The Tuesday 5-31-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 1, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Is Sarah Palin in or out for 2012? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The Memorial Day weekend was a very slow news time, so Sarah Palin got a massive amount of attention after she rented a bus and drove around the Northeast talking to the folks. That led to rampant speculation that the former Governor of Alaska will run for president.

Ms. Palin has very high negatives, but she is a star who is able to garner a lot of attention quickly, and many conservative Americans would vote for her. However, the Republican establishment is generally not Palin-friendly; also, Governor Palin has a big problem with the liberal media, which openly despises her.

Talking Points continues to believe that Sarah Palin will not run, but if she does she will definitively shake it all up on the Republican side. The rap against her is that she's not smart enough to be president, but the Governor did a pretty good job running Alaska.

However, Sarah Palin would be a long shot to defeat Barack Obama because she would have to persuade millions of independent voters to go her way, which is probably not going to happen.
And for once O'Reilly got something right, Sarah Palin will never be the President. Because millions of voters have seen that she is an idiot, and a far-right idiot on top of that. The rap on her is correct, she is not smart enough to be President.

Then the biased Brit Hume was on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest to provide the balance. Hume said this: "Sarah Palin has benefitted from speculation about her prospective candidacy, which makes her a more interesting figure. So she does this 'candidate-like' thing to renew interest in her brand. Her ability to capture center stage is a true gift and this bus tour puts her center stage, which is good for her."

Hume went on to speculate about Palin's presidential aspirations. Saying this: "I think she has more power to influence the party as someone who is not running. She's toxic to independents and a great many centrist conservatives are wary of her. I don't think she's going to run."

Congressman Anthony Weiner spent the long weekend trying to explain how his Twitter account was used to send a sexually suggestive photo to a 21-year-old college student. Weiner initially claimed his account was "hacked," but has apparently not asked for any investigation. So Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to discuss it.

Wiehl said this: "Hacking into a computer is a federal crime, as is impersonating a federal official. But the FBI won't confirm whether or not they're investigating this. I am skeptical, there are a lot of things here that don't make sense." Guilfoyle implied that Weiner himself sent the salacious photo. Saying this: "He keeps changing his story and there is no evidence to suggest that this account has been compromised. I am highly skeptical."

Hey Billy, that's pure 100% speculation, and you allowed it anyway, what happened to your no speculation rule?

O'Reilly urged federal authorities to clarify whether or not they are involved, Billy said this: "If a hacker is able to breach the security of a sitting Congressperson, it's a big deal. You are both skeptical that the Congressman may not be telling the whole story. I want the FBI to tell the American public what they're doing about this."

Returning for another segment, Wiehl and Guilfoyle discussed the charges that two Supreme Court justices are too biased to judge the constitutionality of President Obama's health care law. Guilfoyle said this: "The allegation against Elena Kagan, is that because she was Obama's Solicitor General she should recuse herself from all decisions regarding Obamacare. She was part of the team that advised on the legality of the law."

Wiehl talked about conservative Justice Clarence Thomas. Saying this: "His wife worked for a lobbying group that opposed Obamacare and the charge is that Justice Thomas benefitted from his wife getting $150,000 for that lobbying. She's not in that job anymore but I think he should recuse himself."

O'Reilly advised both Kagan and Thomas to disqualify themselves from the upcoming Obamacare court challenges. Wow, it's a miracle, I agree with O'Reilly again.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on. The Supreme Court has upheld an Arizona provision requiring employers to check a prospective worker's status with the federal E-Verify database. Alan Colmes disagreed with the Court's ruling. Saying this: "Immigration law should be a federal issue, because you have fifty different states that can make fifty different laws. You're going to have employers who are afraid to give people jobs because they don't look right or don't speak English right. This will lead to discrimination."

Monica Crowley talked about whether Justices Elena Kagan and Clarence Thomas should recuse themselves from judging the constitutionality of health care reform. Saying this: "Kagan has to step down on this case, but not Thomas. The only reason we're talking about Thomas in this context is because the left has always hated him and they know Kagan has to step down, so they want to equalize things."

Haha, what a shocker, not. Crazy Crowley thinks only the Democrat should recuse herself. She is so crazy that even O'Reilly disagrees with her, which may be a first.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to assess the President's greatest liabilities. Why, who knows, he is a media analyst so why he is talking about Obama is beyond me. Goldberg said this: "The question, is whether a President can be re-elected with a crummy economy. The good news for Barack Obama is 'yes' - in 1936, FDR was re-elected when the economy was a lot worse than today."

Goldberg also suggested that President Obama's greatest positive is his personality. Saying this: "As far as independents are concerned, Barack Obama is likeable. They like the way he walks, talks and dresses. And in politics likeability is a very important trait."

And I say, who cares what the far-right loon Bernie Goldberg has to say about Obama, he hates the man, so his opinions are biased and not objective. And of course no Democratic guest was on to discuss it.

In the last segment Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about Palin. Krauthammer said this: "I think it would make no sense for her to run. Her chances of winning the nomination are small and her chances of winning the general election are practically nil."

Krauthammer also talked about Palin's qualifications. Saying this: "It's not that she isn't smart, the problem is that she is not schooled. I don't mean she didn't go to the right schools, I mean when it comes to policy she has had two-and-a-half years to school herself and she hasn't. You want a president who will not have to learn on the job. There's a lack of effort to school herself and a lack of insight to see that she needs it."

What a spin job, let's get real. Palin is as dumb as a rock, and the only reason some Republicans like her is because she is a far-right loon, and she is a pretty good looking woman. Krauthammer only said she is smart so he does not get flooded with hate mail from the far-right fools that love Stupid Sarah. Krauthammer is right that she can not win, but he is dead wrong when he says she is smart.

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

More Proof The Pinheads And Patriots Is Ridiculous
By: Steve - May 31, 2011 - 10:00am

Think about this folks, every night at the end of the show O'Reilly does the pinheads and patriots vote. Now it sounds like a good idea, except O'Reilly makes it stupid. Because he never names any real patriots, and the pinheads are always liberals, so not only is it stupid, it's a biased segment too.

The patriot should be a policeman, a fireman, a nurse, an EMT worker, a U.S. soldier, and other people like that. And of course I could name a Republican pinhead every day, actually I could name 2 or 3 of them a day. But O'Reilly never does that, he has named cats patriots, dogs, and on and on. While never naming any Republicans pinheads.

So let me give you a great example of just how much of a waste of tv time the pinheads and patriots segment is.

Last Tuesday O'Reilly named Lady Gaga the patriot. What did she do, donate money to charity, raise money for the troops, perform for the troops for free, no, she ate a note card that David Letterman was using when she was on his show.

I kid you not, in O'Reillyworld that makes you a patriot. And O'Reilly not only has stupid patriots, he has stupid pinheads too. On Thursday O'Reilly said Kim Kardashian was a pinhead, for proudly showing off her new $2-million engagement ring.

Really? How the hell is that being a pinhead. If you had a $2 million dollar ring (or a $2 million dollar anything) would you not show it off too, of course you would. So that is not being a pinhead, it's normal.

The real pinhead is O'Reilly, for naming her a pinhead. And not only did he name her a pinhead, for simply showing off a $2 million dollar ring, he said the guy who bought it is an idiot, and that he should have only spent $1 million on the ring.

Really? Who made O'Reilly God, and how is the guy an idiot, if he can afford it I see nothing wrong with it. Not to mention, it's not really any of O'Reilly's business how much the guy spends on a ring, or whether Kim shows it off or not.

And finally, O'Reilly claims to have a hard news show, while having that ridiculous pinheads and patriots segment. Along with the Dennis Miller segment, the body language segment, the news quiz waste of time segment, the dumbest thing of the week segment, and the did you see that segment, they are all a waste of tv time, on a so-called hard news show.

The Monday 5-30-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 31, 2011 - 9:00am

The Monday show was another best of Factor re-run, because O'Reilly took a 4 day weekend. And as usual, it was all right-wing propaganda, all the time.

Just as he did on the Friday best of re-run, Billy loaded the show with nothing but Republicans, because he thinks they are the best part of his show. The entire show was a re-run of the Factor news quiz segments. Which is a segment that is so lame I do not even report on it. And yet, O'Reilly decided to do a whole show of it.

Proving once again, that he is a biased right-wing hack of a pretend journalist. A real non-partisan Independent journalist, with a so-called no spin zone would not do that. But O'Reilly is not a real journalist, so this is what you get.

More Republican Disapproval O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - May 31, 2011 - 8:00am

Just about every night O'Reilly tells his viewers that Republicans are great, and all Americans love the way they run the states and Congress. While at the same time telling his viewers the Democrats are evil liberals who are ruining the country with all their liberal policies.

And there is one big problem with that, it's all a lie. Because on almost every major issue the majority of the American people support the Democratic positions.

In fact, many Republicans are hated by the majority of the people now, including O'Reilly's good friend the new Governor of Ohio, John Kasich. Who used to work at Fox, and who O'Reilly supported 100 percent.

Since signing a bill earlier this year to strip public unions of most of their collective bargaining rights, Ohio Gov. John Kasich's (R) approval rating has plummeted, bottoming out at a new low in a PPP poll released last Wednesday. As if that weren't bad enough, the poll also found Kasich losing a do-over election -- by an enormous 25-point margin.

Kasich narrowly defeated incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland (D) last November, and almost immediately set his sights on rolling back public sector collective bargaining rights through a bill known as S.B. 5. That bill was deeply unpopular with his constituents, prompting large protests and sending the governor's approval rating into a nosedive. And yet, he signed it into law anyway, so much for going by the will of the people.

In the poll, only 33% of registered voters said they approve of Kasich's job performance, compared to 56% who said they disapprove. That result ties Kasich with Florida's Rick Scott (R) as the most unpopular of the 38 governors PPP has surveyed.

Kasich's union-busting bill is the driving force behind his falling approval rating. In the poll, 55% of voters said they would vote to repeal S.B. 5, while 35% said they would let it stand.

A Quinnipiac poll released last week presented a similar finding, with a majority of registered voters in that survey also saying they would like to see the law repealed. Now think about this, when Kacish first won the election and his approval ratings were high, O'Reilly reported on him. Now that he is hated by the majority, and his approval ratings have crashed, O'Reilly does not report on him now.

And if you watch the so-called hard news show called the O'Reilly Factor, you would never know any of this important news, because O'Reilly never reports it. While telling you how great Republicans are, he ignores the fact that most of them are hated, and the majority of the people disagree with their positions.

O'Reilly Ignored New Gallup Abortion Poll
By: Steve - May 30, 2011 - 10:00am

From May 5th to May 8th Gallup ran an abortion poll, and here are the results.

Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?

Always Legal - 27%
Sometimes Legal - 50%

Always Illegal - 22%

For anyone that does not know it, O'Reilly is pro-life, and he thinks abortions should always be illegal. So he is in with the 22% minority of far-right loons that oppose all abortions.

Even though people like O'Reilly claim to believe in freedom, they still want to tell a woman what to do with her own body, which is not freedom. Not to mention, he also says we should go by the will of the people, so right there you have 77% of the people who think abortion should be always legal or sometimes legal.

Proving once again that O'Reilly only wants to go by the will of the people when it's an issue he agrees with them on. But when he disagrees with them, he says forget what the people want, and do what he wants.

O'Reilly also spent the last 2 years talking about the fact that the majority of Americans are pro-life, even though it was only a 1 to 2 point difference in 2009 and 2010.

In the new Gallup poll taken in May, it shows that there are now more pro-choice Americans than pro-life.

With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?

Pro-Choice - 49%
Pro-Life - 45%

And what a shocker, not. O'Reilly never said a word about any of this poll. Because he does not want you to know this information. O'Reilly does not want you to know that only 22% of the people are pro-life right-wing loons, because he is one of that 22 percent.

O'Reilly does not want you to know that 49% of the people are now pro-choice, while 45% are pro-life. Because then he can not argue that the majority of the people agree with him on the abortion issue.

Instead of reporting this, he ignores it to keep you in the dark. So then he can spin out his fairy tales about how the people agree with him on abortion. When the reality shows that he is in the minority, and that most Americans disagree with him.

Republicans Cut Disaster Relief Funding
By: Steve - May 30, 2011 - 9:00am

In response to the deadliest spring of climate disasters in decades, House Republicans are cutting billions from disaster programs, including support for firefighters. On Tuesday, the House cut funding for parts of FEMA and the Homeland Security budget, including cuts of $1.5 billion from President Obama's request for next year in firefighter assistance grants and state and local grants administered by FEMA.

During the markup, Reps. David Price (D-NC) attempted to restore $460 million in funding for firefighter grants and $1.1 billion in state and local grants, but their amendment was defeated 20 to 27 by the Republican majority. Price even slammed the decision to decimate funding for disaster preparedness:
One of the worst decisions was to decimate funding for almost every grant program for state and local preparedness.

Providing a total of $1 billion for all State and Local Grants, or 65 percent below the request, and providing $350 million for Firefighter Assistance Grants, almost 50 percent below an already reduced request, breaks faith with the states and localities that depend on us as partners to secure our communities.

These cuts will be doubly disruptive as many of our states and municipalities are being forced to slash their own budgets.
Asked about the cuts by CQ, Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY), said this: "We can't be subsidizing local governments to the extent we have."

How much do you want to bet that Rogers will be the first to complain when a disaster hits his district, and they do not have the funding to respond as they need to.

Republican Has Sheriff Eject Liberal-Looking People
By: Steve - May 29, 2011 - 10:00am

And what a shocker, not. You never heard a word about any of this from O'Reilly. Now imagine what Billy would say if a Democratic Governor had the Sheriff eject anyone who looked conservative from a budget signing event in the public owned town hall square.

O'Reilly would be outraged, write a TPM about it, have multiple segments discussing it all through the show, and spend a week reporting it. But when a Republican Governor does it, he is as silent as a mouse, nothing, not even a mention.

Anxious over their increasing unpopularity, Republicans lawmakers across the country are banning media from chronicling the blowback at public events. Florida's now deeply disliked Gov. Rick Scott (R) adopted a similar tactic last week at a campaign-style budget signing ceremony at a town square in The Villages retirement community in Central Florida.

Many in the community are not pleased with Scott's cuts, but those voices remained unheard, mainly because they were banned. Declaring the town square event to be private, Scott's staffers had Sumter County sheriff's deputies remove Democrats and those with "liberal-looking pins and buttons" from the event:
Members of The Villages Democratic Club were barred from the budget signing by Scott staffers who said the outdoor event in The Villages town square was private.

Staffers and Republican operatives scoured the crowd and had Sumter County sheriff's deputies remove those with anti-Scott signs or liberal-looking pins and buttons. They escorted more than a dozen people off the property.
How can a budget signing event in the town square, by a Governor elected by the people be private, that is just ridiculous, especially when the budget will cover all the people, not just Republicans. This guy should be thrown out of office for this stunt.

And btw, the Democrats pointed out one glaring irony in Scott's celebration of his so-called jobs budget. Pointing to the roughly 4,500 state-worker jobs the budget eliminates in a state with a 10.4 percent unemployment rate, state House Democratic leader Ron Saunders said this: "If he means the 'jobs budget' is killing jobs, then it's an accurate title."

Republicans Deny Medicare Caused Corwin Loss
By: Steve - May 29, 2011 - 9:00am

This is how dishonest and ridiculous the Republican party is, when Democratic Kath Hochul upset Republican Jane Corwin in last week's special election in New York's 26th Congressional District, she won because it was a referendum on the Medicare-ending Republican budget.

But now Republicans are denying that, and saying she only lost because she was a bad candidate. First, they blamed Tea Party candidate Jack Davis for splitting the conservative vote, but as Nate Silver and others noted, the math shows that Republican Jane Corwin would not have won even without Davis in the race.

With the Davis-as-spoiler talking point debunked, the new conservative argument is that Corwin was a bad candidate, so her loss speaks more about Corwin than about Medicare.

"Jane Corwin was not a good candidate," wrote Erick Erickson, editor of the influential Tea Party blog Red State. "Certainly the Democrats made Paul Ryan's medicare plan an issue, and certainly it was not hugely popular. But to say that is why Corwin was defeated is spin devoid of fact."

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) told the Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin that Corwin allowed her opponent to define her. He even dismissed the idea that the vote was a referendum on the GOP Medicare plan as "noise being created by some partisan journalists and Democrats."

Rep. Allen West (R-FL) had even harsher words for Corwin on C-SPAN's Washington Journal last week, saying she was even inferior to former Rep. Chris Lee (R-NY), who resigned in disgrace following his Craigslist sex scandal.

But these very same lawmakers who are now trashing Corwin not only supported her, but campaigned for her. Boehner made a high profile trip to the 26th District earlier this month, where he attended a fundraiser for Corwin and declared her the "only one conservative in the race." West even sang Corwin's praises in a robo-call he recorded for her.

But blaming Corwin won't change the fact that polling indicated the GOP Medicare plan was voters single most important issue in choosing a candidate to support.

The plan's author, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), even endorsed this idea, re-posting a Washington Post article on his PAC's website with the headline "N.Y. Race is a Referendum on GOP Medicare Plan."

The election confirmed what numerous polls had already shown, that Americans don't want to privatize Medicare and will take that to the voting booth.

And that's not all, a new poll shows that the American public's distaste for Ryan's proposal doesn't stop at Medicare. According to a new Kaiser Family Foundation poll, 60 percent of those polled want to keep Medicaid as is, as opposed to Ryan's detrimental block grant program.

In fact, more than half want to see no reductions in Medicaid spending at all because of a strong sense of the program's importance.

Now think about this, O'Reilly says we should go by the will of the American people, and the people want to keep Medicare and Medicaid as it is, but that did not stop O'Reilly from supporting the Ryan plan.

So O'Reilly only wants to go by the will of the American people when the majority agree with him. But when the majority disagree with him, he says to hell with the people.

More Republican Hypocrisy O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - May 29, 2011 - 8:00am

Here is another story of massive Republican hypocrisy that O'Reilly never reports on. This stuff should be reported by O'Reilly because his viewers are mostly Republicans, so they need to know this information to make an informed vote, but he fails to do it.

And the people that should really be mad are the voters in Barletta's district, they voted a fool into office, but if O'Reilly and Fox ignore it, they will never know what he is doing.

Here is what Congressman Barletta did. Three months after voting to eliminate funding for the Environmental Protection Agency, Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA) now says he is outraged that the EPA isn't doing more to protect the health of residents in his district.

Barletta is insisting that the agency pay special attention to an area in Pittson, PA, after one resident alleged that a tunnel near a Superfund site gave him cancer.

The EPA held an open house and information session to address the concerns of residents in the area, but said it did not plan to conduct further testing. This outraged Barletta, who called their decision unacceptable:
On Wednesday, Barletta sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson asking the agency to perform additional testing in the Carroll/Mill Street neighborhood.

Frankly, this is unacceptable. The EPA's own Web site indicates that one of the agency's primary reasons for existence is to ensure that all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work.

"I was surprised to hear an EPA official basically tell the residents of the Carroll/Mill neighborhood that they would not conduct soil and water testing to find answers. It is absolutely the EPA's job, and I'm going to make sure that job is done. The residents are scared, and they deserve answers and peace of mind."
Now all that would be fine, if he had not voted to cut their funding. Especially when the reason the Republicans voted to cut their funding is so they do not have enough money to do anything. In fact, some Republicans want to get rid of the EPA entirely, and just nt have an EPA.

That's because the corporate lobbyists dump truckloads of cash on them to make votes like they did, because it cost them a lot of money to follow the EPA laws. And then after they say they can not do more testing because of budget cuts, the stooge who voted to cut their funding complains, what a joke.

It's a ridiculous position for Barletta, considering how often he has tried to prevent the EPA from doing its job. In February, Barletta voted with the rest of the Republican-controlled House for an amendment that slashed funding for the EPA.

Republicans were retaliating against the agency for its efforts to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX), one of the authors of the amendment, said this: "The era of EPA overstepping its authority by imposing over-burdensome and unnecessary regulations at the expense of American businesses is over."

And btw, Barletta's vote to cut funding for the EPA was a slap in the face to the people in his own district. Because a survey by Public Policy Polling found that 70 percent of voters in Barletta's District opposed his vote to block the EPA from setting limits for carbon dioxide pollution.

Those opposed included 58 percent of independents and 53 percent of Republicans. Voters also opposed Barletta's votes to prevent the EPA from reducing arsenic, mercury and other toxic pollution from cement kilns, or from collecting any data about carbon and other pollutants.

It's massive hypocrisy to attack an agency for not doing enough, just months after attacking them for doing too much. Barletta should hope his constituents have short memories and forget his attempts to stop the EPA from upholding health standards that Republicans insisted were a burden to business.

And you would never know any of this ever happened if you watch the Factor for your news, because in O'Reillyworld, it just never happened.

The Friday 5-27-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 28, 2011 - 11:00am

The Friday Factor show was a best of the Factor, with re-runs from past shows, so there is no review. But I will say this, it was 100% right-wing propaganda, with all Republicans.

Every time O'Reilly does a re-run best of show, he never has any Democrats on it, that's because he only thinks the Republicans are the best.

It's just more proof that O'Reilly is a biased, one sided, fraud of a right-wing journalist. And it makes his claim that he is a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone, beyond laughable.

In fact, O'Reilly should be sued for fraud, for saying he is an Independent journalist with a no spin zone. Not to mention, it's a lie, how can he be trusted to report the news honestly, if he can not even tell the truth, that he is a partisan Republican with an all spin zone.

O'Reilly Complains About Fox Criticism & Obama
By: Steve - May 28, 2011 - 9:00am

Okay, get this, according to O'Reilly. If you have any criticism of Fox (by anyone in the media) you are part of an effort to get Obama re-elected. Yes he really said that, and yes he is a Harvard graduate, even though I suspect he cheated to graduate.

Frankly it's ridiculous, and O'Reilly is just saying it to try and get other people in the media to leave Fox alone. The truth is, they put out the criticism of Fox for valid reasons, because they are biased, and that is the only reason why they slam Fox.

Fox is biased, O'Reilly just will not admit it, so what he does is attack them, when they are right, and it has nothing to do with the Obama re-election. O'Reilly is trying to shut them up for voicing their opinions, which is exactly what he objects to when someone does it to him, making him a massive hypocrite.

Tea Party Congressmen Lied To You (Yes You)
By: Steve - May 28, 2011 - 8:00am

Listen up folks, every person who voted for a Tea Party member, was lied to. They promised to cut Government spending, and end the pork. They even promised to end the earmarks, and not submit any earmarks while they are still allowed.

And all that was a lie to get elected, so they could be part of the good old boys club, called Congress. They said they would not be like the other corrupt Congressman and women, and that they would actually represent the people. And all that was a lie, because they are no different than the other crooks in Congress.

On Thursday Capitol Hill Blue reported that members of the Tea Party Caucus filled the latest defense appropriations bill with millions of dollars of earmarks for projects in their home districts, and of course you never heard a word about any of this from O'Reilly.

Here are some details:
While saying they will be fiscally responsible, the Tea Party freshmen have packed a huge $553 billion spending bill with millions of pet defense projects for their home districts.

For example, Rep. Bobby Shilling put in $2.5 million for weapons and munitions advanced technology for the Quad City Manufacturing Lab at Rock Island Arsenal, which just happens to be in his district.

Even though, during his campaign against Democrat Phil Hare last year, Schilling criticized Hare for adding money to defense budgets for the same facility.

Vicky Hartzler of Missouri packed the bill with $20 million for mixed conventional load capability for Air Force bombers, for Whiteman Air Force Base in her district.

Hartlzler even backed the GOP moratorium on earmarks during her campaign. Now she says she didn't think the moratorium applied to defense spending.
And that's not all. In Mississippi, Steven Palazzo (R) used anti-pork rhetoric to beat out longtime Democrat Gene Taylor. Then Palazzo added almost $30 million to the defense bill for projects in his district.

Now think about this, pork barrel spending was a central feature of all of their campaigns. They all said they were against it, and that they would not do it.

This betrayal of Tea Party principles isn't new for the freshmen members, who seemed to have discovered the benefits of cozying up to lobbyists the second they set foot in Washington.

According to The Washington Post, GOP freshman Kristi Noem (SD) is just one of at least 13 new Republican lawmakers who hired lobbyists to run their offices. During her campaign, Noem railed against special interest groups for throwing money at the feet of a member of Congress, and made a big issue of her opponent's marriage to a lobbyist.

But in their first few weeks in office, dozens of freshman Tea Party members had fundraisers to collect millions of dollars from lobbyists and other deep-pocketed interests.

Dana Milbank noted that it was probably inevitable the Tea Party base would be betrayed, but the speed with which congressional Republicans have reverted to business-as-usual has been impressive.

Hartzler's novel justification, that the earmark moratorium doesn't apply to defense spending, is revealing. Apparently pork isn't pork if it's for big weapons systems. The unspoken reasoning is that the freshmen are confident they won't get tagged for violating their pledge if they can spin it as being tough on defense.

But I would not bet on that. Because a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 51 percent of Americans support cutting defense spending to reduce the deficit.

Call me crazy, but I would think that if I were in the Tea Party I would be mad as hell, and vote them out of office. And the great Bill O'Reilly never even reports any of this, he just ignores it all.

The Thursday 5-26-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 27, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Republicans retreating over Medicare? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Dick Morris and I had an interesting debate last night; he says the GOP should back away from Medicare reform because it is not a winning issue for them in 2012. I disagree with Morris - the GOP has to be strong in saying the national debt, driven by entitlements and wasteful spending, is putting America in grave danger.

Medicare has to change or America will go bankrupt, but many Democrats will not acknowledge that. The Republican Party must convince the folks that there's a better way to meet their medical needs.

Also, once the feds get the deficit spending and the debt under control, if they can, the U.S. economy will explode as confidence in our system comes back. That will lead to many more jobs and better income for workers, who in turn should be able to invest in their own medical future.

That's the vision Republicans have to sell if they want to regain the White House in 2012. America's debt is the most vital issue facing the people, and you can't get the debt under control until you figure out Medicare.
And all that is 100% right-wing spin from Bill O'Reilly, the so-called non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone. What you just read from O'Reilly sounds like something the RNC would put out, it's nothing but right-wing propaganda. He says Morris is wrong, when all the polls have Republicans losing if they back the Ryan medicare plan. So O'Reilly is denying reality, to spin out right-wing propaganda.

What O'Reilly fails to report is that there are other ways to get the debt under control, like raising taxes, cutting defense spending, pulling our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, dropping the tax breaks for big oil, closing corporate tax loopholes, etc, etc, etc. O'Reilly acts like his way is the only way, which is nothing but right-wing spin.

Then O'Reilly had Laura Ingraham on to talk about Ed Schultz (who was suspended for a week) for calling Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut" on his radio show. Ingraham said this: "I have to say it's sad, but I wasn't all that surprised. This is what conservative women and African American conservatives routinely deal with. I'm not good at playing the victim and anyone who wants to criticize what I have to say is fine, but those words were kind of 8th grade."

O'Reilly praised the new attitude apparently in effect at NBC News, now owned by Comcast, Billy said this: "If General Electric still owned NBC there would have been no apology because GE and Jeff Zucker encouraged this personal attack stuff, it was the only way they could get an audience. But Comcast isn't going to stand for this."

Haha, now that is 100% speculation. And I would bet that even if GE owned NBC there would have been an apology and a suspension. And btw, at least he was suspended, Fox never suspends anyone for anything they say. When they have said things far worse than slut.

Then O'Reilly had a total waste of tv time segment about something nobody cares about but him. He talked about Congressman Barney Frank admitting that he once helped his then-lover Herb Moses land a lucrative job at Fannie Mae.

Really? How the hell is this news. If we stopped everyone in America from getting jobs for their friends, boyfriends/girlfriends, husbands, wives, cousins, etc. a hell of a lot of people would not have a job. And if they are qualified for the job, then there is no problem with it.

O'Dummy had Michael Graham and Tom Finneran on to discuss it. Graham said this: "This is not news up here. Everybody has known about this, it's part of the culture of corruption in Massachusetts. Barney Frank opposed reform of Fannie Mae for two decades, and for seven of those years a person who benefitted directly from his opposition to reform was his live-in boyfriend."

Finneran pointed out that Frank's former boyfriend was well suited for the job at Fannie Mae. Finneran said this: "This is all a little bit queasy, but let's be fair. There was no question abut Moses qualifications - he not only has a degree in economics, he also has an MBA from Dartmouth, and we want to get the best people into government."

Then the Culture Warriors Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson were on to discuss a moral values poll. When asked to rate the overall state of moral values, only 23% of Americans say they are good or excellent, while 76% assess them as fair or poor.

Hoover said this: "The data show that people's feelings about moral values are directly related to their party affiliation. Right now Democrats are feeling better about the moral values of the nation, while Republicans are feeling more negative."

Carlson said this: "I would also rate our moral values as fair or poor, maybe because I'm a parent. Television and magazines sexual content has skyrocketed and that influences children to start sexual activity at a younger age."

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing body language bimbo on, which I do not report on because it's not news, it's garbage.

Then O'Reilly had the insane Glenn Beck on for his regular weekly segment. Beck, who has been making plans for life after Fox News, said this: "I am doing a clothing line for charity, and it will be called 1791, which is when the Bill of Rights was passed. The clothing will have things on it to remind you to go back and be who you are supposed to be. It's a philosophy and a way of life."

Wow, big deal, if I made $33 million a year I would do a clothing line for charity too, and far more.

Beck also talked about his other plans, he said this: "My company is doing something called Markdown. It's for people who are entrepreneurs who just want to get people to try their products."

And of course O'Reilly praised him for it, when in reality all he did was use the Factor to promote his new business, etc. Beck is a fraud, and if anyone buys anything he sells, or believes anything he says, is a fool.

In the last segment O'Reilly had Geraldo on to talk more about the trial of Casey Anthony. Geraldo said this: "Regardless of how the child died, what is being emphasized is Casey Anthony's behavior in the post-death period, and how slutty, narcissistic, and unremorseful she was. Her actions were despicable, and I am absolutely convinced that it was after the child was dead."

Now get this, Geraldo refused to pre-judge Anthony's guilt or innocence, but O'Reilly pronounced her guilty and deserving of the death penalty.

Wow, are you kidding me, now O'Dummy is the judge and the jury, he found her guilty on tv, which he said he never does, then he did it. What a joke, O'Reilly is a fricking joke, not only did he just find her guilty on tv, after he has said nobody should ever do that, he called for her to be put to death, when he claims to oppose the death penalty. How he sleeps at night is beyond me, it's ridiculous.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame pinheads and patriots vote. And btw, O'Reilly said the guy who bought Kim Kardashian a $2 million dollar ring is a pinhead, and that he should have just got her a $1 million dollar ring. Who the hell made him God, and how is that being a pinhead, O'Reilly should shut the hell up and mind his own business.

Wisconsin Judge Strikes Down Anti-Union Law
By: Steve - May 27, 2011 - 9:00am

Earlier this year, Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) and the Wisconsin GOP set off a nationwide Main Street Movement by pushing legislation that would strip the state's public workers of many of their collective bargaining rights. Walker signed the legislation into law in March.

A law that O'Reilly and all his Republican friends supported, btw. And of course the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly, never said a word about it on the Thursday night Factor show, because he was too busy spinning the Republican medicare bill defeat.

Thursday, Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi has struck down Walker's anti-union law, saying its passage violated the state's open meetings law and the public's trust:
Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi ruled that Republican legislators violated Wisconsin's open meetings law by calling the meeting without a 24-hour notice. She said that renders the law void. She had put the law on hold while she considered the case.

Sumi said violating the open-meetings law betrays the public's trust.

"The court must consider the potential damage to public trust and confidence in government if the Legislature is not held to the same rules of transparency that it has created for other governmental bodies," she wrote in a 33-page decision.

"Our form of government depends on citizens trust and confidence in the process by which our elected officials make laws, at all levels of government."
The state Supreme Court has scheduled arguments for June 6th to determine whether it will take on the same suit against the law. Lawmakers could also pass the law again in order to nullify open meeting concerns that led to the judge's ruling thursday.

And btw folks, while the open meeting law has been a big issue, Wisconsin Republicans have thus far refused to re-pass the legislation, leading some to speculate that they do not have the votes to pass it again.

Ryan Budget Dies In Senate With 5 Republican Votes
By: Steve - May 27, 2011 - 8:00am

On Wednesday, the Senate killed the House Republican budget, authored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), that would effectively end Medicare as we know it.

The bill passed the House in April with only 4 Republicans out of 242 voting against it, but in the intervening weeks, the plan proved to be extremely unpopular, as demonstrated by numerous confrontations at constituent town halls, devastating polling, and most recently, by the an upset in a special election that hinged largely on the Medicare plan.

When the bill finally came up for a vote in the Senate, five Republicans out of 42 voted against the plan, making the final vote 40-57.

As the plan proves more and more like a bad idea, Republican House members may regret their votes. But perhaps they should have considered that before voting on a radical plan to privatize and effectively dismantle one of the cornerstones of the American social safety net, medicare.

The Republican Senators who voted no were: Scott Brown (R-MA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Rand Paul (R-KY).

The Wednesday 5-25-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 26, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Why America is in trouble... and what you need to know. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Earlier this week I was speaking with Henry Kissinger, who has a new book out on China. The former Secretary of State and I agree that China believes the U.S. may collapse economically, so the Chinese government is very apprehensive because it holds so much of America's debt.

This week in Europe, President Obama will get quite an earful from foreign leaders who also believe the U.S. is in dire trouble because of its massive debt. But many Americans are not getting that and the Democratic Party simply will not tell the truth that you can not sustain entitlements like Medicare and Social Security in their present form.

We can't add to the $14-trillion debt; the Democratic Party and President Obama have to stop deficit spending, they have to cut back on entitlements and everything else. Medicare and Social Security have to be reformed or America will suffer as it has never suffered before.
What a load of bull, remember this folks, when Bush was in office O'Reilly and the Republicans said the debt does not matter. And now that is all they talk about, that alone proves they are biased hacks who are lying to you. The American economy will never collapse, and that is a fact. O'Reilly is trying to scare you into supporting his right-wing positions on the debt, which is just pathetic, and very biased.

Then O'Reilly had the Former federal prosecutor Annemarie McAvoy on to talk about John Edwards, who will reportedly be indicted for funneling campaign funds to his mistress Rielle Hunter. McAvoy said this: "This will be a case of following the money. They have to show that he used campaign funds for a purpose he shouldn't have. They'll trace the money that was given and what it was used for, and I would think they have a strong case."

But defense attorney Mark Eiglarsh said the case is far from a slam dunk. "I've heard many a federal prosecutor say they have a strong case when they don't. In this case you have to follow the Bunny, not the money. Rachel 'Bunny' Mellon says she gave money to John Edwards as a gift, not as a donation. That's the first problem the prosecutors have."

O'Reilly speculated that "the federal government must have something" or it would not move forward with the case. O'Reilly even admitted it was speculation. Hey Billy, what happened to that no speculation rule you claim to have. And btw, notice that O'Reilly cut his TPM short, because he was in such a hurry to get to the segment on the Democratic John Edwards. And yet, when the Republican John Ensign was caught doing almost the same thing, O'Reilly did not even report it.

Then Dick Morris was on to spin his latest poll of Republican voters, with no Democratic guest on for balance. Morris said this: "Mitt Romney has gone from first among equals, to a decided front-runner. With Trump and Huckabee gone, and if Sarah Palin also doesn't run, Romney is up there at 30%.

The second headline is that Gingrich was not hurt by his Medicare comments, he's at the same percentage he was before, and there are four people coming up strong - Cain, Bachmann, Pawlenty and Santorum. Herman Cain, who everybody wrote off as absolutely nothing, really is in this race."

What a joke, Gingrich was hurt big, and he is done. Cain is a fool with no chance, none. Bachmann is a far right laughing stock with no chance. Pawlenty has a chance to win it, and Santorum is a man on dog idiot with no chance.

Morris also advised Republicans to avoid proposing Medicare cuts. Morris said this: "Paul Ryan has been snookered by Obama into saying Medicare is the problem, when in fact Medicaid, which doubles every five years, and food stamps are the problem."

Morris actually got something right for once, the Republicans have to avoid proposing medicare cuts, because it is about senior citizens, and they all vote.

Then Lou Dobbs was on to discuss an oil trading lawsuit. The government is suing two oil traders, claiming they illegally manipulated prices. Dobbs said this: "These guys are accused of buying 4.6 million barrels of surplus crude oil, over a period of two months in 2008. They then sold it in one day a month later, flooding the market and driving prices down. They bet on declining prices and made $50-million. The government has sued them in civil court and the Justice Department may also bring criminal charges."

Then O'Reilly had his producer Jesse Watters on to do another smear segment on San Francisco, which I will not report on because this is not journalism. It's a biased, petty, partisan, smear job by two Republican stooges, that was only done to make San Francisco look bad because Pelosi is there and a lot of liberals run the state. Basically the two of them just trashed all the liberals in San Fran, and called them cowards, etc.

Then Dennis Miller was on for his regular weekly waste of tv time segment called Miller Time. Which I never report on, because he is a comedian who is only on to make jokes about liberals, with no comedian on for balance to make jokes about conservatives. Plus, it's not news, it's just Miller doing unfunny jokes about liberals.

And finally in the last segment Geraldo was on to talk about the Casey Anthony trial. She is on trial for murdering her 2-year-old daughter Caylee, and is now claiming she was sexually abused as a child.

Geraldo said this: "Her life is at stake, because this is a capital murder case, and there have been three years of prosecution leaks about her narcissistic, irresponsible, selfish behavior. So her defense attorney is saying there is a lot of bizarreness to her father's behavior and this is a deeply dysfunctional family. What matters is whether there is sufficient doubt that the jury will not vote to find her guilty of capital murder."

Geraldo then turned to Tucson, where Jared Loughner has been declared incompetent to stand trial. Geraldo said this: "He is in a secure mental health facility, and every four months they will determine whether he has had his competency restored. They can hold him under civil confinement forever."

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

O'Reilly & Rove Spin For Republican Candidates
By: Steve - May 26, 2011 - 10:00am

On the Tuesday night Factor O'Reilly and Rove talked about the list of GOP hopefuls who want to beat Obama in 2012. They did their usual right-wing spin job, saying a Republican has a good chance to beat Obama.

And of course no Democratic guest was on to counter their right-wing spin, or to point out what all the polls are saying, that Obama is beating every Republican they could possibly run against him, or the fact that even a Fox News poll says Obama should be re-elected.

Rove insisted that the Republican candidate can win if he or she "has the chutzpah to lay out a positive alternative and make health care a big part of this campaign."

Really? then how would he explain this:

A Fox News Poll conducted by Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). May 15-17, 2011.

Does Obama deserve to be reelected - Yes 50% -- No 43%.

Do you think Obama will be reelected - Yes 57% -- No 36%.

And that's a biased Fox News poll, it's most likely higher than that for Obama in other more objective polls. Funny how Rove and O'Reilly failed to even mention the poll their very own network ran.

Now what do we have here, a poll asking who you would vote for, Obama or a Republican, and what a shocker, Obama beats them all, by 12 points or more.

Reuters/Ipsos Poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. May 5-9, 2011.

Obama 51% - Romney 38%
Obama 51% - Pawlenty 33%
Obama 51% - Huckabee 39%
Obama 54% - Palin 35%
Obama 51% - Daniels 33%
Obama 53% - Gingrich 35%
Obama 54% - Bachmann 33%
Obama 57% - Trump 30%

Notice that not one Republican even breaks 40%, while Obama is over 51% against all of them, the closest is Huckabee at 39%, and he is not even running now. It shows that as of today, no Republican can win. But that did not stop Rove and O'Reilly from saying they could, with no Democratic guest to counter their spin with poll numbers or facts.

Call me crazy, but should these two so-called journalists, not have at least mentioned these polls. Especially when one of them was done by their own news network.

Hochul Beats Republican In NY 26th District
By: Steve - May 26, 2011 - 9:00am

Wednesday night, Democrat Kathy Hochul defeated Republican state Assemblywoman Jane Corwin in New York's special election to replace former Rep. Chris Lee (R-NY).

Despite the $2.36 million spent by groups like Karl Rove's American Crossroads and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to keep the district red and the $60 per vote Corwin spent herself, Hochul secured a clear victory in a traditionally Republican district:
Kathy Hochul has won the special election in the 26th Congressional race, holding a six percent lead with 87% of precincts reporting.

Republican Jane Corwin has conceded.
Viewed as a referendum on House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's plan to end Medicare, Hochul's victory exemplifies the American public's overwhelming disgust with the GOP push to force seniors to bear the burden of increasing health costs.

Expecting a loss, several Republicans - including Corwin herself - tried to assert the election had nothing to do with Ryan's Medicare plan.

But DCCC chairman Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) outlined the three reasons that Corwin lost the election: "In alphabetical order, Medicare, Medicare and Medicare."

Corwin clearly lost as a result of the American public's disillusionment with the GOP agenda. And now, Hochul becomes only the fourth Democrat to represent the mostly Republican district since 1857.

Hume Explains Why He Ignores Media Matters
By: Steve - May 25, 2011 - 11:00am

He claims to ignore them because they are hopelessly slanted and tendentious.

So the people should ignore them because they have a bias, which is the same as what Fox does, so we should ignore Fox then too, right Brit?

This is ridiculous right-wing spin from Hume and O'Reilly, because the only thing Media Matters does is quote O'Reilly, Hume, etc. They quote them word for word, they also post the video of them saying it, and sometimes the audio, if it was said on a radio show.

How is that dishonest, they simply quote what O'Reilly and the spin doctors at Fox say. It's called real journalism, and the reason O'Reilly and Hume do not like it is because it proves their bias, and they then try to smear Media Matters, for simply quoting them.

It's the old right-wing trick, attack the attacker, and try to discredit them. Except when they quote you word for word, and post the video, that trick does not work. So Hume is a fool, and so is O'Reilly, they refuse to admit they are biased right-wing hacks, and they attack anyone who simply points that fact out.

The Tuesday 5-24-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 25, 2011 - 10:00am

The TPM was called Can the GOP defeat Obama in 2012? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: According to Karl Rove, there are just 14 states that could go either way in next year's election. The most important contested states are Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and North Carolina.

If the Republicans were to win those states it would be very tough for Mr. Obama to be re-elected, and with the economy the way it is the GOP has a decent chance to take not only those states, but a number of others that are in play. Talking Points believes the economy will drive most of the vote, but it is not the most important issue facing the country.

The massive federal debt is! That situation must be brought under control quickly, so the Democratic Party has to change its approach to spending if it wants to be competitive. Independent minded Americans understand that the feds will not be able to tax their way out of a $14-trillion debt; huge spending cuts must occur.

If President Obama and his party do not accept that, the Republicans will be in very good shape, despite the chaos on the GOP side right now. Next year's election will really be about President Obama, and the vote will be a referendum on him.
What if Rove is wrong about the 14 ststes, he has been wrong before, like when he said McCain would beat Obama, so that has to be remembered. And the economy is improving all the time, which means Obama will most likely be re-elected. Not to mention, it's funny how neither Rove or O'Reilly reported that Obama is beating every Republican in a presidential match up poll.

They ignored that because they want you to think a Republican can beat him, and I am saying they can not beat him, unless he has a major scandal before the election. I was right all along about Trump not running, and I am also right about this. Why do you think all these Republicans are saying they will not run, because they know if they do they will lose to Obama.

Then Karl Rove was on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest for balance of course. Rove said this: "You made one mistake of omission. You're right that Republicans want to make this a referendum on Obama, but the President is also going to want to make this a referendum on the Republican candidate. We are on the cusp of what will be the most negative re-election effort ever mounted. He won't want to defend his record, so he's going to spend most of his time trashing the Republican candidate."

Really? How does Rove know that, is that not just pure speculation, the speculation O'Reilly says he does not allow. Rove is just a speculating fool, and O'Reilly sat there and let him get away with it.

O'Reilly predicted that the Obama campaign will use Medicare as a bludgeon, Billy said this: "President Obama will make Medicare the centerpiece of his campaign, and he'll say if you don't keep me in office you're not going to get your health care."

Which is also pure speculation, right from Mr. no speculation on my show. Then Rove said the Republican can win, even though all the Republicans are losing in polls against Obama. In fact, Obama even beats an un-named Republican, that's how bad they are doing. Remember that these are the same guys that predicted McCain would beat Obama, both of them did. They say what they want to happen, not what will most likely actually happen.

A recent poll said this: In a hypothetical match-up between Ron Paul and Obama, Obama beats Paul by seven points (52 to 45 percent). Meanwhile, Obama bests former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney by 11 points, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich by 17 points, former Alaska Governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin by 19 points. Funny how Newt and Billy failed to mention that. And that was taken before Obama got Bin Laden, so it's probably worse for the Republicans now.

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to discuss Mitt Romney. Colms said this: "Health care costs are up for businesses, but there's no evidence that is tied to the health care law. We don't know whether costs would have gone up even more had there not been 'Romney-care.' This has mostly been a success."

And of course the right-wing Crowley trashed it: "Even though you do have far more people covered, four out of five of the newly insured are heavily subsidized by the state. Massachusetts is going bankrupt, sagging under the huge weight of these new health care costs. There are also three-month waiting times to see a doctor, rationing of care, and doctor flight. This has been a complete economic and medical disaster."

Which is ridiculous, and every state is in debt, because of the problems Bush caused, and the recession we had.

Then O'Reilly had the meteorologist Bernie Rayno on to talk tornadoes, which I will not report on because this stuff belongs on the weather channel.

And then John Stossel was on to talk about the smoking ban in NY City. Stossel said this: "You can justify this more in parks and public places, than in a restaurant or a bar. If there were no laws, some restaurants would have no smoking because lots of us don't smoke. We should have freedom of association on private property."

Stossel also said this: "This is tyranny of the majority, and we've gone from the 'nanny state' to the 'bully state.' A lot of people who run for office want to lord over people."

But O'Reilly disagreed, he said that anti-smoking laws have enhanced our overall quality of life, Billy said this: "Have you ever been to Paris? You can't even eat your croissant without getting a blast of smoke. You have to bring a tent to eat in a restaurant there."

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to discuss the Supreme Court ruling that ordered California to release thousands of criminals, saying the state's prisons are dangerously overcrowded. It was also about the conditions they were being made to live in, not just overcrowding. Wiehl said this: "The court says California had eight years to fix this, and didn't do anything about it. Don't have one bathroom for 54 inmates, don't have 200 guys in one gymnasium. The state has been keeping guys in horrible conditions."

But Guilfoyle denounced the 5-4 decision. Guilfoyle said this: "You're gambling with the safety of the people. This is a very irresponsible decision that will come back to bite us. Since when do prisoner rights trump the rights of the people?"

O'Reilly also said he was worried that releasing inmates will lead to mayhem, Billy said this: "The crime rate in America is at its lowest level in 40 years, and it's because they're putting people in jail. If you let people out, you're going to have a crime wave."

In the last segment O'Reilly had the far right Charles Krauthammer on to discuss the media and President Obama. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance, to counter their right-wing spin. O'Reilly asked Krauthammer how much the media will help the President's re-election efforts. Krauthammer said this: "It's a major advantage, but you have to remember that Democrats have had the press on their side for 40 years, but Republicans have won the presidency 7 out of the last 11 elections."

O'Reilly even complained that media outlets are more biased than ever, Billy said this: "I've never seen the media as rabidly invested in a president. The national TV media and the big urban newspapers will all be trying to get President Obama re-elected."

Which is just laughable, and it's funny how O'Reilly and Krauthammer ignore the fact that the Republicans have an entire news network devoted to helping Republicans win elections. As they talk about bias, the entire network they work for is the most biased news network in America. It's a massive pot calling the kettle black hypocrisy.

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

O'Reilly Joins Partisan Attack On Nancy Pelosi
By: Steve - May 25, 2011 - 9:00am

If you wanted more proof that O'Reilly is a biased, partisan, dishonest, right-wing hack of a pretend journalist, here it is.

On the Monday Factor show O'Reilly devoted an entire segment to smearing Nancy Pelosi, he claims she had something to do with 38 businesses in her district getting the Obama health reform waivers.

Folks, this is ridiculous, because it has already been proven that Pelosi had nothing to do with the waivers. The CEO of the company that asked for the waivers (who is a Republican btw) put out a statement saying they did not even talk to Pelosi, or have any contact with her or anyone in her office.

Pelosi also put out a statement saying she did not have anything to do with it. So this is a non-story, it was just made up by Fox and a few right-wing idiots to smear Pelosi.

And of course O'Reilly jumped on the bandwagon, just like a good little dishonest Republican. This is a biased and partisan smear job, it is a non-story, and only far right hacks are pushing it.

Not to mention, of the 5.9 million businesses with less than 500 employees, less than 2,000 even applied for and received waivers.

I could go on and on with proof O'Reilly is lying, but if you want more, just go to and read what they say about the health care waivers. They debunk everything O'Reilly and Fox are saying about it.

The Monday 5-23-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 24, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Fox News and reelecting President Obama. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As you may know, the far left despises Fox News, primarily because we are more skeptical of liberal America than most of the other national media. Billionaire George Soros is funding the vicious far left website Media Matters and that website is now threatening advertisers who appear on FNC.

For example, the Orbitz travel agency was threatened, but they're patriots over there. Orbitz issued a statement describing Media Matters as 'a political organization that has been funded pretty extensively to go after one network.' Why is the far left increasing its attacks on Fox News? The answer is very simple: The presidential election of 2012.

Last time around FNC provided honest coverage of both candidates, but that doesn't play well in far left precincts. If you do not openly support President Obama, you are the enemy. According to a new poll conducted by Suffolk University in Boston, Fox News is by far the most trusted national TV news source in America.

28% say they trust Fox News the most; CNN is in second place with 18%; by contrast, far left MSNBC is most trusted by just 7% of the American public. According to the same poll, I, your humble correspondent, am the most trusted political guy in the country by far.

Summing up, Fox News is under attack once again, the Orbitz travel agency deserves a tremendous amount of credit, and the American public has the media's number, no question.
Wow, what a load of right-wing garbage. To begin with, the far left hates Fox because they are a biased right-wing news network, that does everything they can to smear Democrats, while at the same time doing everything they can to help Republicans look better.

Then O'Reilly says Last time around Fox provided honest coverage of both candidates, which is just laughable. I have a web page that documents the bias O'Reilly had against Obama, O'Reilly had about 150 pro-McCain segments, to maybe 10 pro-Obama segments, it was ridiculous, and if Billy thinks that was honest coverage he needs medication.

He talks about the Suffolk poll that has Fox the most trusted, but ignored the PPP poll from January that said the opposite. Not to mention, if 28% of the people trust your network, it means 72% do not. And if you get 9% of the vote for most trusted anchor, that means 91% of the people do not trust you. And Media Matters does lean left, but they report the facts, with transcripts, video, and audio, which O'Reilly does not dispute, making them a real media watchdog.

Then Brit Hume was on to discuss it, with nobody from Media Matters on to defened their actions, or anyone to give their side of the story. So as usual it was a biased one sided report from O'Reilly and Hume, who both hate Media Matters, because they report the truth about their right-wing bias and lies.

Hume said this: "Media Matters is a political organization, it is not really a journalistic watchdog organization. It has become that its only purpose in life is to attack Fox News. Media Matters has been at this for years and it really hasn't gone anywhere - their stuff is hopelessly slanted and tendentious and I stopped paying attention to Media Matters years ago. And none of this would be happening if we were not successful."

Wrong Brit, none of it would be happening if you were not biased. Media Matters is a real journalistic watchdog organization, you just can not admit it because then you would have to admit they are right about Fox, O'Reilly, and you. And I call on Brit Hume to detail one thing they have reported that is not true, where are the examples. Their reporting has nothing to do with Fox being successful, it's about reporting their bias.

Then O'Reilly did another bogus smear Pelosi segment. Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to discuss it. Williams said this: "This is a total hit job on Nancy Pelosi. If you have more than 20 employees, you have to offer a health care plan and it's very expensive. These waivers are just creating a bridge between now and 2014 when everybody gets coverage."

Wow, for once Juan Williams is right, and he actually sounded like a real journalist, which will probably never happen again though.

Ham (the total right-wing stooge) said this: "Let's not forget what a waiver is - it's an admission that this health care bill did not work, that they didn't plan it well. Now the big and powerful are coming and getting these waivers, and it's highly suspicious that 20% of the waivers would go to one district in San Francisco."

Then O'Reilly talked about Princeton University professor Cornel West, who recently denounced Barack Obama as a "black mascot" of Wall Street. Professor Marc Lamont Hill was on to discuss it. Hill said this: "He has a legitimate and principled critique of Barack Obama. There are many of us on the left who wish he were as left wing and radical as you guys say he is. And another part of this is that a significant part of black leadership is upset because Barack Obama sidestepped the traditional pathway to power, he didn't kiss the ring of the major power players."

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing Howie Carr on to talk Republican Presidential politics. Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is in, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels is out, and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney remains the GOP frontrunner.

Carr said this: "I think Romney did as good a job as possible. He was a Republican governor while Democrats controlled the legislature eight-to-one, so anything he tried to stop with a veto was overridden. He became frustrated, which is why he didn't run for re-election in 2006."

Carr also said Romney is an honest man who made a massive blunder when he enacted major health care reform in Massachusetts. Carr said this: "He's standing behind the law and saying we needed an individual mandate, but most Massachusetts residents think this was a big mistake."

Then the far right spin doctor Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about the new poll that shows Fox News is the nation's most trusted TV news organization. Goldberg said this: "Almost ten years ago my book came out, and I was immediately put in the crosshairs by liberal journalists who said there is no liberal bias. But the debate wasn't between me and the mainstream networks, it was between the mainstream networks and their own audiences. The same thing is happening with this poll - despite a constant barrage of criticism against Fox, the network still comes out ahead as the most trusted source for political news."

Which is just laughable, because other polls have Fox the least trusted News Netowrk, but they ignore those polls, and only report on the polls that they like. It's poll cherry picking, which they do all the time.

And in the last segment O'Reilly had his ridiculous Factor Reality Check, that has no reality, and almost no checks. It's just O'Reilly, by himself, giving his opinion on what someone said, how the hell is that a reality check, when it's done by a right-wing hack of a pretend journalist, with nobody to counter his spin.

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

What O'Reilly Did Not Report On The Suffolk Poll
By: Steve - May 24, 2011 - 10:00am

While it is true that Fox was voted the most trusted news source in the Suffolk University poll, he did not report a lot of what was in the poll, and here is what he left out.

-- Only 28 percent say that they trust Fox News the most, which means 72% do not trust Fox.

-- O'Reilly was voted the most trusted man in the news, by a whopping 9% of the people who took the poll. Yes I said 9%, funny how O'Reilly never mentioned that. So that means 91% of the people do not trust him.

Now you have all the facts, not the cherry picked facts O'Reilly limited you to seeing. What it shows is that nobody in the media is trusted very much, and yet, O'Reilly put a spin on the poll to make it look like almost everyone trusts him.

That is dishonest to represent the poll the way he did, by not reporting the information I just showed you, he is proving once again that he is a biased and dishonest fraud of a journalist.

And btw, back in January PPP ran a poll that said Fox was the least trusted news network, but O'Reilly never reported that poll. I guess he just forgot, yeah that's it. Most likely he forgot to report it because it showed that Fox is the least trusted news network in all of cable news.

O'Reilly rails on and on about how Fox gets such high ratings because you can trust them to tell the truth. Except that is a total lie, what the PPP poll shows is that Fox is the least trusted cable news network, with everyone but Republicans.

What it also shows is that Fox gets high ratings only because a lot of Republicans watch their shows, plain and simple.

Now here are some findings from the second annual Public Policy Polling tv news trust poll.

A year ago a plurality of Americans said they trusted Fox News. Now a plurality of them don't. Conservatives haven't moved all that much - 75% said they trusted it last year and 72% still do this time around.

But moderates and liberals have both had a strong increase in their level of distrust for the Fox network - a 12 point gain from 48% to 60% for moderates and a 16 point gain from 66% to 82% for liberals.

Voters between left and center tend to be more trusting of the media across the board, which is why a fair number of them were still rating Fox favorably even a year ago at this time. But it looks like with a lot of those folks it has finally crossed the line to being too political to trust.

Fox was dead last in trust for cable news networks, it went from 49% trust and 39% distrust last year, to 42% trust and 46% distrust this year. Which is a 16 point increase in distrust in one short year.

What this shows is that O'Reilly is a dishonest so-called journalist, because he only reports polls that are good news for him and Fox, when a poll comes out with bad news, he ignores it, and pretends it never happened. Then he spins the Suffolk poll that has good news, by not reporting that only 28% of the people trust Fox, and that only 9% of the people trust him.

That is some big time spin, because it's ridiculous to brag about being trusted when the vast majority of the people do not trust you. The poll shows that 72% of the people do not trust Fox, and 91% of the people do not trust O'Reilly. So of course O'Reilly ignores that and turns it into the spin that the people trust him and Fox, which is just laughable.

More Republican Corruption O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - May 24, 2011 - 9:00am

Get this folks, O'Reilly claims to be looking out for you, that he is a real so-called hard news journalist, who leaves no stone unturned to report to the people about Government corruption.

Now there is one big problem with that claim, it's a lie, and totally ridiculous. Because O'Reilly ignores all the corruption and scandals by Republicans, while reporting every time a Democratic politician jaywalks.

This is a big story, and O'Reilly has ignored it, I guess he is too busy reporting on horses called "The Factor" and having waste of tv time body language segments.

And now, here is the story: Three weeks ago, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal (R) signed into law a major tax break for Delta Airlines - the world's largest commercial airline - that would enable it to purchase jet fuel at a lower rate. The tax break blew a $30 million hole in the state's budget, and was given to the company at a time when its profits are topping $1 billion:
The bill, signed into law on Wednesday will save the Georgia-based airline up to $30 million on jet fuel taxes over two years.

When the tax break on jet fuel originated several years ago, the company was facing bankruptcy but it reported more than $1 billion in profits last year and doesn't need the help now.
Many wondered why Deal and his GOP allies in the state legislature were so eager to reduce the flow of revenue to the state's coffers at a time when budget cuts are forcing thousands of elderly Georgians to go without home-delivered meals and cutting deeply into the education system.

Now, a new investigation by Atlanta's WSB-TV finds the answer why the state's top GOP lawmakers gave Delta such a treasured tax break.

The station found that Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle (R) and five Republican leaders in the legislature were given free "upgrades to platinum or gold frequent flyer status," which include access to special security lines, far more frequent flyer miles, and free upgrades to first class in some circumstances.

While the company did register the upgrades as campaign contributions, the station argues that the company undervalued them. Delta said the upgrades were worth $1,600-$2,400, but consumer reporter Clark Howard said the actual value of the upgrades was to $10,000-$15,000 a year, and that they should be registered as gifts from lobbyists, not simple contributions.

Commenting on the case, Dustin Baker writes, "There are much more cost-efficient ways to get bumped up to first class. Then again, since you're paying for it with Georgia tax dollars, I guess it is pretty much free for you."

O'Reilly Wrong About Obama's Israel Statement
By: Steve - May 23, 2011 - 10:00am

O'Reilly and most of the right-wing stooges at Fox, including Steve Doocy, are wrong about what Obama said about Israel.

