So they put money over safety, that alone tells me they only care about making as much money as possible, and to hell with the safety rules.

And I know a little about big Corporate safety policies, because I worked at International Paper Company for 17 years. Their slogan was safety is job #1, but it really meant safety if it does not cost too much money. They only put enough safety rules in place to satisfy OSHA. And only after someone got hurt and sued them.

If there had not been an OSHA to enforce the safety rules they would not have had any. They wanted to make as much money as possible, and to hell with safety. They used to run label cutting machines with no guards on them, until a woman had 3 fingers cut off, then, and only then did they have safety guards installed.

Big Corporations only do what they have to, as far as safety goes. So if the safety rules are not mandatory, they will not do it. In my opinion, it should be mandatory to have a remote shut off valve on any oil well in the ocean, especially when it's 5,000 feet deep. And if they do not force them to have it, they will never do it.

Right-Wing Groups Trying To Kill Campaign Disclosure Bill
By: Steve - May 3, 2010 - 8:30am

Last week Senate Democrats, along with Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE), unveiled sweeping campaign finance reform aimed at curbing campaign abuses in the wake of the conservative Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, which struck down decades of campaign finance law.

The main focus of the DISCLOSE Act (Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections) is to increase disclosure requirements on corporations, labor unions, trade associations, and nonprofit advocacy groups that spend money on ads to influence federal elections.

The DISCLOSE Act forces the CEO of a corporation or head of an advocacy group to personally appear in the organization's ads and take responsibility, and for the top funder of the ad to appear in the ad and take responsibility.

The status quo of electioneering allows corporate powers, billionaires, and even domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations to essentially manipulate American elections without ever revealing themselves. The DISCLOSE Act is a tremendous start at addressing this crisis of open democracy. But predictably, secretive right-wing power brokers are pushing back.

As soon as Van Hollen's bill was introduced, front groups funded by the most elusive conservative elite fired back, swiftly criticizing the new transparency requirements as a so-called threat to their First Amendment rights.

-- U.S. Chamber of Commerce: The DISCLOSE Act "stifles free speech."

-- Howie Rich's Front Group: The DISCLOSE Act is "disclosure overkill."

-- David and Charles Koch's Front Group: The DISCLOSE Act is a "gambit to chill speech."

The Cato Institute, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Center for Competitive Politics filed amicus briefs to the Supreme Court to help knock down campaign finance laws in the Citizens United case.

The legislation also bars foreign corporations with domestic subsidiaries, federal contractors, and TARP recipients who have not repaid their funds from spending their money on politics. It's simply a disclosure bill, so we know who is giving all that money to who, and yet the Republicans are still opposed to it.

Notice that none of this stuff is ever reported on the Factor, by O'Reilly or any of his stooge fill-in hosts. But he sure has plenty of time to talk about plus size models, and girls on spring break.

Former Republican Slams Current Partisan Republicans
By: Steve - May 3, 2010 - 8:00am

And here we have an honest Republican, one of the very few left. Former Maryland congressman Wayne Gilchrest, a Republican who served from 1990-2008, left Congress after losing in the 2008 Republican primary to State Sen. Andy Harris (R-MD). Then last week he slammed the current Republicans for being dishonest partisans.

Gilchrest delivered some blunt criticism of his former colleagues in the House GOP leadership. He mocked House Minority Whip Eric Cantor's (R-VA) refusal to engage in the substance of the health reform debate. Instead of offering ideas, Gilchrest noted that Cantor brought a copy of the health care legislation to President Obama's health reform summit to demonstrate its size and complexity.

Gilchrest said complaining about the health bill's size was really a waste of time and that the tactic was designed to merely disrupt the summit. He also said he observed an increasing level of partisanship from Republican Party leaders as he left Congress.

In one incident, Gilchrest recalls Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson coming to a meeting of lawmakers to caution about potential economic calamity, only to be ignored by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), who Gilchrest said was more interested in partisan games to undermine the Democrats.

Boehner dismissed Mr. Paulson because we had to get to how to disrupt the Democrats from the subcommittee to the House floor, and how to raise money for the next election:
GILCHREST: For example, when Obama asked a large contigent of Democrats and Republicans to come to the White House to begin to talk about the healthcare bill, the whip -- who I know well, my good friend Eric Cantor from Virginia, a Republican -- brings in the bill. Now he didn't bring in suggestions. He didn't want dialogue about how to make this better, he brought in a bill. And when it was his time to discuss the issue, all he talked about was how big the bill, how complicated the bill is, how much they don't have time to read the bill and all these things, which was really a waste of time.

