FOX News Bosses Despise Embarrassing O'Reilly
By: Steve - November 30, 2008 - 8:10am

Michael Calderone at the Politico reports that the top bosses at FOX News do not like Bill O'Reilly, they even consider him an embarrassent, but they keep him on the air because he is #1 in the ratings. Michael Wolff wote a biograpphy about Rupert Murdoch called, "The Man Who Owns The News," in the book he writes that the media mogul has seemed to turn away from his own cable news network, and isn't fond of Bill O'Reilly.
"It is not just Murdoch who absolutely despises Bill O'Reilly, the bullying, mean-spirited evening commentator," Wolff wrote, but (Fox News chief executive) Roger Ailes himself who loathes him. Success, however, has cemented everyone to each other."

"The embarrassment can no longer be missed," Wolff wrote, in another section of the book. "He mumbles even more than usual when called on to justify it. He barely pretends to hide the way he feels about Bill O’Reilly. And while it is not that he would give Fox up -- because the money is the money; success trumps all -- in the larger sense of who he is, he seems to want to hedge his bets."
This proves that FOX News is all about making money, and to hell with informing the people with honest journalists, they know O'Reilly is a fraud and an embarrassment, yet they keep him on the air because he makes them a lot of money. O'Reilly is a con-man who tells his 70 year old right-wing base what they want to hear, and they buy his lies because they never check to see if what he says is true.

In reading the hundreds of comments (on the article at the Politico) I saw that one person who replied to defend O'Reilly wrote that he beat Katie Couric in the ratings. This shows that his viewers believe his lies, because he has never beat her in the ratings, when it was a lie.

What O'Reilly did was add the ratings for his (hour long) 8pm show with the ratings for his (hour long) 11pm re-run, then he claimed he beat the one time 5:30pm (30 minute) CBS news show by Katie Couric. And the kool-aid drinking viewers who watch O'Reilly believed it, when it's dishonest and spin.

For one thing, you can not count the ratings for a re-run, then add them to your original show. Not to mention comparing ratings for an hour long news show, to a half hour news show, that is dishonest and deceptive. O'Reilly did not beat Couric, but he said he did, so his viewers believed it. Which only proves that propaganda works, and that his viewers believe everything he says without checking to see if it's true or not.

Try this, next time you hear O'Reilly quote a stat or claim something is a fact, do a google search and look on the internet to see if what he says is true. You will find that 90% of his claims are spin, or flat out lies.

Just the other day O'Reilly said the State of Minnesota certified Coleman the winner in the Coleman/Franken Senate race. He even claimed it was a cold hard fact, in stone. When it was not just spin from O'Reilly, it was a 100% lie. Minnesota has not certified Coleman the winner, and does not certify a Senate election until after the recount.

Then he condemned the website who reported his lie, when they were right, O'Reilly lied about it because he hates Al Franken. If Billy don't like you, he will lie about you. And he hates all liberals, so pretty much every time he talks about a liberal he spins or lies about them. When you check his so-called facts, they turn out to be his spin on the facts. Think about that the next time you hear O'Reilly claim something is a fact.

O'Reilly Wins Silver in Worlds Worst Persons
By: Steve - November 25, 2008 - 2:20pm

I wrote about this a couple days ago, but here is what Keith Olbermann said about it.


OLBERMANN: Our runner-up, nice to see Bill-O the clown has stayed in shape during my absence. He's called the media watchdog site Media Matters, quote, "the most dishonest website in the country," because, well, it accurately quoted him.
O'REILLY: We said the other day that in Minnesota the election commission had certified the election and that what's his name-Coleman, the senate-had won by 215 votes. So what I said was Coleman's victory was certified by the state because it was. He had 215 more votes, which is absolutely true, absolutely true, OK. Rock solid, in stone. That's what they did.
OLBERMANN: Except they didn't. Minnesota State Canvassing Board has not only not certified that election, last Tuesday it specifically said that, quote, except for the offices of U.S. senator, state senator District 16, state representatives Districts 12-B and 16-A, the candidates who received the highest number of votes cast for each office voted in more than one county is hereby declared elected.

There is, in fact, a Minnesota law, 204-C.40 that specifically demands that if there is a recount, quote, "no certificate of election shall be prepared or delivered until after the recount is completed."

The only thing rock solid here is Bill-O's head.

Great Example Why You Should Not Vote Republican
By: Steve - November 24, 2008 - 8:50am

Here is a great article that shows why Republicans are losing all these elections, and it also shows what Republicans do when they have power. Every voter in America should read this, then vote against every Republican in office, or running for office.

And notice that Bill O'Reilly never reports on this kind of stuff (when a Republican does it) even though he claims to now be a watchdog, and complains that Media Matters is only a watchdog on conservatives, when he is only a watchdog on liberals.

Chambliss Spends GOP Election Fund on Golf Trips

Since 2005, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), who is currently locked in a tough run-off election battle against Democrat Jim Martin, has been in charge of the Republican Majority Fund. The PAC was set up to help fund GOP candidates. However, as the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports today, Chambliss has instead used it as a personal fund to ingratiate himself to lobbyists, reward his political contributors, and fund his golfing habit:
-- Under Chambliss, 68 percent of the Fund's spending -- about $1 million dollars has gone for travel, golf events, meals and administrative costs.

-- Political contributions comprised just 32 percent of the committee's spending, or $472,500.

-- In 2007 and 2008, the Fund's political donations accounted for 26 percent of its spending, the second-lowest among the 25 largest leadership groups.

-- Of the top 10 recipients of the Fund's money since 2007, only one was a political organization.

-- Five were golf resorts.
Chambliss is an avid golfer. Despite having a “bum knee" that kept him out of military service in Vietnam, Chambliss ranked as the #2 golfer in the Senate and the 33rd best golfer in Washington, DC, according to a 2005 feature by Golf Digest. That same year, while his colleagues were in a closed-door session discussing pre-Iraq war intelligence, Chambliss took the day off to golf with Tiger Woods.

Therefore, it's perhaps not surprising that two months after taking over the Republican Majority Fund, “Chambliss put on a golf outing at the Ritz-Carlton in Naples, Fla. — the first of 20 at top courses and resorts: Pebble Beach in California; The Breakers in Palm Beach, Fla.; The Greenbrier in West Virginia, among others. Chambliss companions on these trips were, with few exceptions, registered lobbyists and their clients."

In the past two years, Chambliss has also used these official funds to golf with lobbyists for defense contractors, AIG, and Fannie Mae. In 2007, Chambliss even spent more than $7,000 of the Republican Majority Fund's money on “golf supplies."

O'Reilly Lies Then Lies Again About All His Lies
By: Steve - November 22, 2008 - 9:50am

This is amazing, and it shows that Bill O'Reilly has officially lost his mind. Last week on the Factor O'Reilly named Al Franken a Pinhead in the Pinheads and Patriots segment, for losing to Norm Coleman. Then he reported Coleman was the winner again, in a segment later in the week, then he said that Norm Coleman "was certified the winner" by the State of Minnesota on Friday. O'Reilly said the State of Minnesota has certified Coleman the winner, and even admits he said it.

Media Matters and other websites (including reported that O'Reilly falsely declared Coleman the winner, then 2 days ago on Friday November 20th, on the radio Factor O'Reilly attacked Media Matters for simply reporting what he said. O'Reilly called Media Matters "the most dishonest website in the country," for reporting what he said, word for word, even though he admits he said it in the very same transcript.

Then at the end of his insane radio tirade, O'Reilly even attacks NBC News, when they had nothing to do with it, and never said a word about him, ever. O'Reilly talks about how he gives you the facts, and the straight up truth, when he is the guy who declared Coleman the winner two times, and even said the State certified Coleman the winner, which is all lies. Read it for yourself, here is the actual un-edited transcript.

From the November 20 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: We have a mandate here where we just simply want to give you the truth and the facts straight up. I mean, that's why we've been successful.

We said the other day -- this is interesting, and you guys might learn a lesson from this -- we said the other day that, in Minnesota, that the election commission had certified the election and that -- what's his name -- Coleman, the senator, had won by 215 votes. All right?

WIEHL: Right.

O'REILLY: That's what we reported.

WIEHL: Right.

O'REILLY: Well, Media Matters, the most dishonest website in the country, because they purport to be watchdogs, but of course they only watch conservative people or people they don't like, or traditional people -- they don't watch the left -- they say, "Oh, O'Reilly lied because he said that the state of Minnesota certified Coleman's victory."

OK. So, what I said was, Coleman's victory was certified by the state because it was. He had 215 more votes --

WIEHL: Sure. So that's a win.

O'REILLY: -- which is absolutely true.

WIEHL: Right.

O'REILLY: Absolutely true. OK? Rock solid; in stone. That's what they did. But these despicable -- that's all I'm going to say. Just despicable. I could say a lot of other things, but I won't.

These people take that, all right, put it on their website that O'Reilly lied by saying they certified a victory. They didn't use, in the state of Minnesota, a victory, 'cause there's a recount. All right?

But, if you certify an election, where one guy has 215 more votes --

WIEHL: Right.

O'REILLY: -- that's a win for Coleman, as it stands now.

WIEHL: It could change.

O'REILLY: And we said, there's going to be a recount. But when you listen to me, I'm going to tell you the truth and give you the facts. Those are going to be twisted and distorted by dishonest people like NBC News.
Bill O'Reilly is insane, and a liar. Nobody has declared Coleman the winner, except O'Reilly. And the State of Minnesota has not certified anyone the winner. O'Reilly has lied about it 3 times now. He named Franken a pinhead for losing to Coleman, then a couple days later he declared Coleman the winner in a segment with Laura Ingraham, then on Friday he said the State had certified Coleman the winner.

Then he attacks the people who did nothing more than report he lied, they even quoted him word for word from his own transcript, and yet O'Reilly goes after them, and calls them dishonest, when all they did was report the 100% truth about what he said. This is how dishonest and crazy O'Reilly is, he lies, then gets caught, then he attacks the people who caught him lying.

Here are the facts, the hard facts. Contrary to O'Reilly's claim that "the election commission had certified the election," Minnesota election law states that "if a recount is undertaken by a canvassing board" in elections including those for U.S. senator, "no certificate of election shall be prepared or delivered until after the recount is completed."

Here is the exact quote from the actual State Election Law:
If a recount is undertaken by a canvassing board pursuant to section 204C.35, no certificate of election shall be prepared or delivered until after the recount is completed.

Subd. 2. Time of issuance; certain offices.

No certificate of election shall be issued until seven days after the canvassing board has declared the result of the election. In case of a contest, an election certificate shall not be issued until a court of proper jurisdiction has finally determined the contest.
Right there it is, in black and white, that is what the Minnesota Election Law states. O'Reilly lied, three times. Coleman is not the winner, he is only ahead in the vote count, and nobody except Bill O'Reilly has declared Norm Coleman the winner. And the State has clearly NOT certified anyone the winner, let alone Coleman.

Bill O'Reilly is a flat out three time liar, then he attacks the people who reported his lies as dishonest, when all they did was report his lies, word for word, from his own transcripts. The only dishonest person in this whole deal is Bill O'Reilly. Instead of doing the right thing, and admit he was wrong, he attacks the messenger with his right-wing diversion and smear tactics, and claims they are lying about him.

He also claims that Media Matters only goes after conservatives, which is another flat out lie. They do mostly report on conservatives, but right now, this very minute. They have reports on Chris Matthews and David Gregory at MSNBC, Matt Jaffe at ABC News, and they have a report on something Hitchens said on CNN.

Media Matters goes after people at CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CBS, The NY Times, The Washington Post, and everyone, not just FOX. And they do it all the time, so O'Reilly is lying about that too.

The Problem With Bill O'Reilly The Non-Partisan Independent
By: Steve - November 20, 2008 - 9:00am

Every once in a while I get an e-mail like this:
Why do you have such a big problem with Bill O'Reilly, he admits he is a news analyst with an opinion.
While that is true, he also denies being a Conservative. He also claims to be a non-partisan Independent (with a no spin zone) who is fair to both sides. Usually when I get an e-mail like that I just laugh at it, or ignore it, and or publish it in my hate/right-wing idiot mail forum, or all three. But once in a while I reply to it, and here is what I say. I explain to them the problem I have with Bill O'Reilly, and why I do this website.

When a guy claims to be a non-partisan Independent, with a no spin zone, who is fair to both sides, on a news network that claims to be fair and balanced. Then he does an hour long right-wing spin zone that is highly partisan, and not fair to both sides, you have a right-wing spinning liar. Bill O'Reilly is a liar, he claims to be a non-partisan Independent, that's a lie. He claims to be fair to both sides, that's a lie. He claims to have a no spin zone, that's a lie.

The factor is a 90% attack on Democrats, with 90% Republican guests, and all the fill in anchors are Republicans. What O'Reilly does is spin everything to the right, it's all his right-wing opinion on everything. But he claims to be a non-partisan Independent who is fair to both sides.

So he is lying to the American people, he is trying to fool the American people, he is basically a con man. His entire show is a lie, he is a liar, and he is a biased partisan hypocrite with double standards. Yet he claims to be a non-partisan Independent who is fair to both sides.

That is the lie, and the deception, he is being dishonest with the American people. Now I have no problem with Republicans who give their opinion on a news show.

I have no problem with Sean Hannity.
I have no problem with Rush Limbaugh.
I have no problem with Pat Buchanan.
I have no problem with Joe Scarborough.

Why? Because they admit they are Republicans, they do not claim to be non-partisan Independents with no zpin zones. They do not try to fool the American people by lying to them about their ideology. O'Reilly would be ok with me if he would just admit he is a partisan Republican, drop the no zpin zone garbage, and admit to the American people that he is a partisan conservative Republican.

The only reason I have a problem with O'Reilly is because he is pretending to be a non-partisan Independent, while putting out 90% right-wing spin.

Let me ask you this, do you even care that he is a liar?

Do you care that he is lying to the American people about his partisan ideology?

Do you care that he is running a con game on the American people by claiming to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone?

Do you care that he lies about having a balanced guest list every week, when he has 25 Republican and 5 Democrats on each week?

Does any of that matter to you at all?

And btw, if a liberal did the same thing O'Reilly does I would do a website about him too. If a liberal had a show where he denies being a liberal, on a news network that claims to be fair and balanced, claims to be a non-partisan Independent, who is fair to both sides, with a no spin zone, I would expose him as a liar and a spin doctor too.

Because he would also be lying to the American people, anyone who lies to the American people must be exposed as the fraud, the liar, the spin doctor, the hypocrite, and the loser they are.

Take Keith Olbermann, he is a liberal with a bias, but he does not claim to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone, who is fair to both sides. He is not lying to the American people about his partisan ideology, so you know what you get, he is honest about his ideology, and you can decide to watch him, or not.

And that is what I write to people who e-mail me saying O'Reilly is ok because he admits he is a news analyst who gives an opinion. And that explains why I have a problem with O'Reilly, why I do this blog, and why I do this website.

Let me also say this, for Bill O'Reilly, if you want this website to go away, just admit you are a partisan Republican, admit you do not have a no spin zone, admit you are not fair to both sides, and do it on the air. Then I will delete this website and take it off the internet. What say you Billy, all you have to do is be honest with the American people, admit the truth, and I will take this website off the internet.

The Madness From Bill O'Reilly is Stunning
By: Steve - November 19, 2008 - 11:55am

Last night O'Reilly had a segment called "Media panic over the economy" with one Republican guest on to discuss it, Bernard Goldberg. O'Reilly and Bernie claim the media is causing a panic because they are reporting the truth about the economy. And they want them to shut up and stop reporting about how bad things are.

But a couple years ago when Paul krugman and many other economic experts were warning people about the housing bubble, and the problems with wall street and the economy, O'Reilly was saying they are nothing but liberal pinheads who hate George W. Bush, and they are just making it all up to make him look bad, he specifically said they are Bush hating pinheads who know nothing.

Fast forward to 2008, O'Reilly now claims nobody warned him about these problems. When Paul Krugman and other economists were writing about this stuff for years, O'Reilly dismissed it, and ignored it. I found articles from years ago where Paul Krugman writes about a housing bubble that's going to burst. Cavuto and O'Reilly called him a nut, and said he is a Bush hating loser that dont have a clue what he is talking about.

Well it turns out Krugman was right, he even won the economic pulitzer prize for it. So now the media is writing about how bad the economy is, and they are doing their job, informing the American people about the truth. But O'Reilly is crying foul, he said they should shut up because they are scaring people.

HUH? That's just insane. When Krugman reported the truth about the housing bubble and the future economic problems we were going to have, O'Reilly called him an idiot and told him to shut up.

Then he complains that nobody warned him, or the people, when that is exactly what Krugman did. O'Reilly just ignored it and dismissed what he was reporting. Then the media reports the truth on the economy, and O'Reilly tells them to shut up because it's scaring people. But when they did not report it he complained they should have warned him. So which is it you pinhead, you cant have it both ways.

O'Reilly complains when they dont warn him, then he complains when they do, the man has lost his right-wing mind. I think it might be time for Billy to retire, he cries about the lack of reporting one day, then cries about too much reporting the next day. I guess doing the radio show and the tv show has fried his brain, because he does not make sense half the time anymore.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, the people of America have a right to know the truth, they must know the truth, and it is the job of the media to report the truth, yet O'Reilly claims they should shut up with that truth stuff, because it scared a few people, and he wonders why I claim he is not a journalist, because he says garbage like that. No real journalist would ever say crazy stuff like that, and O'Reilly is not a journalist.

O'Reilly Has Right-Wing Partisan on to Smear Chris Dodd
By: Steve - November 19, 2008 - 11:35am

Monday night O'Reilly put the right-wing partisan radio guy (the Rush Limbaugh wannabe Tom Scott) on to smear Chris Dodd, because he allegedly took out a sweetheart mortgage loan from Countrywide Financial. Tom Scott, who confronted Dodd on his radio program, accused the senator of outright fraud. Then the nut said Dodd has never held an honest job in his life and he has a sense of entitlement.

Dear Tom Scott, being a U.S. Senator for 20 years is an honest job, unless you are a freaking right-wing idiot like you are. O'Reilly even admitted that Dodd has probably not done anything illegal, and most likely did not even know he was getting a special deal, if he was. Not to mention, at the time refinancing rates were low, and a 4.2 rate is not unusual. Yet O'Reilly does an entire segment on it, and made it the top story on the whole show, if that's the top story in America with all the problems we have now, I'm newt Gingrich.

Here are all the facts O'Reilly and Scott left out, besides the fact the whole (5 YEAR OLD) story is a partisan right-wing smear job with no news worthiness, from the website.

In 2003, Chris Dodd and his wife, signed for two refinanced mortgages on their home in East Haddam and their Washington townhouse. According to Conde Nast Portfolio magazine, the lender, Countrywide, helped structure the loans for the best available mortgage rates: 4.50 percent and 4.25 percent.

The rates, lower than what the Dodds had originally locked in, would ensure thousands of dollars in savings over the 30-year life of the loans. It's unclear whether Dodd was made aware of any special treatment.

Dodd recently said this: "When my wife and I refinanced our loans in 2003, we did not seek or expect any favorable treatment. Just like millions of other Americans, we shopped around and received competitive rates."

That assertion is backed by news accounts then. The financial editor of "The Today Show" reported in June 2003 that the going rate for the five-year ARM loan was about 4.2 percent; a Miami Herald article from that month suggested those seeking a similar loan should be able to "lock in about 4 percent interest"; and a CNNfn interview that month put the typical rate around 4 percent.

Tim Malburg, president of Capstone Mortgage Co. in Wilton, said, "The rate is not a red flag. That kind of rate did exist."

O'Reilly never reported any of that. In 2003 Dodd wanted to refinance two homes, so he looked around and got the best deal, which is what any smart person would do, there was nothing wrong with that, and nothing illegal about it. The only people who even care about it are partisan right-wingers like O'Reilly and Tom Scott, who is a former Republican Congressman who now has a conservative talk radio show.

This is a non-news story, it's partisan garbage, put out by right-wing idiots like Bill O'Reilly, FOX News, and Tom Scott. Just like the ACORN voter fraud story, it's all right-wing propaganda, and none of it is true. It's a made up story by a few right-wing idiots who are now trying to smear every Democrat they can, as revenge for losing the elections so bad.

It's not even journalism, it's like the dirty tricks political campaigns use. And O'Reilly is neck deep in this dishonesty, even after he claims to be a non-partisan with a no spin zone. O'Reilly should get paid by the RNC, because everything he does is more like a Republican campaign ad, then it is journalism. This whole story is bogus, it's nothing but right-wing partisans trying to make a Democrat look bad, and they using a 5 YEAR OLD NON STORY to do it.

O'Reilly Ignores Ted Stevens Senate Loss to Democrat
By: Steve - November 19, 2008 - 10:15am

As reported here in this blog, the Senior Republican Senator from Alaska Ted Stevens was convicted on 7 felony counts of corruption, and Bill O'Reilly never said a word about it. Even though it was the top story on every news show for 2 days, and it was the front page headline on every major newspaper in America, including Alaska.

Yesterday it was reported that Stevens lost his Senate re-election race to Democrat Mark Begich, giving the Democrats 58 Senate seats, with two races still undecided. And once again O'Reilly ignored the entire story, and never said one word about it. This is a major news story, and O'Reilly totally ignored it. Every real journalist in America reported the story, except Bill O'Reilly.

O'Reilly has the #1 rated show on cable news and this story was never even mentioned, when he was convicted, or when he lost. Now imagine what he would do if Stevens was a Democrat, there would have been a talking points memo, it would be the top story, with a follow up segment to discuss it, and future segments to keep everyone updated. But since it was a Republican it's not only not mentioned, it's not even reported at all. And that's non-partisan journalism?

More Proof O'Reilly is a Dishonest & Biased Liar
By: Steve - November 18, 2008 - 5:45pm

Last week O'Reilly claimed that Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie was "actively rooting for Al Franken" in the Senate race between Franken and incumbent Norm Coleman and that "the fix is in." But O'Reilly did not say that the Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty approved of the composition of the canvassing board Ritchie named to certify the vote and oversee the recount, or that a lawyer for Coleman's campaign said that the "state should feel good about who's on the panel."

During the show, O'Reilly falsely claimed that "since Election Day, Coleman didn't get -- they didn't find one vote for Coleman."

In fact, while Franken has netted more votes during the statewide audit of unofficial election returns, election officials have tallied additional votes for Coleman during the certification process as well. O'Reilly also repeated the discredited suggestion that election officials may have tampered with votes in an effort to benefit Franken by mishandling 32 absentee ballots from Minneapolis.

During the segment with Laura Ingraham, O'Reilly claimed, "If the fix is in -- and you just heard the secretary of state -- the fix is in. What does Coleman do?"

However, at no point during the discussion did O'Reilly or Ingraham point out that the five-member canvassing board includes two judges appointed to the Minnesota Supreme Court by Pawlenty, or that during the November 12 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Pawlenty said, "Those folks were named today. The four judges that were named -- two of them I appointed to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Two others have good reputations in Minnesota, so I think it's gonna be a fair system."

Moreover, the Associated Press reported on November 13 that "Fritz Knaak, Coleman's lead lawyer, said he was comfortable with the board's makeup.

O'Reilly further claimed of Ritchie, "This guy is the secretary of state. He's in charge of overseeing this thing, and now we've been investigating it. Do you realize that since Election Day, Coleman didn't get -- they didn't find one vote for Coleman. He lost 47 or 67 votes." He later asked Ingraham, "You're not finding any votes for the Republican guy? None?" Ingraham responded, "No, of course not."

But while the statewide audit of unofficial election results has resulted in a net narrowing of Coleman's lead, a November 11 Minneapolis Star Tribune article reported that Coleman has received additional votes in some counties as a result of the audit:
Officials with Hennepin County forwarded their tally Monday to the secretary of state's office, showing that, since initial results Wednesday, Franken's total had increased by 55 votes and Coleman's by 27 in the state's largest county.

Since the preliminary Election Day numbers, Franken's biggest gains were in Lake County, where he added 246 votes, and in Pine and St. Louis counties, where he picked up 100 in each.

Coleman's biggest gain was in Ramsey County, 29 votes, but that was more than canceled out by an additional 41 votes there for Franken. Coleman's biggest drop was 124 votes in Anoka County, where Franken also lost 90 votes.
O'Reilly also claimed that "they're finding votes all over the place -- in the trunks of cars, you know, up in the tree" for Franken, parroting the discredited rumor that 32 absentee ballots from Minneapolis were mishandled. Hennepin County officials have repeatedly said the ballots were sealed and held in a secure location, and Reichert has said that the claim that the ballots were in her car was false, as was the claim that the ballots sat in a car for days.

Billy tells so may lies it's stunning, and he claims to only deal in the facts. When all of his facts are nothing but lies to smear Al Franken because he hates him. Not one word he said about the Minnesota Senate recount is true, it's nothing but right-wing propaganda. And if you dont believe me, go check it out for yourself.

O'Reilly Spins Like a Top Over Gitmo & Obama
By: Steve - November 18, 2008 - 4:15pm

Last night O'Reilly hammered Obama for saying he will close Gitmo, and stop the torture. O'Reilly was confused:
O'REILLY: There wasn't much policy discussed, but in two places "Talking Points" got a little confused.

OBAMA VIDEO CLIP: I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that.

O'REILLY: But what exactly happens to the 250 alleged terrorists at Gitmo? If they're moved to the USA, the ACLU will immediately file a bunch of lawsuits on their behalf and chaos will ensue. If these men are ever tried in civilian courts, national security intelligence gathering will be incredibly damaged.

OBAMA VIDEO CLIP: I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture, and I'm going to make sure that we don't torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world.

O'REILLY: Well that's nice in theory, but what exactly is torture? Keeping a suspect awake? Loud music? Bad food? Will President Obama eliminate all stressful interrogation methods? If so, that will end most of the information flow from captured terrorists. Most of these guys are hard cases. They don't give up information easily.
As usual O'Reilly spins like a top, it's not just Barack Obama who wants to close Gitmo, so does John McCain ,Colin Powell, and almost everyone. And no Billy, loud music and bad food is not torture, he is talking about waterboarding, and you know it. O'Reilly acts like Barack Obama is the only guy who wants to close it down, when that's a lie, here is what McCain said during his 60 minutes interview.
PELLEY: Would you close Guantanamo Bay?

MCCAIN: Yes. I would close Guantanamo Bay. And I would move those prisoners to Fort Leavenworth. And I would proceed with the tribunals.

PELLEY: Why? What's wrong with the way it was handled?

MCCAIN: Guantanamo Bay has become an image throughout the world which has hurt our reputation. Whether we deserve it or not, the reality is Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib have harmed our reputation in the world, thereby harming our ability to win the psychological part of the war against radical Islamic extremism.
Here is what Colin Powell said:
On Meet the Press, Gen. Colin Powell strongly condemned the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, calling it "a major problem for America’s perception" and charging, "if it was up to me, I would close Guantanamo -- not tomorrow, this afternoon."

He also called for an end to the military commission system the Bush administration has created to try Guantanamo detainees. "I would simply move them to the United States and put them into our federal legal system," Powell said. He scoffed at criticism that the detainees would have access to lawyers and the writ of habeas corpus: "So what? Let them. Isn’t that what our system’s all about?"

“Every morning I pick up a paper and some authoritarian figure, some person somewhere, is using Guantanamo to hide their own misdeeds," Powell said. “We have shaken the belief that the world had in America's justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open.......We don’t need it, and it's causing us far more damage than any good we get for it."
As you can see those two REPUBLICANS would also close Gitmo, and close it now. O'Reilly claims that only Obama and all the far left loons want to close it, when that's a lie, and he knows it, even John McCain wants to close it down. Notice that O'Reilly never used the word waterboarding, he ignores the actual torture. Because he is spewing out the Bush propaganda that we never used torture, they said that after declaring waterboarding to not be torture, and Billy repeats it like a good little right-wing stooge.

Everyone else in America (and the world) knows that waterboarding is torture, it's even listed as torture in the Geneva Conventions, John McCain even said it was torture, and almost everyone agrees it is torture. It is simply a lie to say that the Bush administration did not use torture. Even setting aside the infamous Abu Ghraib incidents, Bush's own CIA director Michael Hayden confirmed that his agency had subjected at least three detainees to waterboarding. And as Sen. John McCain has explained, waterboarding is clearly torture:
All I can say is that it was used in the Spanish Inquisition, it was used in Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia, and there are reports that it is being used against Buddhist monks today. … It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture.
And John McCain is hardly alone in his judgment:
-- Malcolm Wrightson Nance, a former Navy instructor of prisoner of war survival programs: "Waterboarding is torture and should be banned."

-- Tom Ridge, former Homeland Security Secretary: "There's just no doubt in my mind -- under any set of rules -- waterboarding is torture."

-- Four retired Judge Advocates General (JAGs), in a letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): "Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal."
O'Reilly is trying to cover for the Bush administration, and rewrite their terrible history. Obama has promised to "make sure that we don't torture" -- a vow that entails a robust investigation into Bush's deliberate decision to implement a torture regime. O'Reilly is trying to smear Obama as some far left nut who will endanger national security. When most Republicans agree with him, and the only thing he is going to stop is the waterboarding.

And one last thing, liberals could care less if the President uses torture on some piece of shit terrorist. What we care about is if we do that, then they might torture some of our guys using the same torture methods. So we can not say to any other country that they can not waterboard anyone if we are doing it. Not to mention it is illegal, and it is torture. O'Reilly ignores all that, and claims we need to waterboard people, when all the experts say we can get the same info without waterboarding them.

McCain Adviser Admits America is Now a Center-Left Country
By: Steve - November 17, 2008 - 10:45am

O'Reilly, Hannity, Rove, Ingraham, and many other conservative "pundits" continue to insist that America remains a center-right country. But yesterday in a Washington Post op-ed, Hoover Institution fellow and former adviser to the McCain campaign Tod Lindberg, admits that is wrong:
LINDBERG: It is now harder for the Republican presidential candidate to get to 50.1 percent than for the Democrat. My Hoover Institution colleague David Brady and Douglas Rivers of the research firm YouGovPolimetrix have been analyzing data from online interviews with 12,000 people in both 2004 and 2008. It shows an overall shift to the Democrats of six percentage points.

As they write in the forthcoming edition of Policy Review, The decline of Republican strength occurs by having strong Republicans become weak Republicans, weak Republicans becoming independents, and independents leaning more Democratic or even becoming Democrats. This is a portrait of an electorate moving from center-right to center-left.
Lindberg also admits that the percentage of voters describing themselves as liberal and conservative has held relatively constant over many election cycles. However, he notes that "the views behind those labels" have shifted to be more liberal.

Nobody Should Ever Trust Anything Newt Gingrich Says
By: Steve - November 17, 2008 - 10:25am

Newt Gingrich is the former speaker of the House for the Republican party, Gingrich was forced out of the speakership over a scandal involving misuse of tax-exempt political funds. He is one of the crooked Republicans who started the culture of corruption in the Repulican party in 1998 that led to what they have now. He is also an O'Reilly Factor political analyst, and O'Reilly loves him.

This is the kind of guy O'Reilly uses for his political analyst. And another one of the factor political analysts is Dick Morris. He is the freak who got caught hiring hookers, and we found out he loved to suck their toes. That's the kind of people O'Reilly uses for his analysts, a crook and a hooker toe sucker.

And now Newt Gingrich is trying to return and run for President in 2012, but he is still the same crook, and still lying about himself, and other Republicans. Yesterday, he appeared on Face the Nation to discuss the future of the Republican Party. He touted Republican governors -- who met last week in Miami -- as the source for all the best ideas, specifically praising Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman for shepherding in low unemployment, when it was all lies.

Here is a quote:
GINGRICH: I would say, for example, to the Republicans who are about to face this question of, how do you get the economy growing again? Bring in Governor Daniels and bring in Governor Huntsman, and ask them, you know, how did they get to the lowest unemployment rate in their respective regions? Go back to a principled approach.
As usual Newt was putting out right-wing spin, as he usually does. Utah’s unemployment rate in September was 3.5 percent, which is pretty good, but Wyoming has a lower rate at 3.3 percent. So it's not the lowest in the region, but he was close, and 3.5 percent is very low.

But Newt got it very wrong on Indiana. At 6.2 percent, Indiana isn’t even close to having the lowest unemployment rate in its Midwest region. It ranks eighth out of the 12 states in the region. Iowa (4.2 percent), Kansas (4.8 percent), Minnesota (5.9 percent), Nebraska (3.5 percent), North Dakota (3.6 percent), South Dakota (3.2 percent), and Wisconsin (5 percent) all posted lower unemployment rates than Indiana. And, "Three of those states --Iowa, Kansas, and Wisconsin -- have Democratic governors."

Funny how Newt got that wrong, and he never said a word about the three states that have Democratic Governors having a lower unemployment rate. This is the same old Republican lies and dirty tricks they have used for 20 years. And if the Republicans run Gingrich for President in 2012 he will lose badly, probably worse than McCain did.

Gingrich also touted Gov. Bobby Jindal as knowing "more about health policy than any other elected official in America," and said he is doing extraordinary things in his state. However, Igor Volsky writes that Jindal's recently-announced plan could turn out to be a "more industry-friendly approach that allows insurers to make short-term profits without focusing on long term investments." One Louisiana doctor said Jindal's plan could "potentially lead to less quality and not more quality."

Remember this, Newt Gingrich is a Republican liar who was forced out of office for corruption. Now he thinks enough time has passed so the people have forgot. Wrong, we have not forgot, we remember that you are still a lying crook. Nobody should believe a word he says about anything, he is a right-wing con man, and every word that comes out of his mouth is Republican propaganda.

O'Reilly Spins The Gay Marriage Issue
By: Steve - November 16, 2008 - 11:45am

O'Reilly claims the left is now out of control because Obama won, which is just ridiculous. The far right religious groups started the gay marriage war, they are the people who spent $50 million dollars to get the anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot. They basically spent $50 million dollars to take rights away from people, which is unheard of in America, until now.

So if anyone is to blame, it's the right-wing religious freaks in the Republican party. If they had not spent all that money to put it on the ballot, and make it illegal, there would not be any massive protests. And they are just doing legal and peaceful protesting, so how is that out of control. Out of control would be violence, and there has not been any violence, only non-violent legal protesting.

Notice how O'Reilly turns it around to make the left and the gay people the bad guys. When the bad guys are the far right religious nut-jobs who want to take rights away from people. They are the people who spent all that money to ban gay marriage, and impose their morals on other people. O'Reilly twisted the whole thing around to blame the gay people, and claim they want to impose their will on everyone else.

Now that is some serious big time right-wing spin. The gay people do not want to impose their will, or their morals on anyone, they just want equal rights to marry, just as straight people have. They just want the same rights as everyone else, that's not imposing their will or morals on someone else, as O'Reilly claims. Net Gingrich said it was facism, and O'Reilly agreed. They are both nuts, and if there is any facism, it's from the right-wing religious freaks.

And it has nothing to do with Obama winning, this right-wing war against gay marriage was started by the religious freaks years ago. They just got it on the ballot in California during the election, but it has nothing to do with Obama. O'Reilly claims Obama is to blame, and he should do something about the left being out of control. When he had nothing to do with it, and there is nothing he can do to stop it.

Not to mention, only a Republican would say it's out of control and blame it on the left, when the right started the gay marriage war, and peaceful protesting is not being out of control. Only a Republican would call legal and peaceful protests out of control. This is America pal, and protesting is a pro-American thing to do, and a big part of how this country was formed, and the way people speak out. If anyone is out of control, it's O'Reilly and Gingrich, and all their crazy and facist right-wing religious friends.

O'Reilly Jumps The Shark Over Ratings
By: Steve - November 14, 2008 - 3:15pm

Last night Billy said this:
O'REILLY: Also, for the month of October, The Factor's audience at 8 and 11 combined was more than Leno, Letterman, Katie Couric, The Today Show, GMA, The View, and just about every other news chat show. Again that's pretty stunning. And we have you to thank. We really appreciate your loyalty."
He calls Leno and Letterman a news chat show. That's just crazy, Leno and Letterman are Comedians, they do late night Comedy shows. They also interview some Celebs, but neither show is a news chat show. They are funny entertainment shows, they do Comedy, with Comedy bits, they are not news shows at all. So the comparison is ridiculous. The Today Show, Katie Couric, GMA, and The View are news chat shows, but Leno and Letterman are not.

Billy had to add his ratings for TWO shows to get enough to beat their ratings for ONE show. Who in their right mind does that, nobody, except O'Reilly. And Katie Couric only has a 30 minute show, not an hour like the factor, so that comparison is just stupid. The other 3 shows are on in the morning and during the day, when most people are at work, so that comparison is even more stupid. It's like comparing the ratings for a prime time show like American Idol, to The View, it's crazy, that's why nobody does it.

Polls show that 88% of working Americans are in bed by 11:30pm, 28% are in bed by 10pm, and 60% are in bed by 11:30. Not to mention his ratings are up because of the election, just as all ratings for cable news shows are up. Pretty soon you will see those numbers drop back down to normal, with maybe a slight overall increase.

Before the election O'Reilly was averaging about 2.2 million viewers a night, and I predict within a month or two it will be back down to about that number, maybe 2.5 million a night. So he might have a slight increase, just as Keith Olbermann probably will too.

I do know this, it's insane to add your ratings for two shows, then claim you got higher ratings than the one show everyone else had. And it's really insane to compare your cable news show to Leno and Letterman, and claim they have news chat shows. They are entertainment shows that are on at 11:30pm, when a hell of a lot of people are in bed.

O'Reilly has lost his mind with these crazy ratings comparisons, it shows signs of insanity to claim two of your shows beat the ratings for other shows that ran one time, especially when they are not even news shows, and they are on at 11:30pm when a lot of people are in bed, or during the day when most people are at work.

O'Reilly & FOX Lied to You About ACORN & Voter Fraud
By: Steve - November 14, 2008 - 12:15pm

Remember that Bill O'Reilly and virtually every single person who works for FOX News reported every day for months on end about voter fraud by ACORN. Now ask yourself how many cases of voter fraud we had in America by ACORN.

The answer is none, zero. There has not been one case of voter fraud by ACORN, not one. That alone shows you how biased and how dishonest Bill O'Reilly and the other FOX News anchors are. Every day all we heard from O'Reilly, Hannity, Hume, Kelly, Jarrett, etc. were voter fraud stories by ACORN, and yet to this day not one case of voter fraud by ACORN has been found.

And notice that FOX News does not even mention ACORN or voter fraud anymore. Because it is of no political use to them anymore. Just like Bush did with the yellow terror alerts, what happened to them, they were ended after the 2004 re-election, because they were of no political use anymore.

I said those Bush terror alerts were all garbage, they were political stunts to scare people into thinking the terrorists were trying to attack us every other month, and the great George W. Bush is protecting you so you need to re-elect him. It was all lies, and nothing but political stunts used to scare people for no reason, except to get Bush re-elected. The proof of that is after the 2004 re-election the terror alerts suddenly stopped, and we have not had one since the 2004 re-election.

Not to mention we later found out they were all made up, or put out based on 3 to 5 year old information. None of them turned out to be an actual threat. Like the group of guys who were going to attack a military base pretending to be pizza delivery guys, does anyone believe that could happen, not unless you are stupid you dont. It was all political, just like the bogus ACORN voter fraud story put out by O'Reilly and FOX News.

They (O'Reilly and FOX) were trying to set up a future voter fraud complaint, where if the election was close, they could claim voter fraud and try to give a state to McCain by getting Democratic votes thrown out. But Obama ruined their plan by kicking McCain's ass and crushing him like a bug. So their plan was ruined by the big Obama win, and the ACORN voter fraud stories suddenly went away, just like the Bush terror alerts did. And none of this was reported by O'Reilly, or anyone at FOX News, because they were all in on it.

Top 10 Stupid Things Said by Conservative Idiots
By: Steve - November 14, 2008 - 11:15am

10) Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are saying this is an "Obama Recession" when George W. Bush is the President, and he has been for 8 years. Obama does not even take office until January 20, of next year, so it's ridiculous to blame him for anything.

9) Sarah palin is still talking about Joe The Plummer, even though he has been discredited as a fraud and a liar. he lied about buying a busines, he lied about the income for the business, and he lied about the Obama tax plan.

8) All the Conservatives on TV and Radio, from O'Reilly to Limbaugh are saying the Democrats are trying to steal the election in the Minnesota Senate recount with Al Franken and Norm Coleman. When there is no evidence to prove that, and the state's Republican governor even said there is none. The recount will be done at 100 counting locations, and each side will have an observer there to watch it, the media will be there, and so will members of the public, so cheating will be impossible.

7) Dennis Miller said the left hate Sarah Palin because she has a great sex life, which is just ridiculous. The left hate her because she is a stupid right-wing fool, who is extreme pro-life, and a creationist nut-job who has witchcraft protection prayers done on her by preachers from Africa. And how does Miller know she has a great sex life, he admitted that he has never met her, or talked to her.

6) Virtually every Anchor at FOX News, from O'Reilly to Brit Hume is reporting the bogus absentee ballots left in a car story in Minnesota. The whole story is a lie put out by Norm Colemans attorney. He even later admitted he was wrong the same day, but the liars at FOX News keep reporting the story anyway.

5) Bill O'Reilly claims the ACLU has been silent about Joe The Plummer having his private info looked at. When it's a lie, they have spoke out many times about it, wrote letters to the editor of newspapers, wrote about it on the state and federal ACLU website, and posted links to articles about it on their websites.

4) Dick Morris and Sean Hannity claim the stock market is dropping because of Barack Obama. When it goes down 300 or 400 points, they blame Obama, but when it goes up 800 or 900 points they dont give him credit for that, they only blame him when it goes down. All the financial experts (including the FOX News Business experts) say it's going down because of the wall street bailout, job losses, high unemployment claims, low consumer confidence, the housing crisis, the credit crisis, planned layoffs, and low future sales estimates from Best Buy and Wal-Mart.

3) Media Research Center president Brent Bozell claimed that Barack Obama "ran as a Reaganite" and "won over the public as a fiscal conservative." But two weeks earlier on October 27, he called Obama a socialist who wants to redistribute the wealth, and the biggest liberal in the entire Senate. Bozell should be in a padded room, not running a so-called media research center.

2) Many Conservatives like Bill O'Reilly, Karl Rove, Bill Kristol, Laura Ingraham, and Rush Limbaugh still claim America is a center right country. Even after Obama won by a landslide with 364 electoral votes to 174 for McCain. And after the Democrats gained 17 Senate Seats, and 50 House seats since 2006. Which is a bigger majority than the Republicans have ever had in the history of America.

1) Bill O'Reilly claims he beat every show on TV in the ratings last week, including Jay Leno and David Letterman, he called them news chat shows. Earth to O'Reilly, Leno and Letterman are Comedians who tell jokes and interview celebrities, they do not have news chat shows. And to get that ratings win, O'Reilly added the ratings for his 8pm show and the 11pm re-run, which is just insane. You can not add two shows ratings then claim you beat a show that only ran one time, only insane people do that, and O'Reilly is insane.

O'Reilly Talked About Franken Recount With Ingraham
By: Steve - November 14, 2008 - 10:45am

Now that's a fair and balanced segment, haha, not. It was O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham, two right-wingers talking about the Franken/Coleman recount, with no Democrat or Liberal to provide the balance. I never heard so much right-wing propaganda and lies in my life. It was so ridiculous I barely know where to start.

O'Reilly played a clip of the Democrat Secretary of State Mark Ritchie on MSNBC, talking about the Coleman campaign complaint about the recanvassing process. He was told the Coleman campaign said he was biased and he was going to do an unfair recount. Then he was asked to comment on what they said, and he said Norm Coleman's campaign goal was to "to win at any price."

Then O'Reilly plays a clip from a different interview Ritchie did saying he never said that. But O'Reilly was being totally dishonest, Ritchie was asked in the other interview why he never said the same thing about the Franken campaign in the 2nd clip, and he answered because I never said that about them. He was referring to the Franken campaign, not what he said about the Coleman campaign.

The O'Reilly claimed Ritchie denied saying it. It was so dishonest, it does not get any more dishonest. Ritchie denied saying it about the Franken campaign, not the Coleman campaign, which shows how biased and dishonest O'Reilly is.

That rumor was started on the right-wing Michelle Malkins blog, and it's all lies, they edited the clips to make it look like Ritchie was talking about what he said about the Coleman campaign. Notice in the 2nd clip they do not show the question asked, they edited that part out because it would show they were dishonest in their claims. And O'Reilly dishonestly used that edited clip, like the loyal Republican spin doctor he is. Just read a transcript of the whole 2nd Ritchie interview clip, not the edited part they showed, and you will see that Malkin, O'Reilly, and Ingraham are all lying.

Then O'Reilly called Franken a loon, and said the fix is in. Ingraham agreed and claimed the recount would be fixed and that Franken will win. When neither one of these so-called journalists never said a word about how the recount will be done.

They will do the recount in 100 different locations, a bi-partisan panel of Republicans and Democrats has been put in place to rule on the recount, and monitor it. Each side will have an attorney, or an observer there to watch all 100 recounts, in all 100 locations.

So there is no way possible to fix the recount, each side will have someone watching every move they make. Not to mention, people from the media will also be watching, and the general public can also watch if they want to. O'Reilly and Ingraham never told you any of that. That's how biased and dishonest they are.

And they even talked about votes that were found in the trunk of some womans car, then later counted. This is all right-wing lies, the man who made that claim is an attorney for Coleman. And he later admitted he was wrong, after the woman came forward and said no ballots were ever left in the trunk of her car. O'Reilly and Ingraham never mentioned any of those facts either.

Reports on FOX and other right-wing websites and blogs said 32 absentee ballots had been found in the trunk of an election director in Minneapolis. Both Sean Hannity and Megyn Kelly used the report to insinuate wrongdoing in the Minnesota senate race which remains undecided. But the story is false.

To quote David Brauer, of
The "car ballot" story emerged Saturday from the mouth of Coleman lawyer Fritz Knaak, who, according to AP, told reporters, "We were told ballots had been riding around in (Minneapolis election director Cindy Reicher's) car for several days, which raised all kinds of integrity questions." Knaak never provided a source and did not return two MinnPost calls for comment. However, he was already backing off his story at the same press event. As that day's Pioneer Press noted, "Knaak said he feels assured that what was going on with the 32 ballots was neither wrong nor unfair."
And yet O'Reilly and Ingraham just keep repeating all these lies. O'Reilly and Ingraham told so many lies in that segment it's amazing they can call themselves journalists. None of it was true, and none of it is backed up with any facts. Yet O'Reilly and Ingraham spewed it all out like the good little partisan Republican propagandists they are. It was total dishonesty, and stunning right-wing bias, from O'Reilly and Ingraham. O'Reilly even claims he only deals with the facts, what a joke, none of what he reported was even close to any facts.

O'Reilly Speaks Out on Prop 8 in California
By: Steve - November 13, 2008 - 9:25pm

And it was so ridiculous I almost fell off my chair laughing at him. To begin with, I am not gay, but I do support equal rights for every man and woman in America. Which is more than I can say for O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends, who want to take rights away from people, and do it for mostly religious reasons.

This is a right-wing religious issue, just like abortion. In both cases the O'Reilly's of the world want to take rights away from women, and gay people. Because of their religious views, they think abortion is wrong, and they think being gay is wrong. I can not think of one Liberal who wants to take rights away from anyone, because we actually believe in equal rights for all, we dont just say we do.

O'Reilly sat there and pulled the Constitution card, he said it does not give gays the right to marry, and he said nowhere does it say that. But he ignored the fact that the Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal.

The opening of the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, states as follows:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
It grants all men the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, So if you deny a gay man or woman the right to marry, you have taken away their right to the Pursuit of Happiness. O'Reilly somehow ignores all that, to argue some right-wing religious crap that justifies taking rights away from people.

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it provides that:
No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Equal Protection Clause is as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal" by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states.

If a man has a right to marry a woman, but not a man, then it's discrimination, and it is a violation of their rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. What part of that does O'Reilly and all his right-wing religious friends not understand.

Then after the segment was over O'Reilly brings Laura Ingraham on to discuss it. Who cares what she says, of course she agrees with O'Reilly, because she is a right-wing religious nut just like O'Reilly. They both want to take the rights away from a woman to choose whether to have an abortion or not, and they want to make it illegal for gay people to get married.

Both of which is taking rights way from people, which we should never do in a so-called free country. And under the Constitution should be ruled un-Constitutional. You may not like it when a woman has an abortion, or when gay people get married. But if you actually believe in equal rights for all, and the 14th amendment, you have to let a woman choose, and you also have to let gay people marry.

Otherwise you are a hypocrite who does not believe in freedom, does not believe all men are created equal, and you do not believe in equal rights for all. It's actually un-American to try and take rights away from people, not to mention un-Constitutional. And yet, O'Reilly, Ingraham, and all their crazy right-wing religious friends want to do exactly that.

Then O'Reilly tries to make the ridiculous argument that the Constitution does not specifically say that gay people have the right to marry, so it is not allowed. The Constitution does not specifically say that you can own an assault rifle either, but you can. It's the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. And the exact opposite of what the Constitution was meant to do.

The Constitution was meant to protect the equal rights of all men, it was not ment to be used to take rights away from men, and it was sure as hell not meant to be used to argue against giving equal rights to gay people. If you used the argument O'Reilly did, in any Constitutional law class in America, they would laugh you out of the classroom.

It shows how crazy and how biased O'Reilly is. He would take rights away from people, the rights they have based on the Declaration of Independence, and the 14th amendment of the Constitution. Because he is a bible thumping right-wing religious nut who thinks he can impose his morals on you, and justify it by saying the Constitution does not grant gay people the right to marry.

Hey Billy, right back at ya. Show me in the Constitution where it says gay people do not have the right to marry. If you cant, then they have that right, just as straight people do. Maybe you dont understand what equal rights are. It means if a straight man has the right to marry a woman, then a gay man (or woman) should be able to marry someone of the same sex. If not, they do not have equal rights, and it's a violation of the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment. What part of that dont you understand?

Look at What O'Reilly Says And Dont Say
By: Steve - November 13, 2008 - 6:25pm

If you want to honestly evaluate Bill O'Reilly, pay attention to what he does not say, as much as what he does say. Notice that all his fill-in anchors are right-wing Republicans, Malkin, Ingraham, Snow, Kasich, etc. Notice that he never says one bad word about anyone at FOX News, or any Republican websites, like,,, etc.

Notice that O'Reilly never calls any Republicans a loon, compares them to Nazis, or calls them kool-aid drinkers. Notice that 99% of the pinheads in the pinheads and patriots segment are Democrats, rarely is a Republican ever named a pinhead. Notice that all his big fights are with Democrats or Liberals, like Barney Frank, Paul Krugman, etc. Name one big fight O'Reilly had with a Republican, you cant.

Notice that O'Reilly agrees with every issue the Republicans have, except illegal immigration. He claims to support the environment and oppose the Death Penalty, but those are lies he uses to claim he is not a Republican. He almost never does any segments on the environment, and in the rare case when he does, he disagrees with the enironmentalist 90% of the time. He claims to oppose the Death Penalty, then calls for people to be put to Death.

Notice that O'Reilly ignores all the negative stories about Republicans, like Ted Stevens and Duke Cunningham. Not to mention Jack Abramoff, Scooter Libby, and on and on. O'Reilly rarely says a word about any of those stories, and to this day he has still not said one word about the Ted Stevens conviction. Notice the story selection, it's all attacks on Liberals. During the hour the factor is on almost every story is negative to a Liberal.

Notice that all the culture warriors on the factor are Republicans, the internet cop is a Republican, the culture quiz is taken by two Republicans, 90% of the guests are Republicans, and almost no Democrat is put on the show alone, except for Dr. Marc Lamont Hill. In almost every segment you have two Republicans alone with O'Reilly, and a Democrat put in the mix 3 or 4 times a week just to make it look good. And the Democrats are fake Democrats who work for FOX News, and who agree with O'Reilly 80% of the time.

If a Democrat jaywalks, it is reported by O'Reilly. But if the Senior Republican Senator in the entire Senate, is found guilty on 7 felony counts of corruption, the story is not even reported by O'Reilly, or anyone on the factor. Not even in the is it legal segment, it was totally ignored, and never mentioned, not even one time. But if Ted Kennedy or Howard Dean get a parking ticket, O'Reilly gives it a full segment.

I could fill this website with real news stories that were negative to Republicans in the last 8 years, and every one was ignored by O'Reilly. He ignores Halliburton, OSP, PNAC, all the Bush lies, all the pollution Bush let Corporations do, Attorneygate, legal stories about Republicans, and if a Judge who is a Republican rules in a way he dont like, he does not report that fact, and then he makes it into a secular progressive issue anyway.

He also ignored all the racism and hate against Obama, from the monkey doll, to Obama bucks, to Obama Waffles, to the racist campaign buttons and t-shirts, it was all ignored. He also ignored all the right-wing hate on the internet, the Republican Congressman Janklow manslaughter case, and the Republican Governor getting impeached story, and on and on, the list is endless.

But he has plenty of time to do that stupid body language segment, and plenty of time to put Morris, Rove, Ingraham, Gingrich, Miller, Goldberg, and Crowley on to spew out right-wing propaganda 5 days a week. If thats a non-partisan Independent, I'm a neo-con Republican.

Shepard Smith Might be Looking For a New Job Soon
By: Steve - November 13, 2008 - 4:45pm

When you work for FOX News, and you tell the truth about them and the rest of the media, you normally end up looking for a new job, ask David Shuster at MSNBC. Shepard Smith told the truth about the so-called media bias against John McCain, and he did it on the air at FOX. Smith gave the right-wing Nick Dipaolo a reality check:
DiPaolo:...the MSM being so in the tank for Obama.

Smith: Oh, please. That's preposterous. The MSM reflected what was happening in this nation. It did not drive it. The blogs didn't drive this movement, the media didn't drive this movement. Barack Obama did not lose this election. It was his to lose. It was not John McCain's to win. The Republicans had no shot unless the Democrats gave it to them and they didn't and to blame the media is a cop out and ridiculous.

DiPaolo: The MSM has been liberal since its inception. It's years and years of pounding....

Smith: How did George Bush win twice?

DiPaolo: I don't know. Karl Rove is a genius.
Yeah right, the same Rove that predicted the Republicans would hold the House in 2006, who predicted McCain would win in 2008, and who also predicts the Republicans will re-gain power in the 2010 elections. That genius? Shepard Smith is right, Obama ran a brilliant campaign, maybe the best campaign in history. McCain is a Republican, which put him at a disadvantage to start with. Then he made mistake after mistake, including the selection of Sarah Palin to be his running mate.

The media just reported on what was happening, the Obama movement and how he was always leading in the polls. How can you report negative on someone who runs such a great campaign. And the media spent weeks on end reporting on Pastor Wright, and William Ayers, so there was no bias for Obama, they were tough on him a lot of the time. If the media is so biased and has so much power, how did George W. Bush win the election in 2000, and get re-elected in 2004, even when he was unpopular and the media was trashing him, answer that O'Reilly.

Shepard Smith only points out the truth. And the only people who think there was this massive media bias against McCain are far right nuts like O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Rove, etc. Which is just more proof O'Reilly is a kool-aid drinking right-wing loon, because only Republicans make these false claims of media bias for Obama.

The media was fair to both sides, and if anything, they took it easy on McCain. They never said one word about his link to G. Gordon Liddy, yet they smeared Obama for months on end about Wright and Ayers. It was on the cable news networks 24/7 for a month, and reported off and on for 2 or 3 months, all the way up to the election. Yet not a word was said about the McCain link to G. Gordon Liddy.

Hey Billy, look at your own news network, even Shepard Smith is calling you out, about your lies on the so-called liberal media, and how it was unfair to McCain. O'Reilly claims the liberal media was unfair to McCain, and in the tank for Obama, yet one of his own people says that is preposterous. I would like to see O'Reilly put Shep Smith on the factor and ask him about it, what say you Billy?

O'Reilly Wins Bronze Silver And Gold
By: Steve - November 13, 2008 - 11:25am

O'Reilly is go good at being an idiot, he not only wins worst person in the world, he hit the trifecta, he won the Bronze, the Silver, and the Gold. From Countdown with Keith Olbermann.


OLBERMANN: Time for COUNTDOWN's number two story, tonight's worst persons in the world. Your bronze tonight, Bill-O the clown. In case you thought his delusions of grandeur were getting any better.

O'REILLY: I've stated that I did not watch the economy closely enough under President Bush. My fault. I should have been on that. That mistake will not happen again.

OLBERMANN: Yes, if you had spent more time on the economy and less on the war on Christmas, Lehman Brothers would still be pumping out the dividends. Yes. To continue this quote.

O'REILLY: Our focus now is to report exactly what President-Elect Obama is doing and what it means to you. Let's be honest, the guy is still a mystery. So our oversight will be intense. However, we're not going to nit-pick Barack Obama, and we will not demonize him, because that's not fair. We will report on him with a clear voice and a clear head.

OLBERMANN: Clear head? How are you going to do that? Borrow one from somewhere?

Our runner up tonight, Bill-O the clown. The rear guard action is already underway in his Don Quixote defense of the war on Christmas. He's now offering the subtle bumper sticker reading "We Say Merry Christmas," a fleur-de-lis on it, on a red background. He's apparently unaware that the fleur-de-lis is not just from his hated France, but it's especially popular in French-speaking Canada.

Bill-O also apparently missed two announcements that not a Christmas party but a holiday party had been scheduled at Fox News, and that it was then canceled. So first you lost the war inside your own building, and then Fox canceled the party. So nobody there wants to put up a damned sticker saying, we say Merry Christmas.

But our winner tonight, Bill-O the clown. Sometimes it's inflated self-importance, sometimes it's a war that's being fought only inside his own head, but sometimes it's just bad research. Questioning the media searching public records about Joe Wurzelbacher, Bill-O trotted out one of the oldest cliches in his book, and complained.

O'REILLY: Where's the ACLU? Aren't they the privacy people? Can you imagine if a Republican did this to a Democrat. It's unbelievable. No ACLU? We haven't seen any of them. Let's get this. Let's get this. So we want to say there's no ACLU in Ohio helping Joe the Plumber.

OLBERMANN: Bill, did you check the website? Here's something by the executive director of the ACLU of Ohio. See it's from last month, October, letter to the editor she wrote to the Cleveland newspaper with the headline, "Government Snoops have no right to pry into news makers personal information. I was deeply disturbed to hear that state officials approved the use of government databases to obtain information about Joseph Wurzelbacher, also known as Joe the Plumber."

Let's see, appalling, unethical, no adequate checks, immediate action, safe-guards, ethical procedures, unfair breaches of our privacy. No, nothing there. Bill's right, the ACLU hasn't done a damned thing about it. Chowder head.

Bill-O the clown, unanimous verdict, today's worst person in the world.

Republicans Still Dont Understand They Lost
By: Steve - November 13, 2008 - 10:25am

The 2008 election was 9 days ago, Barack Obama crushed McCain like a bug, he got 364 electoral votes, McCain got 174. The Democrats also picked up 6 Senate seats, with 3 races still undecided, and they picked up about 20 more House seats, with some races still undecided. This is on top of the seats they picked up in the 2006 mid-term elections. Since 2006 the Democrats have picked up 17 Senate seats, and about 50 house seats, then Obama wins by a landslide over McCain.

Not to mention, the Democrats also won 7 of the 11 Governor elections. Now we have 7 more Democratic Governors too. That is a mandate, a big time Democratic mandate. And yet, O'Reilly, Rove, Gingrich, Morris, etc. etc. etc. are on tv every night saying it's not a mandate, and that it's a center right country. They are living in dreamland, and they think their right-wing lies and propaganda still works. They dont seem to understand that the people rejected them, and rejected their lies.

With the internet you can now check to see if the garbage they spew out is a lie or not, so the people checked, and they found out most of what they said was spin and right-wing propaganda. But they never learn, and they keep spewing out their spin and propaganda like they didn't just get killed in the last 2 elections.

O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends claim it's still a center right country, even when the actual evidence says the opposite. They are doing this so they can continue to go on tv and give advice to Barack Obama, and the Democrat Congress. Let me give O'Reilly and all his clueless right-wing friends a reality check.

YOU LOST. Get over it, America is now a center left country, and the people have given Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress a giant mandate. You had your chance with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, you had total control of Congress, and what did you do, you named french fries freedom fries. That's what Republicans did with total control of Congress, they re-named french fries, and screwed the whole country up putting their crazy far right agenda in place. All you did was bankrupt the country, start an un-needed war, and make the whole world hate us.

Now the people have spoken, they rejected the Republican ageanda for America. Now it is time for the Democrats to fix the mess George W. Bush created, so here is what O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends should do. Shut the hell up with your lies and advice, we are tired of it. You have no right to tell Barack Obama or any Democrat anything, you lost, and lost big. Stop saying Obama does not have a mandate, he does, stop saying the Democrats do not have a mandate, they do, and stop giving advice to Obama and the Democrats, they dont want it, and they are not going to listen to the people who lost.

The country is now in the hands of Barack Obama and the Democrat Congress. It is their turn now, whether they fix the mess, or screw it up worse, we will find out over the next 2 to 4 years. Republicans have no say in it now, you had your 8 years and you blew it, you run the country into the ground. So why would anyone want your advice on anything, when in just 8 short years you almost destroyed America with your crazy far right agenda. So here is my advice to O'Reilly, be the watchdog on Obama you never were for Bush, and shut the hell up with your crazy right-wing advice. You lost, admit it, and move on.

Begich Leading Stevens by 800 Votes
By: Steve - November 13, 2008 - 9:55am

Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich leads incumbent Republican Senator Ted Stevens by 800 votes in the latest tally. "The new numbers, reflecting nearly 43,000 absentee ballots counted, are from all over the state."

On election night, Stevens led Begich by about 3,000 votes. The Division of Elections still has 10,000 more ballots to count, and roughly 35,000 additional absentee and questioned ballots over the next week. Update: Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and John Ensign (R-Nev.) say they'll back Sen. Jim DeMint's effort to boot convicted Sen. Ted Stevens from the Republican caucus -- if Stevens wins his still too-close-to-call election in Alaska."

Note: O'Reilly has still not reported on Ted Stevens getting convicted on 7 felony counts. But he finally did talk about the Franken/Coleman recount, long enough to predict Coleman would win it. Even though it's only a 200 vote difference, out of almost 3 million votes, and Franken has picked up 600 votes before the recount even started. O'Reilly also predicted Chambliss would win too.

O'Reilly & His Legal Team Caught Lying About The ACLU
By: Steve - November 10, 2008 - 4:50pm

On the November 6 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly, Megyn Kelly and Lis Wiehl falsely claimed that the ACLU has not raised privacy objections to the search by Ohio government officials of Joe Wurzelbacher's records, with O'Reilly saying the organization's response has been "nothing."

In fact, ACLU of Ohio executive director Christine Link wrote that she "was deeply disturbed to hear that state officials approved the use of government databases to obtain information" about Wurzelbacher.

She wrote: "It was appalling that government officials believe they may access a person's private information simply for being in a newspaper headline. This unethical practice only confirms that our state government does not have adequate checks in place to protect our privacy, leaving our most personal information vulnerable to the whims of a person's curiosity. Many people also could be frightened from speaking to members of the media or expressing their views because they could come under scrutiny of our state government."

Discussing the accessing of Wurzelbacher's private records, O'Reilly asked: "Now, where's the ACLU in this? Aren't they the privacy people?" Wiehl replied: "They're busy." Kelly stated: "I'll tell you where they are. They are out in California on behalf of the gay marriage advocates. They're busy."

O'Reilly later added: "Can you imagine if a Republican did this to a Democrat? It's unbelievable. But nothing -- no ACLU. We haven't seen any of them." Wiehl responded: "No, no, they're all in California doing the whole gay marriage thing."

Further, ACLU of Ohio legal director Jeff Gamso told Media Matters, regarding Wurzelbacher:

"We would be very happy to talk to him and see if there's something we could do to pursue redress for this violation of his privacy rights. We are deeply angered at the abuse of government databases, whether for political purposes, or for morbid curiosity or gossip. It's an altogether unacceptable use of private information."

Additionally, Sandusky Ohio Register reporter Tom Jackson wrote in an October 30 blog post that he contacted the ACLU of Ohio about civil liberties questions regarding the Wurzelbacher case, and the organization expressed concerns about the state agency's privacy policy for public figures information.

The ACLU of Ohio's website has also posted links to several articles expressing privacy concerns regarding state officials' accessing of Wurzelbacher's records.

It should also be noted that Joe The Plummer has not filed a lawsuit, or asked the ACLU to help him, if he does either one, the ACLU gets involved. Yet O'Reilly made false claims and lied about the facts, the so-called facts he claims to have at all times. It looks to me like the ACLU has said a lot about it, yet O'Reilly and his dishonest FOX News legal stooges claim they said nothing.

Bush Job Approval at All Time Low
By: Steve - November 10, 2008 - 4:10pm

A new CNN/Opinion Research survey finds that 76 percent of Americans disapprove of how George W. Bush is handling his job.
An all-time low in CNN polling and in Gallup polling dating back to World War II.
Bush is now more unpopular than Richard Nixon when he resigned from office after Watergate (66 percent disapproval). He also beats the previous record holder, Harry Truman, who had a 67 percent disapproval rating in January 1952.

And btw, Brit Hume thinks Bush is amazing. Reflecting on his final days as Fox News managing editor, Brit Hume tells the Miami Herald that when people look back at the Bush era, they will be a lot kinder to this president than the current scribes are being.
It's really turned out to be a very consequential presidency, said Hume, adding that Bush has put America on an amazing foreign policy path.
Only a Republican could say anything so crazy, as O'Reilly would say, he is drinking the kool-aid. All the Presidential historians currently believe that "incompetent" will most likely be the word used to describe the George W. Bush Presidency.

MSNBC Gives Olbermann New Four year Contract
By: Steve - November 10, 2008 - 3:50pm

In a move that Billy (Worlds Worst) O'Reilly will clearly hate, MSNBC just signed Keith Olbarmann to a four year deal worth a reported $7.5 million a year. The announcement came less than two years into Mr. Olbermann's current four year deal.

MSNBC essentially tore up his February 2007 contract (reported to be worth $4 million a year) and wrote a new one, according to two employees with knowledge of the agreement. The new contract is valued at about $7.5 million a year, one of the people said.

Mr. Olbermann will continue to anchor "Countdown" and co-host NBC's "Football Night in America." Reinforcing Mr. Olbermann's value to MSNBC, the network said he would "play a prominent role" in "all major news events."

O'Reilly has called Olbermann a failure for about two years now, and predicted he would be fired, even though he has the highest rated show on MSNBC, and his ratings have increased about 200% a year.

On a side note, Keith Olbermann had the guy from as a regular for his election analysis, they had the popular vote exactly right, 52 to 46, and they were pretty close on the electoral vote, they had it 344 to 194 for Obama. So if you were watching Olbermann in the week before the election, you had a pretty good idea who was going to win. On the other hand, O'Reilly mostly put a bunch of right-wing spin doctors on every night to say it was close and McCain can still win.

Four days before the election on the friday night O'Reilly factor, Monica Crowley said with the margin of error it was a tie, and that McCain might even be 1 point ahead. She must have been getting her numbers from Dick Morris.

Why is Dick Morris Allowed to do Political Analysis?
By: Steve - November 10, 2008 - 12:40pm

Dick Morris is the O'Reilly Factor political analyst, O'Reilly called him the smartest man in the business, he was put on the Factor at least once a week to give his analysis of the campaigns, and to give election predictions. At every turn he was wrong, pretty much all his analysis was wrong, and almost all his predictions were wrong.

Almost every move made by McCain was called great by Dick Morris, when McCain suspended his campaign Morris said it was a brilliant move, when it actually hurt McCain because everyone knew it was a political stunt. Every week he called for McCain to get tougher, then he did, and Morris said it was a great move. When it actually hurt McCain, and the tougher he got the more he dropped behind. Not one of the Morris political predictions came true. Yet O'Reilly still put him on every week, even when he was wrong about everything.

Here are some facts that show how bad Morris is at doing political analysis:
-- He said Arkansas was lean Obama. McCain won it by 20 points. Not a single poll ever showed the state competitive.

-- He said Louisiana was a tossup. McCain won it by 19 points. Again, not a single poll showed the state competitive.

-- He said Tennessee was a tossup. McCain won it by 17 points, and that was probably closer than many people expected.

-- He said Kentucky was lean McCain. He won it by 17 points, and it was always a solid McCain state.
In fact, of all the so-called tossup states from Morris, only North Carolina really deserved that billing, it ended up a 50-50 split (with Obama winning by a small advantage). Of the other four, three ended up double-digit McCain wins, and McCain won Arizona by almost nine points.

The only other person that was worse than Morris, is Bill O'Reilly. His electoral map had McCain ahead 189 to 183, with 14 states a tossup. Here is the map O'Reilly had, taken from his website before the election.

O'Reilly was putting Republican after Republican on the factor every night to say McCain can still win it. Here are the polls for 10 of the 14 states O'Reilly called a tossup, and these were the numbers at the time O'Reilly put his electoral map out, would an honest journalist call those a tossup, what say you Billy.

Pennsylvania: +11 Obama
Iowa: +11 Obama
Virginia: +7 Obama
Wisconsin: +10 Obama
Minnesota: +10 Obama
Oregon: +15 Obama
Colorado: +7 Obama
New Mexico: +7 Obama
New Hampshire: +12 Obama
Michigan: +15 Obama

And btw, for anyone that does not know. The reason O'Reilly put a map like that out was to show Republicans that it was a close election, so they should get out and vote. It was done to motivate the Republican party to vote, so is there any doubt that O'Reilly is a Republican now. A non-partisan Independent would never put a map like that out, only a partisan Republican would.

Update: Franken/Coleman Minnesota Senate Race
By: Steve - November 10, 2008 - 12:40am

O'Reilly called the race over last week, then declared Coleman the winner, and named Franken a pinhead for losing. But the real journalists have uncalled the race, unlike O'Reilly who has yet to admit he was wrong, and that the race is not over.

From the Minneapolis Star Tribune today: Al Franken's deficit just keeps on shrinking as the state adjusts the unofficial tally in the U.S. Senate election last week. Today's latest results show that Franken is now trailing Republican incumbent Norm Coleman by only 204 votes. That's down from 221 over the weekend.

Coleman even tried to block some absentee ballots from being counted in a Democratic county. But a Ramsey County judge on Saturday denied the request because of lack of jurisdiction. The incumbent Republican had tried to block ballots from heavily Democratic Hennepin County. Notice that Al Franken is not trying to block any votes from being counted in any Republican counties.

As of 12:10 p.m., Coleman has 1,211,560 votes to Franken's 1,211,356. The difference between Coleman and Franken, which stood at 725 votes in Coleman's favor Wednesday morning, has changed several times since then as county officials have checked results and sent the adjusted figures to the state. For the most part, the margin between the two has narrowed with each change.

The bitter contest is heading toward a recount, since the gap is less than one tenth of one percent of the total vote. Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has said he's hoping that the hand recount of about 2.9 million ballots will be complete by mid-December.

Republicans Still in Denial Over Obama Victory
By: Steve - November 9, 2008 - 11:45am

This morning on FOX News Sunday, Republican Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Mike Pence (R-IN) argued that last week's election was not a mandate. Despite the decisive election of Obama and other progressive candidates across the country, Cantor and Pence maintained that Americans were not endorsing the progressive platform:
CANTOR: This was not some kind of realignment of the electorate, not some kind of shift toward some style of big government type of philosophy.

PENCE: I don't think this was a victory for a progressive, or a liberal victory, I think this was a victory for Barack Obama.
And they wonder why the American people rejected John McCain and most of the Republican party, because of lies like that. They spent 6 months calling Obama the most liberal guy in the Senate, a socialist, a marxist, etc. Then Obama wins the election by a mile, 364 to 174, and they deny he won as a liberal, and that he has a mandate. It's like watching the twilight zone, they are not living in reality.

On the same show, John Podesta, President of the Center for American Progress, explained that President-Elect Barack Obama's victory last week constituted a strong endorsement by the American people of a “progressive philosophy" and has given progressives a "real mandate for change."

And Podesta is right, if Republicans keep lying about reality, they are gonna lose more seats in the House and the Senate in the next elections, will they ever learn, I doubt it. They have lied and smeared their way through life for so long they just cant kick their old habits. When Bush won 286 to 251 in 2004 against John Kerry, they said he had a mandate. Yet in 2008 Obama wins 364 to 174, and they say it's not a mandate. It's so sad it's funny, if 286 to 251 is a mandate, then clearly 364 to 174 is too.

Only a Republican would claim it's not, and it shows why their party is in so much trouble, they lie too much, and they refuse to admit reality. If they do not learn that lies do not work anymore because of blogs, websites, and the internet, the Republican party is doomed. Whether they admit it or not, Obama has a mandate, and there is nothing they can do to stop him, because he has control of the entire Government. That's what happens when you get a mandate, you get total control.

O'Reilly Plans to be an Intense Watchdog on Barack Obama
By: Steve - November 8, 2008 - 8:45am

Barack Obama was elected the new President just 4 short days ago, but he will not move into the White House until January 20, 2009. That's 10 weeks from now, and yet Bill O'Reilly is already planning to ramp up his watchdog role. Even though he has ignored and defended everything Bush, Cheney, and the Republican party did for the last 8 years.

In his TPM on wednesday 11-5-08 O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As for "The Factor," we will now ramp up our watchdog role. I've stated that I did not watch the economy under President Bush closely enough. My fault. I should have been on that mortgage con. I should have been on that, and that mistake will not happen again.

Our focus now is to report exactly what President-elect Obama is doing and what it means to you. Let's be honest. The guy is still a mystery, so our oversight will be intense.
For people that do not watch the factor every night like I do, here is a partial list of big stories O'Reilly ignored during the Bush administration. Of course I can not list them all, it would fill this website.

1) Attorneygate: O'Reilly ignored this story, he refused to report on it because he said it was nothing, and just the Democrats who hate Bush going after him.

2) CIA Leakgate: O'Reilly ignored this story, he said it was no big deal, even though Scooter Libby was convicted, and it's actually treason to leak a CIA agents name, especially when it's done by a Presidential administration to get political revenge on a guy who simply told the truth.

3) Halliburton: There have been many scandals with Halliburton in Iraq, like serving spoiled food and water to the troops, overcharging for gas, and many more things, yet O'Reilly ignored it all, and never said a word about any of it, except to defend Bush if it was brought up during the show.

4) Warrantless Wiretapping: O'Reilly pretty much ignored this story, he did mention it a couple times, only to defend Bush, even though what he did was illegal and a violation of federal law. He even said it was ok for Bush to break the law because it was in the name of National Security. Bush claimed he never illegally wiretapped any American citizens in America, only foreigners calling into America. When it was reported he did wiretap American citizens, O'Reilly ignored that story altogether.

5) The list is endless, O'Reilly ignored story after story about scandal and corruption by George W. Bush and people in the Republican party. He ignored the Ted Stevens story, and to this day he has never said a word about it, he ignored Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, Mark Foley, Gitmo, Torturegate, OSP, PNAC, Environment issues, the hundreds of Bush lies, Bush Fund-Raisers in the Lincoln Bedroom, the Cheney energy task force, all the global warming censorship ordered by Bush, Alberto Gonzales, all the secret signing statements, Bill Janklow, Jack Abramoff, the Hatch Act violations, No mention of the Hart/Rudman Terrorism Report, Republican Governor John G. Rowland getting Impeached, G. Gordon Liddy link to McCain, and on and on.

You get the picture, O'Reilly basically ignored everything Bush did for 8 years, and gave him a pass on everything except illegal immigration. Because reporting on all that would make Bush and the Republican party look even worse, if that's possible. When he was rarely asked why O'Reilly ignores all the negative stories about Bush, O'Reilly said because it hurts America to report them. Somehow I dont think he will say that when he reports every little thing on Obama, now he will say it helps America to know everything Obama does.

O'Reilly even said that if we go into Iraq and do not find any WMD's he will never trust the Bush administration again. Then he spent the next 4 years trusting everything Bush said. And if anyone dared to speak out against Bush, O'Reilly would defend what he was saying, and support it. He would say they are just Bush Haters, so do not believe them.

And btw, O'Reilly did say that Bush was a failed President, but he only said that about 6 weeks ago after the big financial crisis happened. In the 7.8 years before that O'Reilly supported and defended everything Bush did, except the illegal immigration issue. Anyone who has actually watched the factor for the last 8 years knows that, only clueless O'Reilly loving fools doubt it.

Now that we have a Democrat President it's a whole different story. Suddenly O'Reilly is a watchdog again, he said his oversight on Barack Obama will be intense. And I believe him, I just wonder why he was not a watchdog with intense oversight from 2001 to 2009, while Bush was in office. Oh yeah, I remember now. Because Bill O'Reilly is a right-wing partisan hack of a pretend journalist, who gives the Republicans a pass.

More Evidence The Republican Party is Clueless
By: Steve - November 7, 2008 - 6:45pm

Here are two examples of why the Republican party is in trouble. The senior Republican Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska was convicted on 7 felony counts of corruption, he was found guilty in a trial by a jury of his peers. And he did not resign, in fact, he ran for re-election and won. The people of Alaska (mostly Republicans) re-elected a convicted felon. And they wonder why their party is going downhill fast.

There is a little hope, because it seems like they have at least one honest Republican, but he is being ignored. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) is pushing his party's leadership to expel Sen. Stevens from the Senate. DeMint, one of the most conservative members of the Senate, is angry with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for tolerating a convicted felon in the GOP caucus. And btw, McConnell was also re-elected to the Senate on November 4th. Remember that the next time he is up for re-election.

The Republicans in the Senate are not even forcing the convicted felon to get out. What they should do is pass a rule that says if you are convicted of a felony while in office you instantly get kicked out. But they dont do that, instead they let a convicted felon continue to serve as a United States Senator. Then the Republicans in Alaska re-elect the convicted felon. And they wonder why the people think so bad of them, it's because of stuff like this.

And you wont hear any outrage from O'Reilly about any of this, because he has ignored the entire story, and not said one word about it, ever. Now imagine what O'Reilly would say, and how many segments he would do, if Ted Stevens were a Democrat. It would be the top story, he would do a Talking Points Memo on it, most likely have 2 or 3 segments with multiple guests to discuss it, and do follow up stories for a week, if not a month or longer.

O'Reilly calls that fair and balanced journalism from a non-partisan Independent, I call it an unfair and unbalanced partisan cover up from a diehard Republican named Bill O'Reilly.

O'Reilly Starts His War on Christmas Already
By: Steve - November 7, 2008 - 10:40am

It's only November 7th, and Billy has started his bogus war on Christmas already. He is offering bumper stickers that say "We Say Merry Christmas" but only if you buy his lame book for $29.95. He has this so-called war on Christmas every year, even though nobody really cares about it, but him and a few right-wing nuts who get mad if someone wants to say Happy Holidays instead of "Merry Christmas."

It's a made up controversy, what happened is, a couple stores decide to say Happy Holidays to customers instead of "Merry Christmas." But they do not tell them they can not say "Merry Christmas," they just tell them to say Happy Holidays, or Seasons Greetings. To most people this is no big deal, and 90% of the people could care less what you say to them.

I could care less if they say "Merry Christmas," Happy Holidays, or Seasons Greetings. It's a free country, and if a store decides to say Happy Holidays instead of "Merry Christmas" they have a right to do so. But O'Reilly wants to make a big deal about it every year. He tries to pressure them into using the words "Merry Christmas," because he is a right-wing nut. Nobody else cares, except O'Reilly and a few of his crazy right-wing friends.

It's the same thing these right-wingers do with abortion, they try to force their will on other people when it's none of their business. This is America, a free country. But if the right-wingers like O'Reilly have their way, everyone will be forced to say "Merry Christmas," and women will lose their right to have an abortion. They want to make you say "Merry Christmas," and ban women from choosing to have an abortion. In my book that's not freedom, if you force anyone to say something, and take away a womans right to choose, you are removing freedoms thay already have.

That is what O'Reilly and some of his right-wing religious friends want to do. They want to impose their morals and their values on you, against your will. That sounds more like Communist China than it does a free America. And remember this, it's also about money, double standards, and hypocrisy. Because last year Barnes & Noble would not use the words "Merry Christmas," but O'Reilly gave them a pass because they sell a lot of his books.

So he is against any company that refuses to use the words "Merry Christmas" unless that company sells his books and makes him money. Last year O'Reilly slammed the business community for "avoiding using the word Christmas."

He had Carrie Gordon Earll on the factor to discuss it, but when Earll criticized B&N for intentionally removing the word Christmas and using the happy holiday theme, O'Reilly said this:
EARLL: And I'm going to spend my money some place that's not scared to wish me a Merry Christmas.

O’REILLY: And I think a lot of people feel the same way, which is why we reversed the trend, but I'm not going to come down hard on Barnes & Noble. I think, you know, Dick Sporting Goods, you know, they may want to rethink this.
O'Reilly also said this:
-- The Riggio brothers, who run B&N, are good guys and are doing the right thing. Corporate dignity is important and never ridiculous. [8/21/07]

-- I have a good relationship with the CEO, Len Riggio, and he wouldn't do anything underhanded. [10/25/05]
Basically O'Reilly cherry picks the businesses he decides to go after for not using "Merry Christmas." If you sell his books, and make him money he does not go after your business. Which is a selective attack, a double standard, and hypocrisy. After giving B&N a pass, O'Reilly ended last years show by shilling his book, which he does every night during the e-mail segment. So it looks like O'Reilly's personal book sales take precedent over fighting the so-called "War On Christmas" that he fights every year around November.

Election Dishonesty From O'Reilly
By: Steve - November 6, 2008 - 2:20pm

Last night Billy named Al franken a pinhead for losing his Senate race to Norm Coleman. There is only one problem with that, it's not over, and AP even uncalled the race. Out of 2,400,000 votes cast they are only 500 votes apart. This has triggered an automatic recount, and that recount may not be finished until December.

So O'Reilly got it wrong, and he never said a word about the Independent in the race who got 15% of the vote. Polls show that most of his 15% would have went to Franken, which would have him easily beating Coleman. O'Reilly never mentioned any of that. And he also never mentioned that Minnesota has 4,200 voting districts, so Franken could win in the recount if he just picks up 1 vote for every 14 districts, and that is not out of the question.

O'Reilly showed his right-wing bias by not reporting the facts, he hates Al Franken so much he let his feelings for him over-ride the truth. And he calls that journalism, I call it bias, and not even close to journalism. Who wants to bet me O'Reilly never corrects the record, and if Franken does end up winning he will just ignore it and leave his viewers with the impression that Coleman won.

A Reality Check For Bill O'Reilly
By: Steve - November 6, 2008 - 2:10pm

This is also a reality check for all his Republican friends, the electoral vote totals are in. The Presidential election is decided by electoral votes, it takes 270 to win the White House. Barack Obama won 364 electoral votes, and John McCain won 174 electoral votes. That means Barack Obama's margin of victory of 190 electoral votes is more than the total of 174 for McCain. In my world 364 to 174 is a massive victory, and it means Barack Obama has a mandate.

Here is the new election map from today's NY Times, it shows all the blue areas where Obama picked up votes from the 2004 election, if that's not a mandate, I don't know what is. To be more specific about this election map, all the blue areas are voting districts where Obama got more votes than John Kerry did in 2004.

Here is the actual 2008 state by state red/blue map that shows each state won, blue for Obama, red for McCain. As you can see, McCain won about 21 small states that have less than 20 electoral votes, except for Texas. Missouri ended in a tie, but Obama still won 28 states, and every state with more than 20 electoral votes, except for Texas.

Wednesday Night 11-5-08 Factor Review
By: Steve - November 6, 2008 - 9:30am

The TPM was called - President-Elect Obama. Billy said Obama got elected because of the economy, and that McCain could have won if he ran his campaign differently. Which is nonsense from a right-wing partisan. McCain had 2 chances, slim and none. Because he is a Republican, and Bush has ruined the Republican name over the last 8 years, so there was no way for McCain to beat Obama, no matter what he said or did, and I said that here in this blog months ago.

O'Reilly talked about fear, he is afraid Obama is going to bankrupt the country. Earth to Billy, it's already bankrupt you fool. Obama is going in to try and get us out of bankruptcy, from what Bush did to it. He sure as hell cant do worse than Bush, that would be impossible. Not to mention all the things he plans to do was proven to work by Bill Clinton in the 90's. And the market always does better with a Democrat in the White House. Then Billy said even though Obama won big America is still a center right country, which is just ridiculous.

Then Karl Rove was put on to agree with O'Reilly that we should fear Obama, when there is nothing to fear, except the Republicans blocking what he plans to do to fix the mess Bush got us into. Rove said Obama is smart, but he is not sure he can do the job. When Bush was a dumbass and he did the job, not very well, but he did it. Obama is going to surround himself with experts on every issue, and real experts, not like Bush who just put his friends and people who gave him money in important jobs. So there is nothing to fear, in 3 months we will have a real President, a President with a brain, so things will be ok in the long run.

Rove did a total right-wing spin job on the election numbers. He said Obama only got 52% of the vote so he does not have a mandate. What he failed to mention is that he won by 6 points, by 7.4 million votes, and by 181 electoral votes. And on and on, so it is a mandate. Bush only won by 3 points, 3.5 million votes, and 28 electoral votes, and these same people called that a mandate, so they are biased hypocrites. It's a mandate, so get over it losers. If McCain won with those huge margins you bastards would all be screaming mandate, mandate, mandate, so wake the hell up, it's a mandate.

The Dick Morris was on to spin the right-wing garbage even more. Morris said it would be a close election, that McCain could win, and that if he lost it would only be a 2 point loss. WRONG, why is Morris even put on the air as a political analyst, he is never right about anything. Yet O'Reilly keeps putting this dumbass hooker toe sucking idiot on the air. He should never be put on the air again, because all his great analysis is always wrong. Billy just has him on because he does his dirty work for him, he knows Morris will trash Obama and all the Democrats for him, so he can trash them and his hands are clean.

Then we had the comedy segment, O'Reilly reported his biased and unscientific personal website poll results. The poll asked if Billy was fair to Obama and McCain, or just right. The choices were Pro-Obama, Pro-McCain, or Just Right. The answers were so funny I almost fell off my chair.

It was 21% Pro-Obama, 21% Pro-McCain, and drum roll, 58% Just Right. What a fricking joke, that's the most ridiculous poll I've ever seen. And this is where I nail O'Reilly good. I did a 3 month study on the factor bias for McCain and Obama, it ran from 8-1-08 to 10-31-08. I watched the factor every night and counted the negative and positive segments for McCain and Obama.

In that 3 months Obama had 257 negative segments, with only 46 positive. While McCain had almost the exact opposite, he only had 35 negative segments, with 199 positive. So that is 100% proof O'Reilly was 50 times more negative to Obama than McCain, and it shows his biased fraud of a poll is a joke. The real results should have been about 10% Pro-Obama, 89% Pro-McCain, and 1% Just Right. His biased and ridiculous poll, only shows that his website visitors are clueless brainwashed morons who see what they want to see, Billy calls it kool-aid drinking.

Then Billy had 2 Democrats on to make it look good, if he has all Republicans every night he cant lie about being fair and balanced, so he has to put one on once in a while. Kucinich and Wolfson, were on to talk about the election, and of course O'Reilly disagreed with pretty much everything they said. Except for Wolfson, he agrees with O'Reilly a lot, so he's really barely a Democrat. Basically O'Reilly trashed Obama and Howard Dean and cried about how they will ruin the country with left wing policies.

I guess he forgot how good the country did under Bill Clinton, when the same policies he fears were in place. And it's funny how he trashes the winners who crushed McCain like a bug, usually you trash the losers, not O'Reilly, he trashes the winners, but only if they are Democrats.

Then Carl Cameron was on to talk about the moron Sarah Palin, who cares, she is a far right idiot who hopefully we never hear from again. They finally admit she was a nut-job who had an IQ of about 80, if that. Only 18% of Republicans think she is the face of the party, so they don't even want her back. Go back to Alaska you freak and kill some more moose.

Then biased Bernie Goldberg was on again to bitch and moan about how biased the rest of the media is, when he is a biased right-wing nut who is more biased than anyone he talks about. Notice that O'Reilly is the only person in the media who puts this right-wing idiot on the air. Because he is a biased idiot, and nobody else will let him on their show.

And what good does it do, the rest of the media is not going to change a damn thing, because two far right idiots on the factor complain about them. Especially when they are more biased than anyone they complain about. O'Reilly and Goldberg complaining about media bias is like Rosanne Barr complaining about people who cant sing.

O'Reilly should stop putting that biased and stupid fool on the air, and cancel the media bias segments. It's a waste of tv time, and nobody listens to them anyway. Then put a new segment in it's place where you actually report the damn news. Watching Bernie cry about how biased the media is every week is boring, and just insane. He cherry picks one or two incidents out of hundreds of hours of programming, and claims it's proof of bias. But he never finds any right-wing bias, not even on FOX News, that should tell you how impartial Bernie is, not impartial at all.

Then he claims he can not find any bias at FOX, because they are fair and balanced. And the earth is flat too. O'Reilly is just as big of a joke as Bernie, for putting that fraud on the air every week. Hey Billy, if your show is balanced where is the liberal media bias analyst.

And one last thing, O'Reilly has said a hundred times that he only deals in the facts, and that he never speculates. Then he spent this whole show speculating on what Obama might do as President, every single segment in the whole hour was speculation on what Obama might do. Earth to Billy, that's speculation you moron. Why don't you at least wait until he is in office before you attack him. He dont even take over for 3 months, and you are already doing the whole hour attacking the man. Is that what you call being fair to Obama?

O'Reilly Claims The Country is Still Center Right
By: Steve - November 5, 2008 - 8:50pm

O'Reilly Spin:

When Bush gets 286 electoral votes, and wins by 3 points with 51% of the vote, with 3.5 million more votes than Kerry, it proves the country is center right.

When Obama gets 364 electoral votes, and wins by 6 points with 52% of the vote, with 7.4 million more votes than McCain, it proves the country is still center right.

Billy and all his right-wing friends are delusional hypocrites who are in denial, they still say America is a center right country. Tonight on the factor O'Reilly said even with the big Obama win America is still a center right country. Which is the same thing Laura Ingraham, RNC Chairman Mike Duncan, and many other Republicans (including Karl Rove and Bob Novak) have said recently.

Novak dismissed Democratic congressional gains, noting that they “fell several votes short of the 60-vote filibuster-proof Senate." However, in 2004 - as President Bush crowed about his "political capital" - Novak didn't hesitate to agree that Bush's comparatively narrow victory was proof of a conservative mandate. O'Reilly's good friend Bob Novak said this after Bush won by 3.5 million votes in 2004:
Q: Bob Novak, is 51 percent of the vote really a mandate?

NOVAK: Of course it is. It's a 3.5 million vote margin. But the people who are saying that it isn't a mandate are the same people who were predicting that John Kerry would win.
Obama got 52% of the vote, and won by 7.4 million total votes. But of course Novak says the Obama 7 million margin of victory is not a mandate. Novak climbed aboard the right-wing talking points bandwagon, writing today that neither the large Democratic gains nor Obama's sweeping popular and electoral vote margins were proof of a mandate:
NOVAK: Obama may have opened the door to enactment of the long-deferred liberal agenda, but he neither received a broad mandate from the public nor the needed large congressional majorities.
And they wonder why they lost the election, even after getting their ass kicked at the polls, they still lie about it. Their claims are flat out fantasyland, the voter demographic is 39% Democrat, 33% Republican, and 28% Independents, and Obama won those Independents by 10 percent over McCain. Obama won 364 to 174 in a landslide, he even won 9 red states that Bush won in 2004.

As of now, Obama's popular vote margin stands at 7,401,289 - more than twice Bush's 2004 vote margin. In his column, Novak dismissed the Democratic Senate gains this year, even though they have netted five seats for a total of 56, with three more seats potentially up for grabs. By contrast, the conservatives so-called 2004 “mandate" netted only four new seats for a total of 55.

Obama won every state in America with more than 20 electoral votes, except one, Texas. Not to mention the Democrats gained 20 seats in the House, with 6 (possibly 8) in the Senate, and they won 7 out of 11 Governor races.

Earth to O'Reilly and your crazy right-wing friends, that's a center left country, and a mandate. It might have been center right in the past, but it's not now.

In separate press conferences today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and DNC Chairman Howard Dean wholly rejected the right-wing's talking points. Pelosi explained that the "center" of the country is progressive and that it demands legislation like raising the minimum wage and making college more affordable.

Responding to RNC Chairman Mike Duncan's claim that the U.S. is still “center right," Howard Dean used Nebraska as an example of progressive reach, he cited polling that showed Nebraskans "actually agreed with Democratic positions more than they did with the Republican positions."

But the conservative talking heads in the media are still insisting that the country remains "center right" - despite President-elect Obama's resounding victory and significant gains in House, Senate, Governor, State, and local races. And think about this, all that garbage is a right-wing RNC talking point from Karl Rove and the boys, and O'Reilly is using it. Yet he claims to be a non-partisan Independent, if that's true, why is he putting their right-wing talking points out.

President Elect Barack Obama Will Have a Progressive Mandate
By: Steve - November 5, 2008 - 1:00pm

No doubt you will hear from O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends that even though Barack Obama won big, he DOES NOT have a mandate. That is just more right-wing propaganda, Obama DOES have a mandate. In 2000 and 2004 George W. Bush barely won both elections, by 2 and 3 percent, with about 280 electoral votes in each election. Barack Obama won by 6 points in the popular vote, and he got 364 electoral votes, that's a mandate.

"The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly," Sen. John McCain said last night during his concession speech. And he's right.

As Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman explains, "In this election, Barack Obama proudly stood up for progressive values and the superiority of progressive policies; John McCain, in return, denounced him as a socialist, and a redistributor."

A mandate for progressive change exists. In a memo released today, the Center for American Progress Action Fund writes, "Obama ran on the most progressive platform of any presidential candidate in at least 15 years, including a promise of universal health care coverage, a dramatic transformation to a low-carbon economy, and a historic investment in education."

Remember this, President Bush was re-elected in 2004 with 286 electoral votes, the smallest popular-vote margin since 1976, except for the 2000 Bush v Gore election, and the lowest electoral vote count for an incumbent president's re-election since 1916. Nevertheless, many in the media were quick to echo Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that the country gave Bush "a mandate." It remains to be seen whether O'Reilly and his right-wing friends will apply the same standard to the win by Barack Obama in 2008.

Barack Obama is The New President
By: Steve - November 5, 2008 - 12:40am

Note to Bill O'Reilly: Your boy McCain lost, and lost big. Barack Obama is the new President of The United States of America. All your dirty tricks failed, and the people saw right through them. Now that the election is over and the people have spoken, it is time for America to come together and support Barack Obama, right Billy?

2008 Presidential Election Results
Electoral Votes
Barack Obama - 364 John McCain - 174
Popular Votes
Barack Obama - 52.6%

John McCain - 46.2%

Senate Totals (Races Undecided - 3)
Democrats - 57 Republicans - 40
House Totals (Races Undecided - 7)
Democrats - 255 Republicans - 173

Monday Night 11-3-08 Factor Review
By: Steve - November 4, 2008 - 8:50pm

The TPM was called The Final Hours. O'Reilly billed this show as an election eve special with a powerhouse political team to talk about the election. Billy said it was a good election and both candidates ran a clean and dignified campaign. When only a biased Republican would call the McCain campaign clean and dignified. Even the Republican co-chair of the McCain campaign (Chris Shays) said McCain lost his maverick brand for running such a dirty campaign.

McCain ran every dirty trick in the book, using the Karl rove playbook. He even hired all the dirty tricks guys that Bush and Rove used in 2000 and 2004, then they smeared Obama with every personal attack known to man. While ignoring the issues as much as possible. McCain also flip flopped on every issue there is, except maybe abortion, but O'Reilly never reported any of this stuff, so in his world McCain ran a dignified campaign.

It was so clear that O'Reilly was in the tank for McCain it's pathetic. O'Reilly's right-wing bias was so strong, he lied and covered up for Palin at every turn, even though she refused to do an interview on the factor. Billy even said she was a charismatic and enchanting rock star who he admires greatly. While the rest of the world saw the truth, they saw a stupid and clueless Sarah Palin who could not even answer a simple question like what newspapers do you read. She thinks foreign policy experience is being able to see Russia from her house, now that's a moron.

If you want to see how biased O'Reilly was for McCain, just scroll down this page and read my 3 month factor bias study. It was so one sided it's stunning. O'Reilly also cried about McCain not naming Romney and Giuliani to his cabinet to say they would get the greedheads on wall street. He claims that McCain would have won if he had listened to him. Wrong, McCain could have said anything and he would still lose. Because George W. Bush has ruined the Republican brand over the last 8 years.

All of that shows how biased O'Reilly is, just the fact that he thinks Bush was a good President alone proves he is a right-wing fraud. He claims McCain ran a clean campaign, and he claims Palin is a smart woman who is qualified to be the VP, or the President. That sounds like what the McCain campaign manager says about it, not what a so-called non-partisan Independent says. If after reading this you still disagree that O'Reilly is a biased right-wing fraud of a pretend journalist, you can not comprehend reality, and you need to get a check up from the neck up.

Then he had Brit Hume and Chris Wallace on, two FOX News stooges who gave their biased opinions on the campaigns and the election. During the interview I found out that the night of the Obama infomercial, O'Reilly offered McCain 30 minutes free on the Factor to counter Obama. And I thought wow, that's some partisan bias right there. Do you think he would have offered Obama the same deal if the situation was reversed, of course not, he hates Obama, the non-stop smear job on him every night for 3 months, with 90% Republican guests proves that.

Then Geraldine Ferraro and Laura Ingraham were on, at the same time, and I thought wow again. It's the first time any Democrat has ever been on the show at the same time with Ingraham, it's never happened before. I guess Billy wanted to pretend he is actually fair and balanced for one night, why, I have no idea, why start now after 13 years?

Ingraham said Obama is probably going to win but she still thinks America is a center right country. Man is she wrong, and she is a far right nut, so what does she know about center right. I guess she never looks at the registered voter ratio, it's 39% Democrat, 33% Republican, and about 28% Independent. If anything, America is center left, she just cant accept that. Billy and Ingraham spewed out their usual right-wing garbage, and Ferraro sort of somewhat disagreed with them. She is a Democrat, but just barely, so I give her credit for telling them they are wrong, but she was way too polite about it.

The Billy talked about two negative political ads by Obama and McCain. He had the biased and corrupt right-wing pollster Frank Luntz on to play the ads and talk about them. O'Reilly uses this fraud as his pollster. For people that dont know, years ago Luntz was caught lying about poll numbers in a poll he ran. He has also been caught using actors in a focus group. And he always favors the Republican in his corrupt polling activity. The guy is a discredited right-wing fraud of a pollster.

Yet O'Reilly puts him on the air as an impartial Independent pollster. And he even calls him Dr. Luntz to give him even more credibility. When he should be called Prisoner #23710, and he should be in jail for frauding the American people with his biased polling and his bogus focus groups. He claims all the people he uses are undecided Independents, then the graph says GOP and DEMS. Hey Frank, if they are GOP and DEMS, how are they also undecided Independents?

A real pollster would have 3 groups, GOP, DEMS, and Independents. Then have 3 lines on the graph, one for each group. A fraud pollster has two lines, one for the GOP and one for the DEMS, then claims they are all undecided Independents. You are a fraud. And O'Reilly is just as big a fraud for using you.

Luntz was even caught cheating recently, he ran a focus group with 24 people, at the end he asked them to raise your hand if you support Obama. About 16 of them raised their hand, out of 24, Luntz called that even for Obama and McCain, and this was on tv, I even saw it. The video was on the Daily Show, and youtube. So Luntz is a proven right-wing fraud, O'Reilly calls him Doctor, and claims he is an impartial pollster, when the guy is a total fraud.

Then O'Reilly had a segment on the election with Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham. They said the Cheney endorsment of McCain hurt him, duh, I already knew that, and so did everyone else, that's powerhouse analysis?

They talked about how Bush hurt McCain, O'Reilly said itwas unfair to Bush because he has been a pretty good President. Now if anyone wants proof that O'Reilly is a biased right-wing loon, here it is. George W. Bush has been one of the worst Presidents America has ever seen. His job approval is about 22 percent, and the list of scandals and bad things he has done in 8 years is endless. Yet O'Reilly claims he has done a good job, which could only be said by a totally biased far right idiot, who is so far in the tank for Bush they cant think straight.

Then O'Reilly had Dennis Miller on, he's a powerhouse?

The guy is a sort of funny right-wing stooge who does a radio show for FOX, all you get from Miller is insults about Democrats, that are sometimes funny, but usually not. Of course O'Reilly loves him, and thinks everything he says is just funny as hell. Because he is a Republican, and only Republicans think his partisan comedy is funny.

Basically the whole show was a bunch of FOX News lightweights, no Rove, no Morris, no Gingrich, nothing. I guess Brit Hume is a powerhouse, if you are a Republican. But the rest of the guests are lightweight partisan losers. The two so-called Democrats are a joke, they work for FOX, and agree with O'Reilly 80% of the time. They are like Joe Lieberman, moderate pretend Democrats who are really moderate Republicans. The rest of the show is right-wing hacks who should not even be allowed on tv, and if not for FOX, they would not be on tv. Because no real news network would put those biased hacks on tv.

O'Reilly Lied to Protect Sarah Palin
By: Steve - November 2, 2008 - 10:00pm

Bill O'Reilly was on the David Letterman show last week, and during the show he was caught lying for Sarah Palin. He was covering for Sarah Palin, and defending her from the so-called "gotcha" question by Charlie Gibson. Here's what Billy said:
O'REILLY: The Bush Doctrine? Remember that, when Charlie Gibson went, 'what's the Bush doctrine'? You got the nose with glasses on and all that. I'm sitting at home going 'what Bush Doctrine'? Is that the doctrine where I go to Crawford Texas five times a year? What Bush Doctrine is that? I don't know what that is. That was just ridiculous. It's all gotcha gotcha gotcha."
What's ridiculous is O'Reilly saying he does not know what the Bush Doctrine is, I know what it is, and just about everyone I know can tell you what it is too. O'Reilly was just covering for how stupid Palin is, because he knows what it is, he has even talked about it a hundred times in the past. So he knows exactly what it is, and yet he still went on national tv and lied his ass off about it to David Letterman.

Here are just a few examples of O'Reilly talking about the Bush Doctrine, and they show that he knows exactly what it is.
From a March 2004 Talking Points Memo:

O'REILLY: Many people in Europe are Socialists, as you know. They believe that capitalist America is worse than Al Qaeda. And that crazy view has taken deep root...So the U.S. cannot count on much support from Europe. And that puts President Bush in a difficult position. The Bush Doctrine is to take the fight to the terrorists. Now with the capitulation of Spain, America has one less fighting partner.

From an August 2004 Unresolved Problem segment:

BUCHANAN: No, you get the subtitle, you use a little smaller lettering, and the top title is always a good hit.

O'REILLY: McCain and Giuliani are going to basically refute what you believe tonight. They're going to come out and say the Iraq war was worth it, that the Bush strategy, they call it the Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes against threatening people in an age of nuclear terrorism, has to happen. What do you think about that?

From a 2005 interview with Ed Koch:

KOCH: And I believe that the president when he made that ringing statement which created the Bush Doctrine that he will go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them, that he issued a statement which is as important as the Monroe Doctrine, the Truman Doctrine -- the Monroe Doctrine case, keep all foreign countries out of the -- the Western hemisphere, and, in the case of the Truman Doctrine, to contain communism.

O'REILLY: OK. So you were very...

KOCH: The Bush Doctrine is very important.

O'REILLY: You believe in the war on terror the way he's fighting it.
So as you can see, O'Reilly knows exactly what the Bush Doctrine is, and that is just a few examples, I could show you many more where O'Reilly not only talked to people about the Bush Doctrine, he explained it himself, and he supports it. It's a topic that O'Reilly has repeatedly talked about many times before with many different guests and he lays out exactly what the Bush Doctrine is. O'Reilly knowingly lied to David Letterman to protect Sarah Palin.

The Bush Doctrine was talked about for months and months in the media, and in print, pretty much everyone knows what it is, and every journalist knows for sure. There is even a wikipedia page on it, and a simple google search on "The Bush Doctrine" will get you 800,000 results. But O'Reilly is so biased and so dishonest he had to lie on Letterman to cover for the moron Sarah Palin, because he is a Republican, is there any doubt anymore.

Name one time O'Reilly has lied to protect a Democrat, just one time, anyone? I have watched the factor every night for about 9 years now, and I can not remember one time O'Reilly has lied to protect a Democrat, it just never happens. On the other hand, he lies all the time to protect Republicans, hell he's been lying for George W. Bush for 8 years now.

And think about this, if O'Reilly will lie for Palin over something like that, what else does he lie about. And now that he is a proven liar, that means you can not believe ahything he says, ever again. Once a liar, always a liar. O'Reilly himself even said if you catch someone lying they can never be trusted again. So if we go by his own rules, we can never trust him again.

Great Example of Bias & Double Standards From O'Reilly
By: Steve - November 1, 2008 - 10:00pm

About 2 weeks ago, the Family Guy cartoon took a shot at the McCain-Palin ticket, when a scene showed Stewie wearing a Nazi jacket, lifting the lapel, to find a McCain-Palin button underneath it. Bill O'Reilly went nuts, over what a cartoon did, and they did it on the FOX Broadcasting Network, not NBC, or ABC, or CBS, it was done on a FOX owned station. And this was not done on a News show, it's a cartoon.

O'Reilly talked about it on the Factor, a News show. He said it was disgraceful, and un-American. He said that nobody should ever compare anyone running for office to the Nazis or Hitler. And yet, thursday night Ann Coulter goes on Hannity & Colmes and compared Obama to Hitler, O'Reilly never said a word, nothing, zero. And this was said on a News show, not on a cartoon. Which makes it 10 times worse, yet O'Reilly never said a word about it.

And it's not just Ann Coulter O'Reilly ignored, in an October interview with Gentleman's Quarterly magazine, Republican Jerome Corsi (who wrote a discredited book about Obama) compared people who support Obama to the people who supported Hitler and Stalin, O'Reilly said nothing.

On the October 29 edition of Mark Levin Radio Show, Levin and Curtis Sliwa compared Obama's speeches to the speeches Hitler used to give, O'Reilly said nothing.

On the October 28 edition of The Big Show Radio Show with Bill Cunningham, referring to Barack Hussein Obama, Cunningham compared Obama's verbal skills to Adolf Hitler, O'Reilly said nothing.

Hilmar Von Campe Compared Obama to Hitler in an October 28 WorldNetDaily column, the same website O'Reilly used to write for, O'Reilly said nothing.

Laura Hollis wrote in her October 16 column at, that the people who support Obama are the same as the hitler youth who supported Hitler, and that's the right-wing website that has the internet cop O'Reilly uses, Amanda Carpenter, O'Reilly said nothing. And btw, they both said there is no hate at, I guess comparing Americans to Hitler is not hate in their world.

But if a cartoon compares McCain and Palin to a Nazi, O'Reilly goes after them and attacks them for what they did in a cartoon. So I guess in O'Reilly world it's ok for Coulter to compare Obama to Hitler, but if a stupid cartoon guy wears a Nazi jacket with a McCain-Palin button on it, then that's wrong and un-American.

This shows just how biased Bill O'Reilly is, and it also shows the double standards he has. One is a cartoon, yet he attacks them, because it was about a Republican. The other was on a real News show, yet he says nothing, because it was about a Democrat. If that's not bias and a double standard I don't know what is.

A real journalist would attack both of them, for making Nazi comparisons, or maybe not say anything about the cartoon. You should attack Coulter for sure, and maybe the cartoon guy. O'Reilly did the exact opposite, he says nothing about Coulter, who made her Nazi comparison on an actual news show, and he goes after the stupid cartoon, that nobody cares about.

And this is not the first time O'Reilly has ignored Nazi comparisons to a Democrat, he never says a word about them. But if a lame ass cartoon does it, he acts like the world is gonna come to an end. It's a double standard, and total right-wing bias.

Three Month Factor Bias Study on Obama & McCain
By: Steve - November 1, 2008 - 12:30pm

O'Reilly said he is a non-partisan Independent, who is fair to both sides, and that he has been fair to Barack Obama. To check that claim I did a 3 month study of the Factor, it started on August 1st, 2008, and ran until October 31st, 2008. I watched the Factor every night and counted the negative and positive comments for Obama and McCain.

Visit the web page I set up, and you will see the stunning bias from O'Reilly and his mostly Republican guests against Barack Obama. Then you will see there is no doubt Bill O'Reilly is a dishonest and biased Conservative. This study is conclusive proof that O'Reilly is biased to Obama, and totally in the tank for John McCain.

More Republicans Speak Out on McCain & Palin
By: Steve - November 1, 2008 - 10:00am

Interviewed on MSNBC yesterday, former Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein criticized John McCain for choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate:
I think it has very much undermined the whole question of John McCain’s judgment. You know what most Americans I think realized is that you don’t offer a job, let alone the vice presidency, to a person after one job interview. Even at McDonald’s, you’re interviewed three times before you get a job.

On whether Palin is ready to be president in an emergency on day one, Duberstein noted, People have resoundedly said, I don’t think so.
Thursday on Fox News Business, Neil Cavuto dressed down John McCain for his constantly shifting economic policy proposals. Cavuto complained that McCain’s "positions are always changing" and asked, What’s the deal with the Straight Talk Express?:
You rail against big government, yet continue to push cockamamie spending plans that make a mockery of it. That’s why you’re losing right now, Senator McCain. Not because you don’t have the courage of your convictions. But because on economic matters, you have no convictions.
Friday, Jeff Gillan of NewsONE in Nevada asked Sen. John Ensign, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, if Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was qualified to be President. Ensign responded by saying that he didn’t think Palin was experienced enough to be president.

Ensign is only the most recent conservative to challenge Palin’s qualifications for office. Just yesterday, former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, who is a top McCain supporter, said that Palin was not "prepared to take over the reins of the presidency."

In a recent New Yorker interview, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) said, "I don’t believe she’s qualified to be President of the United States." Palin is arguably the thinnest-resume candidate for Vice-President in the history of America, added Hagel.

On Meet the Press two weeks ago, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, said, "I don’t believe she’s ready to be president of the United States."

In an interview with CNN earlier this month, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney stuttered and hesitated when asked if Palin is ready to be President. "That’s something which I -- I believe the American people will, uh, assess individually," said Romney.

And Last week, Joe Lieberman, who is one of McCain’s most ardent supporters, said, "Thank God, she’s not gonna have to be president from day one."

And remember this, it's not only about Sarah Palin not being qualified to be the Vice President (or the President if something happens to McCain) it shows bad judgement from John McCain. His slogan is "Country First" but he put his campaign first by picking Palin for partisan political reasons. McCain picked her to steal votes from women who were mad that Obama beat her in the Democratic primary, and he picked her because the far right religious leaders of the Republican party pressured him into it.

And if you dont believe that, ask yourself this, do you think Sarah Palin was the most qualified Republican in America to be the Vice President. McCain wanted to pick Joe Lieberman or Mitt Romney, but he was forced to pick Palin by the far right of the Republican party. So he put "Country Second" and "politics first." Is that the kind of President you want, a guy who caves in to political pressure from far right Republicans, and picks an unqualified person to be his Vice President, I dont think so.

How Dumb is Sarah Palin?
By: Steve - November 1, 2008 - 9:00am

This dumb, she said it is a threat to her First Amendment rights for the media to criticize her negative and untrue attacks on Obama. Has this woman ever read the 1st amendment? I am guessing she has, which is really scary, because that means she still dont understand what it means.
During an interview on a conservative radio show Friday morning, Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by attacks from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama. Palin said that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks.

And that for any reporter or columnist to suggest that it is going negative, may be an attack that threatens her free speech rights under the Constitution.
My God is she stupid. I knew she was not the sharpest knife in the kitchen, but who knew she was that dumb. Speaking of knifes, I would suggest the McCain campaign keep all sharp objects away from her.

As Glenn Greenwald from wrote:
The First Amendment is actually not that complicated. It can be read from start to finish in about 10 seconds. It bars the Government from abridging free speech rights. It doesn't have anything to do with whether you're free to say things without being criticized.

If anything, Palin has it exactly backwards, since one thing that the First Amendment actually does guarantee is the right to a free press.
Update - I found this at
Having devoted over 30 years of my life to the practice of psychology, I was shocked to discover the actual extent of Sarah Palin's diminished intellect, although hardly surprised she is developmentally challenged.

Her 83 full scale Wechsler I.Q. reported in her Wasilla High School records was labeled Dull Normal at that time and, in fact, 83 was just slightly above the range labeled Borderline Retarded (70-80 I.Q.).
Now remember this, McCain picked this moron to be his Vice President, which shows a lack of judgement, because he clearly did it for political reasons. Hey John what happened to Country First.

And remember that O'Reilly called Palin a charismatic and enchanting rock star who he admires greatly. Which also shows that O'Reilly supports her for partisan political reasons. Because if Palin was a democrat on the Obama ticket, O'Reilly would claim it shows bad judgement for Obama to pick her, and also tear her to pieces for being so damn dumb. Instead he defends everything she does, and even lies to cover up for her.