O'Reilly said this on Friday night, 5-20-11:
Jewish people over the centuries have been chased out of countries and exterminated and now you have a President of the United States saying things no other President has said. I don't see a solution to this, ever.
And on Friday morning Steve Doocy falsely claimed that, in his address on the Middle East, President Obama became the "first American president" to suggest that the borders of Israel and Palestine should be "based on what things were like back in 1967."
DOOCY: Now, here's why a lot of critics of the president say you've got to be kidding us. That essentially, what he's saying is for Israel and Palestine to determine their borders based on what things were like back in 1967, that's what the Palestinians have been asking for all along. He is the first American president to do just that, to suggest that.
In fact, Obama's comments are in line with those of President George W. Bush, who also supported a two-state plan based on pre-1967 borders.

Bush Publically stated in 2005 that changes to the 1967 Border "must be mutually agreed to"

So as usual, when a Repulican says it, O'Reilly and Fox have no problem with that, but when a Democratic President says the same thing, they have a problem. It's bias, and total hypocrisy. And it's also a lie to say no other President has ever said he wants to go back to the pre-1967 Borders.

Reality Check: Fox News Lies About HC Waivers
By: Steve - May 23, 2011 - 9:00am

Fox News is claiming that 38 health-care reform "waivers" granted to businesses in Northern California are evidence of Rep. Nancy Pelosi and President Obama's "corruption."

But the business owner who actually requested the waivers said that they were in no way connected to Pelosi and were part of an annual request for businesses throughout the country, not just in Pelosi's congressional district.

On his 5-17-11 Fox News show, Sean Hannity said this: "Why does the word corrupt come to my mind when I hear that there's any waivers for any person anywhere? Thirty eight of those 204, came from, Nancy Pelosi's district. What does that tell you about, first of all, all the companies wanting waivers, some companies granted waivers, a lot of unions have been granted waivers, and then Nancy Pelosi's district is one of the biggest beneficiaries of waivers for health care."

Bolling: Waivers Are "Blatant Cronyism."

Hemmer: Waivers Are A "Potential Scandal."

Jarrett: Pelosi's "People Get A Big Old Pass."

O'Reilly: "This Sounds To Me, Stossel, Like A Scam." Bill O'Reilly discussed the waivers with John Stossel and said that "this sounds to me, Stossel like a scam."

Palin: "Seriously, This Is Corrupt."

Previewing a segment on the health care waivers on Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson asked: "Political corruption or just simply coincidence?"

And now the facts, something Fox never bothered to report. The Waiver Applicant said that Pelosi had nothing to do with granting the Waivers.

The business owner (Hilarie Aitken) who requested the waivers said this: "The Waivers have nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi at all."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) played no role in the process by which health care waivers were granted to a number of businesses in her district, according to the company that actually requested the waivers on behalf of its clients.

Flex-Plan Services, a third-party benefits administrator based in Bellevue, Wash., made the formal applications for waivers from President Barack Obama's health care law, said it founder, Hilarie Aitken.

"I don't tend to vote Democratic, but I feel bad for Nancy Pelosi. She's really being thrown under the bus here. It has nothing to do with her at all. This was just a political power play. The way that they are shaping this -- that Nancy Pelosi is behind all these waivers being granted, and how could she do this -- it's all slanted and wrong."
From a 5-17-11 blog post in The Hill:
Republican leaders on and off Capitol Hill slammed the Obama administration for granting a growing number of healthcare reform waivers to constituents of the top House Democrat, suggesting they received special treatment.

But Hilarie Aitken, co-owner of Flex-Plan Services, Inc., which filed the waiver applications on behalf of dozens of businesses, said that's simply not the case.

"It had nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi," Aitken told The Hill, "and it's really unfortunate that this has turned into such a political story.

"I usually vote Republican," Aitken added, "and I'm a little bit ashamed at where the Republicans have taken this."
Notice that O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends at Fox are also helping the Republicans put this lie out, making them corrupt too.

And btw, the company that submitted the waiver requests did so for all its clients, not just those in Pelosi's district.

The recent waiver applications from businesses in Pelosi's district were not even received by the her office. They were submitted directly to the Obama administration through a third-party company. On March 23, Flex Plan Services submitted applications for annual limit waivers for their clients health plan, including 69 businesses in California, 20 in Washington state, 2 in Georgia, and 1 in Alaska.

On April 4, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services approved the waiver request for all of Flex Plan Services' clients--not just the ones in Pelosi's district.

Flex Plan Services never contacted Pelosi's office about their waiver request, and her office did not provide any information to the company about the waivers, or help facilitate the request.

The reason the waivers were clumped together was because Flex Plan Services--which is in charge of administrating all of these businesses health care benefits--had issued a waiver request for the entire group of businesses.


As of Dec. 3, the federal government had approved a total of 222 one-year waivers that allow the insurance plans at companies like McDonald's, Jack in the Box and Ruby Tuesday, and unions, to ignore the requirement on annual limits. Far from being "Obama's buddies, the restaurant industry, through the National Restaurant Association, opposed the legislation.

From Mother Jones:

Altogether, the Obama administration has granted 1372 waivers and has denied about 100 requests. The mini-med waivers are essentially a stop-gap measure designed to keep employers from dropping health care benefits all together.

The White House explains that waivers are granted if conforming to the rules "would disrupt access to existing insurance arrangements or adversely affect premiums, causing people to lose coverage," acknowledging that the low-benefits plans are sometimes the only option that some employers can offer.

The Democrats rationale is that the other changes under federal health reform will eventually allow employers to receive better, more affordable coverage under the health insurance exchange, when it begins operating in 2014.

And now you know the truth, Pelosi had nothing to do with it, and they are not Obama's buddies. So the whole smear job by O'Reilly and Fox is a lie, and nothing but flat out corruption, from O'Reilly and all of Fox News.

O'Reilly Ignoring Republican Unpopularity
By: Steve - May 22, 2011 - 10:00am

Every night O'Reilly puts out his right-wing spin that the people in America hate the Democrats and every policy they have, while also saying the people love the Republicans and every policy they have.

O'Reilly claims we should all vote Republican and everything will be great. But what he does not tell you is that most of the new Republican Governors are wildly unpopular, and their approval ratings are dropping by the day.

O'Reilly ignores all this, because it destroys his right-wing propaganda that the people love all the Republicans who were voted in the last election. Here are a few examples.

In pivotal swing-states where voters narrowly elected Republican governors in 2010, like Florida and Ohio (with 47 electoral votes between them) evidence of buyer's remorse is piling up fast.

The latest sign: on Tuesday, Alvin Brown became the first Democratic elected mayor of Jacksonville, Florida's largest city, in 20 years.

Just seven months ago, Republicans swept the Sunshine State with Tea Party-backed candidate Rick Scott winning the governor's office with a 1.2 percent margin of victory.

But instead of consolidating support by reaching out and winning over the reasonable edge of the opposition, as popular past Republican governors like Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist have done, Scott continued with his campaign posture of refusing to talk to the press.

He canceled a $2 billion federal high-speed rail project and is seeking to delay (and deny) implementation of an anti-gerrymandering reform ballot referendum overwhelmingly passed in 2010.

Now Rick Scott finds himself the least popular newly elected governor in Florida history. It's not just a matter of the honeymoon being over, it looks like a drunken Vegas marriage heading for a shotgun divorce.

Fifty-five percent of Florida voters disapprove of Scott's job, while only 32 percent approve, according to a recent PPP poll.

The Suffolk University poll found that 41 percent of respondents said Scott's first months in office had been "negative and damaging" while only 26 percent described it as "positive and productive."

The analysis by Suffolk Political Director David Paleologos: "It's taken Gov. Scott less than 100 days to begin a free fall in popularity and to generate negative perceptions about job performance and damaging the state he was elected to lead. There has been a backlash in public opinion on both sides of the aisle in response to his aggressive and uncompromising leadership style."

Reflecting on the upset in the Jacksonville mayor's race, St. Petersburg Political Editor Adam Smith said this: "Jacksonville is a Republican stronghold, but even with that relatively conservative electorate polls show Barack Obama more popular than Rick Scott. One of the best days for Democrat Alvin Brown came when Rick Scott came to Jacksonville to campaign for the Republican mayoral nominee at a Tea Party rally."

In Ohio, Governor John Kasich is struggling as well, after narrowly defeating Democrat incumbent Ted Strickland last fall. A new Quinnipiac poll released on Wednesday found Kasich's approval numbers upside down, with 49 percent of voters disapproving and 38 percent approving.

And it's not an isolated dynamic, the accelerated buyer's remorse is evident in other states as well. In Maine, Tea Party-backed Republican Paul LePage beat Independent candidate Eliot Cutler by less than 7,500 votes last fall.

But his stormy tenure has been marked by skirmishes over removing labor-history murals, refusing to attend MLK day celebrations and refusing to sign legislation to ban the chemical BPA because, in his words, "the worst case is some women may have little beards."

A recent poll found that only 30% of Maine residents approved of LePage.

In contrast, the newly elected Democratic Governor of New York (Andrew Cuomo) closed a $10 billion budget deficit without new taxes or new debt. Instead, he cut spending and gained concessions from public sector unions. His approval ratings actually went up, reaching a sky-high 73 percent.

Funny how you never heard a word about that from O'Reilly, even though he is a life-long New York resident, and he does his tv show there.

Notice that none of the information I just showed you is ever reported by O'Reilly, while at the same time, virtually every night he spins out the narrative that the people love Republicans and hate Democrats. Is that dishonest partisan right-wing journalism, of course it is, and that is a fact.

Massive Republican Hypocrisy On Judicial Filibusters
By: Steve - May 22, 2011 - 9:00am

On Thursday the Senate voted by a 52-43 majority to end the GOP's filibuster of Professor Goodwin Liu's nomination to a federal appeal court - which, in the bizarro world that is the U.S. Senate, means that Liu's nomination will not move forward.

The vote was entirely along party lines, except that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) voted yea and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) voted nay.

Now think about this, just six years ago, Republicans sang a very different tune when it came to judicial filibusters. Senate Republicans almost unanimously declared filibusters of judicial nominees to be a horrific betrayal of their constitutional role.

Many Republicans outright declared judicial filibusters to be unconstitutional. And here is a sample of how current GOP senators felt about such filibusters when a Republican was in the White House:
-- Lamar Alexander (R-TN): "I would never filibuster any President's judicial nominee, period. I might vote against them, but I will always see they came to a vote."

-- Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA): "Every judge nominated by this president or any president deserves an up-or-down vote. It's the responsibility of the Senate. The Constitution requires it."

-- Tom Coburn (R-OK): "If you look at the Constitution, it says the president is to nominate these people, and the Senate is to advise and consent. That means you got to have a vote if they come out of committee. And that happened for 200 years."

-- John Cornyn (R-TX): "We have a Democratic leader defeated, in part, as I said, because I believe he was identified with this obstructionist practice, this unconstitutional use of the filibuster to deny the president his judicial nominations."

-- Mike Crapo (R-ID): "Until this Congress, not one of the President's nominees has been successfully filibustered in the Senate of the United States because of the understanding of the fact that the Constitution gives the President the right to a vote."

-- Chuck Grassley (R-IA): "It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60, and that's essentially what we'd be doing if the Democrats were going to filibuster."

-- Mitch McConnell (R-KY): "The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation."
This willingness to declare something unconstitutional when it suits them and then pretend the Constitution says something else entirely when the political winds change is normal for the GOP.

Sen. Nelson's vote against Liu, however, is utterly inexplicable. When Bush was naming judges, Nelson voted to end cloture on Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a radical tenther who once compared liberalism to "slavery" and Social Security to a "socialist revolution."

It is impossible to imagine what standard Nelson applied that would keep a mainstream voice like Liu off the court, but allow Judge Brown to shape the law.

And of course you never hear a word about any of this from O'Reilly, because Republicans are doing it now. But when Democrats were doing it under Bush, O'Reilly reported the hell out of it.

O'Reilly did segment after segment about it back then, and even joined in with the Republicans calling for every judge to get an up or down vote. But now that Republicans are doing it, he is silent as a mouse. These people have no shame, I guess they think we forgot about all this stuff, and they were wrong.

The Friday 5-20-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 21, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called President Obama and the Jewish vote. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: In 2008 Jewish voters supported Barack Obama big time, but now there may be truble in the Jewish precincts. Yesterday the President told the world that he favors Israel pulling back to its 1967 borders; predictably, Israel says that's not going to happen.

Although Jewish Americans account for just two percent of the elctorate, they do give a lot of money to Democrats and that might be at risk. The actual negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel will probably not get anywhere no matter what Mr. Obama proposes; there is simply too much money involved in the conflict.

Since 1993 the U.S. has committed more than $3.5 billion to the Palestinians, yet most of the people over there remain devoid of services and are dirt poor. Many believe much of the money is stolen. There is no denying that groups like Hamas are able to raise millions of dollars by keeping the conflict with Israel alive, so there is a vested interest in war.

Talking Points hates to be cynical, but there is a better chance of Iran joining NATO than any deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. That's just the way it is.
And for once O'Reilly may be right about this one, but of course he will still spin it to make Obama look as bad as possible, and if we had a Republican President O'Reilly would spin it to make him look as good as possible.

Then O'Reilly actually had a balanced debate about it, for once. Billy had the pro-Israeli activist Brooke Goldstein and liberal talk radio host Mark Levine on to discuss it. Goldstein said this: "Barack Obama has dug himself a very deep hole. In one fell swoop he has completly reversed American foreign policy and he has told the Jewish community that he is going to renege on his promises to Israel. I don't think he understands the roots of the Israeli-Arab conflict."

That's a little ridiculous, and total right-wing spin. Obama is a smart man, and he understands the conflict, he is just doing what he thinks is best to get them to agree to a deal.

Levine agreed that President Obama has damaged his standing with American Jews. Levine said this: "I'm still going to support Barack Obama because I'm a good liberal, but the President is kind of talking out of both sides of his mouth and is being a little naive. He's looking for a middle position that doesn't exist."

O'Reilly portrayed the conflict as intractable, Billy said this: "Jewish people over the centuries have been chased out of countries and exterminated and now you have a President of the United States saying things no other President has said. I don't see a solution to this, ever."

And that's a right-wing lie, because a couple other Presidents have said almost the exact same thing, Fox and O'Reilly are lying when they say Obama is saying things about Israel that no other President has said, it's bull.

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing Mike Huckabee on to talk about Mitt Romeny. Huckabee said this: "We have some very strong philosophical differences. I felt he had a lack of authenticity on sancity of life and same-sex marriage and guns, issues that really matter to people in the Midwest and South. But we've made peace and he'll be a better president on any day than Barack Obama. If he is the nominee, I'll be out there supporting him."

Then Geraldo was on to talk about the former IMF boss Dominique Strauss-Kahn, which I could care less about because it's a sex scandal, and I consider that tabloid news, so I will not report on this nonsense.

Then O'Reilly had Kim Serafin on to talk some more about the Arnold Schwarzenegger sex scandal. Which I will also not report on, because it's tabloid news. O'Reilly is just milking this garbage for all it's worth, to try and get ratings.

Then he had the insane Glenn Beck on for his regulay weekly segment, at your Beck and call. Beck has announced plans for rally in Israel this summer. Beck said this: "I personally think that Jews are in real trouble. You have hundreds of thousands of people gathering in squares in the Middle East chanting 'Kill the Jew.' The 'Arab Spring' is a lie - if you look at the words of Hamas and Hezbollah, they're exactly the same as Hitler. The Middle East is on fire, they're surrounding Israel, and our President is giving it away!"

Wow, what a shocker, Beck is saying the middle east is on fire, just like he said the USA is on fire, and I bet he thinks the world is going to end Saturday 5-21-11 too. My God, if anyone believes anything this con-man says you are a fool.

As expected Beck talked about a gloomy vision of the Middle East. Beck said this: "In a year I will buy you a steak if Egypt isn't run by a dictator who is worse or equally as bad as Hosni Mubarak."

Now get this, O'Reilly took issue with Beck's characterization of President Obama, Billy said this: "He is doing the right thing in trying to reach out to the Arab world and trying to moderate thought there."

That's a shocker, because O'Reilly slams Obama for everything he does, and now he says he is doing the right thing. Talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth, O'Reilly does it every other night.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Arthel Neville and Greg Gutfeld on for dumbest things of the week. Where these two dummies name what they think was dumb, when the real dumbest thing of the week is this segment. And of course, they never name any Republicans for doing dumb things.

Neville did not follow the rules, and named something she described as very smart. She said this: "Suffolk University in Boston asked 1,000 people which reporter they trust the most and you, Bill O'Reill your humble correspondent, won convincingly. And Fox News was the most trusted news agency."

Wow, what a dishonest joke of an ass kisser. Was it a scientific poll, no, were they mostly Republicans, yes, and they never said a word about the real poll that said Fox is the least trusted news agency from a couple months ago. They only report the biased polls that say they are the most trusted.

Gutfeld went with pop singer Katy Perry, who has issued a set of strict demands to concert promoters. He said this: "She has a contract rider for her concerts with things she demands, and one of the things is that the limo driver can't even look at her. She also wants a free breakfast."

O'Reilly singled out the Centers for Disease Control, which is using zombies in a new TV spot that stresses emergency preparedness. And I single out all three of these idiots, for what they picked, and for even doing this biased and ridiculous waste of tv time segment.

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

Pawlenty Lies About How He Did In Minnesota
By: Steve - May 21, 2011 - 10:00am

Folks, if you want to see how dishonest most Republicans are, read this. Pawlenty and all his righr-wing friends claim he was a great Governor, and would make a great President. They make those claims based on what he says he did while he was the Governor of Minnesota.

But his claims do not match the reality, because he left Minnesota in a terrible financial situation. Pawlenty is hoping to leverage his record as governor of Minnesota into a successful presidential bid, touting his tenure as evidence that he can successfully govern as a fiscal conservative.

For example, during the Fox News presidential debate in South Carolina earlier this month, Pawlenty said this: "Every budget during my time as governor was balanced and the last one of those two-year budgets ends this coming summer, on June 30, and it's going to end up in the black."

And now the facts. Pawlenty's predecessor, Arne Carlson, a Republican who was governor of Minnesota from 1991 to 1999, recently told Time magazine of the presidential hopeful, "I don't think any governor has left behind a worse financial mess than he has."

Carlson is an avowed fiscal conservative who, in his retirement, has led a Paul Revere Tour to raise alarm about the state's finances. Carlson has been a frequent critic of Pawlenty's fiscal mismanagement and in April, he told the Minnesota Post that Pawlenty undid important fiscal reforms and is solely to blame for the state's fiscal mess:
"Under Tim Pawlenty, it became deficit heaven," said Carlson. "All the things we did were undone. Now, what bothers me is you get these holier-than-thou attitudes. Oh, we're all to blame. But that's just not true. There's one person who has the power to insist on a balanced budget. That's the chief executive officer, the governor.
As reported by CNN and other sources, thanks to Pawlenty's refusal to even consider raising revenue, he left office "with a $6 billion deficit and higher unemployment than when he became governor."

In fact, Pawlenty's deficit was "one of the highest in the nation as a percentage of the state's general fund, only slightly trailing California's massive gap," the Los Angeles Times noted.

When he did balance the budget, Pawlenty relied on budget gimmicks. For example, He postponed school and other obligations, leading to hikes in local property taxes and strains on school districts as burdens shifted downward.

Perhaps even more unforgivable to conservatives, Pawlenty was only able to balance his budget by relying on President Obama's stimulus package - the same stimulus package he derided as "a house of cards" of borrowed money that was misdirected and largely wasted.

In fact, stimulus dollars accounted for nearly one-third of his budget gap. This led to what a local Fox affiliate dubbed a faux-surplus.

As for Pawlenty's claim in the Fox News debate that he balanced the budget, while technically correct, it's hardly something to write home about considering every Minnesota budget has to be balanced, because the state constitution requires it.

And btw folks, O'Reilly hammers the liberals in California who have put their state so far in debt, but he never says a word about all the Republicans who have put their states into massive debt. It's bias, and a double standard from O'Reilly.

Wallace Tells Kilmeade He Fell For Trump Stunt
By: Steve - May 21, 2011 - 9:30am

As if Kilmeade was the only one, O'Reilly and pretty much all of Fox and the rest of the media fell for it too. Even though I knew the whole time he would never run, they all fell for it.

Wallace To Kilmeade On Trump: "I Think It Was Always A Publicity Stunt And You Fell For It"

I reported months ago that Trump would never run, and that it was all a big publicity stunt. But almost everyone in the media fell for it anyway, including O'Reilly.

O'Reilly said Trump was a serious candidate who had a good chance to win the Republican nomination. Before Trump had even said if he was running or not. He even had a two part interview with Trump, asking him about China, Obama, etc, as if Trump was running.

Which just goes to show what a fraud of a journalist O'Reilly is, because he should not have even done the interview until after Trump said if he was running. In fact, just about all the media fell for it, but O'Reilly and Fox were the worst.

The Thursday 5-19-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 20, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Obama preaches to the unconverted. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Today President Obama once again addressed the Muslim world, urging the Middle East and North Africa to institute economic reform, treat their people with some dignity, and generally clean up their acts. Mr. Obama is well intentioned, but naive.

A new Pew poll says that most Muslims in the world do not like Mr. Obama, despite his aggressive outreach. Over the past two years his approval rating in Muslim nations has dropped dramatically. The question is why? The answer is complicated and it reflects my opinion that there is a 'Muslim problem' in the world.

The United States and the West are largely secular socities that believe in human rights; the Muslim world is centered on religion and many Muslims believe that if you don't worship Allah you are an infidel and don't deserve human rights. That divide is enormous. In addition, you have the Jewish situation.

Because the USA supports Israel and many Muslims hate Jews, we are tarred by that hatred. Despite that, Mr. Obama is doing the right thing in trying to convince the Muslim world to join the real world, to compete economically, and to stop persecuting their own.

So here's the sad truth - there is a Muslim problem in the world and it's getting worse.
To begin with, notice how O'Reilly calls Obama naive, which he would never do to a Republican President. Not to mention, Obama may be the smartest President we have ever had, so he is anything but naive. Then O'Reilly once again links all Muslims with the Muslim terrorists, by saying there is a Muslim problem in the world. No O'Dummy, there is not a Muslim problem in the world, there is a terrorism problem among a few Muslims. Get it right, or dont talk about it at all.

Then O'Reilly had two American Muslims on to discuss it, Kamal Nawash and Zuhdi Jasser. Nawash said this: "Many Muslims who supportetd President Obama in the beginning, had a certain irrational exuberance as to what he was going to do. For example, they were hoping he would be different on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And there is the fact that he bombs targets in Pakistan without asking. But I don't think there is a fundamental problem between Muslims and the United States."

Jasser urged President Obama to speak out against the 'theo-fascism' that rules much of the Muslim world. Jasser said this: "There are many Muslim families like mine who are looking for leadership from the leader of the free world. It is time for a president to call evil ideology 'evil.' There are Muslims who want liberty and don't want theocracy."

Then O'Reilly cried about the big bad Democrats attacking Newt Gingrich with Lou Dobbs, for what Gingrich said about the Ryan Medicare plan. The Democratic Party has produced an ad showing Newt Gingrich accusing his GOP colleagues of "right-wing social engineering" for wanting to restructure Medicare. Dobbs said this: "This is working, "and they have targeted 25 Congressional districts for this attack. It's utter fear-mongering - it may be good politics, but it's nasty business and it's wrong. The Democrats are going to demogogue this issue."

Fear-Mongering? Are you kidding me, they are simply using his own words to hang him. And how the hell is it wrong, if it's good politics how can it possibly be wrong. Not to mention, Dobbs never says a word about all the nasty ads Republicans run. The ad is fine, and Dobbs is a right-wing idiot.

O'Reilly said both sides to engage in honest debate, Billy said this: "I don't resent Democrats for saying the Republican plan gives you less than they would give you, but to say to seniors, hey, Aunt Betty, you're going to lose Medicare if you don't vote for Barack Obama is really untoward. Seniors are exempt from this."

Then O'Reilly had another segment on it, O'Reilly showed another Democratic ad showing a grandma being wheeled off a cliff. Sally Kohn of the liberal Movement Vision Lab was on to defend the spot. Kohn said this: "The truth is that millions of people will be harmed if Republicans pass their budget. This is not a distortion, it's an exaggeration, but it's also an exaggeration that happens to be true."

O'Reilly said that Medicare merits a frank discussion, Billy said this: "Why can't you guys debate this on its merits? Why do you have to use scare tactics? President Obama himself has gone out on the stump and said if you are older you're going to be hurt by this plan. That's not true."

Wow, hey O'Reilly, could you possibly spin for the Republicans any more than you are over this, I doubt it.

A new blood test can supposedly indicate a person's biological weak spots and even show when somone might die. O'Reilly discussed the so-called breakthrough with Fox News medical correspondent Dr. Manny Alvarez and Dr. Phlippa Cheetham of the Columbia University Medical Center. "I think this is all bull," Alvarez said. "They want to sell you pills and creams, this has nothing to do with medicine today, it's a dollar-making business."

Cheetham gave a concurring second opinion. "These tests create a huge amount of anxiety, they create the 'worried well' and they are taking advantage of people who are in vulnerable situations. I don't think this test is going to be useful."

In the next segment O'Reilly had the Culture Warriors Alicia Menendez and Gretchen Carlson talk about whether politicians should be viewed as role models. Carlson said this: "In this day and age, you would hope that parents could be role models, but even that is not always the case. The only person you can rest assured is a good role model is God."

Menendez said this: "I don't think they have a choice, they have to be role models, and there are people with inspirational stories like Marco Rubio and Barack Obama. When it comes to people's personal lives, what bothers me is not only the infidelity, but the length to which these men will go to cover up what they've done. It's that behavior that I find more abhorrent."

And of course O'Reilly said that the Internet has changed everything, Billy said this: "Founders like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin would probably be out of the game if they lived now. Also JFK and FDR - very powerful men who were legitimate role models could not survive today."

And in the last segment O'Reilly had Martha MacCallum and Steve Doocy on for the total waste of tv time Factor news quiz. That I do not report on, because it's not news.

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

Varney & Payne Slam Poor For Not Being Ashamed
By: Steve - May 20, 2011 - 9:30am

Now this shows the thinking of a typical right-wing idiot. Stuart Varney and Charles Payne, slammed poor people for not being ashamed they are poor. Then they basically said everyone on food stamps, and unemployment insurance are bums who love being poor and on welfare. Dont you just love it when rich people tell the poor how they are supposed to feel about being poor. And how do they know they are not ashamed, did they talk to every one of them, of course not.


Earth to jerks, name me one person who loves to be poor, unemployed, and on food stamps. What, you cant, yeah that's because there are none.

Varney maligned essential anti-poverty programs, deriding food stamps, unemployment insurance, and the Earned Income Tax Credit as "a form a welfare, income redistribution" and evidence that America now has an "entitlement mentality."

And Varney's attack on these programs came just as a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research showed just how essential these and other government programs are to keeping tens of millions of Americans out of poverty.

Arloc Sherman of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted that "public programs keep one in six Americans out of poverty -- primarily the elderly, disabled, and working poor -- and that the poverty rate would double without these programs."

And Yet Varney still slammed all the people on food stamps, Medicaid, the Earned Income Tax Credit and unemployment insurance as "a form of welfare, income redistribution" and "entitlement mentality."

Varney completely ignored the need for such programs to keep millions of Americans out of poverty. After guest and Democratic strategist Krystal Ball defended the social safety net, Fox's Charles Payne castigated poor people for not being embarrassed enough about their situation:
PAYNE: Krystal, there's no doubt that these are good programs. I think the real narrative here, though, is that people aren't embarrassed by it. People aren't ashamed by it. In other words, the there was a time when people were embarrassed to be on food stamps; there was a time when people were embarrassed to be on unemployment for six months, let alone demanding to be on it for more than two years.

I think that's what Stu is trying to say, is that, when the president says Wall Street is at fault, so, you are entitled to get anything that you want from the government, because it's not really your fault. No longer is the man being told to look in the mirror and cast down a judgment on himself; it's someone else's fault.

So food stamps, unemployment, all of this stuff, is something that they probably earned in some indirect way.
Wow, he is an even bigger idiot than Varney. Just add his name to the list of right-wing idiots that are clueless. If anybody should be ashamed, it's Varney and Payne.

Senate Blocks Bill To End Oil Subsidies
By: Steve - May 20, 2011 - 9:00am

And every single one of the 48 Senators who voted no, should be voted out of office. Only two Republicans voted yes, Senator Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine voted with the Democrats in supporting ending taxpayer handouts to big oil.

These Democrats also voted no, and they should be voted out of office as soon as possible. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Mark Begich (D-AK), and Ben Nelson (D-NE) joined the Republicans to protect the oil companies corporate welfare.

Republicans filibustered the Democrats attempt to repeal $21 billion in subsidies for the big five oil companies - the same companies that made over $30 billion in profits in just the first three months of 2011.

While three out of four Americans believe Exxon Mobil and the other oil majors should pay their fair share, instead of receiving taxpayer welfare, the oil-friendly Senate split 52 to 48 to end the subsidies.

Even though the majority of the Senate voted to repeal these oil tax breaks, the procedural motion required a 60 vote threshold. An analysis of campaign contribution records shows the gusher of dirty cash that fueled the filibuster:
The 48 senators who sided with Big Oil received over $21 million in career oil contributions, while the 52 senators who sided with the American people received only $5.4 million in contributions.

Each senator who voted for Big Oil received on average more than four times as much oil cash as those who voted to end the subsidies.
And it goes without saying, O'Reilly did not say a word about this big news story, because it makes his Republican friends look bad, and proves that they are in the back pocket of big oil, not the American people they were elected to represent.

Take This Online Source & Political Info Survey
By: Steve - May 20, 2011 - 8:00am

Hey folks, here is a survey about what online sources and opinions you have, I suggest you take it, because then the liberal voices will be heard in it.

This study is being conducted for academic purposes by researchers at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville and the University of Texas-Austin.

All responses will be kept confidential and no identifying personal factors will be used in reporting the results of this survey. Your email address is used only to check for duplicate transmission and is deleted after the survey is received.

Click Here To Take The Survey

The Wednesday 5-18-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 19, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Schwarzenegger and leadership in America. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Fair-minded Americans should feel sorry for Maria Shriver and her four children, who are caught up in a terrible scandal generated by Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Internet and the media are going wild over the fact that the former California Governor fathered a child with a former member of his household staff.

This story and the John Edwards scandal indicate a stark reality, that the Internet can tear human beings apart because there are no boundaries. Schwarzenegger and Edwards deserved the exposure, they did bad things.

But all of us make mistakes and that makes it tough for anyone to run for political office. Office-seekers now know that if they have made a significant mistake in their past, it will be rammed down their throats. Under the banner of freedom of speech, there is no solution to the 'net.

Cowardly sociopaths hide in their basements, ready to say the most vile things, even if untrue, and there is a absolutely nothing a person in the public domain can do about it. The social network has changed America forever.
Hey O'Reilly, you jerk, it's called free speech. And the people on the internet that expose these corrupt hypocritical frauds for what they do are heroes, not cowards. And if you do not like free speech, move to China and do your fraud of a news show from there. You say there is no solution to the net, like you want to censor it, then we do not have free speech idiot. The internet is great, because now the average American can do a blog and expose biased frauds like you, and that is why you hate it.

Then Karl Rove was on to discuss it. Rove said this: "The moral of this story, is that if you have fathered a child by having an affair with the maid in your own home under your spouse's nose, maybe you shouldn't think of running for Governor of California. The arrogance is that he ran knowing that this had occurred and it could have been uncovered. But I have ultimate confidence in the American people and that they're able to separate the really bad stuff from the other stuff."

O'Reilly still insisted that anonymous bloggers are discouraging able men and women from seeking office, Billy said this: "If these people want to destroy you, they're going to say anything, and everybody who may have a desire to run for public office knows that. This really concerns me when I look at the field of presidential contenders."

Yeah it concerns you, because you are a Republican that does not want the truth about the Republicans running for President to get out. Because you hate Obama and you want him to lose to a Republican, so he will give you another tax cut, even though you do not deserve it, or most of all, need it.

Then Dick Morris was on, he talked about the effect of Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump withdrawing from the GOP race. Morris said this: "Looking through the data, Mitt Romney is the clear winner from this whole process. About a third of Huckabee voters told us that their second choice was Romney, and about half of Trump voters said their second choice was Romney. The Trump withdrawal is huge news for Romney, because Romney is the 'business candidate,' as Trump was, and he now has that field almost entirely to himself."

Contradicting most other pundits, Morris also predicted that Newt Gingrich will benefit from opposing Congressman Paul Ryan's proposed Medicare overhaul. Morris said this: "In the primaries there are a disproportionate number of old voters who are on Medicare and to them the Ryan program will be very unpopular. Gingrich is crazy like a fox."

Wrong, Gingrich has no chance now, because he made the Republicans mad when he called the Ryan proposal right-wing socialism. He is done, toast, even the far right Monica Crowley admitted it. Morris is a fool that makes these crazy predictions that almost never come true. And yet O'Reilly keeps having him back on. He even said Trump will run for President, and he was wrong about that too.

Then O'Reilly had the far-right loon and former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer on to talk about Saif-al-Adel, who the CIA says is Usama bin Laden's successor as boss of Al Qaeda. Which I will not report on, because this guy Scheuer is a far-right nut who hates Obama and does nothing but put out partisan smear attacks on Obama and the Democrats. Basically his analysis is worthless, because of his bias, and yet, O'Reilly keeps having him on over and over.

Then O'Reilly had the liberal actor Ed Asner on, who plays Warren Buffett in a new TV movie. Asner said this: "I think he's fantastic. All capitalists should be like Warren Buffett, who says he should be taxed more."

Asner also spoke about the legendary cast of The Mary Tyler Moore Show. O'Reilly even praised Ed Asner for his candor and good humor, Billy said this: "You and I are probably as politically apart as ever, but we enjoy you coming in here. You're an honest guy and a patriot."

Then Dennis Miller was on for his weekly Miller Time segment, which I do not report on, because he is a comedian who is only there to make jokes about liberals. But I will say this, even Dennis Miller knows that Gingrich is done, he said this about Newt: "At this point he's a dead man running. He might as well get on with his life's work, and I don't know what that is."

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had the Fox Business anchor Dagen McDowell on for did you see that. She watched video of Greta van Susteren grilling Newt Gingrich over reports that he ran up a half-million-dollar bill at Tiffany & Company.

McDowell said this: "Gingrich's wife was required to file financial disclosure documents, and in 2005 and 2006 they carried a balance up to $500,000 at Tiffany & Company. The number one issue in our country is debt, so if you are going to try to take charge of our monstrous debt, then you have to show you have chops at doing it yourself, and you're going to have to answer questions about your personal debt."

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame waste of tv time pinheads and patriots.

O'Reilly Complains About Losing In His Own Poll
By: Steve - May 19, 2011 - 9:00am

After the Jon Stewart debate on the rapper Common going to the White House, O'Reilly ran a poll om his very own website asking this:

Who had the stronger argument regarding Common at the White House?

And not only did O'Reilly lose the poll by a mile, Stewart got 79% of the vote, and O'Reilly got 21% of the vote. It was an unscientific poll, run on his own personal website.

O'Reilly claims that the left-wing websites told their people to vote in his Jon Stewart debate poll so he would not win.

Okay, that is just ridiculous. I visit all the big liberal websites and blogs and I never saw that at any of them. In fact, I run and I did not vote in his poll, and I did not even know he was doing the poll.

Billy just can not handle the fact that his website visitors do not think he won the debate. So he is trying to claim the poll was rigged by liberals, and it's just pathetic.

Now get this, O'Reilly has a map of the USA that shows the poll results state by state, so you can see how each state voted. Not only did O'Reilly lose the vote in every single state, he lost big, even in the red states, here are a few examples.

In Texas he lost 77% to 23%.
In North Carolina he lost 81% to 19%.
In his home state of New York he lost 85% to 15%.
In Alabama he lost 72% to 28%.

He lost in every single state. The best he did in any state was Wyoming, where he got 37% of the vote. In fact, he only got more than 30% of the vote in 5 states, in the other 45 states he did not even break 30% of the vote.

The poll did not just have a few thousand votes either, it had 72,000 votes. Not to mention it was an unscientific website poll that nobody cares about. Except maybe O'Reilly. I do not vote in any website polls, because they are worthless, and the results are not scientific.

Are we to believe that liberals from every single state went to the O'Reilly website and voted for Stewart so O'Reilly would lose his own poll. That is just laughable. Especially when most the liberals I know refuse to even visit his website because it gives him more hits. And it shows what a ego maniac fool O'Reilly is.

O'Reilly Calls Obama Health Care Waivers A Scam
By: Steve - May 19, 2011 - 8:00am

The only scam here is the garbage that comes out of O'Reilly's mouth. On the Tuesday O'Reilly Factor, crazy O'Reilly said the Obama health care waivers are a scam. Which is right from the GOP talking points, the same talking points O'Reilly claims he never uses.

And now the facts, The waivers are temporary, for one year, they are granted to businesses who already have health insurance plans and for one reason or another, they don't meet the standards under the new Law. The waivers were established to allow the companies to restructure their plans to conform to the Law.

As far as the Pelosi myth, the company who petitioned for these waivers for the companies involved, Flex-Plan, stated that Pelosi had NOTHING to do with the waivers. The businesses who were in need of a one-year waiver to restructure their plans contacted Flex-Plan, which is a third party administrator. The waivers were negotiated for them by Flex-Plan, not Pelosi. And Pelosi had no knowledge of the waivers.

In other words, O'Reilly is a liar who is repeating a lie which was being spread by The Daily Caller, Fox News, and a few other partisan right-wing websites and blogs. Big shocker, not!

The Tuesday 5-17-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 18, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Schwarzenegger admits to fathering child. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Awful news for the family of Arnold Schwarzenegger - apparently he fathered a child with a former employee, which has led his wife Maria Shriver to separate from him. Schwarzenegger says he hid the news from his wife for almost ten years and only told her when he left his job as governor.

Also in big legal trouble is 63-year-old Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the head of the International Monetary Fund. New York City authorities say he sexually assaulted a chambermaid, and he is being held without bail.

But the most important story in the 'mighty have fallen' category is Newt Gingrich. The former Speaker of the House has angered many in the Republican Party by repudiating Medicare reform and criticizing Congressman Paul Ryan for trying to get that program privatized.

The Speaker has always been outspoken, but this time he has alienated some of his core support group. If he is indeed on the ropes, that leaves Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and several lower profile Republicans in line for the nomination. All in all, a tough day for some very powerful men.
Then the far right Charles Krauthammer, who has declared Gingrich's candidacy all but dead, was on to discuss it. Krauthammer said this: "Republicans won this huge victory last year on the promise to rein in government, and then they came up with this highly ambitious and courageous plan to cut $6-trillion out of our debt. Democrats attacked it as destroying the social safety net, which it does not, and then Gingrich calls the plan 'radical' and 'right-wing social engineering.'

You can be sure that every Republican who runs next year for the House will face a Democratic ad quoting Gingrich. It's one thing to say he has some problems with the Medicare proposal; it's another thing to say it's right-wing social engineering.'" Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley used their segment to survey the Republican presidential field, beginning with Newt Gingrich. Crowley said this: "This was the shortest presidential campaign I've ever seen. He announced his candidacy Wednesday and detonated his campaign Sunday. His path to the nomination was going to be steep anyway, and now he's made it nearly impossible. His comments were inexplicable."

Colmes painted the remaining Republicans as lacking in strength and electability. Colmes said this: "The person who seems like the most serious right now is Tim Pawlenty, and if Mitch Daniels gets in that's another serious candidate. Beyond that, I don't know who there is. I don't think Mitt Romney is going to be accepted by rank-and-file Republicans because of his many varying positions."

Then O'Reilly had more with Jon Stewart, who talked about prospective Republican presidential candidates. Stewart said this: "I would imagine that Tim Pawlenty seems like a reasonably logical individual, and Mitt Romney looks like if you were to open a box labeled 'president' and pull something out, it would look like him. I thought he didn't do terribly as Governor of Massachusetts and executives tend to make good presidents.

So I would absolutely consider Pawlenty and Romney as viable candidates." Stewart was not as complimentary toward Sarah Palin. "I am not a fan of her style of rhetoric and I think she's too thin-skinned. She is more reminiscent of a television personality than a politician. But I feel like this country is stronger than any individual you can throw at it, so I don't hate any of these people."

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on for is it legal, and they talked about Arnold Schwarzenegger's legal obligations to the 10-year-old child that he fathered with a member of his household staff. Which I will not report on because it's tabloid news, not real news.

They also talked about a ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court, which stated that a private citizen has absolutely no right to resist if police want to enter a home. Wiehl said this: "You have no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by a police officer, which is amazing because when you think of the Fourth Amendment you think there has to be a warrant or exigent circumstances."

O'Reilly painted a nightmare scenario, Billy said this: "Criminals could dress as police and knock on your door. If you ask to see a warrant and they say no, you can't resist and they can come in and clean you out. That's insane!"

And for the record, I also think that ruling is insane, the police should have to get a warrant before they can enter a persons home. And I predict this will be over-ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices in the Indiana court must be nuts, and should be impeached for a ruling like that.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had the far right fool John Stossel on to talk about the Obama health care waivers, and as usual they put a right-wing spin on it with no guest to provide the balance or the counterpoint.

Stossel said this: "One restaurant that serves $59 steaks, is offering its employees some health care. But now they say, gee, under Obamacare we have to buy an expensive plan, we can't afford that, and we want a waiver. That's what's awful about the law - if you're politically connected or smart enough to hire a lawyer, you can get out of it."

Stossel added that waivers have also been handed out to major unions, including the powerful teachers union. So then O'Dummy concluded that waivers are going to politically connected businesses and organizations, Billy said this: "I can't understand a waiver for this upscale establishment, and Nancy Pelosi has not condemned the waivers to the 38 businesses in her district. This whole waiver business sounds to me like a scam."

And for the record, Pelosi did not know about any of the waivers in her district, and had nothing to do with any business getting any waivers. O'Reilly and Stossel just linked her to it to make her look bad, when she had nothing to do with it, and they have no evidence she did.

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

The People Create The Jobs Not The Wealthy
By: Steve - May 18, 2011 - 9:00am

O'Reilly and his Republican friends have been putting out this myth that the rich create jobs so we should cut their taxes, it's the old trickle down garbage that Reagan started. And it's all a lie, because it's the people that create the jobs by spending money.

You hear it again and again, variation after variation on a core message: if you tax rich people it kills jobs. You hear about "job-killing tax hikes," or that "taxing the rich hurts jobs," "taxes kill jobs," "taxes take money out of the economy, "if you tax the rich they won't be able to provide jobs." And on and on.

The idea that there are producers and parasites, has become a core philosophy of conservatives. They claim that wealthy people "produce" and are rich because they "produce."

The rest of us are "parasites" who suck blood and energy from the productive rich, by taxing them. In this belief system, We, the People are basically just the help who are otherwise in the way, and taxing the producers to pay for our "entitlements."

We "take money" from the producers through taxes, which are "redistributed" to the parasites. They repeat the slogan, "Taxes are theft," and take the "money we earned" by "force" (i.e. the government.)

Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner echoes this core philosophy of "producers" and "parasites," saying this recently:
BOEHNER: I believe raising taxes on the very people that we expect to reinvest in our economy and to hire people is the wrong idea. For those people to give that money to the government...means it wont get reinvested in our economy at a time when we're trying to create jobs.
He is saying the very people who "hire people" shouldn't have to pay taxes because that money is then taken out of the productive economy and just given to the parasites -- "the help" -- meaning you and me.

And that is all a bunch of right-wing propaganda. Here is a quote from a man who had senior positions in business, and he tells it like it is.
I have been in senior positions at other businesses, and I know many others who have started and operated businesses of all sizes. I can tell you from direct experience that I tried very hard to employ the right number of people. What I mean by this is that when there were lots of customers I would add people to meet the demand. And when demand slacked off I had to let people go.

If I had extra money I wouldn't just hire people to sit around and read the paper. And if I had more customers than I could handle that -- the revenue generated by meeting the additional demand from the extra customers -- is what would pay for employing more people to meet the demand. It is a pretty simple equation: you employ the right number of people to meet the demand your business has.

If you ask around you will find that every business tries to employ the right number of people to meet the demand. Any business owner or manager will tell you that they hire based on need, not on how much they have in the bank.
Taxes make absolutely no difference in the hiring equation:

In fact, paying taxes means you are already making money, which means you have already hired the right number of people. Taxes are based on subtracting your costs from your revenue, and if you have profits after you cover your costs, then you might be taxed.

You don't even calculate your taxes until well after the hiring decision has been made. You don't lay people off to cover your taxes. And even if you did lay people off to cover taxes it would lower your costs and you would have more profit, which means you would have more taxes... except that laying someone off when you had demand would cause you to have less revenue.

People buying things are what creates jobs.

The Rich Do Not Create Jobs:

Lots of regular people having money to spend is what creates jobs and businesses. That is the basic idea of demand-side economics and it works. In a consumer-driven economy designed to serve people, regular people with money in their pockets is what keeps everything going.

The equal opportunity of democracy with its reinvestment in infrastructure and education and the other fruits of democracy is fundamental to keeping a demand-side economy functioning.

When all the money goes to a few at the top everything breaks down. Taxing the people at the top and reinvesting the money into the democratic society is fundamental to keeping things going.

This idea that a few wealthy people -- the producers -- hand everything down to the rest of us -- the parasites -- is fundamentally at odds with the concept of democracy. In a democracy we all have an equal voice and an equal stake in how our society and our economy does. We do not depend on the good graces of a favored few for our livelihoods.

We all are supposed to have an equal opportunity, and equal rights. And there are things we are all entitled to -- entitlements -- that we get just because we were born here.

But we all share in the responsibility to cover the costs of democracy -- with the rich having a greater responsibility than the rest of us because they receive the most benefit from it. This is why we have "progressive taxes" where the rates are supposed to go up as the income does.

In a democracy the rich are supposed to pay more to cover things like building and maintaining the roads and schools because these are the things that enable their wealth. They actually do use the roads and schools more because the roads enable their businesses to prosper and the schools provide educated employees.

But it isn't just that the rich that use roads more, it is that everyone has a right to use roads and a right to transportation because we are a democracy and everyone has the same rights.

A democracy is supposed have a progressive tax structure that is in proportion to the means to pay. We do this because those who get more from the system do so because the democratic system offers them that ability.

Their wealth is because of our system and therefore they owe back to the system in proportion. And history has taught us the lesson that great wealth opposes democracy, so democracy must oppose the accumulation of great, disproportional wealth.

(In other words, part of the contract of living in a democracy is your obligation to protect the democracy and high taxes at the top is one of those protections.)

The conservative "producer and parasite" anti-tax philosophy is fundamentally at odds with the concepts of democracy, and should be understood and criticized as such.

Taxes do not "take money out of the economy" they enable the economy. The rich do not create jobs, "We, the People create the jobs."

More Proof O'Reilly Wrong About Taxes & Labor
By: Steve - May 18, 2011 - 8:00am

O'Reilly and his right-wing friends say the majority of the people support cutting taxes for the wealthy and the corporations, while cutting programs that mostly help the poor and middle class. They also claim the majority of people support taking labor rights away from the unions etc.

Except poll after poll shows that they are wrong, and now we have another poll that says they are wrong, but you will never see this reported by O'Reilly, because he wants you to believe his spin, and not see the real truth.

Like other Republican governors, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder(R) has aggressively pursued an agenda to curb labor rights, cut corporate taxes, and slash funding for education. Snyder's proposed budget would cut corporate taxes by 86 percent while making the state's already regressive tax system even worse by disproportionately increasing taxes on lower-income earners, especially retirees.

The tax plan passed both houses of the state legislature last week and awaits his signature.

"Many of us are going to have to sacrifice in the short term. But I can tell you with confidence, with conviction, by making these sacrifices, we can all win in the long term," Snyder said of his budget.

Snyder's constituents don't seem to be buying it, with 70 percent of Michigan voters opposed to cutting business taxes at the expense of education and other social services, according to a new poll from Michigan firm EPIC/MRA.

The poll says 76 percent of voters supported a proposal to require businesses to demonstrate that they have actually created new jobs with the tax breaks they receive. Just 9 percent of voters said they think businesses would use Snyder's tax breaks mostly to create jobs - most think companies will pocket the savings as profit.

On labor issues, 60 percent of voters oppose taking away collective bargaining rights of public employees, while nearly as many support an amendment to the state's constitution guaranteeing a right to collectively bargain.

Support for the pro-labor amendment jumped sharply in recent weeks, as a March poll showed 49 percent of voters supporting it. And btw, Snyder is eligible for recall in July, and a citizens group has already formed to spearhead the effort.

The Monday 5-16-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 17, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Race, Republicans and the presidential election. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Fox News host Mike Huckabee says he will not run for president in 2012, which opens up the field a bit for conservative candidates; Donald Trump also will not run, citing his passion for business. This is good news for Mitt Romney, who remains the front-runner to secure the Republican nomination.

But all the Republican candidates should understand that the media will come after them with a ferocity that could be unprecedented. If a Republican candidate criticizes President Obama, he or she is often branded as 'racist.'

The insanity of all this is apparent, but lurking beneath the surface is a very crucial issue: Next year the Republican nominee will not only be competing against President Obama and the Democratic Party, but also against the mainstream media, which is going to be even more committed to re-electing Mr. Obama than it was to electing him in the first place.

If Americans repudiate the liberal value system that many in the elite media embrace, that would be a personal affront to them, so anyone who dares challenge the President is in for a rough ride.
And that is all a load of right-wing propaganda. The media will go after everyone, Republican or Democrat, look what they did to John Kerry when he ran, he was a Democrat and they destroyed him with the lies put out by the right. This was done by the so-called mainstream media that O'Reilly claims only goes after Republicans. I guess he forgot about what they did to John Kerry, yeah and I'm Elvis too.

Then Brit Hume was on to discuss it. Hume said this: "It's not clear to me that Mitt Romney is the principle beneficiary of the departure of these two guys. I think Tim Pawlenty could certainly benefit from it, and even Rick Santorum, who has a strong following among some Christian conservatives. So I think the race is more wide open than ever."

Wow is Hume delusional, Pawlenty might have a chance, but Santorum is a far right joke who has no chance, none.

Hume then talked about Newt Gingrich, who slammed Republican Congressman Paul Ryan's plan to cut entitlement programs. Hume said this: "Gingrich referred to Ryan's plan as 'right-wing social engineering.' It was astonishing for Gingrich to say that and I think it was a very serious mistake."

O'Reilly said that Mitt Romney is the front-runner, Billy said this: "In the long run it comes down to organization and money, and there isn't anybody even close to Romney in that capacity. He's way out in front in organization and cash."

Gingrich also has no chance, none. And O'Reilly actually agrees with me for once, I also think Romney is the front runner, and I predict he will be the man who runs against Obama in 2012. And btw folks, not one Democratic guest was on the entire show to discuss any of that, the racism against Obama by Gingrich, or the news that Huckabee and Trump have decided not to run. So much for being fair and balanced.

In the next segment O'Reilly asked a typical biased right-wing question, he said this: "Are teachers unions damaging public schools?" Then he had the biased right-wing stooges Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham on to discuss it. With no real Democratic guest, or any teachers, so it was the usual biased one sided garbage.

A Texas teachers union official defended a public school teacher who stood by as his students engaged in classroom fistfights. Williams said this: "It's an outrage. Just as part of the human contract, if you see someone being injured, it's your human responsibility to intervene. What kind of message are you sending to young people if they're fighting in a classroom? The larger topic is unions getting in the way of orderly classrooms."

Ham also faulted our overall litigiousness. "In addition to unions, there are some perverse incentives here. It's probably easier to get sued by a trial lawyer for touching a student and breaking up a fight than it is to get fired by your school."

O'Reilly denounced the teacher who watched his students fight, Billy said this: "This is personal to me because when I was teaching high school I had to break up fights, and I did. The teacher is responsible for public safety, but teacher unions have fostered chaos, particularly in the poorer districts. It infuriates me!"

And O'Reilly never says that the only reason he was a teacher was to avoid the Vietnam War draft. Funny how he never mentions that, he acts like he became a teacher because he wanted to teach kids and educate them. When in reality he was basically a draft dodger, who used a teaching position to get out of the draft.

Then Jon Stewart was on to debate O'Reilly. Last week Stewart ridiculed Fox News hosts who objected to the appearance by the rapper Common. Stewart said this: "I can't speak for Common, but you are saying that he is celebrating cop-killing. What I think he's doing is not celebrating, but honoring someone he thinks was wrongly convicted of cop-killing. He's not defined as an artist by this case."

Stewart pointed to other musicians who have sung about murderers. He said this: "What you're saying is that if an artist supports someone who has been convicted of killing a cop, they should not be allowed to go to the White House. Bob Dylan, who wrote a song about a convicted killer named 'Hurricane' Carter, has been to the White House. Why are you drawing the line at Common? There is a selective outrage here at Fox."

And of course O'Reilly maintained that Common's invitation was inappropriate, Billy said this: "He's entitled to say what he wants, but the President of the United States takes him into the White House, thereby validating him. That was a bad decision. This guy is sympathizing with two cop-killers!"

And btw folks, just as I predicted, the interview was taped and edited, and you can only see the whole thing if you go to the Factor website and download it. So O'Reilly invites him on for a debate, then edits it to make himself look better. And he continued to misrepresent what Common wrote about in his song, he is saying they were innocent, that is not sympathizing with cop-killers, when he does not think they were guilty in the first place.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to assess the interview with Jon Stewart. goldberg said this: "Watching Godzilla versus King Kong is always good television, so I enjoyed it from that point of view. But let me make a point about liberal hypocrisy and conservative hypocrisy.

Jon Stewart says Common was saying two people who killed cops shouldn't have been convicted. But can you imagine if a white artist said James Earl Ray didn't kill Martin Luther King? That person would be labeled a bigot and he certainly wouldn't be invited to the White House.

The other hypocrisy is that when a conservative singer like Ted Nugent brings a machine gun on stage and says Barack Obama should suck on the machine gun, all my conservative friends look the other way. Nugent has a lifetime pass into this building, and that's hypocrisy of some people on the right."

O'Reilly said that Ted Nugent has never visited the No Spin Zone, Billy said this: "I don't know Ted Nugent at all, but if George W. Bush invited him to the White House, we'd be against it. And I'll go on record saying that most conservatives object to what Nugent said."

Hahahaha, are you kidding me. Most conservatives loved what Nugent said, that is why the video of it was played a million times on Fox, the internet, and posted on all the right-wing blogs. I'll go on the record saying O'Reilly is a liar, and that 90% of the conservatives loved what Nugent said.

And finally in the last segment we had the ridiculous Factor Reality Check, that has no reality and almost no checks, so I do not report on it. It's just O'Reilly by himself putting his right-wing spin on what someone else said, with no guest to counter his spin.

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

The Jon Stewart Smackdown Of Bill O'Reilly
By: Steve - May 17, 2011 - 9:00am

Jon Stewart appeared on The O'Reilly Factor Monday to debate the merits and career of rapper Common with host Bill O'Reilly. Stewart had been invited on the show last week after he delivered what some have described as an epic take down of the alleged controversy surrounding the performance by the Chicago-based rapper at the White House last week.

In O'Reilly's eyes it seemed that the issue was a simple one: the President (or in this case First Lady Michelle Obama) should never have invited the controversial rapper to perform at the White House, because as he sees it, Common celebrates a convicted cop killer.

As Stewart sees it, the only reason that Common is considered a controversial rapper is because Fox News trumped up that narrative and repeated on its opinion shows repeatedly.

While being careful not to speak for the rapper, Stewart redefined Common as someone that wasn't celebrating the killing of a cop, but rather honoring someone he thinks was wrongly convicted of cop killing, adding this: "I think he believes that she was convicted unjustly."

O'Reilly of course shot back, claiming that, either way the "president validated him by inviting to the White House," adding that the invitation "elevates him as a poet or whatever."

It was at this point that Stewart flipped the script by introducing Leonard Peltier the Native American activist who was also convicted for killing two members of the FBI, an individual who was the subject of a song penned by Bono.

Bono has also been invited to the White House numerous times by a number of administrations.

Stewart then included Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen as artists who have also written songs about people who have killed cops, pleading with the Fox News host that there is a remarkably inconsistent standard at play, or as Stewart put it "there is a selective outrage machine here at Fox."

Then the O'Reilly producers suddenly cut to commercial. And btw folks, the interviews was edited, as I expected, the dishonest O'Reilly could not even let Stewart speak unedited.

After the break, Stewart continued to frame the debate in what he saw as the fake controversy surrounding Common's White House appearance by challenging O'Reilly to agree to promote the reinstatement of the ban on assault weapons.

"Because that doesn't celebrate killing cops metaphorically, or figuratively. It tries to get weapons that kills cops, literally, off the streets."

Here are some videos from the show, but remember they have been edited, by O'Reilly and his producers.

In this clip Stewart reminds O'Reilly that G. Gordon Liddy is a regular on Fox, and he has advised people how to shoot ATF Agents.

In this clip Stewart points out the selective outrage at Fox.

It was actually pretty good, and Stewart clearly won the debate, even with all the edits O'Reilly did to try and make himself look better.

As I Predicted: Trump Will Not Run For President
By: Steve - May 17, 2011 - 8:00am

From day one, I said Donald Trump will not run for President, and that the whole thing was a trick to get on all the tv shows to try and get the ratings up for his lame tv show. And I was right.

Remember this, O'Reilly and all the stooges at Fox took him serious, and gave him all the air time he wanted, because he is a Republican.

After months, the long process that left his reputation in tatters and his brand damaged, Donald Trump officially announced Monday he is not running for president, declaring that "business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave the private sector."

Trump said this in his statement:
"My gratitude for your faith and trust in me could never be expressed properly in words. So, I make you this promise: that I will continue to voice my opinions loudly and help to shape our politician's thoughts."
So why get out now?

So why get out now? Why not follow Roger Stone's advice and declare he's still mulling an independent candidacy, thereby bypassing the GOP primary process and allowing the charade to continue well into 2012? For one thing, Trump stayed in the fake candidate game long enough that his prized personal brand was taking some damage. Some media outlets finally began to do real digging into his business dealings and the results were deeply unflattering.

There were beginning to be real-world consequences. Trump's constant race-baiting prompted popular protests that led to the cancelation of his annual appearance at the Indy 500. A black group canceled its golf classic at one of Trump's clubs in protest. Meanwhile, ratings for his tv show are actually down.

And I can add this, I think his ratings went down after he pulled the birther nonsense, because I personally stopped watching his show, and I know for a fact that almost all the liberals I know stopped watching it too.

Before Trump pulled the birther crap, I watched his show every week, but after the birther crap you could not pay me to watch it. And if I had to guess, I would say that is why he had the ratings drop.

Good job Trump, you fool, your fake Presidential run, and your far right birther garbage cost you ratings, and part of your reputation, which makes you an idiot, not this genius you claim to be.

Jon Stewart Will Debate O'Reilly Tonight
By: Steve - May 16, 2011 - 11:00am

Jon Stewart has agreed to appear on The O'Reilly Factor to debate the controversy surrounding rapper Common's recent appearance at the White House.

On Thursday, O'Reilly said on his Fox News program that he would like to debate Stewart on the "Common situation because it's important."

And Stewart has agreed to appear on O'Reillyís show tonight. Stewart said this about it last week: "This two-time Grammy-winning vegetarian's invite to the White House has the Twitterverse very upset and by TV I don't mean people on Twitter, I mean twits, who took the time to ignore Common's entire body of work save for one poem he wrote in 2007 that they appear to misunderstand."

The question is this, will O'Reilly be an honest journalist and show the entire interview, unedited, on the air, or will he chop it up and put most of it on his website, for people to only see if they go to the website.

I am guessing O'Reilly will chop it up and put the best parts of what Stewart said on the website, because that is what he did the last time Stewart was on his show.

If he does, hopefully Jon Stewart will air the parts O'Reilly did not show on his own show.

Republicans Let Suspected Terrorists Have Guns
By: Steve - May 16, 2011 - 10:30am

First let me say this, I support the 2nd amendment 100%, and I do not want anyone to take my right to own a gun away from me. But this is ridiculous, on Friday Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee killed an amendment by Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) that would have closed the terror gap loophole, preventing firearm sales to suspected terrorists.

Their excuse, the GOP members who killed it said they want to protect the right of people on the FBI's terrorist watch list to purchase firearms, arguing that preventing sales would steal the Second Amendment rights of those placed on the list by mistake.

Are you kidding me, that may be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. So a suspected terrorist can continue to get a gun because Republicans are worried someone may be denied, if their name is on the list by mistake.

What will they say if a terrorist gets a gun and kills a bunch of people, what a joke. Why not close the loophole, and create a way for someone to get their name off the list, if it should not be on it.

This is where Republicans go off the deep end on gun rights, and it's why they are seen as fools on parts of the issue. And of course O'Reilly never says a word about any of this, because it makes his right-wing friends look bad.

Even The Exxon CEO Knows Oil Is Too High
By: Steve - May 16, 2011 - 9:30am

Someone should send a transcript of this to Cavuto and all the other stooges at Fox News, because even the CEO of Exxon says oil prices are too high.

In testimony before a U.S. Senate committee Friday, the head of Exxon Mobil said that, based on supply and demand, oil should actually be currently priced at between $60 to $70 a barrel.

"When we look at it, it's going to be somewhere in the $60 to $70 range. If I had access to the next marketable barrel, what would it cost," said Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson.

The head of Exxon Mobil told Congress on Thursday that based only on the fundamentals of supply and demand, the price of oil should be in the range of $60 to $70 a barrel.

That means the oil speculators are robbing you, because oil is $99 a barrel. And if the Congress actually represented the American people they would go after these crooks and throw them in jail.

Instead they do nothing, and let the oil speculators rob us blind.

O'Reilly Ignoring Ensign/Coburn Hush Money Scandal
By: Steve - May 15, 2011 - 9:30am

This was a big scandal that just got even bigger, and O'Reilly has ignored it all. Because it involves Republicans, but when the Democrat John Edwards mistress scandal broke, O'Reilly was all over it for months on end.

After a 22-month investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee released a report on the conduct of Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), who resigned early this month. The report contains pages and pages of evidence suggesting Ensign may have violated several laws in an effort to cover up an affair with a member of his staff. The committee has even referred the matter to the Department of Justice.

Contained in the 67-page report, however, is troubling evidence of the central role that current Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) played in trying to keep Ensign's mistress and her husband quiet - evidence that contradicts Coburn's previous public statements on the matter.

According to the report, Coburn actively assisted in the discussions of a hush money package, negotiating a proposed package from $8 million down to $2.8 million. The report describes the negotiation between Mr. Albregts, an attorney for the husband of Ensign's mistress, and Sen. Coburn.

The Ensigns rejected the new offer. Previous reports referenced Coburn's role as a go-between but did not reveal the extent of his inovlement in the negotations.

The report notes that "Mr. Albregts testified that Senator Coburn took an active role in the negotiations between Mr. Hampton and Senator Ensign, and this role included proposing specific resolutions." Coburn told the committee that he was "simply going to pass information" on to Ensign.

One thing is certain: Tom Coburn has a lot of explaining to do. But you will not get any news about it from O'Reilly, because he has not even mentioned the scandal, not one time, ever.

Fox News Also Ignored The Ensign Scandal
By: Steve - May 15, 2011 - 9:00am

After the release of the findings of the Senate Ethics Committee's hearing on former Senator John Ensign (R-NV), which determined that Ensign may have broken various laws in order to cover up an extramarital affair, Fox News largely ignored the story.

All of the network's primetime opinion shows, as well as its morning opinion show Fox & Friends, totally ignored the story.

A Nexis search of Fox News primetime shows for May 12th, including The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity, and On the Record, returned no results for mentions of Ensign or the Senate Ethics Committee's report. A review of the May 13 broadcast of Fox & Friends had the same results.

Only two Fox News programs covered the Ensign scandal at all: Special Report and The Fox Report. But they barely mentioned it, and spent very little time discussing the story.

The Senate Ethics Committee report said the DOJ should charge Ensign with crimes. Senate Ethics Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said this: "Mr. Ensign's actions were so brazen and improper that had he not resigned last week he might have been the first senator expelled in nearly 150 years."

Call me crazy, but that sounds like a big story that all the major news shows should have reported on, and they did, except for the shows at Fox. Here are some findings from the report.

Report: "There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign" Pressured Donors, Constituents To Hire Hampton And Violated One-Year Lobbying Ban.

Report: "There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign And His Parents Made False Or Misleading Statements To The Federal Election Commission."

Report: "There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That A Portion Of The $96,000 Payment Constituted An Unlawful And Unreported Campaign Contribution And Violated Federal Law."

Report: "There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign Permitted Spoliation of Documents and Engaged in Potential Obstruction of Justice Violations."

Report: "There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign Discriminated on the Basis of Sex and Engaged in Improper Conduct Reflecting Upon the Senate by Terminating the Hamptons Employment Because of the Affair."

Report: "There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign Violated His Own Senate Office Policies."

Report: "The Special Counsel Recommends Referrals To The Department Of Justice And The Federal Election Commission."

And yet, O'Reilly did not even mention the story, not a word, nothing, zero, zip, nada. But when Democratic Senator (John Edwards) had a sex scandal, with possible violations of the law, O'Reilly was all over it for months on end.

At the time, O'Reilly even said he did want to cover the John Edwards story, but that he had to as a journalist because it had possible crimes involving with a Senator. So here you have a Republican Senator in a sex scandal, with possible crimes involved, and O'Reilly ignores the entire story.

Good job Billy, you have just proven once again that you are a biased, one sided, right-wing hack of a pretend journalist.

Big Oil Says Jump: Fox News Says How High
By: Steve - May 15, 2011 - 8:30am

As expected after the Senate hearings on high gas prices the right-wing stooges at Fox could not run to defend them any faster, especially Cavuto. How anyone can defend those crooks is beyond me, they are raping the American people to make record profits, at a time when they should be trying to help the country.

I would even call it un-American, if anything, these oil companies should be going out of their way to keep gas prices lower, instead they jack it up to $4.00 a gallon for no reason. Except to make record profits on the backs of the American people.

Instead of hammering them, like they should, most of the jerks at Fox, defend them. In the wake of a Senate hearing in which oil executives were questioned about whether their companies should continue to receive tax subsidies. Fox News rushed to defend the oil companies.

On the May 13 edition of Fox & Friends, Brian Kilmeade stated that the "average American" is "interested in why it costs $100 to fill up their SUV." Kilmeade then said this: "What do you do if you're a lawmaker? You haul up the high-priced CEOs of the major oil companies and you blame them. Only this time, the oil execs were ready to fight back with this thing called facts."

Fox & Friends then aired clips of comments from only the oil executives during the May 13 hearing.

Later on the same Fox & Friends show, Kilmeade stated that ending subsidies for oil companies is "a feel good move for people who think we're spending too much." Co-host Steve Doocy replied, "Right. Exactly right."

So cutting a $2 billion dollar a year tax break is a feel good move, that is insane. They are setting record profits every year, they do not need any tax breaks, let alone $2 billion, and in my world $2 billion dollars is a lot of money.

Discussing the hearing during the May 12th Fox News Special Report, Fox News contributor Fred Barnes said this: "Any increasing of the taxes on the oil companies, you know, the more you tax something, the less you get of it. So, that would drive the price up, if anything."

Earth to Fred Barnes, dumping a tax break is not increasing taxes, you moron. And btw, as all the experts have pointed out, cutting the tax incentives for big oil will have little to no effect on prices at the pump.

Cavuto called it a dog and pony show, and even said that some Senators were barking like asses. He should know, because he is the biggest ass on tv, except for maybe Glenn Beck.

On the May 12th Your World, host Neil Cavuto opened the show by saying this:
CAVUTO: Well, talk about your dog-and-pony shows. At least someone had the good sense to bring a picture of a dog and pony, because, when it comes to parading out oil CEOs today to rip them over their tax subsidies, more than a few senators were barking like asses.
Cavuto then aired clips of the hearing featuring Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer, Robert Menendez, and Jay Rockefeller criticizing oil company tax subsidies. Cavuto then hosted Chevron CEO John Watson to defend oil companies, asking him during the interview, "Did you feel that you were just part of a kangaroo court?"

And on the ridiculous Fox Nation website that Fox News runs, they said this: "Oil Execs School Preening Senators." As if the oil execs were right, when in fact they are crooks.

Varney, Palin, etc. also defended them. Because that is what they do at Fox, defend the crooks who give money to Republicans.

The Friday 5-13-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 14, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Southern border controversy heats up again. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Two Border Patrol agents were killed yesterday while chasing suspected illegal alien drug smugglers near Phoenix. And it's not just illegal aliens and drugs that are plaguing Arizona; the border situation is now impacting the public schools there.

The state has ordered schools in Tucson to stop teaching ethnic classes because of alleged bias against America. At a school board meeting in Tucson, a woman read from the works of a radical anti-American whose books are being used by some teachers.

Among the passages in the book: 'My land is lost and stolen, my culture has been raped ... hard drugs and drug culture is an invention of the gringo because he has no culture ... we have to destroy capitalism.'

That's the kind of material students as young as nine are being subjected to in the Tucson area. As the Factor reported earlier this week, 445-thousand people were apprehended on the southern border in 2010, and over the decades hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent trying to control the southern border and it is still not secure. Troubling, to say the least.
O'Reilly was joined by Sheriff Larry Dever of Arizona's Cochise County. Dever said this: "A lot of the criminal activity flies below the radar screen. What isn't reported are all the cut fences, roadways that are damaged, and the upheaval every night with people moving through private property. We have rapes, home invasions, people tied up. So in spite of what is claimed by the administration, the border is more dangerous than it's ever been."

So based on that, O'Reilly concluded that "it doesn't seem that the federal government has done enough to protect the people of Arizona."

And btw, the Obama administration does not say they have secured the border, all they said is that they secured it more than Bush did, and that they have spent more money trying to make it more secure. It's almost impossible to secure such a long border, and that is what O'Reilly and the right-wing Sheriff fail to mention. Even if you build a fence, they can go over it, under it, around it, cut through it, and on and on.

Then Geraldo was on to discuss it, and for once he actually made a good point. Geraldo said this: "The story is hyped beyond belief. This has been ginned up by people whose agenda is to point out this cultural war between Anglo Arizona and Hispanic Arizona. All this is doing is tearing people apart."

Right after former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich announced his intention to run for the presidency, his political rivals showed a TV spot in which Gingrich sat with Nancy Pelosi to warn of climate change. Lou Dobbs contended that Gingrich will pay a huge political price for appearing with Ms. Pelosi.

Dobbs said this: "This will be more difficult for him, than any charges about his personal life. He was clearly implicating that climate change is the responsibility of a Democratic Speaker and a Republican Speaker. This was not a smart choice on his part and conservatives, who are his natural allies, are going to be offended by this."

Then the insane Lou Dobbs defended the major oil companies. Dobbs said this: "They're not greedy, they're trying to make a profit, they're trying to produce energy and oil. They understand that those reserves are right here in America, the richest energy source on the planet."

Are you for real, they're not greedy? Dobbs is out of his mind, they are setting record profits while the unemployment rate is 9%, and the economy was just starting a recovery, that's greedy Lou, and if you do not understand that, you are a fool. Right when we need lower gas prices, they jack it up to $4.00 a gallon, earth to Lou Dobbs, that is being greedy you jerk. And of course O'Reilly did not have anyone on to dispute Dobbs, making it a joke of a segment.

Then Mike Huckabee, was on with his evaluation of President Obama's reelection chances. Huckabee said this: "His lack of understanding of how business works is the key to his defeat. He does not understand that you can not tax and regulate businesses and create jobs. He lacks the leadership and the understanding of how business works because he's never run anything."

Hey dork, I mean Huckabee, how much do you want to bet Obama gets re-elected. What a shocker, not. O'Reilly had a Republican on who thinks Obama will lose in 2012, get real loser, Obama is going to win, again. Then you right-wing freaks will have 4 more years to lie and smear Obama with your propaganda.

Then Glenn Beck was on for his weekly segment. O'Reilly asked him if President Obama should be blamed because the rapper Common, performed at the White House? Beck said this: "This is the circle this man runs around with. Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, it's the same circle over and over, and his actions clearly show that he believes the police are the oppressors."

What a joke, Obama does not run around with those people, he was on a corporate board with Ayers 20 years ago, and barely knew the man. Wright was a pastor at a church he went to, he did not run around with him, and Common was a one time guest at the White House, Obama does not pal around with any of them. Making Beck a massive liar, and an idiot.

Beck turned to another controversy, Meghan's mother Cindy blasted Beck for mocking Meghan's weight. "Cindy McCain, you're right for what you said," Beck said. "You were sticking up for your daughter and I would do the same thing. It was absolutely a juvenile bit, but I've had enough of Meghan McCain as much as she's had enough of me."

O'Reilly then took Beck to the so-called woodshed, Billy said this: "What people don't know about you is that you're genuinely a nice guy. You go out of your way to make people feel good, and then you do these dopey things on the radio. You shouldn't have done that to Meghan McCain."

And finally it was dumbest things of the week with Greg Gutfeld and Arthel Neville, which I will not report on, because it's crap, and not news. The dumbest thing of the week is this segment.

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

O'Reilly Calls For Jon Stewart To Debate Him
By: Steve - May 14, 2011 - 10:30am

On the Thursday night O'Reilly Factor, Billy said this:
O'REILLY: Last night on his program, John Stewart avoided the cop killing deal and concentrated on the good he sees in Common. Stewart wrapped up his segment with a shot at Fox News.

John, I would like to debate you about the Common situation because it's important.

Imagine what the mothers of the slain police officers are thinking when they see a guy like Common in the White House!

I think John Stewart made a big mistake trying to run down Fox News and defend Common, and I look forward to Mr. Stewart coming on the program to discuss it.
Really? It's important, to who? Nobody but O'Reilly and the right-wing idiots who started the bogus scandal. Nobody else cares, it's a right-wing smear job to make Obama look bad for having the rapper Common to the White House.

Entertainment Tonight wrote this about it:

In response to Jon Stewart's spoken-word takedown of Fox News, Fox patriarch Bill O'Reilly has officially thrown down the gauntlet.

On yesterday's O'Reilly Factor, the host had a message for Stewart: "I would like to debate you about the Common situation."

Thus, the stage is set for yet another O'Reilly/Stewart showdown, which will be sort of like an East Coast-West Coast-style rap battle, except without any killer beats, memorable rhymes, and also both men work in New York. (Actually, it will probably very genteel, since the two opposing hosts seem to positively treasure each other's company.)

For his part, O'Reilly arguably succeeded in escalating the "Commongate" debate a little bit. Where earlier anti-Commonites like Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity had directly attacked Common's music with all the self-awareness of preachers proclaiming that Elvis Presley's gyrations were opening a portal to hellfire, O'Reilly focused on what he called Common's "defense" of "two cop-killers," referring to Joanne Chesimard, a.k.a. Assata Shakur, and Mumia Abu-Jamal.

O'Reilly then successfully de-escalated his argument into ambient culture-war territory, noting at one point: "We fought the good fight years ago against gangsta rappers. He's not a gangsta rapper. Now, society has accepted all rappers."

I'm confused. Is Bill O'Reilly taking credit for making rap go corporate? Now that's a debate I'd like to see!


Now the problem is that if Stewart does the Factor, O'Reilly will edit out all the good parts and put them on the website. But it would be fun to see Stewart hammer O'Reilly once again.

Republicans Lied To You About Spending Cuts
By: Steve - May 14, 2011 - 9:30am

Despite their claims about the need to cut federal spending, the Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee late Wednesday night approved a $700 billion military funding allocation for next year - the Pentagon's largest budget ever - including a lifeline to the presumed-dead extra engine for F-35 fighter jets:
During a markup of the 2012 Pentagon authorization measure, House Armed Services Committee members approved one amendment that would allow Rolls and GE access to equipment so they could continue testing a second F-35 power plant.

The panel shot down an amendment introduced by Rep. Jim Cooper [R-TX] that would have siphoned $380.6 million from the F-35 fighter program. It also would have reduced the planned buy of the Marines version of the Lockheed Martin-made F-35 in 2012, from six to four.
The second engine for the F-35 is one of the most obvious and least painful places to cut federal spending, as the military has insisted for several years that it doesn't want it.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has even urged President Obama to veto any defense authorization that includes funding for the project, saying, "Every dollar additional to the budget that we have to put into the F-35 is a dollar taken from something else that the troops may need."

Finally, at the Pentagonís urging, the full House voted to kill funding for the extra engine in February, but Wednesday night's vote is the first step to resurrecting the project.

The vote was a big helping hand to Rolls-Royce and GE, the lead contractors on the project - and they've earned it. The companies dispatched a small army of lobbyists from 13 different firms to the Capitol and have donated heavily to key lawmakers.

GE gave $223,000 to members of the Armed Services Committee in the 2010 election cycle alone, including $8,500 to Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA).

Rolls-Royce's PAC gave almost $10,000 to McKeon in the 2010 cycle. Other supposed fiscal hawks like House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) have also defended the redundant project.

Meanwhile, Republicans on the committee also approved spending an extra $100 million on missile defense, money which could have instead gone to National Guard and Reserve equipment needs.

The Thursday 5-12-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 13, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Boehner, Catholic University & a big controversy. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Speaker of the House John Boehner is set to give the commencement address at Catholic University in Washington on Saturday, but 79 college professors around the country have signed a letter opining that Mr. Boehner is not upholding Catholic moral teaching.

They say that because the Speaker supports budget cuts that might impact poor people he is 'anti-life.' Mr. Boehner is himself is a Catholic and said this: 'I believe that the actions I've taken during my years in Congress uphold the values of my faith.'

I, your humble correspondent, am also Catholic and I do support spending cuts because even though entitlement programs do some good, the looming bankruptcy of the country would harm far more people.

The college professors are missing the essential point - the responsibility of the federal government is to protect all its citizens, and a bankruptcy in this country would devastate everyone. Everything has to be cut, including entitlements.

That is not an immoral position; that is a responsible position. To attack Speaker Boehner as an unfit Catholic is itself immoral because only God can make that judgment. The professors protesting the Speaker's commencement speech are making a blatantly political statement that has little to do with religion.
I do not get into religious issues, so I will let each person think what they want about this. But I will say it sure is funny how O'Reilly ignores the cuts to taxes he is opposed to, or raising taxes on the wealthy, he somehow never mentioned that.

O'Reilly had two professors who signed the letter opposing Speaker Bohner's invitation on to discuss it. Stephen Schneck of Catholic University said this: "Catholics are obliged to preference the poor in regards to public policy, and if you look over the Speaker's record he hasn't been preferencing the poor. The 2012 budget is a good illustration of the Speaker's priorities, and the cuts to the Women, Infants and Children program was particularly egregious."

Vincent Miller of the University of Dayton said this: "There was a vote against temporary assistance for needy families, a vote against health care for children in the states, and a vote against extending unemployment benefits. Distributive justice means societies have an obligation to care for everyone."

O'Reilly said that opposition to Speaker Boehner is based not on theology, but on ideology, Billy said this: "You are using the Catholic religion to justify the quasi-socialist Western European model that you want."

Then O'Reilly had a segment on the rapper Common, with no guest, where he called on Jon Stewart to come on his show and debate him.

Then Laura Ingraham was on to discuss the rapper Common, and the Romney speech. Ingraham said this: "This is the people's house, and I think it's legitimate to ask whether this is the kind of stuff we want to elevate. There are some lyrics from Common that I can't even read on this show, and it's odd for the President and First Lady to stand with him."

Ingraham also talked about Mitt Romney's defense of the health care plan he enacted while serving as Governor of Massachusetts. Ingraham said this: "I like Mitt Romney and I think he would be a good president, but I don't get this. Costs have gone up and this is wildly unpopular - he should just say he tried his best, it didn't work, and he doesn't want the entire nation to go down this road. This is still going to dog him, fairly or not."

Then the blonde body language bimbo was on, that I do not report on because it's nonsense. It's just another way for O'Reilly to use a blonde bimbo, for ratings, and to make liberals and Democrats look bad in a one sided biased way, with a right-wing body language expert. It's not news, and I do not report on it.

Now get this, O'Reilly had the Culture Warriors Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson on to talk about a host of female celebrities who appear naked in a public service announcement about the danger of skin cancer. O'Reilly said the Skin cancer PSA is raising some eyebrows. Really? From who?

Then during the segment they all said they had no problem with it, so if they have no problem with it, why even do the fricking segment about it?

Hoover said this: "It's extremely effective, and I think it's a worthwhile cause. Millions of skin cancer cases are discovered every year, and this is a metaphor for wearing sun block." Carlson agreed that the spot is neither offensive nor improper. So why even do the segment about it, you morons.

And finally in the last segment it was the ridiculous Factor news quiz with Martha MacCallum and Steve Doocy, that I do not report on because it is nonsense, and not news.

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

O'Reilly Ignored McCain Op-Ed On Bin Laden
By: Steve - May 13, 2011 - 10:30am

In a Washington Post op-ed Thursday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) writes that the evidence used to find Osama Bin Laden was not produced by torture. The Senator also said that the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed yielded "false and misleading information."

And yet, O'Reilly ignored the story, because it proves he is lying when he says waterboarding got the info that led to the killing of Bin Laden.

Here are some quotes from the McCain op-ed:

Torture didn't lead the United States to Osama bin Laden, and the mission shouldn't be used to justify the country's use of it in the past, argues Sen. John McCain.

Writing on Thursday's Washington Post op-ed page, the Arizona Republican - and himself a former prisoner of war - said "enhanced interrogation techniques" like waterboarding have no place in U.S. treatment of prisoners of war. He also dismisses the claims some Republicans in Congress and former Bush administration officials have been making about the tough handling of detainees leading directly to bin Laden.

"I don't mourn the loss of any terrorist's life. What I do mourn is what we lose when, by official policy or official neglect, we confuse or encourage those who fight this war for us to forget that best sense of ourselves," McCain wrote. "Through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss, we are always Americans, and different, stronger and better than those who would destroy us."

NOTE: Notice that O'Reilly has not even had John McCain on the Factor to discuss it, that's because he knows McCain would prove he is wrong, and O'Reilly does not like to be told he is wrong.

McCain also said this: Mukasey's conclusions are false, said McCain, who cited information he said he got directly from CIA Director Leon Panetta. "The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times."

Intelligence officials first learned the nickname of bin Laden's courier -Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti - "from a detainee held in another country, who was not tortured." And, he added, "None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed's real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in Al Qaeda."

The waterboarding of Mohammed, in fact, yielded "false and misleading information" about the courier, McCain said. The staff of the Senate intelligence committee has told him that the best information that led to bin Laden came through non-coercive means.

To McCain, though, the lines are clear: "Mistreatment of enemy prisoners endangers our own troops, who might someday be held captive" and stands in opposition to the American principle that "an individual's human rights [are] superior to the will of the majority or the wishes of government."

"Ultimately, this is more than a utilitarian debate," he said. "This is a moral debate. It is about who we are."


Suck on that O'Reilly, you dishonest fraud of a journalist. You either have McCain on to discuss it, or your credibility is zero.

Fox & Friends Lied About Obama's Border Record
By: Steve - May 13, 2011 - 9:30am

Fox & Friends have repeatedly suggested that because of a joke President Obama made during a recent speech about immigration, he is not taking border security seriously. But the truth is they ignored that deportations of illegal immigrants have increased under Obama, and the number of border patrol agents and funding for border security projects have also increased.

Notice you never see O'Reilly or Bernie Goldberg correct any of these lies, that's because they want people to believe it, to make Obama look bad.

On the May 11 edition of Fox News Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy said this:
DOOCY: Just days after a dozen people were massacred near the United States- Mexican border, the president made fun of the fence. Can he keep us safe without securing the border?
Doocy was referring to a May 8 gun battle at Falcon Lake, on the border between Texas and Mexico, which reportedly killed one Mexican marine and 12 suspected drug cartel members.

Later during the broadcast, co-host Gretchen Carlson interviewed Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX). Carlson repeatedly invited Poe to criticize the Obama administration's record on border security and did not dispute Poe's suggestion that the president has made the U.S.-Mexican border less secure.

But experts say the Border is "More Fortified Than Ever" ander the Obama Administration.

PolitiFact rated as "true" Obama's statement that "the Border Patrol has 20,000 agents -- more than twice as many as there were in 2004."

In March 2011, the U.S. Government Accountability Office released a report, "Border Security: DHS Progress and Challenges in Securing the U.S. Southwest and Northern Borders," in conjunction with testimony from GAO Director Richard Stana.

The report confirmed that personnel and other resources to stop illegal crossings of the U.S.-Mexico border have increased dramatically in recent years.

In 2004, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security was created, reorganizing several federal agencies under a single roof. That year, the agency had 10,500 agents to patrol land borders. That number now stands at nearly 21,000.

In other words, manpower has roughly doubled since 2004, as Obama said in his speech in El Paso. Again, that trend began under President Bush, whom Obama credited, but it continued under Obama. We rate Obama's statement True. (PolitiFact, 5-10-11)

A June 23, 2010, Associated Press article noted: "You wouldn't know it from the public debate, but the U.S.-Mexico border is more fortified now than it was even five years ago. Far more agents patrol it, more fences, barriers and technology protect it and taxpayers are spending billions more to reinforce it." (AP, 6-23-10)

It goes on and on, but no matter what Obama does, the idiots at Fox just keep lying about it. They are a joke, and nothing they say can be trusted to be true.

The Wednesday 5-11-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 12, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Another bad PR move by the White House. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: First Lady Michelle Obama has invited a number of poets to read their work at the White House, among them a rapper named Common, who is controversial to say the least. This guy sympathized with convicted cop killers and also does the usual rap stuff, touting guns and other anti-social behavior.

In addition, he's a friend of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. So why on earth would the President and First Lady invite this man to the White House? The answer, I believe, is that the Obamas do not understand the sensibilities of many Americans; we saw that during the campaign with the President's comments on guns and religion.

A man like Common targets a very select audience - young, urban, mostly African American. He is certainly entitled to rap whatever he wants, but by inviting him to the White House the President and First Lady tacitly endorse him.

And when you get into areas where the man is praising convicted cop killers, you've got a major problem. The President and First Lady have made a major mistake in inviting this guy to the White House; he surely does not deserve that honor
So then O'Reilly had David Jones, head of New Jersey's State Troopers Fraternal Organization on to discuss it. Jones said this: "Two days ago I got a memo saying this rapper will be a guest at the White House, and the more I explored his vitriolic embrace of violence against police officers, the more I got upset. Here's what makes this the most stupid - this is National Law Enforcement Memorial Week, when we honor police officers who died in the line of duty. And now we have this mutt, this nitwit, this complete fraud who has embraced this mentality and has done very well by it."

Then Alicia Menendez and Leslie Marshall were on to discuss it. Marshall said this: "I don't agree 100% that this is a bad PR move. My research shows that this guy is not a gangster or a thug, he just has three lines that have been very upsetting. He's actually done more good than harm."

Menendez said this: "Very often we conflate the rapper with their lyrics, and I don't know that we should take these lyrics to mean that this man is endorsing cop killing. Who could endorse that?"

And Jon Stewart said it best, On the May 11th Daily Show, Stewart highlighted the absurd hypocrisy in Fox's manufactured controversy over the White House's decision to host rapper Common at a poetry event. As Stewart pointed out, Fox has celebrated musicians with far more violent lyrics, including hosting Ted Nugent--who once told President Obama "to suck on my machine gun"--multiple times.

Then O'Reilly had some more hypocrisy, with Dick Morris. They cried about an AP poll that has Obama at 60% approval, and said it was hogwash. Now think about this, these are the same two guys that say the Rasmussen polls are valid, and that Frank Luntz is a non-partisan pollster. When we all know the Rasmussen polls are biased garbage, and Luntz works for the Republican party.

Dick Morris said this: "This was a totally screwed-up sample, and this poll is hogwash. The poll had 35% Democrats and 18% Republicans, a two-to-one margin. If I got a poll back that had twice as many Democrats as Republicans, I'd weight it for the appropriate party distinction or I'd order 200 more interviews to get more Republicans included."

O'Reilly even accused the AP of harboring blatant bias, Billy said this: "I have said for a number of years that the Associated Press is not what it used to be. It is an ideological news service, as is Reuters. They purposely tilt stories in a left-wing direction."

Wow, does O'Reilly even know what a hypocrite he is, he is one of the most biased men in the media, and Fox is the most biased news network in America, and yet, here he is crying about bias at AP. It's just laughable, it's beyond pot meet kettle, it's hypocrisy to the 10th degree.

And btw, Morris had it wrong. He said it was 35% to 18%. But in that AP-GfK poll, 46 percent of respondents identified themselves as Democrats or leaning that way, while 29 percent said they were Republicans or leaning to that party.

Then O'Reilly had Jesse Watters was on to talk about Donald Trump, which I will not report ob, except to say this. Watters pointed out that Trump's poll numbers have been sinking and he is now in fifth place among Republican contenders.

Then O'Reilly had Dennis Miller on for his weekly Miller Time segment, which I never report on, because he is a comedian, and it's not news. Not to mention, he is only on to make jokes about Democrats, with no liberal comedian on to make jokes about Republicans.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Juliet Huddy on for did you see that. She watched tape showing two Mexican American activists refusing to roll down their car window at a sobriety checkpoint, after which police smashed the car window.

"You can clearly see by their verbiage and their attitude that there was an agenda here. They are aligned with an organization that opposes sobriety checkpoints and immigration raids. They were arrested and they're going to court in July, and this video is being used against these two men."

Huddy also viewed the video of a Wisconsin judge who ridiculed a sex offender during sentencing. She said this: "This judge is known as somebody who is constantly throwing out his opinions, and constantly going over the line in the opinion of a lot of folks. But he has been elected six times and has served more than thirty years."

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

O'Reilly Attacks Media Matters For Fox Review
By: Steve - May 12, 2011 - 10:30am

Conservatives at Fox News, the Daily Caller and Sarah Palin are criticizing the White House's invitation to rapper Common for a poetry event over the purported vulgarity of his lyrics. Fox Nation, for instance, called Common a "vile rapper."

But about 6 months ago, Fox News had a different tone about Common. In an October 2010 report for, reporter Jason Robinson interviewed the "rap legend" and told him, "your music is very positive. And you're known as the conscious rapper. How important is that to you, and how important do you think that is to our kids?"

Common replied that it's a "significant role. I just try to show who we are as well-rounded people and I'm happy to be known as the conscious artist."

So what does O'Reilly do, he dishonestly attacks Media Matters of course, for simply pointing out the hypocrisy at Fox for the positive review.

Other people have also debunked the silly outrage over Common's invite to the White House. Jason Linkins writes that Common is "not what I consider to be a 'gangsta rapper' or particularly prone to any of hip-hop's legendary excesses. In fact, it was these excesses - 'poppin glocks servin rocks and hittin switches' -- that Common famously criticized in perhaps his most famous song, 'I Used To Love H.E.R.'"

Conor Friedersdorf, also notes that there's a tradition of previous White Houses hosting people with purportedly controversial lyrics.

Basically O'Reilly just used the right-wing talking points about Common to attack Obama, proving once again that he is a partisan hack who will use anything to attack Obama. While doing the exact opposite when Bush was in office, O'Reilly never attacked Bush for anything, and defended him against all the attacks on him by the Democrats.

Stossel Proves Again That He Is A Lying Idiot
By: Steve - May 12, 2011 - 9:30am

Now the right-wing moron is saying that methane in drinking water happens naturally and has nothing to do with fracking, when, in fact, there is overwhelming evidence that hydraulic fracturing can cause toxic chemicals to leak into groundwater, release radioactivity, and pollute the air.

Leading up to his May 12th Fox special report on energy, Fox Business host John Stossel appeared on several Fox programs to deride critics of the natural gas extraction process called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

During the segment, Stossel noted concerns many Americans have expressed with nuclear energy, gasoline, and natural gas. A preview of his report was played that included footage from the documentary Gasland in which tap water is lit on fire.

The film claims the tap water contains high levels of methane due to leaks from fracking. Stossel dismissed the claims, saying this:
STOSSEL: Although this documentary Gasland makes it seem like that came from natural gas drilling, environmentalists investigated that, and it turns out there is natural methane in the ground. ... It had nothing to do with the fracking.
In fact, it was not environmentalists, but oil and gas industry officials who investigated the claims and declared that the natural gas in the water supply was not related to fracking.
DOBBS: How much do we have in the way of energy reserves in this country?

STOSSEL: Well, we have oil from shale, and Canada has huge amounts. And with natural gas, more than a hundred years, so we're in good shape -- unless the wacko environmentalists say this fracking is going to poison our drinking water. And there are these powerful clips of people's drinking water catching fire. But it turns out, in many cases, that's not from fracking.
Contrary to Stossel's claim that "environmentalists investigated" the water supply shown to be contaminated in Gasland and determined "it had nothing to do with the fracking," it was, in fact, officials of an oil and gas commission who conducted the investigation. The American Petroleum Institute (API) published a "Gasland Fact Sheet" in June 2010.

And the objective experts also dispute what Stossel said. A peer-reviewed study from Duke University published on May 9 found a strong link between fracking and drinking water contaminants.

A review of EPA documents conducted by The New York Times concluded that fracking produces wastewater full of toxic chemicals, and even radioactivity, that sewage plants fail to fully treat. It also found that natural-gas drilling damages air quality by releasing toxic gases.

On April 19, CBS Pittsburgh reported that officials with the Marcellus Shale drilling industry admitted after reviewing research that "the natural gas exploration industry is partly responsible for rising levels of contaminants found in area drinking water."

Despite all that evidence, Stossel still denies the truth. Proving once again that he is a right-wing idiot, who lets his partisan ideology get in the way of the facts.

The Tuesday 5-10-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 11, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Obama launches push for immigration reform. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Today President Obama went to El Paso to urge Americans to support his vision of immigration reform. Mr. Obama outlined his plan: Secure the border, fine businesses that hire illegals, fine the illegals themselves, and require them to learn English before they can apply for citizenship.

It's a responsible plan with one huge flaw - the border. Here are the dreadful stats: There are approximately 11.2 million illegal aliens living in the USA; in 2010 authorities detained an astounding 445,000 people illegally crossing the Mexican border and seized more than 4 million pounds of drugs.

But here's the worst part - almost ten years after 9/11, only 650 miles of the border are fenced, while 1,300 miles remain open and the feds don't seem to care. Also, there are only 1,200 National Guard backing up the Border Patrol, so of course you're going to have millions of people coming in every year.

This is a colossal failure by the federal government, a disgrace. President Obama should know that immigration reform will not pass until the border is secure. Here's the solution: Complete the fence and put at least 7,000 National Guard on the border.

But instead of pushing hard for border security, Mr. Obama is playing politics and criticizing plans like mine. Secure the border, Mr. President, and I'll back the reform.
Now that's funny, Obama has a plan to secure the border, fine businesses that hire illegals, fine the illegals themselves, and require them to learn English before they can apply for citizenship. And O'Reilly says there is a huge flaw, not securing the border, when it's in the plan. And to be honest, you can not really secure a border, even with a fence.

Then O'Reilly had the Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez on to educate him. Gutierrez said this: "We have doubled the number of Border Patrol agents, and we did spend an additional $600-million just last September. Those coming across the border undocumented are getting caught and sent back, so fewer people are actually entering, and the southern border isn't the only point of entry into the United States. You've got to stop the madness of people wanting to come to the United States."

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to discuss the United Nations considering appointing Syria to a spot on its Human Rights Council. Crowley said this: "This is more theater of the absurd coming from the United Nations. This institution is the most anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-freedom institution in the history of the world. For thirty years Syria has had an incredibly murderous regime."

Colmes defended the United Nations, he said this: "It's not supposed to be a pro-American organization; it's a pro-world organization. They are a fair and balanced organization that is looking to give an equal voice to all countries. It's good that we have them."

Colmes also talked about last week's controversy, when he claimed that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said enhanced interrogation is not a useful tool. Which is not what Colmes said, O'Reilly misrepresented what he was saying. Colmes said the info that led to Bin Laden was not from waterboarding, he did not say that waterboarding does not work.

Colmes said this: "You and Rumsfeld had a ton of fun at my expense last week, but what upset me the most was when you said I care more about ideology than truth, which is an unfair slap at me. I am not an ideologue, although I clearly have left-leaning positions."

O'Reilly repeated his claim that Colmes ignored all the relevant evidence, Billy said this: "We had six primary sources on the record saying the information we received under coerced interrogation helped us. You rejected all of them."

And I found 5 or 6 sources that said the opposite, including the Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, but O'Reilly ignored all of them. As usual O'Reilly takes the right-wing side, while ignoring all the other evidence, then he claims his evidence is the truth, and if you doubt him you are dishonest. Which is just ridiculous, because most people are saying the info did not come from waterboarding.

Then John Stossel was on, he was recently involved in an on-air dust up with a lawyer who is representing blacks who claim they are farmers and were discriminated against by the federal government. And of course Stossel thinks the whole thing is a scam, even though they won the case, and they will get the money. Stossel is a far right idiot, and I do not care what he says about anything.

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about Afghanistan, and of course no Democratic guest was on to make it a fair and balanced segment. A new poll indicates that 35% of Americans want our troops out of Afghanistan "immediately," while 21% want them gone within a year.

Krauthammer said this: "This may surprise you, but I think the original Obama policy of putting us on a glide path to turning it over to the Afghans in 2014 is just about right. I hope he will resist the temptation of using the great success of the bin Laden operation to want to give us a precipitous withdrawal. That would help him in his reelection but would not be good for the long run."

O'Reilly reminded Krauthammer that public opinion has turned against the war, Billy said this: "56% of Americans don't want this anymore, and I understand why. Ten years is a long time and the Afghans can't defend themselves against an enemy they despise while we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars defending a corrupt guy, President Karzai."

And let me say this, I agree with the people, I think we should get our troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible.

In the last segment Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on for is it legal. San Francisco has informed federal immigration authorities that it will soon release illegal aliens who have committed crimes.

Guilfoyle said this: "The federal government has a plan to identify and remove criminal aliens from the community, but the sheriff in San Francisco says they're going to release them back into the community. San Francisco will be violating the law."

Lis Wiehl turned to another California situation in which a town has been banned from flying the American flag near a highway exit. Wiehl said this: "A court has ruled that you can't have a flag on a highway, because a highway is not a public forum. The town of Orcutt wants to have the flag, but the state and the court say it's dangerous."

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

O'Reilly Ignored Three Republican Sex Scandals
By: Steve - May 11, 2011 - 10:30am

Think about this folks, when the Democratic Senator John Edwards had a sex scandal, O'Reilly was all over it, he must have done 10 segments on it over a years time. But when Republicans have sex scandals O'Reilly ignores it, and never even does one segment about any of it.

In the past year alone, three Republicans in Congress - former Sen. John Ensign and former Reps. Chris Lee and Mark Souder - have resigned amidst sex scandals. And O'Reilly has not reported on any of it. Even though Republicans claim to be the party of the moral majority, making it a big story.

The Ensign scandal was not only about sex, it was also about a payoff, making it a possible crime too. O'Reilly has 2 regular segments for this type of news, the Culture Warriors, and the Is It Legal segment, and yet, he ignored it.

Nevada Republican John Ensign, who admitted having an extramarital affair with a campaign staff member, said on Thursday that he would resign from the Senate on May 3rd.

Ensign, 52, announced last month that he would not seek re-election in 2012. He had been facing a Senate ethics committee probe stemming from the extramarital affair.

Ensign admitted to having an affair in 2008 with Cynthia Hampton, who worked for his campaign, and whose husband, Douglas, was a legislative aide to the senator.

The Senate ethics investigation focused in part on some $96,000 Ensign's parents gave to the Hamptons, which Ensign's attorney has characterized as a gift.

So he not only cheated on his wife, he cheated with the wife of an aide working for him, then he tried to pay them to keep quiet, and had his parents pay them to cover for him. This is a big scandal, and yet, O'Reilly has ignored it all.

All this shows what a hypocrite O'Reilly is, with massive double standards. When Democrats have sex scandals O'Reilly makes a living reporting on it, but when Republicans have them, he is silent. And the Republicans sex scandals are worse, because they constantly preach family values, and claim to be the moral majority.

Republican Loon Claims China Controls The Panama Canal
By: Steve - May 11, 2011 - 9:30am

Here is another example of just how stupid some of the Republicans are that you people vote into office. During a town hall meeting last week, Rep. Allen West (R-FL) warned his constituents about serious threats to our country, including Iran and Hezbollah. But, one of the examples West used, was not just overblown; it was a lie.

Warning the crowd about the economic and national security dangers that China poses to the United States, West said (twice) that China is in control of the Panama Canal:
WEST: I had the opportunity to go down to the United States southern command which is headquartered in Miami, Florida. There is a huge threat coming up out of South America through Central America, through Mexico, and into the United States.

Iran is in South America. Hezbollah is in South America. I already talked about how China is in control of the Panama Canal. And even about 50 miles away from here in the Bahamas, building a port there. You know, there is some serious threats to our country.
WRONG! The idea that China controls the Panama Canal is ridiculous. The United States handed control of the canal over to Panama on December 31, 1999 and it has remained in Panamanian hands ever since.

This right-wing lie was even debunked by the conservative news outlet Newsmax back in 2006. In fact, rather than owning the Panama Canal, China is currently proposing a rival railroad in Colombia that would allow goods to bypass the canal.

The Monday 5-9-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 10, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Can President Obama protect us? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There is no question President Obama did the right thing in the bin Laden raid, but going forward there are troubling questions. The first one involves the Army Field Manual, which is now the only tool American intelligence agents have when they interrogate captured terrorists. That means the terrorists do not have to answer any questions, and nothing will happen to them if they don't. So if the CIA captures a person they believe knows about a nuke attack on the USA, they can't do anything to make that person talk.

Does that make sense to you? Even more troubling is Pakistan, which over the weekend tried to out the CIA station chief in that nation. That is a slap in the face to all Americans and the President knows he has a huge problem with Pakistan. The USA needs Pakistan, which allows supplies to go into Afghanistan to aid our troops.

But overall, Pakistan is not a friend to the USA, even though we give that country $3-billion a year in aid. American troops are being killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan and those villains are being protected by the Pakistani government.

That means Pakistan is aiding and abetting the deaths of American soldiers and Marines. To me, that's unacceptable. The bin Laden deal has exposed Pakistan, and the USA needs to solve this situation ... now!
Notice that O'Reilly is wondering if Obama can protect us, when in fact he has, making the question stupid. And it was Bush who did not protect us, because the 9-11 attack happened after Bush was elected. And yet, not once did O'Reilly ask if Bush could protect us.

O'Reilly also complained that Obama banned waterboarding, and says it is leaving us unsafe, except it was not used for 200 years and we were safe. Not to mention, it's illegal. He said he never speculates, then he speculated that if we do not have the ability to waterboard someone we are not safe. Hey O'Dumbass, that's speculation.

Then Karl Rove was on to discuss Pakistan. Rove said this: "We need to stay engaged, because this is an important country in an important region. On the other hand, we can't let these things go without any response. We are going to have to find ways to pressure them and let them know that this is unacceptable behavior on the part of their government. We give them $3-billion a year and we can slow that down and attach some strings to it. This requires patient diplomacy."

Wow, for once I pretty much agree with Rove, that's a first. But of course O'Reilly disagreed with Rove.

Billy said this: "Patient diplomacy? How much more do the American people have to take? We've been doing this for ten years and we haven't been getting anywhere."

Then Brit Hume was on to discuss Pakistan, number of Democratic guests on to discuss it, zero, as usual. Hume said this: "Pakistan is nearly a dysfunctional state, and the government is not fully in charge. You have to ask whether we'd be better off if we didn't help the government, and my sense is that things in Pakistan could be very much worse for us than they are now. If it gets to the point where our relationship with Pakistan utterly deteriorates, that's not better!"

Here is what gets me, neither O'Reilly or Hume are foreign policy experts, they are biased right-wing hacks who spin out partisan opinions for a fake news network, so why should anyone care what they say about any foreign country. Especially when they are not in the government, and they do not have the security clearance to see the intelligence on that country. Where are the foreign policy experts, nowhere to be found, it's just partisan right-wing spin.

Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to talk about AG Eric Holder, who is investigating CIA agents who allegedly took part in coerced interrogations of terror suspects. Williams said this: "It would tear the country apart, so it's not going to happen. President Obama will not allow any kind of prosecution to go forward. But we shouldn't torture people - that's not in keeping with who we are and that information can be gained otherwise."

What a giant load of right-wing garbage, from Juan Williams, the fake Democrat. How would it tear the country apart, nobody even cares except a few right-wing loons, like O'Reilly, Ham, and Williams. And if a few CIA agents went beyond the bogus legal argument Bush had his DOJ lawyers make, they should be prosecuted, to send a message to the rest of the CIA, that they can not violate laws.

O'Reilly once said that if we do not follow the law, we have chaos. Now he spins for the right that it was ok because we got information, which is ridiculous. Because not only was it torture, it was illegal.

Ham said this: "This sets a terrible precedent for folks who are putting their necks out trying to find information. This looks like a political game - these guys tried to keep us safe and now they have this hanging over their heads." Then O'Dummy slammed Williams for equating waterboarding with the most heinous torture techniques, Billy said this: "You know there is no equivalency between waterboarding and eyeball-gouging. Navy SEALs are waterboarded in their training and they don't say it's torture."

Wow, that statement is so stupid it's hard to even go into it. To begin with, the SEALs know it's only training, and there is no chance they will die. And second, it does not matter if they say it's not torture, it's the law, and the law says it is torture. To even argue waterboarding is not torture is insane, and nothing but right-wing spin.

Then O'Reilly had Daily News publisher Mort Zuckerman on to talk about his paper saying Trump is racist. Zuckerman said this: "It's a judgment as to whether he is a credible candidate for the presidency. I take nothing away from his accomplishments or his ability to promote himself, but the presidency is a very serious job. We're in a lot of trouble and we need people who have a lot of leadership experience within the context of government. You can't just go there and mouth off and think you're going to solve the problems of this country."

O'Reilly accused the Daily News of taking its criticism too far, Billy said this: "You guys can be very nasty and I don't think the 'racist' stuff did the Daily News any good at all."

Then the biased far-right hack Bernie Goldberg was on to evaluate the mainstream media's handling of the waterboarding debate. Goldberg said this: "Liberal journalists find it difficult, to say that something that they find reprehensible - waterboarding - could lead to something good, the takedown of Usama bin Laden. That's tough for them. I don't know if waterboarding helped a little or a lot, but I do know that journalists are running away from that connection because they're liberals."

And of course O'Reilly accused some reporters of putting ideology ahead of the truth, crazy O'Dummy said this: "Coerced interrogation did lead to bin Laden's courier, that's beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet you will never see that point ceded in the mainstream media, ever!"

Wow, is that a lie. Most experts say that waterboarding did not get the info that led to Bin Laden, but a few right-wingers say it did, so O'Reilly declares that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. What a joke, and the only thing it proves is that O'Reilly is a right-wing hack. Then he says some reporters are putting ideology ahead of the truth, yeah, and his name is Bill O'Reilly. Pot meet kettle.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had his biased, bogus, ridiculous, one sided, so-called reality check. Which I do not report on, because it's O'Dummy by himself putting his right-wing spin on what someone else said, with no guest to counter what he is saying.

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

O'Reilly Lies That DOJ Going After ALL CIA Agents
By: Steve - May 10, 2011 - 9:30am

Once again O'Reilly is lying, and putting out right-wing talking points. And for someone who claims to be a non-partisan Independent, he sure uses a lot of dishonest right-wing talking points. On Monday night O'Reilly said the DOJ is going after CIA agents who were following orders from Bush.

O'Reilly falsely accused Attorney General Eric Holder of going after CIA agents for administering enhanced interrogation techniques approved during the Bush administration.

And of course O'Reilly is lying, here are the facts.

Eric Holder has made it clear that the Department of Justice will not prosecute agents "who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance" of the Bush administration, and the DOJ's investigation is only focused on agents who went beyond the Bush administration's legal guidance.

In a statement released August 24, 2009, announcing the investigation of "the interrogation of certain detainees," Attorney General Eric Holder made clear that intelligence agents who acted "in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance will be protected from legal jeopardy."

In an August 24, 2009, post on the New York Times Room For Debate blog, Diane Marie Amann, law professor at the University of California, Davis, quoted Holder's statement that officers who acted in "good faith" would not be prosecuted, and wrote, "Cause for concern thus rests only with persons who acted in bad faith, or against legal advice."

Amann also said this: "All Mr. Holder did, in short, was to instruct a prosecutor to see if U.S. law was violated. Given the descriptions in the just-released C.I.A. report of waterboarding and other abuses, how could he have done anything less?"

Basically, there is evidence that some CIA agents went beyond what the Bush legal opinion approved of, and broke the law, so all Holder is doing is an investigation to see if they have enough evidence to prove it.

In the same New York Times post, Benjamin Wittes, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, wrote this: "My best guess is that Attorney General Eric Holder acted quite reasonably."

Wittes also said this: "This leaves the question of what should happen to those operatives who acted beyond the exceptionally permissive guidance that the lawyers gave them. Some of these incidents are very ugly. Some detainees even died in custody.

And if people acted in violent fashions beyond what the Justice Department authorized and if there is some reason for Holder to be dissatisfied with the manner in which the career prosecutors in the Justice Department previously investigated their cases, it strikes me as appropriate for him to request another look.

The key, it seems to me, is that the investigation should focus only on the specific incidents in which people exceeded the legal guidance they were given.

So what O'Reilly did was lie about it using right-wing talking points, claiming the Obama DOJ is going after ALL the CIA agents who used the EIT's under Bush, which is just not true, it's a lie.

At this point, O'Reilly should just get his check from the RNC, because about 99% of what he says is right-wing spin, lies, or flat out propaganda, and nothing he says should ever be trusted to be the objective truth.

Another Military Study O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - May 10, 2011 - 8:30am

O'Reilly claims to care about the military, and even raises money for some military charities. While at the same time ignoring almost every single report and study about the people in the military. And the most recent study is no exception, O'Reilly has not even mentioned it.

USA Today reported that the psychological strain on U.S. troops serving in Afghanistan is at a five-year high. The survey reports the lowest morale since 2005, with the most severe mental health strain existing among veterans that have had three or more deployments.

"We're an Army that's in uncharted territory here," says Gen. Peter Chiarelli, Army vice chief of staff.

U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan are experiencing some of the greatest psychological stress and lowest morale in five years of fighting, reports a military study.

Mental health strain was most severe among veterans of three or more deployments, with a third of those showing signs of psychological problems defined as either stress, depression or anxiety, the report obtained by USA TODAY says.

The research, based on a survey of soldiers and Marines in 2010, also found that the praise the troops have for their unit sergeants has never been higher as the United States approaches the 10th year of its longest war.

The report says decline in individual morale is significant: 46.5% of troops said they had medium, high or very high morale, compared with 65.7% who said that in 2005. About one in seven soldiers - and one in five Marines - reported high or very high morale.


Okay, now here is my opinion about it. O'Reilly supports every war we have, even wars we should not have started, but when it comes to reporting about problems the troops have, he is mostly silent. So then he raises money for wounded troops etc, because he feels guilty about his support for wars we should not be in, the same wars that got them wounded.

Colonel Wilkerson Slams Rumsfeld Over Waterboarding
By: Steve - May 9, 2011 - 10:30am

Tensions are getting high as the issue of whether waterboarding is an effective interrogation tool or merely torture. Last week former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told Bill O'Reilly that waterboarding is not torture, and in response, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared on The Ed Show and told Ed Schultz that Rumsfeld is plainly "delusional."

Rumsfeld also claimed that waterboarding "produced an enormous amount of very valuable intelligence information."

Schultz said "it just amazes me how former Bush administration officials are out on the cables saying [waterboarding] just did everything for the country."

Wilkerson however was furious and claimed Rumsfeld's statement about actionable intelligence being obtained was "preposterous."
WILKERSON: My former boss Colin Powell recently said that Donald Rumsfeld was delusional and deceptive and he could prove both points.

My former boss is right. Multiple tiers of bureaucracy gave [Rumsfeld] the information he has. He made sure that his bureaucracy was sycophant. Yes-men, yes-women. He made sure the people working for him told him what he wanted to hear.

Let me waterboard Donald Rumsfeld and then we'll see if he says it's torture or not.
In addition to issuing the waterboarding challenge to Rumsfeld, Wilkerson said the reason he is actively trying to make the case for waterboarding is because Rumsfeld and Cheney know if they travel to certain countries abroad they will be prosecuted for war crimes.

Folks, this is real simple, waterboarding is torture, no matter what O'Reilly and Rumsfeld say, it's torture. It is listed as torture under US law, International law, and it's even listed as torture in the Geneva Conventions.

Waterboarding is a form of torture in which water is poured over the face of an immobilized captive, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning.

Waterboarding can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage and, if uninterrupted, death.

Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years.

In 1983 Texas sheriff James Parker and three of his deputies were convicted for conspiring to force confessions. The complaint said they "subjected prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal to coerce confessions. This included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to indicate that he was suffocating and or drowning."

The sheriff was sentenced to ten years in prison, and the deputies to four years.

In fact, the United States prosecuted Japanese soldiers after WWII for waterboarding American personnel and we also prosecuted American servicemen for waterboarding prisoners during the Vietnam War.

The United States government hanged Japanese soldiers for waterboarding US prisoners of war in World War II. Think about that for a minute folks, waterboarding is so bad that we hanged Japanese soldiers for waterboarding US prisoners. And yet, O'Reilly and his right-wing friends deny it is even torture.

Florida Takes Unemployment Money To Cut Taxes
By: Steve - May 9, 2011 - 9:30am

In the last few months, conservatives in several states have moved to limit unemployment benefits, even with the national unemployment rate at 9 percent and more than 40 percent of the unemployed having been out of work for six months or more.

Conservative lawmakers in Utah falsely claimed that cutting jobless benefits would be motivation for people to get back to work, while Michigan gutted its unemployment insurance system despite having one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation.

Florida Republicans last weekend also succeeded in reducing their state's unemployment benefits, sending a bill to Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) for his signature:
The legislation would cut maximum state benefits to 23 weeks from 26 when the jobless rate is 10.5 percent or higher.

If lower, the maximum would decline on a sliding scale until bottoming at 12 weeks if the jobless rate was 5 percent or less.
As the National Employment Law Project pointed out, with this bill, Florida will "go further than any other state in dismantling its unemployment insurance system."

The Republican sponsor of the bill, state Sen. Nancy Detert (R), relied on the same false assumption as the lawmakers in Utah, saying that cutting benefits "encourages people to get back into the job market."

But research by the San Francisco Federal Reserve has found that workers who qualify for unemployment benefits stay unemployed just 1.6 weeks longer than those who do not qualify for such benefits.

Even before this legislation, Florida's unemployment benefits were amongst the worst in the nation. Once it becomes law, Floridians will not receive the national standard of 26 weeks of unemployment benefits unless the state's unemployment rate, currently at 11.1 percent, tops 12 percent.

As the Miami Herald points out, the bill also makes it "easier for companies to keep former workers from collecting benefits."

Adding insult to injury, the money saved from cutting those unemployment benefits will be used to reduce business taxes in a state where the corporate tax rate is already exceedingly low.

Important Tax Information Bill O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - May 8, 2011 - 10:30am

O'Reilly and the Republicans make a living crying about taxes, they claim they are paying too much in taxes, and that the tax rate is way too high.

But did you know that it's all a lie, and that taxes are at their lowest level since 1958, of course you did not know that. Because O'Reilly and his right-wing friends never report it, the only way you would know it is if you read my blog, or you saw it on a liberal website somewhere.

That's because O'Reilly and the right do not want you to know this information, they want to keep you in the dark with lies that taxes are too high, so they can get more tax cuts passed that simply make them richer, and the poor poorer.

According to O'Reilly, congressional Republicans, and Tea Partiers, Americans are overtaxed and contemplating any increase in government revenue, even from the richest Americans, would be unfair.

"How high do taxes have to go to satisfy the appetite of people in this Congress to spend money?" asked Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) last week.

But, the numbers show that the economic recession and a decade of tax cuts have resulted in some of the lowest taxes of the post-war period. According to a new USA Today analysis, personal taxes - including federal and local - are at their lowest level since 1958:
Americans are paying the smallest share of their income for taxes since 1958, a reflection of tax cuts and a weak economy, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

The total tax burden - for all federal, state and local taxes - dropped to 23.6% of income in the first quarter, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data.
As McClatchy's Kevin Hall wrote Friday, "At a time when Washington is wrestling with how to end federal budget deficits and trim the national debt - huge questions that are expected to dominate the nation's politics through the 2012 elections - the fact that Americans are under-taxed compared with U.S. historic norms is central to the discussion."

The USA Today analysis shows that if tax receipts today were at the level they were through the 70?s, 80?s and 90?s, that alone would eliminate "one-third of the estimated $1.5 trillion federal deficit this year."

And think about this, O'Reilly says we can not tax our way out of the debt, but that is a lie, because if we got rid of the Bush tax cuts, and then raised taxes to levels from the 80's or 90's, we could cut out debt in half.

Remember this, Bill Clinton put a targeted 3% tax increase on the wealthy, and over the next 8 years the economy boomed, and added 22 million new jobs, while creating a surplus out of a debt. Notice how O'Reilly never mentions that, while spinning out his lies that taxing the rich hurts job growth and does not decrease the debt.

Insanity Alert: Santorum Goes Nuts Over Bin Laden
By: Steve - May 8, 2011 - 9:30am

Folks, here is another example of hiw crazy some Republicans are, first Stupid Sarah gives a speech giving Bush all the credit for the death of Bin laden, without even mentioning Obama, and now the insane Rick Santorum is saying Obama did not get Bin Laden, and that he should get no credit at all.

Since President Obama's surprise announcement Sunday night that American forces had killed Osama bin Laden, conservatives and Bush loyalists have been trying to claim some of the glory and use it to justify the discredited torture policies of the Bush administration.