But the Republicans came to that meeting, and they planned prior to that meeting how they would try to disrupt that meeting. I remember one time Secretary Paulson came into a meeting to give us a heads up about potential economic calamity and we listened to him for 15 minutes and the Minority Leader, John Boehner, dismissed Mr. Paulson because we had to get to two things -- how to disrupt the Democrats from the subcommittee to the House floor, and how to raise money for the next election.
Indeed, as Paulson writes in his own memoir on crisis, Cantor and other Republicans were "uniformed" and unable to grasp economic policy as the financial system melted down. As the economy collapsed in 2008, Boehner and other members of his leadership staged a protest for weeks to demand a vote for more offshore oil drilling.

Which is what I have been reporting here in my blog for almost 2 years, that the Republicans care more about winning elections in November than they care about fixing the economy. Now I have a Republican on record saying the same thing I have been saying. Backing up my claims, and of course you never hear any of this reported by O'Reilly, or Fox News.

More Good Economic News O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - May 3, 2010 - 7:30am

Does anyone notice a pattern here, I sure do. O'Reilly ignores any good economic news, because it makes Obama look good, and it shows that his stimulus plan and his economic policies are working. But when all the economic news was bad, O'Reilly reported it every night, because it made Obama look bad.

In fact, he did the exact same thing with the stock market. When Obama first took over as the President and the market was down around 9,000 and dropping, O'Reilly blamed Obama and said it was a sign that Wall Street did not like the Obama economic policies.

But since then the Dow has slowly went back up to over 11,000. So now O'Reilly does not say a word about it, because if he did it would make Obama look good. It's classic O'Reilly, blame Obama when it drops, but do not give him credit when it goes up. And now he is doing the same thing with economic news. When it was bad O'Reilly reported it, but when it's good he don't.

Here is the latest economic news:

U.S. Economy Grew at 3.2 Percent in First Quarter

The U.S. economy expanded at a 3.2 percent annual rate in the first quarter as consumers stepped up spending, the strongest sign yet a sustainable recovery is taking hold.

Consumer spending, which normally accounts for about 70 percent of U.S. economic activity, added nearly 2.6 percentage points to U.S. gross domestic product last quarter, the biggest contribution since the fourth quarter of 2006.

"Once you take a quick look under the hood you see some very positive signs there," said Ward McCarthy, chief financial economist at Jefferies & Co. in New York. "This is just the latest piece of evidence to suggest that the recovery is sustainable."

The economy has now grown for three straight quarters, although it still has a lot of lost ground to make up after its deepest and longest recession since the 1930s.

"Retail sales are up, people are spending money," said Michael Woolfolk, senior currency strategist at BNY Mellon in New York. "We're seeing the beginning of the process of a broad-based recovery."

The United States has emerged from recession more swiftly than Europe or Japan. Euro zone first-quarter GDP data is due in mid-May and is expected to show annualized growth of roughly 0.8 percent. Japan, which has been struggling with deflation, does not report its data until later in May.

And btw, Juan Williams hosted for O'Reilly on Friday night. And he did not mention this story either, proving he is just as biased as O'Reilly is. Both of them ignore all the good news about the economy that makes Obama look good. I have to say having Juan fill in is pretty much the same as if O'Reilly was there, except Juan is black and O'Reilly is white, that's about the only difference, except O'Reilly yells and screams at all the Democratic guests, which Juan did not do.

MLB Players Assoc. Opposed To Immigration Law
By: Steve - May 1, 2010 - 9:00am

In a statement released Friday, the Major League Baseball Players Association has issued its opposition to the Arizona's new anti-immigrant law:
The recent passage by Arizona of a new immigration law could have a negative impact on hundreds of Major League players who are citizens of countries other than the United States. These international players are very much a part of our national pastime and are important members of our Association. Their contributions to our sport have been invaluable, and their exploits have been witnessed, enjoyed and applauded by millions of Americans. All of them, as well as the Clubs for whom they play, have gone to great lengths to ensure full compliance with federal immigration law.

The impact of the bill signed into law in Arizona last Friday is not limited to the players on one team. The international players on the Diamondbacks work and, with their families, reside in Arizona from April through September or October. In addition, during the season, hundreds of international players on opposing Major League teams travel to Arizona to play the Diamondbacks.

And, the spring training homes of half of the 30 Major League teams are now in Arizona. All of these players, as well as their families, could be adversely affected, even though their presence in the United States is legal. Each of them must be ready to prove, at any time, his identity and the legality of his being in Arizona to any state or local official with suspicion of his immigration status. This law also may affect players who are U.S. citizens but are suspected by law enforcement of being of foreign descent.

The Major League Baseball Players Association opposes this law as written. We hope that the law is repealed or modified promptly. If the current law goes into effect, the MLBPA will consider additional steps necessary to protect the rights and interests of our members.
Over a quarter of Major League Baseball players are Latino. Major League Baseball and the Arizona Diamondbacks have been pressured to take a stand against the bill. Some have already boycotted the Diamondbacks baseball games, and Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) has even suggested that the Major League Baseball All-Star Game, scheduled to take place in Phoenix in 2011, should be moved to another location.

To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: