The Monday 11-30-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - December 1, 2009 - 8:20am

The TPM was called Afghanistan, Iran And President Obama. As usual O'Reilly attacked Obama over the situation. Even when Bush caused most of the problems there, O'Reilly still lays it all at the feet of Obama. Billy used his TPM to hammer Obama for not being tougher, and then once again called for the ridiculous naval blockade on Iran. O'Reilly also cited the right-wing to call Obama weak.

Then the biased right-wing Brit Hume was on to discuss it, with nobody from the left. Hume is biased, and yet O'Reilly puts him on alone with nobody to give the counterpoint. In O'Reillyworld this is called fair and balanced. Billy said the people are losing confidence in Obama, and of course Brit Hume agreed, even though some polls disagree, and they never cited any polls. What's really funny is when Bush was the President O'Reilly never reported the polls, and even said the polls are meaningless, now they report the polls every night.

O'Reilly even said Obama is becoming Jimmy Carter, which is an insult, disrespectful to the President, and something he never did to Bush. Hume said the Obama foreign policy plan might pay off in the future, and O'Reilly said it's possible. Then he said to be fair to Obama he might get it done, yeah after he trased him for 3.5 minutes with the biased Brit Hume he says he was fair to Obama, what a joke.

Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to talk about Afghanistan, Iran, and Obama. Billy said Obama better give a tough speech tomorrow or his administration will go into a freefall, whatever that means. Then Juan Williams told O'Reilly he is exactly right, proving that Jaun is a joke. Then he said Afghanistan is Obama's war, huh, it's Bush's war, Obama is just trying to clean up the mess Bush created. Juan is as big of a joke as O'Reilly, and you know Mary K. Ham agreed with both of them, and they all sat there and trashed Obama. Ham called Obama a weak leader who has problems making decisions. These people are so biased it's ridiculous, they blame it all on Obama when he just took over, and he is trying to fix the mess Bush caused.

O'Reilly even admitted the Afghan Government is totally corrupt, so how can you work with them, he never goes into that. But they still trash Obama, and never once say that the Afghan people refuse to help us, and without their help you can not win there. Billy never once talks about how if the people are against you it's a no win situation. It's a totally biased one sided debate with 3 Republicans, O'Reilly, Williams, and Ham. Then O'Reilly asked Ham what to do about Iran, and she had no answer, all she did was attack Obama for being a weak and indecisive leader, but she has no answers. Billy even called her on it, and said she was dodging the question. Then he aksed Williams, and he sounded just like O'Reilly, he said Obama should get tough, which is what Bush did for 8 years and look what that got us, nothing.

Then O'Reilly did a tabloid garbage segment on the Tiger Woods car crash story. This is not real news, it's tabloid stuff that Geraldo should be reporting. Billy is simply reporting on it for ratings, because Tiger is a big celebrity. O'Reilly had Jennifer Smetters on to talk about it, and of course Billy found some blonde bimbo attorney to comment on it. In the last segment O'Reilly even said he almost made it the lead story, which is a joke, it's tabloid garbage. Here is my opinion, no real news shows should be reporting it. Leave it to Geraldo and TMZ.

And btw, O'Reilly speculated that it might have been domestic violence, after he said he never speculates. At the end of the segment O'Reilly said he does not like all the speculation, after he speculated about it. Then they talked a little about the White House party crashers, Billy wants them prosecuted, and made some ridiculous waterboarding joke. Smetters said she disagrees, and would not prosecute them, Billy then hammered her for not agreeing with him.

The next segment was about the cop killer story, a week ago a judge let him go on $15,000 bail, the he killed the cops. Clemmons was also given a 95-year prison sentence in Arkansas in 1989 for a host of charges, including robberies, burglaries, thefts and bringing a gun to school. His sentence was commuted in 2000 by then-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. O'Reilly had Mike Huckabee on to discuss it. Huckabee said he let him go because of his age, and because the parole board was for it, in a 5 to 0 vote. Basically O'Reilly put Huckabee on to let him spin out his reason why he did it. And O'Reilly took it easy on him, Billy even told Huckabee it was not his fault, and called him a stand up guy. But when a Democrat does the same thing, O'Reilly blames them and hammers them for it. It was total hypocrisy and a double standard, from O'Reilly.

The next segment was with Bernie Goldberg, O'Reilly teased it by asking if the media coverage on Tiger has been fair and balanced. As he does a one sided biased media analysis segment with 2 Republicans, him and Goldberg, and nobody from the left to give any analysis on it.

Goldberg said the Tiger Woods story is valid, proving what an O'Reilly stooge he is, because it is a tabloid story. It's a waste of time to talk about it on a so-called real news show. The story is from TMZ and the Enquirer, both tabloid trash news sources, Case closed. Billy admitted it's a tabloid news story, but said it gets ratings so he is going to report it. Proving that he is nothing but a sell out who reports anything to get ratings. Then they talked about Iran, Billy said it was not being reported enough, and Bernie agreed. Then Goldberg attacked what he calls the lamestream media for not reporting about Iran enough, which is what he always does, because he is a biased Republican.

The last segment was the big O'Reilly reality check. It's the all right-wing spin segment where O'Reilly puts his spin on what some liberal said. There is no reality, and very few checks. It's just O'Reilly giving his opinion of what someone else said, with nobody there to counter any of his opinion. Billy cried once again about a COMEDIAN doing Palin jokes. Letterman had Robin Williams on last week and he did some Palin jokes, so Billy got mad. Even though he has Dennis Miller on every week to make Pelosi jokes. Can someone please tell me what the difference is, because I can not see one.

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

O'Reilly Hypocrisy On Calling Women Whores
By: Steve - November 30, 2009 - 11:20am

When the Democratic Congressman recently called a woman lobbyist a K-Street Whore, O'Reilly and Fox News went nuts and reporting on it for days. In fact, O'Reilly talked about it in his lead story two nights in a row.

Fast forward to last week, Glenn Beck said this:

GLENN BECK: Well, I'm sorry. So we know you're hooking, but you're just not cheap. It's $300 million.

So here we have Glenn Beck calling a sitting Senator a hooker. He was talking about Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu, who got a provision in order to get her support for breaking the filibuster on the health care bill, $300 million for Louisiana.

Beck called her a hooker, when what she did is done almost every day in almost every bill in Congress, by Democrats and Republicans. Those kind of deals are made all the time. You may not like it, but that's how things work. Notice Beck never said a word about similar deals being made when Bush was the President.

And btw, what Beck said was far worse, because he is calling s sitting Senator a whore. Grayson only called a lobbyist a whore, and Grayson later said he was sorry. Beck said it about a member of Congress, and he has not said he was sorry.

Yet O'Reilly has ignored the entire story, and not said one word about it. Even though he has Beck on the Factor once a week to do a regular segment. O'Reilly also ignored the story of the 80 advertisers pulling their ads from the Glenn Beck tv show. Then he has the nerve to complain about other news sources ignoring news for partisan reasons, when he ignores more news for partisan reasons than anyone in the media.

O'Reilly even does a media bias segment once a week with Bernie Goldberg, and neither one of them have said a word about Beck calling Mary Landrieu a hooker. They cry about bias in the media from what they call the liberal media, but they never say a word about bias or hypocrisy from anyone at Fox News, or any conservative media sources.

Palin & Bachmann Team Up For Tea Party Convention
By: Steve - November 30, 2009 - 10:40am

Sarah Palin will star as the keynote speaker at next February's First National Tea Party Convention, which will take place in Nashville.

Also attending: The crazy Michele Bachmann (R-MN). The right-wing Minnesota congresswoman has previously asserted that Democrats are trying to sabotage both her and Palin to make sure that we don't have a prominent national voice.

The Washington Independent reports that tickets to see the Bachmann/Palin show are available for the bargain price of $549. Wow, I thought they were just regular folks, but do regular folks charge $549 to attend a convention.

Sarah Palin The Quitter Strikes Again
By: Steve - November 30, 2009 - 10:20am

Last Wednesday, Sarah Palin announced on Twitter that she was going to run a 5K Turkey Trot charity race in Washington state on Thanksgiving day. Large crowds of people turned out to catch Palin at the race, hoping to get the chance to meet the former Alaska governor. Palin, however, quit the race early to avoid many of her fans:
Palin had announced on Twitter that she would be running the 5k race organized by the Benton-Franklin Chapter of the Red Cross.

But she did not finish the race, opting to leave the course early to avoid more crowds at the end. About 40 minutes into the run, word started trickling out to people gathered at the finish line that she was gone.
Palin also said she was not going to be make a turkey dinner for Thanksgiving because it was too much work. Is this the kind of person you would vote for, not me. What kind of so-called regular woman/Mother does not even cook a Turkey dinner for her family.

Iraq War Information O'Reilly Has Totally Ignored
By: Steve - November 30, 2009 - 10:00am

A lot of information is coming out about the Iraq war, especially in England, and yet, O'Reilly has ignored it all. Because it makes George W. Bush look bad, and O'Reilly never reports anything that makes his hero Bush look bad. Here are some things O'Reilly is not reporting.

Last Tuesday, the UK began the most thorough investigation yet into the decisions that led up to the war and governed Britain's involvement through a series of Iraq war hearings in which numerous high-level British officials, including ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair, are expected to testify about their role in bringing their country to war.

The hearings, chaired by privy council member John Chilcot, have brought to light a number of explosive facts which unveil the level of dirty tricks practiced by the Blair government in taking the country to war over the opposition of the vast majority of British citizens:
-- Blair was told prior to the war by his intelligence services that Iraq did not have access to weapons of mass destruction. Sir William Ehrman, the director-general of defense and intelligence at the Foreign Office at the time, told the inquiry that British intelligence services had concluded ten days prior to the beginning of the war that Saddam Hussein did not have access to weapons of mass destruction and that he also likely lacked warheads capable of delivering such weapons.

-- The Blair government had decided to support the Bush led war up to a year before the invasion. Sir Christopher Meyer, the ambassador to Washington at the time, told the inquiry that the Blair government had decided that it was "a complete waste of time" to resist Bush's efforts to go to war and had instead opted to offer advice about how to invade. Meyer also told the inquiry that former US national security adviser Condoleeza Rice had called Meyer on the day of the 9/11 attacks and told him, "We are just looking to see whether there could possibly be a connection with Saddam Hussein." Meyer also reiterated that both the American and British government were constantly looking for a smoking gun to justify the upcoming war.

-- Blair was told the Iraq War would be illegal under international law by his attorney general. In a July 2002 letter, former British attorney general Lord Goldsmith warned Blair that the UN charter only permits military intervention "on the basis of self-defense or for humanitarian intervention" and that neither case applied to Iraq. Blair responded by banning Goldsmith from future cabinet meetings and ignoring his verdict on the legality of the war.
Notice that O'Reilly is not reporting any of this, he has not even mentioned it. Most likely because it exposes the truth about Iraq, and shows how corrupt Bush, Blair, and Cheney were. Now imagine if Bush had been a Democrat and this information came out, O'Reilly and Fox News would spend a week on it, if not months. But when it makes a Republican look bad, O'Reilly and Fox News ignore it.

And btw, when the Downing Street Memo came out Bush, Cheney, and all his right-wing defenders, including O'Reilly, Hannity, Dana Perino, etc. said it was all just rumor and speculation. Now we know that it's true, they just ignore it and pretend it never happened.

The Fake Sarah Palin Bus Tour
By: Steve - November 29, 2009 - 10:00am

Sarah Palin wants the people to believe she is just a regular person, like you and me, and to prove it she is on a bus tour to promote her book. Except that just might be a lie, it looks like she is being flown around the country on a private jet owned by Samaritan's purse, a religious charity run by Franklin Graham.

Someone who works at an airport saw Palin getting off a private plane, and they got the tail number. They tried to check the flight activity for the airplane (N262SP) at But the flight activity for that plane is blocked by the owner. Guess he doesn't want anyone to know where he is flying, or that he is hauling Palin around on the Charity's money.

Here is my question, what is a religious charity that says this in their mission statement doing flying Palin anywhere:
Mission Statement: Samaritan's Purse is a nondenominational evangelical Christian organization providing spiritual and physical aid to hurting people around the world. Since 1970, Samaritan's Purse has helped meet needs of people who are victims of war, poverty, natural disasters, disease, and famine with the purpose of sharing God's love through His Son, Jesus Christ.
Why are they hauling her ass around the country to promote her lousy book. She is not poor, or hurting. And maybe the people who donate money to the charity might want to know why they are flying Palin around the country. Not to mention, you will never hear O'Reilly report any of this. Maybe the IRS should even check it out, if they have a tax free status they may be violating federal tax or political laws.

It looks like Palin is flying high on a private jet owned by a tax free religious charity, then she jumps on the bus to fool people into thinking she is traveling on that lame bus. Will Fox News have a team of people investigate this, as they did with ACORN, etc. haha, not a fricking chance, they will probably totally ignore it and never even report the story.

Fox News Needs A Math Lesson
By: Steve - November 29, 2009 - 9:30am

Where on earth does 70+60+63 add up to 100, Fox News of course. They ran a pie chart asking what percent of the people support Palin, Romney, and Huckabee, the answer added up to 193, oops. Do you think O'Reily will name them a pinhead for this, never.

And btw, notice that 70% of Republicans back Palin. Wow, that means 70% of the Republican party are morons who are willing to back the stupid quitter from Alaska. I pray to God Palin wins the Republican nomination in 2012, so she can lose badly, and then we will never hear from her dumb ass again. The Democrats dream ticket for 2012 is Beck/Palin, please let it be Beck/Palin. I will even campaign for them, haha.

The Friday 11-27-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 28, 2009 - 9:50am

There was no TPM, and no regular show. O'Reilly had a special show, it was re-runs of the body language bimbo. Billy called it The best of Tonya Reiman. And the entire show was nothing but her doing those stupid body language segments.

I do not report on it, because it is not news, it's tabloid garbage to get ratings, and of course she is a big boob blonde. I will say this, most of her so-called body language readings are done on liberals, and I would say 99% of the time she has a negative reading. In the rare cases when she does a body language reading on a conservative, it's almost always a positive reading. Which of course is just more bias from O'Reilly and a right-wing guest. She is put on to make liberals look bad, by Bill O'Reilly.

It's not much different from how O'Reilly has Rove, Morris, Ingraham, Goldberg, Hume, Coulter, etc. etc. on to spin out their one sided right-wing propaganda, with no Democratic guest on to counter what they say. Reiman is put on to make Democrats look bad, and Republicans look good. Her readings are a joke, Billy will play a tape of a liberal doing an interview with someone, and during the interview they will scratch their nose. So O'Reilly will stop the tape and ask Reiman what that means.

She will say it means they are intimidated or nervous, or some mumbo jumbo like that. When maybe it just meant they had an itch and they scratched it. Nobody really knows for sure, and this garbage is not science, it's opinion. One gesture can be read 5 different ways, yet Reiman will take a gesture and give it one meaning, as if it's a fact, when it's just her opinion of that one gesture.

The big one is eye contact, any time she reads a liberal and they look down, or look away after a question, she reads that as not being truthful. But it could also mean they just do not look people in the eye all the time when they talk to them. I rarely look people in the eye non-stop when I talk to them, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. And I may look down, or look away after they ask me a question, but I am not being dishonest with my answer, I'm just looking away or looking down.

Reiman makes mistakes in a lot of these body language readings, and I found proof on a body language accuracy and rules website.
One of the most common mistakes a rookie body language reader will make is to interpret individual gestures in isolation of other gestures.

For example, when someone rubs their left hand on their right arm it can indicate many things - negative feelings, sore arm, or maybe they are just cold - it all depends on the other gestures they are using at the time.

Another key factor is the circumstances under which certain gestures are made. A classic example of this is 'the woman in the short skirt', who sits with her ankles crossed tightly in front of her. Ankle crossing is usually associated with negativity and defense, however a woman with a short skirt may cross her ankles for certain obvious, necessary reasons - she may not be being negative, she may just be trying to stop people seeing up her skirt.
The body language segments are biased, one sided, and pretty much ridiculous. They are not news, and have no news value at all. And O'Reilly only does them for two reasons.

1) To make Democrats look bad, and to make Republicans look good. Just watch in the future and see how she reads Democrats, and then look at how she reads a Republican, it's night and day.

2) She is on for ratings, because she is a fairly good looking big boob blonde. The mostly conservative Factor viewers love her because she almost always has bad things to say about the body language of Democrats, and they like to look at her because she is another conservative blonde bimbo.

And of course O'Reilly would never admit to any of this, and flat out deny she has any bias. Which would be a massive lie, just remember he also says he is a nonpartisan independent who has been fair to President Obama. When early on in 2009, O'Reilly said he would not attack President Obama until he had been in office for a year. That year is not up until January 20, 2010.

But O'Reilly started attacking him a few days later, and he attacks Obama on pretty much every show. O'Reily has attacked everything Obama has done, or plans to do, he disagrees with his entire agenda. You can not name one thing Obama has done, or plans to do that O'Reilly agrees with. Because he is a Republican who hates Obama and everything he is doing.

And if O'Reilly does not attack Obama for something, he just puts Rove, Morris, Ingraham, Gingrich, Goldberg, Cavuto, or Coulter on to attack Obama for him. O'Reilly loads the show with 95% Republicans who then attack Obama for him, then he can say he never said that. So he kills two birds with one stone, he gets the attacks on Obama on the air, and then he can deny he did it, so they end up doing his dirty work for him.

O'Reilly is a biased right-wing con man, and his biggest con is the claim that he is a nonpartisan independent with a no spin zone. It's a flat out lie, and a big con on the American people. That is my biggest problem with O'Reilly, that he lies about being a nonpartisan independent with a no spin zone.

If he would just admit he is a Republican, and that his show is a 95% right-wing spin zone, this website would go away, I would take it off the internet. But as long as he continues the con, I will continue to expose him as the biased fraud of a nonpartisan independent journalist he claims to be.

And btw, O'Reilly is not a journalist. A journalist tells the truth, in an objective way with no bias, O'Reilly does the opposite of that. He is like an opinion writer on the op-ed page of a newspaper, but he claims to be a nonpartisan independent journalist with a no spin zone. Making him not only a fraud, but a liar, and a biased right-wing con man. In fact, it's an insult to real journalists to even use the name O'Reilly and journalist in the same sentence.

Fox News Caught Lying About Obama Spending
By: Steve - November 28, 2009 - 9:30am

Hey Billy, you asked for evidence that Fox News is biased against President Obama, you said send it to you and you will report it. Well here it is, for the millionth time, they are lying about Obama and the spending he has done. The website claims Obama has spent $3.5 Trillion, and that is more than Clinton and Bush combined.

A graphic posted on suggested that President Obama is responsible for all of the $3.5 trillion in federal outlays for Fiscal Year 2009. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has stated that "much" of the 2009 increase in spending "results from legislation enacted in calendar year 2008.

It's a damn lie, and they know it. Here are the facts:

The article to which the graphic linked noted that "in fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion -- $2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars, which sets a benchmark for comparison. That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush's term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama's." However, the article obscured the magnitude of the actions taken by Bush in those final months and stated that the FY 2009 budget "was about a half-trillion more than Bush's for 2008, his final full fiscal year in office.

The CBO stated in its August 25 Budget Update that "the dramatic expansion of the deficit in 2009 (up from 3.2 percent of GDP in 2008) results from a projected rise in outlays of 24 percent (the largest percentage increase since 1952) and a drop in revenues of 17 percent from last year's levels (the largest percentage drop since 1932). Those changes have largely been the result of the severe economic downturn and the fiscal impact of federal policies enacted in response."

The CBO projected outlays of $3.5 trillion for FY 2009 before Obama took office.

On January 7, the CBO stated in its Budget and Economic Outlook that outlays will rise from $3.0 trillion in 2008 to $4.5 trillion in 2009."

The FY2010 budget will be Obama's first year. That is his first budget. FY2009 was Bush's budget mainly passed in that Omnibus bill late last winter. Even a 5th grader can see that revenues will go down with fewer tax payers due to the recession, so deficit spending almost has to take place during these times.

I even saw some right-wing moron on a message board say that Obama has spent more than all president's combined. After I was done laughing my ass off, I tried to clue him in to the facts, but I might as well have been talking to the wall. No matter what I said he ignored it and cited the Fox News article, even though it was all lies.

Five Deferment Cheney Talks About War & The Troops
By: Steve - November 27, 2009 - 10:30am

Before you read this, remember that Bush and Cheney are the guys who let a lot of troops in Afghanistan die because they sent most of the troops to Iraq. So they have no right to criticize Obama for not sending more troops after 10 months, when they had 8 years to do and never did.

In a recent interview with right-wing radio host Scott Hennen, former Vice President Cheney once again criticized President Obama's national security policies, harping on his belief that Obama is dithering on Afghanistan and endangering U.S. troops.

Even though the Bush administration denied a troop increase request in 2008, and they took 6 months to make that decision. Not to mention, Obama has already sent 28,000 more troops to Afghanistan than the Bush administration had there. The crazy Cheney said this:
CHENEY: I worry that there's a lack of understanding there of what this means from the perspective of the troops. You know, if you're out there on the line day in and day out and putting your life at risk on a volunteer basis for the nation, and you see the Commander in Chief unable, to or appearing to be unable, to make a decision about the way forward here -- you know that raises serious doubts. Nobody wants to think of volunteering to be participate in that kind of operation.

It may in part be inexperience on Obama's part. It may be that there's confusion on the staff. But I'm not encouraged by it.
This idiot Cheney does not have any more authority on the subject than Obama does. He neither served in the military, nor has he been Commander-in-Chief. As the New York Times noted in 2004:
Eventually, like 16 million other young men of that era, Mr. Cheney sought deferments. By the time he turned 26 in January 1967 and was no longer eligible for the draft, he had asked for and received five deferments, four because he was a student and one for being a new father.
Bush administration officials also seem to think that they were soldiers in the military, with former White House press secretary Tony Snow saying that President Bush was on the front lines and in the war every day.

This idiot Cheney is a massive hypocrite, and a total fool. Bush and Cheney started the war in Afghanistan, then shorted them troops for 8 years, so they could run the war in Iraq. Then after it was all screwed up, then turned the mess over to Obama. Then they blame all the problems there on him, when they caused it by not having enough troops in Afghanistan.

Bush and Cheney denied troop increases, and delayed the decision for 6 months, then the a-holes criticize Obama for taking his time to make a decision. When he has already sent 28,000 more troops to Afghanistan then they had there, and will most likely send 35,000 more. Even though most experts say we can not win in Afghanistan because the people do not want us there, and will not help us.

Notice that O'Reilly never mentions any of this when the topic of Afghanistan is discussed.

O'Reilly Wins Worlds Worst Person (Again)
By: Steve - November 27, 2009 - 9:50am

Last week Keith Olbermann named Bill O'Reilly Worst Person in the World. O'Reilly won the "Worst Person" award for claiming that his producers ambush interviews with Bill Moyers forced the PBS broadcaster to retire from his weekly program.

"In the ambush interview from O'Reilly's stalker producer (Jesse Waters), Moyers mopped the floor with the kid," Olbermann said. He invited Waters to come on the show because O'Reilly didn't have the courage to do so.

A year later, O'Reilly sent his other flunkie, Porter Berry, to try to side swipe Moyers, no one has seen Berry since. And these interviews from two and three years ago, that's what Bill-O thinks drove Moyers out of PBS. Bill also thinks he has his own police force and that he schedules the tides. Notice, O'Reilly never does these ambush interviews himself because, well -- here kitty, kitty, kitty.

Some Republicans Think O'Reilly/Palin Sucked
By: Steve - November 27, 2009 - 9:30am

O'Reilly claims his interview with Sarah Palin was tough, and that she did a good job answering his questions. O'Reilly had one Democratic guest on last week to discuss the interview, and she (Leslie Marshall) said Palin dodged the questions. So what did O'Reilly do, he attacked Marshall and said she is just a liberal who did not like the answers Palin had.

Now we have a Republican who also said Palin dodged the questions, here are some comments about the interview from Robert Ringer at World Net Daily, the crazy right-wing website.
I love Sarah Palin! That's the good news. The bad news is that I, and millions of others who love the ex-governor of Alaska, have been greatly disappointed by her recent interviews. In my previous article, I pointed out how Palin missed many golden opportunities to put her libertarian-centered conservative principles on display in her interview with Sean Hannity. Then, shortly into the first segment of her interview with Bill O'Reilly, it was obvious that she was going to offer more make-nice filibustering. She was a bit stronger on Greta, but the bold truth people are looking for still wasn't there.
Notice that he loves Sarah Palin, just as O'Reilly does, but unlike O'Reilly he can put his love for her on hold to give an honest analysis of her performance in the interviews. O'Reilly loves her so much he can not ever say anything bad about her, O'Reilly defends everything she does, and even complains about COMEDIANS making jokes about her.
It appears that Sarah Palin has presidential aspirations. But it also appears that she learned little from her experience with John McMush and his "handlers."

The be-careful-what-you-say strategy apparently is contagious. Why else would Palin be so cautious when she has the opportunity to show the world who she really is? Just as Obama can no longer blame the depression on George Bush, neither can Sarah Palin continue to blame her lack of interview effectiveness on McMush's handlers.

When O'Reilly asked her what she would do about Putin and Russia, Palin mumbled something about "working with our allies." Say what? How about, "I would immediately install an antiballistic-missile-shield system in Eastern Europe without discussing it with Putin."
O'Reilly told Leslie Marshall that Palin answered all his questions very well. Proving that O'Reilly is just a stooge that covers for the dummy Palin because he loves her.
O'Reilly then asked her what she would do about Iran's drive to build a nuclear bomb. Palin mumbled something about "imposing sanctions." Gosh, I never heard that one before. Alert the media: Russia, China, et al. don't cooperate when it comes to sanctions, and the rulers of sanctioned countries don't give a hoot if their own people suffer. "Imposing sanctions" is right out of the Politico Babble Bible right along with "Mideast Peace Process," "eliminate fraud and abuse" and "get the economy moving."
Palin said impose sanctions, and Billy said nothing. But when a Democrat says the same thing O'Reilly hammers them and says yeah yeah we need to do more than that. With Palin, O'Reilly let her slide.
Palin, like millions of other Americans, I want to believe that you're for real. But if you're not willing to step up to the plate like the heavy-hitting gals I named above, I, along with millions of others, are eventually going to give up on you. If you're trying to play to the so-called moderate crowd (read moderate liberals), your political career is over.
Mr. Ringer was highly disappointed in the Palin interview, yet O'Reilly loved it and thought she was great. Proving that he is an in the tank for Palin, and that he can not be objective, even though he claims to be a journalist who is objective.

The Thursday 11-26-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 27, 2009 - 9:10am

The Thanksgiving night show was a re-run, the one that had part 2 of the Sarah Palin interview. What's funny is at one point of the show O'Reilly talked about his O'Reilly/Beck comedy tour. He said all the shows are sold out, then a few minutes later he said tickets are available.

Proving that O'Reilly tells so many lies he can not keep em all straight. One minute all the shows are sold out, then next minute they are not. And the Palin interviews were a joke, as I will write about in another posting.

And here is a good question, O'Reilly said he did an hour long interview with Sarah Palin. But the interview was 3 parts, 10 minutes each. So where is the other 30 minutes?

Could it be on the cutting room floor, maybe it was edited out because it made Palin look bad. Notice that O'Reilly never said anything about the other 30 minutes, if and what was edited out, if he let her know the questions ahead of time, etc. Then he calls himself a journalist, when I call him a biased joke.

Republicans Trying To Rewrite History (Again)
By: Steve - November 27, 2009 - 3:10pm

You just knew it was gonna happen sooner or later, the question was just when not if. Well that time is now, it started last week on The Sean Hannity Show. During a discussion about terrorism and the Fort Hood shooting, Dana Perino implied that the Obama administration did not want to call the shootings at Fort Hood a terrorist attack for political reasons, and went on to say this:
PERINO: We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term. I hope they're not looking at this politically. I do think that we owe it to the American people to call it what it is.
WRONG: Actually we had a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term. It was the 9-11-2001 terrorist attack on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center buildings, using airplanes as missiles by Osama Bin Laden. It happened on 9-11-2001, 8 months after George W. Bush took office. Earth to Dana Perino, George W. Bush was the President on 9-11-2001, and we had a terrorist attack that day, on his watch. Your lies will not change that fact, and you can not rewrite history.

And btw, Sean Hannity sat there silent as a mouse, even though he knew that there was a terrorist attack on this country during President Bush's term. Proving that he was trying to help Perino rewrite history. Not once did he correct her, or report the facts. Not only did the attack happen on Bush's watch, they later denied they had any idea it could happen, and lied about what they knew, for political reasons. Here are the facts, the actual facts.
After the 9/11 attacks, then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told the press: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."
As a matter of fact, just such a scenario had been foreseen by intelligence officials in 1998, as Rice later admitted. Then there was the Aug. 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US," which concluded:
FBI information indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
So 34 days before the 9-11-2001 attack George W. Bush is handed a Presidential Daily Brief that was titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" and he did nothing, zip, zero, he just ignored it. Then 34 days later, on the morning of 9-11-2001 the terrorist attack happened, killing almost 3,000 Americans. And now you have Dana (the liar) Perino saying that no terrorist attack happened while George W. Bush was the President.

And we know even more now, more information about what they knew has come forward. The NY Times reported this in 2006:
George Tenet briefed Condi Rice about a potentially catastrophic terrorist attack on the United States on July 10, 2001. Rice ignored the briefing, just as she and Bush both ignored the August 6 "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" memo, when Bush told the CIA briefer who delivered the memo to him that he had "covered his ass" and then went fishing for the rest of the day. Rice not only ignored the briefing, but also misled the 9-11 Commission and then lied when confronted with the evidence by Bob Woodward.
Then there was the Hart-Rudman Commission report, which warned the Bush White House in May 2001 that it needed to take serious steps to prevent a terrorist attack. The report was ignored.

They also ignored Richard Clarke's memo of January 2001 warning of the terrorist threat. All of that is consistent with what Clarke and other insiders reported about the Bush White House's pre 9-11 approach to terrorism: They viewed it as a "Clinton thing," and dismissed it as a minor concern for largely ideological reasons.

Then you need to look at the Bush White House's pre 9-11 actions on a policy level:
The Bush Administration actually reversed the Clinton Administration's strong emphasis on counterterrorism and counterintelligence. Attorney General John Ashcroft not only moved aggressively to reduce the DoJ's anti-terrorist budget, but also to shift the DoJ's mission to emphasize its role as a domestic police force and anti-drug force. These changes in mission were just as critical as the budget cuts, with Ashcroft, guiding the day to day decisions made by field officers and agents. And all of this happened while the Bush Administration was receiving repeated warnings about potential terrorist attacks.
So the Bush administration actually cut the budget for anti-terrorism funding, to concentrate on domestic police and anti-drug issues. While ignoring the warnings from numerous sources that a big terrorist attack was going to happen. Then after the 9-11 attacks, they lied and said they had no idea it might happen. What they did was ignore the threats, then try to cover up their mistakes by saying they had no idea it could happen, while at the same time cutting the anti-terrorism funding at the DoJ.

The Bush Administration was asleep at the wheel on 9-11, regarding their duty to keep us safe, and no amount of historical revisionism by Dana Perino will erase that fact.

O'Reilly/Bishop Tobin Communion Hypocrisy
By: Steve - November 26, 2009 - 8:50am

This is why a lot of people do not like religion, the hypocrisy and the double standards. Tuesday night O'Reilly had Bishop Tobin on to spin out his hypocrisy and double standards about Patrick Kennedy over the abortion issue. Bishop Thomas Tobin decided that pro-choice Catholics like Congressman Patrick Kennedy should be denied the right of Communion.

But Bishop Tobin's arguments were not very convincing. When O'Reilly asked Tobin why it's OK to deny Communion to politicians who are pro-choice but not to Catholics who are pro-death-penalty, Tobin answered with a lame argument that amounted to nothing more than theological spin, evading the issue that both are matters of Catholic beliefs pertaining to defending the values of life.

It's flat out hypocrisy and double standards. One standard for pro-choice Democrats, and another standard for pro-death penalty Republicans. If they deny communion for pro-choice members of the church, then they should also deny it for pro-death penalty members. But they do not do that, they only deny it for pro-choice members.

And btw, for people like Patrick Kennedy, it's a matter of democratic principles to separate their personal religious beliefs about abortion from the conduct of their policy, Tobin replied that opposing abortion rights is a matter of "defending your faith."

What people like Tobin refuse to acknowledge is their belief that abortion is murder, based on the belief that life begins at conception, is fundamentally a religious belief that is not shared by many other Americans, especially those who take a more strictly biological view of the process. The law as set by the US Supreme Court does not agree with the church.
In Roe v Wade (1973) The Court held that a woman may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes viable." The Court defined viability as the potential "to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid," adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."

The Court said that, after viability, abortion must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, as defined in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. The Court rested these conclusions on a constitutional right to privacy emanating from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, also known as substantive due process.
So in denying any American the right to an abortion, anti-abortion politicians are fundamentally shoving their religious beliefs down the throats of everyone else. That's not "defending your faith", it's forcing it upon everyone else. Which is what that whole First Amendment thing about church and state is about.

People like Patrick Kennedy and many others, recognize that this is fundamentally an anti-First Amendment, anti-American, way of doing things by the church. It also is an attack on the law, which O'Reilly has said if we do not floow the laws we have chaos. Except when it's a law he does not like, then he says to hell with the law, because I don't like that law.

O'Reilly, The Bishop, and the Catholic Church are being hypocritical, using double standards, and they are ignoring the law. But in O'Reillyworld it's all ok, if he agrees with their position. Earth to O'Reilly and Bishop Tobin, the law is the law. What you are doing is wrong, you are ignoring the law to punish Patrick Kennedy for actually following the law. You are using your religion to impose your will on someone else, even though they are in the right, and they have the law on their side.

Especially when you do not punish the pro-death penalty members of the church. Not to mention the argument that the church says nothing about the women who have abortions, when they call it murder. So why are these women allowed communion, and how come the church does not call for them to be put on trial for murder when they have an abortion. This kind of issue is why the Founding Fathers were so smart to keep Religion out of the Government.

Nobody should be punished by the church for being pro-choice, especially in the land of freedom, and especially when they have the law on their side. Yet O'Reilly and Bishop Tobin do not see it that way, because of their religious beliefs, and that is dangerous.

The Wednesday 11-25-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 26, 2009 - 8:30am

There was no review, because O'Reilly ran a best of Dennis Miller for the entire hour.

It looks like Billy took the rest of the week off for Thanksgiving. Which gives me something to be thankful for, not having to review this right-wing propaganda show for a few days.

Now think about this, O'Reilly screams bloody murder any time a COMEDIAN, the key word being COMEDIAN, like Bill Maher, Letterman, Conan, Leno, etc. does a joke about Sarah Palin. O'Reilly flips out and calls it unfair and wrong to make jokes about Palin. Then this fricking hypocrite does an entire show, on the day before Thanksgiving with Dennis Miller. Who was on to make jokes about liberals, including Nancy Pelosi, where he calls her every name in the book.

It's the biggest double standard by a total hypocrite I have ever seen. How can O'Reilly complain about COMEDIANS making jokes about Palin, call it wrong, and even say it must stop. When you put a COMEDIAN on your show to make jokes about liberals for an entire hour. Earth to O'Reilly, you are a joke pal, and maybe the biggest hypocrite in America.

A Media Week To Forget
By: Steve - November 25, 2009 - 7:30pm

Eric Boehlert at Media Matters wrote a great article about the ridiculous media coverage last week of Palin and the Obama bow. It shows how the media is mostly a joke, and how the moron Sarah Palin gets a lot of coverage for basically being a dumb right-wing hick with a stupid book.

Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget

Ugh, what a gruesome week it was for news consumers as the "serious" press showered time and attention on two GOP-friendly stories that defined "trivial pursuits": a book release and a bow. Sadly, this is what the Beltway press corps now voluntarily -- eagerly -- reduces itself to: chasing pointless, vacuous "news" stories that are literally of no consequence.

Why? Because the book and bow represented the easy, lazy, and safe thing to do last week. And among media elites, those remain three irresistible forces. (Raise your hand if you heard even one insightful comment about Sarah Palin amidst the TV cacophony last week.) That, along with the media's tradition of acquiescing to whatever production/distraction the GOP Noise Machine is cooking up, ensured the book and bow were elevated to breaking news status. Meaning, if it's a big deal to Drudge and Limbaugh and Beck and Malkin -- if they're all cheering it (Palin's book) or if they're all screaming about it (President Obama's bow) -- it must be news.

In reality, of course, that's an awful way to run a newsroom assignment desk. But more and more producers and editors are gladly abdicating their responsibilities.

Not that long ago, serious journalists routinely ignored the noisemakers on the fringe, confident in their own ability to identify the news. Now, many inside the Beltway not only refuse to ignore the right-wing fringe, they look to it expectantly for "news" leads and soon find themselves filing pointless stories about whether the president's bow to the Japanese emperor was too deep. Or inappropriate. Or whatever the haters were carping about. (Of course, in news accounts, the unhinged haters are dressed up as Obama "critics.")

Full Story:

O'Reilly Insanity On Bill Moyers Retirement
By: Steve - November 25, 2009 - 8:30am

I wrote a little about this in my blog, but here is what Think Progress had about it.

On Friday, distinguished veteran PBS journalist Bill Moyers announced that he was retiring from weekly television. "I am 75 years old," he explained, noting that Bill Moyers Journal had been having a good run of it, so he felt "it's time."

But on his Fox News show, Bill O'Reilly used the news to attack Moyers and his journalistic ethics. He also claimed that his producer, Jesse Watters, was responsible for Moyers resigning. "Now I think we -- Jesse Watters drove him out of PBS," said O'Reilly. "I think Jesse Watters is responsible for Bill Moyers leaving."
O'REILLY: Now I think we -- Jesse Watters drove him out of PBS. I think Jesse Watters is responsible for Bill Moyers leaving. Bill Moyers was hammering Bush and Cheney, wanted them impeached, this and that, and you know, taking shots at The Factor. So we sent Jesse out to talk with him.
In 2007, Watters ambushed Moyers on the street outside his home. O'Reilly had Watters harass Moyers after the PBS journalist ran a program about impeaching President Bush. O'Reilly claimed that Moyers symbolized "Americans who want their country to lose in Iraq, based upon hatred of all things Bush," which he determined was a good reason to send his henchman to Moyers house. According to O'Reilly, this interview was what drove Moyers out of his job two years later.

Of course, what O'Reilly didn't show was a 2008 confrontation between Moyers and Fox News producer Porter Berry, which didn't go as O'Reilly had planned. This time, Moyers turned the tables on Berry and called O'Reilly a coward for sending out producers to do his dirty work and for refusing to appear on his PBS show.

It was a prime example of O'Reilly's inflated ego. He has also taken sole credit for saving Christmas, lowering gas prices, John McCain being behind in the polls in October 2008 (because the senator refused to appear on The O'Reilly Factor), Al Gore losing to Bush in 2000 (because he refused to appear on the Factor), and Spanish prosecutors deciding to drop an investigation into the Bush administration's torture regime (because O'Reilly threatened a Spanish boycott).

Later in the segment, O'Reilly added that another reason Moyers is retiring is because PBS was mad at him for not being tough enough on Rev. Jeremiah Wright in a 2008 interview.


All of which is ridiculous, Bill Moyers is a respected journalist who barely knows who Bill O'Reilly is, and PBS could care less what he did on his own show. O'Reilly is probably just jealous, because Moyers has actually won a lot of journalism awards, not lie about winning them as O'Reilly does.

Here is an entry about Bill Moyers from his wikipedia page.
Recipient of the 2006 Lifetime Emmy Award, "Bill Moyers has devoted his lifetime to the exploration of the major issues and ideas of our time and our country, giving television viewers an informed perspective on political and societal concerns," according to the official announcement, which also noted, "the scope of and quality of his broadcasts have been honored time and again.

It is fitting that the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences honor him with our highest honor - the Lifetime Achievement Award." He has received well over thirty Emmys and virtually every other major television-journalism prize, including a gold baton from the Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Awards, a lifetime Peabody Award, and a George Polk Career Award (his third George Polk Award) for contributions to journalistic integrity and investigative reporting.
Number of Lifetime Achievement Awards for O'Reilly, zero. Number of Emmys for O'Reilly, zero. Number of Gold Baton awards for O'Reilly, zero. Number of Peabody awards for O'Reilly, zero. Number of Polk awards for O'Reilly, zero. And yet, O'Reilly and Bernie Goldberg attacked Moyers for his journalism career, when the two of them could not get a journalism award unless they stole one.

The Tuesday 11-24-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 25, 2009 - 8:00am

The TPM was called Religious Awakening. Billy talked about the Manhattan Declaration, some religious document. O'Reilly claims it's the church rising up to fight the secular progressive movement, and he says it's about time. As a religious Conservative O'Reilly supports it all, even if they break laws.

Then O'Reilly had Bishop Tobin on who told Patrick Kennedy he can not recieve communion. Billy did a taped interview with the Bishop, and of course nobody was on from the other side to give the counterpoint. Making it the usual biased one sided right-wing interview O'Reilly does all the time. Here is what I would say to people in the Catholic religion, if you are pro-choice stop going to church and stop donating money to them if they deny you communion. They play hardball, so you should too. O'Reilly simply did this segment to make Kennedy look bad, because he hates liberals, and he really hates people in the Kennedy family.

Then Karl (far right nut) Rove was on to do his usual biased partisan garbage, attack Obama and everything he does. Rove was on to talk about the attorney for a terrorist that Billy had on Monday night. And of course Rove trashed the guy, for simply doing his job. Billy said the trials are going to damage the country, ummmm, how. O'Reilly and Rove basically trashed the AG Eric Holder and president Obama, with nobody there to give the counterpoint.

Rove agreed with every word O'Reilly said, and spewed out his usual crap that it will make a mockery of our justice system. While at the same time many people support the NY trials, even a lot of conservatives, but O'Reilly never has any of them on the show to give their opinions. Billy only has people on who agree that it's wrong to have the trials in NY, how in the hell is that fair and balanced. And btw, a nonpartisan independent journalist would never use these dishonest and unfair tactics.

The Factor poll results are in, Billy asked his viewers to grade his Palin interview, and what a shocker they loved it, haha. They voted 67% for an A, and 26% for a B, the C, D, and F, were 4% of less, and the F was 2%. What a shocker, Billy's viewers like the job he does, I'm shocked I tell ya!

The next segment was Barack & A Hard Place with Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes. Billy talked about the Obama job approval numbers, and he said it's a combination of the economy, Afghanistan, and the NY terror trials. And of course Crowley agreed with O'Reilly as she always does, she called Obama a weak and decisive leader, just as O'Reilly does all the time. Colmes tried to disagree but O'Reilly would not let him talk, and Billy told Colmes he was falling back on liberal talking points. When Crowley just put out Conservative talking points and O'Reilly never said a word to her, he just let her spew it out without cutting her off or talking over her.

Billy cut Colmes off again and said he drives his audience nuts, so he basically just admitted his audience is mostly Conservative. Then he let Crowley speak again, without cutting her off one time, or talking over her. So she got to speak two times and was never cut off, called names, or talked over. Colmes got to speak one time, was constantly cut off, talked over, and called a pinhead. If this is fair and balanced journalism, I'm Donald Trump. Colmes said we should get out of Afghanstan and cut our losses. then Billy tried his old trick, he tried to to get Colmes to admit he is ok with the Taliban running Afghanistan, and Colmes refused to answer the stupid straw man question.

Then the crazy right-wing John Stossel was on to cry about AARP supporting the Obama health care plan. Billy said he had John Stossel look into the AARP. He asked stossel if it was ok for the AARP to support it, and Stossel said he has no idea. Then they trashed the AARP as a liberal group that does not look out for the folks, that they are just a partisan group who uses their money and power to help liberals. Stossel said AARP is hurting the country, by supporting the Obama health care plan. Which is total nonsense, and it's just proof that Stossel is a right-wing partisan joke.

O'Reilly called AARP a partisan group that tries to pass it off as nonpartisan, then he asked why they do not just tell the truth, that they are a liberal group. Pot meet kettle. Earth to O'Reilly, Fox News is also a partisan news network that claims to be fair and balanced, so why don't you tell the truth and admit you are a partisan news network. You call for them to tell the truth, when you and Fox News do not tell the truth about your partisan ideology. So you do not even live up to the standards you ask other people to follow, hypocrite.

Then is it legal, with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle, and they talked about the Adam Lambert performance at the American Music Awards. Ummmmm, ok, but what does this have to do with legal cases, nothing as far as I can tell. The network could be fined, but it's not a legal issue. Billy called it a big controversy, when it's only a contorversy with right-wing nuts who have no clue that it's 2009, and still think it's 1950 and leave it to beaver is on. Guilfoyle said it was revolting, and that it should have not been on tv.

They also talked about some child porn case involving a guy from ENGLAND, he was caught with child porn at an airport in Hawaii, so why in the hell should we care about it here in the USA. The judge tossed the evidence because of an illegal search, Billy and Guilfoyle disagreed, Wiehl agreed with the judge.

The last segment was just ridiculous, Billy cried about Sesame Street calling Fox News, Pox News. He actually did an entire segment on this nonsense. What's ridiculous is that they spoof NBC, ABC, CBS, and almost everyone, but O'Reilly never said a word about that. He only cries when they spoof Fox News. O'Reilly had Sherrie Westin from Sesame Street on to discuss it. They even mocked O'Reilly with a puppet called Spill O'Reilly, the puppet said this is the no spew zone. Then took over the show, and O'Reilly sat there like an idiot saying nothing. This may have been the dumbest segment O'Reilly has ever done.

Then the pinheads and patriots and the lame as hell, highly edited Factor e-mails. The pinhead is almost always a liberal, and the patriot is almost always a conservative, then he has the e-mails that O'Reilly hand picks, edits, then reads on the air. Here is how ridiculous the p&p segment is, O'Reilly named Paula Dean a patriot for getting hit in the face with a ham, I kid you not, she was named a patriot for that.

O'Reilly: Beck/Palin Is Evidence Of Conservative Comeback
By: Steve - November 24, 2009 - 9:00am

Last night O'Reilly had a talking points memo that claims the Republicans are making a comeback, and part of his evidence was the popularity of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Proving how biased he is, because all it shows is that they are popular with Conservatives, it does not show they are popular with anyone outside the Republican party.

O'Reilly is a biased Republican, so what he did was twist and spin their popularity with Conservatives into they are popular with everyone, which means the Democrats are losing ground. It's a classic O'Reilly right-wing spin memo to try and make the Republicans look better. Beck is a right-wing liar/conspiracy nut, and Palin is a dummy from Alaska, who happen to be popular with Conservatives. In O'Reillyworld that equals Conservative comeback. Here is the video.

After you watch this video, ask yourself when you last saw O'Reilly say anything good about the Democratic party, or president Obama. The answer is almost never, it's 99% right-wing spin and propaganda from O'Reilly and his mostly right-wing guests. And the key point to remember here is that O'Reilly claims to be a nonpartisan independent with a no spin zone, who is fair to president Obama.

Last night he even told Ann Coulter that he does not do a Conservative show. Which is a total 100% lie, and one of the most ridiculous things he has ever said, and that's saying a lot. O'Reilly is so dishonest he can not even admit his own show has a Conservative bias, making him a delusional liar. If he actually thinks his show does not have a Conservative bias, he is the only one who thinks that, because everyone else can clearly see it is.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Abortion Funding
By: Steve - November 24, 2009 - 8:30am

Once again O'Reilly was caught lying about part of the health care bill, what a shocker, not. Last night O'Reilly claimed that the House and Senate versions of the health care bill contain an "abortion option" that "so many Democrats want it to go through, which would force all Americans to fund, through their taxpayer dollars, abortions.

Talking about the religious manifesto with crazy Ann Coulter O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: But here's what I think tipped it, and I want to get your opinion. Here's what I think did it. I think it's the abortion option in the health care bill that is not going to go through but so many Democrats want it to go through, which would force all Americans, even pro-life Americans, to fund, through their taxpayer dollars, abortions. I think that's what lit the fuse for Dolan here in New York and the others who put out this manifesto.
Fact: The Senate bill explicitly prohibits federal funding of abortions not covered under The Hyde amendment

The Senate version of the health care bill requires the HHS secretary to ensure the public option uses "no Federal funds" in providing abortion coverage beyond Hyde. Section 1303(a)(1)(C) of the Senate bill, titled "Prohibition on federal funds for abortion services in community health insurance option" explains that the Health and Human Services secretary must ensure that "no Federal funds are used for such coverage" as outlined in Section 1303(a)(1)(B)(i).

That section is defined as "Abortion for which public funding is prohibited." The bill also states that if a "qualified health plan" offered under the Exchange provides coverage of abortion services for which public funding is banned, "the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable" to the subsidies created under the bill "for purposes of paying for such services" and must segregate funds for that purpose.

Fact: The House bill's Stupak amendment goes beyond Hyde amendment status quo

The Hyde Amendment "bans the use of federal dollars to pay for almost all abortions in a number of government programs." Prior to the addition of the Stupak Amendment, the bill already required that the public option be fully paid for by premiums and banned the use of affordability credits from the government for most abortions; thus, the bill banned the use of government money to directly pay for abortions.

So as you can see the great Bill O'Reilly was caught lying his right-wing ass off once again. And this is the man who claims he gets such high ratings because he tells the truth, when I document lies from him almost every day.

The Monday 11-23-09 O'Reilly/Palin Factor Review
By: Steve - November 24, 2009 - 8:10am

The TPM was called Conservative Comeback. Billy rambled on about how the right is making a comeback, and the left is on the way down. And as I predicted Billy cited the Palin book sales as an example of her star power. then he said Beck is also doing great because a lot of people are opposed to Obama. O'Reilly cited some polls on Obama, but he did say the economy will define Obama. Billy also cried about the price of the dollar, but when Bush was president he told the liberals that nobody cares about the price of the dollar, what a hypocrite.

Then O'Reilly had part 3 of the biased one sided Palin interview. Billy kissed her ass some more and talked about how the media attacked her. O'Reilly said she has been attacked more than any political figure in history, except for maybe Richard Nixon. Which is totally ridiculous, I guess he forgot about the 8 years of attacks on Bill Clinton, he was attacked way more than stupid Palin was. Somehow O'Reilly forgot all that, I guess it's his old age, or he needs to up the dosage on his meds.

Billy asked Palin why so may people hate her, and not just liberals, he cited Brooks calling Palin a joke. The crazy Palin said people hate her because they are scared the people will hear the opinion of the average America, as in her, haha, what a joke. Then Palin said she is not totally sure why so many people hate her. She kept calling herself the average American, and said everyone else was part of the elites. She also loved the tea party movement. Billy called that a good analysis, haha, proving he is a Palin ass kisser.

Then O'Reilly said she wants to lead the tea party movement, she said maybe, and Billy said I can tell you want to do it, and she pretty much said yes. And then he asked her a tough hard hitting journalistic question. Billy asked her if she was more happy being the Mayor of Wasilla, wow what a hard hitting question, not. Then Palin said read her book, and you will she that she is an average American who just wants to represent the everyday American. She said read it in her own words, when she did not even write the book, she had a ghost writer.

And the Palin interview was over, what a joke. O'Reilly kissed her ass and let her spin out her right-wing nonsense with almost no hard hitting questions, or follow up questions. He called it a tough policy interview, when it turned out to be a soft cupcake non-policy interview. O'Reilly just gave her a platform to run her PR con game on his braindead viewers who I'm sure loved every word she said.

The next segment was with Mary K. Ham and Dr. Marc Lamont Hill. They were on to talk about the so-called comeback from the right, and the Palin interview. Billy said the polls can go up and down and at the moment Obama is on the way down. Mary K. ham of course agreed with O'Reilly that the right is making a comeback. And she claims that most people agree with Beck and Palin, which is just insane, and nothing but right-wing propaganda. Dr. Hill disagreed with Ham, and cited polls that say the majority of people want the public option. Hill called Palin and Beck cult like figures, and O'Reilly said Obama could also be a cult like figure. Then O'Reilly said Beck and Palin could do the same thing Obama did, which is pure nonsense. Obama was a Senator, Beck is a fool with a talk show, and Palin is a dumb hick from Alaska. So they are nothing alike, and they can never do what Obama did, proving that O'Reilly is a total idiot when he said Beck and Palin could be just like Obama and do what he did. When only a right-wing moron would say a stupid statement like that.

Then O'Reilly had Scott Fenstermaker on to talk about the NY City terrorist trials. And of course he has still not had one Republican on to say he thinks it's ok, he just ignores it all. Fenstermaker is an attorney for one of the terrorists. Basically O'Reilly had him on to hammer the guy and trash him as un-American. He tried to get the attorney to say they were guilty and say they murdered people, he would not do that, he said the jury will decide that.

Billy called him a weasel for not saying they are murderers. O'Reilly said Fenstermaker was in deep trouble for representing the terrorists. The whole segment was ridiculous and a total waste of tv time. Billy said people hate you, and Fenstermaker said he don't care, and that he is not sure people hate him. Billy said, believe me they do, and I can forward you the e-mails to prove it. And btw, the people O'Reilly claims hate him, are him and his viewers. Somehow O'Reilly does not understand that the terrorists also get to have an attorney, and that you can not call them murders until they are found guilty.

The next segment was Secular America. Billy said Obama and most liberals are secular, then he had Ann Coulter on to discuss it. They talked about some religious/right-wing/conservative maifesto/doctrine that calls for civil revolt by a Colston and Dolan, and maybe even breaking laws. Coulter loved it, and said it was great. Billy said we are starting to see a bubbling up of religious leaders etc. speaking out.

Billy asked if they are too late to the party, and Coulter said I hope not. Of course she supports everything they do, even if it involves breaking the laws. O'Reilly said nothing, but when liberals break laws Billy says if we do not follow the law we have chaos. Yet somehow it's ok if religious right-wing nuts break laws, it's total hypocrisy and a double standard. And of course no Democrat was on to discuss it, just the crazy far right Ann Coulter. So much for fair and balanced.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about Bill Moyers retirement etc. They started with Palin, and is the right-wing making a comeback. Of course Goldberg said yes, with nobody there to give the counterpoint, it was just one mans opinion. Goldberg said the right is making a comeback because of Obama and his liberal policies.

But Goldberg did say he does not think Palin is the one to take the ball for the right and run with it. Goldberg said Palin did well in the O'Reilly interview and she came off as likeable, but not presidential. They talked about liberals hating Palin, Goldberg is shocked that they hate her so much. Billy said it's because she is good looking and pro-life. he is right about the pro-life part, but not about the liberals hate her because of her looks garbage.

Goldberg trashed Moyers, as expected. Goldberg said Moyers used to be a real journalist, but at some point Moyers stopped being a journalist and turned into a partisan. Which is just laughable, when O'Reilly and Goldberg are two of the biggest partisans in the business. It's like the pot calling the kettle black, it's ridiculous. O'Reilly said what killed Moyers was his Pastor Wright interview, when that was over a year ago, and it had nothing to do with his retirement.

Billy was totally speculating about Moyers retirement, even after he said he never speculates. Moyers has been a journalist for 30 years who won every journalism award there is, 5 or 6 times. And you have these two hacks (O'Reilly and Goldberg) who never won any journalism awards trashing him, what a fricking joke.

The last segment was the ridiculous reality check, where Billy plays clips of things people said (mostly liberals) then O'Reilly gives you his spin on what they said, or as he calls it, a reality check. In one reality check Billy cried about Martha Stewart calling Sarah Palin boring, confused, and dangerous. O'Reilly basically trashed Martha Stewart for saying the truth, to defend his favorite girl Sarah Palin, with no reality check. That's an example of the kind of nonsense you get in the Factor reality check segment.

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

O'Reilly/Palin Bush Doctrine Question Lies
By: Steve - November 23, 2009 - 11:00am

During the Palin interview with Bill O'Reilly last week he asked her about the Bush Doctrine question from Charlie Gibson. O'Reilly said that when Gibson asked her what the Bush Doctrine was, he thought that was a gotcha question because even he did not know what the Bush Doctrine was.

Guess what folks, O'Reilly was covering for Palin and lying his right-wing ass off. Because O'Reilly knew exactly what the Bush Doctrine was, he had discussed it on his show many many times.

In the Talking Points Memo from March 2004 Billy said the "Bush Doctrine is to take the fight to the terrorists."
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.
In a 2004 interview with Hans Blix, O'Reilly said that the Bush Doctrine was for removing terror regimes.
BLIX: No, but they -- the U.S. argument for going to war was not that Saddam should be taken out. It was that the weapons of mass destruction should be taken out.

O'REILLY: That's true. They didn't sell it the right way...


O'REILLY: ... but I think the Bush doctrine is...

BLIX: Well...

O'REILLY: ... remove terror regimes.
O'Reilly also talked about the Bush Doctrine with Ed Koch in January 2004.
KOCH: 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.

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.
And O'Reilly also talked about the Bush Doctrine in a 2005 discussion with Dick Morris.
O'REILLY: The speech was primarily concerned with justifying his action in Iraq. He spent about three-fourths of the speech talking about that in varying ways. He didn't mention the word "Iraq" once, but it was about that, wasn't it?

MORRIS: I think his speech was to articulate the Bush doctrine within which the Iraq War falls. But, I have to tell ya', Bill, that was the greatest inaugural address since John F. Kennedy's...

O'REILLY: Really?

MORRIS: ..and one of the 5 or 6 greatest of all time. It was beautiful. It was poetic. Those of you who didn't see it missed a lot. And it articulated a bold, new doctrine for American policy. It was a very substantive speech.
So O'Reilly knew exactly what the Bush Doctrine was, because he had discussed it in detail many times on his own show. Proving that he lied to cover for Sarah Palin, when he said he had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was. Almost everyone who follows politics knew what the Bush Doctrine was, even I knew what it was, as did O'Reilly and pretty much every journalist in America.

Angry Palin Supporters Boo Her At Book Signing
By: Steve - November 23, 2009 - 9:00am

Here is another Sarah Palin story you will never hear O'Reilly report. Last Thursday Sarah Palin was in Indiana for a book-signing. One thousand lucky fans with wristbands were told they could meet Palin and get their book signed, so they stood in the rain all day waiting for her to arrive. However, Palin quit the event before signing all the books, leaving 100 supporters out in the cold:
"I'm very disappointed. I think it was very rude. She could have at least apologized, and she didn't even do that, said Teresa Hedrick.

"We bought two books from Borders to get our wristband to get them signed," said one woman. "My books are going back to Borders tomorrow."

"We gave up our entire workday, stayed in the cold. My kids were crying," said one man. "They went home with my wife. She was out here in the freezing cold all day. I feel like I don't want to support Sarah."
People who didn't get to meet Palin went home only with a piece of paper with her signature. Video from the event shows angry wristband-holders loudly booing Palin and yelling, "Sign our books!" and "Quittin on the job!"

And you will never hear a word about any of that from Bill O'Reilly, because he loves Palin, and has a partisan bias for her.

America Rejecting Republican Fearmongering
By: Steve - November 23, 2009 - 8:30am

O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends say nobody wants to house the Gitmo prisoners in their State prisons, when that is a lie, and pure right-wing propaganda. Two States have said they want them, Michigan and Illinois.

Recently, the Liz Cheney-founded right-wing advocacy group Keep America Safe released a mini-documentary that features several residents of Standish, Michigan, speaking out against a possible transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay to a prison in the city. The video ominously warns that the transfer would turn the town into Guantanamo North, and claims that Standish residents are dead set against moving Guantanamo detainees to their city.

But the video poorly represents the views of the residents of Standish. He interviewed Standish City Manager Michael Moran, who dismissed Liz Cheney's fearmongering, and said the documentary was off base:
Standish's City Manager tells us that local leaders and residents want the facility, and dismissed Cheney's efforts as fearmongering. Cheney is certainly not representing the views of our community, the City Manager, Michael Moran said.

While some local residents do appear to have expressed mixed feelings or opposition to the plan, Moran says that they're an isolated minority that Ms. Cheney's video elevates out of proportion in a way that's off base.
FACT: The residents of Standish, like the residents of Thomson, Illinois, aren't afraid of housing terrorism suspects on U.S. soil. Last month, the Standish City Council voted 6 to 0 in support of a resolution asking the federal government to relocate Guantanamo prisoners to their city. Moving detainees to the city would help keep their prison facility open, which would guard against the loss of the 350 jobs provided by the jail.

More Obama Racism And Hate Ignored By O'Reilly
By: Steve - November 22, 2009 - 9:30am

On friday 11-20-09 a new birther billboard went up above Wolf Automotive off I-70 in Wheat Ridge, Colorado. The sign has a picture of President Obama wearing a turban, asking, President or Jihad? and exhorting, Wake up America! Remember Fort Hood:

ThinkProgress spoke with Phil Wolf, the owner of the car dealership. He said that the billboard is his personal project because he believes the American people have a right to know the facts about the president:
I'm probably like a lot of other people that have asked the question, I want to know who our president is. And to date, I don't think I know, I don't think a lot of people know, I don't think it's ever been asked -- answered.

When this Fort Hood massacre occurred, and I saw the response of our Commander in Chief to this unbelievable, politically correct, nonsense - to me it was just enough. And I wanted to bring a little bit more attention to this thing, because to me it just wasn't getting addressed.
Wolf even denied the billboard is making a racist comment, calling such a notion "absolutely hilarious" and pointing out that in the presidential election, he wrote in the name of conservative Alan Keyes.

In the past, Wolf's billboard has featured other birther designs, as well as regular advertisements for cars. ProgressNow Colorado has launched a campaign asking people to boycott Wolf's business.

And the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly has not said a word about it, and never will, you can bet on it. But when liberals did stuff like this to Bush O'Reilly reported on it every night.

Republican Billboard Calls For War Against Government
By: Steve - November 22, 2009 - 9:10am

New Missouri Billboard Tells Americans To Prepare For War Against The Government

O'Reilly claims that all this conspiracy/marxism/communism/etc. talk from Beck and other right-wing nuts on tv and the radio, is not doing anything but cause people to rally peacefully against Obama and his liberal policies. WRONG!

It ignores reality, and O'Reilly fails to report on any of it. He totally ignored the story of the big Beck fan, the woman who took a shotgun and a rifle, with 500 rounds of ammo, who was caught and arrested for taking pics of a military base. She said Beck told her Obama was going to use military bases to hold people who disagree with him politically, and she wrote that on her myspace page. O'Reilly never reported it, never said a word.

O'Reilly also mostly ignored the story of the Republican who shut up the liberal church, and said he wanted to kill all the liberals because they are ruining America. They found books by O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, and Goldberg in his house. O'Reilly mentioned the story in passing, but he never once talked about the man having books by him and other Republicans in his house.

And now we have another example of right-wing hate and fearmongering. But O'Reilly ignores it all, and pretends the hate from Beck and other Republicans is calling people to revolt in a civil war. Here is the proof O'Reilly, when will you do your job and report this garbage.

The Lafayette County (Republican Central Committee) is highlighting a new billboard in the state with steps for a citizens guide to revolution of a corrupt government.

It says if steps 1 & 2 fail, Prepare For war. And this is not just an average American citizen saying that, it's a Republican Political group. They are calling on their supporters to stop paying their taxes, and then if needed, go to war against the Government. And yet, O'Reilly says nothing.

At best, the sign is tasteless, at worst, it's treasonous. It certainly is unpatriotic for a political organization to lobby for the overthrow of the government.

Prepare for war seems pretty much to be advocating armed revolution. Since that's advocating treason, I'm not clear why this is something to put proudly on a billboard unless you're really planning for a new Timothy McVeigh moment or more.

When George W. Bush was president O'Reilly asked a guest if people that were protesting against him over the Iraq war etc. could be tried for sedition. The guest said no, because the Constitution protects the right of the people to peacefully assemble. Now we have this, and O'Reilly says nothing.

I believe it is sedition. From wikipedia: Sedition is a term of law which refers to overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws.

Sedition is considered a subversive act, and the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another.

Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually betraying one's country by aiding and abetting another state. Sedition laws somewhat equate to terrorism and public order laws.

What say you Billy?

More Conservative Hypocrisy On Terror Trials
By: Steve - November 21, 2009 - 12:10pm

As if you needed more proof O'Reilly and his conservative friends are total hypocrites with double standards, add Rudy Giuliani and Joe Scarborough to the list of conservative partisan hypocrites who cry about the KSM terrorism trial in New York.

From Simon Maloy at Media Matters:

On May 3, 2006, Bill O'Reilly led off his Fox News show with the sentencing of Zacarias Moussaoui, who was tried in civilian court and handed several consecutive life terms for his role in the September 11 terrorist attacks. According to O'Reilly: "The al Qaeda savage promptly thanked them by saying 'America, you lost. I won.

But like what most of this degenerate says, he is wrong. Moussaoui is condemned to rot in his cell until he dies, and Moussaoui will be denied any and all privileges." O'Reilly explained that "by not executing Moussaoui, the U.S.A. shows the world we are a nation of laws, a nation that puts power in the hands of regular folks."

Now fast-forward a few years -- the Democrats take control of the White House, and Obama announces he's bringing Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to New York to face trial before a civilian court. O'Reilly, who praised the civilian trial of Moussaoui, says of the decision to Bush White House adviser Karl Rove:
O'REILLY: "Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, that is a terrible decision. Because you know, I know, and everybody knows it's going to cost the city of New York between $75 and $100 million. These animals are going to get up there. They're going to lie. The lawyers are going to turn it into an anti-Bush, anti-CIA, anti-American extravaganza."
Just think about that for a moment -- O'Reilly, who praised the civilian prosecution of Moussaoui in 2006, while we had a Republican president, is complaining about the White House's civilian prosecution of Mohammed in 2009, when we have a Democratic president, to a person who was part of the White House that decided to prosecute Moussaoui in a civilian court.

O'Reilly wasn't the only person to pull the ol' Moussaoui/Mohammed switcheroo on Fox News. Former New York mayor and 9-11 enthusiast Rudy Giuliani appeared on Neil Cavuto's show last Friday to attack the Mohammed decision as a "terrible, terrible mistake," explaining that terrorists "should be prosecuted in a military tribunal."

Cavuto neglected to point out that in 2006, Giuliani said of the Moussaoui trial: "It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial, that we are exactly what we say we are. We are a nation of law."

Indeed, confusion abounded among conservatives everywhere. Morning Joe namesake Joe Scarborough declared it "unprecedented" to try a terrorism suspect in the U.S. judicial system. To his credit, Scarborough later corrected this false assertion.

No one expects conservatives to support President Obama, particularly on issues of national security. But is a little consistency too much to ask? Well, maybe consistency is too much -- how about something less than outright hypocrisy?


Dream on Simon, O'Reilly and all these right-wing nuts hate Obama, so they are going to be massive hypocrites with double standards for the next 3 to 7 years, as long as Obama is in office. They are going to smear Obama for any little thing they can think of, even if Bush or another Republican did the very same thing, as in the bow to a foreign leader.

And what makes it even worse is O'Reilly claims to be a nonpartisan independent, with a no spin zone, who has been fair to Obama. As he spends an hour a night, 5 days a week, having 95% Republican guests on to do non-stop attacks on everything Obama does. If that's being a nonpartisan independent with a no spin zone, I'm Elvis. It's ridiculous, and nothing but lies.

The hypocrisy and the double standards from O'Reilly and all his right-wing guests are off the charts. And yet, O'Reilly calls that being fair to Obama. I guess in O'Reillyworld it is, but nobody else believes that, because it's not true. I am pretty sure O'Reilly knows exactly what he is doing, and that he knows he is a partisan right-wing hack, but if by some chance he does not know it, then he really is crazy, and he needs to get some medication.

More Proof O'Reilly Is Biased On The Terror Trials
By: Steve - November 21, 2009 - 10:20am

Two Bush justice department officials say they support the terror trials in NY, a fact that O'Reilly has never mentioned. In fact, Billy has not had one Republican guest on the Factor, that supports the decision to put KSM and four other terrorists on trial in NY.

Saying that critics are "understating the criminal justice system's capacities," two top Bush Justice officials came out in support of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other Guantanamo detainees in federal court.

Writing in the Washington Post, Jim Comey, former deputy attorney general and U.S. attorney in Manhattan, and Jack Goldsmith, a former assistant attorney general who now teaches at Harvard Law School, wrote that the move is "unlikely to make New York a bigger target" and that civilian courts are a proven venue for terror trials. Here is part of what they said:
T]here is no question about the legitimacy of U.S. federal courts to incapacitate terrorists. Many of Holder's critics appear to have forgotten that the Bush administration used civilian courts to put away dozens of terrorists, including shoe bomber Richard Reid; al-Qaeda agent Jose Padilla; American Taliban John Walker Lindh; the Lackawanna Six; and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was prosecuted for the same conspiracy for which Mohammed is likely to be charged. Many of these terrorists are locked in a supermax prison in Colorado, never to be seen again.

In terrorist trials over the past 15 years, federal prosecutors and judges have gained extensive experience protecting intelligence sources and methods, limiting a defendant's ability to raise irrelevant issues and tightly controlling the courtroom.
Comey and Goldsmith are hardly the first conservatives to support Holder's faith in the U.S. justice system. In a joint statement prepared by the Constitution Project, David Keene, founder of American Conservative Union, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, and former representative and presidential candidate Bob Barr wrote this last Sunday:
"We are confident that the government can preserve national security without resorting to sweeping and radical departures from an American constitutional tradition that has served us effectively for over two centuries. The scare-mongering about these issues should stop."
And yet, O'Reilly does not report any of this, he just ignores it and pretends that only Democrats support the decision by AG Holder. It's bias, and dishonest journalism. Hey Billy, how come you do not mention this, or have any of those CONSERVATIVES on the Factor to discuss it. What say you?

The Friday 11-20-09 O'Reilly/Palin Factor Review
By: Steve - November 21, 2009 - 9:50am

The TPM was called Fact Checking Sarah Palin. O'Reilly basically used the short TPM to cry about AP using 11 people to fact check the Palin book. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Did you know that Associated Press, America's largest news wire service, used eleven reporters to check the accuracy of Sarah Palin's new book? Eleven! Barack Obama has had two best-selling books; the AP did not fact-check either one.

An AP spokesman says that's because then-Senator Obama wasn't a major player when his books came out. I know I am beating a dead industry here, but the blatant left-wing bias of the American press has reached critical mass. Even if you don't like Sarah Palin, you know she's been treated unfairly by the media. It shouldn't be happening in America.
So O'Reilly cries about AP bias in fact checking the Palin book, but not the Obama book, then he ignores everything they found, and never said a word about any of it. If they were biased in fact checking her book, and not the Obama book, he is biased too for ignoring what the AP found. The AP found 18 lies in the Palin book, guess how many O'Reilly talked about, zero, none. Yet he cries about the liberal bias at AP, when he was just as biased for ignoring what they found, and never reporting on it.

Instead of reporting the 18 lies they found in the Palin book, he ignores it all and complains about the liberal bias at AP for not fact checking the Obama book. I agree that AP should have fact checked the Obama book once he ran for president, but that does not mean O'Reilly should ignore the 18 lies the AP found in the Palin book, which is exactly what he did.

That's not objective nonpartisan journalism from a so-called independent, it's partisan bias, from O'Reilly. He's basically saying, I love Sarah Palin, and since the AP did not fact check the Obama book, I will not report on the 18 lies they found in the Palin book. So he ignored it all, and never said a word about any of it. What kind of a journalist does that, Bill O'Reilly the biased partisan Palin lover that's what kind.

Then O'Reilly had part 2 of the Palin interview, and I will not cover everything, because it would put people to sleep, but I will cover a few things.

Billy asked about her grade of Obama, she gave him a 4 out of 10. So clearly she does not like him, but she is a biased far right conservative so of course she is going to hate Obama. And why are we supposed to care what the stupid Sarah Palin thinks about Obama, her own approval rating is 23%, and 71% say she is not qualified to be the president, so why should anyone care what she thinks about anything. Basically O'Reilly asked the question so she could ramble on for 2 minutes trashing Obama, because Billy loves to have conservatives on his show to trash Obama. That was he gets Obama trashed, and he does not get his hands dirty, they basically do his dirty work for him. She more or less trashed Obama on everything, Afghanistan, health care, the economy, called him a socialist, etc.

O'Reilly pointed out that she said McCain did not smear Obama enough with Reverend Wright, Billy said it was an amusing part of her book. Amusing? To smear a man who was running for president on what someone else said, that's not amusing, it's unfair and ridiculous, yet O'Reilly thought it was amusing, because he did it too.
O'REILLY: One of the amusing points of your book for me was that you wanted to get Reverend Wright up there and ram it right down Barack Obama's throat. Why?

PALIN: Well, I believe that it is not negative campaigning or off base to call someone out on their associations, and Reverend Wright was a close associate of Barack Obama's for twenty years.
The crazy Palin does not think that is negative campaigning, note to Palin, yes it is you idiot. That statement alone proves that she is a moron, and it proves that O'Reilly is a Palin ass kisser because he never said anything about it, when he knows it is negative campaigning. O'Reilly just let her spin out this nonsense with no follow ups, or any calling her out for her lame answers like he would have to a Democrat.

Then Billy asked this tough hard hitting question, haha, not.
O'REILLY: Let me be very bold and fresh again. Do you believe that you are smart enough, incisive enough, intellectual enough, to handle the most powerful job in the world?

PALIN: I believe that I am because I have common sense and the values that are reflective of so many other Americans. I believe that what Americans are seeking is not the elitism, the kind of a spinelessness that perhaps is made up for with some kind of elite Ivy League education and a fat resume that's based on anything but hard work and private sector, free enterprise principles. Americans could be seeking something like that in positive change in their leadership. I'm not saying that that has to be me.
Basically she called president Obama a spineless elite Ivy Leaguer, and said she could be the president because she has common sense. Earth to Palin, you are a moron, and we want the president to be smart, unlike you and Bush who are not smart, we saw what happens when you elect a conservative dummy, aka George W. Bush, he ruins the country. You would be an even dumber and more conservative version of George W. Bush, and that is not what we want. Notice that O'Reilly said nothing after Palin gave her answer, he never mentioned any of her stupid statements, or her book lies, or anything. And btw, O'Reilly is a big religious guy, and yet he never said one word about Palin having the witch doctor give her a protection prayer, he just ignored it.

Then O'Reilly asked her about Iran, Afghanistan, China, etc. She agreed with O'Reilly that we should do a naval blockade of Iran, which is insane, and even the far right Karl Rove said that would be stupid, and it would be considered an act of war. Not to mention gas would go to $5.00 a gallon, or more, and it would crash our economy. It's clear that O'Reilly has coached Palin, or someone did, she gave all the right answers and said exactly what O'Reilly wanted her to say. I am guessing she spent the last year being coached to answer all these questions, just like a movie actor preparing for a movie. It's all a scam by the right to make Palin look smart enough to be the president, and O'Reilly is in on it big time.

Then O'Reilly actually had a Democrat on to talk about the Palin interview. Billy had the radio talk show host Leslie Marshall on to evaluate Sarah Palin's performance. Marshall said she would not give her a high grade because, in true politician form, she dodged almost every question O'Reilly asked her. Marshall also said he was not being specific with her answers. And that she dodged Iran, for example.

And then of course O'Reilly attacked Marshall, he questioned whether she was criticizing Palin on ideological grounds. Billy said he did not get the feeling she was dodging anything, and said Marshall just did not like her answers. When Marshall was right, and of course O'Reilly did not feel she was dodging the questions, because he loves Palin, and has even said he thinks she is qualified to be the president. Proving he is biased for Palin, and that he can not be objective because he loves her.

Then Geraldo was on to talk more about Fort Hood. Geraldo broke some big news about Hasan, he was visiting strip clubs, like who cares, and how is that news. Geraldo also said There will be a hearing in his hospital room to determine whether he should be held in pre-trial detention. He is conscious and he is paralyzed, and this is the beginning of what will be a very fascinating judicial saga that will ultimately result in his execution.

Then O'Reilly had the crazy Glenn Beck on to talk about his insane 9/12 project, and the price of Gold. Beck explained the nine principles and twelve values, the things that we all experienced on 9/12. He said the idea is that to save ourselves, we have to reconnect, not with politicians or politics, but with values and principles. That you need to feel that you're not alone, reach out to each other and you will find other people who feel like you do.

Beck also explained why he's become a gold bug. Beck said, "Gold is significantly over $1,000 an ounce because central banks around the world are selling dollars and buying gold. What do they know that we don't know? We've just hit $12 trillion in our national debt, and at some point the debt is unsustainable because the rest of the world is going to lose confidence in us."

So Beck is basically saying we are doomed, so buy gold. And O'Reilly said nothing, because BOTH Beck and O'Reilly have gold companies that buy advertising on their tv shows. Not to mention if a Democrat had said we are doomed under Bush O'Reilly would have called him an un-American traitor. But Beck says it and Billy loved it.

Then the dumbest things of the week garbage with Juliet Huddy and Greg Gutfeld. Huddy picked Bud Adams, owner of the Tennessee Titans football team. "The Titans were playing the Bills," Huddy said, "and Adams was up in his suite. He gave the fans a certain gesture and he was fined $250,000."

Gutfeld singled out a TV spot that uses young children to endorse health care reform. O'Reilly picked the folks who took the audio of Bill's argumentative interview with Barney Frank and edited it into footage of two monkeys jabbering.

And finally pinheads and patriots and the lame highly edited Factor e-mails. Billy hand picked some e-mails that said he did a great interview with Palin. And a couple that she he was too tough on her, wow are they stupid. The O'Reilly/Palin interview was a softball, not once did O'Reilly hammer Palin for the lies in her book, or the lying answers she gave him. It was a biased softball interview that made Palin look good, and if you can not see that you are a fool.

O'Reilly/Palin Part One was A Joke
By: Steve - November 20, 2009 - 12:10pm

So that's what constitutes a tough interview in Billys world. An interview in which Billy hands her leading questions with the defensive answers and anti-mainstream bias already built in for her to elaborate on. And if Couric had been out to get Palin, I think she would have asked Palin tougher and more controversial "gotcha" questions than wondering about her choice of reading materials.

Also, why the hell didn't Billy ask her about the claims from the McCain people and the fact checkers who are disputing so much of what she said in her book. A non cupcake interviewer would have asked her about these issues. There was opportunity in this interview for that line of questioning but Billy took a pass.

Basically O'Reilly kissed her ass and tried to guide her through the interview. We'll see if he gets tougher in the next segments. But I have my doubts, I just saw a teaser for tonight's segment in which Billy gets really tough on Palin and asks her if she thinks she can do the job of President. Wow, I wonder how she will answer that one, haha.

O'Reilly made an effort to have people believe this would be a tough interview, but he left some clues that showed what a sham it was. When he asked her what upset her most about the press treatment she received, notice how the news footage of Trig popped up instantly as she answered with her clearly prepared answer.

Billy had prepared her for these questions and you could tell she was ready for them. The O'Reilly staff had the video to accompany her answers all cued up right at the same time she answered. That shows that it was planned out ahead of time, so they must have rehearsed it and got the video cues set up.

At one point O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: "It's fair to say that you were over-controlled by the McCain people."
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't he supposed to be asking questions, not stating the answers for her. Not to mention, the McCain people dispute what Palin is saying, yet O'Reilly implies it is a fact, and never mentions that they disagree with Palin.

O'Reilly showed here what a Palin ass kisser he is when he said this, "You guys could have won the election, I think the press was against you, we all know that. Bush had a lot of trouble and that hurt the Republican ticket. But it was close."

Close, on what planet, 51 to 49 is close, 52 to 48 is close, but Obama won 53% to 46%, with Obama getting 365 electoral votes to McCain's 173. If that's close, I'm Donald Trump. And there is no way any Republican was going to win after 8 years of Bush/Cheney, that is a fact. A monkey could have been the Democratic candidate for president and he would have beat McCain/Palin.

What could have made it closer is if McCain had not picked Palin to be his VP, and actually picked someone who was qualified. Once he picked her it was clear Obama would win easily. But even if McCain had picked a qualified VP they would have still lost. The fact that O'Reilly thinks they could have won is just more proof what a right-wing idiot he is, because it was not close, and they had no chance to win.

What is also clear is that O'Reilly loves Palin, and he is going to help her in these interviews as much as he can. It will get him good ratings, but it will not help Palin, because everyone can see these Fox News interviews are a fraud, they are planned out ahead of time and taped. I have no proof, but I would bet she was given the questions ahead of time so she could have prepared answers ready to go. And I would not be surprised if they filmed it like a movie, with rehearsals and 2nd or 3rd takes until she got it right.

Notice that O'Reilly does not say the interview was not edited, or that she was not given the questions ahead of time, or that if she gave a bad answer she was not allowed to have a 2nd or 3rd take until she got it right. To me it looks like the whole thing is a scam to make Palin look smarter. Compare these interviews to how O'Reilly does an interview with Barney Frank, it's night and day. Palin does look a little smarter in these new interviews, but not much, and it's clear she has been coached up to be this good. It's all a fraud to make her look smart, and frankly I am offended by it. O'Reilly and his right-wing friends are trying to pull the wool over our eyes by propping her up and doing these rigged and taped interviews.

The New Sarah Palin Book Is Free To $9.00
By: Steve - November 20, 2009 - 9:20am

No doubt the new Sarah Palin book will be a bestseller, and conservatives like O'Reilly etc. will be bragging about how many books she has sold. But there is a lot of information they are not telling you, about the sales, and how it's getting on the bestseller listings.

Many conservative groups, think tanks, magazines, websites etc. have bought her book in bulk, thousands at a time. This makes you think real people are walking into a book store and buying her book. When that is mostly not the case, in fact, the vast majority of her book sales are from conservative groups like,, etc.

Right now as I type this, you can go to and get the Palin book free, with a 12 month subscription to their magazine. If you go to you can also get the Palin book free, with a 12 month subscription to their magazine. They have bought thousands of copies of the Palin book to give away, and to get it on the bestseller listings. This is how Republicans get their books on the bestseller listings, they cheat.

Not to mention, the Palin book was selling for $28.99, for one day. Now you can get it for $9.00 at, and $8.98 at walmart. The book was not selling very well at $28.99 so they have already dropped the price to less than $9.00.

Then last night the Jon Stewart show sent a staffer and a cameraman to a local book store, he asked if they had the new Sarah Palin book, they said yes. He said how many do you have, the man said 8, he said you mean 800 right, the man said no I mean 8, he also said they have not sold any, and that if they ever sell the 8 they have they do not plan to order any more.

And yet Fox News is running fake video from a year old Palin campaign rally, where they imply big crowds were at Palin book signings. While they never report one word about the free book giveways from Newsmax or, or the discounted prices, or any of that information.

And the great Bill O'Reilly is never going to report any of this, because they do the very same thing with his books. You can get an O'Reilly book for a dollar at the when you become a member of their website. O'Reilly and all his dishonest friends at Fox News are going to make you think all the Palin book sales are the result of a real person walking into a book store and paying $28.99 to get her book.

When it's all lies, yes she did sell a few books for real, but the vast majority of them were bought in bulk, for giveways, or they were bought for $9.00 or less, just one day after the book came out. And you will never hear a word of this from O'Reilly, or anyone at Fox News.

The Thursday 11-19-09 O'Reilly/Palin Factor Review
By: Steve - November 20, 2009 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Sarah Palins Importance. It was about Sarah Palin and the first part of the three part interview O'Reilly will have with her, Thursday, Friday, and Monday. He is showing it in three parts to drag it out and get big ratings for three nights, as Hannity did last night. And btw, the interview is not live, it's taped, just as her interview with Hannity was. So they could edit out any Palin screw ups that made her look bad. Here is my question, if she can not even handle a live interview, how in the hell could she possibly be qualified to be the president. What say you Billy?

Billy called it why Sarah Palin matters, proving once again that he is an in the tank for Palin right-wing partisan. Because nobody thinks Sarah Palin matters, except other right-wing stooges that like her. Billy called her a media star who matters, and thinks she could mount a serious run for president. There was not much of a TPM, he went right to the taped interview.

Billy called it a serious policy interview. But it started out with him saying during the campaign she wanted to do the Factor, but the McCain people would not let her. She said it was water under the bridge, yet she talks about it constantly, and cried about it in the book. O'Reilly said why not go to the McCain people and tell them to not mismanage you, she said she did not want to burden them. Then O'Reilly told her they could have won, and it was close, which is a joke, they had no chance, and it was not close.

Billy said her downfall was the Charlie Gibson Bush Doctrine question, and she called it a gotcha question. When it was not, and it was totally fair. Then he mentioned the Couric what newspapers do you read question, Billy said she blew it, and Palin admitted she did. O'Reilly asked Palin why she blew the Couric question, and Palin had no answer, she rambled on for 2 minutes with no answer that made no sense. Palin is just stupid, that's the answer. Palin thinks Couric was out to get her, my God she is an idiot. How is it out to get her by asking what newspapers she reads.

Then after the commercial Palin was back to put out more right-wing spin. Billy said the book will be a huge bestseller despite the liberal media that hates her. O'Reilly asked her if she knew the liberal media would come after her so much. She said no, and Billy said she should have known. So far there has been no policy questions, all crap about what happened in the last election, and how the media attacked her. Palin called herself a normal American, whatever that means, and said they went after her because she is a normal American, and I say that is just garbage. Billy called her a threat, and said that is why they fear her, which is ridiculous, because nobody fears her.

O'Reilly asked her what the worst personal attack was on her, and she said the attack on her disabled child. When it was not an attack on her child, it was an attack on her. Then O'Reilly asked her about the letterman jokes, and she said she did not like them. Where is the policy questions, none so far. And btw, Palin said she would not do the Letterman show. Billy asked her about Levi, not a policy question. So far the so-called tough interview is just fluff. Not one policy question, and it was over. The whole thing was just a free campaign ad for Palin, with pretty much no tough questions. Billy just let her spin out all her lies without calling her on any of it.

And btw, here is some Palin information for O'Reilly. A CBS News poll taken 4 days ago on 11-15-09 asked if you think Palin should run for President in 2012, overall 66% said no, 26% said yes. Among Republicans it was 48% no, and 44% yes, so most Republicans do not even want her to run. For Democrats it was 83% no, 9% yes, and Independents were 62% no, 26% yes. And yet O'Reilly said she matters, to who, right-wing partisans that's who, but nobody else. The same poll has the Palin approval at 23% positive and 38% negative, which is about the same numbers Bush had when he left office.

Yet O'Reilly loves her and thinks she would be a valid candidate for the White House in 2012, all I can say to that is give me some of what he is smoking, because that is crazy. Let's look at just how biased O'Reilly is for Sarah Palin. Nancy Pelosi has a 26% approval rating and O'Reilly says she should be voted out of office. But Sarah Palin is at 23% approval and he calls her a valid candidate for president in 2012, even after 71% of the people say she is not qualified. Now that's some big time bias, and a massive double standard. If Palin was a Democrat named Pelosi, O'Reilly would rip her to pieces and say she is an unqualified joke. But since she is a Republican and her name is Palin, he loves her and thinks she is qualified to be the president.

Then the far right (biased partisan) Bernie Goldberg was on to do the analysis of the O'Reilly/Palin interview. Huh? That's like having an employee do an analysis of his boss, because Goldberg is a regular on the Factor, so O'Reilly is sort of his boss. How in the hell is that an objective and nonpartisan analysis, answer, it's not. Billy has Bernie on to kiss his ass and tell him what a great and so-called tough interview he did with Palin. And of course Goldberg had nothing but praise for O'Reilly, and told him what a great job he did. Bernie said she came off as likeable but he is not sure she came off as presidential. The whole thing was a joke, the interview and the biased analysis.

Notice that O'Reilly did not have one Democrat on the show to talk about Palin, that's so he can protect her, he does not want any Democrats telling the truth about her. He only had Republicans on to talk about her because they love her, and Billy knows they will not be too hard on her, and not really tell the truth about her.

The next segment was with the two Republican culture warriors, Alisyn Camerota and Gretchen Carlson. And of course no Democratic culture warriors, just Hoover and Camerota. They cried about the Palin Newsweek cover showing her in shorts. Carlson thinks they did it to sell magazines, but she does think it was sexist. Camerota said it was shameless and big time sexism. Then Billy cried about a big sexy billboard ad in NY City, he did not like it. Camerota had almost no problem with it, Carlson had a big problem with it.

Then O'Reilly had the far right Laura Ingraham on to talk about the Obama health care bill. And of course she hates it, she hates everything Obama is doing. Because she is a biased partisan fool, so it's ridiculous to even have her on to answer a question you already know what her answer will be. And yet, that is exactly what O'Reilly does. He fills the show with right-wing partisans that agree with him. And btw, it will cost less than $900 Billion, it will have a public option, which O'Reilly predicted would never be in it. It also projects a $137 Billion deficit reduction, when O'Reilly said it would bankrupt the country. So he was pretty much wrong about all of it. Basically Ingraham is against it, what a shocker, not! At the end they trashed AARP for supporting the Obama health care plan.

The last segment was the ridiculous (only a reality check in Billy's mind) reality check. Billy plays video of something a liberal said, then he gives you what he calls a reality check on what they said. In reality, it's nothing more than O'Reilly's right-wing spin on what they said, so there is no reality. And half of them have no check, O'Reilly just reports it with no reality check.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And I only call it lame because usually O'Reilly names a Republican the patriot, and a Democrat the pinhead, so even that is biased. The fair thing to do would be to name a Republican patriot and pinhead each night, and a Democratic patriot and pinhead each night. But that would be fair, so O'Reilly does not do that.

O'Reilly/Palin Interview (Part 1) Tonight
By: Steve - November 19, 2009 - 11:50am

Tonight is part 1 of the 3 part O'Reilly Palin interview, she was on Hannity last night and not once did he mention any of the lies in her book. In fact, the Hannity/Palin interview was softball city, as everyone expected it would be from a right-wing Palin lover.

O'Reilly also loves Palin, as he has said many times. But he claims to be a nonpartisan independent journalist, so the question is, will he discuss any of the lies in her book, or ask her any tough questions with follow up questions. I am guessing no, he might ask her a couple semi-tough questions, but then he will probably not do any tough follow up questions, and he will probably just let her spin out her crazy answers.

O'Reilly claims he did not do a cupcake Palin interview, last night he had a short preview of the interview and had the body language bimbo discuss it. O'Reilly played a short clip of his nearly hour-long interview with Palin, and the body language bimbo was on to analyze their body language. Of course, she did not say that the interview was a softball, but in so many words she said Billy was not very hard on her.

O'REILLY: "Do you believe that you are smart enough, incisive enough, intellectual enough, to handle the most powerful job in the world?"

PALIN: "I believe that I am, because I have common sense, and I believe the values that are reflective of so many other American values."

Notice how O'Reilly worded the question, if Palin was a Democrat he would have said something like this. "Polls show that 71% of the people think you are not qualified to be the President, do you think you are qualified." And then if she said yes, he would follow up with "but the people say different, so how are they wrong," or something like that. But with Palin he simply asked her if she is qualified, and then let her answer with no follow up.

Reiman said Billy was trying to make sure that this came across as an interview not an interrogation, thumbs are power digits, Reiman told O'Reilly.

O'REILLY: "I tried to be very respectful to Sarah Palin, because so many people have given her a hard time and I didn't want to do that, but on the other hand I didn't want it to be a cupcake interview, and it wasn't."

So there it is in black and white, Billy said it was not a cupcake interview. And we will find out later tonight if he was lying or not. I am guessing he was lying, and that it was a cupcake interview. I bet he does not grill her as he would any Democrat, and I will have a report on the interview here.

O'Reilly Ignores All Bias At Fox News
By: Steve - November 19, 2009 - 11:00am

Every week O'Reilly does a weekdays with Bernie segment, he is Bernie (far right) Goldberg. O'Reilly has him on to do an entire segment (all alone) about media bias. But they never discuss any bias from anyone at Fox News, ever, not once. They only talk about what they call liberal bias at NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, The NY Times, etc.

They are basically the TV version of the biased Brent Bozell, and the ridiculous Media Research Center. They never find any conservative bias in the news, even though there are blogs and websites that document hundreds of examples of conservative media bias at Fox News every day. Billy and Bernie just ignore it all.

Even after O'Reilly recently claimed there is no bias at Fox News, and O'Reilly even called for people to send him examples of any bias, then he will report it. I have sent him examples of bias at Fox for 8 years, I also e-mail it to his Producers, and not once has he reported any of it.

Here are two more examples I e-mailed him about, and to this day O'Reilly has not said one word about it. Last week Hannity was caught using video footage from the 9-12 tea party protest where 75,000 people showed up, to claim it was the crowd at the Michelle Bachmann health care protest, where maybe 3,000 people showed up.

Neither O'Reilly or Goldberg said a word about it, even though they do a weekly media bias segment, and even after Jon Stewart busted Hannity for it. Hannity even did an on air apology for using the bogus footage, but only after Stewart reported it on his show. Now imagine what Billy and Bernie would say if someone like Keith Olbermann at MSNBC was caught doing the same thing. They would do half a segment on it and call Olbermann a biased fraud, but Hannity does it and they say nothing.

Then just yesterday Fox News was caught using bogus video footage again, this time to make it look like the crowds at Sarah Palin book signings were bigger than they actually were.

Yesterday Gregg Jarrett proudly announced that Sarah Palin is "continuing to draw huge crowds while she's promoting her brand new book. Take a look at these pictures just coming into us." But the pictures that they chose to display on-air wasthe old file footage of Palin rallies from the 2008 presidential campaign. Individuals in the crowd are seen holding McCain/Palin signs, and others are holding pom-poms and cheering wildly. "There's a crowd of folks," an enthused Jarrett observed, as the Fox News Network aired the old footage.

O'Reilly and Bernie said nothing, not a word. They have never discussed any bias at Fox News, not one time. Making the weekly Factor media bias segment, with the one sided biased right-wing Bernie Goldberg, a joke, a sham, and a total fraud. There is no Democratic media bias analyst to be on with Goldberg, and they never discuss any right-wing bias in the media.

And yet O'Reilly claims it is an honest and objective segment, and that he tells you the truth. When the reality is, it's just a one sided biased right-wing propaganda segment, where they only discuss what they have decided is liberal bias in the media. While all conservative media bias is ignored and never mentioned, even after O'Reilly said he will report it if people send him examples of right-wing bias, it never happens.

The Wednesday 11-18-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 19, 2009 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Tough Times For Mr. Obama. Billy said it's been a rough month for President Obama, then he said Obama is gonna have it even more rough when he gets back from Asia. Billy hammered Obama on the abortion issue in the health care bill, and cited the Constitution, the same Constitution he said he does not care about the other night. So he cites it when he wants to, as he claims he does not care about it. Billy hammered Obama for the NY terrorism trials, and said he needs to wise up. Then he pulled his he has been fair to Obama lies.

Then the crazy far right nut Dick Morris was on to talk politics, and basically smear and trash Obama. And of course no Democrat was on to provide any balance. Morris put out some crazy right-wing spin on the abortion issue, and the NY terrorism trials. Morris said Obama wants a circus trial, because it will make Bush look bad. Billy said he does not believe it, when he is saying the same damn thing. Billy said Morris is calling Obama an idiot, and Morris said he is a smart guy, but he's making mistakes, yeah according to Morris.

Morris predicted the health care bill will not pass, because the House will not pass the Senate bill, and the Senate will not pass the House bill. Which is ridiculous, because the two bills will be merged together into one bill in the committee. Then the crazy Morris said Obama is not running the country as the President of America, he is running it as the President of the world. Which is also ridiculous, Morris just makes this crap up and hopes someone believes it. Okay now get this, Billy claims Obama is screwing up on purpose because he only wants to be the President for four years, wow, hey Billy what happened to the no speculation zone. What a load of right-wing garbage, it's all fantasy land nonsense, and total speculation from two right-wing idiots. It's Glenn Beck land garbage.

Then O'Reilly hammered Sally Quinn for saying Palin uses religion too much. He had Quinn on to talk about it. She talked about the Palin book and said it's a lot of revenge on the people who complained about her in the past. Billy did not want to talk about that so he brought it back to religion. Then O'Reilly said he does not see anything wrong with Palin talking about religion. Quinn said she uses religion too much, and O'Reilly said she was going off the rails. It was basically O'Reilly defending Palin again, and her religious views. While at the same time he attacked someone who wrote some negative things about Palins religious views. And once again you have O'Reilly, who claims to be a nonpartisan independent, defending everything Palin does.

Then Karl Rove was on to talk about the AG Eric Holder being grilled about the NY terrorism trials at a Congressional hearing. Billy claims all the polls say the American people are opposed to having the terrorism trials in a federal court in NY, but those people probably do not know the laws. ANd we have already tried 195 terrorists in the federal courts. And of course Rove trashed Obama and Holder, Billy said Holder looked like a 3rd grader at the hearing today. What a shocker, two Republicans who hate Obama and do not want the trial to expose the torture by Bush are opposed to it. Rove also trashed the health care bill, as he always does.

The entire segment was another one sided biased right-wing propaganda segment. It's O'Reilly and Rove trashing everything Obama does, with no Democrat anywhere to give the counterpoint or provide any balance. Not one Democrat was on the entire show to defend Obama or anything he is doing, not one. And this is called fair and balanced, haha, what a fricking joke. It's all Republicans smearing Obama all the time. Where are the Democrats O'Reilly? Billy said the KSM thing is mind-boggling, then he said he will continue to cover the President fairly, huh? O'Reilly needs to seek mental help fast, if he think he covers the president fairly he is insane.

How is having Dick Morris, Karl Rove, and Dennis Miller on to trash and smear Obama covering him fairly? Billy has lost his mind.

The next segment was O'Reilly and the body language bimbo, and I refuse to report on this tabloid garbage. Then Dennis Miller was on to do his usual lame jokes about liberals like Pelosi and Barney Frank, and I also refuse to report on what he says because nobody cares but O'Reilly and his right-wing viewers. Miller said Obama has lost him with the KSM trial in NY, ummmm, who fricking cares if they lost Dennis Miller, what a moron. I'm sure the Obama administration cares that they have lost Dennis Miller, NOT! O'Reilly told Miller that Sarah Palin was the poster girl for regular people, wow is he fricking insane. Sarah Palin is the poster girl for far right nuts, not regular people, the regular people are opposed to Palin, and the polls show it.

Billy had a short preview of his Palin interview, that was taped btw, and not live. O'Reilly asked Palin if she thinks she is qualified to be the president, and she said yes. Wow is she stupid, and her answer proves it. Because nobody else thinks she is, and 71% say she is not qualified. The fact that she thinks she is smart enough to be president, proves how crazy she is, because she is a dope. Notice that all the Palin interviews on Fox are on tape, none of them are live. That is so they can edit out anything that makes her look bad, so if she can not even handle a live media interview, how in the hell could she handle being the fricking president. What say you Billy?

Then O'Reilly had Cheech and Chong on to talk about the legalization of marijuana. Billy said it should not be legal, and they said it should. Then he spent 4 minutes arguing with them using his crazy right-wing spin, and they were not buying it. Billy said if you make it legal more people will smoke it and more kids will get it. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. That statement proves that O'Reilly is an idiot, because anyone who wants to smoke pot is already smoking it.

The kids can already get it, as long as you have money. Legal or not, they get it now, so having it illegal is meaningless. The drug war started 30 years ago and you can get more drugs now then you could back then. Billy pulled the kid card and said some people get the pot and sell it to kids to buy harder drugs. Which may be true in 1 out of 100,000 cases, if that, most people who smoke pot buy it to smoke it. And if a kid wants some pot he will get it, all he has to do is have the money, so the O'Reilly kid argument is weak.

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

Billy Wins Silver & Gold In Worlds Worst Persons
By: Steve - November 18, 2009 - 1:00pm

Last night Keith Olbermann did not just name O'Reilly worst person in the world, he gave him the silver and the gold.

Olbermann slammed Bill-O The Clown, over his recent legal debate with Judge Andrew Napolitano, in which O'Reilly said, "I don't care about the constitution" and called Napolitano a "pinhead" when he invoked it.

Next, Olbermann slammed "Bill-O The Fraud," giving him the "Worst" crown over comments so irrational even the far right Glenn Beck had to disagree with them.

On Beck's radio program, O'Reilly predicted a "tax revolt" and said, "I think people, when they figure out how badly they're going to get hurt in the next few years, there's going to be a tea party on taxes and it's gonna get nasty. Nancy Pelosi's going to be bobbing up and down in Boston Harbor."

"I don't think that's necessary," Beck responded.

OLBERMANN: "If anybody else had said what O'Reilly had said about the Constitution and about, say, Speaker Hastert, O'Reilly would have called for their arrest!" Olbermann said, calling O'Reilly a fraud.

O'Reilly Busted For Using Biased MRC Media Study
By: Steve - November 18, 2009 - 11:20am

Once again the biased right-wing Bill O'Reilly used a biased and flawed media study from the Media Research Center, to claim the media has an unbalanced and unfair bias towards Sarah Palin. The study was done by the Culture & Media Institute, which is owned by the Media Research Center. L. Brent Bozell is the President, and they only find liberal bias in the news, while ignoring all the conservative bias. Bozell is a Fox News regular, and a big time Conservative, he has even stated that Fox News is the only fair and balanced news network in America.

Bozell and the MRC are a joke, and the laughing stock of media bias reporting. They are biased to the right big time, and nobody takes them serious except for other conservatives like Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly.

Tuesday night O'Reilly referenced a 2008 report by the Media Research Center's Culture & Media Institute, which claims that out of 69 stories on network news about Sarah Palin in the two-week period examined, 37 were negative, 30 were neutral and only two were positive. O'Reilly further complained, citing the report:
O'REILLY: "Twenty-one of the stories portrayed Sarah Palin as unintelligent and unqualified. Eight stories used clips from Saturday Night Live to ridicule her." O'Reilly added: "Is that kind of presentation an accident? No."
This so-called media study is biased and flawed, and I will point out why.

1) The report's scope was carefully limited to only the big three broadcast news networks, meaning they did not include the reporting on Palin during that time from Fox News, that was almost all positive. Making the study a biased Joke, not to mention they did not include CNN or MSNBC either. O'Reilly did not mention any of that information.

2) The so-called study only covered "the two weeks beginning September 29 and ending October 12," thus avoiding the period immediately following Palin's nomination and Republican National Convention speech, when news coverage of her was almost all positive. So when all the positive reporting on Palin started they ended their study. This was done on purpose to make the media coverage of her look as bad as possible. Making it a biased and flawed joke of a study, yet O'Reilly used it anyway.

3) The report conflated negative coverage with bias, scoring stories by negative, positive and neutral, then deciding that the network that ran the most negative stories versus neutral or positive ones was the "most biased." Despite suggesting that the negative stories were not factual or fair, no evidence is offered to support it. The report's basic premise is that all news about Palin must be balanced or positive, whether or not the facts call for it.

4) So when a media outlet reported that Palin did poorly in the Katie Couric interview, which is a fact, the MRC study counted that as negative bias against Palin, when it was simply reporting the facts. Because she did poorly in the Couric interview, she could not even name a newspaper she read, and said because you can see Russia from Alaska it gives her foreign policy experience. O'Reilly never mentioned any of that.

5) The report complained that "Most observers agree that Palin did not perform well in the Katie Couric interview, that the network coverage dwelled on the worst moments, making Palin look as unprepared and inexperienced as possible." After noting the focus on Palin's refusal to give a straight answer to Couric's question about what magazines and newspapers she read. But the report does not mention the fact that Palin could have avoided that kind of focus by simply giving a straight answer to the question.

This is a biased right-wing media study that simply can not be taken seriously, and must be seen through the MRC's pro-Palin, anti-media agenda. Brent Bozell and Bill O'Reilly both love Sarah Palin, O'Reilly has even called her a rock star and a valid candidate for President in 2012. While the rest of the country see her as an unqualified dummy. Polls show that 71% of the American people do not think she is qualified to be the President, and her approval rating is 23%, yet O'Reilly ignores all that to claim she is a qualified candidate.

Here is a reality check: Bozell does a biased media study about sarah Palin, then his buddy O'Reilly reports on it. This is done to try and help Sarah Palin get past the accurate impression people have that she is an unqualified dummy. Bozell and O'Reilly are trying to make people think Palin is actually a smart and qualified woman, and that the media just does a biased job of reporting on her. This is ridiculous, biased right-wing garbage, from Bozell and O'Reilly.

Sarah Palin is an unqualified dummy, that is a fact, we all saw it during the campaign. Why do you think the McCain campaign refsued to let her do media interviews for three weeks. Because they needed that time to try and coach her up to handle a media interview. They did a test interview with her and she failed it big time. So they needed a few weeks to coach her up, then they finally let her do them and look what happened. She was still a disaster, now just imagine how bad she was before they spent weeks coaching her.

Ever after the weeks and weeks of coaching she still made a fool out of herself in the ABC interview with Charlie Gibson, and the CBS interview with Katie Couric. And yet O'Reilly ignores all that, to spin out some biased and flawed media study from the right-wing Media Research Center. Now they are trying to give her a PR makeover, that somehow she is smart now and qualified to be the President, because far right Republicans love her.

Guess what folks, once a dummy always a dummy. Palin is a dummy, and as they say, you can not put lipstick on a pig and make it beautiful. That's what Bozell and O'Reilly are trying to do. They are trying to make people think Palin is actually smart and qualified, and that the media just put out biased reporting that make her look stupid.

It will not work, because the people have already decided she is a dummy. And the fact that O'Reilly is trying this dirty trick to help her, proves beyond a doubt that he is also a biased Republican. As he claims to be a nonpartisan independent, which is just laughable.

The Tuesday 11-17-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 18, 2009 - 9:40am

The TPM was called Sarah Palin Fear Factor. O'Reilly claims the left fears Sarah Palin. This is pure insanity, and only a total right-wing idiot would even claim that, the left does not fear Palin, they actually want her to run for President. Nobody on the left fears her, no-bo-dy. I am on the left and I hope she wins the Republican nomination for President in 2012, in fact, I pray she wins it. Then Obama will crush her, because her approval is 23%, and 71% of the people think she is not qualified to be the President. So I am begging the Republicans to nominate her, then she will lose by a mile to Obama. O'Reilly is an idiot, and nobody on the left fears Sarah Palin.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to discuss it. Colmes said he is not buying it, and that there is no fear. Colmes said it's not fear, it's amusement, people are amused by her, like a ride in an amusement park. Billy called Colmes a pinhead over his opinion. Crowley of course agreed with O'Reilly and claims that Sarah Palin is a great and powerful conservative, and if you believe that crap I have some land to sell you. Crowley loves Palin, just as O'Reilly does, and the whole thing is just pathetic. O'Reilly defended Palin, and said he loves her book, he also said she can be a valid candidate for President in 2012. Proving he is a right-wing nut, because only lunatic right-wingers like Palin.

And btw, notice that O'Reilly does not have one person from the McCain campaign to say what they thought of Palin. He does that on purpose because he does not want them to tell the truth about her on his show. O'Reilly only allows liberals to talk bad about Palin, so there is an impression that only liberals do not like her.

The next segment was about the terrorist trials in NY, Billy cited a CNN poll that said 64% of the people want them tried in military courts. O'Reilly had Charles Krauthammer on to discuss it, who of course agrees with O'Reilly, and no Democrat was on to give the counterpoint. Krauthammer spun out the usual right-wing propaganda that it's crazy to have the trials in a Federal court. This Krauthammer is a partisan right-wing nut, and anyone who puts this guy on the air is as crazy as he is. Billy loves him, and agrees with almost everything he says. Krauthammer is not an attorney, and he made a bunch of crazy arguments for having the trials in military courts. While Judge Napolitano knows the law and he said they should be tried in a Federal court, based on what the Constitution says.

Then O'Reilly had Richard Cohen on from the Southern Poverty Law Center to talk about Lou Dobbs leaving CNN. They claim they were part of the reason he left. Billy bet him $10,000 last July that CNN would never fire Lou Dobbs, and O'Reilly said last night he would pay that debt. Cohen claims they did get CNN to fire Lou Dobbs. They wrote to CNN and called them, and asked them to fire Lou Dobbs for all the lies he is putting out. Then O'Reilly trashed SPLC for getting Dobbs fired, he said what they do is fascist. O'Reilly also said he does not believe they got Dobbs fired, but that he will pay off on the bet anyway.

What's funny is O'Reilly calls their methods fascist, yet he did the very same thing when he called for ABC to fire Rosie from the View. O'Reilly did not like the things Rosie was saying so he called on ABC to fire her, which is the exact same thing the SPLC did. Yet he called them fascists for what they did, when he did the very same thing. Pot meet kettle.

Then John Stossel was on to trash Obama on the stimulus money, and how it was being spent. And of course Stossel and O'Reilly put out their right-wing spin on the stimulus, they found a typo and claimed it proves they found some bad stuff there. It was ridiculous, all they found were typos and clerical errors. This segment is a joke, it's just another excuse for O'Reilly to have another right-wing nut on to smear Obama. They found a couple errors at and claim the whole website is wrong, which is just ridiculous. And btw, it must be working because the economy is improving, and the stock market is up to 10,400, but O'Reilly and Stossel never report any of that.

The next segment was "is it legal" with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle. And of course they are both Republicans who work for Fox News, O'Reilly does not have a Democratic legal expert, just Republicans. They talked about Sec. Gates blocking the release of the other prisoner abuse photos. Then more garbage about the so-called war on Christmas, a public school told some kids they can not have Christmas items at a Holiday fair, Billy called it fascism. I refuse to even report on this right-wing nonsense.

Then they reported on a 5th grader who refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance because it says liberty and justice for all, but gays and lesbians can not marry, so there is no liberty and justice for all. The law says you can not force the kid to say it, and they agreed he has a right not to say it. The ACLU is involved now, and they are supporting the kid.

The last segment was the total waste of tv time Factor news quiz, with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum. Billy does 5 news questions for people who work at a news network, and then prizes (like Factor gear) are sent to the winners selected viewer. Then the pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited ridiculous Factor e-mails.

These e-mails are so fake, and so edited, it's laughable, last night a man wrote to tell O'Reilly he was so liberal he will not watch him anymore. Wow, if you think O'Reilly is liberal you are retarded, O'Reilly is 99% Republican. Yet he reads an e-mail calling him too liberal, which is about as ridiculous as it gets. It's insane for a viewer to imply it, and it's really insane for O'Reilly to read it on the air as if it's true.

O'Reilly Goes After Nancy Pelosi Again
By: Steve - November 17, 2009 - 9:30am

Glenn Beck had Bill O'Reilly on his radio show yesterday to promote their upcoming Bold & Fresh Insanity Tour, which will take the two right-wing spin doctors around the country to preach what they claims is the so-called truth.

When Beck brought up Dennis Miller's appearance on the O'Reilly Factor last week -- in which Miller warned of a coming insurrection, O'Reilly predicted a tax revolt that will get nasty and end up with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "bobbing up and down in the Boston Harbor."
BECK: Last week, I heard you say that -- you were on with Dennis Miller. You two were talking about an insurrection coming.

O'REILLY: Tax revolt.

BECK: He used the word insurrection. And not in a comedic way.

O'REILLY: Yeah, tax revolt. I think people, when they figure out how badly they're going to get hurt in the next few years, there's going to be a tea party on taxes and its gonna get nasty. Nancy Pelosi's going to be bobbing up and down in the Boston Harbor.
As dumb as Beck is even he knew that was a stupid thing to say, and he wanted no part of it. Beck said" "Uh, I don't think that's necessary."

This so-called tax revolt O'Reilly talks about is all in his warped mind. The only tax increase coming is on the wealthy who make over $250,000 a year, and that would only be 2 or 3 percent, which would just put the top Federal tax rate back to where it was under Bill Clinton.

And btw folks, in 1992 when Bill Clinton raised taxes 3 percent on people making over $250,000 a year, all the Republicans went nuts and said the economy would crash. They were wrong, over the next 8 years the economy added a record 22 million new jobs, and we had 8 years of economic boom.

Not to mention taxes have actually went down under Obama, a fact that O'Reilly totally ignores. Obama gave everyone a tax cut in the form of a rebate check, yet O'Reilly claims taxes have went up, which is just ridiculous and nothing but right-wing spin. The top Federal tax rate is 35%, the same as it was under George W. Bush, it has not went up at all.

There has not been any tax increase, none. It's all lies by Bill O'Reilly, Dennis Miller, and Glenn Beck. The Obama administration is talking about a tax increase on people who make over $250,000 a year, and having a tax on those same people in the health care plan, but none of that has happened, and may never happen. Even if it does happen, it will not take place for a year or more, and it will only be on people who make over $250,000 a year.

O'Reilly even claimed that Nancy Pelosi was going to raise the top Federal tax rate to 45%, but that is another total lie, it was just made up to make people hate her. So the reality is, there will be no tax revolt, and Pelosi will not be bobbing up and down in the Boston Harbor. As Obama promised in his campaign, he gave 95% of the people a tax cut. And the only people that can not admit that, are right-wing idiots like O'Reilly who want to make Obama look bad for partisan political reasons.

The Monday 11-16-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 17, 2009 - 8:30am

The TPM was called Dobbs Departure. Billy had Lou Dobbs on to discuss his leaving CNN. He showed a partial quote from a NY Times op-ed that said Dobbs leaving was a good thing. Billy also played a clip of a Dobbs impression from Saturday Night Live. And of course O'Reilly supports Dobbs 100 percent, because he is a Republican. Then he said it was a miracle he lasted as long as he did.

O'Reilly asked Dobbs about his ratings, said they were strong, then they dropped after he did the birther garbage. Dobbs defended his reporting, as you would expect him to. Folks this is not journalism, it's two Republicans sitting around spinning out their side of the story. Billy claims the left demonized Dobbs, but many Republicans also attacked Dobbs, like Geraldo and Stossel, funny how O'Reilly never mentioned any of that. Billy also claimed that Dobbs was forced out because Obama is in the white house, which is total speculation and Billy has no proof of that.

This interview was a joke, not once did O'Reilly mention all the lies and right-wing garbage Dobbs was reporting. He did mention the birther story, but that was about it. Dobbs was caught lying a hundred times, and O'Reilly never went into any of it. Basically O'Reilly gave his right-wing buddy Lou Dobbs air time to explain his quitting, with nobody to balance the segment or to give the other side. Dobbs said he might run for the Senate, and Billy said he would be a valid candidate. Then before the interview was over Dobbs trashed Obama, he said Obama is not doing a good job.

The next segment was more right-wing garbage about the NY terrorism trial of KSM and the other 4 terrorists. Billy said there is growing anger over the trials by SOME people, and that pressure is increasing on Obama to explain the situation. Which is ridiculous, the only growing anger is with right-wing idiots like O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. And the SOME people he refers to are REPUBLICAN hypocrites who had no problem when Bush tried a 9-11 terrorist in a Federal Court in 2006.

Billy played a clip of Charles Krauthammer from Fox News saying it was wrong, and a travesty, then he had Judge Napolitano on to discuss it. The judge said the Constitution says we must put them on trial in a Federal Court, and Billy said he does not care about the Constitution. The judge said the Constitution says you must be prosecuted in the district where the crime happened. Billy said it is a big mistake and they will make it into a circus to put the Bush administration on trial. The judge disagreed and said we prosecuted Moassoui in 2006 with no problems. O'Reilly said he does not care, and that he agrees with the crazy far right partisan pundit Charles Krauthammer, over a former judge who knows the law. Proving what a right-wing nut O'Reilly is.

Then Brit Hume was on to discuss it. Billy cried about Obama leaving the country before the trial announcement, Hume said it did not matter at all, but it did to O'Reilly. He said it was wrong for Obama to do it. Hume said he does not think the NY trials are a good idea, and that he would prefer military trials. These guys are clueless, and neither one is an attorney. They are just using it as a political attack on Obama, because they want to smear him any way they can. They pretend to be objective journalists, then they attack Obama for every little thing, it's all right-wing spin. The proof is that the only people who have a problem with the NY terrorism trials in a Federal Court are partisan right-wing fools that hate Obama.

And btw, have you noticed that not one Democrat has been on the show to give the other side, none. So much for fair and balanced, it's unfair and unbalanced partisan garbage. Hey Billy could you not find one Democrat in America to discuss it, what say you.

The next segment was about Sarah Palin and her book tour. Mostly it was about the coverage the media is giving her, not about what's in the book. Billy cried about the media coverage she is getting. Mary K. Ham and Ellis Henican were on to discuss it. Billy said this media tour would make or break Palin, Ham said maybe, and she agreed Palin was being unfairly attacked. Henican said it was important, and said Palin should stop crying about the way the media reports on her. Not once did O'Reilly mention any of the errors in the Palin book, because he loves her and covers up for her stupidity. Henican said Palin needs to stop playing the victim card.

Ham said Palin was treated unfairly by the media, which is ridiculous. Palin is a moron who could not even say what newspapers she reads, and that because she can see Russia from Alaska it gives her foreign policy experience. That is stupidity, and it shows that she is as dumb as a rock. Yet O'Reilly ignores all that to say she is a valid candidate for president in 2012. Billy also said he read the book and he loves it, then he predicted it will be a NY Times bestseller. Yeah because all the right-wing groups will buy thousands of copies to get it on the list, then give her books away because nobody in their right-wing will buy that garbage. And btw, the Palin book is only 5 chapters and filled with lies, yet Billy never reported any of that.

Then O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to discuss the media reporting of Palin. They trashed the media, Billy said the liberal media is hammering her, but he failed to mention David Brooks hammered her and he is a Republican. Goldberg agreed with O'Reilly, as he always does. He called it Palin Derangement Syndrome. Goldberg said the liberals hate her because she is just a regular middle of America woman, which is just insane. People hate her because she is unqualified, and stupid. Not to mention she is pro-life, and had a witch doctor give her a religious prayer to protect her.

Palin is a far right moron who is not qualified to be dog catcher, let alone president, 71% of the people say she is not qualified. O'Reilly and Goldberg ignore all that to claim they just hate her because she is not a liberal. Billy did mention that Brooks is a conservative, but he called him a so-called conservative. What he never mentioned is that the far right Charles Krauthammer also thinks Palin is a joke, and many other conservatives think the same thing, including many people who worked for John McCain. These two are biased right-wing idiots, they imply only liberals think Palin is not qualified, when many conservatives do too, they just ignore it or claim they are not real conservatives.

How about a reality check, a real one. Sarah Palin is a dope, a dummy, a moron, and only other far right morons like her. She was picked to be the VP for John McCain, simply because she is a woman, and the far right loved her. Once people heard her speak, and saw her do interviews she was exposed as a moron and a fraud. Everyone knows that now, except her far right supporters who are in denial. Even the McCain staff admit she was a disaster, and not qualified to be the VP, yet O'Reilly ignores that all to claim only liberals are attacking her. And the fact that O'Reilly loves her, and thinks she will be a valid candidate for president in 2012, proves beyond a doubt he is a far right nut.

The last segment was the ridiculous "no reality" reality check. Billy plays video clips of some liberal saying something, then he puts his spin on what they said. On the website it says Bill separates truth from fiction, which is just a lie. It's not reality, and usually there is no check. Basically it's just another segment where O'Reilly can spin out his right-wing opinions on what some liberal said, with no Democrat to question anything he said about them. So it's a totally unfair and unbalanced one sided segment.

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

O'Reilly Called President Obama "Pontius Pilate"
By: Steve - November 16, 2009 - 1:30pm

Today on the Glenn Beck radio program Bill O'Reilly called President Obama "Pontius Pilate" for standing by and washing his hands of the NYC terrorism trials. For people that do not know who that is, here is a short description.

Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judaea from 26 CE to 36 CE; in this capacity, he was responsible for the execution of Jesus of Nazareth.

O'Reilly Proves He Is A Biased Right-Wing Idiot Once Again
By: Steve - November 15, 2009 - 9:30am

Following Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to hold criminal trials for KSM and four other Gitmo detainees, conservative media figures have criticized the decision as a "disaster," "impossible to put into perspective" and only done to "satisfy the rabid radical far left that hates this country."

And Bill O'Reilly, the man who claims to be a nonpartisan independent with a no spin zone, agrees with those conservatives, as he almost always does. O'Reilly agrees with the conservatives about 99% of the time, that is not an independent, it's a Republican. I agree with the liberals 99% of the time so that makes me a Democrat. yet he continues with the lie that he is a nonpartisan independent. Last friday night he said this:
O'REILLY: "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Al Qaeda big shot involved in planning the 9/11 atrocities, is perhaps the biggest terrorist ever captured by America. For the past three years, Mohammed has been imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, where he should have been tried in front of a military tribunal. The man is a war criminal who killed thousands of civilians, and it's hard to believe the Obama administration doesn't understand that.

So now Mohammed will be tried in a New York civilian court, and Attorney General Eric Holder says he is 'quite confident' of a successful prosecution. Talking Points believes Mohammed will not be on trial - waterboarding and the CIA will be on trial. The exposition is likely to be a fiasco that will take years and cost tens of millions of dollars.

President Obama should explain this thoroughly; instead, the announcement is made while he is in Asia. Why didn't he wait until he got back? Because this is indefensible."
These conservative media figures (Including O'Reilly) are at odds with numerous retired generals, admirals, and legal experts, as well as numerous conservative scholars and officials, including Grover Norquist, Barry Goldwater, and David Keene.

The nonpartisan Constitution Project has said "Civilian federal courts are the proper forum for terrorism cases." They are a group of Republicans, Democrats, former members of Congress, diplomats, federal judges, prosecutors, high-level military and government officials, as well as national security experts.

From the Constitution Project's statement:
Over the last two decades, federal courts constituted under Article III of the U.S. Constitution have proven capable of trying a wide array of terrorism cases, without sacrificing either national security or fair trial standards.

Prosecutions for terrorism offenses can and should be handled by traditional federal courts, which operate under statutes and procedures that provide the tools necessary to try such complex cases. Moreover, the War Crimes Act explicitly gives federal courts jurisdiction to try certain war crimes.

We believe it is unconstitutional to detain indefinitely terrorism suspects in the United States without charge, either for the purposes of interrogation and intelligence-gathering or solely on the basis of suspected dangerousness. There are limited times when preventive detention, subject to required procedural protections, is appropriate in the context of armed conflict. However, the continued detention without charge of the detainees remaining in Guantanamo is not appropriate and is contrary to American values.
The declaration was signed by numerous retired generals, admirals, legal experts, and conservatives. Below is a partial list of signers, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform; former Rep. Thomas B. Evans Jr. (R-DE), former co-chairman of the Republican National Committee; Thomas Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union and board member of the National Rifle Association, and former Reps. Barry Goldwater (R-CA) and Bob Barr (R-GA).

Notice how O'Reilly reported the story. He only put conservatives like Karl Rove on that agree with him, he did not report a word about all the conservatives that disagree with him, let alone put any of them on the Factor. And of course he never said one word about the nonpartisan Constitution Project's statement that they should be tried in a civilian court.

On the morning before Friday's announcement, Mr. Holder called Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York and Gov. David Paterson of New York to inform them of his decision. Mr. Bloomberg said that he supported having the trial in the city, and that its police force could handle any security issues.

"It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered," Mr. Bloomberg said. And btw, Mayor Bloomberg is a Republican.

Holder said he decided to bring Mohammed and the other four before a civilian court rather than a military commission because of the nature of the undisclosed evidence against them, because the 9/11 victims were mostly civilians and because the attacks took place on U.S. soil.

Held at Guantanamo since 2006, Mohammed said in military proceedings there that he wanted to plead guilty and be executed to achieve what he views as martyrdom. In a letter from him released by the war crimes court, he referred to the attacks as a "noble victory" and urged U.S. authorities to "pass your sentence on me and give me no respite."

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the federal courts are capable of trying high-profile terrorism cases. "By trying them in our federal courts, we demonstrate to the world that the most powerful nation on earth also trusts its judicial system -- a system respected around the world," Leahy said.

O'Reilly also said all the 9-11 families are opposed to the trial in New York. Which is a flat out 100 percent lie, some families support it and some do not. The families who oppose it are Republicans, the families who support it are Democrats. And what a shocker, O'Reilly did not report any of that.

One 9-11 family member said this:
Valerie Lucznikowska, whose nephew died at the World Trade Center, said she wouldn't care if the suspects sounded off in court - as long as the victims families got to see them put on trial.

"What are words? It was a horrible thing to have 3,000 people killed," she said.
So as usual O'Reilly only reported one side of the story, the right-wing side, and left out a ton of facts. This is dishonest and biased journalism, and the bias is always to the right, you never see O'Reilly take the liberal position on any issue, and put out bias to the left, all his bias is to the right. O'Reilly implies that all Republicans oppose the civilian trials, when a lot of them support it. Billy does that on purpose to make it look like all Democrats support it and all Republicans oppose it. When it's a lie and he knows it.

Yet he claims to be a nonpartisan independent, while putting out 99% right-wing bias. I challenge anyone to show me one example where O'Reilly took the liberal position on an issue, then used left-wing spin to report it.

The Friday 11-13-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 14, 2009 - 9:40am

The TPM was called 9-11 Suspects Tried In New York. Billy cried like a baby over Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being tried in a civilian court in NY. He was foaming at the mouth mad that he will not be tried in a military tribunal, and because some of the torture Bush used might be exposed. O'Reilly slammed Obama for doing it, and said he must explain in detail why he is having the trial in a civilian court.

Earth to O'Reilly, you are a fricking right-wing idiot, and Obama does not have to explain anything to you. And btw, Eric Holder is the Attorney General, and he already explained it. The Supreme Court ruled two times that the military tribunal system Bush set up was flawed and not acceptable, so they have to try them in a civilian court, what part of that do you not understand. If you want to blame someone, blame your hero Georgw W. Bush for screwing it up, he had 3 years to get them in court and he did not do it. O'Reilly was mostly mad because his hero Bush is going to also be put on trial for using torture.

Then O'Reilly had the far right Karl Rove on to discuss it, who was in the Bush administration. So he is clearly not an objective person to give an analysis, yet O'Reilly put him on to spew out his right-wing propaganda anyway. Crazy Rove said this:
ROVE: "Civilian courts have rules designed for conventional crimes committed by conventional criminals. They're going to claim outrageous treatment and lie about it, and they will attack America throughout this episode, which will serve to recruit additional jihadists. The president and his sanctimonious attorney general did this on a Friday afternoon because it is a cowardly act that is not in the interest of the United States."
Which is all a load of right-wing garbage, it's a federal court, where a lot of big time criminals and terrorists have been tried. And what has served to recruit the most jihadists was Bush invading Iraq, not the KSM trial. They will have the trial and the man will be found guilty, then he will most likely get the death penalty. And all this crying about it from Rove and O'Reilly is total right-wing propaganda. They are just mad that the torture Bush used will be exposed, and it will make Bush look bad.

Then O'Reilly actually had two Democrats on to discuss it, Congressmen Anthony Weiner and Joe Sestak. Weiner said The more open this trial is the better, that this terrorist is finally going to be put on trial right here where he did his crime, and we're going to get the chance to show off the criminal justice system of the United States. We have the best system and the best prosecutors in the world. I want this guy put to death.

Sestak agreed that civilian courts are fully capable of handling the case. He said this is about justice. These men took down people and our court systems are strong enough to do this. And btw, during this segment O'Reilly constantly talked over both Congressman Weiner and Congressman Sestak. He would ask them a question and before they could get 10 words out O'Reilly would disagree and talk over them.

O'Reilly did this during the entire interview, so half the time you could not even hear what they were saying. And at least two times O'Reilly told them they could have the last word, then he cut them both off and talked over them. It was a terrible and biased interview from O'Reilly, and when he had Rove on he did not cut him off or talk over him one time. Then O'Reilly cried that KSM will use the trial as a platform: "His lawyers are going to make this trial about the CIA and the Bush administration. Every circus element of the trial will be front page news in Arabic newspapers around the world."

The next segment was with Col. Doug Burpee, a Muslim and a former Marine officer, who was asked if the Fort Hood shooter should be characterized as a Muslim terrorist. Burpee said:
BURPEE: "He is a terrorist of the worst kind, but I don't like the idea of using the word 'Muslim' as part of that. It gives credibility to the whack jobs of the world who have twisted some ideological aspect and have created a whole new religion. My community is deeply saddened by what has happened."
Burpee, who converted from Christianity, said his Islamic faith was not a barrier in the Marine Corps. But I have to point out that Burpee is white, and does not look Muslim at all. Not once did O'Reilly ask him if all the other people in the military even knew he was a Muslim, because if you did not ask him, you sure would not know by looking at him.

What O'Reilly did was dishonest, he found a white Muslim who was in the military, to go on the Factor and call Hasan a terrorist, and say his Muslim faith did not hurt him at all in the military. When Col. Burpee is white, and I would bet most people in the military did not even know he was a Muslim, and O'Reilly never once asked him if they all knew he was a muslim. Not to mention, even if they did know, a white Muslim is never going to get the same treatment as a brown skin Muslim looking man would get. The segment was dishonest and misleading.

Then Geraldo was on and he said it is ok to have the KSM trial in NY, Billy got screaming mad at him and they yelled at each other for a minute or so. Notice that O'Reilly cries like a baby that the Bush administration will be put on trial, that is what makes him mad the most. Then he tries to cover it up by saying the 9-11 families will hate it, when Geraldo said some 9-11 families are glad to see him on trial in NY., Billy dismissed that and basically said Geraldo was lying.
Rivera: "KSM will be justly brought to the scene of his horrible crime and convicted."
O'Reilly: "You're going to have a circus trial here where waterboarding, the CIA, and the Bush administration will be on trial. You know how much pain the 9/11 families are going to feel."
Rivera: "Justice will be done where it deserves to be done - in the shadow of the buildings they brought down."
O'Reilly: "Would you have brought Hermann Goering from Berlin to New York City to try him after World War II?"
Rivera: "Yes. I would have loved to see him stand before the relatives of those Jewish people and the other people he massacred."
O'Reilly: "That's crazy!"
Then the crazy "total lunatic" Glenn Beck was on. O'Reilly asked Beck to grade the president's handling of the Fort Hood atrocities. As if we care what Glenn Beck has to say about anything, only right-wing nuts listen to his crazy ass. Beck said this:
"As a politician he gets a B, but I think the man is in constant campaign mode, and I can't get past when he was giving a speech to Native Americans and it took him three minutes to get to the tragedy. There's just something wrong here, and I don't think he holds our armed forces in the same regard as many Americans."
So crazy Beck even had a problem with the speech Obama gave at the Fort Hood memorial service, proving he is a right-wing lunatic, because even most of the Fox News idiots said Obama gave a good speech. Then he speculated that Obama does not like the military, which is just ridiculous, and more proof that Beck is just an Obama hating partisan who will say anything to make Obama look bad. Hey Billy what happened to that no speculation rule, Beck said Obama hates the military and you never said a word, how about defending the president for once when these right-wing morons lie about Obama, you jackass.

Beck also announced the upcoming "Bold & Fresh Tour," featuring Beck and O'Reilly on the same stage. Beck said, "I'm going to get you all revved up, then Bill's going to come out and get you all revved up, and then we're coming out together and we'll go at it. I finally get to ask him the questions."

Wow, Beck and O'Reilly on tour, dumb and dumber are back. And if O'Reilly is a nonpartisan independent, why is he going on tour with a far right lunatic who hates Obama and everything he does. They even have a website on it where it says they are going to tell you the straight up truth, now that's funny. Because they are both lying, dishonest, right-wing spin doctors. They plan to go to four cities, and you have to buy tickets to these propaganda events. I would not go see that garbage if you paid me, and only right-wing fools will pay to see these two spin doctors talk to them.

Then O'Reilly had the Dumbest things of the week segment with Greg Gutfeld and Juliet Huddy. This garbage is not even worth reporting on. It's O'Reilly and two other right-wing stooges crying about something they thought was dumb, when the only thing dumb about it is this segment. And then the pinheads and patriots and the totally lame highly edited Factor e-mails.

The Thursday 11-12-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 13, 2009 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Media Inaccuracy. Billy attacked Brian Williams and most of the media with a study from the right-wing Culture And Media Institute, that said 85% of them did not mention the word terrorism when reporting on the Fort Hood shooting. So once again, instead of just reporting the story from his point of view, he spends half the time crying about the reporting from the rest of the media. And for a long time nobody was calling the shooting terrorism, so the whole thing was just ridiculous.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to of course agree with O'Reilly. With no Democrat or anyone to give the other side of the story. Goldberg said anyone that refuses to call it a terrorist act is dense. Then he said they were selling their journalistic soul, etc. Which is just laughable, coming from the biased right-wing nut Bernie Goldberg, who can barely spell journalist. Here is the deal, Goldberg and O'Reilly are biased right-wing partisan pretend journalists, and they see everything from a Republican point of view. So they criticize anyone in the media who does not slant the news with the same right-wing bias they have. Then they claim they are in the right, and everyone else is liberal and wrong.

When the truth is they are usually wrong, and they put their bias on everything. Hasan is a Muslim, and he shot up a military base. That does not make it terrorism, not yet, unless you can prove he was part of Al Qaeda or part of another terrorist group that had a plan to shoot up the base. That has not been proven yet, and until it is there is no reason to call it a terrorist act. Goldberg and O'Reilly can not seem to understand that. Until the investigation is done, and they have proven it was terrorism the media should not be calling it terrorism. O'Reilly should stop crying about it, and move on to reporting the news.

Notice that O'Reilly is getting a little higher than average ratings this week from his Fort Hood reporting, so he talks about the story every night. Basically he is exploiting the story for ratings, and most of his reporting is crying about how the rest of the media is reporting it. And btw, look at what the Factor show summary calls it, a massacre, which is what O'Reilly complains about the media calling it, when his website people are also calling it a massacre. Look at his show summarys since the shooting happened:
Thursday, November 5
Massacre at Fort Hood

Friday, November 6
Politics and the Fort Hood mass murder

Monday, November 9
The truth about the Fort Hood shooter

Tuesday, November 10
Memorial service for slain held at Fort Hood

Wednesday, November 11
The military and the massacre at Fort Hood

Thursday, November 12
The media and the Fort Hood massacre
Then after the crazy Goldberg was on, O'Reilly wasted another segment crying about how the rest of the media is covering the story. Billy had Nancy Gibbs from Time magazine on to discuss it. She agreed with O'Reilly that is is a terrrorist attack. O'Reilly loves this story because he is getting high ratings, and he can go after what he calls the liberal media for their reporting on the story. Gibbs wrote a big story about Hasan for Time magazine. Billy cried about the network news not calling it a terrorist attack. Gibbs said that is not a big deal, and O'Reilly said she was dodging the question. Billy said if the network news will not call it terrorism we are in big trouble, whatever that means.

The next segment was another attack on Obama for not making a decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan. Billy called it Chaos in Afghanistan. O'Reilly had K.T. McFarland and Nancy Soderberg on to discuss it. Billy said it's a complicated situation and he feels bad for Obama because it's a tough decision, then he attacked him by playing a clip of a woman saying Obama should send the troops. McFarland agrees with O'Reilly, and Soderberg said we need a better political strategy and that Karzai is corrupt. Then O'Reilly dismissed what she said, and said we must send the 40,000 troops. And btw, Soderberg was in the NSA under Clinton. Basically it was a 2 on 1 with the 2 Republicans against the 1 Democrat, and of course O'Reilly agreed with the Republican. Billy said he is not blaming Obama, but then he called him a weak leader for not sending the troops now.

Then the culture warriors, it was about conservative women getting criticized, Billy played a clip of Carrie Prejean crying that it's a double standard for conservative women. Gretchen Carlson and Megan McCain were on to discuss it. Carlson said women do have a harder time. In my opinion she is partly correct, but she is also wrong. Palin and Prejean got attacked for being stupid, and bigots. Just look at how Pelosi and Hillary Clinton get attakced.

I think it's ridiculous to say conservative women are attacked more, I think it's about equal for liberal and conservative women. The whole segment was ridiculous, and of course O'Reilly claimed conservative women are attacked more than liberal women. then they cried about a Carl's JR. commercial. The commercial implied all Italians are in the mafia, and I did not find it offensive, but Carl's JR. pulled the ad because some people complained. O'Reilly even said he did not find it offensive, I say get a sense of humor you old fools.

The next segment was the crazy far right Laura Ingraham. Ingraham said Pelosi did everything but sell her own body to get the bill passed. Billy said it was wrong to say it, and that if he had said it they would destroy him. Then Ingraham defended it by making a joke about what conservatives can say, or not say. And that liberals can say anything, but conservatives can not, and called it a double standard. O'Reilly even admitted there is a double standard, and pretty much agreed with Ingraham.

But he never really hammered her at all for saying it, he just sort of laughed it off and barely mentioned it. Ingraham called the people who criticize her and O'Reilly dweebs. Then they talked about some Acorn garbage, and the Fort Hood story. And of course Ingraham agreed with O'Reilly 100 percent. She said it was the first terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11. Then the two of them attacked the media for their reporting, it's like a broken record. O'Reilly just reports on the Fort Hood story over and over, because it gets good ratings from his mostly right-wing viewers.

Then the "no reality" reality check segment. Where Billy plays a bunch of clips of meaningless crap (mostly from liberals) then he says he does a reality check on what they said. When the real reality is he puts his right-wing spin on what they said, so there is no reality check, just O'Reilly spinning what they said. In two so-called checks Billy cried some more about the media attacking Sarah Palin, and then reported that Lou Dobbs quit his CNN show, how is that a reality check on anything, it's not.

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

O'Reilly Busted For Lies On California Tax
By: Steve - November 13, 2009 - 9:00am

Last week O'Reilly slammed California for allegedly withholding an additional 10% tax, he called it a "tax surcharge" and said it would be taken out of everyone's paycheck.
O'REILLY: "They're gangsters out there in Sacramento. They just come in and whack every working person with a 10% tax surcharge. Yeah, people might get it back after they file in April, the liberal legislature in California has destroyed the state economically and now they're stealing money from the folks to cover their horrendous mistakes, already Nancy Pelosi and her far-left crew want to raise the top federal tax rate to 45%, that's Fidel Castro stuff, confiscating wages that people honestly earn."
And now the truth, something O'Reilly knows nothing about. The State of California did increase the amount of state income tax withheld from paychecks by 10%. But it isn't really a tax increase. It certainly isn't a tax surcharge. It isn't stealing money from the folks. It isn't confiscating wages that people honestly earn.

And it isn't Fidel Castro stuff. As reported by the Sacramento Bee, it's a cash advance to the State by wage earners that gives the state some wiggle room in managing California's treasury, in a year that saw a titanic political battle to get a handle on the state's budget.

What O'Dummy failed to mention is that, as reported by the LA Times, wage earners can actually avoid this additional withholding by changing their withholding allowances with their employers.

According to the Sacramento Bee, the accelerated withholding program does not generate additional tax revenue. Instead, it front-loads it, bringing cash in more quickly in an effort to keep the state treasury stocked with funds, which is where the cash advance tag comes in. State officials have estimated that the move will generate an additional $1.7 billion in the current fiscal year.

The bottom line is that a worker's total annual income tax bill won't rise, and the amount owed at April 2010 tax time will be adjusted accordingly. The actual increase in state income tax is 0.25%.

As the LA Times noted, "a single taxpayer earning $51,000 a year with no dependents will pay an extra $4.40 a week, or $17.59 a month. A married person earning $90,000 with two dependents would receive $24.87 less in monthly pay.

And remember this, O'Reilly claims to tell you the truth. Is taking $4.40 more a week from you, then giving it back at a later time, Castro stuff? And I challenge O'Reilly to show me one statement by Pelosi that says she wants to raise the top federal tax rate to 45 percent. She never said it, and it's never going to happen, O'Reilly just made it up.

The Wednesday 11-11-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 12, 2009 - 8:50am

The TPM was called Military Controversy. The Army denies they were given information about Hasan talking to Al Qaeda. Billy said they must do an investigation. Then he declared once again that the Fort Hood shooting was terrorism, who decided it, he did. Hey Billy, what happened to we report you decide. What's really sad is O'Reilly played a clip of a couple Fox News analysts saying Obama gave a good speech at the memorial, and that it proves they are not biased against Obama. What a fricking joke, that does not cancel out the other 99% of the time Fox attacks Obama.

Then Dick Morris was on to discuss it. The crazy Dick Morris claims that the Fort Hood shooting was a terrorist attack, and that it happened under Obama so he is done. What a massive idiot he is, it was one man, in the military. It was not a terrorist attack, and anyone who says it is needs to be locked up in a padded room. A terrorist attack is on civilians, this was a man in the military attacking other people in the military. It's insane to call it a terrorist attack, the man was in the U.S. military for Gods sake.

These right-wing fools like Dick Morris are actually blaming Obama, Morris said Obama allowed it to happen because he is soft on terror. When this guy Hasan joined the military when Bush was the President, and the military is supposed to police their own people, the President has nothing to do with who the military sign up. Obama has nothing to do with it, yet here you have Dick Morris saying it's Obama's fault. This is insanity, and O'Reilly let that fool sit there and blame it on Obama. They should call him Dick (Beck) Morris, it was just ridiculous. The people to blame are in the military and the FBI, they let this guy Hasan go on about his business when they knew he could be trouble, so they are to blame not Obama.

Then O'Reilly had Sally Quinn on to discuss the Fort Hood shooting even more. O'Reilly spent the entire segment trying to force her to call it a terrorist act. She would not do it, and said it was complicated. Then at the very end of the segment Billy finally got her to say it was a terrorist act. But she said it in a sarcastic way, just to make O'Reilly happy, she was not being serious, and she was laughing as she said it. Then in the next segment with Ralph Nader O'Reilly said he got Sally quinn to admit it was a terrorist act, and he was serious, when she only admittted it in a sarcastic way, and she was not being serious. She said we should wait until the military and the FBI decide he is a terrorist, Billy said we already know he is, and 90% of the people watching him do too.

Billy had Ralph Nader on to discuss politics and terrorism. Billy asked Nader about the Fort Hood shooting, he wanted to know if Nader would call it terrorism. Nader said he will not call it a terrorist act, he called it a massacre, and said he will let the military decide what it is. O'Reilly is calling it a terrorist attack. Then Nader told O'Reilly he was not invited on to talk about terrorism, he was invited on to talk about his new book. So Billy tried to do a bait and switch on Nader and he would not fall for it. Then O'Reilly asked him again about the Fort Hood shooting, and Nader said he will only call it a massacre.

O'Reilly would not let it go, and kept talking about the Fort Hood shooting, even though Nader said he was not invited on to talk about it. Billy said Nader was dodging the issue, then repeated that statement 2 or 3 times trying to force Nader to answer him, and Nader got a little mad. Then he brought up how O'Reilly was wrong about Iraq, and that led to thousands of innocent people getting killed, so Billy admitted he was wrong and changed the subject real fast, then he told Nader to go ahead and talk about his book. Stupid O'Reilly tried to pull a bait and switch on Nader and he would not bite, haha, good for you Ralph. More guests should do what he did when O'Jackass pulls his bait and switch tricks.

The next segment was about the money for abortion in the Obama health care bill. And of course O'Reilly had two anti-abortion guests on to discuss it, Abby Johnson and Shawn Carney. With no pro-choice guests, making it a totally biased one sided right-wing segment. So once again O'Reilly the so-called nonpartisan independent has an unbalanced segment where only the right-wing positions are represented. A real journalist would have had at least one pro-choice guest on to balance the segment. Oh I almost forgot, O'Reilly is not a real journalist, he is a right-wing hack of a pretend journalist.

The next segment was "is it legal" with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle, both Republicans of course, O'Reilly does not have any Democratic is it legal analysts. Billy said he had 4 hot topics. The 1st one was about San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom saying he will report illegal immigrants to ICE, even though the board of supervisors voted to not report them. Gavin Newsom also used to be the husband of Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom. Billy called them a bunch of left-wing loons.

Then they reported on a guy in MA. who was fired for telling a lesbian her lifestyle is wrong. They worked in a book store, Wiehl and Guilfoyle say it was wrong to fire him. They have reports that he said more than that, which they barely mentioned. the store owner claims he violated their conduct policy. Then they talked about a Nicolas Cage lawsuit against his manager for losing all his money. Wiehl and Guilfoyle say Cage will lose the lawsuit. The last case was more tabloid garbage about Jennifer Lopez and her former husband.

Finally the "did you see that" segment with Jane Skinner. They talked about a Pat Robertson video where he slammed Islam. Jane said it was not a good thing to do, it just hurts more than it helps. O'Reilly also said it was not a smart thing to do. Basically O'Reilly and Skinner said it was wrong for Robertson to say it because it hurts us around the world, but they believe he is right, he just should not say it in public. Then they talked about the stupid video of the drunk woman almost getting run over by a subway train. Billy said someone should have jumped down on the tracks and saved her, haha, what an idiot. Jump in front of a moving train to save someone you do not know, I doubt it. This segment is lame, and I think the only reason O'Reilly does it is to have another hot blonde Republican woman from Fox News on to get ratings.

Then pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, Billy had the usual 7 Republicans to only 2 Democrats on the show.

O'Reilly & Col. Peters Promoting Muslim Fear
By: Steve - November 11, 2009 - 1:00pm

Last Sunday, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said he was concerned that the actions of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan may cause a backlash against Muslim soldiers, and Homeland Security Janet Napolitano warned against an anti-Muslim sentiment.

But even after all those warnings, last night O'Reilly said that it was good to try to win the hearts and minds of Muslims - but only because the U.S. can't kill them all. "Barack Obama wants to win hearts and minds in the Middle East and in the Muslim world, which is a good thing," said O'Reilly. Then he told Col. Peters this, "And you know that, as a soldier, we can't kill all the Muslims. So we want to win as many hearts and minds of good, moderate Muslims as we can."

A new poll shows that 57 percent of the American public is concerned that the shooting at Fort Hood will prompt a backlash against Muslims serving in the military. O'Reilly and Peters even said the good muslims should not be worried, except polls show they should be. So what does O'Reilly do, he puts the crazy far right Col. Ralph Peters on the Factor to demonize all Muslims and claim the shooting was terrorism.

Now if someone attacks a Muslim serving in the military, O'Reilly will claim he had nothing to do with it. Peters thinks all Muslims are terrorists, and yet O'Reilly puts him on the Factor as his military analyst, with no Democrat to provide the balance, even though he has Democratic General Wesley Clark he could put on with Peters. Instead of doing a balanced segment, O'Reilly has the crazy Col. peters on alone to fire up the fear machine against all Muslims.

The Tuesday 11-10-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 11, 2009 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Remembering The Victims. O'Reilly reported on the Fort Hood memorial service today, and played a clip of Obama speaking there. Then he attacked the media some more for their reporting on the story, he criticized Chris Matthews at MSNBC, and many others. Then O'Reilly said he has reported the story correctly, by calling Hasan a terrorist. Most of the TPM was attacking the media for their reporting on the story.

Then O'Reilly had crazy Col. Ralph Peters on again to comment on the memorial. And of course Peters used it to smear Obama, when all he did was give a speech at the memorial. This nut Peters is an Obama hater who never has anything good to say about him, even when he gives a speech at a memorial. Then O'Reilly gave his take on why Hasan did the shooting. Basically O'Reilly and Peters spent most of the segment crying about the Government and the media being too politically correct.

They also talked about the Army knowing about Hasan, Peters said it was political correctness gone mad in the Army. Peters claimed Hasan was left alone because he is a muslim and they were afraid to be accused of racism, etc. Peters also attacked General Casey for being too politically correct.

The next segment was Barack and a Hard Place with Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes. Colmes said we do not know if it is terrorism yet. O'Reilly said he has decided it was terrorism, Colmes said why do you get to decide, and O'Reilly said because he has the #1 rated show. O'Reilly also compared th Fort Hood shooting for Obama to Katrina for Bush, when that is crazy, and it's no comparison at all. Bush let people die after a flood for days before ding anything, all Obama did was give a speech, he did not let anyone die. So the comparison is insane, and only a right-wing nut would make such a ridiculous comparison.

And of course Crowley went nuts and agreed with O'Reilly. Colmes said Crowley is doing a shameless attack on Obama by using the shooting to attack the President. Obama had nothing to do with it, and Colmes is right, it's shameless to use the shooting to attack Obama for it. Proving Crowley is a far right lunatic. Colmes made a lot of good points, for once. O'Reilly and Crowley sounded like the right-wing biased idiots they are. Only far right spin doctors are saying Obama is partly to blame, that includes O'Reilly and Crowley.

Then O'Reilly put the insane Ann Coulter on next. She made some ridiculous comparison between the abortion doctor Tiller who was killed, and the Fort Hood shooting. And O'Reilly put this right-wing nut on to spew out that garbage, so he is as bad as she is. Coulter wrote a column about the Fort Hood shooting. And my God was it insane, she compared the quotes from Obama after the Tiller murder, to his quotes from after the Fort Hood shooting. As usual Coulter made no sense, and she just put some crazy right-wing spin on what Obama said to trash him somehow. It truly made no sense at all, and Coulter is an insane lunatic. Putting her on is insane, and only another right-wing idiot would have her on any news show.

The next segment was with John Stossel, It looks like he is a regular now. Stossel was on to talk about taxes and the the management of States like California and New York. Billy wants to know what we can do about States that do not manage their money well, and then charge too much in taxes. It was basically two right-wing millionaires sitting around crying about taxes that are too high. With no Democrat anywhere in sight to provide the balance. Billy claims there is going to be a tax revolt, and Stossel said he doubts it. O'Reilly said before Obama is out of office there will be a tax revolt in America, and once again Stossel said he doubts it will ever happen.

Then Dennis Miller was on to tell some unfunny jokes about liberals and Democrats, the usual right-wing garbage, Miller makes jokes about Pelosi and usually Barney Frank, and then O'Reilly laughs at his unfunny jokes. And of course they made a ton of jokes about Barney Franks boyfriend getting busted for pot. Not to mention there is no liberal comedian on to make jokes about Republicans, so Miller is on alone to make jokes about liberals. Making it just another biased one sided right-wing O'Reilly Factor segment with no balance at all. Miller gives his opinion of political issues, why, who cares what Dennis Miller thinks about anything.

The last segment was the Great American News Quiz with Steve Doocy and Harris Faulkner. It's a waste of time news quiz that has no news value at all. Then the pinheads and patriots and the highly edited Factor e-mail segment. And what a shocker, 7 Republican guests to 1 Democratic guest. Alan Colmes was the only Democrat on the entire show, an he was on with Monica Crowley, so he had to split his time with Crowley and O'Reilly.

Factor Stooge Brit Hume Caught Lying About Stimulus
By: Steve - November 10, 2009 - 10:00am

The great Brit Hume was caught lying about the Obama stimulus bill, he claims it did not have any tax cuts in it, and that if it had some Republicans would have voted for it. Which is a lie, and he knows it. O'Reilly puts him on the Factor as an objetive nonpartisan news analyst, which is a fricking joke, because Hume is a biased Republican who puts a right-wing bias on everything, and even lies to make Obama look bad, just as all Republican are doing, including O'Reilly himself.

Brit Hume claimed that if President Obama included tax cuts with the stimulus bill's "spending extravaganza," it "would have attracted Republican votes."

From the November 9 broadcast of Special Report with Bret Baier:
HUME: On the main issues of this year -- the economic stimulus package and the Obama health care plan -- Republicans have stood in near unanimous opposition while Democrats have struggled to round up votes despite their large majorities in both houses.

The person most responsible for this is no Republican leader, but President Obama himself. His policies have made it easy for Republicans of all stripes to oppose him. Just think how different it would have been if the President had insisted on mixing in some tax cuts with that spending extravaganza in the stimulus bill. That would have attracted Republican votes, allowed the President to claim a bipartisan victory, and provided the Democrats some political cover, not to mention some potential economic benefits.
Fact: The $787 Billion American Recovery And Reinvestment Act Included $288 Billion In Tax Cuts

The recovery act contained $288 billion in tax relief, including the Making Work Pay tax credit, an annual credit of $400 per individual or $800 for families. In addition, the recovery act included a temporary increase in the earned income tax credit, a temporary increase in the refundable portion of the child tax credit, an increase in the first-time homebuyer tax credit, and tax incentives for businesses.

And btw, Republicans said they would all vote no on the Obama stimulus bill no matter what it had in it. That was their plan, to vote no and hope it does not work, then they could say they all voted no and they knew it would not work. It was a political strategy, they all vote no and hope it fails, then they say Obama does not know what he is doing so you should vote him out of office in 2012. Brit Hume knows that, yet he lied about it anyway. If he is a nonpartisan, I'm Donald Trump.

O'Reilly Is A Giant Right-Wing Idiot
By: Steve - November 10, 2009 - 9:00am

Last night O'Reilly did a segment about President Obama talking about the grades one of his children had on a test. During the segment O'Reilly said he had no problem with it, and as far as I can see almost nobody else had a problem with it either. And yet, O'Reilly still did a 6 minute segment on it with some crazy right-wing nut job guest who somehow found a problem with it.

O'Reilly had some far right psychologist Michelle Golland on to talk about it. Here is the video.

By the way folks, every guest on the Factor does a pre-interview with a Producer. So they know what the guest is going to say before they even let them on the show. And yet, even after O'Reilly said he had no problem with Obama talking about one of his kids grades in a speech, O'Reilly still put this right-wing nut on to criticize Obama for it. It's called bias, over ridiculous garbage nobody cares about, it's making a negative story about Obama where there is no story, and then he wonders why Obama does not like Fox News.

NY Post Circulation Down 30 Percent
By: Steve - November 10, 2009 - 8:50am

O'Reilly has said many many times that the liberal papers like the NY Times are losing readers because they have a liberal bias, and yet the NY Post has lost 30% of their readers in the last 2.5 years and O'Reilly says nothing. In fact, the right-wing NY Post has lost more readers than the NY Times, here is a quote from a NY Times article on newspaper declines.
Nearly every paper in America has lost circulation, but The Post more than most -- down almost 30 percent in 2.5 years, to 508,000 in the most recent reporting period."
Not only does the article show that almost every paper in America has lost readers over the last year or two, it shows that O'Reilly is biased to the right in his reporting on it. Billy claimed that only liberal newspapers were losing readers, and he said they were leaving because they have a liberal bias. When we know that's a lie, and that all newspapers are reporting declines. Then on top of that the right-wing NY Post has lost more readers than the NY Times or any other liberal papers.

That is not just an accident, or a simple mistake from O'Reilly. It's dishonest and biased journalism, done on purpose to make people think readers are leaving all the liberal papers because of their bias. And the proof is right in your face, just watch the Factor, and you will see that O'Reilly never says one word about the 30% drop in circulation at the NY Post, or any other right-wing newspaper.

The Monday 11-9-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 10, 2009 - 8:30am

The TPM was called Fort Hood Investigation. Billy said ABC News is out front on the story, they reported Hasan may have tried to contact someone in Al Qaeda. Billy also called for people to be careful in attacking all muslims, then he played a clip of General Casey saying you should not be demonizing all muslims. O'Reilly said lose the political correctness and get to the bottom of the story.

Then O'Reilly had Brian Ross from ABC News on to discuss it. Brian said Hasan was caught talking to some muslims who might be in Al Qaeda, and the Army knew about it. Billy called it amazing, and asked why they did not grab Hasan and put him in custody. But nobody knows the answer to that yet. Brian said they have evidence that Hasan was promoting jihad, and calling for muslims to rise up. Billy was stunned they did not grab Hasan, as am I, he called it troubling, and I agree. I think the Army should have grabbed the guy and put him in custody, they dropped the ball.

Then O'Reilly had Brit Hume on to discuss the House passing the Obama health care bill with 220 to 215. And of course no Democrat on to discuss it, just O'Reilly and Hume. They claim it is DOA in the Senate, based on what one Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said, and on what the traitor Joe Lieberman said. Billy claims Hume has the inside story on the bill. Hume said the House bill means nothing, and that it will only matter if it passes in the Senate. Then O'Reilly said all the polls say the people are against the public option, which is a total lie.

Hume pointed out that some polls favor the public option, depending how the question is worded. Showing that O'Reilly was lying, yet he never said a word about Hume busting him on his lie. O'Reilly also said the bill could bankrupt the country, which is another lie, because it is budget neutral. And what's really funny is we spent Trillions on wars over the last 8 years and Billy never says that could bankrupt the country. It's just more right-wing propaganda to try and fool people into opposing the bill. And what else is so funny is during the Bush years when Democrats complained about the deficit, people like O'Reilly said nobody cares about the deficit. Now all the sudden Hume and O'Reilly claim we must worry about the deficit, but when a Republican was in power they said who cares about the deficit.

The next segment was about Iran, Billy claims Iran has insulted Obama once again. O'Reilly cited the right-wing Marc Lamont Hill and Mary K. Ham were on to discuss it. And btw, Hill is back on Fox to report on things, even though they fired him, and O'Reilly never said a word about it. So of course Ham said it's an embarrassment to Obama, and Dr. Hill disagreed. He said it was too soon to think about military action against Iran. billy said if we bomb them it will cause big problames, and maybe even start another war. Billy asked Ham what we can do, and she had no answer.

Dr. Hill said draw a hard line in the sand and continue the sanctions, Billy said sanctions do not work. O'Reilly admitted if you bomb Iran it could start a world war and oil prices will double, which would be devastating to the world economy, yet O'Reilly still wants to bomb them or do a naval blockade. Dr. Hill disagreed, and made fun of O'Reilly for calling on a naval blockade of Iran, because that would also be an act of war. Then crazy O'Reilly said he is just trying to protect Dr. Hill form a nuclear bomb, in a smart ass way, Hill laughed and said I appreciate that. Hill basically called him a nut, in a kind way, for the crazy naval blockade talk, the talk that even Karl Rove said would be an act of war and also double oil prices.

Then O'Reilly had a lame segment about President Obama talking about his kids grades, Billy somehow says that was wrong, and that he should not talk about anything his kids do. This segment is ridiculous and a total waste of time. O'Reilly had a psychologist on to discuss it, Michelle Golland, she was opposed to what Obama did, making her a total idiot. Not to mention O'Reilly said he did not have a problem with it, so if that's true why in the hell do you have an entire segment on it with some crazy psychologist. What a total waste of tv time, it's not news, and it has no news value at all. O'Reilly just put this nut on to criticize Obama, for something nobody cares about.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to discuss the media coverage of the Fort Hood story etc. And of course no Democrat on in this segment either. There is no Democrat media analyst on the Factor, just Bernie Goldberg. Bernie is upset about how the media is covering the Fort Hood story. yeah because he is a biased Republican, and he does not like any reporting that does not have a right-wing bias. And btw, O'Reilly used to have a Democrat media analyst on with Goldberg, Jane Hall, but he got rid of her because he wanted only right-wing spin from Bernie. And he never tells anyone she used to be there, he just dumped her about a year ago and never said a word about it.

Goldberg put out the usual right-wing garbage on the Fort Hood story. With nobody from the other side to provide any balance. They trashed Evan Thomas for saying he might have just been a nut, even though O'Reilly admitted he is an honest reporter. Goldberg called him part of the lamestream media. Bernie is mad that everyone he claims are liberals in the mainstream media do not call him a muslim terrorist. But I saw Tucker Carlson say the exact same thing. They said we have to wait until the investigation is done before we call him a muslim terrorist. But neither O'Reilly or Goldberg ever mention any of that. They claim only liberals are saying it, when it's a lie.

The last segment was the bogus "no reality" O'Reilly reality check segment. One check was about the SNL skit that spoofed Fox News and their bias, O'Reilly cried about it and said he dissents, and was just glad they did not pick on him. I saw it, and it was so accurate I could barely tell it was a comedy skit. I would say it was almost like watching the real thing. The other so-called reality checks were just lame and not even worth reporting. One check was the O'Reilly website poll on who could beat Obama in 2012, Palin won with 30%, Huckabee was 2nd with 29%, proving his virewers are right-wing nuts.

And btw, that Factor poll proves that most of O'Reilly's website visitors are right-wing nuts, because polls of average Americans say 71% do not think Palin is qualified to be President, yet his viewers put her at number one. Then the ridiculous pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited/hand picked Factor e-mails.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About House Ethics Committee
By: Steve - November 8, 2009 - 9:20am

On Thursday 11-6-09 O'Reilly said this during an interview with Al Sharpton:
O'REILLY: You know, the ethics committee is run by a Democrat. The majority of people on there are Democrats. They have liberal people on there.
Fact: That is a lie, I found this in 2 seconds at ( by doing a simple google search.

Democrats Republicans
1) Zoe Lofgren
2) Ben Chandler
3) G.K. Butterfield
4) Kathy Castor
5) Peter Welch
1) Jo Bonner
2) Mike Conaway
3) Charles Dent
4) Gregg Harper
5) Michael McCaul

As you can see, O'Reilly was lying his right-wing ass off when he said the majority of people are Democrats, the House Ethics Committee has exactly 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans.

Later in the interview O'Reilly said this:
SHARPTON: How many times have I heard allegations against my organization? It ended up being absolutely nothing? But if you get enough of these guys to beat the drums, they cost you a lot of money in legal fees. You don't even get the news story saying you were cleared.

O'REILLY: They haven't even removed Rangel from the chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee.

SHARPTON: Nor should they, because nothing's been proven.

O'REILLY: But they could say why don't you step aside while we investigate. And then if it's clean, you can come back in as the chairman.

SHARPTON: I disagree. I think if we had everybody step aside with an allegation we wouldn't have any chairmans in the House.
What a ridiculous statement from O'Reilly, he wants the House Ethics Committee to remove Charlie Rangel from his Chairmanship, before he has been proven guilty of anything. If they did that it would be a punishment, before the man has even been found guilty of any wrongdoing.

Proving that O'Reilly is a biased lying right-wing idiot. First he lies about the Committee being mostly liberal Democrats, then he calls for a man to be punished before he is even found guilty of anything. Not to mention, he sure as hell never called for any Republicans to be removed from a Chairmanship before the investigation had been done.

And btw, O'Reilly did the exact same thing to the Democrat Chris Dodd, for almost a year he claimed that Dodd was guilty of violating the Senate Ethics Rules by getting a special home loan deal. For a year O'Reilly reported he was guilty, then on August 7th, 2009 the Senate Ethics Committee cleared Dodd of all charges.

And O'Reilly did not report it, he ignored the story that Dodd was cleared. O'Reilly did exactly what Sharpton complained about. Billy reported the allegations against Dodd for close to a year, but when he was cleared he did not report that.

I know, because I remember reporting on it. I went back and checked the archives, and I noted that O'Reilly never said one word about Dodd being cleared. And now he is doing the very same thing to Charlie Rangel. It's bias, hypocrisy, and a double standard, and it's more proof that O'Reilly is a right-wing partisan. Because he never does anything like this when it involves a Republican Congressman or Senator, in fact, he defends them and says the exact opposite when it's a Republican.

The Friday 11-6-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 7, 2009 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Politics And Fort Hood. O'Reilly spent the entire talking points memo crying about the media coverage of the Fort Hood story. He basically attacked the media for saying the shooter might have had PTSD, and that he could have been under a lot of stress etc. Billy said this:
O'REILLY: "It took only hours for the far-left loons to begin politicizing the mass murder in Texas. Rather than blaming the suspect, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the media seems to believe Hasan's vile crimes were caused by public policy."

Unbelievably stupid! Hasan has not served in any war; the guy killed people for absolutely no reason. We all know the far left has a problem with personal responsibility - it's always somebody else's fault. Talking Points believes media that use tragedy to ram home political points are despicable. Hasan was either a Muslim terrorist or a crazy person. That's it, those are the choices!"
So instead of just reporting what he thinks about the shooting, he spent his time attacking how the rest of the media reported on the story, how is that news?

And before I do the rest of this Factor review let me say that this show was one of the most biased Factor shows I have ever seen, with 9 Republican guests, and 0 Democratic guests. Not one Democrat was on the entire show, it was non-stop right-wing propaganda, with all right-wing guests who agreed with O'Reilly. I believe 9 Republicans is a new record, in my 8 years of doing this I can not remember another show that had 9 Republicans, and not to mention 0 Democrats.

The next segment was with Bernie Goldberg, who was on to agree with every word O'Reilly said. Goldberg said this:
GOLDBERG: "There's a politically correct virus running through the bloodstream of America, and it's killing American journalism. There's reason to believe that religion played more than a passing part in all of this, but what is the story line that much of the 'lamestream media' run with? They run with post traumatic stress syndrome because that gives them a chance to take a shot at a couple of wars they have never liked. I guarantee you that if a white male Christian had gone on a rampage and there was even a whiff that his religion played some role, that would be the lead."
Goldberg and O'Reilly talking journalism, now that's funny, because they are not journalists, they are partisan spin doctors who are mad because the rest of the media does not spin everything to the right like they do. And the media was only speculating what caused the guy to shoot up the place, they did not state it as fact. Later in the show O'Reilly even admits until the investigation is done we do not know for sure why he did it. They put their spin on the story, and the rest of the media put their spin on it, but for some reason they are mad because the media did not agree with them. Here is a tip for O'Reilly and Goldberg, just report the damn story, and stop crying about how the rest of the media does their job. It does no good, and just makes you look like right-wing cry babies.

Then Geraldo was on to discuss it, and of course he agreed with everything O'Reilly and Goldberg said. Proving that he is a good little Fox News Republican, and that they are nothing but a bunch of losers who cry about the media coverage, instead of just reporting the story from their point of view. Get a clue and report what you think, attacking the rest of the media is a waste of time, and does you no good at all. Geraldo called him a paranoid, obsessed, frustrated, impotent loser. O'Reilly lambasted the media types who use "stress" as a rationale for Hasan's rampage: "It's so insulting to the military that the media is saying they're all crazy. This had nothing to do with post traumatic stress syndrome or anything like that."

Ok Billy O'Jackass, name one person in the media who said they are all crazy, name one. That's ridiculous, because nobody said they are ALL crazy. They said there could be a few other guys just like him that might snap, just like he did, that's not saying they are ALL crazy you lying idiot. And how do you know it was not PTSD, you are not a doctor, and you have no clue.

Then the far right nut-job Col. Ralph Peters, who hates Obama and everything he does, was on to give his biased analysis, and of course there is no Democratic military analyst, just Col. Peters. He described the Fort Hood carnage as pure terrorism.
PETERS: "What happened at Fort Hood, was the worst terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. It was committed by a Muslim fanatic who shouted 'Allah is great' and gunned down 44 unarmed innocent soldiers and civilians. And our president tells us not to 'rush to judgment.' What facts are we waiting for? This was an Islamist terrorist act, and I'm sorry if it's inconvenient for Washington to face the facts."
So Peters calls it a terrorist attack, before all the facts are in, and before the investigation is even done. The military has even said they are not calling it a terrorist attack, at least not yet. But Peters is not one to let facts get in the way, he just spews his right-wing spin out and then uses it to attack Obama. Proving he is a right-wing nut, and even O'Reilly sort of disagreed with him. Billy said we can not call him a terrorist yet, and that we have to wait until they look at his computer etc.

But that did not stop crazy Col. Peters from using it to attack Obama, when he has nothing to do with it, he is just waiting for all the facts to come in before he makes a statement on it. Which is what normal people do, unlike crazy Col. Peters who just wants to use anything he can to make Obama look bad. For once I agree with O'Reilly, let's wait until the facts are in before we declare the guy a terrorist. Because it's possible he just snapped, or a series of events caused him to want to get revenge on his fellow members of the military. I will say it could be a terrorist act, we just do not have the proof yet.

The next segment was a total joke, Billy had two right-wing fools on who wrote a softball book about Sarah Palin. They both love Palin and they both think she could be a valid candidate for President in 2012. And of course O'Reilly agreed 100 percent, because he loves Palin as much, or more, than they do. It was a total softball interview with two Sarah Palin lovers, about their total softball book. What gets me is that there is another book out about Sarah Palin, that has some negative things about her in it, yet O'Reilly does not have the author of that book on, he only has the authors of the softball Palin book on. Proving his bias once again, for only reporting one side of the story.

Then O'Reilly ran old video clips of Glenn Beck when he was on the Factor, he called it the best of Beck. O'Reilly praised Beck and said his show is must see tv. Which is ridiculous, and it 100% proof that O'Reilly is a biased right-wing nut. Because nobody but right-wing fools watch Glenn Beck, and only another Republican would ever praise him and his show. To most Americans Beck is a clown, and the laughing stock of the media. Nobody even takes him serious, except for a few right-wing nuts who believe his lies and propaganda. Beck is a pure 100% right-wing propagandist, and anyone who thinks different is a biased Republican who agrees with his nonsense.

Then O'Reilly had two more Republicans on to discuss the Fort Hood shooting. He had Bill Hemmer and Rick Leventhal on, and they did a live report from Texas. They said investigators have been at Hasan's apartment and they have seized a computer that he used quite often. They also reported about rumors that he was a big opponent of the war and considered himself a Muslim first and an American second. And of course, nobody to report on it but two Republicans who work for Fox News.

Then the pinheads and patriots, and the lame Factor e-mails. And the most biased O'Reilly Factor ever was over. With 9 Republicans guests, including O'Reilly, and 0 Democrats, as in none.

The Thursday 11-5-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 6, 2009 - 8:30am

Their was no TPM, instead O'Reilly had the top story about the shooting at Fort Hood. Billy talked about the shooting and pointed out the man is a Muslim. But he had no new information that we have not already heard. He just reported old news that was put out all day long. Then O'Reilly had the Fox News reporter Steve Centanni on to discuss it. They just had a review of everything we already know, so there was not much to report on what they said. What's funny is on the screen it said Fox News Alert, even though the story is hours old.

Then O'Reilly reported on the Bachmann protest over the Obama health care plan, at best 4,000 people showed up. Billy said thousands, but never put out a number, so he implied it was more than it really was. He also mentioned the AARP endorsment of the Obama health care plan, and said it was a mistake. But he never said a word about the AMA endorsing it, he failed to say anything about that. Billy also said it was interesting to see so many people show up in Wahington, when it was only 4,000 nuts who worship the crazy Michelle Bachmann. And of course, he never said one word about the hate signs about Obama at the protest.

The next segment was about House ethics investigations of all blacks. Billy had Al Sharpton on to discuss it. The first thing O'Reilly asked is if it was embarrassing, Sharpton said no because nobody has been found guilty yet. Billy implied Rangel is guilty, even though he just told Centanni he does not speculate. Sharpton said it was a perception, and that they have not been found guilty yet. Billy wanted to convict them before the evidence is in, and Sharpton said let's wait until they are proven guilty.

The segment was billed as being about race, then O'Reilly spent the whole segment implying they were guilty before the investigation is done. Which he would never do if they were Republicans. He even said Rangel should be removed from his chairmanship, which is just ridiculous. Finally near the end O'Reilly mentioned the race angle. Sharpton said it could be racial, but he is not sure.

And btw, O'Reilly told Sharpton the House Ethics Committee was just a bunch of liberals who will never find a Democrat did anything wrong. My God does he ever get anything right, the House Ethics Committee is 5 Democrats and 5 REPUBLICANS. O'Reilly even said Rangel should be removed from his Chairmanship until: if or when he is cleared. Which is insane, and it would be a punishment before he was even found guilty of anything. Remember that O'Reilly did the same thing to Chris Dodd, then he was cleared by the Ethics Committee, and then O'Reilly never even reported it, he just ignored the story after he was proven wrong. Now how many times do you think O'Reilly called for a Republican to be removed from a Chairmanship before he was found guilty of anything, answer: NEVER!

Then O'Reilly started already on the fake war on Christmas with the culture warriors Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover. It was some crap about the Governor of Kentucky who banned the christmas tree at the capitol, then changed his mind and allowed it, who cares and I refuse to report on it. Then they talked about a Dallas Cowboy cheerleader who went to a halloween party as Lil wayne, she was white and painted her face black, they all said it was racist. Billy hated it, and said it was stupid, Hoover was also against it. Carlson was barely against it, if at all. She sort of defended it.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to do Barack and a Hard Place. They talked about the tuesday elections, and Colmes said it was not about Obama, and of course O'Reilly and Crowley disagreed and called him a left-wing loon. When Colmes is right, they were off year special elections for a State Governors race, so it had nothing to do with Obama. When the 2010 mid-terms come up for Congress that will be a measure on Obama, not 2 State wide races.

Billy said Colmes is in the land of oz. Colmes pointed out how Hoffman lost a seat that had always been Republican, so that was big. O'Reilly said the Hoffman race was nothing, and the NJ race was big. The exit polls even said their vote had nothing to do with Obama. And VA is a Republican State so they should have a Republican Governor. Races for Congress are more important, and they know it, but they spin it to the right because they are Republicans. Of course O'Reilly was on the Republican side, as he is 99% of the time.

The next segment was more on judges who made what O'Reilly calls bad rulings. It was a Factor investigation, about judges who make bad rulings on child molesters. They reported on Edward Cashman, etc. Mostly it was video of Jesse Watters doing his ambush interviews. Billy had the far right Wendy Murphy on to discuss it. And of course she agreed with every word O'Reilly said and put out the same talking points O'Reilly had. She claims all the sex offenders are moving to Vermont because they have weak child molester laws. I am not sure if that is true or not, but that is what she said. And of course Billy did not have anyone on to counter what she said.

The last segment was the totally ridiculous "no reality" reality check. It's a segment where O'Reilly plays clips of mostly liberals saying things, then he does what he calls a reality check on what they said. The actual reality is O'Reilly spins what they said, with his right-wing opinion, so there is no reality, and most of them have no checks either. It's his opinion of what they said, which is not a reality check, it's just his opinion. Basically it's a reality check in his mind, and that's about it.

Then the pinheads and patriots and the lame highly edited Factor e-mails. For people that do not know it, when you e-mail O'Reilly your e-mail is highly edited before it gets on the air. Unless you say something good about him of course.

I have seen numerous e-mails sent to O'Reilly, they were 60 or more words and pointed out his bias, etc. Billy edited it down to 10 words or less, and took out all the evidence of his bias, so it was nothing like the e-mail that was sent to him. If you read someones e-mail it should not be edited, that's unfair, and misleading.

What's funny is he calls for people to send him evidence of his bias, or something he got wrong. Then you do, and he edits it all out of your e-mail, then reads the damn thing on the air, with all the evidence gone. Then he says he tells the truth, and you should not listen to anyone at CNN or MSNBC because they are dishonest, as he dishonestly edits your e-mail before he reads it on the air. Wow, Billy had 2 Democrats on the show, Sharpton and Colmes, which is 1 more than usual.

O'Reilly's Spin & Lies On Afghanistan Are Stunning
By: Steve - November 5, 2009 - 9:30am

Just a week ago on 10-29-09 O'Reilly hammered Obama for his delay on deciding if he should send more troops to Afghanistan. And that is not the first time, he has criticized him for the delay many times, and even used the word "dithering" to describe the situation, the same word Cheney used btw.

In the October talking points memo called Will Afghanistan Be President Obama's Waterloo? O'Reilly wrote this:
O'REILLY: October is now the deadliest month ever in Afghanistan for U.S. troops, with 55 killed so far. And it has now been 59 days since commanding General McChrystal asked for 40,000 more troops to provide security in that theatre.

The request hangs in the air because President Obama says he is continuing to assess the situation.

What is fact is that the Taliban is growing bolder. On Wednesday they attacked a building in Kabul which was considered to be relatively secure. There is no question the Taliban is making a statement, throwing violence right into the president's face.

There are people on both the left and the right who feel the Afghan war is un-winnable, and that may be true. Col. Ralph Peters doesn't support more troops, nor does New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman.

Writing Wednesday, Friedman says it is impossible to nation-build Afghanistan. But he also says he's not sure if the Taliban would take over should the USA pull back.

"Talking Points" believes that's nuts. What do you think the Taliban is fighting for? They want to regain power, and if the USA pulls back, who's going to stop them? The Italian forces?

This whole situation is very dangerous to Barack Obama, who is perceived in some quarters as being timid. If Afghanistan goes south on his watch, he will get the loss. Terrorism will achieve a great victory and America will be embarrassed. That's why you have to send the 40,000 troops.
Now that is all just ridiculous right-wing spin, because back in October of 2006, when Democrats were saying Bush needs to send more troops to Afghanistan because we are losing the war there, O'Reilly called them crazy, and said Bush has already won the war in Afghanistan. So if Bush had already won it in 2006, how could we be losing now, and how could they need 40,000 more troops if Bush already won it. O'Reilly even said it's a myth that Afghanistan is going backwards, what happened is he denied reality to defend his boy Bush.

During an October 2006 interview with Sarah Sewall, director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: No, I think that's vital. But look, we were successful in Afghanistan. And nobody thought --

SEWALL: Well, the jury's still out on Afghanistan, though.

O'REILLY: -- we would overthrow the Taliban in that way. So we were successful.

SEWALL: Unfortunately, Afghanistan's going backwards --

O'REILLY: That's a myth.

SEWALL: -- which I think speaks --

O'REILLY: That's a myth.

SEWALL: -- to part of the problem with the focus of effort on Iraq. We risk losing the progress that had been made in Afghanistan.

O'REILLY: Now you're just -- that's not true. There's always going to be a Taliban insurrection. As long as they have mountain --

SEWALL: It is true.

O'REILLY: No, it's not. Every military analyst working for our team says most of that country is pacified.

SEWALL: Maybe you should be talking to the people on the ground, then.

O'REILLY: I talk to everybody, Professor.

SEWALL: Because they're concerned about the situation there.

O'REILLY: You're just parroting the left-wing line that America doesn't know what it's doing. It's bull.

SEWALL: I'm parroting conversations with commanders who are in uniform serving bravely in Afghanistan.

O'REILLY: All right, so have I. And our information is that there's no danger at all of the Taliban reclaiming that country, none. They'll be annoying. There'll be guerrilla warfare. It will not happen, and I believe that.

SEWALL: Well, I assume then that you're discounting the views of the British commander of the new NATO force who's quite concerned about the direction.

O'REILLY: Everybody's concerned --

SEWALL: And I think the point is that we need to --

O'REILLY: -- nobody thinks the Taliban's going to win.

SEWALL: -- have a different strategy in Afghanistan also.

O'REILLY: The Bush administration has won a victory in Afghanistan, I believe. And they've also decimated Al Qaeda.
Contrary to O'Reilly's claim, Gen. David Richards, NATO's commanding officer in Afghanistan warned that Afghanistan was at a "tipping point," and that "If we collectively do not exploit this winter to start achieving concrete and visible improvement, then some 70% of Afghans could switch sides" and support the Taliban. And earlier that month the AP, ABC News, and CBS News all reported things were getting worse in Afghanistan.

And yet, O'Reilly ignored it all to claim victory for Bush, and tell anyone who disagreed that we already won in Afghanistan. It was basically O'Reilly's Mission Accomplished moment. He was dead wrong, and he only said it to dismiss the Democrats who were criticizing Bush, for sending all the troops to the Iraq war and leaving the military short handed in Afghanistan. Billy was providing political cover for Bush, so he declared it a victory, and even said it was a Bush victory.

But now that we have a Democratic President O'Reilly has changed his whole story, now it's a mess, and it's all on Obama. When he leaves out all the details. In 2008, Gen. David McKiernan, then the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, asked the Bush administration for more troops, a request that was denied. O'Reilly never says a word about that, and never once criticized Bush for not granting that request.

As late as December 2005, despite official warnings about the Taliban resurgence and a lack of U.S. resources for critical reconstruction programs, the Bush administration planned to reduce the 19,000 U.S. troops then in Afghanistan by 2,500 soldiers in order to bolster hard-pressed U.S. forces in Iraq. O'Reilly has never said one word about that.

Even after seven years of war, and the deaths of 630 U.S. service members, more than 400 other coalition soldiers and thousands of Afghans, the Bush administration lacked strategies for dealing with al Qaida and the Taliban safe haven in the tribal areas of Pakistan, where it backed a military dictatorship, or building Afghan security forces. Not a word about any of that from O'Reilly.

Looking at this analysis of Afghanistan by O'Reilly when Bush was the President in 2006, and when Obama took over in 2009, is clear evidence that O'Reilly used partisan spin to explain the situation, based on what party the President is in. When Bush was in control, O'Reilly said things are great in Afghanistan and Bush won, even though the evidence at the time said the exact opposite.

O'Reilly even said it was a myth that things are getting worse. But then as soon as Obama took over O'Reilly changed his tune, now it's suddenly an Obama mess, Obama must send the 40,000 more troops or he is weak and timid, and not a good leader. When Bush let Afghanistan get out of control, and even denied a troop increase request in 2008.

It's a great example of how O'Reilly spins things depending on whether they are a Republican or a Democrat. If it's a Republican O'Reilly spins it to make them look better, and to defend them. If it's a Democrat O'Reilly spins it to make them look worse, and to attack them. And if we had a Republican President right now who was "dithering" on the troop increase for Afghanistan, O'Reilly would defend it, and say it is smart to take the time to think about it.

But since we have a Democrat in office, O'Reilly attacks him for not sending more troops, even though he declared victory in Afghanistan for his hero George W. Bush 3 years ago in 2006. Talk about biased right-wing spin, that is the king of spin, from a guy who claims to be a nonpartisan independent with a no spin zone.

The Wednesday 11-4-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 5, 2009 - 9:10am

The TPM was called Advising President Obama. Billy said the Factor is a no gloating zone, and that Obama should make O'Reilly his top advisor. Which is just laughable, and not even worth wasting time talking about. Once again O'Reilly said the Obama health care plan is a disaster, and his Afghanistan policy is wrong. For some reason he cried about a tax in California, even though the people will get it back when they file their taxes. Billy said it was something Castro would do, and compared Pelosi to Castro.

Billy said Pelosi is living in the land of oz, when she claimed the Democrats also won today. Proving the bias O'Reilly from O'Reilly, because Pelosi is right. Gaining two Congressional seats is more important than losing two Governors races, and that is a fact. So the only person living in the land of oz, is Bill O'Reilly.

Then Dick Morris was on to discuss it, with no Democrat of course. Billy said the California tax is outright theft. Morris trashed Obama and said the NJ and VA races were won because of Obama. When only Republicans are saying that, the reality is the Republicans picked up two Governors races, while the Democrats picked up two Congressional seats, which is way more important than the Governor races. Axelrod pointed that out, and both Morris and O'Reilly called what he said spin, when he is exactly right. Axelrod said it was people mad at the Governor, and that it was a state issue, which is exactly right, yet Morris and O'Reilly both denied it.

The important races are for Congress, and the Democrats gained two more seats. Nobody cares about two Governor races, except biased Republicans like Morris and O'Reilly. They said it shows the people have a loss of confidence in Obama, when it had nothing to do with Obama. Proving the Morris and O'Reilly are right-wing robots who spin out the Republican talking points just as Beck or Hannity would. And btw, just as I predicted O'Reilly barely mentioned Hoffman losing, even though Beck and Palin both endorsed him, Billy spent 99.9% talking about the two meaningless Governors races. While almost totally ignoring Hoffman losing a Congressional seat that was Republican for 115 years.

Then O'Reilly had George Stephanopoulos on to discuss it. Stephanopoulos basically disagreed with almost everything O'Reilly said. He said the Republicans won the two Governors races because people were mad at the incumbents, so they voted them out, and that is was a State issue. Obama had high approval ratings in those States, and Stephanopoulos said the exit polls show Obama was no factor in the elections. O'Reilly just dismissed that because it did not agree with his spin, he told Stephanopoulos his argument is falling apart. When he based it on the exit polls, but O'Reilly still ignored it.

Stephanopoulos also pointed out that voter turnout was low with blacks and young people because it was an off year election, so the Republicans won because of that too. O'Reilly dismissed all that, and basically told Stephanopoulos he was wrong about everything. O'Reilly puts out his right-wing spin, then if anyone disagrees he tells them they are wrong, with no facts to back him up. When someone has the facts, he talks over them and tells them they are wrong. Which is exactly what O'Reilly did to Stephanopoulos. And all during the segment not once was the Hoffman loss mentioned. It was all about the NJ and the VA Governors races. Just as I predicted.

The next segment was about gay marriage voted down in Maine, Billy called it a stunning vote. Laura Ingraham was on to discuss it. Billy said gloating does not do any good, Ingraham said Obama should hire O'Reilly as an advisor, yeah right, a monkey would be a better choice. O'Reilly said he was surprised it was voted down. I am not surprised, because a lot of people just hate gay lifestyles. Maybe in the next 10 years or so the bigots will be gone and the country will have a better view of gays and pass it. I am not gay, but I do thing it's wrong to discriminate against gay people.

They also discussed parental notification on abortion, and I agree, if the girl is under 18, the parents should be notified. Then they discuss making pot legal, and Jennifer Aniston coming out in favor of it. But of course O'Reilly and Ingraham are opposed to it, even though everyone who wants to smoke it is already doing it. And not once in my 49 years have I ever seen one person say I would like to smoke pot, but it's illegal so I will not do it. It's just unrealistic to oppose smoking something you can grow yourself, and legal or not, anyone who wants to smoke it will do it. I do oppose making hard drugs legal, but it's ridiculous to have pot illegal, it's a massive waste of taxpayer money, and it does not stop one person from smoking pot who wants to.

Then Billy had the big boob blonde body language bimbo on to trash democrats with her bogus and biased body language readings. And of course she trashed Pelosi, plus a few other Democrats. It's just another biased right-wing segment where O'Reilly has the body language bimbo on to smear Democrats with biased body language readings. The hocus pocus right-wing bimbo did a reading of Billy's body language on the View, which turned into a reading of everyone on the View, except O'Reilly. She never did read O'Reilly's body language, she only talked about Whoppi and Barbara Walters body language.

The next segment was with Dennis Miller, and of course he was only on to make lame unfunny jokes about Democrats like Pelosi, etc. The usual biased one sided right-wing garbage. Here is what I say about this weekly segment, if O'Reilly were actually fair and balanced he would have a liberal comedian on with Miller, or after him, like Bill Maher, then it would be fair and balanced. When he only has Dennis Miller on every week, it's more proof O'Reilly has a right-wing bias. Miller called Pelosi a reptile, and O'Reilly said nothing, but if Letterman called Palin a reptile, O'Reilly would scream bloody murder. Miller called her sub-reptilian, empty, vapid, stupid, and empty headed. Billy did nothing, except laugh.

The last segment was about a article that talks about what Obama has done in his first 10 months in office. Billy had Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen on to discuss it. Billy said he respects their website, yeah because it has a right-wing bias. The article basically says Obama has done nothing. They claim he is trying to do too much, O'Reilly disagreed and said he is not doing enough. Billy said Obama has been the President for a year, when that is a lie, he took office on 1-20-09, that's 19 and a half months, I guess he can not do math. In my opinion you should not evaluate Obama until 1-20-10, when he has actually been in office for a year.

Then the pinheads and patriots, and the lame highly edited Factor e-mails. O'Reilly used it to spin out some cray right-wing Glenn Beck nonsense that the news show called V is mocking President Obama. It's ridiculous, and total right-wing propaganda. Only Beck, Hannity, and a few other Republicans are saying it, proving once again that O'Reilly is biased, and that he does put out Republican talking points.

I got an e-mail today about this right-wing insanity, and I did not think O'Reilly would spin it out. I was wrong, O'Reilly spewed it out just as Beck and Hannity did. Making him as much of a right-wing spin doctor as Beck or Hannity.

Conservative Hoffman loses NY-23
By: Steve - November 4, 2009 - 9:50am

Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin all endorsed Hoffman in the Upstate New York's 23rd district Congressional race. Fox News promoted the hell out of him, he was all over their network, Beck interviewed him, as did Hannity, etc. The Republican party even forced out the moderate Republican so she would not take votes away from Hoffman. Then they all predicted Hoffman would win, Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, all of them.

Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity really wanted Doug Hoffman to win that special congressional election in Upstate New York. It's not just because he's a "Conservative" candidate in a race that saw the shunned, moderate Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava drop out. It's because this race is a referendum on the town halls, on tea partying, and the 9/12 Project.

Hoffman was on Hannity Monday night, and the host said, "I think this is a referendum on a lot of what's been going on in the country which is moving radically to the left." Hannity also declared, "I hope I'm on the air this time tomorrow night and I'll be able to declare you the winner."

And then Hoffman lost. After all that support and promotion from Fox News, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Palin, he still lost. Proving that Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Palin have no power to help people win elections. Especially when they support a far right conservative who did not even live in the District he was running in. And btw, a Democrat had never won in NY-23, ever, until now.

They thought they were so powerful they could run this right-wing spook Hoffman in there and get him a win because they endorsed him, and they were wrong. Yesterday saw two special elections for Congress, and the Democrats won both of them. Yes the Republicans won VA and NJ, both those were races for Governor, state races, not national elections for the House or the Senate.

So while Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Palin, and Limbaugh will call the GOP victories in the Governorship races a referendum on the Obama presidency, which they aren't, they will deny that NY-23 was a clear victory for president Obama, which it was. Today you will hear all about the VA and NJ wins, and barely hear anything about the Hoffman loss. Which was the one race they got behind, and the one race they really wanted to win. The elections you can measure Obama on are the November 2010 mid-terms, and that will not happen until late next year. Governor races are State elections, the ones that matter are the House and the Senate races.

Hey Billy, if Fox News is so powerful how come you could not get a win for Hoffman, answer that smart guy.

Biased Media Spin Off Year Election Results
By: Steve - November 4, 2009 - 8:30am

Conservative idiots in the media are using the results of off year gubernatorial elections to suggest President Obama's agenda and Democrats 2010 electoral prospects are in trouble. In the wake of Bob McDonnell's victory in the Virginia gubernatorial race, but Media Matters has documented examples of the media arguing that Democratic victories in off year 2001 elections had little national significance.

Here is one example: During the November 2nd Your World with Neil Cavuto, an on screen graphic read: "If GOP wins both races" in Virginia and New Jersey, "Impact on health care: no govt-run option."

O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. all pretty much said the same thing, they implied these off year elections that historically have a low turnout, and usually go to the party not in the White House, are a measure of Obama. Except these hypocrites said the exact opposite in 2001 when Democrats won off year elections with a Republican President.
-- Mort Kondracke: "We have no way of knowing" how 2001 outcome would affect 2002 midterms.

-- Mara Liasson: "A handful of off-year elections can't be used to predict" the outcome of 2002 midterms.

Dick Morris: "If you have a Republican president, people are going to vote Democrat, and if you have a Democrat president, they're going to vote Republican."

Laura Ingraham: "Both sides are going to spin this," but "to call this some kind of watershed moment against Republican views is nonsense."
A few people in the media are being honest, but not many. In a November 2 blog post, former Bush speechwriter David Frum wrote: "Conservatives on radio and the web are preparing to hail a Doug Hoffman victory in NY-23, if it occurs, as a mighty victory for the fire-breathing style." Frum added: "This is a deeply unrealistic assessment.

And btw, Hoffman lost, even though he was endorsed by Palin, Limbaugh, and Beck. The Republican party forced the moderate Republican to pull out of the race so they would not split the party votes, so she did, and Hoffman still lost. This says the people rejected the man Palin, Limbaugh, and Beck wanted. Now how much do you want to bet O'Reilly and his friends ignore this, or barely talk about it, and never say it's bad news for people like Palin.

Chuck Todd said this on November 3rd, 2009:
TODD: If Democrats lose in New Jersey and Virginia, that certainly would be a shot in the arm for a Republican Party that hasn't fared well in the in the past two election cycles. That outcome also could give Democrats pause that the voter coalition that propelled Obama to victory last year appears dormant or is no longer intact.

But is that a referendum on Obama? Not so much. For starters, how much does Creigh Deeds losing in Virginia say about Obama, when the president's approval rating in the state is 57% among registered voters and 54% among likely voters. And if Jon Corzine's favorable rating in the Quinnipiac poll was at 38% back in March (near the height of Obama's honeymoon), and it's at 39% now, how does that say much about Obama and his popularity/presidency? In short, these races say much more about Deeds/McDonnell or Corzine/Christie than they do about Obama.
Here is the real truth, and what you will never hear from O'Reilly or anyone at Fox. Hoffman lost NY 23, it's the first time the GOP has lost that staunchly red seat. Democrats also won the other congressional special election in CA.

In Virginia, the Democrat Deeds was a terrible candidate, who ran an entirely negative campaign against a very likeable, attractive social conservative who deliberately downplayed and ran away from his social conservatism. McDonnell won because he ran as a moderate, let's hope he governs the same way he ran.

Corzine was DOA long before the election (38% approval months ago), that Christie won by only 3-4 points. I think this is a very disappointing election for the GOP and especially the far right. They only thing the Palin/Fox/Teabagger wing succeeded in doing in this election was carrying out a hit on a moderate Republican, and possibly splitting the party in two just in time for the midterm elections. Fox and the corporate media will spin this is as a defeat for Obama, but the races they wanted and needed to win the most, went to the Democrats.

Turning a red seat blue for the first time in 150 years is not a defeat for Obama. But most of the stooges in the media will say it was, especially O'Reilly and the partisans at Fox.

The Tuesday 11-3-09 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 4, 2009 - 8:10am

No TPM, instead O'Reilly went to Carl Cameron live to talk about the special elections. Fox news has projected Republican Bob McDonnel the winner in the VA Governors race. Cameron talked about what it says about Obama, and why the Republican won. In my opinion it does not mean much because these off year special elections have very low turnout.

Then O'Reilly went to Shannon Bream for her live report on the Christie/Corzine race. Billy said if Republicans win New Jersey it's a huge defeat for Obama. Then Karl Rove was on to discuss these elections. And what a shocker, no Democrats on to discuss it, Not! O'Reilly is already saying Christie is going to win. Rove said it was a big deal that McDonnell won the VA race. Even O'Reilly said he disagrees that it was a big deal. In my opinion, the real test will be the 2010 Congressional races, not these state races for Governor. O'Reilly kept asking why these Republicans won, what issue drove the voters, when noboy knows yet until the exit polls are out.

Then O'Reilly went to Bret Baier for some other election results. Then it was back to Rove for some more one sided biased right-wing analysis with no Democrats to provide the balance. Billy made some jokes about dead people voting in New Jersey, and some other crap, and the segment was over. This show was pretty boring, it was just O'Reilly having nothing but right-wingers on to give one sided biased analysis of a few elections.

Then Rove was back to talk about Iran and Obama. Billy asked Rove what Obama should do, like he is going to take advice from Rove. Does he remember Rove, Bush, and Cheney are the idiots who ruined the country over the last 8 years, who did nothing right, so now we should listen to them, haha. Rove said Obama should get tough and basically do what Bush would have done. Billy said Afghanistan is a mess and Obama is tentative. Not a word about who caused the mess, Bush, or that Rove was part of that. O'Reilly once again called Obama weak, and said they see him as a weak leader. It was nothing but one sided biased right-wing propaganda, from Rove and O'Reilly.

The next segment was with an actual Democrat, wow, the first one in two nights. Billy had former Obama advisor Mathew Littman on. He told O'Reilly his analysis was wrong. That these elections are not a reflection on Obama. Littman said they are getting beat because the economy is bad, and for other reasons. O'Reilly said Corzine has been a disaster, Littman disagreed, and that Christie will win because of low turnout among blacks. Littman pointed out that the VA and NJ races always go to the person in the opposite party of the president.

Billy said health care and Afghanistan have been a disaster for Obama, and Littman disagreed. What a shocker, an actual Democrat is on and he disagreed with everything O'Reilly said. Billy cited a Rasmussen poll on health care and Littman said other polls have it different, then O'Reilly said Rasmussen is the best, and Littman disagreed. What a joke, Rasmussen is a biased right-wing pollster, and O'Reilly keeps saying he is the best. Proving he is a Republican because only Republicans cite the Rasmussen poll. Littman basically disagreed with everything O'Reilly said, which is probably why Democrats are rarely allowed on the show.

Then John Stossel was on to talk about the speech he gave to the right-wing group. It was bias, and a conflict of interest, and O'Reilly had no problem with it. The NY Times attacked Stossel for giving a speech to the right-wing group. The group is called Americans For Prosperity. Billy can not understand what the beef is, proving he is an idiot. It's a partisan group, and Fox claims to be fair and balanced. So if you give speeches to right-wing groups it shows that you are a Republican, so that kills the fair and balanced lie. Especially when Stossel has been denying for years that he is a Republican, now he goes to Fox and gives speeches to right-wing groups. And the great Bill O'Reilly sees nothing wrong with it, what a moron.

Then is it legal with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle. They talked about some under age girls at a private slumber party posting some sexy pics on myspace. The school punished them, and the ACLU stepped in to say their rights were violated. Guilfoyle and Wiehl both say the ACLU will lose. In my opinion it's wrong to punish them if it did not happen on school property, or during school. I thought it was a free country, I guess not.

Then next case was a Lesbian teacher who had sex with a 14 year old student. Billy the pervert sure loves these teacher/student sex cases. He reports them all the time. Then they talked about some lawsuit against Pepsi, some case about a water product, and the judge awarded them $1.26 Billion dollars. It was a default judgement, and the two attorneys said it will be thrown out. Who cares, and how is this news. The whole segment was tabloid garbage, more than a news segment on the law.

The Martha MacCallum and Charles Krauthammer were on to talk more election garbage. Which makes 9 Republicans to 1 Democrat, yeah that's fair and balanced, haha, not. MacCallum had some exit polling results. Krauthammer was on to say these elections show that Obama and the Democrats will not kill the Republican party, and that they will make a comeback in 2010. And he based that on a few off year special elections, he is about as nuts as O'Reilly, and what's really funny is they both agree with each other 100 percent. Yet O'Reilly claims to be an Independent, while Krauthammer is far right. Great show O'Reilly, all right-wing spin all the time.

No e-mail because of the special election coverage. But O'Reilly did find time to pimp the foreign made Factor gear before the end of this 99% right-wing biased show.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About His Ratings Increase
By: Steve - November 3, 2009 - 10:00am

Here is proof O'Reilly lied about his ratings going up 20% because of the Obama vs Fox News war. Billy said this a few days ago on the View:
O'REILLY: "I sent Barack Obama, President Obama a fruit basket for all the comments because our ratings are up 20% since he made it."
Here are the Factor ratings for the two weeks before the war started, from September 28th to October 9th.

September 28th - 3,353,000
September 29th - 3,527,000
September 30th - 3,561,000
October 1st - 3,444,000
October 2nd - 2,743,000
October 5th - 3,142,000
October 6th - 3,263,000
October 7th - 3,676,000
October 8th - 3,765,000
October 9th - 3,125,000

Average - 3,259,000 Total Viewers a Night

Here are the Factor ratings for the two weeks after the war started, from October 12th to October 23rd.

October 12th - 3,370,000
October 13th - 3,694,000
October 14th - 3,778,000
October 15th - 3,562,000
October 16th - 2,490,000
October 19th - 3,323,000
October 20th - 3,381,000
October 21st - 3,722,000
October 22nd - 3,436,000
October 23rd - 3,426,000

Average - 3,420,000 Total Viewers a Night

The Factor gained 161,000 viewers a night in the two weeks of the Obama vs Fox News war. That is a 5% ratings increase, not a 20% increase as O'Reilly claimed.

And btw, the 3,259,000 and the 3,420,000 averages are not even close to the over 5 million viewers O'Reilly claims he is getting now. Billy said he is almost beating Katie Couric at CBS news, who gets roughly 5.9 million viewers a night. Earth to O'Reilly, 3.4 million is not the same as 5.9 million.

The Monday 11-2-09 O'Reilly Factor review
By: Steve - November 3, 2009 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Criticizing President Obama. Billy talked about the critics of Obama, like Rush Limbaugh. He played a partial tape of Limbaugh on the Fox news sunday show. Where Limbaugh said Obama wants to destroy America. O'Reilly said he does not believe that, but he did not hammer Limbaugh for saying it. Imagine what he would say if someone like Keith Olbermann said something like that about Bush. Then he somehow turned the TPM about Obama critics into attacking Pelosi for the house health care bill, called it terrible and a giant fraud.

Then O'Reilly had Brit Hume on to ask him if Obama is trying to destroy the economy. Hume said yes and no, and then he put a spin on what Limbaugh said. O'Reilly even called Hume on it, and said that is not what Limbaugh said. So basically O'Reilly busted Hume for trying to spin what Limbaugh said. Hume said he doubts Obama is trying to make the country into a socialist place. Then O'Reilly said Hume is not a partisan ideolouge, which is just ridiculous, because Hume is an ideolouge. Billy said nobody can figure out the Pelosi health care bill, because it's 2000 pages long. O'Reilly also called it incomprehensable, and said nobody can understand it.

Hume even said all the bills the Congress passes are like that, and this bill is no different. As usual it was just another one sided biased right-wing segment to trash Obama, Pelosi, and the health care plan, with no Democrats to give the other side. Hey Billy, where is the balance, you and Brit Hume is not a fair and balanced interview.

The next segment was more one sided right-wing bias, O'Reilly had Neil Cavuto on to discuss a partisan article in the right-wing Wall Street Journal, that said the Obama health care bill is the worst bill Congress has ever tried to pass. Cavuto said he is not sure if it's the worst bill ever, but he did say it was pretty bad. Then Billy mentioned he went to Harvard, and that he can not figure the bill out. He said he tried, and he can not figure it out. Earth to O'Reilly, if you can not figure it out give your degree back because you are an idiot.

O'Reilly also said Cavuto is not an ideolouge, which is once again ridiculous. Cavuto is a right-wing nut, just like O'Reilly, Hume, Hannity, etc. They both sat there and put out the right-wing spin on the bill, with no Democrat to give the counterpoint. O'Reilly said it could bankrupt the country, when the bill is actually defecit neutral. Cavuto would not admit Obama is a socialist, but he did say it was not good, and not capitalism. They cried about taxing the wealthy to pay for most of it, and it seems to me that is a big reson why they oppose it. Remember this, most the people opposed to it are Republicans who have health insurance, and the insurance companies.

Notice that O'Reilly never said a word about Wallace doing a 30 minute softball interview with Limbaugh, where he was allowed to spin out right-wing propaganda with no challenge to anything he said. Now if David Gregory did a similar interview with Bill Moyers O'Reilly would flip out and go nuts for such a softball interview.

Then O'Reilly did a segment on the special elections tomorrow, he had one pollster on to discuss it, the Republican Scott Rasmussen. And of course he has the Republican Chris Christie winning it over Corzine, and O'Reilly agreed. Then of course O'Reilly said if Christie wins it will be a slap at Obama. So as usual O'Reilly links Obama to it somehow. They also talked about the Hoffman race, where the moderate Republican dropped out. And then O'Reilly asked Rasmussen about his Obama job approval poll, and Rasmussen tried to defend why his Obama job approval polls are lower than anyone else. It was total right-wing spin, because Rasmussen rigs his polls to make Obama look worse by sampling pre-selected people. Neither O'Reilly or Rasmussen mentioned that.

Then O'Reilly had two more Republicans on, Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams. O'Reilly said he is now against the Obama health care plan, and that he gave Obama a fair shot, but he is now opposed to it, which is pure insanity, because he has been opposed to it from day one. They also keep saying the Obama job approval is 46% at Rasmussen, and about 50% in all the other polls, which is a lie. It's over 51% in almost all the polls, and some polls have it at 55%, only the Rasmussen poll has him under 50%, every other poll has him at 51% or higher. And btw, Juan Williams did not point that out, he just went along with the lies from O'Reilly. They also said Obama is in big trouble, and that nobody likes him, which is also a lie.

So far it's been 5 Republican guests to 0 Democrats, or as O'Reilly calls it, fair and balanced. The whole show was about politics, with political analysis, and not one Democrat was on the entire show. Making the I am a nonpartisan independent claims from O'Reilly just laughable. I guess having moderate Republicans on to debate far right Republicans is fair and balanced in O'Reillyworld.

Then the far right Bernie Goldberg was on to discuss some new media study from the Pew Research Center. And of course they cherry picked the Pew study to make Fox look better. O'Reilly never showed any results that made Fox look bad. Goldberg cried about bias in the media and claimed that CNN is going downhill because they have a bias. O'Reilly even said he hates opinion guys in the media, when he is one. he acts like he is not an opinion guy, which is just ridiculous. They also pulled the usual liberal bias crap that the media is taking it easy on Obama.

But when Bush was President they never said a word about Fox taking it easy on him. And of course there were no Democrats in the segment, just O'Reilly and Goldberg sitting around putting out right-wing spin with nobody to give the counterpoint. O'Reilly even tried to claim that more Democrats watch Fox than CNN and MSNBC combined, which is also ridiculous. It was basically nothing but right-wing spin on the Pew media study.

Then the "no reality" reality check segment. One reality check was about Mormon women who posed for a sexy calender, ummmm huh, how is that a reality check on anything. The so-called reality check segment is a fraud, it's just crap O'Reilly decided to report on, with no reality, and no checks. Then the pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited hand picked Factor e-mails. And the fair and balanced (haha) O'Reilly Factor had 7 Republican guests and 0 Democrats. Wow I'm shocked, not!

Right-Wing Birther Nut To Protest O'Reilly In NY
By: Steve - November 2, 2009 - 12:50pm

This is so insane I barely know where to start. First let me talk about Orly Taitz, the queen of the birthers. She claims President Obama is not an American citizen so he can not be the President, even though he has already proven he is, and he is the President. He produced his original birth certificate to a news outlet, they examined it and declared it real. Then they made copies and took photos, and posted them on their website for everyone to see.

O'Reilly even investigated it and said there is nothing to it. Orly even filed a lawsuit to have a judge order President Obama to show her his birth certificate, the judge dismissed her suit and told her he never wanted to see her again. Basically he told the nut to get lost and stop wasting the courts time. So what does Orly do, she filed the same lawsuit again of course. This time not only did the judge dismiss the lawsuit, he fined her $20,000 dollars for wasting the courts time again.

O'Reilly talked about the lawsuit and the fine during an is it legal segment on the Factor. He had Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle on to discuss it. All 3 of them agreed the fine was justified, O'Reilly and Wiehl agreed with the $20,000 dollar fine, Guilfoyle said Orly deserved a fine, but that it was a little high. O'Reilly even called Orly stupid.

O'Reilly dismissed the birthers in July, saying he had investigated and settled the issue. And notice that Lou Dobbs is a birther too.
O'REILLY: "That theory has been around for a while. The Factor investigated, found out it's bogus. But Mr. Dobbs is still engaged...

Again, we found out that President Obama was born in Hawaii.. we were sent the documents. And what are you gonna do? I don't know why it's still around..."
Now Orly Taitz is going to protest O'Reilly at his NY studio, here is the notice from her website:
Reminder! Protest Bill O'Reilly in NY on Veteran's day

Posted October 29, 2009

Hope to see you November 11, 12 noon, Veteran's day

1211 Ave of the Americas, FOX headquarters, protest Bill O'Reilly defrauding the Nation and defaming decent Americans and are caring a legal battle to unseal all of Obama's vital records. If you can come, if you can assist in organizing, call me xxx-xxx-xxxx.

We need signs, bull horns.

We are looking for a diner for people to meet and greet before and after the protest.

Let me know if you can help with transportation, frequent flyer.

Keep in mind, what OReilly did, is more dangerous, more harmful then what some idiots like Rachel Maddow or Keith Obertmann did, since people believe O'Reilly to be fair and balanced.
Besides the fact that nobody believes O'Reilly is fair and balanced, except the nuts who watch him, she is a flat out lunatic. What's really funny is some of the comments on her posting, here are a few of my favorites:
2) Glenn Beck

October 30th, 2009 @ 2:59 pm

Count me in.

3) yahrly

October 30th, 2009 @ 3:01 pm

Someone needs to bring falafels !!

9) Weston O'malley

October 30th, 2009 @ 10:13 pm

Can't be there my self as I'm following up birther document leads in the vatican but wishing you all the best!
This one looks real, which is even more scary than Orly is, enjoy:
15) McP

October 31st, 2009 @ 11:48 am

Mrs. Taitz, keep up your courageous fight! I will do my best to be there. We Americans need to protest the lack of media coverage about Obama's birth certificate. I have 20 "where's the birth certificate" signs which I will bring. I also have bullhorns from the last teaparty I attended. We need to take our country back.
And this is my all time favorite:
20) Dirk Digler

November 1st, 2009 @ 12:31 pm

Bullhorns are my fave!!!

I'm not sure what time I'll be there.

If they take your order @ the diner before I show, order me a pastrami on rye.

No cole slaw but see if I can get extra pickles.

USA is number 1!!!
I don't know if I have ever seen anything more crazy than this, and all I can say is if you actually listen to anything crazy Orly says, you need to seek mental help fast. Enjoy the protest Orly, haha.

Huckabee Using Fox News To Dishonestly Raise PAC Money
By: Steve - November 2, 2009 - 11:00am

Mike Huckabee is using his Fox News show, and other Fox News shows to dishonestly raise money for his political PAC. Here is what he did, two times in October he told his viewers to visit, urging them to sign a petition telling Congress to balance the budget, cut their spending, and save American families.

So when you type in you do not go to that website, they have a re-direction script on it that takes you to There is a petition, at, but you have to provide an e-mail address. When you do, they send you an e-mail newsletter asking for money for Republican candidates, and they also ask if you can work a phone bank for them.

A Media Matters for America employee who signed Huckabee's petition received an email on November 1 from Huck PAC asking people to participate in a phone bank for Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell and congressional candidates David Harmer and Doug Hoffman. The email says that "we need to help get each of these fine men elected" and asks recipients to take a moment now to make phone calls to voters.

Huckabee also appeared on the October 1 edition of On the Record with Greta Van Sustern to promote the petition. He said he was "trying to get 100,000 names" and told viewers they could "go to And btw, Once visitors have signed the petition, they are then directed to a page asking for donations. The website asks for "any contribution of $15 or more."

Not to mention, his daughter Sarah Huckabee works for Huck PAC and she is paid a salary. A July 2009 FEC document for Huck PAC lists Sarah Huckabee as the recipient of $4,500 per month in funds as the executive director of Huck PAC.

Now besides the fact that this is very misleading and dishonest, using a front site to redirect people to your political pac, imagine what O'Reilly would say if MSNBC had a Democrat that may run for president in 2012 who worked for them who was doing this. It would be a major story and O'Reilly would spend a week talking about how dishonest and wrong it is.

Huckabee is using the Fox News Network to dishonestly raise money for his PAC, raise money for other Republicans running for office, and mislead people. And this guy might run for president in 2012, yet O'Reilly says nothing. Imagine if MSNBC gave John Edwards his own show on MSNBC, and he did what Huckabee is doing. My God, O'Reilly, Morris, Rove, Gingrich, Ingraham, Hannity, etc. would scream bloody murder, and call for the Feds to investigate it.

It's dishonest, and a massive conflict of interest. Not to mention unethical, he should not be using a news network to do this. Especially when he is doing it dishonestly with the front site and the re-direction script to his PAC.

Hey Billy, why are you ignoring this, if a Democrat did this at MSNBC you would go crazy, and report it every day until they stopped it. Yet Huckabee does it at Fox, and you say nothing. You claim Fox news has no bias, yet you sit by and say nothing when Huckabee uses the Fox News network to raise money for his political PAC, and he does it in a misleading way. Why dont you ask Huckabee why he uses instead of What say you?