Potential GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum took this line of attack to insane levels Friday on conservative radio host Laura Ingraham's show, saying the 9/11 families should be furious with Obama for claiming any credit for the successful Bin Laden raid:
SANTORUM: 9/11 families and everybody else in America should be furious at this president that he's walking abound taking credit for, you know, getting Osama bin Laden. He didn't get Osama bin Laden!

The president of the United States simply said yes - but that's all he did, is say yes. He didn't do the hard work. The people he's going after did the hard work. And that is an outrage.
Santorum is referrering to his claim that Attorney General Eric Holder is going after CIA agents who used enhanced interrogation tactics under President Bush. But perhaps Santorum is too fixated on his Google problem to remember that Obama said two years ago that he wouldn't prosecute CIA agents who engaged in torture.

And btw, there is still no evidence that enhanced interrogation techniques contributed to catching Bin Laden.

As Michael Hirsch wrote in the National Journal, President Obama was successful in catching Bin Laden because he broke with Bush's terror policies.

"The conservative assessment couldn't be further from the truth," Hirsch writes.

"Behind Obama's takedown of Bin Laden this week lies a profound discontinuity between administrations - a major strategic shift in how to deal with terrorists, from Bush's bombastic and overly expansive war on terror, to Obama's covert, laserlike focus on al-Qaida and its spawn."

And remember this, both of those lunatics (Palin & Santorum) could be, or are, running for President. Now that is scary, and it just goes to show what kind of people are in the Republican party.

Now think about this, they are mostly supported by the Republicans, even though they are proven liars, and not very smart, especially Palin, who is as dumb as a brick.

The Friday 5-6-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 7, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called The USA and confronting evil. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Once again I would like to point out the almost total absence of support from the Muslim world after the death of bin Laden.

In fact, we've seen more pro-bin Laden demonstrations from Muslims than anti. Pakistan is actually complaining and even threatening America over the bin Laden action; its top general says he's outraged that the USA came into Pakistan to get bin Laden.

Over at the UN, there is now concern that the American raid may have been illegal. The UN is impotent in the face of worldwide terrorism, but has the audacity to complain when bin Laden is killed!

Pakistan is emerging as the big villain here - there's no question that country has enabled terrorism for years and there's no excuse for the Obama administration continuing to send billions of dollars to Pakistan unless that country stops the madness.

We're losing thousands of soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan partly because Pakistan harbors the Taliban. President Obama needs to address this immediately and confront the nonsense. Pakistan harbored bin Laden, and that's all the world needs to know.
And for once I sort of agree with O'Dummy, as far as this, I think we should cut the money we give to Pakistan, in fact, I think we should cut the money we give to all foreign countries. Then take that money and spend it here in the USA where we need it.

Then O'Reilly had the Fox News stooge Jennifer Griffin on to give us the so-called real story about what happened during the Bin Laden killing. As if we do not know already, it's pretty clear what happened, he was killed. There is nothing to report here, O'Reilly is just trying to milk the story for ratings, because his mostly right-wing viewers love hearing it over and over.

So far President Obama has not released any photos of Usama bin Laden's dead body. So O'Reilly had Geraldo on to discuss it. Geraldo said this: "That's like comparing a butcher shop to a very solemn funeral service in a cathedral. The photographs of the returning departed soldiers can only be photographed with the family's permission and under the most solemn and righteous circumstances. But I think the pictures of bin Laden will ultimately be released and we will see the bullet-riddled body of the terror master."

What's funny is the hypocrisy from O'Reilly and the right, when the Abu Ghraib abuse photos were found O'Reilly and the right said do not release them, because it will make Muslims mad and could get more US troops killed. But we had a Republican President then. Now they argue that the photos of Bin Laden should be released, when we have a Democratic President. Even though it will make Muslims mad and could get more US troops killed, which is massive hypocrisy.

Then O'Reilly had Lou Dobbs on to discuss CEO pay vs. worker pay. The median pay for the CEO of a major corporation last year was more than $9-million, while average workers took home about $40,000. Dobbs said this: "CEOs are making in one day, what an average worker makes in an entire year. That's distorted and wrong and we need to think about that. Look at GE - the stock price is two-thirds what it was five years ago, but Jeffrey Immelt has made $75-million in that time."

O'Reilly added that Immelt is hardly the only overpaid boss, Billy said this: "I've worked for a number of corporations and some of them are just greedy, corrupt concerns that don't care about their workers. And in my experience, many of the managers earning a tremendous amount of money are pinheaded idiots who can't find the bathroom. They get there because they kiss butt or stab people in the back."

WOW! It's a miracle, for once I agree with O'Reilly and Dobbs. The crooks at the top are taking too much, and not giving enough to the workers. That is one big reason the economy is not bouncing back as fast as we want it to, and for once O'Reilly and Dobbs actually sound like they are looking out for the little guy.

Then O'Reilly had Rob Lowe on to discuss his new book, which I will not report on, because it's not news. It's just O'Reilly using Lowe to try and get his ratings up by having a hollywood celebrity on, the same hollywood celebs he calls pinheads. Proving once again that O'Reilly will do anything for ratings, even have people on he calls pinheads.

In the next segment O'Reilly had the insane Glenn Beck on. President Obama visited New York City and Ground Zero Thursday, and Beck said this about it: "I think it's shameless. Here's a guy who was just recently fighting for the mosque near Ground Zero, and there are serious questions about that mosque. Here's a guy who says he won't inflame the Muslim world with pictures of Usama bin Laden, but he wanted to release pictures from Abu Ghraib. A good political opportunity didn't go to waste."

Which just goes to show what a partisan right-wing idiot Beck is, because only un-American jerks would have a problem with the President going to ground zero to give a speech after killing Bin Laden, even crazy O'Reilly did not have a problem with it.

Beck actually agreed with President Obama's decision to withhold the bin Laden photos, saying "I don't like the culture of death." O'Reilly approved of President Obama's New York City visit, Billy said this: "Anything that calls attention to the suffering of the 9/11 families is worthy."

And finally in the last waste of time segment O'Reilly had Greg Gutfeld and Arthel Neville on for dumbest things of the week. And my God these people are stupid, they are the dumbest thing of the week.

Neville picked the Oklahoma woman who dresses her pet kangaroo in a shirt and tie. "The suit is a little dopey, but it's for therapeutic reasons and to protect him against germs. The kangaroo, who is partially paralyzed, is an officially certified therapy pet."

So how is that dumb, the suit is there for a reason, and the kangaroo is a certified therapy pet, what is dumb about that. And who even cares, Neville is an idiot.

Gutfeld went with the newspaper that compared the Usama bin Laden killing to the Harry Potter series. "There are two legitimate points here - one is that you don't say the name of the evil guy Voldemort in Harry Potter and we weren't supposed to say 'terrorist acts.' The other thing is that it's good versus evil, and you have Harry Potter and President Obama both born in Kenya."

Now that is just stupid, because Obama was not born in Kenya, and jokes like that are one reason why 51% of the Republican party think he was, Gutfeld is as big of a right-wing idiot as you could find, so of course O'Reilly has him on his show.

O'Reilly singled out the American Indians who are protesting because the CIA gave Usama bin Laden the code name "Geronimo."

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

Most Voters Say NO To Both Palin & Trump
By: Steve - May 7, 2011 - 10:30am

O'Reilly and some on the right want you to believe that Donald Trump and Sarah Palin are valid candidates for President. But to say that they have to ignore the polls, because the polls say neither Palin or Trump can win.

But you will never hear this from O'Reilly, because he is a right-wing spin doctor who wants to help Palin and Trump look better, even though neither one of them will ever be the President.

In a new Quinnipiac Poll, most voters say they would never vote for Trump or Palin. The latest Quinnipiac University poll shows that 58% of registered voters said they "would never vote" for Donald Trump.

Earth to O'Reilly, if 58% of the people would never vote for you, then you can not win, ever, it's impossible.

The same percentage (58%) made the same judgment against former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Even Republicans hold a dimmer view of both candidates than they do about other possible GOP candidates, with 24% saying they would never back Palin and 32% saying they could never support Trump.

Earth to O'Reilly, if 24% and 32% of the people in your own party do not support you, then you can not even win the Republican primary, let alone win a Presidential election. So stop with the right-wing spin that Palin and Trump are valid candidates.

The rest of the Republican field remains muddled, according to the poll released Wednesday. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney edged his would-be competitors, with support from 18% of registered Republicans or voters who lean Republican.

NOTE: A year ago I predicted that Romney will be the Republican primary winner, he is the leader so far, and I stand by my prediction.

"Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are in the best shape," said Peter Brown, assistant director of polling at the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"Sarah Palin and Donald Trump suffer from the reality that, as our mothers told us, 'You never get a second chance to make a first impression.'"

Now think about this, O'Reilly totally ignored this poll, and that alone shows what a right-wing hack he is, because a real non-partisan journalist would have reported the results of this poll.

Fox Viewers & Eric Bolling Want Obama Waterboarded
By: Steve - May 7, 2011 - 9:30am

Talk about un-American garbage, this is it, and of course neither O'Reilly or his so-called media bias analyst said a word about it. They want Obama waterboarded, the President of The United States. So how can they claim to be patriotic Americans, in fact, they are not, they are scum.

Thursday morning, Fox host Eric Bolling took to his Facebook page to declare that he'd "love to waterboard" Media Matters "for the truth."

But they aren't the only ones Bolling wants to see tortured. Wednesday, Bolling asked his Twitter followers who they would like to have waterboarded.

Then during last night's program he reported on the results, reading a list of suggestions that included President Obama, Senate Democrats, Alan Colmes, Keith Olbermann, Rachael Maddow, and the hosts of The View.
BOLLING: I wanted to know who else at home who you thought should be waterboarded.

So, Louise says, waterboard "Joy Behar." Patti says "Senate Dems... and then Obama... and then the kooks on The View, starting with Joy."

Jerry says he wants to see Alan Colmes get waterboarded. "The secrets of the left wing cabal will come pouring out of that boy."

Denise says Keith Olbermann and Rachael Maddow. And Mike says "Waterboard the Westboro Baptists Church." I agree with them.
When will O'Reilly call them un-American traitors, haha, the answer to that is never, because they are Republicans and his friends. Hell, he probably agrees with them too, in fact, O'Reilly has even joked about waterboarding Colmes, simply because he disagrees with him politically.

And let me say this, I do not like most Republicans and people on the right, but I would never call for them to be waterboarded, or even joke about it. This is politics, and that is crossing the line, it's just wrong, and un-American, especially to say it about the President.

As much as I hated Bush, I never once called for him to be waterboarded. I called him every name in the book, but I did not call for him to be tortured.

The Thursday 5-5-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 6, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Obama and the aftermath of Bin Laden. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The President visited New York City Thursday to honor the victims of the 9/11 attacks. Anything that draws attention to the suffering Americans experienced because of terrorism is a good thing, so the President's visit is a positive.

On the bin Laden front, there is controversy over whether the administration should release pictures of the slain terrorist. Talking Points believes there are good arguments on both sides, but will defer to the Department of Defense, which says any exposition of a dead bin Laden might harm our troops in the field by inciting even more violence against them.

The larger controversy, however, continues to be coerced interrogation. Six primary sources say waterboarding and other tough methods led to vital information that eventually brought bin Laden down. But the New York Times and other left-wing vehicles continue to bang the 'torture' drum, no matter what the evidence is.

The truth is that some on the left would never use coerced interrogation, no matter how many lives are at stake. From the very beginning we've said that only the President should have the authority to use coerced interrogation.

But enough is enough with the denial of the obvious - this nation is a safer place because the federal government acted swiftly after 9/11, and if the far left had their way, that would not have happened.
And most of that is right-wing spin, because the left is only opposed to torture, which O'Reilly will not say or admit, he uses code words like coerced interrogation, instead of calling it what it is, torture, or saying it's illegal. He spin it for the right, and then denies the truth.

Then O'Reilly had the far right Bush spin doctor, Marc Thiessen on, he is a former aide to President Bush, who also testified to the effectiveness of waterboarding. Thiessen said this: "CIA interrogations worked. In the period after 9/11 we knew absolutely nothing about the enemy who attacked us. Then we started capturing terrorists who led us to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He was resistant, but he was put under enhanced interrogation techniques and he made the decision to cooperate. By the time he was done, he was running a graduate-level class on Al Qaeda operations for the CIA."

Theissen argued that America is now less safe because enhanced interrogation has been outlawed. He said this: "We don't have this tool anymore. On his second day in office Barack Obama eliminated this tool from our counter-terrorism arsenal, so the tool that got us the intelligence that led us to Usama bin Laden is no longer in use."

Yeah because it was torture, and illegal, jackass. And if we are less safe then how did we get Bin Laden, and how come no terrorist attacks have happened, answer that fool.

Then O'Reilly had liberal radio talk show host Leslie Marshall and Democratic strategist Lanny Davis on to discuss it. Marshall said this: "Military intelligence has found, that nine out of ten people they interrogated gave up the same information when they used traditional methods. So should we stoop to the level of those we are fighting?"

Davis expressed the ethical dilemma faced by opponents of waterboarding. He said this: "We have to give credit to George Bush and those who used these techniques for getting information that directly or indirectly led to the death of Usama bin Laden. There isn't any way to deny that, but I also have doubts about violating the law against torture. So we are between a rock and a hard place."

O'Dummy questioned the morality of ideologues who ignore all evidence, Billy said this: "There are people on the left, the New York Times among them, who basically say we don't care if this interrogation worked, we should never do it even if it saves American lives."

Then the far right loon Laura Ingraham was on, she said President Obama should release a photo showing Usama bin Laden's dead body. Ingraham said this: "If they had released one photo early on, that would have been the end of it. But there's been this drama that's gone on for three days - should we, should we not? What rubs people the wrong way about this is that it seems we're always worried about the sensitivities of Muslims around the world. More important is closure for the American people."

O'Reilly endorsed President Obama's decision to take the advice of his military advisors, Billy said this: "I know the arguments for releasing the photos, but if I'm the President and the Defense Secretary says please don't do it, I've got to go with that. If you're going to err on this, you err on the side of protecting the troops."

Columbia University's School of Journalism will present its highest honor to Al Jazeera, saying the network provided "in-depth coverage of the turmoil in the Middle East." Author and former CIA agent Reuel Marc Gerecht approved of the decision. Gerecht said this: "I think Al Jazeera's coverage of the Arab revolts, was astonishing at times. It was on the ground, it was penetrating, and they were getting into areas no one else was. It dwarfed the reporting that was coming out of CNN or the BBC."

O'Reilly told Gerecht that Al Jazeera is hardly a beacon of objective journalism, Billy said thi: "The underlying theme of almost all their reportage is that America is the 'great Satan,' Israel is horrible, but the Arab extremists are really okay. To honor them makes me a little uneasy."

Young Americans gathered Sunday night to celebrate the news that Usama bin Laden had been killed. Culture Warriors Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover analyzed the displays. Carlson said this: "I was as surprised as you were, but it was inspiring to see patriotism like that among young people. I thought in our PC society that wasn't acceptable any more. Keep in mind that many of these people were at very impressionable ages when 9/11 happened, and I think this brought them a sense of relief."

Hoover said this: "This is the millennial generation and to them Usama bin Laden became the incarnation of evil, the monster under their beds. These kids say when they were growing up they were afraid Usama bin Laden was hiding in the shower, and for the older ones, bin Laden disrupted their sense of American invincibility. By us killing him, it returns that possibility and gives them faith in America."

And in the last segment O'Reilly had the lame as hell Factor news quiz with Martha MacCallum and Steve Doocy, which I do not report on, because it's not news.

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

O'Reilly Factor Ratings Crashed In April
By: Steve - May 6, 2011 - 9:30am

Here is something you will never see on the Factor, because O'Reilly only reports his ratings when they are going up, and over 3 million a show.

In April, the Factor ratings took a nose dive, they went from an average of 3.3 million total viewers a night in March, to an average of 2.8 million viewers a night for April.

Week 1 average - 3.088
Week 2 average - 2.796
Week 3 average - 2.639
Week 4 average - 2.676

Monthly average - 2.799

That is a one month loss of 500,000 viewers a night, which is a big deal in the ratings game. If you Lose 10,000 viewers in one night it's a lot, and O'Reilly has lost 500,000 in one month.

And of course you will only see that news here, because O'Reilly never says a word about it. But when his ratings went up by 100,000 viewers a night, he reported it until he was blue in the face, and acted like it was the greatest thing ever.

Now that he has lost 500,000 viewers a night, he is silent, because he does not want you to know that a half a million people a day have stopped watching his fake news show. And btw, O'Reilly had a slight bump in the ratings this week because of the Bin Laden death, but it is already dropping back to around 3 million, and could go even lower again.

Democrat Wins Special Election In Wisconsin
By: Steve - May 6, 2011 - 9:00am

And of course O'Reilly ignored the entire story, because it makes his Republican friends look bad. Just as he has ignored the John Ensign scandal, and resignation.

Tuesday night, Wisconsin Republicans suffered what was perhaps the first electoral defeat resulting from a backlash to their radical anti-labor policies as Democrats won a special election for an assembly seat held by the GOP for the past 16 years:
Democrat Steve Doyle defeated Republican John Lautz for the Wisconsin District 94 Assembly, flipping a seat held by Republicans for 16 years in a race that focused attention on Republican Gov. Scott Walker's plan to curtail collective bargaining right for most public employees.

With 92% of precincts reporting, Doyle won 54% to 46%, based on unofficial results in Tuesday's special election. The race flips a GOP Assembly seat for the Democrats, who remain in the minority.

The seat was previously held by Mike Huebsch, who Walker picked in January to serve as secretary of administration. Huebsch was first elected in 1994. The district covers rural La Crosse County and parts of Monroe County.
Doyle actually won despite a barrage of television and radio attacks by third-party groups, along with mailings from the Jobs First Coalition, a Brookfield, Wis.-based group tied to Scott Jensen, the former Republican state Assembly speaker who left office in 2002 amid misconduct allegations.

Now imagine what O'Reilly would say if a Republican had won the special election, he would have reported it for half the show and had follow up segments on it, but since the Democrat won, O'Reilly was silent. Not to mention, he has not said a word about all the recall petitions on the Republicans in Wisconsin, he has also ignored that story.

The Wednesday 5-4-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 5, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Coerced interrogation: The truth & ideology. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Last night we told you the truth, that coerced interrogation gave the CIA the first clue that led to Usama bin Laden's death. Yet many on the left in America will not acknowledge that. A case in point is our pal Alan Colmes, who will not admit that coerced interrogation protects Americans.

Yesterday Colmes said former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld denied that coerced interrogation gave the CIA valuable intelligence. As it turns out, Colmes was wrong. It is extremely frustrating to watch pundits and politicians put ideology ahead of the safety of you, the American people, and that's what's happening.

CIA chief Leon Panetta admitted that coerced interrogation gave the U.S. government valuable information, and the truth is that enhanced interrogation does lead to life-saving information, despite what has been said. But this debate will not go quietly into the night because ideologues rarely admit they're wrong.

On a personal note, I like Alan Colmes, but as I told him to his face, his ideology is hurting his analysis. You have to have some kind of objectivity in life if you want to be taken seriously. Enhanced interrogation is not a tool to be used lightly, but it can and has worked. In this case, Usama bin Laden is dead partly because of it.
Okay, so Rumsfeld flip-flopped after pressure from people on the right to agree waterboarding info led to Bin laden. That proves nothing, especially when multiple other government sources say the info did not come from waterboarding, and they are not all Democrats saying it.

Republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham, along with other Democratic Senators, have said they do not know of any evidence that shows the info came from waterboarding. So as usual, O'Reilly is spinning for the right, and using cherry picked evidence to do it. And O'Reilly telling Colmes his ideology is hurting his analysis, is laughable, pot meet kettle.

Then O'Reilly had Donald Rumsfeld on, who put out his philosophy on coerced interrogation. Rumsfeld said this: "Unquestionably it works, and the problem I have is that people are equating waterboarding with torture, and I think that's a mistake. President Bush authorized waterboarding, it was done to three people by the CIA, and it produced an enormous amount of very valuable information. In my view, we would not have captured or killed Usama bin Laden had we not had that intelligence information."

Which is not the story Rumsfeld was putting out 2 days ago, so his credibility is in question for changing his story, and of course O'Reilly never mentioned that, or the fact that Rumsfeld does not believe waterboarding is torture When it is, and he knows it. The Republican John McCain even admitted it is torture, but O'Reilly does not have him on because he disagrees with O'Reilly and Rumsfeld.

Not to mention, many other torture experts say it does not work, that they tell you what you want to hear, and you do not get good intelligence, and it's also illegal. But you never hear that from O'Reilly, he only puts out one side of the story, his side, which is not what a real journalist should be doing.

Then O'Reilly had the former State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley on. Crowley said this: "Pakistan has done a great deal on terrorism in the last few years and has itself suffered tremendously from terrorism. So there is a commitment at the highest levels of the government, but in fact Pakistan does play a double game. They nurture some groups and they fight other groups."

O'Reilly insisted that Pakistan does not deserve the billions of dollars it receives in U.S. aid, Billy said this: "There's no way Pakistani intelligence didn't know bin Laden was in that compound. It was under construction for years and everybody in the area knew it was a weird situation."

Then Juan Williams was on, and he took issue with an earlier segment. Williams said this: "You were right to have Secretary Rumsfeld on, but you went off track when you said it's clear that waterboarding led to bin Laden. It might have contributed to bin Laden's capture and death, but we don't know that was the only way to get that information. And it's not in our values! Do you want the United States government to be using torture against even our worst enemies?"

So then O'Reilly said that waterboarding and harsh interrogation techniques save lives, Billy said this: "The fact that they got this information by coerced methods shows that these methods worked and protected the American people. The President should have the power to order coerced methods."

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to talk about legal issues with the Bin Laden killing. Wiehl said this: "You can use military force, against somebody that is a known threat in a war situation. President Bush also signed an order saying we can use 'all force necessary' to get these people."

Guilfoyle agreed that President Obama, the CIA and everyone involved acted within the law, she said this: "This was a legal action because there was a legitimate target, an enemy combatant. We are still engaged in an active war against Al Qaeda and bin Laden admitted to being involved in acts against the United States. We are in an active time of war right now."

Now get this, O'Reilly agreed, but contended that "Congress should have declared war." Really? Against who? O'Reilly talks out of both sides of his mouth, I think he is having memory problems and he forgets what he said before.

Then Dennis Miller was on for his weekly Miller Time segment, which I do not report on because he is a comedian. But I will say this, of course he supports torture, because he is a far-right loon, just like O'Reilly. Here is my question, when some foreign government orders the waterboarding of an American, will they also support it when they do it, somehow I doubt it, proving their hypocrisy and their double standards. Not to mention, it's ILLEGAL, under US law, International Law, and the Geneva Conventions.

Then Juliet Huddy accused Whoopi Goldberg of displaying very selective indignation. "You can have free speech," Huddy said, "but don't speak out of both sides of your mouth. She was trashing George Bush, and in her world it was okay to do that, but it's not okay in her world to trash President Obama." The Factor again lamented that "ideology, to some people, is far more important than the truth."

Now that's funny, because O'Reilly and Fox are the king of hypocrisy and talking out of both sides of their mouth. When Bush was the President O'Reilly called people who were disrespectful to Bush un-American traitors, and said you can not disrespect the President during a time of war.

And as soon as Obama took office, O'Reilly, Fox, and everyone on the right made a living out of disrespecting Obama, but O'Reilly never said a word, and he has even disrespected Obama himself. Pot meet kettle, because you are both massive hypocrites.

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

John McCain Speaks About Bin Laden Intelligence
By: Steve - May 5, 2011 - 10:00am

Another Senator has confirmed that he has seen no evidence that the information used to find Bin Laden was from waterboarding, and it's a Republican, John McCain.

Sen. John McCain denounced "advanced interrogation" methods like waterboarding Wednesday amid a growing debate over its effectiveness reopened by the killing of Osama bin Laden.

McCain told reporters leaving an intelligence briefing for senators by CIA director Leon Panetta that he has seen no information so far to indicate that techniques like waterboarding factored significantly in the information gathering that led to bin Ladenís death.
McCAIN: So far I know of no information that was obtained, that would have been useful, by 'advanced interrogation.'

In fact, according to published reports, some of the key people who knew about this courrier denied it.

McCain also said this: I stand on the side of the United States and by the Geneva conventions, of which we are signatories, which we were in violation of by waterboarding.
And of course you will never see him saying this on the Factor, because O'Reilly has sided with the Republicans who claim the info that led to Bin Laden was from waterboarding.

O'Reilly even did a 2nd show on it and confirmed that what Peter King said was 100% true, even though at least 5 other sources, including 2 Senators, one Democrat and one Republican, say waterboarding did not get the info.

Folks, this is 100% proof of something alright, that O'Reilly is part of the dishonest right-wing media, who lie and spin for the Republican party. Because the truth is out there, and he refuses to report it, he only reports his side of it, with the far right loons that claim the info was from waterboarding.

And the most dishonest part is that O'Reilly does not have John McCain or Lindsey Graham on to discuss it, because they disagree with him.

Stupid Sarah Thanks Bush For Bin Laden Killing
By: Steve - May 5, 2011 - 9:00am

Once again Sarah Palin proves how much of a dumbass she is, speaking in Colorado Tuesday Palin thanked Bush for getting Bin Laden, without once even mentioning the name Obama. When it was Obama who re-started the Obama unit that Bush stopped, and it was under Obama that Bin Laden was killed.

In a speech addressing Bin Laden in Colorado, Sarah Palin never once mentioned President Barack Obama by name -- instead saying this: "We thank President Bush for having made the right calls to set up this victory."

In fact, the only time Palin referenced Obama was to attack him, on foreign policy. Palin told the crowd at Colorado Christian University that American troops need better leadership.

She cited the Obama administration's policy in Libya as an example of a lack of clarity, saying this: "We can't fight every war. We don't go looking for dragons to slay."

Even though, Bush had abandoned the hunt for Bin Laden several years into his administration.

Obama re-prioritized the hunt for Bin Laden after Bush had largely abandoned the effort to focus on Iraq. While many conservatives are replaying Bush's September 2001 declaration that he would find Bin Laden, just months later, by his own account, he was unconcerned about Bin Laden.

Asked about the hunt for Bin Laden at a March, 2002 press conference, Bush said this: "I truly am not that concerned about him. I am deeply concerned about Iraq. I really just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you."

By 2006, the trail for Bin Laden had gone cold, and Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes said Bush told him that hunting Bin Laden was not a top priority use of American resources.

That year, it was revealed that the Bush administration had shut down the CIA's Bin Laden unit in late 2005.

And Donald Rumsfeld himself admitted the Bush torture and rendition policies did not help capture Bin Laden. Enhanced interrogation techniques did not work. Bush ordered one final push to capture Bin laden shortly before he left office, but this effort too was unsuccessful.

So now, 2.5 years into the Obama Presidency, the Republicans want to give all the credit to Bush, when he had nothing to do with it.

Right-Wing Hypocrisy On Osama Bin Laden
By: Steve - May 5, 2011 - 8:30am

Now this is a good one, for two and a half years the Republicans have been saying that what happens while Obama is the President is his fault, and he has to take credit for it. So what do they say now that Bin Laden was killed while Obama was the President, that Bush should get the credit of course.

The conservative media are suggesting that former President Bush deserves more credit than President Obama for the death of Osama bin Laden. This is in stark contrast to their usual attacks that Obama is responsible for things that are happening during his presidency, including those tied to Bush-era policies like the Gulf oil spill, the weak economy, and the nation's deficit problems.

In a May 2nd editorial, The Washington Times wrote that Obama showed "no class" in his speech announcing bin Laden's death, claiming that Obama "snubbed" Bush and "praised himself." The Times also wrote this: "Had Mr. Obama been in Mr. Bush's position on Sept. 11, 2001, bin Laden would still be alive today, and probably winning."

The editorial page editor Brett Decker wrote this:
DECKER: President Obama took to the airwaves shortly before midnight to confirm the good news and take credit for it. The wording of his short statement made it clear that the campaign season for his 2012 reelection bid is fully underway. He used the words "I," "me" and "my" so many times it was hard to count for such a quick message.

Not only is this consistent with his view that everything is about him, it also reflected the reality that this president is weak and perceived by the world to be a lackluster leader who has undermined American power.

Bin Laden's death is more Mr. Bush's victory than Mr. Obama's because American forces wouldn't even be fighting in South Asia had Democratic doves had their way. Mr. Obama may indeed have instructed CIA Director Leon Panetta to make the capture of bin Laden a top priority, as he boasted Sunday night, but he was reiterating a mandate already established as national policy.
A post on The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire blog asking, "Should Bush Get Credit for bin Laden Killing?" highlighted arguments by several former Bush administration officials arguing that Bush deserves credit for putting in place the policies that led to bin Laden's capture.

It goes on, Ingraham, Palin, Coulter, Fox & Friends, Breitbart, etc. all say Bush should get more credit than Obama. Even though they have all said the President gets credit for what happens on his watch. Now they are singing a totally different tune, in their lame attempt to give Bush more credit than Obama.

So let me get this straight, the recession, the deficit, the debt, the bad economy, the housing crisis, and on and on, are all Obama's fault, but Bush should get credit for something that happened two and a half years after he left office.

The Tuesday 5-3-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 4, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called The world without Usama bin Laden. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There are a lot of things happening today. President Obama's approval rating is up nine points, about the same bump President Bush got when Saddam Hussein was captured. Overall, the media reporting on the death of bin Laden has been responsible - President Obama is a big winner, so the left-wing media is happy.

As for the right-wing media, it's kind of happy. Bin Laden was despised, but anything that helps President Obama is not good news for the hard right. On the international front, there's very little being said in the Muslim world, which is telling.

Here in the USA the far-left kooks on the Internet made some appalling comments, and a college professor wished that bin Laden had been brought back alive to face 'restorative' justice. 'Restorative justice,' of course, is the controversial concept of not punishing heinous criminals, but trying to heal them.

In the interest of true justice, allow me to make this statement: A bullet in the head is pretty much all the healing Usama bin Laden deserved. Going forward, Talking Points believes that honest Americans will understand that their country did what it had to do, and that there are many people in this world who will hate America no matter what it does. Unfortunately, some of those people live here.
Then O'Reilly had the Republican Fred Burton of the intelligence firm Stratfor, who said Bin Laden's death will have little effect on global terror. Burton said this: "Jihadism is much larger than the primary Al Qaeda and bin Laden. In fact, some of the franchise groups have surpassed them on the physical and ideological battlefields. This was a brilliant operation, but the franchise groups and grass roots groups are still out there and very capable of killing Americans."

So then O'Reilly theorized that terror has been dealt a setback, Billy said this: "Al Qaeda is on the run and we got their symbolic leader, so it doesn't seem to me that this jihadist movement has any future. They can cause trouble, but we have dealt them a huge blow."

Notice that no liberal political or military analyst was on, so as usual it was a biased one sided segment with only right-wing opinions.

Then O'Reilly had Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley on to discuss the Peter King lie that the Bin Laden info was from waterboarding. And of course Crowley agreed with King, and O'Reilly defended him, with an insane argument, that he can only believe Rumsfeld if he does the Factor and says it to his face, which is just laughable, and something a mental patient would say.

Crowley said this: "Even before this weekend, we've had a number of intelligence reports stating that enhanced interrogation techniques produced actionable intelligence. We subjected Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and another Gitmo detainee to enhanced interrogation techniques and we were able to piece together the puzzle."

Then O'Reilly said Colmes refused to concede that enhanced interrogation was effective. Which is not what he said, he said the info that let to Bin Laden was not from waterboarding, and Colmes is right. Colmes said this: "Donald Rumsfeld said this was not a result of waterboarding. This is an attempt to burnish the reputation of the Bush administration and its terrible foreign policy."

Now get this, O'Reilly then accused Colmes of wearing ideological blinders. Which is just laughable, because it's O'Reilly who has the ideological blinders, by helping King spread his lie, and O'Reilly even said he checked and found out it was true, when we all know it's a lie.

O'Dummy said this: "We have confirmed that what Peter King said on this broadcast is absolutely true. This is about protecting people and you couldn't care less about that because you're an ideological zealot!"

And I have confirmed through multiple sources that what Peter King said is not true, so O'Reilly and King are both lying to you.

Then O'Reilly had a former Navy Seal Clint Bruce on to discuss what they do as far as training goes. And it was not really news, so I will not report on what he said. They are great, and all heroes in my book, but what they do in their training etc. is not a big story.

In the next segment O'Reilly had the Roman Catholic priest Edward Beck on. Father Beck said this: "This can not be celebrated like a Super Bowl, because it's a tragedy. Just because Usama bin Laden killed all these people, killing him is not justified. When you watch people celebrating, how does that make us any better than those in the Middle East who celebrate when America falls? This is not a Christian perspective."

And of course O'Reilly put forth a far different perspective, even though he claims to oppose the death penalty, Billy said this: "I think I'm a good Christian and I was very happy to see bin Laden killed because he was capable of killing more people. You can't tell me that Jesus Christ doesn't want to see Al Qaeda defeated."

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to assess the media coverage of Usama bin Laden's killing. Goldberg said this: "I did notice one thing, and that's the use of the word 'assassinate.' Lincoln was assassinated, Martin Luther King was assassinated, but a sniveling coward who orders people to kill innocent civilians is not 'assassinated.' He was shot like rabid dogs are shot. This is important to me - the word 'assassinate' is too good for somebody like Usama bin Laden."

O'Reilly said that the media has generally been fair, Billy said this: "This puts President Obama in a very good light going forward for reelection, so the left-wing media is going to celebrate it and cover it positively. It would have been fascinating if President Bush had done the same thing."

O'Reilly acts like it is wrong for the so-called left-wing media to cover it positively, when how else can you cover it, it's a positive thing when a terrorist mastermind gets killed. And why would it have been fascinating if Bush had done it, so you could fall all over him with praise. Your hero Bush did not do it, even though he said he would get him dead or alive, it took a liberal President to get him, and you hate that, because you are a partisan Obama hater.

And in the last segment Charles Krauthammer was on, he predicted that President Obama will reap political rewards from the bin Laden killing. He said this: "This will have a lasting effect, because it completely insulates him from the correct critique about the way he's handled foreign affairs - the dithering, the indecision, the naÔve conduct of policy. The political courage and the way he went after bin Laden is to his credit and it trumps all the other issues in foreign affairs. This is a very important psychological event in American history."

Krauthammer also advised the Obama administration to show photographs of bin Laden's dead body. He said this: "You have to release them; otherwise the whole thing looks a little bit cooked to the Middle East, which is laced with conspiracies. If they don't see visual evidence there will be suspicion."

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

O'Reilly Lover Sends Me Mail
By: Steve - May 4, 2011 - 10:30am

Here is an e-mail from a typical clueless right-wing O'Reilly loving idiot. Enjoy it folks, I know I did.
Subject: You should go on the factor.
Date: Tuesday, May 3, 2011 9:35 PM
From: John Kelley [email protected]
To: [email protected]

Steve, Just read your piece on The Factor from last night (May 2nd). You have a plethora of invalid points and I would love to correct you on a few of them.
First, you accused O'Reilly of not giving Obama the credit he deserves for the Osama raid. Not true. If you watched the segment tonight, (May 3rd) you would have seen that Bill clearly applauds Obama's actions, calling them very "gutsy." He knows that Obama deserves much credit for the raid, and made it clear to viewers.
Secondly, on what basis do you think you can accuse Congressman Peter King of lying about water-boarding? You simply don't want to give President Bush the credit he also deserves for authorizing such interrogation procedures. While Obama does deserve much credit for the raid, Bush's Patriot Act, support of Guantanamo Bay and water-boarding set the foundation on which Obama was able to apprehend Osama bin Laden.
Also, exactly what republicans are saying that the raid was faked? You're resorting to the methods of a highly unrealistic conspiracy-theorist by accusing Republicans of making such allegations against Obama. The raid was not a fake.
Lastly, O'Reilly did not have any Democratic guests on the show last night because the goal of the show- which he made clear- was to clarify and inform the public on the events that happened on May 1st. He wanted the American public to know everything that happened before he brought on any Democratic guests to argue view-points. (Which he did, by the way, on tonight's show).
I would love to see you on The Factor as a guest one day. It would be very entertaining to watch O'Reilly tear you to pieces in front of your uneducated liberal audience.


John, 17, Chicago.
And for the record, I have tried to get on the Factor at least a hunded times over the last 11 years, but the coward O'Reilly will not have me on. Because he is afraid of me, and he knows I have the goods on him, so the punk coward will not have me on his fake news show.

O'Reilly Goes Insane Over Rumsfeld Comments
By: Steve - May 4, 2011 - 10:00am

Now this is a good one, Donald Rumsfeld said waterboarding did not lead to the killing of Bin Laden. So O'Reilly tells Alan Colmes, he will not believe Rumsfeld until he goes on the Factor and he talks to him.

Have you ever heard anything more ridiculous in your life, it's crazy. That is an argument you expect to hear from a mental patient, not a so-called journalist with a Harvard degree.

Colmes had a look on his face like he could not believe what O'Reilly was saying, here is the video, watch it and see for yourself:

It would be like me saying, I do not believe Obama approved the order to kill Bin Laden, unless I can talk to him myself, which would also be crazy, and yet, that is exactly what O'Reilly is saying about the Rumsfeld claims.

I hate to say it, but I think O'Reilly is getting senile, or maybe he has a touch of Alzheimers, because what he said makes no sense, and it reminds me of things my Father says, who has alzheimers and dementia.

Peter King Lied About Bin Laden Intelligence
By: Steve - May 4, 2011 - 9:30am

Now I know why O'Reilly did not have any Democratic guests on the Monday Factor show to discuss the killing of Bin Laden. Because they would have most likely disputed the lie from the Republican Congressman Peter King, that the intelligence that led to Bin Laden was from waterboarding.

Because as I expected, King was lying when he said we got the information from waterboarding, King said this:
KING: You mentioned that we obtained information several years ago about the courier for bin Laden, and we obtained that information through waterboarding. So to those who say waterboarding doesn't work and should be stopped, we got vital information that directly led us to bin Laden.
O'Reilly was very happy to hear that, because he supports waterboarding 100 percent. Then O'Reilly said this about the King statement:
O'REILLY: That's absolutely fascinating and you're not going to hear that on the other networks, I guarantee you.
And as I wrote in my Factor show review for Monday, the reason you will not hear that on the other networks is because it's a lie, and a simple google search proves it, which also means both King and O'Reilly knowingly lied about it, because the facts are out there for anyone with a computer to find.

Here are those facts, the facts that O'Reilly ignored and failed to report.

Talking about the key piece of intelligence -- the first link in the chain of information that led U.S. intelligence officials to Osama bin Laden, Senator Dianne Feinstein said this: "To the best of our knowledge, none of it came as a result of harsh interrogation practices," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee in a wide-ranging press conference.

Feinstein added this: "Nothing about the sequence of events that culminated in Sunday's raid vindicates the Bush-era techniques, nor their use of black sites -- secret prisons, operated by the CIA."

This is a mix of fresh, on-the-record information and push back against Republicans -- many of them former Bush administration officials -- who are twisting themselves in knots to claim that Bush's interrogation policies got the ball rolling on the bin Laden killing.

And btw folks, the Obama administration's decision to reconstitute the CIA's bin Laden unit, which the Bush administration shuttered in 2005, was a key factor. And of course O'Reilly never said a word about that on the Monday show.

Not to mention, not all Republicans are claiming that bin Laden's killing vindicates torture. At a press conference Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) stood apart from his colleagues in the GOP. He said this:
GRAHAM: This idea we caught bin Laden because of waterboarding I think is a misstatement. This whole concept of how we caught bin Laden is a lot of work over time by different people and putting the puzzle together. I do not believe this is a time to celebrate waterboarding, I believe this is a time to celebrate hard work.
And that is not all, multiple other sources say the information was not from waterboarding, but of course you never heard a word about any of this from O'Reilly. He just bought what Peter King was selling, because he is a Republican who supports waterboarding, and he will do anything to justify it, even lie about it, and have guests on to lie about it.

A Phone call by a Kuwaiti courier led to bin Laden, which had nothing to do with any kind of waterboarding at Gitmo, or anywhere else. Funny how O'Reilly just happened to not mention that, yeah right, he did not mention it because it proves that the information was not from waterboarding.

Here is a headline about the news from the

OBAMA OFFICIAL: Bin Laden Intelligence NOT The Result Of Waterboarding

Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan appeared on Morning Joe Tuesday morning and countered the claim that has been widely spread since Osama Bin Laden's death on Sunday: namely that waterboarding resulted in intelligence that lead U.S. forces straight to Osama's door.

Brennan also said this: Brennan. When directly asked by Mika whether waterboarding was involved he responded: Not to my knowledge. "The information that was collected over the course of nine years or so came from many different sources: human sources, technical sources, as well as sources that detainees provided. It was something as a result of the painstaking work that the analysts did. They pieced it all together that lead us to the compound last year and resulted in the very successful operation Sunday."

From the AP story on it:

WASHINGTON (AP) ó When one of Osama bin Laden's most trusted aides picked up the phone last year, he unknowingly led U.S. pursuers to the doorstep of his boss, the world's most wanted terrorist.

That monitored phone call, recounted Monday by a U.S. official, ended a years-long search for bin Laden's personal courier, the key break in a worldwide manhunt. The courier, in turn, led U.S. intelligence to a walled compound in northeast Pakistan, where a team of Navy SEALs shot bin Laden to death.

In the middle of last year, Ahmed had a telephone conversation with someone being monitored by U.S. intelligence, according to an American official, who like others interviewed for this story spoke only on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive operation. Ahmed was located somewhere away from bin Laden's hideout when he had the discussion, but it was enough to help intelligence officials locate and watch Ahmed.

In August 2010, Ahmed unknowingly led authorities to a compound in the northeast Pakistani town of Abbottabad, where al-Libi had once lived. The walls surrounding the property were as high as 18 feet and topped with barbed wire.

Intelligence officials had known about the house for years, but they always suspected that bin Laden would be surrounded by heavily armed security guards. Nobody patrolled the compound in Abbottabad, so the 40 Navy Seals went in and killed him.

From a article about it:

Last summer, the Associated Press reports, al-Kuwaiti/Ahmed made a fatal mistake: he called someone under NSA surveillance. After showing up on the grid, CIA operatives on the ground were able to hunt him down.

In July, a CIA team of Pakistani informants tailed him, writing down his license plate number. That led them to the Abbottabad compound, which was off the communications grid to avoid precisely the mistake that al-Kuwaiti/Ahmed made. Even so, as my colleague David Axe explores in detail, lots of overhead surveillance tools helped U.S. intelligence isolate and understand the compound.

Waterboarding and other torture methods didn't give the real name and location of the courier. Old fashioned human spying and electronic dragnets did that.

Now here is my question, will O'Reilly ever do a correction and report the truth, haha, of course not, because he is a dishonest right-wing hack of a pretend journalist. And the answer is no, because on the Tuesday Factor O'Reilly was still defending King, even though he has been proven to be a liar.

More Details On The King Lies About Waterboarding
By: Steve - May 4, 2011 - 9:00am

After learning that information regarding bin Laden's courier came from detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Bush torture apologists immediately insisted that waterboarding was a key technique in securing the vital information. Rep. Steve King (R-IA) said this: "Wonder what President Obama thinks of water boarding now?"

On the OíReilly Factor Monday, House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King (R-NY) jumped on the waterboarding bandwagon. When O'Reilly asked for him to tell us something new, King immediately said that the courier information was obtained through waterboarding, adding that those who say it should be stopped and never used again, we got vital information which directly led us to bin Laden:
KING: Well I don't know if everyone knows this or not, but you mentioned the fact that we obtained information several years ago, vital information about the courier for Osama. We obtained that information through waterboarding.

So for those who say that waterboarding doesn't work, who say it should be stopped and never used again, we got vital information which directly led us to bin Laden.

O'REILLY: Wow! Let me stop you there. I did not know that and I'm sure most of my audience didn't know that. Explain how that went down. How did we get that information, where did it come from, was it from Guantanamo Bay?

KING: It came from an overseas prison where Khaled Sheik Mohammed was being interrogated. Waterboarding was used, and it was during the interrogation of Khaled Sheik Mohammed, through waterboarding, that this information was learned.

O'REILLY: KSM gave it up? Mohammed himself gave it up?

KING: KSM gave us the first lead.
"That is absolutely fascinating," O'Reilly later responded. Saying this: "You're not going to hear that on other networks."

And he's right, because there's a good reason you will not hear it on the other networks, it's not true. According to former Bush officials, "KSM did not reveal the names while being subjected waterboarding."

He identified the names months later under standard interrogation. The C.I.A actually obtained the courier's name by placing more agents in the field in 2005, and intercepting telephone calls and e-mail messages between the courier's family and anyone inside Pakistan. From there they got his full name.

And that's not all, Bush's Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also threw cold water on the GOP's waterboarding logic, flatly stating yesterday that "it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding" that secured the information.

Former Rep. Pete Hoektsra, the ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence during the Bush administration and a fan of waterboarding, even said this: "I am skeptical that waterboarding was the the critical info to our weekend success, noting that it ended years ago."

Then Tuesday morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Obama's counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan confirmed that the information acquired over nine years did not come from waterboarding but was pieced together from multiple sources.

The Monday 5-2-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 3, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called A great victory for the USA. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There's a lot of misinformation about the operation that killed Usama bin Laden, so we will set the record straight. We begin Sunday at 3:30 PM Eastern time, when about 40 Navy SEALs arrived at a housing compound 30 miles north of Islamabad, Pakistan.

The SEALs were met by gunfire and a firefight ensued. It lasted less than twenty minutes, and at 3:50 Usama bin Laden was tentatively identified as one of the five people killed - the maniac had been shot in the face. This successful operation began almost four years ago when CIA agents discovered one of the names of bin Laden's couriers.

They located that courier in Pakistan and eventually traced him to the compound. In February of this year President Obama was advised that bin Laden was likely inside the fortress, but the President didn't want to bomb it, fearing civilian casualties, so a SEAL operation unfolded.

The raid went very smoothly and apparently U.S. forces took photographs of bin Laden's body then dumped the body in the Arabian Sea. Reaction has been interesting: The Taliban is promising revenge and Hamas is condemning the USA, while former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf says the raid should have been conducted by Pakistani forces.

The problem with that, General, is that your guys would have tipped off bin Laden like you've done in the past. In 2010 the U.S. sent $3.4 billion to Pakistan and this year another $3 billion is supposed to go there, yet President Obama can not tell President Zardari that we're going to launch a raid in his country.

That says it all! The legacy of Usama bin Laden, of course, is flat-out evil. The man was a homicidal maniac responsible for thousands of deaths worldwide, and if there is an afterlife this guy is in big trouble. Yet he still gets some sympathy in the Muslim world, and that's what I mean when I tell you there is a 'Muslim problem.'

A few countries have applauded the U.S. action, but most Muslim countries are silent! Many Americans are frustrated that it took so long to get bin Laden, but remember that we didn't get much help from the Muslim world. But we got him, and this is a great day for America.

Going forward, President Obama must confront Pakistan, where jihadists are running wild. Here at home, the demise of Usama bin Laden is a major turning point in the war on terror. Al Qaeda has been downgraded severely and its chief villain is gone forever.

But there are other villains and they are not going to stop trying to kill us. That is the reality of America in 2011. We finally won big with bin Laden, but there are other battles to come.
Notice that O'Reilly did not actually praise Obama for getting Bin Laden, he said it was a great victory for the USA, without saying Obama did a great job getting him. Now if Bush had got him O'Reilly would be fallling all over himself with high praise for Bush.

Then the parade of nothing but right-wing guests started, with the far right Congressman Peter King. He said this: "You mentioned that we obtained information several years ago about the courier for bin Laden, and we obtained that information through waterboarding. So to those who say waterboarding doesn't work and should be stopped, we got vital information that directly led us to bin Laden."

But I am not sure that is true, because I read that the information was not from waterboarding, so King may be lying, I will try and find the truth and report it later.

King also revealed that photos of bin Laden's dead body are not too gruesome to publish. He said this: "I wouldn't be surprised if these are made public because even though he was shot in the face, the wound was not that bad."

Then of course O'Reilly reacted to King's news about the value of waterboarding, he loved it, even though it may not be true, and he never asked for any proof from King, Billy said this: "That's absolutely fascinating and you're not going to hear that on the other networks, I guarantee you."

The reason you will not hear it on the other networks is because it is most likely not true, it's probably a Republican talking point to justify the waterboarding Bush approved. I will research it and report back later with the facts. And I am guessing King will be proven wrong.

Then the former CIA agent Michael Scheuer (who is a far-right loon that hates Obama) responded to the news of bin Laden's death. He said this: "What I was so pleased with, is that we didn't depend on anyone else to do our dirty work. We finally did it!"

Scheuer also agreed with O'Reilly that leaving Pakistan in the dark was an absolute necessity. He said this: "They would have tipped him off. During my own career, we found out that if you needed to do something with the Pakistanis you only could tell them at the very last moment or they would tip off the target. Pakistan is a dissolving country and we have to remember that Pakistan's interests are not our interests. We have been ridiculous Pollyannaish when it comes to expecting them to do things."

In the next right-wing guest only segment Col. David Hunt and Col. Ralph Peters were on to analyze the operation carried out by Navy SEAL Team 6.

Peters said this: "It was absolutely brilliant, and the most interesting aspect, apart from the incredible professionalism and proficiency, is how the administration is spinning the helicopter that had a malfunction and which the SEALs destroyed. They're saying they didn't want Al Qaeda to get top secret technology, but that's nonsense. They didn't want the Pakistanis to get that technology because they would have shared it with their real buddies, the Chinese."

Hunt talked about how four helicopters could fly into the area and retain an element of surprise. Hunt said this: "We have the capability to defeat the air defense network of the Pakistanis, and it has to do with a muffler system that lowers the sound. This whole thing, from a political standpoint and a military standpoint, was a perfect operation."

Then the right-wing Brit Hume was on to talk about how it might help Obama in the polls, with no Democratic guest to discuss it. Hume said this: "He might get a significant bump in the polls, much as President George H.W. Bush got a big boost after the successful conclusion of the Gulf War in 1991. I suspect that whatever boost President Obama gets will also prove temporary, but this was a dangerous mission that could have failed, so he gets credit for taking a risk. However, there's an awful lot else going on in the world and in the Middle East."

O'Reilyl suggested that President Obama has partially disarmed his political opponents, Billy said this: "This certainly bolsters his resume and a Republican can't call him soft on national security or terrorism."

Which is just laughable, because they will still call him soft on terrorism, and some Republicans are already saying the whole thing was faked to help Obama politically, and that Bin Laden is not really dead. But of course Hume and O'Reilly totally ignored that, and no Democratioc guest was on so they could not bring it up.

And in the last segment O'Reilly had two people who lost family members on September 11, 2001. "This kind of sucks you right back to those weeks after 9/11," said Rosaleen Tallon, whose brother was killed in the World Trade Center. "Part of me is so relieved that we did find him, but there's part of me that is so cautious because I've learned so much about radical Muslims and groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR."

Hamilton Peterson, whose parents died when United Flight 93 went down, expressed his gratitude. "I'm grateful to the American military, the intelligence agencies, and our allies. They demonstrated the resolve to make yesterday happen. I'm elated, but obviously this is just an early chapter in a long book. I am concerned that the human intelligence that developed from Guantanamo will not be pursued as aggressively."

Because of the long TPM there was no pinheads and patriots, or mail. And notice this, a Democratic President kills Bin Laden, something Bush could not do, and not one Democratic guest was on the show to comment on it, not one.

If that is not proof that Bill O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack, then there is no such proof. Because a real (non-partisan Independent) journalist would have had at least one Democratic guest on, if not two or three.

Hypocrisy Alert: Trump Sells Products Made In China
By: Steve - May 3, 2011 - 10:00am

Well, well, well, look at this. Donald Trump, the joke of a possible presidential candidate, who says he would get tough on China, because as he says, they are cleaning our clock, sells some things that were made in, you guessed it, China.

From ABC News:

In exploring a run for president Donald Trump has repeatedly accused China of taking manufacturing jobs from the U.S., saying "the problem with our country is that we don't make anything anymore."

But an array of Trump-branded products from ties, dress shirts and other clothing in the Donald J. Trump Signature Collection, to hats, stuffed animals, cufflinks and tie clips are stamped "Made in China."

Trump has made the flow of U.S. jobs overseas, especially to China, as much a centerpiece of his exploratory campaign as his questions about whether President Obama was born in America.

"When it comes to manufacturing, China is making all these products. They could be made in North Carolina. They could be made in Alabama. They could be made in lots of our places and right now they're not," he told CNN earlier this year.

Trump hammered at the theme again Wednesday during a visit to New Hampshire. "China is raping this country," Trump told employees at Wilcox Industries, which makes tactical equipment for U.S. military forces.

"When this country became great was the industrial revolution," he said. "We are now the opposite of the industrial revolution, and pretty soon we are going to fall off a cliff."

At the same time Trump was speaking, his Store was contributing to the growth of Chinese manufacturing at the expense of American jobs, selling $80 Trump-branded cotton sweaters and $70 Trump-branded warm-up tops, all made in China. Also available with the made in China tag: golf hats stamped with the Trump crest and Trump teddy bears.

Visitors also could buy leather made-in-China belts priced at $45 that are advertised as "So soft, it feels like a million bucks."

The Trump wear sold in Macy's, part of the Donald J. Trump Signature Collection, is manufactured overseas, including ties in more than 50 different styles and colors (all made in China), suits (made in Mexico and Vietnam), and dress shirts (five styles made in China).

All the Trump tie pins ($22) and tie clips ($28) are labeled as "Made in China," as are the cufflinks ($35 to $45 a pair) and the boxes containing them.

Although so many Chinese-made products are sold under the Trump name, Trump repeatedly has complained about the quality of Chinese-made goods as compared to American products.

"Our companies make a better product, that's very important to know. We make a better product," he told a gathering of conservative activists in Washington in February.

A spokeswoman for Trump did not respond to a request for comment.


And what a shocker, not. Neither O'Reilly or anyone at Fox News has ever reported any of this information.

Some At Fox Now Denying Bin Laden Is Dead
By: Steve - May 3, 2011 - 9:00am

Since the death of Bin Laden makes President Obama look good, some of the Fox idiots are wondering if he really is dead, and they even speculate that the DNA evidence is not enough because it's just numbers on paper.

And of course it's the usual right-wing loons, Judge Andrew Napolitano Steve Doocy, and Glenn Beck. Napolitano wants more evidence, Doocy said the DNA evidence is just numbers on a piece of paper, and Beck said something is not right with the Bin Laden shooting, that he was ghosted out of his compound to give us a show.

Now think about this, other than the fact that all that would be impossible. Because the entire military and everyone in the government would have to be in on the scam, these same people (Napolitano, Doocy, and Beck) would praise the killing if we had a Republican President, and not doubt Bin Laden was dead at all.

This is more evidence why you should never listen to anyone at Fox, because all their reporting is biased, so you can not believe anything they say. They put their spin and bias into everything, so they are really propagandists, not journalists.

Scarborough Proves He Is Still A Right-Wing Idiot
By: Steve - May 2, 2011 - 10:00am

Just when you think Joe Scarborough is almost a part time honest Republican, he says a crazy thing like this:
SCARBOROUGH: Here, you know, I think Republicans should stand up and certainly salute Barack Obama for making some -- again, for making some very tough choices that his own base did not want him to make.

That takes courage, that takes leadership, and we saw the results of that courage and leadership saying no to his own base yesterday.

These are decisions that he probably did not believe as a candidate he didn't think he'd have to make. Going against his own ideological leanings to do what he believes he has to do.
Basically Scarborough is saying the Obama base did not want Bin Laden dead. Which may be the most ridiculous thing he has ever said, this is Glenn Beck talk, it's crazy, and I'll tell you why.

I am the Obama base, I am a liberal, and damn proud of it. So I should know what the Obama base wants, because I am one. And I wanted Bin Laden killed, I even wrote in this blog years ago that if they would let me I would kill Bin Laden with my own hands.

Scarborough is a joke, and an idiot. Not to mention he is totally wrong, because Obama even ran on killing Bin Laden. Not only did Obama immediately renew the U.S. commitment to finding Bin Laden after his election, he actually campaigned on it.

Obama said this during a presidential debate on October 7, 2008: "We will kill Bin Laden. We will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority."

As for Obama's base, the throngs of mostly young people (his largest supporters) celebrating Bin Laden's death in the streets in front of the White House and in New York City last night prove they were glad he was killed.

Scarborough is wrong, big time. Because I do not know one liberal who is not glad Bin Laden was killed, even though most of us are against the death penalty, most liberals still support the killing of Bin Laden.

I guess he is trying to get Beck's viewers to watch his show, and to remind the right that he is still a right-wing propagandist.

Republican Worth $31 Million Claims To Be Poor
By: Steve - May 2, 2011 - 9:00am

In the 10 years of doing this website about O'Reilly, the Republicans, and politics, this may be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard a Republican say, and that's saying a lot, because Republicans say some really stupid things.

Now before I show you what the Republican Congressman said, think about this, O'Reilly has a dumbest thing of the week segment, and none of the stooges he has on for it mentioned this dumb statement.

At a town hall last week in Montana, Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT) began comparing the plight of every day middle class Americans like those at his town hall with his own economic circumstance.

He went on and on about how he is a struggling small businessman. But then a constituent asked him what his own net worth is and he said he's land rich and cash poor:
REHBERG: I'm a small businessman. My wife is a small businessman. She hasn't taken a salary in ten years as a result of business. We're struggling like everyone else. With the economy.

CONSTITUENT: What's your salary?

REHBERG: I'm land-rich and cash-poor. Like ranchers and farmers and small businessmen throughout Montana.
Notice he did not say what his salary is, he avoided the question, and think about this, he makes $174,000 a year as a Congressman, and his business is worth $31 million dollars, but he still thinks he is a struggling poor American worker. What a fricking joke, try telling that to a guy making $30,000 a year with a wife and 2 kids.

And not only that, Rehberg is the 14th richest member in the House. estimates that his average net worth in 2009 was $31 million. If he's struggling on that, he needs a new accountant.

I wish I could struggle to get by on a $31 million dollar net worth, and a $174,000 a year salary. And not once did O'Reilly call him out in dumbest things of the week.

O'Reilly Tells Charles Manson To Team Up With Al Gore
By: Steve - May 1, 2011 - 10:00am

This shows exactly how much of a lying right-wing idiot Bill O'Reilly is, during a segment with the moron Greg Gutfeld O'Reilly made a joke about Charles Manson joining up with Al Gore over climate change.

Which is only the kind of joke a right-wing jerk would make, I would expect to hear something like this from Dennis Miller, not O'Reilly, who claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone.

And think about this, O'Reilly claims to believe in global warming. Which is just another lie he puts out to make himself look more moderate. Would someone who really believes in global warming make that kind of a joke, of course not.

Not to mention, O'Reilly trashes everyone who does believe in global warming, especially Al Gore. Proving that he is a liar when he says he thinks global warming is real.

To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: