The Tuesday 11-30-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - December 1, 2010 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Terror plot in Oregon foiled by authorities. Billy said this:
O'REILLY: Putting aside all the ideological BS, American law enforcement agencies have done a great job protecting us since 9/11, and I want to publicly thank them. Once again, aggressive law enforcement avoided possible violence, this time from a Muslim in Oregon.

19-year-old Mohamed Osman Mohamud has been charged with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. The FBI says Mohamud wanted to set off a bomb in Portland's Pioneer Square, where 10,000 people were gathered to watch a Christmas tree lighting ceremony. Mohamud's lawyers say he was set up because the FBI, apparently acting on information supplied by Mohamud's own father, used a sting operation in which Mohamud and an undercover agent discussed violence.

I am glad that the FBI is using stings like that because there are terrorists on U.S. soil looking for opportunities to kill Americans, so the use of undercover agents to discover criminal intent is legitimate. The one caveat is that you can not coerce somebody into committing a crime - the person has to actively want to do it, and the feds say Mohamud did.
Then Judge Andrew Napolitano was on to discuss it, and he had a totally different story than O'Reilly put out. The Judge said this: "You only told about one-third of the story. The FBI picked an easy mark, trained him in the use of explosives, and the FBI itself exploded illegal weapons in his presence to teach him how to do it. The FBI talked Mohamud into doing this and then charges him with attempting to explode a weapon of mass destruction. It was a truck filled with sawdust! He couldn't have done what they say he attempted to do."

It looks to me like the Judge is right, they did set him up, and I would not be shocked if a jury finds him not guilty. Notice how O'Reilly put his spin on it, without reporting most of the facts. That is classic O'Reilly, only report 30% of the story to spin it they way you want people to see it.

And btw, the Judge admitted to being a 9-11 truther, and O'Reilly never said a word about it. But when the NY Imam had a friend who is a 9-11 truther, O'Reilly said he should not get the permit to build the mosque. Simply because he knows a 9-11 truther, then the Judge admits to being a truther, and O'Reilly is as silent as a mouse. Can you spell bias, hypocrisy, and double standards boys and girls, I can.

Then it was is it legal to talk about voters in Oklahoma who approved a proposition to outlaw Sharia law, but a federal judge has issued a temporary injunction. Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to assess the proposition and its legality. Wiehl said this: "The proposition went to far, because it singled out Sharia, and the Muslim man who challenged this says Sharia is part of his religion. This proposition was drafted incorrectly - they should have just said that a court can only look at federal or state law."

But Guilfoyle argued that Oklahomans were within their rights when they voted to ban Sharia. "This is part of the movement that is trying to get Islam and Sharia law infused into the American court system. This federal judge is engaging in judicial activism and she's wrong. They should take this to the Supreme Court."

Then O'Reilly had Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes on to talk about the Obama meeting with Republican leaders. Colmes said this: "President Obama will not lose his fight to rescind the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and they're going to make a deal to keep the middle class tax cuts. They have to do that."

But Crowley declared that her GOP has the President on the ropes. "What we saw today was a 'nothing-burger,' but the Republicans were calm and smiling. They realize they have the upper hand in this conversation - not just politically, but economically as well, because if you raise taxes in this kind of economic situation it will be a disaster."

And as usual Crowley is lying, because the majority of the people do not want the Bush tax cuts extended for the top 2 percent, it might happen, but she is wrong when she says most of the people support it.

On another subject, Colmes praised President Obama for keeping cool about the WikiLeaks situation. "You don't want him to make more of this story than it is, and I'm glad this information came out and the American taxpayer got some transparency." Then crazy O'Reilly accused Colmes of exhibiting selective indignation, Billy said this: "You were outraged by the Valerie Plame leak and now you're not outraged by WikiLeaks."

Wow, are you kidding me. Only a totally insane idiot would compare the Bush administration leaking a CIA agents name, to a website leaking non-classified cables from people in the Government. It's not even close, and anyone who makes that comparison is a lunatic. My God O'Reilly, you have lost what little mind you had left.

Then O'Reilly had John Stossel on for his take on WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange and the leaked documents. As if anyone cares what Stossel thinks about it, I sure as hell don't.

Stossel said this: "I think you've been over the top on this. You called him a sleazeball, but he's not a total sleazeball - he did take out the names of covert operators who might be hurt. And you said he's bent on damaging America, but I could make the argument that he wants to help America by opposing wars he thinks are unjust. He's just the messenger."

But of course O'Reilly just ignored him, and said that Assange is a villain with noxious motives, Billy said this: "This guy wants to harm American foreign policy, he wants to make it very hard for us to keep any secrets. He's the scum of the earth." Then Stossel endorsed whatever punishment may be meted out to PFC Bradley Manning, who allegedly leaked the documents, because "he agreed he would not reveal secrets and he revealed them."

And btw, I agree with Stossel. I say punish the leaker, not the messenger, the leaker is the one who broke the law.

Then O'Reilly had Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl back again to talk about Wesley Snipes going to jail for tax evasion. Which I will not report on because it's tabloid garbage.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, Tom Delay was convicted for money laundering, and he is facing 20 years in prison. And yet, you have still ignored the entire story. But you sure have time to report on Wesley Snipes tax evasion conviction. Proving you are a biased fraud hack of a pretend journalist. Especially after you spent a month saying Delay was innocent, and attacking the prosecutor as a partisan, when he was right and you were wrong.

And in the last segment Billy had Charles Krauthammer on, who has implied that the New York Times could be prosecuted for publishing the classified documents released by WikiLeaks. Which is just ridiculous, because they have 1st amendment rights. And notice this, right-wing newspapers like the NY Post also reported it, but Krauthammer does not want them prosecuted.

Krauthammer said this: "Let me be systematic and careful about this. The President's spokesman said what WikiLeaks has done is a crime, and presumably the Justice Department will be looking to prosecute the criminals involved. What I would say is that if you find people who are collaborating with the criminal in disseminating this information, we ought to look into prosecuting them." He argued that, in the future, newspapers should avoid publishing state secrets. "If I got a call from this Assange guy and if I were offered this material, I would tell him to get lost and I would turn him in if I could."

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame pinheads and patriots. And as usual O'Reilly had one Democratic guest on the entire show, and he had to share his time with 2 Republicans, O'Reilly and Crowley. Fair and balanced? haha, yeah right.

The Monday 11-29-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 30, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called WikiLeaks, traitors and America. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Whoever leaked those State Department documents to the WikiLeaks website is a traitor and should be executed or put in prison for life. Classified information is now floating around the globe courtesy of the traitors and this despicable website, which is based in Sweden. The guy who runs the site is a sleazeball named Julian Assange, who is bent on damaging America. Since he's not a U.S. citizen, it's hard for American authorities to move against him, but we can prosecute those who leaked the documents.

Incredibly, President Obama did not speak about the situation today; why the President has remained silent is very perplexing. The fact that the USA can not keep its secrets badly damages our intelligence gathering going forward. Private First Class Bradley Manning is under arrest for leaking the sensitive documents; if guilty, he is a traitor and should be given life at hard labor in a military prison. Every American should be outraged by the situation, and once again the President is not extending any sense of urgency. Why doesn't he just express some outrage?
To begin with, none of the information leaked was classified or top secret, what was leaked was private cables, but it was not classified. So O'Reilly got that wrong.

Then O'Reilly had Megyn Kelly on to talk about the administration's legal options regarding WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange. Kelly said this: "We can't go after him for treason, because he is not a citizen and owes no allegiance to the U.S. But I believe we can go after him for espionage. That statute is very broadly drafted - you have to 'gather, transmit, or receive' defense information and have reason to believe that information will be used to hurt America. But we don't know where Assange is right now."

And then Kelly disagreed with O'Reilly and endorsed the Obama administration's low-key response to the leaks. She said this: "You don't want to make this into a bigger deal and give it more credence, you don't want to act panicked."

Then Brit Hume was on to discuss it and he also disagreed with O'Reilly, and agreed with Megyn Kelly's proposition that President Obama is following the proper course. Hume said this: "The more I think about it, the more I think it's prudent to not say anything. If he gets up and beats his breast and acts indignant, it will only look worse. I don't think it accomplishes much to show a lot of urgency about something that you can't do much about. You want this story to die as quickly as possible."

So even the 2 Republicans disagreed with O'Reilly. And btw folks, during the Kelly segment and the Hume segment O'Reilly did nothing but attack President Obama, Eric Holder, and Hillary Clinton. O'Reilly told Kelly he was not being partisan, and said that if he is being partisan she should say so. But of course she never said a word, and just let O'Reilly be partisan without saying anything.

O'Reilly urged the President to show anger, Billy said this to Hume: "I'm disagreeing with you almost 100%. I think this is another public relations disaster for President Obama. I'm angry as an American and I want something done about this, so if I'm the president I'm going to find a way to get Assange. I don't think there's anyone in the world who fears Barack Obama."

Which was just ridiculous, instead of reporting the story about the leaks, O'Reilly used the TPM, the Kelly segment, and the Hume segment, to do a partisan right-wing attack on Obama, Holder, and Clinton. It was crazy, and just more proof that O'Reilly is a partisan right-wing hack. Even with Kelly and Hume saying he is wrong, he just kept going with the attack on Obama.

Billy was mad that Obama did not give a speech saying he would do whatever it takes to get the guy from wilileaks. O'Reilly even called for Obama to say he would put a noose around his neck, so much for not supporting the death penalty. And the guy is not a U.S. citizen, so what can Holder do, almost nothing. And yet O'Reilly attacked Holder for not prosecuting the guy, when they do not even know where he is, and he is not a U.S. citizen. Then he attacked Hillary for her statement, he said it was a robotic and lame statement.

And all the time O'Reilly was on his jihad against Obama, Holder, and Clinton, he kept saying this is not a partisan attack. Earth to Billy, when you have to say over and over that it's not a partisan attack, guess what it is, a partisan attack. Because even the 2 other Republican guests did not agree with you, which just shows how far right O'Reilly really is. The bad guy is the leaker, he should have been attacked, but O'Reilly mostly ignored that, to spend 15 minutes attacking Obama, Holder, and Clinton, when they did nothing wrong.

Then O'Reilly had Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham on to discuss the Meg Whitman illegal housekeeper story, again. O'Reilly cried about Nicky Diaz having the backing of the powerful and ultra-liberal California Nurses Association. I mean, who cares, where is the story here. So a Nurses Union backed her, even if it's true, who fricking cares. Get a clue O'Reilly, this is not news to anyone but you, you are a joke.

In the next segment O'Reilly had Lars Larson on to talk about the Christmas Tree Bomber. Larson said this: "Five years ago, the city of Portland pulled out of the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force, and it is still the only city in America that will not cooperate formally with the FBI. The city council is anti-FBI, anti-Patriot Act, and anti-anti-terrorism, which sizes up the demeanor of this city, which is run by a bunch of fools."

So instead of having a real journalist on to report the story, O'Reilly has this right-wing Limbaugh wannabe stooge, Lars Larson on to trash the city of Portland. Even though they stopped the terrorist attack. This is what O'Reilly does, instead of reporting on the story with a real journalist, O'Reilly has a partisan right-wing radio hack on to slam the city, when the story is that they stopped the guy, and he never even had a bomb. But you would never know that if you only watch the Factor. You never got any of the facts, just right-wing spin, with no guest to counter any of it.

Then O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to talk about how the press handled the WikiLeaks document dump. Goldberg said this: "I don't blame the New York Times for running the story, because this was going to get out one way or another. My gripe is about hypocrisy."

Goldberg and O'Reilly crying about hypocrisy is beyond laughable. They are the kings of hypocrisy, and I could show you a hundred examples from Fox, O'Reilly, and Goldberg ignoring News that they did not like because it made Republicans or Fox look bad. And the documents were not just sent to the NY Times, they were sent to right-wing newspapers too. In fact, I do not even know why they talked about it, because it's not about what the media did, it's about the leaker.

Then Goldberg joked that celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred, who defended illegal immigrant Nicky Diaz, has earned an extended vacation. Bernie said this: "I would not deport Diaz, but I would deport Gloria Allred, maybe to Iran. But I don't think the Iranians would be comfortable with that."

So even the far right Bernie Goldberg would not deport her, making O'Reilly the only person on the show who said she should be deported, except for the O'Reilly ass kisser Mary K. Ham who agreed with O'Reilly, as she always does. The main problem with this so-called media bias segment, is that it's only Bernie Goldberg, with no Democratic media bias analyst. It's one sided right-wing bias, with 2 Republicans and 0 Democrats, in the media bias segment, how funny is that.

And the last segment was the ridiculous Factor Reality Check. There was a little reality, but no checks, and mostly just O'Reilly reporting things. Billy reported that Willie Nelson was busted for pot, ok, where was the check. Billy reported that President Obama said he does not think about Sarah Palin, ok, where was the check. Then he mentioned the date for one of his Beck/O'Reilly bold fresh tour, ok, where was the check. The whole segment was garbage.

Then the highly edited Factor e-mails, and the lame pinheads and patriots. O'Reilly asked if Wolf Blitzer is a pinhead or a patriot for doing a dane with Doug E. Fresh. My answer would be neither, and who cares.

O'Reilly Ignored Tom Delay Conviction Story
By: Steve - November 30, 2010 - 9:30am

As I predicted the great (so-called) journalist totally ignored the Tom Delay money laundering conviction story that broke last Friday. Billy never said a word about it in the entire show, not one word, nothing.

This was a big story on the Factor a couple years ago, before the guilty verdict happened. O'Reilly reported on it numerous times, he defended Delay, and said he did nothing wrong. Not only that, O'Reilly attacked the prosecutor in the case on numerous shows, saying it was a political hit job, and Billy also said Delay would be found not guilty of all the charges.

So when the verdict comes in, what does O'Reilly do. Ignore it of course, because O'Reilly was wrong, and because Delay is a Republican. If Delay was a Democrat, O'Reilly would do 2 or 3 nights of shows on it.

Not only did O'Reilly ignore the entire story, there was no apology to the prosecutor, or any guests who told him Delay would be found guilty. O'Reilly had numerous shows on it, where he stacked the deck with right-wing pundits who all slammed the prosecutor, and said it was political.

The 1 or 2 Democrats who were on to discuss it said Delay broke the law, and he will be found guilty. Then O'Reilly slammed them too, and said they are wrong, and that they are just liberal spin doctors. When it turns out they were exactly right, and O'Reilly was wrong.

But you would never know any of that if you only watch the Factor, because O'Reilly has not, and will not report it.

Obama At 46% Job Approval In Gallup Poll
By: Steve - November 30, 2010 - 9:00am

UPDATE -- 11-30-10 - The Obama job approval rating at Gallup is up 1 point to 47 percent.

And of course O'Reilly has totally ignored it, but last week he reported that Zogby has Obama at 39% approval. Without noting that Zogby gives Obama a D- grade on his Presidency. Funny how O'Reilly just happened to forget to report that.

And at the time O'Reilly reported the 39% approval for Obama at Zogby, he never once mentioned that at the very same time it was 44% at Gallup. Every poll in America has Obama around 45% approval, but one, the Zogby poll. So what does O'Reilly do, he cherry picks the one poll that has Obama at 39% and then implies that is his actual approval rating. When all the other polls say different, including Rasmussen and Fox.

And now he is ignoring the latest Gallup poll from 11-29-10, that has Obama at 46% approval, and 46% disapproval. O'Reilly never reports the upper approval ratings for President Obama, he only reports the lowest rating he can find.

O'Reilly never uses the Zogby polls for anything, he always uses Rasmussen or Fox News polls. But since Zogby had the lowest number for Obama, O'Reilly used it to make him look worse. This is what O'Reilly does, everything he can to make Obama look bad. As he claims he has been fair to the President, which is just laughable.

Ailes: O'Reilly Should Not Joke About Beheading
By: Steve - November 30, 2010 - 8:30am

After O'Reilly joked about beheading the Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, he was slammed for it by Milbank in another column. So O'Reilly joked about it again, called Milbank a liberal liar, and said it was a joke so get over it.

Which is massive hypocrisy, because when liberals do mean jokes about Sarah Palin, O'Reilly flips out and says they should stop it, and not do it anymore. But somehow it's ok for him to do a beheading joke about a liberal, but not ok for a liberal to do a dumb joke about Palin.

Figure that out, I sure can't. It looks like massive hypocrisy, and a double standard from O'Reilly. Now I find out that even Roger Ailes said O'Reilly should not be doing jokes about beheading people.

In an interview with Fox News chief Roger Ailes, Howard Kurtz asked about Bill O'Reilly's recent crack about beheading Dana Milbank. O'Reilly had repeatedly joked about Milbank's beheading, jokes to which Milbank took offense. Kurtz reported this:
Does Sharia law say we can behead Dana Milbank?" O'Reilly asked Megyn Kelly.

O'Reilly added this: "That was a joke for you Media Matters people out there."

Milbank wrote a follow-up column objecting to the violent imagery, saying he was a friend of Daniel Pearl, who was murdered in that fashion in Pakistan. O'Reilly then accused the reporter of casting a bit of humor as a serious threat.

So should O'Reilly be joshing about beheading Milbank?

Ailes couldn't resist: "Well, I would have cut a little lower."

Ailes then got serious: "No, he shouldn't joke about beheading... Bill knows he probably shouldn't have said it. He just shot off his mouth."
So it was not just Dana Milbank who thought it was wrong to do a beheading joke about him, the head of Fox News also thought it was wrong.

And btw, Milbank did not say the joke from O'Reilly was a serious threat, as O'Reilly claimed. In his column, Milbank clearly stated in his column that he knew it was a joke, but that he should not have said it. So O'Reilly even lied about what Milbank said.

O'Reilly Got The Ireland Economic Crisis Wrong
By: Steve - November 30, 2010 - 8:00am

In his November 28, 2010 column (Borrowed bucks stop here) O'Reilly wrote this:
O'REILLY: Be thankful you don't live in Ireland or Greece. Those countries are in bad economic shape and have to take bailout money from other countries just to survive. There are riots in the streets, and fear and loathing are on display. The luck of the Irish has run out; Zorba the Greek is broke.

What happened? The primary problem is the Western European model of providing cradle-to-grave entitlements for the folks is no longer sustainable in a world where recession has replaced expansion. Many countries, including the United States, have so much debt they can't pay it off. America can still borrow what it needs, but not even Zeus would invest in Greek bonds.

With the economic chaos on display, you would think the Democratic Party and liberal America would reconsider their attachment to massive government spending. You'd be wrong.
Wow, is O'Reilly ever wrong. To begin with, the debt problem in America was caused by George W. Bush and the Republican party, who had total control of Congress from 2000 until January of 2007. That is when almost all the debt happened, under Bush.

Let's have a reality check, when Bush took over in January of 2001 he was left a $100 Billion dollar surplus by the DEMOCRAT Bill Clinton. When Bush let office he left the DEMOCRAT Barack Obama a $300 Billion dollar deficit. So now we have the facts on that, not the right-wing propaganda from O'Reilly.

Now let's get to Ireland, they are not in financial trouble because of the social programs they have. They are in trouble because all the wealthy bankers gaave out bad loans and then they had to pay for it, so the taxpayers got stuck with the debt the bankers caused.

So O'Reilly is lying about that too. Here is part of an article about it from the website www.irishcentral.com:
Ireland had no great debt until it assumed the $100 billion or so that the banking system delivered to it when it collapsed.

By socializing that debt, in other words, making the taxpayer responsible for it not the greedy and out of control bankers, Ireland then hit the skids.

But it was a capitalism problem to begin with Bill, not a socialist problem.

The banks were like 'Girls Gone Wild' loaning money from European banks then reloaning it to ever more gullible Irish clients who spent and spent and built and built until.....

Well you know what happened next.

Now the banks, who took all the rewards want to avoid the risk too and stick the taxpayers with the bills.

And gullible Ireland has gone along with the IMF in making sure that it is all repaid with the bankers covered.

There is a reason why countries like Canada and Australia did not fall into this near economic collapse like Ireland, the U.S. and other countries did.

They had good government oversight of their banks.

That may be a form of socialism Bill, but I'd gladly undertake it if it made the ordinary taxpayer keep his money and stop it falling into the hands of greedy bankers as is happening in Ireland.
Earth to O'Reilly, even America is not only in big debt because of social programs, yes some of it is from Social Security, Medicare, etc. But not that much, most of it is from the 2 wars Bush started, the housing crisis, the massive Bush tax cuts, the financial crisis, the wall street bailout, and the banking crisis.

And almost all of it was created by Republicans, we were fine when Clinton was in office for 8 years, and yet, somehow you ignore that. Then Bush comes in, and 8 years later we have massive debt, but you blame it on Obama, the Democrats, and social programs.

Here is my advice to you, stop lying to the people, because most of our problems were caused by the Republicans you love so much. You are a liar, and nothing but a partisan hack of a pretend journalist. And your column on Ireland is full of lies, not misinformation, lies, making you a l-i-a-r.

Republican Senator Says GOP Has Moved Too Far Right
By: Steve - November 29, 2010 - 9:00am

Far-right tea party activists have pretty much taken over the Republican Party, but Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) has been one of the few GOP lawmakers to step out of line. Lugar, the ranking GOP member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has blasted his own party for relentlessly blocking ratification of the New START nuclear arms treaty with Russia, calling on his fellow GOP senators to do your duty for your country and complete the pact.

And this has earned Lugar some blowback within the Republican base, which now seems to value blind obedience over principled independent decision-making. In a New York Times profile of Lugar published Saturday, former GOP Sen. John Danforth feared that the backlash against Lugar from his own party signals that the GOP has gone overboard with no hope of turning back:
If Dick Lugar, said John C. Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri, having served five terms in the U.S. Senate and being the most respected person in the Senate and the leading authority on foreign policy, is seriously challenged by anybody in the Republican Party, we have gone so far overboard that we are beyond redemption.

Mr. Danforth, who was first elected the same year as Mr. Lugar, added, "I'm glad Lugar's there and I'm not."
Lugar, who is up for reelection in 2012, has already been targeted by tea party groups. "If I was Dick Lugar, I would certainly expect a challenge," noted veteran political analyst Stuart Rothenberg. As Diane Hubbard, a spokeswoman for the Indianapolis Tea Party, told the Times, removing Lugar "will be a difficult challenge. But we do believe it's doable, and we think the climate is right for it and we believe it is a must."

Asked about a potential tea party challenge motivated by his breaks with the GOP on START and other issues, Lugar suggested the party has drifted to the right while he has stayed steady, saying, "These are just areas where I've had stances for a long time."

Beck Goes Insane Over Net Neutrality
By: Steve - November 29, 2010 - 8:30am

Glenn Beck is lying again, what a shocker, Not!

And while some people are saying Beck does not understand what net neutrality is, I am pretty sure he does, he is just lying about it for political reasons.

Beck claimed that proposed net neutrality rules are a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet, that would allow the government to "control what you see on the Internet."

In fact, he is wrong, and a liar. Net neutrality simply prohibits Internet service providers from controlling access to Internet content, and -- contrary to Beck's claim, it would not require Fox (or anyone) to change its content.

On his Fox News program, Beck claimed that net neutrality rules would require conservative news outlets to provide progressive content, falsely comparing net neutrality to the Fairness Doctrine. He said this:
BECK: They want to make sure that you can get the Huffington Post on Fox News. No, thank you. They're about to control what you see on the Internet.
That is ridiculous, and Beck is either really stupid, or a liar, maybe both. Because Net neutrality would not allow the government to dictate content on the Internet.

Contrary to claims that net neutrality allows the government to control content on the Internet, the Congressional Research Service states that net neutrality is the principle that "owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network; and should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network."

The Washington Post wrote a detailed report on it, and they show you the facts. They wrote this:
Net neutrality -- the idea that all traffic on the Internet should travel at the same speed -- has been a point of contention for the Federal Communications Commission, which is proposing regulations that would ensure that broadband service providers treat all Web traffic equally.

The FCC wants to prevent Internet service providers from blocking Web applications or slowing the transmission of Web sites.
Hell the far right Christian Coalition even supports it. In its support for net neutrality, the Christian Coalition said this:
"It is an issue extremely important to America's grassroots organizations and to those Americans who want to ensure the cable and phone companies controlling access to the Internet will not discriminate.

Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has grown the way it has and become such an indispensible tool in our lives and our civic discourse."
So as you can see, Beck is a fool that is lying about what it does.

And think about this, O'Reilly slammed the Muslim Imam who wants to build the mosque near ground zero in NY, simply because he knows a 9-11 truther. O'Reilly said it was guilt by association, that he is a bad guy just because he knows a truther. But O'Reilly has the insane Glenn Beck on his show every week, to spin out all these lies and right-wing propaganda, so look who O'Reilly associates with.

Online Casino Games Including Blackjack & Slots
By: Steve - November 28, 2010 - 9:30am

Hey folks, I recently found a great website to play some online casino games. It's called www.casino.com and it's the world's premiere site for online casino games.

They have over 100 of the finest casino games, in a tested and regulated environment to ensure fair play. Games like Blackjack, Slots, Roulette, Video Poker, and much more. Click Here to check it out.

It's a licensed and secure online casino website, with loyalty points, promotions, and 24/7 tech support. So give them a visit and play some great online casino games.

CBO Report Proves O'Reilly Is A Biased Hack
By: Steve - November 28, 2010 - 9:00am

And now we have even more proof O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack of a pretend journalist, who spins and lies for the Republicans to make President Obama look bad. For months now O'Reilly has been saying the Obama stimulus did not work, and that it was a waste of taxpayer money that did nothing to help the economy, or create jobs.

Except a recent report by the non-partisan CBO says it did work, and not only did it increase the GDP, it created and saved jobs. This is a factual report from a Government agency, not a statement from a cable news host. So who are you going to believe, the CBO or O'Reilly.

And btw, the only people saying the Obama stimulus did not work are Republicans, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. Notice who is saying it, they are all right-wing spin doctors. While the economists and the CBO say it did work.

Here are the facts, that O'Reilly never reports btw, he just says the stimulus did not work, but he never backs it up with any facts. These are the facts, the facts O'Reilly ignores, because it kills his spin on it.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its latest report last week on the effects of the Obama stimulus and found that it raised the GDP, lowered unemployment, and increased the number of people with jobs. According to the report, the CBO estimates that the stimulus policies in the third quarter of the calendar year 2010 had the following effects:
-- They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent.

-- Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.8 percentage points and 2.0 percentage points.

-- Increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.6 million.

-- Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 2.0 million to 5.2 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise.
And for the people that do not know it, the purpose of the Obama stimulus bill was to give the economy a short term stimulus. To save us from going into a depression, to create jobs and promote investment and consumer spending during the recession.

Contrary to what O'Reilly and the right say, it was not meant to get back the 30 million jobs lost under Bush. It was also not meant to fix the economy, or to get unemployment down below 7 percent. It was simply a temporary stimulus during a recession, and it did exactly what it was meant to do.

The only thing it did not so, that Obama said it would, is keep the unemployment rate under 8 percent. But it did keep it under 10 percent. And when Obama said it would keep the unemployment rate under 8 percent, he said that based on information he had at the time, before he took over in January of 2009.

Once he got into office he found out things were worse than he thought, so the stimulus did not keep the unemployment rate under 8 percent. But once Obama saw how bad it was, he tried to increase the stimulus to $1 Trillion, from $787 Billion, but the Republicans blocked it.

Basically the Obama stimulus worked, and only the dishonest right-wing spin doctors deny it. With O'Reilly at the head of the line putting the spin out that it did not work, even though he claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone.

Making it laughable for O'Reilly to claim he is not a right-wing spin doctor, when he says almost the exact same things Hannity, Beck, Coulter, Ingraham, and Limbaugh say. O'Reilly is just slightly less far right than they are, but he is still a far right idiot who puts out right-wing propaganda about 95% of the time.

Air Travel Security Poll O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - November 28, 2010 - 8:30am

As you probably know, O'Reilly, Coulter, Crowley, Hannity, and just about everyone on the right are crying like babies about the body scans and the pat downs at airports. But think about this, during the Bush years they supported everything Bush did to protect us, including illegal torture and illegal NSA wiretaps on American citizens.

Now all the sudden they oppose the airport body scans and pat downs, because it's political. And if it was happening under Bush, these same hypocrites would support it. They only oppose it because we have a Democrat in the White House, and they are trying to use it to score cheap political points.

O'Reilly has even said most people are upset and think they are going too far. And that is not true, then you might ask how I know this. Just look at the polls, the polls O'Reilly loves to use to back up his argument. A November 23rd Gallup poll says that a vast majority (71%) of air travelers who have flown at least twice in the past year say any potential loss of personal privacy from the full-body scans and pat-downs is worth it as a means of preventing acts of terrorism.

Earth to Billy, 71 percent of the people are ok with it, while only 27 percent oppose it. So how come you are not with the folks on this one, you fraud. You claim we MUST listen to the folks, so the folks are ok with it, and yet you lie about it, and then you ignore the fact that the vast majority of people who fly are ok with it.

Now think about this, imagine what O'Reilly, Coulter, Crowley, Hannity, etc. would say if Obama forced the TSA to stop the body scans and the pat downs, then a terrorist took a plane down with a bomb and killed hundreds of people. What would O'Reilly and his idiotic friends say then.

Of course they would blame it on Obama, and trash him for letting people pressure him into dropping the body scans and the pat downs. When they are the people pressuring him to drop the security measures.

Here is my message to O'Reilly, Crowley, Hannity, Beck, etc. SHUT THE HELL UP. YOU ARE NOT SECURITY EXPERTS. You are partisan political hacks, who simply use your air time to smear the Democratic President. Leave the security to the experts, and let them do what they need to do to keep the flying public safe.

Motor Trend Slams Rush Limbaugh For Volt Comments
By: Steve - November 28, 2010 - 8:00am

Read this folks, this is how you respond to these right-wing idiots like O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, etc. You fight fire with fire, and you hit them back as hard as they hit you. Here is the story:

Last week, the auto magazine Motor Trend announced that it had named the breakthrough plug-in hybrid Chevrolet Volt as its 2011 car of the year. Conservatives immediately picked up on the story and attacked Motor Trend. The magazine "awarded the Obama-approved, government-subsidized Chevrolet Volt its annual 'Car of the Year' appellation," the Weekly Standard whined.

Referring the federal government's auto bailout - which turned out to be hugely beneficial for GM and the ailing industry - conservative Washington Post columnist George Will complained about the government "spending some of your money" to produce the Volt.

NOTE: The Volt was conceived of in 2006, a full 3 years before Obama was elected the President, and years before the car company bailout/loan, that was paid back btw. Not to mention, Bush gave the car companies the bailout, not Obama. In fact, the former GM executive Bob Lutz, introduced the car two years before Bush gave GM its first bailout.

But right-wing radio blow-hard Rush Limbaugh was perhaps the most vocal critic. The Volt has been a Limbaugh nemesis for quite some time. He even launched a campaign last August to undermine the innovative car. And this week, Limbaugh said of the Motor Trend award, "Of all the cars in the world, the Chevrolet Volt is the Car of the Year? Motor Trend magazine, that's the end of them. How in the world do they have any credibility? Not one has been sold, and the Volt is the Car of the Year."

Then last week, one of the magazine's editors, Todd Lassa, shot back at Limbaugh, noting that GM hasn't sold any Volts because it's not on sale yet. He also got a good shot in on Limbaugh:
LASSA: So, Mr. Limbaugh; you didn't enjoy your drive of our 2011 Car of the Year, the Chevrolet Volt? Assuming you've been anywhere near the biggest automotive technological breakthrough since... I don't know, maybe the self-starter, could you even find your way to the front seat? Or are you happy attacking a car that you've never even seen in person?

All the shouting from you or from electric car purists on the left can't distort the fact that the Chevy Volt is, indeed, a technological breakthrough. And it's more. It's a technological breakthrough that many American families can use for gas-free daily commutes and well-planned vacation drives.

It's expensive for a Chevy, but many of those families will find the gasoline saved worth it. If you can stop shilling for your favorite political party long enough to go for a drive, you might really enjoy the Chevy Volt. I'm sure GM would be happy to lend you one for the weekend. Just remember: driving and Oxycontin don't mix.
Oh, Snap. Mr. Lassa not only called Limbaugh out for the right-wing idiot he is, he got a shot in on the Oxycontin drug use. But his best 2 points are the fact that the car was not even on sale yet, so of course none have been sold. And the fact that Limbaugh is attacking a car he has never seen, let alone drive yet.

Not only does it prove Limbaugh is a fool, it reminds us that he is also an drug user. And that my friends is how you respond to these idiots like Limbaugh, hit them back, and hit them back hard. Mr. Lassa, good job brother.

O'Reilly Caught Poll Cherry Picking Again
By: Steve - November 27, 2010 - 9:00am

Once again O'Reilly is proving his bias, and just how much he hates President Obama. Because he does the exact opposite of what he did under Bush, he finds the poll that has the Obama job approval the lowest, and only reports that poll.

But when Bush was in office he would find the poll that had the highest approval for Bush, and only report that poll. And Tuesday night he did it again, O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A new Zogby poll says President Obama's approval rating is now 39%; it's the first time the President has fallen below the dreaded 40% line. And there's no question the airport security mess is hurting the President. People who fly often are furious and once again a national problem is vexing the Obama administration.
While ignoring the fact that Obama was at 46% in the Gallup poll 2 days ago, 47% 3 days ago, and is currently at 44% in the Friday Gallup poll. And btw folks, O'Reilly never uses Zogby polls, except this one time to smear Obama with it.

O'Reilly does this on purpose, it is not an accident. He finds the one poll that has Obama with the lowest approval, and only reports that one poll. It's bias, it's dishonest, and it violates the rules of journalism.

O'Reilly did not do that to George W. Bush, ever, not one time. In fact, he would actually do the opposite, and find the poll that had Bush the highest, to make him look better.

The Friday 11-26-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 27, 2010 - 8:30am

There was no review because Billy had a re-run of his lame softball interview with George W. Bush. Which was pretty much a joke, and O'Reilly never once asked him about torture, not finding WMD's in Iraq, Scott Ritter saying they did not have WMD's, Curveball, the illegal NSA wiretaps, attorneygate, the Plame CIA leak, or anything about the 50 other scandals that happened under Bush.

Then on top of not asking any tough questions, O'Reilly praised Bush and told him his book was 100% honest. When there are numerous lies in the book, and it is not even close to honest. Here is a question I would have asked Bush, Scott Ritter said he destroyed all the WMD's in iraq, did you know that, and if so, why did you ignore what he was saying. And if you did not know he was saying that, why?

I would have also asked about the office of the OSP, that was set up to stovepipe false intelligence on Iraq. O'Reilly ignored it all to kiss Bush's ass and help him promote his lie filled book.

And btw folks, look at the 3 re-run shows Billy did over thanksgiving. It was all right-wing propaganda, with not one Democratic guest on any of the 3 shows. It was the best of Dennis Miller Wednesday, the best of Glenn Beck Thursday, and the Bush interview Friday. All republican spin, all the time. And he has the nerve to deny he is a Republican spin doctor, give me a break.

Republican Gregg Slams CBO After he Praised It
By: Steve - November 27, 2010 - 8:00am

For anyone who does not know how this works, here you go. If a Republican likes what the CBO numbers say about something, he loves it, quotes it, and tells people what a great job they do, and how you can trust their numbers.

But when a Republican does not like a CBO number, he slams them, laughs at them, and claims their numbers can not be trusted.

Which is also the very same way O'Reilly works his con game. When a poll agrees with him, he quotes it and reports it, he even claims it is a valid poll and we MUST listen to the American people. But when a Democrat cites a poll that disagrees with O'Reilly, he claims the poll is not valid, and says he does not believe it.

And that is what Republican Judd Gregg did on Sunday. As debate in Washington begins to focus on ways to reduce the deficit, Republican lawmakers, who have been unable to actually specify any big spending cuts they would like to make, usually cite repeal of the President Obama's health care law as one of their best ideas to reduce federal spending.

But there's one small problem with that plan, repealing the Affordable Care Act would actually increase the deficit, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, to the tune of $143 billion over ten years.

Asked how he would save money on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), claimed the law will cause a massive amount of new spending. He dismissed the CBO's estimates out of hand, without any explanation, and found the concept of listening to the CBO so absurd on its face that he laughed when host Shannon Bream mentioned the CBO findings, saying, if you believe that I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you:
GREGG: The health care plan alone will add $2.5 trillion in new spending to the federal government over the next ten years.

BREAM: Okay, you point to $2.5 trillion in increased costs because of health care, but Democrats are going to point to figures from the CBO estimates and other economists saying that it is actually going to save us money. Where is the disconnect on the math?

GREGG: [Laughs] Hey, if you believe that, Shannon, I'm going to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn. I mean, that's just absurd on its face.
While Gregg is quick to dismiss the CBO numbers, or anyone who disagrees with the disinformation he is trying to push, the senator has been happy to praise the office when its findings agreed with his spin. While discussing health care in 2009, Gregg said this: "the nail was hit on the head by Doug Elmendorf, who's head of CBO, and who is, by the way, appointed by the Democratic leadership of the House and the Senate."

In March, Gregg urged viewers to go to CBO if they didn't trust a figure he had mentioned on Medicare. "They are the independent score keeper," he explained.

Maybe Gregg should take some advice from a U.S. Senator who said this: "We can solve this problem if we would just simply listen to what the CBO proposed and proceed on a plan of addressing the problem rather than addressing the politics."

The Senator who said that? Judd Gregg, he said that a little over a year ago. And now we have proof that Judd Gregg is a dishonest partisan hack that you can not believe. Because one day he says the CBO is great and you can trust their numbers, then the next day he says they are a joke, and you can not believe them.

Millionaires Speak Out On The Bush Tax Cuts
By: Steve - November 26, 2010 - 9:00am

An honest group of millionaires and billionaires are speaking out on the Bush tax cuts expiring for the top 2 percent. And it's not what you think, they are saying the Bush tax cuts should expire, a group of millionaires even sent a letter to President Obama saying he should let the Bush tax cuts expire for the top 2 percent.

In a letter addressed to President Obama, about 100 wealthy Americans, "who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more," wrote to urge Obama to "stand firm against those who would put politics ahead of their country." The letter stated: "For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled."
Dear Mr. President,

We are writing to urge you to stand firm against those who would put politics ahead of their country.

For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled.

We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more.

We have done very well over the last several years. Now, during our nation's moment of need, we are eager to do our fair share. We don't need more tax cuts, and we understand that cutting our taxes will increase the deficit and the debt burden carried by other taxpayers. The country needs to meet its financial obligations in a just and responsible way.

Letting tax cuts for incomes over $1,000,000 expire, is an important step in that direction.
Warren Buffett even spoke out on it. During an interview with ABC News, Buffett, chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, expressed support for ending the Bush-era tax cuts for households making more than $250,000. He said this:
BUFFETT: "I think that people at the high end -- people like myself -- should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it."
Buffett also addressed the claim that the wealthy "energize business and capitalism," saying this:
BUFFETT: "The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on."
So what did O'Reilly and the other stooges at Fox say to that, why of course they slammed the millionaires who signed the letter to Obama, and the also slammed Warren Buffet. The village idiot Neil Cavuto even told Buffett to quit lecturing them.

O'Reilly to Buffett: "Stop hawking me."

After airing Buffett's ABC comments, Bill O'Reilly replied: "Well, go ahead, Warren. Nobody's stopping you. Make a big donation." He stated, "I don't want to be paying 50 percent to the federal government because I believe they waste an enormous amount of money" and claimed that "the more money and the more spending you give them, the more they control people's lives."

He added: "So, people get dependent -- it's like heroin -- on the federal government for their livelihood. And I don't want to be into that. If Warren wants to kick more money in, kick it in, Warren. Stop hawking me."

Neil Cavuto's "common sense" on "Patriotic Millionaires": "Quit lecturing."

During his "Common Sense" segment on his Fox News show, Neil Cavuto slammed the "Patriotic Millionaires" campaign for wanting "to get creamed by Washington," telling Buffett and the other millionaires to "quit speaking" for the nation's top 2 percent of earners.

He added: "And while you're at it, quit speaking for even millionaires now. Maybe they're against paying more now, not because they can't afford to, but because they simply don't want to." Cavuto concluded: "Quit lecturing."

Stossel: "It doesn't help" for the rich to pay more.

Appearing on The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor John Stossel asserted that it "doesn't help" for the top earners to pay more taxes, adding that Buffett could give it to the Treasury but has chosen to give money to charity instead. Stossel added: "Wisely, people know giving it to charity is a better use of the money."

Stossel also advocated for making up some of the deficit by cutting the Education Department, and concluded: "Money in private hands does far more good for the world and for Americans than money in government hands."

Carlson: "This is a form of moral preening. It's his way of saying, 'I'm better than you.'"

On Fox News' On the Record, Tucker Carlson said Buffett could pay more taxes "if he wanted to." Carlson continued: "Warren Buffett, like every person in business, employs an entire army of accountants whose only job it is to minimize the amount of taxes he pays. He could fire every accountant at Berkshire Hathaway tomorrow, if he wanted, and send 80 percent of his income to the federal government. And he should. 'You, first': that's what I say to Warren Buffett."

Van Susteren: It's "appalling" to tell the rich "to pay their fair share. It was designed to create class warfare."

On her Fox News show, Greta Van Susteren also criticized Buffett, saying, "I always thought it was sort of appalling when they said to the rich, 'the rich need to pay their fair share,' as though they weren't paying their fair share -- although maybe Warren Buffett isn't paying his fair share -- that it was designed to create class warfare. I actually think a lot of rich people would be willing to help out, whether it's in the charities or whatever, if they're asked, instead of being called cheats."

Huckabee: Millionaires should "write the biggest check that will make you feel less guilty."

Asked about Buffett's comments on the November 22 edition of ABC's The View, Fox News host Mike Huckabee said, "Here's what I say to them: If you want to pay more in taxes, there's not a law in the United States that keeps you from doing that. Write a check. Write the biggest check that makes you feel less guilty, but don't impose."

He added, "If Warren Buffett wants to give his last dime to the federal government and thinks they'll spend it better than he will, let him do it.

And btw folks, it is also a myth put out by people like O'Reilly, Cavuto, and the Republicans that giving the wealthy tax cuts will create jobs.

From the CBO: Extending tax cuts "does not create much incentive to hire more workers."

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) director Douglas Elmendorf stated in his written testimony that "deferring the scheduled increases in tax rates in 2011 would help some businesses" but that "increasing the after-tax income of businesses typically does not create much incentive for them to hire more workers in order to produce more, because production depends principally on their ability to sell their products."

What they are saying is that demand for products are what creates jobs, and that demand comes from people buying things. Which has nothing to do with giving millionaires tax cuts, it's all about demand. And the people that buy most things that create the demand are the middle class working men and women, not the wealthy.

The Thursday 11-24-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 26, 2010 - 8:30am

There was no review because it was Thanksgiving, and O'Reilly had a best of Glenn Beck re-run show. It was all clips of Glenn Beck from past shows, for the entire hour.

Notice a pattern here, first it was the best of Dennis Miller on Wednesday, then the best of Glenn Beck on Thursday. The pattern, it's all right-wing idiots.

Guess how many Democrats O'Reilly has done a best of show with, zero, none, as in never. All his best of re-runs are with right-wing stooges, because in O'Reillyworld there are no good Democrats. You never see a best of Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, or a best of Alan Colmes, or a best of Ellis Henican, never. Which is just more proof O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack of a pretend journalist.

Tom DeLay Convicted Of Money Laundering Charges
By: Steve - November 26, 2010 - 8:00am

And remember that O'Reilly defended Delay, he said it was nothing but a liberal smear job, and that Delay would never be convicted, WRONG!

O'Reilly also did numerous segments attacking the Prosecutor in the case, he called it a partisan smear job, simply because he was a Democrat, even though he had prosecuted many Democrats too. Billy went on and on for months, saying Delay did nothing wrong, and predicted he would never be found guilty of anything. And as usual, O'Reilly was just slamming the Prosecutor for political reasons, and now we know he did something wrong.

11-24-10 -- AUSTIN – A Travis County jury today found former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay guilty of political money laundering charges relating to a corporate money swap in the 2002 elections.

The verdict came down five years after DeLay was forced to step down as the second most powerful Republican in the U.S. House. The charges also led DeLay to resign from his Sugar Land congressional seat in 2006.

DeLay was accused of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. On the conspiracy charge, DeLay faces a sentence of two to 20 years in prison and five to 99 years or life in prison on the money laundering count.

In preparation for the 2002 elections, DeLay cloned his Americans for a Republican Majority political committee as Texans for a Republican Majority. TRMPAC was designed to help Republicans win a state House majority in preparation for a mid-decade congressional redistricting in 2003.

That redistricting helped the Republicans take a 17-15 majority from the Democrats and win a 21-11 GOP majority in the 2004 elections.

At the center of the case against DeLay was an exchange of $190,000 in corporate donations to TRMPAC for an equal amount of money donated by individuals to the Republican National Committee. The RNC money was given to seven Texas candidates specified by TRMPAC.

Corporate money cannot be used in candidate campaigns in Texas.

-----------------------

And now the question is: will O'Reilly admit he was wrong, and say he was sorry for accusing liberals of a smear campaign against Delay. Sure he will, when hell freezes over. O'Reilly will not only not say he is sorry, he will probably never even report on this story, because it makes Republicans look bad.

The Wednesday 11-24-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 25, 2010 - 9:00am

There is no review because the entire show was a best of Dennis Miller, with spliced together clips of Dennis Miller from past shows.

As if there is such a thing as a best of Dennis Miller, that is what O'Reilly decided to show on the day before Thanksgiving. So it was basically an entire hour of Dennis Miller doing jokes about Obama, Pelosi, Frank, and other Democrats.

Which is ok by me, except for the hypocrisy and the double standard from O'Reilly, because he complains when liberal COMEDIANS do jokes about Palin. But somehow it's ok for him to have Dennis Miller on the Factor every week to do jokes about Pelosi and other Democrats.

Stupid Sarah Strikes Again
By: Steve - November 25, 2010 - 8:30am

My God the woman is an idiot. Recently Sarah Palin has hinted that she is seriously considering a run for the presidency in 2012. But many people have argued that Palin could never win because of her embarrassing lack of expertise, knowledge, or interest in foreign policy, or anything else for that matter.

Her appearance on Glenn Beck's radio show Tuesday, confirms that they are right:
CO-HOST: How would you handle a situation like the one that just developed in North Korea?

PALIN: But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies. We're bound to by treaty -

CO-HOST: South Korean.

PALIN: Eh, Yeah. And we're also bound by prudence to stand with our South Korean allies, yes.
Eh, yeah. It's South Korea you clueless moron. And this is the woman who wants to run for President, you have got to be kidding me. I would not vote for her if she ran for dog catcher, but I sure as hell hope she wins the Republican nomination for President in 2012, because she will get crushed.

And btw, she never answered the question. Stupid Sarah was asked how she would handle a situation like the one that just developed in North Korea, and her answer was "we've got to stand with our North Korean allies."

What the hell does that mean, it's a non-answer. Because she does not know what she would do, so she just gives that lame we have to stand with our allies garbage. Palin can not answer the question, because she is stupid, and she has no clue what to do. Her handlers just coached her to say we must stand with our allies, which is no answer at all.

And btw folks, it does not show it in the transcript, but Stupid Sarah said North Korea about 3 times before the co-host corrected her and told her South Korea was on our side. So it was not just a one time slip up, she really did not know that Noth Korea is the bad Korea. Not to mention, back when she ran with McCain it was reported that she did not even know they had a North and South Korea. Which means she really is as dumb as a rock, and it was not just a one time mistake.

The Tuesday 11-23-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 24, 2010 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Airline security, President Obama and the far left. O'Dummy said this:
O'REILLY: A new Zogby poll says President Obama's approval rating is now 39%; it's the first time the President has fallen below the dreaded 40% line. And there's no question the airport security mess is hurting the President. People who fly often are furious and once again a national problem is vexing the Obama administration.

Scenes like the one showing a 3-year-old being patted down by a security agent are whipping up a frenzy of indignation, especially in the conservative community. You would think the opposite, that right-wingers would want stringent security and left-wingers would be opposed, but many left-wing pundits are defending the airport chaos.

So why is the left on board with the intrusive security? Talking Points does not like to speculate, but I do think it has to do with defending President Obama. Remember, the left opposed nearly all the Bush anti-terror programs, and now they're okay with pat-downs?

As we said yesterday, the solution is random selection - putting some passengers through the body scanners, but not Opie and Aunt Bee, who are not a threat. Some will scream 'profiling,' but this is about efficiency. Let's get rid of the universal intrusion.
And I will say this, I am not a security expert, and neither is O'Reilly. So I will leave it to the experts as to how to keep up safe, not to mention, I do not fly, so it is not an issue for me. I will also say this, O'Reilly and the right are hypocrites with double standards on this, because they supported everything Bush did, as in torture and illegal wiretaps of American citizens.

Now all the sudden they are opposed to the security measures used under Obama, even though it's legal. What Bush did was illegal, as in torture and illegal NSA wiretaps, but O'Reilly compares the two issues like it's the same, when it's not. Because liberals complained about Bush breaking laws, what the TSA is doing with the body scans and the pat downs is not illegal. So as usual, the O'Reilly equal comparison is laughable and just stupid. It's all political, and they only oppose it because Obama is a Democrat.

Then O'Reilly had John Pistole, head of the Transportation Security Administration on, who defended his agency's procedures. Pistole said this: "We are using a risk-based approach, which is constantly evolving, and we're trying to use the best intelligence and information that we have. We're also trying to see if there's a less intrusive means of accomplishing the best outcomes."

Pistole explained why the new full-body scanners are necessary. "The old walk-through metal detectors didn't work on non-metallic devices, as we saw on 12/25 with the underwear bomber. He could go through a walk-through metal detector."

Then O'Dummy said Pistole should consider some form of profiling, Billy said this: "It doesn't make sense to put everybody through this process of the full-body scan and the pat-down. I submit that you can come up with a better way."

Then Billy had Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes on to discuss it, O'Reilly asked why many on the left seem to be fine with intrusive airport security measures. Crowley said this: "I'm not surprised. You've got a far-left president so they've decided that all these kinds of intrusive actions are okay. Do you remember how the left went bananas over every single thing President Bush tried to do to keep us safe?

Everything was a violation of privacy or a civil rights emergency, but now there is a civil rights emergency and the left is stone cold quiet!"

Earth to crazy Crowley, what the left complained about under Bush was illegal, torture and illegal wiretaps are against the law, so there is a big difference you idiot.

Colmes disputed the notion that liberals endorse the new measures, he said this: "I don't agree with your premise that 'the left' is on board. What about the ACLU? Are they liberal enough for you? You're wrong to paint liberals this way - I object to the full body scan because it doesn't make us safer. Whatever we do, the terrorists will find ways around it."

Yeah, Colmes is right, not all liberals are ok with it, so that just killed your lame right-wing spin. I personally do not object to the full body scans, but I do have a little problem with the invasive pat downs, especially when they do it to 3 year old kids. So I am sort of ok with it, and not ok with it. But to claim all liberals support it is insane, and just wrong.

Then Whoppi Goldberg was on, scroll down my blog to see the transcript of the interview.

In the next segment O'Reilly had Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle on for is it legal. Billy said some Republicans are opposed to the DREAM Act, which would grant citizenship to illegal immigrants who serve in the military or attend college. Billy asked why most Republicans object to the legislation. Wiehl said this: "There are lots of objections to this. It was supposed to be for the children of illegal aliens, but some versions of the act include immigrants up to the age of 35 or 40. Also, there's a 'safe harbor' for people who have committed crimes."

Guilfoyle complained that the act invites bad behavior. "This is something that incentivizes illegality and encourages people to seek amnesty by saying, sure, I'll join the military. I would not vote for this - a provision for good moral character should be included."

And of course O'Reilly is opposed to it, just as most Republicans are, because he is a Republican, and because President Obama and the Democrats support it.

In the last segment O'Reilly had the crazy far right neo-con Charles Krauthammer on to talk about the tension on the Korean peninsula, where the North Korean military fired artillery shells at a South Korean island. Krauthammer said this: "It's always a big deal, when the looniest regime on the planet is shooting artillery into an ally of ours. This is in part a succession crisis and the ruling elite of North Korea trying to show it's still in control.

It's also extortion and a shakedown - North Korea is desperate for aid and this is their way of saying you better help us or we're going to make trouble." Krauthammer then turned his attention to the airline security chaos. "Anybody who stands in a TSA line looks around and knows that 85% of the people being patted down are not a danger - they're old ladies, children, young women with families. We ought to do what the Israelis do, which is ask some questions. You don't profile by appearance or by race, but by behavior. That's how we ought to do it, not by having obviously innocent Americans humiliated."

Which is just laughable, if you are going to profile you do it by skin color, to say anything different is ridiculous, and it's nothing but spin from the right to get around the profiling laws. And we have too many people flying to question every one of them like the Israelis do, it's impossible.

Then the highly edited Factor e-mails, and the lame pinheads and patriots. I also want to point out an e-mail O'Reilly got, that I agree with.

Stephen Gallagher, NY: "Americans have short memories. As a police officer who worked the day of the 9/11 attack, I wonder how many folks on board those doomed planes would have objected to being scanned?"

Newt Gingrich Wins Gold In Worlds Worst Persons
By: Steve - November 24, 2010 - 11:00am

Not only is a Newt a liar, he is a massive hypocrite. Here is what Keith Olbermann did on worlds worst person.

From the Monday Countdown With Keith Olbermann:

For our winner tonight, former House speaker, Newt Gingrich, now at FOX News, talking about boycotting any presidential debate if he didn't like the host network with the moderators specifically MSNBC.

Three years ago when Democrats objected to Democratic candidates appearing in a presidential debate on FOX News, we heard this. Mort Kondracke, "This is junior-grade Stalinism on their part." Roger Ailes, "The candidate that can't face FOX, can't face al Qaeda."

Of course mere hypocrisy would never be enough when we're talking about Newt Gingrich. Here's Newt actually saying this on C-SPAN. Newt sees things.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEWT GINGRICH: There is no possibility that I would ever go to a debate and have, you know, Olbermann or Chris Matthews asking questions. I watched the debate a couple of years ago. It was an embarrassment because they were so relentlessly hostile and they were so left wing that every question they asked of the Republicans was designed to embarrass and divide the Republicans.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Who is they, Newt? Chris Matthews and I have never moderated a debate together and I have never moderated any Republican debates at all.

And, also, Newt, I was never in the Beatles. I didn't host the Oscars that one terrible year and I did not have an hour-long special on ESPN to announce I was leaving for Miami.

Newt also thinks "I was in a Chilean mine" Gingrich. Today's worst person in the world.

That's COUNTDOWN. I'm Keith Olbermann.

Palin & Goldberg Finally Admit The Truth
By: Steve - November 24, 2010 - 10:30am

Yes they actually told the truth for once, they both admitted that Fox News is nothing but a right-wing propaganda outlet for Republicans to spin out their lies, and get softball interviews.

But of course, Stupid Sarah probably did not even know she admitted it. On the Monday Hannity show, Hannity asked Palin about about Rove's criticism of her reality show. So Palin said Rove "needs to understand that pop culture is the influencer in this country" and that conservatives shouldn't "just preach to the choir with Fox viewers."
PALIN: And where it is I'm coming from, when I talk about some interjection of my life into pop culture, he needs to understand that pop culture is the influencer in this country in our society. So we are to be salt and light.

We're not to just be sitting there in our own little circle of influence and though the Fox News viewership is huge, larger than any other news organization of course, just preaching to the choir with Fox viewers?

No, we need to get out there and reach people who are so independent that perhaps they would never think to tune in to Fox News and introduce some good ideas to these people.
And btw, not only did she just admit that conservatives on Fox are just preaching to the choir, she has proven once again how stupid she is, because she only does Fox and other right-wing news outlets, while saying conservatives should not just preach to the choir at Fox.

In fact, she said if she runs for President she will not talk to biased people like Katie Couric. Yeah and Katie will ask her such biased questions as this: What newspapers do you read?

Give me a break, Palin is just saying she is afraid of actual journalists who ask tough questions. And all she wants is softball interviews from right-wingers, because when she is asked tough questions, she has no answers, and that makes her look bad.

Then as if that was not enough, a miracle happened, Bernie Goldberg admitted that the Fox News softball interviews, issue advocacy, and campaigning for Republicans are limiting the network. Which was shocking enough, but then O'Reilly even admitted that it does happen sometimes.



But even though Palin and Goldberg admitted the truth, nothing will change. Except they will continue to do what they do, and they will continue to be massive hypocrites with almost total right-wing bias.

O'Reilly said, yeah it happens once in a while, but we are still the best. Which shows that he has lost touch with reality, or he is just a flat out liar, or maybe both. Because it happens all the time, on every Fox show, it's non-stop promotion of Republicans, while slamming Democrats.

Bill O'Reilly / Whoppi Goldberg Interview
By: Steve - November 24, 2010 - 9:30am

Whoppi Goldberg was on the Tuesday Factor, and here is a partial transcript, the part where they talk about the View and Muslim terrorists.

BILL O'REILLY: We are pleased to have actress and talk show host, Whoopi Goldberg, join us today. She is the author of the big bestseller, "Is It Just Me or Is It Nuts Out There?" -- which we'll discuss in a moment, one of the nuts, Ms. Goldberg may be referring to is me.

WHOOPI GOLDBERG, "THE VIEW" CO-HOST: Never.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: Muslims killed us on 9/11.

GOLDBERG: No! Oh my God! That is (EXPLETIVE DELETED).

O'REILLY: Muslims didn't kill us on 9/11? Is that what you are saying?

GOLDERG: Extremists. Excuse me, extremists did that.

JOY BEHAR, CO-HOST, "THE VIEW": What religion was Mr. McVeigh?

O'REILLY: I'm telling, 70 percent of the country --

BEHAR: I don't want to sit here now. I don't sit there.

O'REILLY: Go. Go.

BEHAR: I'm outraged by that statement.

O'REILLY: You are outraged about Muslims killed us on 9/11?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: All right. So, here is what I want to know, here what did you guys say about me after I left?

GOLDBERG: Actually, you know --

O'REILLY: Come on, what did you say?

GOLDBERG: Bill, you know, I said --

O'REILLY: Yes?

GOLDBERG: -- that I thought that you did not realize how hurtful.

O'REILLY: You said that on the air, but I mean off the air, after when you guys were back, you know --

GOLDBERG: I said the same stuff off the air.

O'REILLY: Were you guys -- were you cursing me out and stuff?

GOLDBERG: No.

O'REILLY: No?

GOLDBERG: No, no. I heard myself say the "B" word. I had to get up.

O'REILLY: I know. B.S. you were saying.

GOLDBERG: Ooh, I had to get up.

O'REILLY: OK. But after I left, because you had "The Situation" on right after -- that was a good transition for me, "The Situation." That's why we love "The View."

GOLDBERG: Yes. Yes.

O'REILLY: But after I left, you and Joy, were you guys mad at me.

GOLDBERG: No. No, because sometimes -- at least for me, I know that if I cross the line, which I crossed, because I heard myself say something I had no business saying. I know I wasn't --

O'REILLY: Had you to did get out of there before --

GOLDBERG: I had to go.

O'REILLY: All right.

GOLDBERG: So, you know --

O'REILLY: And I said Muslims killed us on 9/11, I was surprised that you and Ms. Behar reacted the way you did, because it is a fact that that happened. And I did not mean by stating that fact to imply anything negative about people who believe in Islam. I just was saying that 70 percent of the nation doesn't want the mosque near Ground Zero because they feel it's inappropriate site.

GOLDBERG: I understand that, Bill.

O'REILLY: OK. I'm glad. I'm glad that you understand that.

GOLDBERG: But the phraseology that you used when you say "Muslims killed us," that is not --

O'REILLY: But is that not a fact?

GOLDBERG: That implies when you make it a blanket statement like that, that Muhammad Ali was --

O'REILLY: Do you really think that I think Muhammad Ali and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar were involved?

GOLDBERG: I don't worry so much about what you think --

O'REILLY: Did anybody think so?

GOLDBERG: Yes, I do.

O'REILLY: Really? Do you think there are people who think Muhammad Ali was involved?

GOLDBERG: If they remember he is a Muslim and you say Muslims killed us. You know, you're a very -- you're a really great showman. You are a great guy to talk to. But sometimes, I think you give yourself less credit, which is shocking, I know, than you think. But I do believe --

O'REILLY: I don't think there's one person --

GOLDBERG: Oh, I do. I do believe.

O'REILLY: -- who would take it that way. All right. Now --

GOLDBERG: But that's all right.

O'REILLY: Do you believe in the world, we have a Muslim problem?

GOLDBERG: No.

O'REILLY: OK.

GOLDBERG: I think we have a terrorist problem.

O'REILLY: OK. So, you don't believe we have a Muslim problem.

Would you agree with me that if all the good Muslims, and I think they overwhelm the bad Muslims, OK? Would cooperate with the West, with the United States and NATO and other countries, that we wouldn't have a terrorist problem? For example, if Pakistan would cooperate with the United States, we wouldn't have the Taliban problem in Afghanistan. We would defeat them.

GOLDBERG: That would all be great if that's how it worked.

O'REILLY: But that's how it works.

GOLDBERG: But it isn't how it works, because, if you recall -- think of it this way, that crazy gentleman, I take that back because that's rude -- the gentleman that said he was going to burn the Koran, that got played all around the world.

O'REILLY: You mean the nut down in Florida?

GOLDBERG: I'm not going to say that.

O'REILLY: OK, I will. But that, you're diverting the attention.

GOLDBERG: No, no, I'm not. Listen to my point.

O'REILLY: All right. Go ahead.

GOLDBERG: So, all the people who are watching around the world saying, boy, America feels like that, so Americans --

O'REILLY: See, but I disagree. I don't think Muslims think that everybody is like that crazy guy. I don't believe that.

But let's get back to Pakistan. Pakistan, if they would help us --

GOLDBERG: No, no. Bill, Bill.

O'REILLY: -- we could win that.

GOLDBERG: Bill, do you think that the people in Pakistan, the people who live in Pakistan, the poor people, the people who don't have any say, you think they don't want help to help the West?

O'REILLY: A lot of them don't. The madrasa -- do you know what a madrasa is?

GOLDBERG: No, I don't.

O'REILLY: OK. Madrasa is a school that teaches Islamic jihad and there are madrasas all over the Muslim world. They teach 4 and 5-year-old kids to hate people.

GOLDBERG: Bill, that may be true --

O'REILLY: It is true.

GOLDBERG: It may be true. I can't prove it. You've clearly been --

O'REILLY: I can.

GOLDBERG: You've clearly been to them and I will take your word for it. But that does not change the fact that when you paint all Muslims with one brush, it's bad.

O'REILLY: I'm not painting all Muslims with one brush.

GOLDBERG: But when you say Muslims killed us, when you don't specify. It's like saying whenever I see black men coming down the street, I'm scared. That's the same --

O'REILLY: Do you have a problem in history when you were taught about World War II that Japanese attacked us? Do you have a problem with that?

GOLDBERG: I have a problem with that.

O'REILLY: Do you?

GOLDBERG: Yes.

O'REILLY: But they attacked us?

GOLDBERG: The Japanese --

O'REILLY: Attacked us.

GOLDBERG: -- army attacked us.

O'REILLY: The air force did.

GOLDBERG: Sorry, the air force did. You understand my point?

O'REILLY: No, I don't, because I think you are cutting the hair so thin. We have a Muslim problem in the world in the sense that 90 percent of the terrorism.

GOLDBERG: Bill, we're going to disagree.

O'REILLY: Come from that area.

GOLDBERG: You know what? What do you mean 90 percent of the terrorists --

O'REILLY: Yes?

GOLDBERG: -- are from everywhere. They are white.

O'REILLY: No, predominantly they are Muslims.

GOLDBERG: Right now.

O'REILLY: Right. That's what we are talking about.

GOLDBERG: Right now, everybody can say the Muslims are the terrorists. Two years ago, it was the white people that were the terrorists.

O'REILLY: What white people?

GOLDBERG: Oh, wasn't it white people that blew up Oklahoma City?

O'REILLY: Yes, two of them. Two of them.

GOLDBERG: What about all the folks

O'REILLY: It's like saying crime is white is black.

GOLDBERG: Bill, we disagree.

O'REILLY: All right. We disagree.

GOLDBERG: We disagree on this.

O'REILLY: But I just want to be clear.

GOLDBERG: And it's OK.

O'REILLY: We have to have these discussions.

GOLDBERG: We must have these discussions.

O'REILLY: Right. But I just want to be clear and I'll give you the last word on this and then we'll get to your book.

GOLDBERG: OK.

O'REILLY: I believe there is a Muslim problem in the world.

GOLDBERG: OK.

O'REILLY: And that's what I was trying to get across to you guys on "The View."

GOLDBERG: Right.

O'REILLY: That 70 percent of Americans believe the way I do. They thought it was inappropriate to make a Muslim community center that close to Ground Zero. That was my point.

GOLDBERG: I understood your point. What did I not understand and I will just reiterate it again because --

O'REILLY: I just left out the word terrorist.

GOLDBERG: Yes. Because in this day and age when kids are getting their butts kicked because they are Muslim, OK?

O'REILLY: Not so much.

GOLDBERG: Bill, are you kidding me?

O'REILLY: New study today, Jews in America are far more likely to be persecuted than Muslims, just came out today.

GOLDBERG: You know what? I'm sure that someone believes that, but I believe that in neighborhoods where they don't want Muslims, they beat up kids.

O'REILLY: No, it doesn't happen much, Ms. Goldberg. You know, and it would be --

GOLDBERG: What is this bull (EXPLETIVE DELETED) about Ms. Goldberg? Stop that, Bill.

O'REILLY: OK. It doesn't happen much. But I take your point that you don't want any group singled out take your point.

GOLDBERG: Thank you.

The Monday 11-22-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 23, 2010 - 11:30am

The TPM was called Is trust in Pres. Obama eroding? And once again for the millionth time O'Reilly does a TPM slamming Obama. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: So now we have chaos at the airports because security people are patting us down or putting us into intrusive machines. There is a good reason why the federal government wants stringent security on airlines - the jihadists would blow up any American plane if they could.

But the price we all are paying to protect ourselves is becoming a huge issue. So the feds should be looking to modify the airport security program. Talking Points believes in selective body scans; random searches are just as effective as universal searches. The big political issue is that President Obama faces yet another situation that is making Americans angry.

There's no question that trust in Mr. Obama's ability to run the country is eroding, and quickly. I spent a ton of time researching Barack Obama for my book 'Pinheads and Patriots' and I learned a very important thing - the President is not a nimble man, he does not react quickly to urgent situations. He's more of a college professor type, mulling things over.

Right now Mr. Obama should order a re-evaluation of the airport screening process and stop the madness before it gets completely out of control. Intruding upon the entire flying population is simply unacceptable.
While most of that is pure right-wing garbage, I will only say this. It's so funny to hear O'Reilly slam Obama for TOO MUCH SECURITY to protect the American people. When Bush was the President O'Reilly supported torture (even though it was illegal) and he also supported the illegal NSA wiretaps of American citizens. Now a Democrat is in the White House and suddenly we CAN have too much security, and the TSA stuff is not even close to being as bad as what Bush did, as in torture and illegal wiretaps. It also shows how biased O'Reilly is to President Obama.

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing biased Brit Hume on to agree with him, which he did. And of course there was no opposing view from anyone, just the usual one sided biased garbage from O'Reilly and Hume. They get off slamming Obama, and they will not let anyone give the counterpoint in the Hume segments. Basically O'Reilly and Hume both agreed that the American people are losing trust in President Obama. While ignoring the fact that everything is improving, and the Obama job approval is actually going up.

Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to talk about how a lot of people on the left (including me) hope Palin runs against Obama in 2012, because she will lose badly. As expected the crazy Mary K. Ham agreed with O'Reilly and said Palin is great, and that the left underestimates her. And for once I agree with Juan, he said this: "More than half of Americans have an unfavorable view of her, and when people look at her record, they say she quit as governor and they ask whether they'd trust her to lead them on foreign policy and economic policy. The Republican establishment is worried about her and Democrats, for that reason, want her to run."

What he failed to mention is that Palin is stupid, and when she runs for President everyone will see that, as if they do not already know. None of these Fox stooges want to admit, or talk about, Palin being dumb as a rock, and that only far right loons like her. With everyone else she is a joke, a stupid joke, but O'Reilly and his crew never discuss that.

Then O'Reilly had the totally insane Glenn Beck on to reply to what Jimmy Carter said about Fox News. Jimmy Carter called out Glenn Beck as someone who distorts the news, and Beck said this: "If you look at what Carter said. I think it's really interesting. He said I have deliberately distorted the news, which is a complete falsehood."

Wow, Beck is not only in denial, he is a liar. And Jimmy Carter is right, Beck does distort the news every day. Then O'Reilly said he was puzzled by Carter's anti-Fox accusations, Billy said this: "I don't know what Jimmy Carter is trying to accomplish. He goes out and says these dopey things and can't back it up, and the Fox-haters already hate us anyway."

And it looks like O'Reilly is as big of a liar as Beck is, because everyone knows what Carter is saying is true. I used to think O'Reilly knows he is lying when he denies all the right-wing Fox bias, but now I am starting to think he is either clueless, or in total denial. I am starting to think it's both, he is clueless, and in denial. Because it's clear to anyone who even watches Fox for 1 day, that they are nothing but a propaganda arm for the Republican party.

Then O'Reilly had John Stossel on to talk about the millionaires and billionaires who are saying it's ok for Obama to let the Bush tax cuts expire on the top 2 percent. And of course O'Reilly and Stossel said they are nuts, and they cried about having their taxes raised a lousy 3 percent. As usual O'Reilly lied and said he pays 40% in taxes, then later in the segment it suddenly jumped to over 50%, which is a total lie. Because the top rate is 36%, and that is down from the 39% under Clinton.

So the tax rate for O'Reilly actually went down over the last 10 years, and yet he is crying that his taxes will go up, when it would just go back to where it was, and where it should be. And my God, how sad is it to see multi-millionaires crying like little bitches about a fricking 3% tax increase. Hey O'Reilly, shut the hell up about taxes, you are lucky you only pay 36%, because if I was in power I would make you pay 50%, and if you cry about it, I would raise it to 55%, jerk.

Then O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to discuss Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia saying the FCC should pull the plug on Fox News and MSNBC. And it was really funny what O'Reilly said about it, Billy said this: "Rockefeller's one and only target is Fox News. He threw in MSNBC to give people the impression that he's being even-handed, but there is no power at MSNBC, while Fox has emerged as the most powerful media agency in the world. I think Jay Rockefeller fears this network and fear drove those comments."

Wow, really, are you serious. Fox is the most powerful media agency in the WORLD! Are you kidding me, that is just laughable. Fox is a lame cable news network, that averages about a million viewers, with one show that gets 3 million viewers. Which means less than 1% of the American people even watch Fox. Then on top of that, nobody takes you serious except for the Republican stooges that watch you. NBC, ABC, and CBS, all get double to triple your viewers. To claim Fox is the most powerful media agency in the world, when less than 1% of the people even watch you, is pure insanity.

And the last segment was the ridiculous Factor Reality Check, that has no reality, and almost no checks, so I do not report on it. Then the highly edited Factor e-mails, and the lame pinheads and patriots.

Beck Insults Barbara Bush Over Palin Comments
By: Steve - November 23, 2010 - 9:30am

In an interview on Monday, the former First Lady Barbara Bush told Larry King that she thinks Palin should stay in Alaska.

"I sat next to her once. Thought she was beautiful," Bush said. "And she's very happy in Alaska, and I hope she'll stay there."

And as soon as the story hit the news Beck jumped in to insult her, Beck called her the oatmeal box lady.



What's funny is that I am clearly not a fan of Barbara Bush, but she did have a husband who was the President, a son who was the President, and another son who was the Governor of Florida. What has Beck done, except prove to people that he is a lying spinning right-wing clown, who can make million by lying to people.

I would say Barbara Bush has earned the right to give her opinion of Stupid Sarah, especially when she is right, and for that she gets insulted by the clown Glenn Beck. And one more thing, Beck better watch what he says, because I am pretty sure Roger Ailes is a good friend of the Bush family, he even worked for Bush Sr. on his campaign.

So trashing Barbara Bush is probably not a good idea, especially when your boss is a friend of the family. And btw, Beck broke one of his own promises again, he said he would never attack the families for political reasons, oops, I guess he is not a man of his word.

Megyn Kelly Caught Lying Again
By: Steve - November 23, 2010 - 9:00am

And remember this, she claims to be an honest straight news journalist, who has no bias, and does not give an opinion like O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck do. Then on her Monday show she said the #1 problem Americans care about is the debt.

Too bad that's a lie, because all the polls I can find have jobs and or the economy at #1, the debt is listed 3rd or lower, one poll had the concern about the national debt at 4%, and another had it at 8%, so clearly almost nobody is worried about the national debt. Earth to Megyn, if less than 8% of the people care about the debt, it's impossible to be the #1 thing Americans care about.

Nobody cares but Megyn Kelly and her biased right-wing friends. Not to mention, under Republican Presidents the idiots at Fox said the debt was meaningless. Then as soon as we have a Democratic President, suddenly the debt matters.

When Bush was the President and the Democrats complained about the debt, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, etc. all made fun of the Democrats for crying about the debt. Back then they said nobody cares about the debt. Now they care, which proves their bias, and their hypocrisy.

Bush To Stupid Sarah: Stay In Alaska
By: Steve - November 23, 2010 - 8:30am

And no it was not George W. Bush, or Jeb Bush, or George H.W. Bush, it was Barbara Bush.

It looks like Barbara Bush is not a huge fan of Sarah Palin. In an interview set to air Monday, the former First Lady tells CNN's Larry King that she thinks Palin should stay in Alaska.

"I sat next to her once. Thought she was beautiful," Bush said. "And she's very happy in Alaska, and I hope she'll stay there."

Now let's see what Palin has to say, it looks like a lot of Republicans oppose her. Because they are honest Republicans who know she can not win a general election, because she is stupid, and too far right.

And think about this, how bad are you when Karl Rove and Barbara Bush oppose you, pretty damn bad.

Glenn Beck has already started the attacks on Bush, on Monday he called her the oatmeal box lady. And this shows one other thing, that O'Reilly is one of the dishonest Republicans, because he is saying Palin is qualified to be President, while the honest Republicans admit the truth, that she is not qualified.

Women Of America: You Need To Read This
By: Steve - November 22, 2010 - 10:30am

The Republican party does not want you to have equal pay as a man for doing the exact same job. And they proved it last week.

Wednesday, Senate Republicans voted unanimously against legislation to close the pay gap between women and men. The Senate voted 58-41 against allowing debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would help end discriminatory pay practices against women. And btw, it had already passed the House.

More than 45 years after passage of the Equal Pay Act, the pay gap shockingly persists with women still earning on average 77 cents to every man's dollar. According to the National Women's Law Center, "This persistent pay gap translates to more than $10,000 in lost wages per year for the average female worker."

The gap is even worse for women of color: African-American women earn 61 cents and Latinas earn 52 cents for every dollar a white non-Hispanic man earns.

Wednesday afternoon on MSNBC, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said it was outrageous and egregious that "these senators voted against fair pay."

Women are half of all U.S. workers and mothers are the primary breadwinners or co-breadwinners in nearly two-thirds of American families. The Paycheck Fairness Act would be critical to strengthening the economic security of these families.

The bill would have updated the landmark Equal Pay Act of 1963 by closing loopholes, strengthening incentives to prevent pay discrimination, and prohibiting retaliation against workers who inquire about employers wage practices or disclose their own wages. The act would have also addressed pay secrecy, which is a prevalent problem prohibiting employees from knowing whether discriminatory practices are occurring.

Not a single Republican supported the bill, including Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who had previously voted in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which removed barriers blocking workers from seeking compensation from discriminatory pay practices.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), was the lone Democrat voting against the bill. Unsurprisingly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has a long record of opposing women's rights urged Congress to vote against the act, as it did with Lilly Ledbetter in 2009.

In response to the vote, President Obama put out a strong statement slamming the Senate GOP for blocking the bill: "I am deeply disappointed that a minority of Senators have prevented the Paycheck Fairness Act from finally being brought up for a debate and receiving a vote.

This bill passed in the House almost two years ago; today, it had 58 votes to move forward, the support of the majority of Senate, and the support of the majority of Americans. ... But a partisan minority of Senators blocked this commonsense law."

Now think about that, to all the women who can vote in the next election. You should all vote against every Republican, and the Democrat Ben Nelson. Write a note, and remember this, because you now know who supports equal pay for women, and who don't. The Democrats support you, and the Republicans don't.

The Real Agenda For The Republican Party
By: Steve - November 22, 2010 - 9:30am

Think about this folks, you have just put the Republicans in Power in the House. And if you thought they were going to work on fixing the economy, cutting the deficit, and creating jobs, you were wrong. They have said it in their own words, their #1 job will be to spend the next 2 years making sure Obama loses his re-election in 2012, and their #2 job will be holding hearings to investigate everything that has happened since Obama took office.

This is what you (the people) did, you voted the Republicans back into power in the House, and now you are going to see what they do. You will see that they are liars, that they do not care about the middle class, or the economy, or creating jobs. All they care about is using every dirty political trick in the book (over the next 2 years) to make sure they defeat Obama, get the White House back, and get the Senate back.

It will be 2 years of endless lies and smears about Obama and the Democrats. And the wealthy, the corporations, and all the right-wing corporate front groups are going to spend millions, if not billions to make that happen. So they can get the Republican back in control of everything, then they can pass more tax cuts the wealthy and the corporations want.

In case you do not know it, the wealthy, the lobbyists, and the corporations run the Republican party. Almost every single member of Congress in the Republican party is in the back pocket of the corporations, the lobbyists, and the wealthy. So all they do is spend every day trying to get all the power back. That way they can do the bidding for the corporations and the wealthy.

They will pretend to care about you, the average working man, and pretend to do something about the economy and jobs. But when the doors are closed they will spend 95% of their time meeting with corporate lobbyists, and the wealthy. They have a 2 year plan to defeat Obama in 2012, and get total control of the Government back.

And they are going to spend a fortune doing it. This is what you have, you did not elect people to help the working man, fix the economy, and create jobs, you elected corporate stooges to get more tax cuts for the corporations and the wealthy.

Megyn Kelly at Fox has even put out a list of issues the GOP-controlled House could investigate already, on November 5th she went through a list of things they could investigate. The Senate minority leader (Mitch McConnell) said his #1 priority is to defeat Obama in 2012, and the House leaders are saying they plan to spend taxpayer money on non-stop investigations of the Obama administration.

Think about what Mitch McConnell said, and what he did not say, he did not say his #1 priority was to fix the economy, cut the deficit, or get jobs back, he said his #1 priority is to do everything possible to make sure Republicans get the White House back in 2012. Which says a lot of the Republicans, it says all they care about is getting all the power back, and to hell with the people, the economy, or jobs.

This is what Republicans do folks, they do not care about you, all they care about is getting power back for their corporate masters. And you stooges keep helping them by voting them back into power. When all they do is vote for things to help the corporations and the wealthy get more wealthy. So as they say, you made your bed now you have to lay in it.

And if the American people do not wake up to what the Republican party is all about, in 10 or 15 years there will be no middle class left, it will be the rich and the poor, with no in between. Because that's where we are headed folks, all the decent paying jobs are being outsourced to foreign countries, so the corporations can make even more profit, and the Republicans are working to help them.

If the people do not wake up soon and stop voting for these corporate owned Republicans, America is going to turn into a 2nd or 3rd class country. It's a race to the bottom, the corporations are sending the jobs to where they can get the work done as cheap as possible.

And if we do not stop it soon by voting against the corporate backed Republicans, the only jobs left will be at Burger King, Arby's, or in the service industry. Which barely pay enough to get by on, and have no benefits. Mark my words, it is happening now. Good jobs are leaving this country fast, and the Republicans are helping the corporations to do it.

You saw what they do under Bush, in 8 years of Republican rule they let the corporations and wall street do whatever they wanted to, with no over-sight, and they almost put us into a 2nd great depression. Now you vote them back into power just 2 years later, why, ssimply because Obama spent some money to keep up out of a depression. It's crazy, and it makes no sense. You are voting the same people back into power that almost destroyed the country, did you forget what they did already.

Now the Democrats are not perfect, but at least most of them are not in the back pocket of the corporations, and they have tried to stop the foreign job losses. Unlike the Republicans who blocked the bill to stop it, if you keep voting Republican this country will be the land of the rich and the poor, with no middle class, and the American dream will be lost to most people.

Reality Check: Neil Cavuto Is A Right-Wing Liar
By: Steve - November 21, 2010 - 9:30am

If you want proof that Neil Cavuto is nothing but a lying, spinning, right-wing, Fox News idiot, read this. On the Friday Neil Cavuto show on Fox, he accused his guest, Democratic strategist Chris Hahn, of lying when Hahn said "For every dollar you spend in tax cuts, you get back 30 cents to the economy." In fact, the figure Hahn cited is both accurate and well documented.

Democratic strategist Chris Hahn said the "Bush tax cuts will cost us $700 billion and for every dollar you spend in tax cuts, you get back about 30 cents to the economy." Cavuto responded by accusing Hahn of fabricating the statistic, calling Hahn's figure, "the most bogus number I've ever heard."

Cavuto then repeatedly denied that the Congressional Budget Office had come to that same conclusion:
CAVUTO: Chris, love you dearly, but you're inconsistent here. You said the tax cuts shouldn't happen because we can't pay for them and they're going to worsen the deficit. Now you're saying the jobless benefits are OK, even if they worsen the deficit. Which is it?

HAHN: Well, you know, let me put it to you this way: The tax cuts cost us $700 billion and for every dollar you spend in tax cuts, you get back 30 cents to the economy. The unemployment benefits --

CAVUTO: You just made that up, Chris. You just made that up. That --

HAHN: No, I did not.

CAVUTO: That is the most bogus number I've ever heard.

HAHN: The Congressional Budget Office made that up --

CAVUTO: No, they didn't.

HAHN: -- not me.

CAVUTO: No, they didn't.

HAHN: And these are numbers that have been around for a very long time.

CAVUTO: No, they didn't.
Earth to Neil Cavuto, yes they did, yes they did, yes they did, and you are a lying right-wing idiot, who does not even have the facts. In January 2010, the CBO released a report estimating the economic effects of several policy options, including extending the Bush tax cuts. the CBO found that the tax cuts would boost GDP by 10 to 40 cents per dollar spent, providing the smallest amount of stimulus of all the policy options considered.

That means Neil Cavuto is a liar, l-i-a-r. And not only did Cavuto lie about the economic effect of the Bush tax cuts, he ignored the fact that giving people unemployment benefits was #1 on the list, with a 70 cent to $1.90 effect on the economy. The same report also shows that extending the Bush tax cuts in 2011 was dead last, with a 10 to 40 cent effect on the economy.

I am looking at the CBO report right now, they list 11 things the Government can do to provide a stimulus to the economy, here is what they have:
1) Increasing Aid To the Unemployed - .70 to 1.90

2) Reducing Employers Payroll Taxes - .40 to 1.20

3) Reducing Payroll Taxes For Firms That Increase Their Payrolls - .40 to 1.30

4) Reducing Employees Payroll Taxes - .30 to .90

5) Providing A One Time Social Security Payment - .30 to .90

6) Allowing Full Or Partial Expensing Of Investment Costs - .20 to 1.00

7) Investing In Infrastructure - .50 to 1.20

8) Proving Aid To States - .40 to 1.10

9) Additional Refundable Tax Credits For Lower & Middle Income Households - .30 to .90

10) Extending Higher Exemption Amounts For The Alternative Minimum Tax - .10 to .40

11) Extending The Bush Tax Cuts In 2011 - .10 to .40
So as you can see, Chris Hahn was exactly right, and Cavuto was exactly wrong. Not only was Cavuto wrong, he accused Hahn of making it up, when it's 100% true, and Cavuto does not know what the hell he is talking about. Not to mention, extending the unemployment benefits was #1, and Cavuto is opposed to that, even though it would only cost $12 Billion, while extending the Bush tax cuts was dead last at #11, and cost $800 Billion.

And I even found a Republican economist who agrees with Chris Hahn. On April 14, 2010, Mark Zandi, the chief economist for Moody's, and the former economic adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign, testified before the Senate Finance Committee on the virtues of extending unemployment insurance.

He stated that the "Bang for the Buck" of making the Bush income tax cuts permanent was only $0.32 per dollar spent. Conversely, the "Bang for the Buck" of extending unemployment insurance benefits was $1.61 per dollar spent.

Proving that Cavuto is nothing but a lying, spinning, right-wing hack of a pretend business journalist. He denies reality, to spin for extending the Bush tax cuts, when that would be the worst thing we could do to stimulate the economy.

And you do not have to be a genius to figure out that if you give 5 million people a $300.00 a week unemployment check, they spend it ALL, because that is the money they need to live on, for food, gas, rent, etc. it ALL gets spent every week. And that is a big stimulus to the economy.

While giving a millionaire an $80,000 tax cut, does not mean it will create one job, or stimulate the economy at all. Because they do not have to spend that tax cut money, they can sit on it, or invest it. With the unemployment money, we know it ALL gets spent, because the people that get it have to spend it ALL to pay their bills.

Hey Cavuto, you were just caught lying your right-wing ass off, so you should do a correction on Monday, or resign in shame, you lying jerk.

More Tax Cut Lies From Fox News Pundits
By: Steve - November 21, 2010 - 9:00am

Here is my question, do these so-called journalists at Fox ever tell the truth, because it's hard to find anything they say that is actually true. Now we have Eric Bolling saying that HALF the filers who make over $250,000 next year will be small businesses.

Folks, that is a 100% flat out LIE. Here is what happened.

On the Friday America's Newsroom, Fox Business anchor Eric Bolling falsely claimed that "half of the filers who make over $250,000 will be small businesses" next year. In fact, the overwhelming majority of small businesses would be unaffected by allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest to expire.

On the November 19 episode of Fox News America's Newsroom, Fox Business anchor Eric Bolling and host Bill Hemmer discussed the current debate over extending the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 a year. Bolling claimed, "Half of the filers over $250,000 will be small business. So they'll be affected."

FACT: The vast majority of small businesses would NOT be affected by allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire.

Here is the truth, something Eric Bolling knows nothing about, 97 percent of small businesses would NOT pay higher taxes if the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 were allowed to expire.

According to the Tax Policy Center, in 2009 tax returns that reported business income, which was 481,000 returns, or 2 percent, were in the top two income brackets.

And according to PolitiFact, the Joint Committee on Taxation has projected that in 2011, "Only 3 percent of all taxpayers who reported having positive business income will see their taxes go up under the proposed Democratic initiative" of letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire.

Those are the facts, and they prove that Eric Bolling is nothing but a biased right-wing liar.

GOP Judges Write GOP Senators A Letter About Judges
By: Steve - November 21, 2010 - 8:30am

Wow, this is something I have never heard of, Republican judges have written a letter to Republican Senators telling them to stop blocking the judges Obama nominates to the court. Here is the story:

Earlier this week, seven Republican-appointed federal judges co-signed a letter warning of the consequences of the GOP's systematic obstruction of President Obama's judges. The letter, which includes Republican appointees Alex Kozinski, Ralph Beistline, Vaughn Walker, Irma Gonzales, Frances Marie Tydingco-Gatewood, Richard Frank Cebull, Lonny Ray Suko, says this:
In order to do our work, and serve the public as Congress expects us to serve it, we need the resources to carry out our mission. While there are many areas of serious need, we write today to emphasize our desperate need for judges. Courts cannot do their work if authorized judicial positions remain vacant.

While we could certainly use more judges, and hope that Congress will soon approve the additional judgeships requested by the Judicial Conference, we would be greatly assisted if our judicial vacancies-some of which have been open for several years and declared "judicial emergencies" were to be filled promptly. We respectfully request that the Senate act on judicial nominees without delay.
Although the letter is written in the respectful tone that judges generally adopt when speaking to their colleagues, this kind of advocacy by judges is very rare. Judges rarely speak out about the judicial confirmation process, the last time was when conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist spoke out against GOP obstructionism of President Clinton's nominees in 1997, the event stunned senators into action.

Judicial confirmations increased from only 36 in 1997 to 65 in 1998. GOP obstructionism has become so serious that only 41 judges have been confirmed during Obama's entire presidency.

An op-ed co-authored by retired Republican Judge Timothy Lewis provides a grim accessment of what will happen if Republicans continue their delay for delay's sake tactics:
LEWIS: They are creating an unprecedented shortfall of judicial confirmations and, ultimately, a shortage of judges available to hear cases. For many Americans, this means justice is likely to be unnecessarily delayed - and often denied.
And of course O'Reilly has not said a word about any of it, because he ignores any news that makes Republicans in the Senate or the House look bad. But if this was happening to a Republican President, O'Reilly would scream bloody murder, and report on it all the time.

The Friday 11-19-10 Williams Factor Review
By: Steve - November 20, 2010 - 11:30am

Juan Williams was the fill-in host, and the TPM was called Should TSA intrusion be limited? Juan had the TSA boss John Pistole on to discuss it. Pistole said this: "The bottom line, is how do we best provide for the security of the traveling public in light of a determined enemy who is adept at constructing well-designed, well-concealed devices which would not show up in a walk-through metal detector? We're trying to employ the best technology to identify any possible threat."

Pistole added that the TSA is working closely with intelligence agencies. "We put people of concern on the watch list or the no-fly list, so we have a number of layers of security beyond the airport checkpoint. We gather as much information about a passenger as the law allows without profiling."

Then Juan said the TSA should end its ban on profiling: "The government refuses to profile passengers who are most likely to blow up planes; many Americans don't think grandmas and little kids are a threat, they say Islamic extremists are the ones who are involved in terrorism."

And I sort of agree with both of them, I think the TSA is right and I also think we should profile too. But it's a complicated issue, and I am no expert on it. I also believe it is illegal to profile, but they should have an exception in the airline industry to make sure the American people are safe.

Then Geraldo was on to discuss it, he said this: "The screening is not results-oriented. The whole procedure is to comply with some political correctness and a desire to appear even-handed, but that is preposterous. You shouldn't treat grandma from Bensonhurst the same way you treat the kid with a one-way ticket from Yemen."

Rivera also said this: "I would hugely increase the number of people who get a pass - the million-mile frequent flyer, the people from Disney tour groups, the synagogue and church groups. There are classes of people for whom the prospect of terrorism is infinitesimally remote."

Geraldo did not think this through, what if the terrorists plant someone in one of those groups, and then they blow up a plane. And I would say let the experts deal with it, not Geraldo or Juan Williams.

And I will not report the rest of the show, except to say Juan had 5 more Republicans on to 1 Democrat. So it was just like O'Reilly was still hosting. The only actual Democrat on the entire show was Leslie Marshall, and she is a borderline moderate Republican.

Juan hosting is the same as if O'Reilly was still the host, he covers the same topics O'Reilly would, and he makes the same arguments O'Reilly would. It's like having a black Bill O'Reilly host the show, the only difference is Juan is black, and O'Reilly is white. If you listen to his opinions, it sounds just like O'Reilly said it.

And think about this, Juan is billed as a Democrat, which is just laughable. If he is a Democrat, I am Babe Ruth. Juan is almost as much of a right-winger as O'Reilly, they are virtually the same as far as political ideology. Juan may give the Democratic point of view once in a while, but 90% of the time he agrees with O'Reilly. Which no real Democrat would ever do, in fact, the real Democrats I know, disagree with O'Reilly 95% of the time.

Steve Doocy Proves What An Idiot He Is Again
By: Steve - November 20, 2010 - 9:30am

On the Friday morning Fox & Fools show, stooge #1 said Media Matters For America is just a blog that nobody reads.



To begin with, it's not just a blog, and a hell of a lot of people read it.

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation - news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda - every day, in real time.

Using the website mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media.

Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.

It is way more than a blog, and they have a multi-million dollar budget. Hell they (David Brock) just paid $86,000 to have lunch with the big shot at Fox News, Rupert Murdoch. Now look at their traffic rank, and think about this, there are about 250 million websites on the internet.

According to Alexa, their traffic rank is 11,000.
But in the U.S. alone their traffic rank is 2,362.
They get 100,000 hits a day.
Their page rank at Google is 7th.
And their value is over $2,000,000. But that does not include the value of the Company that owns it, which is much more than that.
Their daily ad revenue is $300.00, which is $9,000 a month.

Call me crazy, but that does not look like a blog that nobody reads. Because if you are making $300.00 a day in ad revenue, a hell of a lot of people are reading your website. That is $108,000 a year btw, and I do not know any blog in the world that makes that kind of money. Most blogs are lucky if they make $5.00 a day in ad revenue.

And btw, if it was just a blog that nobody reads Doocy and everyone at Fox would not be crying about what they do all the time. The fact that they even mention Media Matters, shows how much they worry about them. Because if Media Matters was nothing, Doocy, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. would never even say their name, let alone cry about what they do every fricking day.

Right-Wing Media Lying About Terrorist Conviction
By: Steve - November 20, 2010 - 9:00am

As usual O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends are spinning the terrorist conviction for partisan political reasons. Fox & Friends jumped right in and declared the trial of terror suspect Ahmed Ghailani to be a "civilian trial failure," asserting that a military commission would have convicted Ghailani on all charges because a "key witness" testimony would have been admissible, a claim disputed by almost every legal expert.

Fox & Friends even said that Ghailani--who could be sentenced anywhere from 20 years to life in prison--was "almost a free man" and asked if the trial was a "victory for terrorists;" even though there is no evidence that Ghailiani would have received a harsher sentence if tried by a military commission.

And btw, only on Fox is a 20 years to life sentence being a free man. That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard.

They are all suggesting that testimony by a "key witness" excluded by the civilian court would have been admissible in a military commission and resulted in further convictions against Ghailani. But numerous legal experts--including the federal judge presiding over Ghailani's case--argued that a military commission would have also likely excluded this testimony.

Even crazy Laura Ingraham made the same insane argument on the host of the Thursday O'Reilly Factor, it's a right-wing talking point lie, and they just repeat it over and over, hoping someone will believe it.

Here are the facts, as in all the stuff Fox never told you:

Last month, the federal judge presiding over the case, Lewis Kaplan, banned the testimony of a key witness because the Government under George Bush and Dick Cheney learned of his identity not through legal means but instead by torturing Ghailani (and also possibly coerced the testimony of that witness).

As The New York Times reported on November 18, Judge Lewis Kaplan "refused to allow prosecutors to introduce testimony from an important witness apparently because investigators discovered the man's existence after interrogators used abusive and coercive techniques on Mr. Ghailani."

The Times further reported that "in his order rejecting the witness, Judge Kaplan strongly suggested in a footnote that a military commission judge would have excluded that testimony too, pointing to restrictions against the use of evidence obtained by torture in military trials."

NOTE: That is what the federal judge in the trial ruled, not what some right-wing stooge on Fox said. So who are you going to believe, the judge in the trial, or a paid partisan right-wing hack that works for Fox, and who is a paid liar. I think I'll believe the frigging federal judge.

U.S. Military Code states, "No statement, obtained by the use of torture, or by cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment...shall be admissible."

According to the Manual for Military Commissions, 2010 edition: "No statement, obtained by the use of torture, or by cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment...shall be admissible in a trial by military commission, except against a person accused of torture or such treatment as evidence that the statement was made."

Which proves the Fox News stooges are lying, and that they have no idea what they are talking about. Not to mention, when you get 20 years to life, you spend the rest of your life in prison. And it's not almost being a free man, or is it not protecting the American people, as Laura Ingraham claimed, when they guy will spend the rest of his life in prison.

And you even have a couple honest Republicans who admit the truth. In a November 19 op-ed, former Bush assistant attorney general Jack Goldsmith and Brookings senior fellow Benjamin Wittes - both members of the Hoover Institution's Task Force on National Security and Law - wrote that the assertion that the witness testimony would necessarily have been included in a military commission "is very probably wrong."

Basically the witness was not allowed to testify because the information they got was from torture. So if you want to blame anyone for it, blame the people who used the torture.

What really cracks me up, is that the same far right idiots who love torture, supported the torture, and who said it was not torture, are now crying about the witness not being able to testify, when it was the torture they supported that led to the witness getting denied from testifying. It just goes to show you another reason torture should never be used, not only is it illegal, the information obtained from the torture can not be used in court.

Then on top of all that, you have all these right-wing idiots at Fox lie about it, and claim 20 years is just like being a free man, and we are not safe, when the guy will go to prison for the rest of his life, and never get out.

I have an idea, let's give Doocy and all the Fox & Friends crew 20 years in a federal prison, then ask them if that is just like being a free man. Somehow I think they would change their tune if that happened.

Another Republican Caught Lying To The People
By: Steve - November 20, 2010 - 8:30am

And this Republican just happens to be my Congressman. He is Aaron Schock (R-IL). Now think about this, one of the Republican Party's main election themes was that it was going to listen to the American people, as its America Speaking Out campaign claimed to do.

In an op-ed published following the election, the incoming Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), said the "current representatives have an obligation to listen to the American people."

Then on Wednesday night, Congressman Aaron Schock (R-IL) was asked about listening to the American people during an appearance on CNN's Situation Room. Blitzer informed the congressman about a brand new poll from CNN that surveyed Americans about the Bush tax cuts. Blitzer pointed out that the poll found only 35 percent of Americans want to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

While the same poll found that 64 percent of Americans want to end the tax cuts for the wealthy. Blitzer then asked Schock why he is not listening to the American people. Schock responded by saying he can only speak for the people in his district. He said the message we heard in this election was we don't want anyone's taxes going up in a down economy.

Except that is not what the poll shows, and basically Schock avoided the question, to instead spin out the right-wing talking points to keep the tax cuts for their wealthy friends.

And Schock is not just breaking his party's own promise to listen to the American people, but his economic argument is a lie as well. While it is true that there are small business owners in the upper income tax bracket, they would largely be unaffected by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the top brackets, because the yearly tax increase at the lower end of that bracket, for those with earnings between $200,000 and $500,000, would amount to $700.00 - which is not enough to hire anyone, and Schock knows it.

And a newly released NBC/WSJ poll also found that only 23 percent of Americans want to permanently extend the tax cuts for the richest Americans.

Basically Schock is just another right-wing puppet, who is controlled by his party masters. They lied to the American people, they said if you vote for them they will listen to the people. And now the people are saying end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy (remember we are talking about the top 2 percent) and the other 98 percent will keep their tax cuts.

So now that they have been elected they are saying to hell with the people, we are going to fight to keep the tax cuts for the top 2 percent who give us all our money to win these elections. People, wake the hell up, the Republicans do not care about you. All they care about is helping the corporations and the wealthy get richer.

Here they are, caught red-handed ignoring the will of the people, after they promised to listen to you, and you voters just keep voting them into office. And if you do not stop voting for these right-wing corporate stooges, in 20 years there will not be a middle class, and the economy will collapse. Because the middle class is the engine that drives the economy, and without a big and strong middle class, America will not be a good place to live, unless you are wealthy.

Sore Loser Joe Miller & Some Mid-Term Election News
By: Steve - November 19, 2010 - 10:30am

To begin with, the Tea Party idiot in Alaska Joe Miller, who was endorsed by Sarah Palin, lost to Lisa Murkowski for the Senate. And not only did the fool lose, he lost in a write-in campaign, which is the first time it's happened since 1956.

That is how bad Joe Miller is, he won the Republican primary over Lisa Murkowski, then he lost to her in the general election when she kicked his crazy ass with her write-in vote campaign.

Now we find out the tea Party cry baby (Joe Miller) is asking a federal judge to prevent state elections officials in Alaska from certifying Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) the winner of the Senate election. Now get this, Murkowski leads by more than 10,000 votes, so even if all of the ballots challenged by Miller's own legal team were thrown out, she would still win.

What a jackass, you lost Miller, so do the right thing and drop the legal cases.

On Thursday Republicans also blocked an extension of unemployment benefits for 8 million Americans. And they did it 5 weeks before Christmas. This has never been done in the history of America, when unemployment was over 9 percent, it's the first time, and the Republicans blocked it from passing.

So if you are one of those 8 million people who will lose your benefits, remember that in 2012 when the next election happens, and remember that Republicans cut off your benefits, while demanding that $700 Billion in tax cuts for millionaires stay in place, even though they are not paid for, they do not increase jobs, and it will add to the debt.

While spending the lousy $12 Billion to pay for the unemployment extension will help save jobs, create news jobs, and go to people that actually need the money to live on. But if you give the millionaires a tax cut, they just get richer, even though they do not even need the money.

And then you have this: Despite all the conservative spin that the mid-term election represented the will of the American people uniting together to refute President Obama, a new poll shows that less than half of Americans even know that Republicans won a majority in the House.

And Three times as many young people, under 30, could properly identify Google's new phone software, Android, as they could identify presumptive House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH).

So basically, half the country do not know, and do not care, that the Republicans won back the majority in the House. And of course you will never see any of this reported by O'Reilly, or anyone on the Factor.

The Thursday 11-18-10 Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - November 19, 2010 - 9:30am

The far right nut job Laura Ingraham was the fill-in for O'Reilly so I did not do a full review. But I will make a few comments about what happened on the show.

The Ingraham TPM was called The Ghailani terror trial travesty. Crazy ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: Yesterday a New York federal court acquitted Ahmed Ghailani, who was at the center of the 1998 African embassy bombings, on 284 of 285 terror related charges; he was found guilty on one count of conspiracy. This, simply put, is insane!

Ghailani is the first Gitmo detainee to be tried in federal criminal court, and the Obama administration hoped that a sweeping guilty verdict would help clear the way for other Gitmo detainees to be tried in federal court.

But if the President is honest here, and if he truly puts American security first, he'll now admit that trying major terror figures in federal court is wrong and potentially dangerous. Military tribunals are far more effective venues for these cases.
And all of that is nothing but ridiculous far right propaganda. To begin with, he was found guilty of the one important count, conspiracy to commit terrorism, and that one count will get him 20 years to life. The reason he was found not guilty on the other counts is because they used torture to get the info, so it could not be used as evidence. And even if they had used a military trial, the same evidence would not have been allowed.

So not only is it not insane, it's justice, and he was found guilty. And btw folks, even if he was found not guilty on every count, the Obama administration would not have let him go. And think about this, when the Bin Laden limo driver was tried in a military court he only got 5 years. But not one Republican said a word about it, which proves their complaints are political. It also proves that Laura Ingraham is a total right-wing stooge.

In the next segment Ingraham was put in her place by the former ambassador Nancy Soderberg, she said this: "The system worked, and Ghailani is going to spend the rest of his life in jail. There would have probably been no different outcome if this had been a military tribunal. This is a guy who went around trying to buy stuff to help blow up Americans - he was caught and he's going to jail."

Ingraham actually had 2 guests on in that segment, who both disagreed with her, the former ambassador Nancy Soderberg, and the Defense attorney Scott Fenstermaker. So what does Ingraham do, she has the right-wing Bush stooge John Yoo on to discuss it. And of course he agreed with Ingraham, because he is a right-wing spin doctor just like Ingraham is. Not to mention he is one of the Bush stooges that was part of the bogus legal memo that said torture was legal, so he is a partisan idiot.

And btw folks, Ingraham said we can not have these trials in federal courts because it does not keep us safe. But the guy was found guilty, and he will go to jail for the rest of his life, so how the hell is that not keeping us safe, when he will never get out. So the Ingraham argument does not even make sense, it's all right-wing propaganda.

The rest of the show was the usual biased right-wing propaganda from Ingraham, so I will not report on it. I will just say that it's laughable for O'Reilly to claim he is a non-partisan Independent when his fill-in is a far right propagandist.

I will also say this, while Ingraham is a partisan far right spin doctor, at least she was fair and balanced with her guest list. Ingraham had 5 Democrats on the show, and 4 Republicans, now if you include her as a Republican, which I do, it was 5 to 5. So unlike O'Reilly, she was actually fair and balanced, as far as the guests.

Reality Check: The Factor Guest List Bias
By: Steve - November 19, 2010 - 8:30am

A couple weeks ago some right-wing O'Reilly loving idiot sent me an e-mail saying I am wrong on my O'Reilly Factor guest list bias count. I calmly wrote him back and said he was nuts, and that the count is accurate, as to this day I stand by that statement 100 percent.

Now let me make something clear, I count Bill O'Reilly as 1 Republican per show, because he is a Republican, and he takes the Republican side on every issue. Not to mention, he is in every single segment, arguing the Republican side. If I wanted to I could count O'Reilly as 6 Republicans per show, because he is in every segment, but I don't, I count him one time per show.

Even if I did not count O'Reilly as 1 Republican, it would still be 6 to 1 Republicans to Democrats, who are guests on the show. And 1 of the weekly Democrats (Alan Colmes) is always on with a Republican, so he has to split his time 3 ways with O'Reilly and Crowley. Which is unfair, and not balance. Because it's always a 2 on 1, with O'Reilly and Crowley disagreeing with Colmes.

In fact, Dr. Marc Lamont Hill is the only Democratic guest who gets on the Factor alone on a regular basis. But he is not put on once a week, at best he is on twice a month, and it's usually less than that. Now look at all the Republicans who get on alone, with no Democratic guest to counter their right-wing spin. Almost all of them, other than Monica Crowley, who is on with Colmes, all the Republican guests are on alone with O'Reilly.

Brit Hume, Dick Morris, Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, Bernie Goldberg, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Newt Gingrich, Charles Krauthammer, Megyn Kelly, John Stossel, Margaret Hoover, Gretchen Carlson, Tammy Bruce, Greg Gutfeld, Juliet Huddy, Ann Coulter, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Lis Wiehl, Dennis Miller, and many more. They all get on alone.

This is done on purpose so they can spin out right-wing propaganda with nobody to counter their claims. For example, let's look at the Tuesday night 11-16-10 O'Reilly Factor. Here is the guest list, notice it's all Republicans but 1, and he is on with a Republican.

1) Bill O'Reilly - In Every Segment
2) Karl Rove - Alone
3) Monica Crowley - On With Colmes
4) Alan Colmes - On With A Republican
5) Ann Coulter - Alone
6) John Stossel - Alone
7) Lis Wiehl - On With Guilfoyle
8) Kim Guilfoyle - On With Wiehl
9) Charles Krauthammer - Alone

With O'Reilly it's 8 Republicans to 1 Democrat, and the 1 Democrat was not even on alone. If you do not count O'Reilly, it's still 7 to 1, so how is that balance. Answer, it's not. O'Reilly claims to have a balanced guest list, but the reality does not match the spin, because it's a lie.

And don't just listen to me, watch the Factor and see for yourself. It's a fact, this is not some made up garbage by a liberal with a website about Bill O'Reilly. It's a cold hard fact, and if you watch the show you will see the truth.

Ann Coulter Pulls An O'Reilly On The Hannity Show
By: Steve - November 18, 2010 - 11:30am

Before I report on this story let me say this, I normally do not report anything Ann (crazy) Coulter says, because she is nothing but a far right partisan loon, and nothing she says should ever be reported by anyone, because her job in life is to spin out right-wing propaganda.

But in this case I will make an exception, because what she did on Hannity, also shows why O'Reilly puts all those Republican guests on alone. Because they are scared of a debate, where a smart and educated person can dispute all their spin. So they demand to be on alone, or not at all, so nobody can show their spin to be the garbage it is.

Coulter is opposed to the body scans and the pat downs at airports. Which is kind of odd, because even O'Reilly supports it. Now what if they get the body scans and the pat downs stopped, and then a terrorist gets a bomb on a plane and blows it up, what would Coulter and her friends who oppose it say then.

Now here is the story, Coulter goes on the Hannity show to discuss the body scans and the pat downs. But Hannity had a Fox News legal analyst on with her, Peter Johnson Jr. And that's when the fireworks started. Basically Coulter got herself pwned when she couldn't satisfy Johnson's request to come up with an alternative to the screenings and pat-downs.

It quickly became clear that Coulter had been thrown off her game by Johnson's arguments when she asked Hannity to cut Johnson's mike. Hannity, did not do it and the segment concluded with a defeated Coulter declaring that she will never appear on the air with that Fox News legal analyst ever again.

This is what Republicans do when you beat them in a debate, and show them that their arguments are ridiculous. They try to get the host to shut their microphone off, and then they say they will never debate that person again.

And that is the same reason you see all those Republicans on the O'Reilly Factor alone. Because they do not want anyone to call them on their right-wing spin and propaganda. You never see an opposing guest on the Factor with Rove, Morris, Hume, Goldberg, Gingrich, Coulter, Kelly, etc. They are afraid to debate anyone, because they know they would lose the debate, and they would be made to look like a fool.

Think about that the next time you see one of these right-wing spin doctors on the O'Reilly Factor alone. And remember that it's done on purpose, to block any opposing views, and that O'Reilly allows it to happen, in the so-called no spin zone.

The Wednesday 11-17-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 18, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called New polling on the presidential race. Billy said this:
O'REILLY: The Gallup people are already looking ahead and did a poll about which Republicans are positioned to run against President Obama. 19% of Republicans believe Mitt Romney is the best choice - he is followed by Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich.
O'Reilly went on to talk a little about each of them, but I want to focus on something O'Reilly said about Romney that was ridiculous and pure speculation. In the next segment O'Reilly was talking about how the person who wins would need to raise a lot of money, then O'Reilly told Dick Morris that it would take $150 million for Romney to beat Obama in 2012.

Wow, really, are you kidding me. To begin with, how in the hell does O'Reilly know how much it would take to beat Obama, and how the hell does O'Reilly know that even if Romney raised $150 million he would beat Obama. That is not only bias for Romney, it's total speculation, that if Romney can just raise $150 million he will beat Obama. O'Reilly says he is not biased, and that he does not speculate, then he speculates that if Romney can raise $150 million he will beat Obama. Not to mention, nobody even knows if Romney will win the Republican party nomination, so that was also speculation.

Then Dick Morris was on to talk about the Gallup poll on possible Republicans running for President. And the crazy Dick Morris also speculated his ass off. In the other direction, he said Romney can not win the Republican party nomination. So Morris out speculated O'Reilly, even though O'Reilly claims to have a no speculation zone. The funny part of the segment was when Morris basically admitted that Fox is an arm of the Republican party, and it went right over O'Reilly's head, or maybe O'Reilly just ignored it.

Morris said this: "Mitt Romney is going to have a very tough time getting nominated, because of health care reform. That issue has come to epitomize Republican opposition to President Obama and Romney passed a bill with an individual mandate in Massachusetts.

Sarah Palin has the problem that she can go up in favorability without going up in vote share. Many voters think the media has denigrated her so much that she has too much baggage.

Newt Gingrich is the only one who could absolutely clean the floor with Barack Obama in a debate. The entire electorate is right here watching Fox News - 70% of Republican primary voters watch Fox News and you are going to have each of those presidential contenders on multiple times. Why do they need to buy ads?"

Wow, Morris just admitted that Republicans running for President in the primary, do not need to spend money on political ads, because they can just use Fox for free. And O'Reilly never said a word, he just sat there as silent as a mouse. As he claims that Fox is not a propaganda arm for the Republican party.

Then O'Reilly had 2 right-wing stooges from Fox, Carl Cameron and James Rosen on to discuss Pelosi winning the vote to keep her job as House minority leader after Republicans take over next year. Which was not worth reporting, because it was basically 3 Republicans smearing Pelosi, with no opposing views.

I will say this, during the segment O'Reilly lied about the Pelosi job approval numbers, he said it was in the 20's in most polls, but the only polls I could find from November have her at 33% approval, and he ignored the fact that Boehner has lower approval numbers than Pelosi. His main point was that the Democrats are crazy to re-elect Pelosi because her approval numbers are so low, when the Republicans elected Boehner, and his numbers are lower than Pelosi, but O'Reilly never said a word about the approval ratings for Boehner, and he never called the Republicans crazy for electing Boehner for his low approval ratings.

Then O'Reilly had Glenn Beck on to smear George Soros some more, and to talk about a yard sale he is having to sell some of his stuff. Beck claims it will go to charity, and all I can say is who cares. This is not news, it's just right-wing propaganda, and all it does is give Beck a forum to promote his nonsense. None of it is worth reporting on, and I will not do it. The only good part of the segment was at the end, Beck said he is selling all the crap in his house that he does not need, and he pulled out a signed copy of an O'Reilly book, haha, O'Reilly hated that, and joked that Beck is a jerk for trashing his book as crap. I would say that for once, Beck was right about something.

Then O'Reilly had another segment that was not worth repoting on. He talked about Bristol Palin, who has teamed up with "The Situation" from Jersey shore, to endorse sexual abstinence and condom use. Even though she is an un-wed single mother who clearly does not practice what she preaches. Billy had the right-wing nut Sandy Rios on, who I have not seen in quite a while.

And wow does she look different, clearly she had a face lift and some plastic surgery, because now she looks like Joan Rivers, which is kinda scary. But of course O'Reilly never said a word about it, because she is a Republican, even though he slams Pelosi for it almost every day. I will also say this, Rios said abstinence works, which is just ridiculous, and every study ever done by a valid group says it does not work. Only right-wing fools in dreamland think that just telling kids to not have sex works, because it don't.

And in the last segment O'Reilly had Juliet Huddy on for did you see that. It's billed as a segment with must see videos, but all they did was talk about a lame new study that shows Republicans tend to watch Glenn Beck, The Amazing Race, and American Idol, while Democrats favor Mad Men, 30 Rock, and Dexter. Like who cares, and how is that news, or a must see video.

It's ridiculous, and I do not watch any of those shows. Huddy even said Democrats tend to like shows about troubled people. WTF? That's insane, because I am a liberal and I hate shows about troubled people, I watch sports, comedy, and movies. Proving that not only is that study a joke, it proves that Huddy and O'Reilly are idiots. The entire segment was just laughable. They both said Democrats like to watch shows about troubled slimy people, while Republicans like to watch shows that have optimism and they like to feel good about life and public institutions. WHAT A LOAD OF GARBAGE!

Then the highly edited and totally ridiculous Factor mail, and the lame pinheads and patriots. And btw folks, in this show O'Reilly did not have one Democratic guest, not one. The guest list: Dick Morris, Carl Cameron, James Rosen, Glenn Beck, Sandy Rios, Dennis Miller, and Juliet Huddy.

Now if you count the Monday show that had 7 Republicans to 1 Democrat, and the Tuesday show that also had 7 republicans to 1 Democrat, that's 21 Republicans to 2 Democrats for 3 shows. And if you count O'Reilly as 1 Republican, it's 24 to 2. So where is that idiot now, that said I am wrong about the Factor guest list count. Tell me how 21 to 2 is balance, idiot.

O'Reilly Asked Ted Koppel To Prove He Lies
By: Steve - November 18, 2010 - 9:30am

Which is like asking someone to prove the earth is round. Because if you just read this website every day you will see at least one lie from O'Reilly that I report, if not 2 or 3 of them.

In an op-ed for the Washington Post last Sunday, Ted Koppel singled out O'Reilly as symptomatic of the "death of real news," and cable news as a landscape where partisans "flaunt opinions as though they were facts."

Then O'Reilly struck back at Ted Koppel, asking for the veteran anchor to give an example of when he had lied on the air.

O'Reilly took issue with that claim on his Monday show. "This is a fact-based news analysis broadcast here, and the fact is that we've invited Mr. Koppel on the 'Factor' more than a few times," he said. "We want to discuss his ongoing beef."

O'Reilly conceded that there are "abuses in cable television" in the form of "people on the air that bloviate...and make up lies," but that they were in the minority, and that the same could be said of more traditional broadcast news operations.

He also challenged Koppel to give a concrete example of when he had lied on the air.

"Ted Koppel..couldn't give me examples of me lying on air and giving an opinion not based on fact," O'Reilly said. "He couldn't do it, and if he could he ought to come on in here and do it and he'd shut me up for good."

This is just laughable, because if Ted Koppel just read 1/10th of this website he could find a thousand lies from O'Reilly, if not more. And here is a recent example.

Over the last couple months O'Reilly has repeatedly said that president Obama has added $5 Trillion dollars to the national debt. When that is a lie, and O'Reilly even busted himself for his own lie during the Bush interview.

During the Bush interview O'Reilly told Bush that $5 Trillion dollars has been added to the national debt since "2007" and he wanted to know what Bush thought about that. And since Bush was the President for all of 2007, and all of 2008, then there is no way Obama could have added $5 Trillion to the debt, when Bush was the President for 2 years of that time.

President Obama has added $2 Trillion dollars to the debt, and that is a fact. It was $10.6 Trillion when Obama took office, and it's $12.6 Trillion now. So there is one lie Koppel could use right there, and that is just the most recent lie from O'Reilly, ND I could give him many more.

Note to Ted Koppel, put your money where your mouth is. Read this website, including my blog archives, and find 3 or 4 lies from O'Reilly, then go on the Factor and shut that jerk up. But make sure you only do it if your segement is un-edited. Tell O'Dummy you will do it, but only if it is filmed live, shown in full, with no editing.

And if O'Reilly refuses, make sure you tell everyone what a coward O'Reilly is. Then write another op-ed and tell people that you took O'Reilly up on his offer, and he refused to have you on. And btw, if you (Ted Koppel) do not go on the Factor and show O'Reilly some of his lies, you are the coward, and your credibility goes to zero.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Pelosi Approval Rating
By: Steve - November 18, 2010 - 9:00am

Here is another one Ted Koppel could use.

On the Wednesday O'Reilly Factor, Billy was trying to make the point that Nancy Pelosi is so bad her job approval is in the 20's, he said that in MOST polls she is in the 20's. He said this while trashing the Democratic party for voting her to stay on as the minority leader in the House.

There is just one small problem with what O'Reilly said, it's a lie. Because I can only find one poll in November on Pelosi, and that poll has her at 33% approval. The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll from Nov. 11-14 has Nancy Pelosi at 33 percent approval.

Now I did find a poll from October, the ABC News/Washington Post Poll from Oct. 25-28, that has her at 29 percent approval. But that poll is almost 3 weeks old. I also found an AP-GfK Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Sept. 8-13, and that poll also has her at 33 percent approval.

What O'Reilly did was ignore the latest poll on Pelosi from November 14th, and cherry pick a 3 week old poll, because it has her in the 20's. And here is something else O'Reilly ignored. In the same November 14th CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll, they have John Boehner at 30 percent approval, which is lower than Pelosi.

But of course O'Reilly never mentioned that, while he was spinning out how bad Pelosi is, because it makes Boehner look worse than she does. Not to mention, MOST polls do not have her in the 20's, MOST of them have her in the 30's.

The main point O'Reilly was making, is how could the Democrats vote Pelosi back in to the minority leader position, when her approval is so low. He even said it was a stupid move by the Democratic members of the House.

While ignoring the fact that John Boehner was voted to be the majority leader in the House by the Republican members, when his approval is only 30 percent. But of course Billy did not say they are making a stupid move, because he never reported the Boehner approval numbers.

Talk about one sided bias and hypocrisy, that's about as biased and hypocritical as you can get. And it's just another example of right-wing bias by O'Reilly, in what he does not report.

Palin Man Joe Miller Loses In Alaska Senate Election
By: Steve - November 18, 2010 - 8:30am

Another far right tea-bagging loon goes down, and even though the seat is still Republican, the country is much better off with the nut job Palin supported losing.

AP -- JUNEAU, Alaska – Sen. Lisa Murkowski on Wednesday became the first Senate candidate in more than 50 years to win a write-in campaign, emerging victorious over her tea party rival following a painstaking, week-long count of hand-written votes.

The victory completes a remarkable comeback for the Republican after her loss in the GOP primary to Joe Miller.

Her victory became clear when Alaska election officials confirmed they had only about 700 votes left to count, putting Murkowski in safe territory to win re-election. Murkowski is flying back from Washington to Alaska on Wednesday to make an "exciting announcement," proclaiming in an e-mail to supporters that the campaign "made history."

Murkowski has a lead of 10,400 votes, a total that includes 8,153 ballots in which Miller observers challenged over things like misspellings, extra words or legibility issues.

Miller told Fox News that he is not conceding the race, and will decide at the end of the week whether the campaign will request a recount. Miller has maintained he'll stop fighting if the math doesn't work in his favor.

Miller's loss is a major rebuke for Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate who backed Miller and has long had a tense relationship with the Murkowski family. Miller's defeat means Palin couldn't deliver in her home state for a candidate she roundly endorsed.

The write-in bid was an effort Murkowski almost didn't undertake after her stunning loss in the August primary to Miller. She went back and forth on whether to run but ultimately decided to wage a write-in campaign, saying she'd been encouraged by Alaskans who wanted a reasonable alternative between the conservative Miller and the little-known Democratic nominee.

Miller didn't do himself any favors after his upset of Murkowski in the August primary. Court documents were released showing Miller was suspended as a government employee for using work computers for partisan political work and lying about it. In other miscues, his security detail handcuffed a journalist asking questions at a town hall meeting, and it was revealed his family received many government handouts that he railed against as a tea party candidate.

Murkowski, 53, was appointed to the Senate seat long held by her father when he became governor in 2002; she won the seat in her own right two years later, in a narrow win over Democrat Tony Knowles, and her father was ousted in the 2006 gubernatorial primary by Palin, contributing to the icy relationship between the two families.

The win comes a day before what would have been Sen. Ted Stevens' 87th birthday. Stevens, a legend in Alaska for bringing home billions in federal aid and projects during his 40 years in the Senate, was one of Murkowski's biggest supporters, and a mentor. He died in a plane crash two weeks before the primary.

Murkowski invoked his legacy during her write-in campaign as something she wanted to carry on.

And btw folks, O'Reilly never said a word about it on the Wednesday night Factor, he ignored the entire story.

O'Reilly Ignoring All The Good Economic News
By: Steve - November 17, 2010 - 11:30am

Think about this folks, every single night all you hear from O'Reilly is how bad of a President Obama is, how his approval rating is terrible, how the people have rejected his liberal policies, how the stimulus did not work, how Obama is bankrupting the country, and on and on. It's non-stop Obama bashing, as if nothing in America is getting better.

And it's all lies, every word of it. It's nothing but right-wing propaganda from O'Reilly. Because the stimulus worked, and it was not meant to fix the economy, it was a temporary stimulus to save us from going into a depression, which is exactly what it did, it worked, and O'Reilly keeps denying it.

Then O'Reilly ignores all the good economic news, because that would make Obama look good if he reported it. Here is a list of good news O'Reilly has ignored.

The Stock Market

If Obama is so bad why is the stock market up, ever since Obama took office the DOW has been going up. Even though O'Reilly has said wall street does not like the Obama policies, the market has went up for 2 straight years. The DOW is up almost 6% year to date, and almost 11% in the last year. A year ago the DOW was at 9,600, now it's over 11,000.

Job Numbers

In October payrolls expanded by 159,000 jobs. The private sector added 159,000 jobs. The latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics exceeded the expectations of forecasters, who had predicted 60,000 new jobs at best. October marks the tenth consecutive month of private-sector job growth. And O'Reilly never said a word about any of it.

Unemployment Claims Down

Initial jobless claims fell by 24,000 last week, a better-than-expected decline that brought the four-week average to its lowest level since September 2008, when the financial meltdown kicked into high gear. This is good news folks, but you would never know it if you only watch the Factor for your news, because O'Reilly never said a word about any of it.

Consumer Confidence Up In October

NEW YORK, Oct. 26 (UPI) -- U.S. consumer confidence rose slightly in October. The monthly survey of 5,000 households found the number of respondents indicating economic conditions were "good" rose from 8.2 percent to 8.5 percent. The number of respondents indicating conditions were "bad" fell from 46 percent to 41.9 percent. And of course O'Reilly never said a word about any of it. In fact, O'Reilly never says a word about the consumer confidence index, because it's been going up, and it makes Obama look good.

Car Sales Up

Ford Motor sales in October were up 19% vs. the month last year for a total of 157,935. Year-to-date sales are up 21% vs. 2009.

General Motors had a sales increase of 3.5% in October compared with a year ago as the industry heads for what may be the best October since 2007.

Sales for Chevy are also up for October, total sales climbed 7 percent over the same month a year ago, and 17% overall for 2010. And O'Reilly never said a word about any of it.

Everything is improving, from wall street, to car sales, to job increases, to falling unemployment claims, to rising consumer confidence, and yet O'Reilly does nothing but report how bad things are and what a bad job Obama is doing. It's bias, and it's right-wing propaganda.

Just watch the Factor and see for yourself. O'Reilly never reports on any of the issues I just showed you. He ignores it all, because if he reported this news it would make Obama look good. And this is the best example of bias from O'Reilly, by not reporting something, instead of what he does report.

This is the right-wing bias nobody talks about from O'Reilly, you can be more biased in what you do not report, than what you do report. This is what O'Reilly does, he is biased in what he does not report, as in good news for Obama. While at the same time doing nothing but slam Obama every night, as he claims everything is going bad.

Just read what I reported on above, then ask yourself when O'Reilly reported any of it, and the answer is never. I watch the Factor every night, take notes on it, then the next day I read the transcript and write a review of the show. So I know exactly what O'Reilly reports, and he has NEVER reported any of this news.

The Tuesday 11-16-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 17, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called A country divided... should unite. Yeah good luck with that, and as long as Beck and Fox News are on the air things will only get worse, not better. Not to mention, the Republican party does everything to hurt Obama and the Democrats politically, just to get power back, while not giving a damn about fixing the economy or representing the average working man.

O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: This afternoon President Obama awarded Staff Sergeant Salvatore Giunta the Medal of Honor for valor in Afghanistan. Sgt. Giunta put his life at great risk in order to save another soldier who fell into the hands of the Taliban. All good Americans should be celebrating this moment; Sgt. Giunta is the first living military person to receive the Medal of Honor since the Vietnam War. It is a proud moment for the country and it should bring us together, which is desperately needed.

The man who conferred the medal today, President Obama, has not united the nation, nor did his predecessor President Bush. We remain a bitterly divided nation, often partisan in our attitudes. So an event like the Medal of Honor becomes soothing - it demonstrates that we Americans value courage and sacrifice without a political bent. Sgt. Giunta wasn't fighting for a president; he was fighting for a country.
Wow, for once I actually agree with O'Reilly, and frankly it's a miracle that O'Reilly could do a TPM without trashing President Obama. Hey Billy, as you call for the country to unite, why don't you stop doing the bash Obama TPM's every night, that would be a good start, you hypocritical right-wing jerk.

Then O'Reilly had Karl Rove on to talk about the infighting within the Republican Party, and to predict what kind of presidential candidate will be needed to unite the GOP. Rove said this: "The principle contenders will have to accomplish three critical tasks. First, they'll have to explain what kind of future they want to lead the country towards; second, they'll demonstrate the decision-making ability and strength of character to pull this government together; finally, the leading contenders will demonstrate that they can unify the Republican Party. And if you think we're fractured, you should go over to the House Democratic Caucus."

O'Reilly told Rove that Democrats will overcome their current strife to rally around President Obama in 2012. And once again O'Reilly is right. The problem is in the Republican party, because a lot of the right-wing voters love them some Sarah Palin, but the party leaders (including Rove) know that Palin would lose to Obama, so they do not want her. They are scared to death Palin will run in 2012 and win, then lose to Obama in the general election. The other problem is Rove and all of them are afraid to slam Palin in public, because so many Republicans love her. But they all know she is not qualified to be President, so they have to do this dance around it and hope she does not win, haha, and I love it, Go Palin Go!

And then O'Reilly cried again about a COMEDIAN saying something about his fav girl Sarah Palin. My God this is ridiculous, O'Reilly cried about Tina Fey making a joke about Palin while she was winning the "Mark Twain Prize for American Humor." Yes you heard me right, O'Reilly wasted an entire segment on a so-called hard news show crying about a COMEDIAN saying something about Palin while getting a COMEDY award. Earth to Bill O'Reilly, shut the hell up you massive hypocrite. You cry about COMEDIANS making jokes about Palin, while you put the COMEDIAN Dennis Miller on your show every fricking week to do jokes about Pelosi and other Democrats.

Not only is it a massive waste of time to do an entire segment crying about what a COMEDIAN said about Palin, it shows that you are a massive hypocrite. Because you put Dennis Miller on your show to do the very same thing. And what you do is worse, because you have Dennis Miller do it on a news show, Tina Fey made the Palin jokes at a COMEDY award show. You are a total idiot, stop crying about COMEDIANS making jokes about Palin, nobody cares but you, and it makes you look like a hypocricital fool.

Now get this, O'Reilly had another segment on the full body scans and pat downs at airports. So you would think O'Reilly would have a privacy expert on, and maybe a 2nd type of expert on to discuss it. No, of course not, he had the crazy far right Ann Coulter on to discuss it. Yes you heard me right, Ann Coulter was on. Are you kidding me, where are the experts, nobody cares what Coulter thinks about anything.

Coulter does not like the body scans or the pat downs, but if a Democrat opposed it she calls them liberal punks, who are politically correct losers. Then Coulter said we should profile airline passengers, and only do it to Muslim men, because they are the only terrorists. Which is not true, and O'Reilly said he is fine with the body scans and the pat downs.

And as if that was not enough nonsense on it with Coulter, O'Reilly put John Stossel on to discuss it even more. And of course Stossel just said we should have private contractors do it, because he said the Government does everything badly. Even though nobody is saying they are doing a bad job, people only complain about the privacy issue, proving that Stossel is just an anti-government idiot. What I have a problem with is O'Reilly wasting 12 minutes on this with Coulter and Stossel, and not having one real expert on to discuss it.

Then O'Reilly had is it legal with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle, and of course they spent half the segment talking about the ethics trial for the Democrat Charles Rangel. But when Republicans had ethics and corruption trials during the Bush years O'Reilly ignored them all, including the Duke Cunningham conviction, where he was convicted for taking bribes during a war, as a member of a defense department committee. Which was far worse than what Rangel did, but O'Reilly never even reported the Cunningham conviction the day it was reported in the media.

And in the last ridiculous segment O'Reilly and his far right buddy Charles Krauthammer asked if one man can handle being the President. Are you kidding me, this is nothing but right-wing nonsense. And not once during the Bush years, when Bush was destroying the entire country, did O'Reilly ask if one man can handle the job.

O'Reilly said this: "Some political observers now contend that the presidency may be too much for one individual to handle. The Factor ran that theory by Fox News analyst Charles Krauthammer, who was singularly unimpressed. "This is rather pathetic," Krauthammer declared, "and you didn't hear a lot of this when Ronald Reagan was president. It's the kind of thing that gets cooked up in the mainstream media when you have a failing Democratic presidency - there was a ton of this in the late years of the Jimmy Carter administration. It's not the office, it's the occupant, and President Obama can't handle the office. This is a guy who never ran so much as a candy store, let alone a city or a state."

Yeah, and those some people are Republican idiots who claim Obama can not handle the job. As they ignore the fact that the economy is improving, the DOW is over 11,000, unemployment claims are down, 159,000 new jobs were created in October, car sales are up, consumer confidence is up, the Obama approval rating is up to 48%, and people say they will spend more money this year at Christmas. Everything is improving, and these right-wing idiots like O'Reilly ignore it, as they claim Obama can not handle the job.

And the worst part is that Reagan had a lower job approval than Obama in his first 2 years, but he was re-elected and the Republicans call him the greatest President ever. But when Obama is at 48% approval 2 years in, they claim he can not handle the job, when he had to take over the country that a Republican President had run into the ground. It's one of the most ridiculous and biased right-wing propaganda statements I have ever heard. Obama is doing a good job, for what he had to deal with, idiots like O'Reilly and Krauthammer just wont admit it. And if he was a Republican they would praise him for what he has done, they only slam him because he is a Democrat.

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

Obama Job Approval Jumps 3 Points: OReilly Silent
By: Steve - November 17, 2010 - 9:30am

To put this in perspective, when the Obama job approval drops just 1 point, O'Reilly is all over it like stink on you know what. He reports it, and claims that it shows how much the Obama job approval numbers are dropping.

But when the Obama job approval numbers go up, O'Reilly is as silent as a mouse, and he does not report it. On Tuesday Gallup had the Obama job approval up 3 points to 48%, and not only that, his disapproval also dropped 2 points to 45%, which is a 5 point swing in one day.

And yet, O'Reilly never said a word about it, he ignored the increase. This shows a pattern of bias from O'Reilly against President Obama, and along with all the other good economic news, it shows that O'Reilly is biased in his reporting, in what he reports, but mostly in what he does not report.

Then he makes it an even bigger lie, when he says he is a non-partisan Independent who has been fair to President Obama. As he spins out non-stop right-wing propaganda about Obama every night, with 95% right-wing partisan guests who always agree with his spin. While ignoring all the good news, and the good things Obama has done to save the economy, and bring jobs back.

The Monday 11-15-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 16, 2010 - 10:30am

The slam Obama again TPM was called Is President Obama in 'retreat' mode? And as usual O'Reilly used the biased TPM to slam Obama for his trip to the Far East. O'Reilly even said Obama got nothing, which is a lie, because he did get a trade deal signed, but of course O'Reilly never reported that. Billy said this:
O'REILLY: There is no question that the Obama administration is in retreat; apparently the President finally understands that his position has been severely weakened. When Saturday Night Live begins to ridicule you on a regular basis, you know things are tough. It is hard to see how President Obama will make a comeback, but I believe he will to some extent. The President is not going to go quietly into the night.
Basically O'Reilly slammed Obama for his foreign trip, then claimed he is in retreat on the Bush tax cuts, even though it has not happened yet, which is pure speculation. Obama might let the Bush tax cuts go on for 2 years, but we don't know yet. So O'Reilly is jumping the gun, and speculating. While ignoring all the good news about the economy, car sales up, the stock market up, consumer confidence up, unemployment claims down, jobs up 159,000 in October, O'Reilly ignores it all.

Then Brit Hume was on to (of course) agree with O'Reilly, as he almost always does. One spins, and the other one swears to it. The Biased Brit Hume said this: "I think the administration is in retreat, and the key thing is to watch what he does, not what he says. His retreat to the center will not be announced, but as he confronts each issue the only tenable position will require him to shift ground. This is a President who, for all his talent and charm, didn't know enough to know what he didn't know."

O'Reilly said President Obama's shaky position was evident during his Asian trip: "He didn't get what we needed, which tells me that world leaders know this is a weakened President. They don't have any incentive to do business with him now."

Then O'Reilly talked about Ted Koppel bashing cable news, Billy said this:
O'REILLY: This is a fact-based news analysis broadcast, and the fact is that we have invited Mr. Koppel on more than a few times to discuss his beef. But he is not up to the challenge, or so it seems. There is no question that Fox News has eclipsed some of the traditional news agencies as far as influence is concerned and I believe that is what is bothering Mr. Koppel.
And I am Superman too. Fact-Based, give me a break, you can barely even spell fact, you biased right-wing hack, and Koppel is mostly right. Then O'Reilly had Tammy Bruce and Ellis Henican on, who both agreed with O'Reilly. What a shocker, the part-time Democrat and the Republican both agreed with O'Reilly. Henican and Bruce both said Koppel is wrong, and living in the past. When Koppel is right, and they just refuse to admit it.

Then O'Reilly had Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham on to survey the post-election political landscape. Williams said this: "There's no question, that conservatives like Mike Pence and Michele Bachmann and even Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona are ascending. Those are folks who didn't get any attention from the old-line media, but all of a sudden they have a voice. This is representative of the fact that the tea party has been the driving force over the past year and a half."

Are you kidding me, Juan Williams is an idiot. Nothing he said is true, unless you are a right-wing nut.

Ham said that today's biggest losers are the mainstream media. ham said this: "The perfect distillation of what Ted Koppel is really upset is about is how a Facebook post by Sarah Palin can outblast everything in the media for at least a couple of hours of the news cycle. That's a symbol for the way the media has diversified - a lot of people are able to get their message out in ways they were never able to before. And more voices are better than fewer."

Proving that she is even more of an idiot than Juan Williams. People make fun of Palin and her stupid facebook postings, the only people who take them serious are the right-wing loons that love her. Talk about bias, this is it, and this is what Koppel was complaining about. Biased right-wing opinion being sold as news. Hey Billy, where were the facts in this show, it was all right-wing opinion, with no facts.

And btw folks, only 1 Democratic guest was on the entire show, Ellis Henican, and he agreed with Tammy Bruce and O'Reilly, so even the Democrat Billy put on for an opposing view, agreed with the Republicans.

Then some right-wing stooge, which I will not name, was on to trash the NY Times. He wrote a book about them, and O'Reilly put him on to slam them, with of course no Democratic guest to provide the counter point. Hey O'Reilly, this is what Koppel is talking about, biased one sided opinion segments with only right-wing guests that do nothing but slam liberals.

Then O'Reilly had the Culture Warriors Lauren Green and Gretchen Carlson to talk about the full body scans and the pat downs at airports. O'Reilly and Carlson made it a Muslim issue, when the Pilots Union is also opposed to it. But of course neither O'Reilly or Carlson said a word about that. They also talked about the new Palin reality show, just to give her a free promotion. And of course they all loved it, because they are right-wing stooges, just like Palin. While ignoring the fact that the Palin disapproval rating just hit a record high of 52 percent, not a word about that.

And in the last segment O'Reilly had his ridiculous and biased (no reality) reality check. Which I do not report on, because it's not reality, it's just O'Reilly "alone" giving you his opinion of what someone said, and then he calls that a reality check. Since when is a biased opinion by one person about something a reality check, since O'Reilly said so.

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

O'Reilly: My Show Is Fact-Based News Analysis
By: Steve - November 16, 2010 - 9:30am

Yeah, and I'm Superman too. On the Monday Factor show Billy went into dreamland and made the ridiculous claim that his show is a fact-based news analysis broadcast. When in reality, it's a 99% right-wing biased propaganda outlet for O'Reilly and the 95% right-wing guests he has on.



In fact, I think O'Reilly is delusional, because it looks like he is starting to believe his own spin. On an average Factor show O'Reilly has 6 to 8 Republican guests, like Newt Gingrich, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Dick Morris, Brit Hume, Karl Rove, Charles Krauthammer, Monica Crowley, Megyn Kelly, Dana Perino, John Stossel, Margaret Hoover, Gretchen Carlson, Tammy Bruce, Greg Gutfeld, Juliet Huddy, Ann Coulter, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Lis Wiehl, Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade, Bernie Goldberg, Dennis Miller, and on and on, the list is endless.

While only having 1 to 2 Democratic guests per show, and most of the time the 1 Democratic guest has to share a segment with a Republican, while all the Republicans are on alone, which is not balance, and not even close. And all those Republicans are right-wing spin doctors who never give you the cold hard facts, all they do is put a right-wing spin on everything, and put out the Republican party propaganda.

There are almost no facts, it's pretty much all right-wing spin, mostly from O'Reilly, and I have documented it on this website for 10 years now. To even make such a claim is ridiculous, and if O'Reilly actually believes what he said, he needs to seek professional help.

Rand Paul Breaks Tea Party Pledge Already
By: Steve - November 16, 2010 - 9:00am

When Rand Paul ran as a Tea Party candidate one of his key promises was to try and get a ban of all earmarks. But now that he is part of the Senate, he has changed his tune, and now supports some earmarks.

Note to Tea Party voters, I told you not to trust these Republicans, and that once they get in office they will screw you over and do what their party leaders tell them to do.

Senator-elect Rand Paul (R-KY), jumped on the anti-earmark bandwagon early in his campaign, making a ban on wasteful earmark spending in Washington D.C. one of the key points. Lambasting lawmakers who opt for photo-ops with oversized fake cardboard checks, Paul vowed to dismantle the culture of professional politicians even if he ruffled a lot of establishment feathers while doing it.

But after joining the GOP flock on Election Day, Paul is singing a different tune. In a Wall Street Journal profile this weekend, Paul signaled an about-face on his earmark position, committing to fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork. After all, he's not that crazy:
In a shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, Paul said they are a bad symbol of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests."
Ironically, while Paul touts his anti-establishment, Tea Party credentials, he is actually joining some in the House and Senate GOP establishment in disregarding the Tea Party's wishes on earmarks.

Presumptive House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) refused to pursue a complete ban on earmarks in an interview with Fox News last Thursday because some things that people call earmarks here wouldn't classify as an earmark to the American people.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was much clearer in his view yesterday, saying that ending earmarks won't cut spending and that it's not realistic.

And if he's already selling out his Tea Party pledges, Paul may be proving earmark-happy Rep. Roy Blunt's sentiments correct: "they can be as ideological as they want before getting to Washington but will soon discover that things are quite different once inside of the beast."

Basically, Paul sold out once he was elected, just as I predicted. Now what do you Tea Party voters have to say, the guy sold you out.

Reality Check: Republicans Lying About Spending Cuts
By: Steve - November 16, 2010 - 8:30am

Here is a quick lesson in how the Republicans in Congress do their business. A Republican Congressman says vote for me and I will cut all the wasteful spending the Democrats are doing. He campaigns on spending cuts, a spending freeze, and across the board budget cuts.

Sounds good so far right, wrong, because after winning the election he is not going to vote for the cuts, in fact, he wants to vote for an increase in funding, and for a program the Government does not want, and does not need. Why you ask, because those products will be built in his home State.

Then on top of that, it turns out he owns stock in the company he plans to vote for to fund the products. If this is not lying to the American people, and total corruption, what is it. And it goes without saying the Bill O'Reilly has not, and will never report a word of this, because that would make one of his right-wing friends look bad.

Republican Congressman Phil Gingrey (GA) assured Americans that he is committed to finding ways to reduce government programs that are bloated and riddled with waste. He said this: "With each new appropriations bill Congress considers, I have to ask myself, 'Is this a good way to spend tax payer dollars.'"

It would be reasonable to assume that Gingrey also opposes unnecessary defense spending. The F-22 stealth fighter jet, for example, is a weapon designed to address threats last faced during the Cold War with Russia. It has not performed a single mission in Iraq or Afghanistan, and comes with a $120 million price tag per plane.

Coupled with the $8 billion it would cost the Pentagon to upgrade the 100 F-22s already in use, the F-22 landed on Defense Secretary Gates's chopping block last year. After consulting with other Defense officials, Gates concluded, "there is no military requirement" for creating more F-22s.

Despite all that, and the overwhelming bipartisan agreement that the plane qualifies as taxpayer waste, and in spite of own his commitment to cutting spending, Gingrey now thinks he knows better than the Pentagon and is calling for resuming production of more F-22s. Not only is Gingrey willing to waste taxpayer dollars on an unnecessary and unwanted weapon, he's willing to do it, because the planes are built in his state:
GINGREY: The takeover of the U.S. House by Republicans could prompt a revival of the fight for additional funding for the Marietta-built F-22 stealth fighter, U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey said Friday. This isn't just for the sake of home-cooking, but also for the sake of the country.
Ummmmmm, huh? If it's a waste of tax payer money, and the Defense Department says we do not need them, how in the hell is it good for the sake of the country. That statement is just laughable, and Gingrey should be voted out of office as soon as possible. The man is corrupt, and a joke.

And that's not all folks, Gingrey also owns tens of thousands of dollars worth of stock in Boeing, Lockheed Martin's partner in building the F-22. And if he hopes to slip funding for the fighter into this year's defense authorization bill, he's making a shrewd move in recruiting Scott for the House Armed Services Committee. Because Scott represents Georgia's 8th District, which has a strong military presence and includes the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, a testing and repair site for the F-22.

And Gingrey is not alone in falling out of step with the GOP's lies on spending cuts. Along with the current battle over earmarks, there is an internal civil war between hard-core deficit hawks like Senator-elect Pat Toomey (R-PA), Rand Paul (R-KY), Mark Kirk (R-IL), and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) who want to cut military spending, and members like Gingrey and Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) who view military spending as sacrosanct.

Even the GOP leadership seems to be sacrificing their so-called principles for pet projects. Both presumptive-House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and former GOP House Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-IN) are also ignoring Gates's advice to cut the costly and unnecessary extra engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in the name of parochial interests.

Folks, these guys are corrupt, and liars. And if they do end up voting for some cuts in Government spending, guess what they will be, Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, etc. All social programs that go to the middle class and the poor.

While not voting to cut Billions in un-needed and un-wanted defense programs. So they can increase the stock price in a company they own stocks in. First they lie to you about voting for across the board spending cuts, then they vote on bills to increase the value of the stocks they own. If that's not dishonesty and corruption, what the hell do you call it.

CEO Pay Up: Average Wages Down - Media Silent
By: Steve - November 15, 2010 - 9:30am

What do corporations do in the middle of the worst recession and financial crisis in the last 50 years, they raise the pay for their CEO's and their top officers of course. And they do it while saying they can not afford to hire more workers. While also sitting on a Trillion dollars in cash, which is the most in history.

This shows that corporations have been lying to you, because they sure had the money to give all the CEO's and management a raise over the last year. And even with those raises they are still sitting on that Trillion in cash. While they are not hiring, and the average working mans wages went down.

Despite a sluggish economic recovery. Over the past year, compensation for CEOs of the country's largest publicly traded companies rose 3 percent to a median of $7.23 million. Meanwhile, compensation for all officers of the 65 biggest companies rose even more, jumping by 13.4 percent.

But the average wage in America slipped to $39,269, down $243 or .6 percent. Yeah that CEO making $7 million dollars a year needed that 3% raise, not!

And btw folks, When this information was released on October 26,2010 not a single news organization reported this story, according to David Johnston of TAX.com. Not O'Reilly, not Hannity, not anyone at Fox, CNN, or MSNBC, nobody reported it.

Johnston makes it clear that this shrinkage of middle class income is not a one-year fluke. The 2009 median wage was $37 less than that paid in 2000, the first year of the not-so-bright, new millennium.

But all was not doom and gloom. For a very small percentage of Americans - the ultra rich - the good times kept rolling. Johnston reports, "The average pay of the very highest-income Americans was more than five times their average wages and bonuses in 2008."

This very small percentage of wage earners as a group took home a total compensation 3.2 times larger in 2009 than in 2008. Johnston writes: "These 74 people made as much as the 19 million lowest-paid people in America, who constitute one in every eight workers."

What does all this number crunching mean? Essentially, trouble for the middle class. When it comes to sharing the economic pie, more and more is going to fewer and fewer.

Johnston wrote, "We bailed out bankers, allowing them to keep the untaxed wealth in their deferral accounts and, with a few exceptions, retaining shareholder value, while wiping out investors in General Motors and Chrysler as a condition of their bailouts. And while autoworkers had to take severe pay cuts, bonus time on Wall Street is at new record levels."

Think about that for a minute, from 2008 until now, the average working man has suffered big time, lower wages, higher gas prices, higher food prices, and on and on. But during the biggest financial crisis in America, the CEO's and the wall street fat cats (who caused the problem) all got raises and they all got richer. And the worst part is the corporate owned media (all of them, including MSNBC) ignored the entire story.

And O'Reilly, who claims to look out for the little guy, has ignored it all. The corporate media does not report this stuff because it makes them look bad. Even in the middle of the worst recession in 50 years they are getting raises, while they say they can not afford to hire anyone, and they are even laying people off.

Yeah, they had to lay those people off to pay for the 3% raises to the millionaire CEO's, as if $7 million a year was not enough, they had to get a raise on top of that. While the guy making $40,000 a year with a wife and 2 kids, takes a pay cut, or loses his job altogether.

This is what corporations and wall street did, during one of the worst economic times in the history of America, and the so-called media never said a word about it. Now imagine what they do in good economic times. And what really makes me mad, is that they tell us they can not afford to hire people, when it's a lie so they can give their CEO's million dollar raises.

And btw folks, from 1950 to 1980, the share of total income going to those at the top declined, and the real incomes of the vast majority grew much more quickly than did nearly all incomes at the very top. And that is why the economy did so well, because the middle class workers are the engine of the economy, when they make more money they spend it, and that improves the economy.

When a guy making $7 million a year, gets a raise to $7.23 million, it just sits in the bank, and it does not improve the economy. If we stop giving raises to the middle class, and give it to the CEO's, the economy will never improve very much, because they need it, they deserve it, and they spend it.

Now report that O'Reilly, you fraud.

Republican Quits Congress Job After Threats & Lockdown
By: Steve - November 15, 2010 - 9:00am

And as I always say, of course O'Reilly never reported a word about this story, even as he claims people on the right are not violent. Then he ignores stuff like this, because if he reported it he would be caught in his own lies.

When conservative Florida radio host Joyce Kaufman went to a Tea Party rally on July 4, she got so fired-up that she made a very incendiary statement: "If ballots don't work, bullets will."

As a result, Kaufman has announced that she will no longer be serving as Republican Rep.-elect Allen West's Chief of Staff.

Kaufman is responding specifically to a major lockdown that affected schools, libraries, and other government buildings in her town Wednesday. The lockdown was a response to a threat made by someone who said he or she was specifically upset about Kaufman's remark.

There were many possible problems with Kaufman's employment, from her history of racist statements towards immigrants to possible ethical issues, but what received the most attention was Kaufman's violent call to arms if West lost the election: "if ballots don't work, bullets will."

After the comments were replayed on cable news, someone in Florida took them seriously and threatened violence against post offices and schools in Florida, causing a massive lockdown. Following her resignation, West called into Kaufman's show vowing to fight on her behalf in startlingly violent terms:
He said he wanted people, especially those on the left, to understand that Kaufman would continue to fight on your battlefield here, and he will fight them on the battlefield in Washington, D.C., and we will meet in the middle after we soundly defeat them both.

The Congressman-elect said he's now even more focused that this liberal, progressive, socialist agenda, this left-wing, vile, vicious, despicable machine that's out there is soundly brought to its knees. You don't have to worry about me doing the right thing in Washington, D.C.
West's language soaked with violent metaphors is very curious, considering the biggest controversy surrounding Kaufman was her violent call to arms against political opponents. Kaufman, for her part, assigns partial blame to Fox News for not coming to her defense, according to the Miami Herald.

Kaufman will keep her position as a radio host, and also continue to travel with a bodyguard until she stops receiving death threats, she says.

Now think about this, Joyce Kaufman was hired by the Republican Congressman Allen West to be his Chief of Staff. She is a racist, and she has ethical issues, then on top of that she calls for bullets if ballots don't work, and the guy hires her to be his Chief of Staff. And this guy is going to be a United States Congressman. I think he should resign too, for hiring her.

Republican Caught Lying About Cuts He Ran On
By: Steve - November 15, 2010 - 8:30am

Okay folks, the evidence is already coming in that Republicans lied to you to get elected in the mid-term elections. They talked about all these spending cuts they will pass if you vote for them, one Republican even said he would cut $25 Billion dollars from the debt.

Other than the fact that $25 Billion is like a penny when you have $12.6 trillion in debt, he was lying. Because the program he said he would cut, that would (what he claimed) save $2.5 Billion a year for 10 years, has already expired, in fact, it expired on September 30, 2010, a full month before the election even happened.

And Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said on PBS Newshour that he had a path to balance the budget, then he outlined cuts that amounted to less than one half of one percent of the budget.

One program which House Republicans have consistently seized upon to bolster their budget-cutting claims is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Emergency Contingency Fund, a successful program that has created 250,000 jobs in 37 states via subsidized employment programs for low-income and unemployed workers. Republicans selected it as one of their first programs to cut:
House Republicans have targeted one of the first programs they would like to ax: the $25 billion emergency fund for people who lose their jobs, part of last year's stimulus bill. Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, said the program encourages states to increase their welfare caseloads without requiring able-bodied individuals to work, get job training, or make other efforts to move off of taxpayer assistance.
But Price's characterization of the fund is a lie. The program also earned the staunch support of many Republican governors, including Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS), who said it provided "much-needed aid during this recession by enabling businesses to hire new workers, thus enhancing the economic engines of our local communities."

On top of his lie, the real issue is that eliminating the TANF emergency fund will not save any money because the program has already expired. It was funded at $5 billion for two years, and ended on September 30, 2010. There is no money left for Price to save.

The Obama administration did ask Congress to fund the program for an additional year for $2.5 billion, but it never happened, it did not pass. Then Price multiplied that $2.5 Billion over ten years to come up with his ridiculous claim that he would save us $25 billion dollars by cutting the program.

Basically he lied to the American people to get elected. And when you ask Republicans what they will cut, they come up with cuts that amount to less than 1% of the debt. And as usual you never hear a word about any of this from O'Reilly, even after he said that once the Republicans get power back they would cut the debt.

Sarah Palin Unfavorable Rating Hits New High
By: Steve - November 14, 2010 - 9:30am

From Gallup - November 12, 2010:

At 52%, Palin's Unfavorable Score Hits a New High

PRINCETON, NJ -- More than half of Americans, 52%, now view Sarah Palin unfavorably, the highest percentage holding a negative opinion of the former Alaska governor in Gallup polling since Sen. John McCain tapped her as the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee. Her 40% favorable rating ties her lowest favorable score, recorded just over a year ago.

The latest results come from a Nov. 4-7 Gallup poll, conducted shortly after the midterm elections delivered some big wins as well as losses for Tea Party movement candidates Palin had actively campaigned for in the past year. Palin's image has consistently tilted negative since July 2009, and was nearly as negative in October 2009 as it is today. Public views on her were also more negative than positive just before the 2008 election, in which President Obama handily defeated the Republican ticket. By contrast, Americans' initial reactions to Palin after her debut at the Republican National Convention that year were mostly favorable. Now that the 2010 midterms are over, the big question swirling around Palin is whether she will run for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Given her high name recognition and broad popularity among Republicans, 80% of whom now view her favorably, she is clearly in a strong position to seek it. However, her negative image among the other party groups -- 81% of Democrats and 53% of independents view her unfavorably, while fewer than 4 in 10 view her favorably -- casts some doubt on her viability in the general election.

-------------------------

And what this poll also shows is how out of touch the Republicans are with the rest of America. Because only 35% of Independents have a favorable view of her, with 15% of Democrats who see her as favorable, so that is not too far apart. But a whopping 80% of Republicans approve of her, which is just ridiculous.

My question is who are those 15% of Democrats who approve of her, because I have never seen any Democrats who approve of her dumb ass. They must be fake Democrats, like Joe Lieberman.

And of course you will never see this reported by O'Reilly, because he loves him some Sarah Palin, and he even thinks she is smart enough, and qualified enough to be the President.

I have some news for Billy, Sarah Palin is not smart enough, or qualified, and she will never be the President, ever. But I sure hope she wins the 2012 Republican nomination, because Obama will crush her like a bug.

If Republicans are smart they will nominate someone like Romney, because he might actually have a chance to beat Obama in 2012. But as you can see, when they voted for Paladino, O'Donnell, and Angle, they are not too smart, and they might just vote for Palin too.

UN Rapporteur on Torture: Waterboarding Is Torture
By: Steve - November 14, 2010 - 9:00am

Former President George W. Bush has strongly defended his use of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques over the years, saying the practices saved lives, were completely legal, and were not torture, but almost everyone disagrees.

On Thursday, the ACLU joined a growing chorus in the human rights community calling for a special prosecutor to investigate Bush's use of waterboading to determine whether his administration violated federal statutes prohibiting torture. "The former President's acknowledgment that he authorized torture is absolutely without parallel in American history," the ACLU wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.

And yesterday, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Mendez, who was himself tortured by the Argentinean junta in the 1970s, firmly stated that waterboarding is torture, he said it's immoral and illegal. In a radio interview with Mark Colvin of ABC News in Australia, Mendez said the legal memos authorizing waterboaring that Bush hides behind were "completely flawed," and that there isn't any question under international law that what Bush authorized was torture:
MENDEZ: Mr Bush hides behind the fact that he is not a lawyer and he has this folksy you know kind of cute way of saying, well the lawyers told me it was legal, as if he didn't know that it's immoral. You know? Immoral and illegal. I mean he can't really hide behind his lawyers.

I mean he was very hypocritical of him to say something like that. I mean it's been so clearly established that those memos were, they don't even deserve the name of legal memos because they are completely flawed from the legal reasoning. But even worse they are morally flawed as well.

COLVIN: There's no question that in international law waterboarding is torture?

MENDEZ: I don't think there is any question, any serious question. I mean it's a question of severity. If you think that waterboarding is not severe mistreatment you don't really know what waterboarding is.
And this not the first time that someone with Mendez job has called out Bush's use of torture. Former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Professor Manfred Nowak, agreed that waterboarding is torture.

He even warned the Obama administration that it may be violating international law by failing to adequately investigate the Bush administration on the matter. As a party to the UN Convention Against Torture, the U.S. is obligated to investigate and prosecute U.S. citizens that are believed to have engaged in torture, he noted.

My biggest problem with this is that since Bush had his lawyers declare waterboarding legal, what will he say when a U.S. Soldier (or just a regular citizen) is waterboarded in a foreign country, and they say they did it because George W. Bush said it was legal. What will Bush say then, will he still say it's legal.

That is my problem with it, not that we used waterboarding on a few terrorists, I could care less about them, I care that they may use what Bush said to waterboard Americans. And if they do, Bush will go to his grave knowing that it was his fault they were waterboarded.

O'Reilly claims liberals are sympathetic to terrorists, and that is why they do not like the waterboarding. Which is just ridiculous, because we are not sympathetic to terrorists, we just care about breaking torture laws, and we care that someone may use what Bush said to torture an American.

Let's get real, who is sympathetic to terrorists, nobody. But the crazy O'Reilly says that to smear liberals, which is just more proof he is a right-wing idiot. Because only a total right-wing idiot would say something like that about liberals, when he knows it's a lie.

In fact, if you handed Bin Laden to me I would torture him to death myself, legal or not, but then I would admit I broke the law and used torture on him. And if you want to convict me and send me to jail for it, so be it. At least I would admit I broke the law and used torture, unlike Bush who did it then tries to hide behind his lawyers.

O'Reilly Still Lying About The Obama Debt
By: Steve - November 14, 2010 - 8:30am

As if you needed more proof that Bill O'Reilly is a lying right-wing hack, who constantly lies about President Obama, and his spending. Here it is, in a nutshell O'Reilly keeps saying (over and over that President Obama has added $5 Trillion dollars to the Debt.

And that is a flat out lie, he even exposed his own lies during the Bush interview. Because in the interview O'Reilly said $5 Trillion has been added to the debt since 2007, and he asked Bush if he is worried about it. Right there O'Reilly admitted that the $5 Trillion is from 2007 until today.

But $3 Trillion of that was spent under Bush, and Obama did not take over until January of 2009. O'Reilly is adding that $3 Trillion that was added under Bush, to the $2 Trillion Obama has spent. Then he claims that Obama added $5 Trillion to the debt, which is a total right-wing lie from O'Reilly, to make it look like Obama is adding debt like crazy.

And most of the $2 Trillion Obama spent was to get us out a recession that Bush caused. Which O'Reilly never points out, as he is lying that the entire $5 Trillion was spent under Obama. It's all spin or lies, or both, from O'Reilly, the so-called Independent journalist with a no spin zone.

Here are the facts:

The latest posting from the Treasury Department shows the National Debt has increased $2 trillion dollars since President Obama took office.

The debt now stands at $12.6 trillion. On the day Mr. Obama took office it was $10.6 trillion.

President George W. Bush still holds the record for the most debt run up on his watch: $4.9 trillion.

But the Obama Administration blames the Bush Administration for inheriting a budget surplus and turning it into years of record-breaking deficits and debt -- and then leaving it on the doorstep of the new president.

"I walked into office facing a massive deficit, most of which was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program," Mr. Obama said last month in a speech to corporate executives at a Business Roundtable conference.

"When we walked in, we had a deficit of $1.3 trillion and projected debt over the course of a decade of $8 trillion."

"The lost revenue from this recession put us in an even deeper hole. And the steps we took to save the economy from depression last year have necessarily added to the deficit -- about $1 trillion, compared to the $8 trillion that we inherited."

And those are the facts, which O'Reilly does not report. Instead he lies that Obama has added $5 trillion to the debt, when the facts show that $3 Trillion of that was spent under Bush from 2007 until January of 2009. And O'Reilly even accidently admitted it in the Bush interview, when he said the $5 Trillion in debt was from 2007 until now.

More Proof Juan Williams Is A Conservative
By: Steve - November 13, 2010 - 11:30am

As if there was any doubt, if you want the proof in black and white, that Juan Williams is a conservative spin doctor for the Fox News Network, just read this.

Here is a partial transcript from the Monday 11-8-10 O'Reilly Factor, and when I say partial transcript, I mean it is only part of the trancript for the entire show, nothing was edited out of this part of it.

O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: With chaos breaking out at NBC News, elements from that network have been attacking Fox as biased. Fox News analysts Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham both begged to differ.
To begin with, what chaos is he talking about, I'll tell you. He is talking about the Keith Olbermann suspension for making the 3 political donations. How that is chaos is beyond me, it was one man who got suspended for a few days, and is now back.

But O'Reilly did not even name him, he just said someone at NBC was suspended for making political donations. Not to mention, he works for MSNBC, not NBC. And O'Reilly never once mentioned that Fox does not even have rules against making political donations, so none of them would ever be suspended for doing the same thing, because it's ok to do at Fox. O'Reilly ignored all that.

Then Juan said this:
WILLIAMS: I think the myth is that somehow Fox is orthodox and just Republicans. But the fact is nobody tells me what to say. I'm allowed to ask questions to respond to questions honestly.
Yeah right, and if you believe that Juan, you are an even bigger right-wing stooge than I thought you were. Try this Juan, name one liberal who has a show on Fox, just one. Then name the conservatives who have shows, the list is endless, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Cavuto, Kelly, Varney, and on and on, they are all Republicans, not one liberal, let alone a Democrat who has a show on Fox, none, zero, zip.

If you think it's a myth that Fox is a propaganda arm of the Republican party, you should not even be allowed on tv to give your opinion on anything, because you are clearly lying, or in denial, or probably both.

Now get this, look at what O'Reilly said the Ham statement means. O'Reilly implied that because Fox had high ratings for election night it means they are fair and balanced, huh? Are you kidding me. that is insane. How in the hell does high ratings for a tv show mean you are fair and balanced, it's ridiculous, and only a totally biased idiot would even make such a crazy claim.
O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Mary Katharine thought that viewers could sense Fox's balance.
And here is what she said:
HAM: If you look at the election night coverage... if you wanted to see two sides of an argument, you could go to Fox. I think the ratings show this. I believe FOX beat the broadcasts."
She is saying that because they had high ratings on election night it shows that they are fair and balanced, which is just laughable, and O'Reilly agreed with her, making him as crazy as she is. While they both failed to mention is that 3 days later their big ratings were gone, and they were back to the normal ratings they get.

And all it did was show that more Republicans most likely watched them on election night, because they have no proof at all that the increase in viewers was from people that were not Republicans.

Then O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The Factor confirmed this fact: We did. We beat everybody. But you didn't see a lot of publicity written about it.
Okay, to begin with, the fact that Fox News won the night in ratings, for a mid-term election where all the experts predicted a Republican gain of 50 to 60 seats in the House, is not a shocker, it's what everyone expected. Just as in 2008 when the Democrats were predicted to win big, CNN and MSNBC had the highest election night ratings.

And what did O'Reilly expect the other networks to do, report that Fox had the highest ratings for election night, that is just pure insanity. In the histiry of America no tv news network reports the ratings for another tv news network, when they lose to them. That is just crazy talk from O'Reilly.

Do you think O'Reilly would report the ratings for other tv news networks that beat him, if it ever happened, of course not. He only reports the ratings for his show, and the Fox network. It would be like Fox beating CNN in the ratings one night, and then asking why CNN did not report that Fox beat them. It's nuts, it's insane, and it would never happen.

It just goes to show how stupid O'Reilly is, and why I think he cheated his way through college. Not to mention, your ratings do not prove you are fair and balanced. The content you have on the air is the measure of if you are fair and balanced or not, the ratings have nothing to do with it. And anyone who would even make such a ridiculous claim should be locked in a padded room, next to Glenn Beck.

The Friday 11-12-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 13, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Who's looking out for you, really? And Billy used another TPM to slam Obama, as he does just about every night, and what he never did when Bush was the President. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It looks like President Obama is getting his butt kicked in the Far East this week as many nations are yelling at him for allowing the devaluation of the dollar. The President and the Fed did this so American goods would be cheaper overseas, but countries like China and Germany and Great Britain are not happy with that.

Add to that the chaos surrounding the taxation situation and the stock market is getting hammered because investors don't know whether the President is going to raise taxes in less than two months. The problem that we the people find ourselves facing is not only economic chaos, but a leadership vacuum.

Figuring out what's best for America is getting harder and Americans are becoming frustrated. All in all, there is confusion in the air, which is not good for the economy, and not good for anything.
Okay, now check that out. O'Reilly is saying Obama is not a good leader, while he is in a foreign country. Now think back a few years to when Bush was the President, a Democrat criticized Bush from a foreign country and O'Reilly flipped out. Now he is doing almost the same thing, slamming a President while he is in a foreign country.

Back then O'Reilly said it was wrong to hammer the President from a foreign country, then he does pretty much the same thing. It's a little different, but not much. Now think about this, in the Bush interview O'Reilly slammed the media for hating Bush, and for all the attacks on him. But he does the very same thing to Obama, which makes him a massive hypocrite, and a biased idiot. Because only right-wing spin doctors think Obama is a bad leader.

Then O'Reilly had Newt Gingrich on to talk about the Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who claims President Bush "destroyed" the Republican Party. And of course Newt disagreed, he said Bush did not destroy the Republican party, and he agreed with Bush that he should not speak out about what Obama is doing. O'Reilly said President Bush should speak out more frequently because "he has a lot to offer." Really, like what, more lies about what he did as President. O'Reilly and the right are trying to re-write history, and make Bush look like he was a good President. And only the stupid people are going to buy it. Newt even said the Bush approval ratings are going up, so what, it does not matter now. They only matter when you are the President.

Then O'Reilly talked about the Bush tax cuts with Leslie Marshall, who praised the President and predicted he will soon raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans. "He will stand firm," Marshall said, "and if you're making $250,000 or more he is going to end the tax cut of the past ten years. The reality is that the Bush tax cuts were in place for a decade and they did not help stimulate the economy and create jobs."

And of course the former Bush aide Nicole Wallace disagreed. "I think President Obama has already folded. He knows that the American people understand that you do not raise taxes in a time of economic distress and you do not make it harder for the people who employ the vast majority of Americans."

Then O'Reilly said this: "If he comes out and says he's going to extend all the tax cuts, the far left is going to go crazy and MSNBC may just explode."

Wallace and O'Reilly are both total right-wing stooges. Because the American people understand that the Bush tax cuts were set to expire, Obama did not set that date, Bush did, he put the date in the bill. So Obama is not raising taxes on anyone, he is just letting what the bill says to do to happen. And the American people also understand that letting the top 2 percent keep theose tax cuts will not do anything to help create jobs. Because as we have already seen, in 10 years it did not do anything, except make the rich richer.

Then Billy had Lou Dobbs on to talk about the presidential commission that is searching for ways to reduce the nation's debt. "I don't like their idea of raising the retirement age," Dobbs said. "They're asking the American people to pay more into Social Security and take less out by raising the retirement age. And eliminating the tax deduction for mortgage interest payments would be devastating."

But Dobbs endorsed the commission's suggestion to trim the federal workforce by 10%. "The public sector workforce costs an enormous amount of money and private sector working men and women are making 10% less, on average, than federal employees and receiving benefits that are far inferior."

And what I would say to that is who cares what Lou Dobbs thinks, except the right-wing idiots at Fox and O'Reilly. Dobbs is not an economist, he is just a right-wing talking head who is now a Fox News employee. So on the credibility scale he was about a 1, now that he works for Fox, it's a 0. And Fox hires every right-wing loon in America, so how in the hell can they claim they are not an arm of the Republican party.

Then Geraldo was on to talk about the ACLU's demand that President Bush be investigated for approving torture. "The ACLU is probably correct on the law," Rivera said, "but they're wrong as a matter of public policy and national interest. When George Bush admitted that he endorsed waterboarding, he was making an admission that he was complicit in a crime. The ACLU is not accusing him, they're saying he should be investigated."

And for once Geraldo is on the right side of an issue, torture was illegal, and Bush approved it, so he broke the law. Bush should be investigated, and then put on trial for approving the use of torture. Now I do not thing he should go to jail for it, but he should be fined, and put on probation, and then he would have a conviction on his record, and go down in history as the torture President. But of course Billy the Bush ass kisser disagreed.

O'Reilly said that any investigation would be a complete waste of time and money: "The Supreme Court will rule 5 - 4 that President Bush was on solid ground and listened to his lawyers, so why bother? It's not good for the country to continue this."

Hmmmm, why do I think O'Reilly would have a different opinion of this if Bush was a Democrat. Hell O'Reilly wanted to go back 10 years and investigate Clinton for the Marc Rich pardon, when all Rich did was avoid some taxes, which is the American way in the Republican party, they just don't like it when Democrats do it. But O'Reilly is opposed to an investigation of Bush, who approved the torture. Clinton just did a pardon, not the actual crime, and yet O'Reilly wants him investigated, give me a break. O'Reilly is so biased for Bush it's pathetic.

Then O'Reilly had the crazy Glenn Beck on to talk about his ridiculous biased and one sided attacks on George Soros. Beck spent the week crying about Soros giving money to liberal groups. He called him the puppet master. But he never once talks about all the billionaires who give money to conservative groups. Somehow in Beckland only left-wing billionaires give money to liberal groups, when right-wing billionaires do the same thing, and more, but Beck never says a word about that.

It's ridiculous, not to mention 100% legal, Soros is not breaking any laws. O'Reilly and Beck slam Soros for simply giving money to liberal groups, which is how it works in the American political system, and they have no problem when right-wing billionaires do it. Right-wing groups spent millions and millions in the last election, and they did not care. Proving they are massive hypocrites with double standards who lie to the American people.

And in the last segment it was dumbest things of the week. I nominate this segment, because it's garbage. Arthel Neville went with author Joe McGinnis, who moved next door to Sarah Palin in Alaska and is now complaining because he is mentioned in Palin's TV series. "McGinnis says he's going to sue TLC and the producers," Neville reported, "and he had a lawyer send them a 'cease and desist' letter. He says it's an invasion of his privacy and that Sarah Palin is defaming him."

Greg Gutfeld went with rapper Cee-Lo, who used the words "Fox News" instead of another "f-word" while performing on Comedy Central. "That should be the Fox News theme song," Gutfeld joked, "and it just goes to show you that if you add Fox News to anything it makes it better. There should be other songs like 'Stairway to Fox News' and 'Jumpin' Jack Fox News.'"

O'Reilly nominated Nancy Pelosi, who he hates because she is a liberal, who threw a lavish party to celebrate the accomplishments of the 111th Congress but only invited advocacy groups.

Notice there are no Democratic guests to do dumbest things of the week, only right-wing stooges that work for Fox.

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

Now check out one of the e-mails O'Reilly got over the Bush interview, the guy said it was the greatest presidential interview ever. Are you kidding me, it was garbage, and O'Reilly never asked him about none of the scandals Bush had.

Dan Zafferese, Kendall Park, NJ: "Bill, plain and simple, the best presidential interview I've ever seen, and anyone who says Fox News cheerleads for Republicans should watch it."

Dan, it was a terrible interview, O'Reilly never asked Bush about torture, the illegal NSA Wiretaps, the Plame CIA outing, the federal prosecutor firings, the lies about WMD's in Iraq, and on and on, nothing. O'Reilly ignored it all, and kissed Bush's ass.

In fact, O'Reilly said the Bush book was honest, and he also said everyone thought Saddam had WMD's in Iraq. Which is a lie, because Scott Ritter (and others) were saying they did not have WMD's. Here is a question a real journalist would have asked Bush.

Mr. Bush, Scott Ritter was saying he destroyed all the WMD's in Iraq, why did you ignore what he was saying? And I could think of 20 more questions that O'Reilly did not ask. Like this: Mr. Bush, someone in your administration illegally outed a CIA officer, who knew about it and what did they know, and did you know about it?

The Thursday 11-11-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 12, 2010 - 9:30am

There was no TPM because O'Reilly did an interview of George W. Bush, to promote his spin filled book, that O'Reilly called an honest book. And what I plan to do is show you the questions O'Reilly asked, and then show you the scandals O'Reilly failed to ask about.

I will not report what Bush said, because it was pretty much all right-wing spin. And we all know Bush is only doing this to try and make people believe he was not the worst President in the history of America, which he was. I call it the re-write my history Bush propaganda book tour.

And what bothered me about this interview is that O'Reilly had the former President for one last interview, and he wasted it with 35 minutes of ridiculous questions. When he should have given him the full hour, and asked some tough questions about things like torture, the Plame CIA outing, the U.S. Attorney firings, Katrina, and on and on. But O'Reilly never asked him about any of that.

And btw, I would not call this a total softball interview, there were some softball questions, but I would just say it was a bad choice of questions. Before the interview started O'Reilly told Bush that he was not going to ask stupid questions like all the other pinheads were asking him, and yes he used the word pinheads.

Bush laughed, then O'Reilly said he was going to ask him the questions the folks want to know about. Yeah right, I do not know any folks that wanted answers to these questions.

Then O'Reilly asked him a bunch of stupid questions. Now I have the questions O'Reilly asked, I wrote them down, so I will list them:
1) As the President, why didn't you know about the mortgage backed securities con.

2) He asked Bush why he appointed Chris Cox to head the SEC.

3) He asked Bush about the $5 trillion in debt that has been added since 2007. And btw, folks, this shows that O'Reilly is a liar. Because he just admitted the $5 trillion has been added since 2007, which is 2 years of Bush time, but O'Reilly has been saying the entire $5 trillion was added by Obama, when only $2 trillion of it was added by Obama. So by saying that, O'Reilly outed himself in one of his own lies.

4) He asked why the Government keeps spending so much money.

5) O'Reilly tried but failed, many times, to use a leading question to get Bush to slam Obama, but Bush would not do it. And Bush even pointed out that O'Reilly was asking a lot of leading questions.

NOTE: During the entire interview, O'Reilly used leading questions to help Bush answer them. He would say things like this: The media was calling you a criminal, but you are not a criminal, so what did you think about that. Talk about leading the witness, that was leading the witness to the 10th power.

6) He asked Bush why he did not respond to the dishonest media attacks on him while he was the President.

7) He asked Bush if he was optimistic about the economy, Bush said yes btw.

8) He asked Bush about Afghanistan, but he never asked about Bin Laden, and how Bush let him get away by not putting U.S. troops on the ground at Tora Bora. Never mentioned that Bush said he would get him dead or alive, and 9 years later he is still on the loose.

9) He asked Bush about Iran. Then O'Reilly told Bush his book was honest, haha, yeah right. Proving that O'Reilly is a total ass kissing right-wing stooge. Because the Bush book is nothing but his spin on what happened while he was the President.

10) He asked Bush why the rest of the world does not want to help us in Afghanistan, and Bush said they did, haha, yeah right. Even O'Reilly was not buying that one.

11) He asked Bush why he was so nice to China in the book.

12) He asked Bush if he cares that his approval rating has been going up recently. Bush said no, but you know he does. And if that is not a softball question, what is.

13) He asked Bush why he did not speak out more about his critics who called him a criminal. Which is the same question he asked him earlier in the interview.

14) Then O'Reilly had a really leading and laughable question, he said this: You are such a nice guy, why did the media hate you so much.

NOTE: The media (and everyone but Republicans) hated him so much, because he was a far right idiot of a President, who had so many scandals and bad partisan decisions it was ridiculous. And to even ask that question shows what a right-wing stooge O'Reilly is. And btw, Bush said he was not sure why they hated him so much, really? Give me a break.

15) He asked Bush about the tension between him and Cheney. Really, who cares. And that is something the folks want to know about, give me a break.

16) He asked Bush if him and Cheney ever talked about how the media hated them so much. Really, who fricking cares. O'Reilly was obsessed with the media hating Bush, when nobody cares but him, Bush did not even care.

17) He asked Bush if he called his Father very often for advice. Bush said no, not really. O'Reilly was shocked, and who cares, nobody. Talk about softballs.

18) He asked Bush if Colin Powell was against the invasion of Iraq, Bush said yes.

19) He asked Bush if he was scared when he made the surge decision for Iraq. Bush said no, and that scared was not the right word, whatever that means.

20) He asked Bush if he ever speaks to Obama, Bush said once or twice, but never about policy.

21) He asked Bush if he was surprised that McCain lost to Obama, Bush said no, but he was disappointed.

22) He asked Bush if Palin was a good VP choice for McCain, Bush said yes. Proving that he is a fool, because when McCain picked Palin he lost it for sure.

23) He asked Bush if he would help Republicans win in 2010, Bush said yes, if they ask him. And what a stupid question, Bush was the worst President ever, so no Republican will ask him to help them. After the interview, Laura Ingraham even said no Republicans will run in 2012 as a Bush Republican.

And that was the end of the interview. Then after the lame 35 minute Bush interview, O'Reilly had 3 guests on to tell him what a great interview he did. O'Reilly is such an ego-maniac that he had to put these stooges on to stroke his ego. O'Reilly should have dropped the guests, and give Bush the entire hour, then asked him some real questions, instead of the ridiculous questions he asked.

No mail or pinheads and patriots, because of the Bush interview.

Now here is a partial list of questions O'Reilly should have asked about, but didn't.

1) The US Attorney firings
2) Libby/Plame Affair (Outing a CIA agent)
3) Never asked him why he did not put troops on the ground when they had a chance to get bin laden at tora bora.
4) Never asked him about Halliburton in Iraq giving out bad water to the troops, charging crazy prices for food, soda, and gas, etc.
5) Never asked him about torture of the 3 terrorists who were waterboarded, or if it is now legal to use waterboarding on Americans, etc.
6) Never asked him about Katrina.
7) Never asked him about the NSA warrantless wiretapping
8) Never asked him about black sites or rendition.
9) Never asked him about the Cheney Energy Task Force (and hiding info about it)
10) Never asked him about Bush increasing the debt from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion, an increase of 85.6%.
11) Never asked him about Doug Feith (stovepiping Iraq intel) Cooked intelligence and the Office of Strategic Plans/ stovepiping and Cheney's alternate intel operation; pitching stories to credulous compliant reporters like Judy Miller then citing these stories as independent evidence; Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress feeding fake stories and dubious sources like "Curveball" etc.
12)Never asked him about Alberto Gonzales politicization of the department of justice.
13) Never asked him about the 156 signing statements Bush used that were challenging 1,100 provisions in about 155 federal bills.
14) Never asked Bush about the Rumsfeld firing, or that he lied about firing him before the 2006 election.
15) Never asked him about Vetoing stem cell research.
16) Never asked him about the military lies about Pat Tillman or Jessica Lynch.
17) Never asked him why he did not stop the bogus enron energy crisis in california - 2001 California energy crisis (refusal to intervene in this Enron manufactured crisis)
18) Never asked him about the unfired (Bush appointed) US attorneys who targeted 80% of their political corruption cases against Democrats.
19) Never asked him about the FBI National Security Letters (overuse and abuse)
20) Never asked him about the GSA (Hatch Act violations) by the Karl Rove deputy political director Scott Jennings.
21) Never asked him about the White House email on RNC servers (in contravention of White House Records Act) The White House had two email systems, not one. It lost or destroyed many emails from both in deliberate and knowing violation of the Presidential Records Act. As a result, the Congress and the people’s right to know what their government is doing and to hold it to account has been irretrievably damaged.
22) Never asked him about the Lack of Republican oversight. A supreme lack of oversight by a rubberstamping Republican Congress over the first 6 years of the Bush Administration.
23) Never asked him why he did not have a White House investigation into the Plame affair, after he went on national tv and said he would have one.
24)Never asked him about the FBI domestic spying without probable cause.
25) Never asked him about the WMD lies, And the 12 different reasons they spun out after it was proven there were no WMD's.

O'Reilly claims nobody knew there were no WMD's, except Scott Ritter was screaming from the rooftops that they got rid of all the WMD's, and nobody would listen to him Paula Zahn even called him a traitor. Then after Bush invaded Iraq, we found out Ritter was right. And to this day O'Reilly continues to say that nobody knew they did not have WMD's, when Ritter knew.

Bush told O'Reilly the invasion of Iraq eliminated a threat to America, except they were not a threat to America. But O'Reilly did not dispute that, and had no follow up.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Dana Milbank Again
By: Steve - November 12, 2010 - 8:30am

This shows just how dishonest and biased O'Reilly is, he lies about a man, then the man responds to his lies, and he lies about the man again. It's double dishonesty, from O'Reilly. Because the man never said what O'Reilly claimed to begin with, then he admitted O'Reilly made a joke, and O'Reilly claims the man said he wants O'Reilly dead, and that he was serious.

In a November 10 Washington Post column, Dana Milbank responded to Bill O'Reilly's recent attacks on him. Milbank noted that O'Reilly "joked" about whether "sharia law says we can behead Dana Milbank."

Milbank added that O'Reilly's attack on me was precipated by a column I wrote describing Fox News's election-night coverage as a victory party for the Republicans" and he also said that O'Reilly falsely claimed Milbank wrote that there was only one Democrat who appeared on Fox. In fact, Milbank never said that Doug Schoen was the sole Democrat to appear on Fox.

Here is what O'Reilly said on Wednesday night:
O'REILLY: last week we told you about Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, a Fox hater who wrote that FNC hosted a victory party on election night. Milbank is now telling his readers that I want him dead. Milbank is desperately trying to convince his readers that somehow I would like violence to befall him. Not true. I'd like honesty to befall Mr. Milbank.
Milbank did not say O'Reilly wants him dead, he clearly pointed out what O'Reilly said and admitted it was a joke. In fact, he says it was a joke 3 times in his op-ed. Unlike O'Reilly, I am going to show you what he actually said, in context, here is exactly what Milbank said, right from his op-ed column:
MILBANK: Bill O'Reilly wants my head.

On Thursday night, the Fox News host asked: "Does sharia law say we can behead Dana Milbank?" He then added, "That was a joke."

Hilarious! Decapitation jokes just slay me, and this one had all the more hilarity because the topic of journalist beheadings brings to mind my late friend and colleague Danny Pearl, who replaced me in the Wall Street Journal's London bureau and later was murdered in Pakistan by people who thought sharia justified it.

The next night, O'Reilly read a complaint from one of his viewers, Heidi Haverlock of Cleveland, who said: "I thought the joke about whether sharia law would allow the beheading of the Washington Post guy was completely inappropriate." O'Reilly replied to her on air: "Well, let me break this to you gently, Heidi. If Dana Milbank did in Iran what he does in Washington, he'd be hummus."

O'Reilly's on-air fantasizing about violent ends for me was precipitated by a column I wrote describing Fox News's election-night coverage as a victory party for the Republicans. This didn't strike me as a terribly controversial point, but it evidently offended O'Reilly. "He said there were no Democrats except for Schoen on," O'Reilly complained. "It was an outright lie."

That would have been an outright lie, except that I said no such thing. I wrote: "To be fair and balanced, Fox brought in a nominal Democrat, pollster Doug Schoen. 'This is a complete repudiation of the Democratic Party,' he proclaimed."

Though I didn't claim Schoen was the sole Democrat, in hindsight I should have quoted other putative liberals who appeared on Fox that night - and sounded much like Schoen. There was Bob Beckel, proclaiming: "I feel like the blind guy whose guide dog died" and "I give all the credit to Republicans on this." Or Juan Williams on President Obama: "I just don't think he gets it."

Shortly after this, O'Reilly proposed to his fellow Fox News host, Megyn Kelly, a way to handle their disagreement with me: "I think you and I should go and beat him up."

The two continued on to a discussion of the attempt to bar sharia law in Oklahoma. That's when he made his little "joke" about beheading me, which led to his talk the next night about garbanzo puree.

Kelly, too, took issue with what I wrote, but to her credit she didn't join in O'Reilly's violent fantasies. "When somebody missteps, especially when it comes to any sort of speech or expression of opinion, the answer is to have more speech and opinion," she said.

"I'm not trying to muzzle the guy," O'Reilly replied.

O'Reilly has every right to quarrel with my opinion or question my accuracy. But why resort to intimidation and violent imagery? I don't believe O'Reilly really wants to sever my head, but if only one of his millions of viewers interprets his message otherwise, that's still a problem for me. Already, Beck fans have been accused of a police killing, threatening to kill a senator and having a highway shootout en route to an alleged attack on liberal groups.

Let's drop the thuggish tactics - before more people get hurt.
Notice that O'Reilly says he is not trying to muzzle the guy, are you kidding me, calling for him to be fired for a lie he never told is not trying to muzzle the guy, give me a break.

O'Reilly lies about what Milbank said, then Milbank calls out O'Reilly for his lie, then O'Reilly attacks Milbank again, and lies about what he said a 2nd time. This is what O'Reilly does folks, he lies about people, then after he is caught lying about them, he does a 2nd attack and lies about what they said again.

And he did it all after what Milbank said about Fox, that was 100% true. Then he calls for the man to be fired for lying, when he never lied in the 1st place. Then he makes another joke about beating him up, after the beheading joke, and claims Milbank was serious when he said he wants O'Reilly killed. When Milbank clearly said it was a joke, and he knew it.

Then O'Reilly claims he is not trying to muzzle the guy, after he called for him to be fired for a lie he never told. Wow, that is some serious lying, and it was all from O'Reilly. Not to mention he was the guy making the jokes about beheading Milbank, well before Milbank made a joke about wanting O'Reilly's head.

And that my friends is what I deal with almost every day in the world of being a watchdog on O'Reilly. Billy lies, then the man he lied about calls him out, so instead of doing the right thing and admit he lied, O'Reilly attacks the man again and makes more jokes about beating him up, after the beheading joke.

Somehow in all this Milbank is the bad guy, and O'Reilly is the honest journalist. When all Milbank did was honestly report that on election night the on air Fox employees were happy as can be, and it was like a party. Somehow O'Reilly twisted that into Milbank is a liar, when he was exactly right.

Republican Says Palin Cost Them Control Of Senate
By: Steve - November 12, 2010 - 8:00am

Wow, a Republican dared to tell the truth about Stupid Sarah and her far right nonsense. After Republicans failed to take control of the Senate in last week's election, losing key races in Colorado, Nevada, and elsewhere, a group of prominent senators and operatives said party purists like Sarah Palin and Sen. Jim DeMint had foolishly pushed nominees too far right to win in politically competitive states.

While most party insiders were reluctant to call out DeMint or Palin by name to reporters, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) did not mince words. Quoted in the Shelby County Reporter yesterday, Bachus, who will likely play a key role in the new Congress as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee - laid the blame for the GOP's Senate loss squarely at the feet of Sarah Palin and the tea party movement:
BACHUS: The Senate would be Republican today except for states (in which Palin endorsed candidates) like Christine O'Donnell in Delaware lost. Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate.
Bachus and his comments reflect a growing rift within the conservative movement about how much ideological purity should guide the GOP's agenda. Bachus and his colleagues will soon vote on whom to elect as the House GOP Conference chairman, a race highlights this rift and - like the GOP primaries last Spring which Bachus referenced - pits an establishment pick against a Palin-backed insurgent in Reps. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and Michele Bachmann (R-MN).

The Wednesday 11-10-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 11, 2010 - 11:00am

The TPM was called Desperation on the far left. Billy said this:
O'REILLY: After last week's election results, some in the Obama administration, and most in the left-wing media were furious. And some desperation is setting in. I'll give you two examples.

First, last week we told you about Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, a Fox hater who wrote that FNC hosted a victory party on election night. Milbank is now telling his readers that I want him dead. Milbank is desperately trying to convince his readers that somehow I would like violence to befall him. Not true. I'd like honesty to befall Mr. Milbank.

Secondly, far more serious is what the Justice Department is doing to Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey. Attorney General Eric Holder is putting out that Christie did not properly follow hotel guidelines while he was a Federal prosecutor for six years. The amount in question? About $2,000. This is a desperate attempt to denigrate Christie. Preposterous.
And that is just laughable, to begin with all the Republicans did was win the House back, I was not furious, and I barely even cared. Because the Democrats still have the White House and the Senate. O'Reilly acts like the Republicans impeached Obama, won the Senate back, and the House, and that all Democrats and liberals are now in a depression. It's ridiculous, and nothing but total right-wing spin.

Then O'Reilly claims Dana Milbank wrote that he wants him dead, which is a flat out lie. Milbank simply pointed out that O'Reilly made a joke about him getting beheaded, and even said it was a joke, but then he said it was a bad joke. So O'Reilly lis lying about what Milbank said, after just last week calling for Milbank to be fired for lying, O'Reilly lies about him, so using the same O'Reilly argument, he should now be fired. It was ridiculous, and I will post a blog on this tomorrow to prove O'Reilly was lying.

And the Chris Christie thing is more hypocrisy and double standards from O'Reilly. Because O'Reilly and the right have spent years slamming Pelosi for using a private Government plane, even though the Republican before her did the same thing, and neither O'Reilly or anyone on the right said a word about it when the Republican did it.

Then Karl Rove was on. Rove said Milbank was overreacting to what was obviously a joke: "Dana Milbank, who goes around all the time saying the ugliest and meanest things about people, suddenly turns out to be thin skinned?"

Rove also argued that the whole premise of Milbank's original column was flawed: "This was a historic whooping of the Democrats. There are now fewer Democrats in the United States House of Representatives today than at any time since 1946. And Milbank's entire column is like, oh, the Fox News Channel was wrong to call this a defeat for Democrats. What alternative universe is he living in?"

And Rove is not even a good liar, O'Reilly attacked Milbank for saying Fox only had one Democrat on the air on election night, which Milbank never said btw. Rove lied about the entire situation, and O'Reilly sat there and let him do it. Milbank did not say it was wrong for Fox to say it was a defeat for the Democrats, he simply pointed out in his 18 hours of watching Fox, that it was like a party on the air. With mostly Republicans having a good old time, and he was right. Both O'Reilly and Rove misrepresented what Milbank said, then slammed him for it, when they are the liars, and they are wrong.

The worst part is that O'Reilly lied about what Milbank said, then called for him to be fired for it. Then O'Reilly lied about Milbank calling for him to be killed, when it was a joke, and Milbank clearly said it was a joke. So O'Reilly did the exact same thing he called on the Washington Post to fire Milbank for.

Then O'Reilly had Dick Morris on to say the Gallup polls go up and down on the Obama job approval. Wow, tell us something we don't know. I have been saying this for 2 years, and O'Reilly has ignored it, now O'Reilly and Morris finally figured it out, give me a break. The segment was a total waste of time, it was just O'Reilly and Morris telling us what we all already know. That Presidential approval polls change, wow, and that's called great political analysis.

In the next segment O'Reilly asked the culture warriors if authorities should protect people from bad food. Which is misleading, because they were only doing it on kids happy meals, not for all people, just kids. Margaret Hoover thought that they were, while Alicia Menendez (subbing for Gretchen Carlson) said that she actually agreed with San Francisco, which is trying to ban fast food restaurants from offering toys: "You take a meal that's loaded with sugar and fat and nonsense, and you market it to kids because it has a toy. That just doesn't seem very responsible."

O'Reilly and Hoover claim the government is overstepping its role, by regulating what food people can eat. Ignoring the fact that it was not the Government, it was one city council in one state, and they did not regulate food on everyone, just kids, and only in happy meals that give out a toy, there are no regulations if they do not give out a toy.

That's a far cry from the Government regulating food for everyone, as O'Reilly and Hoover claimed. Basically O'Reilly put a dishonest right-wing spin on it to make San Francisco look bad, because he hates that liberal city.

Then O'Reilly had the body language bimbo on, and the comedian Dennis Miller, which I do not report on. Because one is a hocus pocus mumbo jumbo biased body language loser, and Miller is a biased comedian who only does jokes about Obama and other Democrats. I will say this, Miller called Nancy Pelosi a clown, but none of the women on Fox said a word about it.

Miller said this: "When Pelosi throws a party like this, the bottom line gets helped out, because you don't have to spring for the makeup for the clown at the party."

But when a liberal does a joke about a woman like Sarah Palin, the women on Fox go nuts and demand an apology.

In the last segment O'Reilly had Juliet Huddy on to look at some attention-getting videos in the did you see that. One of them was a commercial from The American Humanist Association, an atheist group. O'Reilly actually defended atheists, he said this: "I don't think most Americans of faith look at atheists as immoral. I don't."

Huddy was shocked, and she said this: "You don't?" O'Reilly replied with this: "No, it's a belief system. And we in America can choose what we want to believe or not."

Huddy pointed out that some people did feel a certain way about atheists: "I think that there definitely is a group within those who are religious who are judgmental about other people if they don't subscribe to their feelings."

Then O'Reilly played a commercial for a religious theme park that reenacted Jesus' crucifixion twice a day. Huddy knew of at least one group that probably wouldn't want to visit: "You don't want to bring your humanists to this fun park, I don't think. This isn't the place for them."

And finally the highly edited Factor e-mails, and the lame pinheads and patriots that nobody cares about, and it's not news. And btw, O'Reilly was back to his usual tricks, 6 Republican guests, to 1 Democratic guest, and the 1 Democrat had to share her time with the Republican Margaret Hoover, so she was not even on alone.

O'Reilly Bias & Hypocrisy On Presidential Looks
By: Steve - November 11, 2010 - 10:00am

If you want to see a great example of bias, hypocrisy, and a double standard from O'Reilly, read this. On the Tuesday Factor, O'Reilly did an entire segment slamming Dr. Marc Lamont Hill for saying the Republican Chris Christie was too fat to be the President. Even though it's probably true, and at least one Republican I know of has said the same thing. But O'Reilly made it into a liberal vs. Christie issue.

On his website O'Reilly even said far-left critics have attacked Christie over his weight. While ignoring the fact that a far-right critic has said the same thing. Here is a part of what was said in the Factor segment.

O'Reilly said this: "Dr. Marc Lamont Hill made waves recently when he said that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was too overweight to get elected president. Dr. Hill entered the No Spin Zone to defend his comments. The Factor started by pointing out that America has elected large presidents in the past: "Does the name Grover Cleveland or William Taft mean anything to you?"

Steve: And I would point out to O'Reilly that those big guys (Cleveland & Taft) were elected a long long time ago, way before the age of the tv elections that we have today. So the comparison is ridiculous.

Hill countered, arguing that we live in a very different era now: "Do the words 24-hour cable news, Internet, or celebrity reality shows mean anything to you?"

Then O'Reilly said he thinks that Christie's job performance mattered more than anything: "If he does a good job in Jersey -- and he's got 52 percent approval right now for his first year in office -- the people won't care whether he's a hefty guy or not. They want people who are honest and who are effective."

Hill disagreed: "This is grounded in realism. There are empirical studies that support this. Taller candidates tend to win. More attractive candidates tend to win."

So what does O'Reilly say to that, he said he is skeptical of those studies: "By both measures, I'd be president of the United States. I'm 6'4", and look at me."

Are you kidding me, that is just ridiculous. It soulds like an argument a 5 year old would make, because it makes no sense. And notice that what O'Reilly does in these kind of arguments is dismiss any study he disagrees with. But if there is a study on something that supports his position, even if the study was done by a biased partisan group, he will cite that study as evidence he is right.

So if Billy has a study to back up his claims, it's a good study that proves he is right. Even if it's a bogus and biased study done by a partisan right-wing group. But if anyone else cites a study to back up their claims, in O'Reillyworld it's a bogus study and he does not believe it.

Basically O'Reilly slammed Dr. Hill (the liberal) for saying Christie (the republican) was too fat to be the President. O'Reilly made it a liberal vs. republican issue, as if only liberals think that. When another Republican on the Ed Show said the very same thing, and O'Reilly himself has said looks matter in a President.

O'Reilly is saying Dr. Hill is wrong, and that looks do not matter, that all the people care about is if the person running is honest and effective, and they do not care about his looks. My God is that a load of bull, because not only has a Republican said the same thing Dr. Hill said, in the past O'Reilly has said himself that looks matter in a President.

And btw, O'Reilly did not attack the Republican for saying it, he only went after Dr. hill, because he wanted to make it look like only liberals were saying it, and that it was a liberal opinion only.

Now look at this, here is Heidi Harris on the Monday night Ed show, and she is as right-wing as it gets, she is basically a female Rush Limbaugh, who does a right-wing talk radio show.
SCHULTZ: Heidi, I think this guy's biggest quality is that he looks like the guy next door.

HARRIS: Yes, yes.

SCHULTZ: He doesn't look threatening but I'll tell you what, some of his policies are very threatening to the liberal base in this country.

HARRIS: That's good, that's what I like about him. I think he was terrific. Although, what I think he needs to do is lose some weight. I don't care how much people weigh, don't misunderstand me but in the TV age you've got to slim it down a little bit if you want to run for president.
Okay, there it is, Heidi Harris said the exact same thing about Christie that Dr. Hill said. But O'Reilly did not attack her for saying it, because she is a Republican. O'Reilly only went after Dr. Hill because he is a liberal, while ignoring the fact that Republicans are saying the very same thing.

Now get this, I have a transcript of O'Reilly from 2007, where he says looks matter in a President, and he even says it means a lot in America. Which is the same argument Dr. Hill is making, but O'Reilly disagrees with him now, when 3 years ago O'Reilly was saying the same thing about looks for a President that Dr. Hill and Heidi Harris are saying today.

O'Reilly said this on the May 30, 2007 O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: "You can't get more presidential-looking than [former Massachusetts Gov.] Mitt Romney [R]."

"If you were to make up a guy, this would be the guy, you know, that looks presidential. He's got the jaw going on, the little gray thing in there."

O'Reilly concluded that Romney's "presidential" looks bode well for his electoral prospects, saying, "I think that means a lot in America."
Here is what O'Reilly said to Dennis Miller, his exact words:
O'REILLY: But he's got a very -- how important in this world is Romney's appearance? Which, I mean, you can't get more presidential looking than Mitt Romney.

I mean, look, if you were to make up a guy, this would be the guy, you know, that looks presidential. He's got the jaw going on, the little gray thing in there. And I think that means a lot in America.
Now there you have it, proof that O'Reilly is a dishonest and biased hypocrite with double standards. One day he says looks matter in a President, and that it means a lot in America. Then after a liberal says it, O'Reilly flips out, disagrees with him, and slams him for saying it. While ignoring the fact that Republicans have said the same thing, including himself.

And it's not just one Republican who thinks that way, almost everyone does. Numerous other media figures have praised Romney's appearance or asserted that he looks like a president, including Republican pollster Frank Luntz, Jonathan Darman, Evan Thomas, Chris Matthews, Roger Simon, Mike Allen, Matt Lauer, and Tim Russert.

And what gets me is O'Reilly decided to do an entire segment on the issue, simply to slam Dr. hill for what he said, when we all know what he said is true, and O'Reilly himself has even said that looks are important to Americans in their President. Then O'Reilly disagrees with Dr. Hill, when he has basically said the same thing himself in the past.

The whole segment was a total waste of time, and O'Reilly simply did it to make Dr. Hill look like an evil liberal who personally attacks republicans, it was petty, it was bias, it was hypocrisy, and it was a double standard.

Bush Torture Story O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - November 11, 2010 - 9:00am

O'Reilly sure loves to say that the Bush approved torture (or as Billy calls it: waterboarding) on the three terrorists led to information that saved thousands of lives, even though only Republicans, O'Reilly, and Bush are making those claims, and there is no real proof because it was all classified.

On the Wednesday night Factor show O'Reilly was still defending Bush, and spinning out the story that the torture saved thousands of lives. But as usual he is ignoring a big story from a British Government official, who is calling Bush a liar.

Former British Intelligence Chairman All But Calls Bush A Liar, Says Waterboarding Didn't Stop Terror

A former British government minister who also led the House of Commons Intelligence Committee threw cold water on claims made by former President George W. Bush that waterboarding saved British lives.

The ex-minister, Kim Howells, all but accused Bush of lying in a radio interview. He said he wasn't convinced that waterboarding produced intelligence that helped foil terror plots at Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf, in London, though he agreed that the plots were real.

"I don't think there was any doubt there were real plots," Howells told the BBC Radio 4 Today. "Where I doubt what President Bush has said is that what we regard as torture, actually produced information which was instrumental in preventing those plots coming to fruition. I'm not convinced of that."

He also said, without qualification, that waterboarding was "torture," and that Bush simply wanted to "justify what he did to the world."

As usual Billy only reports one side of the story when he is defending his good buddy George W. Bush, the right-wing side. And what a shocker, O'Reilly never reported any of this, not!

Another Pro-Life Conviction O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - November 11, 2010 - 8:30am

O'Reilly sure loves to report on abortion doctors who are doing what he calls killing babies, and he loves to report on bad things he says pro-choice people do, like support a womans right to do what she wants to with her body, as in supporting freedom.

But when it comes to all the bad things these right-wing pro-life loons do, like bomb abortion clinics, kill abortion doctors, vandalize abortion clinics, and print wanted posters asking people to kill an abortion doctor, O'Reilly is as silent as a mouse, because he is also pro-life and he covers for them.

In North Carolina, Rev. Phillip Flip Benham's wild-west antics have earned him two years probation Tuesday after a judge convicted him for stalking an abortion doctor. Leader of the Christian, anti-abortion group Operation Save America, Benham distributed old-West style Wanted posters earlier this year that included the names, addresses and photos of four Charlotte, N.C., doctors who perform abortions.

And the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly never said a word about it. But he sure has plenty of time to have Dennis Miller (the comedian) on to do a full segment making jokes about the Democrats in America.

While Benham claimed his actions were protected by the First Amendment, he violated a new North Carolina law meant to protect citizens from being targeted by a lone-wolf assailant:
Benham and his group took the posters to the doctors offices and to their neighborhoods. They placed the posters on cars and tacked them up on doors.

Detective Milton Harris with the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department says this violated the state's new law against targeting an individual at his home.

"By them handing out the flyers with doctors photos on it, it was an indication to us that they were actually singling those doctors out within that residential neighborhood to protest," Harris says.

He also says that this is the first prosecution under the new law.

"The purpose of the law is to protect that person's identity against basically a lone-wolf assailant coming in there and possibly doing harm to that individual or that family," Harris says.
And btw, abortion is legal, and has been for 30 years. But these abortion doctors have to live in fear of being killed by some right-wing religious nut, and O'Reilly never reports on it, or calls for them to stop it, which if you go by the O'Reilly rules, you support what they do for not speaking out against it.

Hell O'Reilly is sort of their hero, for what he did to Dr. Tiller, by calling him Tiller The Baby Killer on some of the Factor shows. They even invited him to some of their pro-life protests at abortion clinics, and wrote praise for him on their websites and blogs.

Aware of the well-documented history of murders, shootings, bombings, arson, acid attacks, and anthrax threats against doctors who provide abortions, one of the doctors targeted by the posters said he fears for his life. The doctor at the trial believed the poster was a "call for my murder" and said he now "gets down on his hands and knees to make certain there are no bombs under his car."

Benham, denies the posters are a threat and claims "they're a tool to inform the community" that the "doctor kills babies for a living and has no respect for the life of children in the safety and neighborhoods of their mothers wombs."

Are you kidding me, give me a break. You print wanted posters and put them everywhere, and you deny that's a threat, you are nuts. Especially when these right-wing religious groups have a history of killing abortion doctors. If printing wanted posters and putting them everywhere is not a threat, what the hell is it.

It's not only a threat, it sends a message directly to people in these pro-life groups that here is a target. The guy even put the doctors home address, photo, where he worked, and phone number on the poster. That's not just a threat, it's a hit list that says here he is go kill him.

And Billy ignored the entire story, just like he ignored the right-wing abortion bomber story, and just like he ignores almost every story about these pro-life thugs who murder abortion doctors.

The Real Dick Morris O'Reilly Ignores
By: Steve - November 11, 2010 - 8:00am

O'Reilly, Hannity, and a lot of other Fox shows put Dick Morris on the air as a political analyst. In fact, O'Reilly claims he is a great political analyst, and he has him on the Factor at least once a week. But when you look at what Morris actually does, you find out that not only is he not great, he is terrible.

Most of the time Morris is wrong, and instead of giving an impartial political analysis, he usually says what he wants to happen, not what might actually happen. And if you want to see the proof, just look at this partial list of things Morris has got wrong.

Keep in mind that this is a partial list, I could fill a book with examples of bad political analysis from Morris. And yet, even after he has been wrong time after time, O'Reilly still puts him on every week and labels him a great political analyst.

1) Morris: GOP House pick-ups "could go as high as 100." they picked up 60.

2) Morris: "GOP could pick up 13 Senate seats." They picked up 6.

3) On September 16, 2010 Morris said Gillibrand is "still beatable." She won by 26 points.

4) Morris: Colorado is "another takeaway" for Republicans. The Democrat won.

5) Morris predicted Angle would win the NV Senate race. She lost.

6) Morris: "Rossi and Murray are dead even tied, which I think it means Rossi is going to win." rossi lost.

7) Morris: "Don't count out Linda McMahon." She lost by 11 points, and it was not even close.

8) Morris: "Christine O'Donnell may yet pull out a win." She lost by 17 points, and it was not even close.

9) Morris: Democrats Hoyer and Frank "might be within reach for the Republicans." They both won, Hoyer won by 28, and Frank won by 11, and neither race was even close.

10) Morris: "Evidence indicates" that Dingell is "in jeopardy." He won, Dingell defeated his GOP challenger 17 points. It was not even close.

11) In an October 8 email to his followers, Morris wrote that Florida GOP House candidate Mike Yost "can and will win if you donate money to him." Yost lost to Democrat Corrine Brown by 29 points. It was not even close.

12) In his October 8 email, Morris also wrote that GOP House candidate Beth Anne Rankin "is en route to beating" Democratic Rep. Mike Ross. Wrong! Ross defeated Rankin by 18 points. it was not even close.

And if you go back a few years you see that Morris was still getting it wrong. On Fox News in 2005, Morris repeatedly touted New York Republican Jeanine Pirro's 2006 Senate campaign against hillary Clinton. Morris said this: "The first thing I would tell Hillary, if I were advising her, is you're crazy to run for the Senate."

He also said that Clinton "might just take a pass" rather than face Pirro in the election, and even said this: "My bet is that Clinton thinks the better of it and drops out of the race."

Then the exact opposite happened, Pirro -- not Clinton -- who was trailing badly in polls, dropped out of the race on December 21, 2005.

Morris also predicted that Rick Lazio (R-NY) would defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2000 New York Senate race. One day prior to the election, on the November 6, 2000, O'Reilly Factor, Morris said this: "I think Lazio is, at this point, more likely to win it than Hillary, because, if Hillary is at 48 percent -- or even at 49 percent, or even at 50 percent -- a lot of her vote of minorities, a lot of her -- who have no real reason to vote in the presidential race."

Clinton won by 12 points, even though he outspent her by $11 million dollars.

Morris also made some really bad predictions about the 2008 presidential election. According to his final 2008 electoral map, released on October 27, 2008, Morris labeled Arkansas "lean Obama."

McCain won Arkansas by 20 points.

The final Morris electoral map also had Louisiana and Tennessee as "tossup" states.

McCain won both states by more than 15 points. So it was not even close. And this is the great political analyst O'Reilly and Fox put on the air. A guy that is usually wrong, and wrong by a lot.

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

The TPM was called President Bush and torture. billy said this:
O'REILLY: This week President Bush is making the media rounds talking about his new book and explaining some of his controversial decisions while in office. Monday night NBC's Matt Lauer asked him about waterboarding.

Talking points has said that in a time of war you have to do things you would not ordinarily do. So to waterboard three high ranking terror suspects in order to get information that likely saved thousands of lives seems to be logical and responsible -- unless you live in a theoretical world where feeling noble is the ultimate objective.

The danger from the jihadists continues to be enormous and some of these people have to be broken. I don't understand the moral dilemma here. Self defense is self defense. Legally you can kill someone who is threatening you -- but we can't dunk three terror guys in water?
I have 3 problems with what O'Reilly said, there is no proof that waterboarding those three terror suspects to get information saved thousands of lives. As far as we know it's spin put out by Republicans and Bush to justify the torture. There has been no proof the Bush approved torture saved thousands of lives.

And what O'Reilly continues to ignore, is that waterboarding is torture, and it was illegal under U.S. law, and International law when Bush approved it. And 3rd, I have no moral objection to waterboarding someone, I frankly do not care if we waterboard a captured terrorist to get information or not.

The problem is that it was illegal, and a President approved it. Then Bush denied it was torture, and O'Reilly spewed out the same spin. Even though it's listed in the International anti-torture agreements the U.S. signed onto, and it's listed as illegal under U.S. law. Local police in America have been prosecuted and convicted for using waterboarding, and yet Bush approved it, and nothing happened to him because he was the President.

Then O'Reilly said Legally you can kill someone who is threatening you -- but we can't dunk three terror guys in water. And my God is that ridiculous, how can you compare killing someone who is trying to kill you (it's called self-defense btw) to the President of the United States giving the approval to break international and U.S. torture laws. O'Reilly is just spinning for Bush, because he is a Republican. And he never mentions the fact that bush had his stooge legal team say waterboarding is not torture, so it's legal, to give him an out for when he approved the torture.

Then the Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell was on to discuss it. Rendell said that he believed President Bush acted in good faith, but said he personally was against coercive interrogation: "The problem with using physical force or waterboarding is it produces unreliable information."

And of course O'Reilly disagreed, arguing that the technique was effective, Billy said this: "It is documented that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded more than 100 times, gave up information that led to the capture of dozens of Al Qaeda all over the world."

Now think about that, he was waterboarded more than 100 times. If it works so well why did they have to waterboard him more than 100 times. And even if it was effective, it was still torture, and it was still illegal. What O'Reilly also fails to mention is that some experts say it works, but that you get bad information, because they say anything to stop the torture.

And once again, there is no proof that information they got from waterboarding led to the capture of dozens of Al Qaeda all over the world. Some people say it's true, some say it's not, but of course O'Reilly only goes with the some people who say it's true. Nobody really knows because it's all classified information. Not to mention, high level British officials are saying it's not true, and that Bush is not being truthful. Which is another story O'Reilly failed to report.

Then O'Reilly had the crazy Republican congresswoman Michele Bachmann on to counter what Ed Rendell said. And of course they both disagreed with Rendell, because they are Republicans. They both slammed Rendell and liberals for being too soft on terrorists. Which is ridiculous, and I only care about a U.S. President breaking torture laws, if it's legal I'm fine with it. And I really don't care about captured terrorists being waterboarded, I care that U.S. troops could now be captured and waterboarded, and they can say hey, Bush said it was legal so we can do it too.

I worry about our troops being waterboarded now, not what we did to a captured terrorist. So when they say liberals are soft on terrorists, it's ridiculous. Hell I would waterboard a terrorist myself if I had to, but then I would admit I broke the law and not lie about it like Bush is doing. The problem is they broke the law, but they refuse to admit it, and they do this legal dance that the lawyers said it was legal and waterboarding is not torture, when they know that is bull, and so does O'Dummy.

In the next segment O'Reilly wasted our time talking about the Obama jihad stuff again, with Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes. O'Reilly said Obama continues to soft peddle the terror issue. Which is ridiculous, and we have already been over this topic, so I am not going to report any more on it. I will say this, Colmes disagreed, saying that Obama's actions were what mattered, not his words, here is what Colmes said: "He gave the right political answer in a Muslim country. But he has had great success killing terrorists and killing Jihadists."

Okay now get this, O'Reilly had Dr. Marc Lamont Hill on to discuss his comments that the Republican Chris Christie was too fat to be the President. O'Reilly said Hill made waves with the comment, and slammed him, making it a liberal vs. conservative thing. Except I saw a Republican talk radio woman on Hardball say the very same thing. But O'Reilly never attacked her, he only went after Dr. Hill for it because he is a liberal. And talk about a waste of tv time, this was it, who cares if Dr. Hill or anyone said he was too fat to be President. This is not a topic a real news show should be wasting an entire segment on, but that is exactly what O'Reilly did. Not a word about the Bush torture with the liberal Dr. Hill, just fat guy garbage about Christie.

Then it was is it legal with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle, they talked about the new airport bodyscanners that can see through clothing. O'Reilly asked if there was a backup plan in case someone objected to this virtual strip search. Wiehl said that "in most airports you can say, 'I don't want to have that x-ray.' Then you can get a pat down by a person of the same sex, so a woman patted down by another woman, et cetera."

Guilfoyle thought people needed to be more understanding: "Stop complaining. People should understand that this is a threat to our national security." Guilfoyle said that people who thought the scan was too intrusive could always opt for a pat down. Then O'Reilly pointed out that the other option wasn't necessarily any better: "The pat down is pretty intrusive, though... I would rather have the machine than the pat down. I don't want to be patted down by Lenny. I'm sorry. I'd rather hitchhike."

And in the last segment O'Reilly had John Stossel on to talk about his racist bake sale. Stossel called it an affirmative action bake sale. He held a bake sale in a local mall, but charged Asians and Whites more money than blacks and Hispanics. Stossel explained that he was just trying to start a conversation about racial preferences in college admissions: "It's not that I was so much against affirmative action. I just think we ought to be able to discuss it. And at some schools, students try to have these affirmative action bake sales to satirize it or at least make people think about affirmative action."

All I can say to that is if you do not understand why colleges have affirmative action admissions rules, you have no clue what racism is, or unfairness to minorities. Both O'Reilly and Stossel are clueless on the issue. And having that ridiculous and racist street bake sale proved nothing, except that Stossel is a racist idiot.

Then the highly edited Factor e-mails that are hand picked to be read on the show by the O'Reilly staff, and the lame pinheads and patriots.

Republican Admits Fox Is Arm Of Republican Party
By: Steve - November 10, 2010 - 9:30am

Everyone with a working brain admits that Fox News is nothing more than a propaganda machine for Republican and conservative causes, and that it played a key role in helping Republicans do well in the midterm elections. In fact, the only people that deny it are most Republicans, and everyone at Fox. But even some Republicans admit it, like Larry Klayman.

Larry Klayman was the former head of Judicial Watch, which made its name by filing numerous lawsuits against the Clinton administration, fueled by millions in donations from conservative moneybags Richard Mellon Scaife. Klayman has a new organization called Freedom Watch USA.

And btw, Klayman not only gives credit to Fox News for the Republicans taking the House back, he gives credit to Fox for the rise of the Tea Party. Admitting what people have been saying for a long time, that without Fox promoting the Tea Party 24/7, there would not even be a Tea Party.

Klayman used his November 5th column to thank Fox News for helping Republicans take the House:
Lets give credit where credit is due! Without the strong advocacy of Fox News, orchestrated by its chief, Roger Ailes -- the former Republican ad man that helped elect President Ronald Reagan -- we would not now have a strong tea party, and we would not have removed Nancy Pelosi and her fellow socialists from control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

While Fox News' evening programming has been criticized by jealous leftist cable competitors as primarily right-wing propaganda and not "news," the nightly lineup was never meant to be "fair and balanced." And, more importantly, who cares! It is the lone strong voice on television that takes on the rest of the ultra-libs on MSNBC and CNN.

And, the fact President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Keith Obermann, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and the rest of the ultra-left hate Fox News only speaks more highly of it. In Washington, D.C., and elsewhere, you define yourself by your enemies. If I had not been so hated and feared by the Clintons and other corrupt politicians, judges, lawyers and political consultants like James Carville, I would not have been doing my job. In fact, I would have been disappointed in myself!

Indeed, people like me, Matt Drudge, Ann Coulter and Joseph Farah helped Roger and his minions build the market for Fox News during the Clinton years with our newsworthy lawsuits, cutting-edge reports, books and related television appearances on the network. So we can take a little credit for its early success.
Basically Klayman admits Fox has a right-wing bias, and he says who cares. This is a Republican saying that, do you see this O'Reilly. A Republicans is saying Fox has a right-wing bias, and that he does not care. So this is proof that it's not just liberal loons saying Fox has a right-wing bias.

Now here is the $64,000 dollar question, when will O'Reilly have the Republican Larry Klayman on the Factor to discuss his statement about the bias at Fox. And the answer to that is never, n-e-v-e-r. Because then it would kill the O'Reilly spin that only left-wing loons are saying Fox is an arm of the Republican party.

I mean the bias at Fox is so obvious after all these years, it's ridiculous to even deny it. And the people that deny it, like O'Reilly, just make a fool of themselves with the ridiculous denial.

Here is another question for O'Reilly, the top 3 shows at Fox are Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck. And every other show at Fox is hosted by a Republican, so where is the balance, where?

Not one show at Fox is hosted by a Democrat, not even a moderate Democrat, let alone a liberal. NONE, ZERO, ZIP. How come Alan Colmes does not have a show at Fox. How come General Clark does not have a show at Fox. How come Bob Beckel does not have a show at Fox. How come Ellis Henican does not have a show at Fox.

Let me explain this so even O'Reilly can understand it, if you have 100% Republican shows, with 100% Republican hosts, and you spend 99% of your time promoting Republicans while slamming Democrats 100% of the time, you have a right-wing biased news network. How hard is that to understand. And then if you deny it, you are a massive liar, who has no credibility.

The Fox & Friends Crew Do Not get It!
By: Steve - November 10, 2010 - 9:00am

Now this is funny, TV Guide Magazine sat down with Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson and Brian Kilmeade, and asked them about all the jokes other tv shows do about them. Like The Daily Show, The Soup, etc. And these morons, or as I like to call them, the three stooges, think it's a compliment.

Doocy said ever since they started making all the jokes about them, their ratings have went up. He said this: "Ever since they've done more on us, our ratings have actually gone up. So, thank you."

Co-anchor Gretchen Carlson said this: "I take it as a total compliment. If we weren't something important - if we weren't No. 1 - they wouldn't be using our clips."

Really Gretchen, are you that stupid. To begin with, you are not important at all, you have a morning fake news show on Fox, a cable tv network. Less than 1% of the population watch you, or even know who you are.

And that fact that you have the #1 rated morning cable news show has nothing to do with them using your clips. They use your clips to make fun of you, to show how stupid, how biased, and how wrong you always are. If you do not understand they are insulting you by showing your insane clips to make you look like fools, then you are beyond stupid.

Kilmeade told the magazine this: "I like what [the comedians] do. But what I've noticed over the past couple of years is they act like we never have any sense of humor, or that we're never being sarcastic to each other."

Really Brian, are you kidding me. They do not care about your sense of humor, and they do not try to show that. They show your clips to get laughs, by showing how stupid you three are. It's not a compliment, it does not increase your ratings, and none of you are important to anyone.

You are three almost unknown right-wing stooges, who run a morning fraud of a news show on a fraud of a news network. And those comedy shows simply use your clips to make fun of you, and make you look like fools. You have a former Weatherman, a former sports guy, and a former beauty contest winner. None of you are journalists, you are just stupid clowns that Fox has on the air, and the other shows laugh at you, not with you. You provide them with comedy, because you are all so stupid.

Which just goes to show you how stupid they really are, because the jokes the other tv shows make about them are not a compliment, they are an insult. So if they really believe it's a compliment, they are even dumber than I gave them credit for.

Right-Wing Goons Attack Obama Over Jihad Statement
By: Steve - November 10, 2010 - 8:30am

And btw, if O'Reilly is not a biased Republican as he claims, why is he one of the right-wing goons who attacked Obama for his jihad statement, when only Republican have attacked Obama for what he said, what say you Billy?

Fox News figures are attacking President Obama for suggesting during a town hall meeting with Indian students that jihad is a tenet of Islam that "has been distorted to justify violence towards innocent people." Even though former President George W. Bush said the same thing, that extremists "distort the idea of jihad" to support their terrorist acts. Except they never attacked Bush when he said it.

Asked about jihad, Obama explains that Islam "has been distorted to justify violence"
Q: Hi, good day, sir. Hi, my name is Anna and I'm from St. Davis College. My question to you is, what is your take on opinion about jihad, or jihadi? Whatever is your opinion, what do you think of them?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the phrase jihad has a lot of meanings within Islam and is subject to a lot of different interpretations. But I will say that, first, Islam is one of the world's great religions. And more than a billion people who practice Islam, the overwhelming majority view their obligations to their religion as ones that reaffirm peace and justice and fairness and tolerance.

I think all of us recognize that this great religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted to justify violence towards innocent people that is never justified.
Sounds good right, not to Fox and all the right-wing idiots that work there. They all freaked out over Obama's refusal to state that jihad killed 3,000 Americans, including O'Reilly. So while O'Reilly might claim he is not a Republican, he sure parrots all their spin to smear and attack Obama.

As I always say, judge people by what they do, not what they say, and if you judge O'Reilly by what he does, he is as Republican as any of them.

O'Reilly: Obama was asked about the world-wide problem of jihad and dodged it. On his November 8 Factor show, Bill O'Reilly said this: "In India the president held a big town hall-type meeting, and the first question was about the worldwide Muslim problem, which deeply affects India."

After airing a partial quote of Obama's comments, O'Reilly said this: "So once again, Mr. Obama dodged the girl's question and failed to answer about the jihad. Whenever, whenever the president is faced with the worldwide problem of jihad, Mr. Obama delivers platitudes." O'Reilly later added this:
O'REILLY: While soothing words can help persuade peace-loving Muslims that we are not the enemy, I'll submit to that you that most Americans don't want that kind of presentation exclusively. We need to combine the platitudes with straight talk about the danger in the Muslim world. The USA avoided the jihad issue for decades, and finally 3,000 people wound up dead on 9-11. Americans will never forget that.
Now look what other far right republicans said about it.

11-8-10 -- Hannity: "Why couldn't he just say, 'jihad killed 3,000 Americans'?"

11-8-10 -- Gingrich: Obama "was following up" on his administration's "continuous denial" about "who is trying to kill us." Gingrich replied in part to Hannity, "I think this administration is in such total denial about who's trying to kill us and what their motives are that it's dangerous to the country."

11-8-10 -- Ham: I'm "worried" Obama can't "answer a question about jihad which is a present danger to our country." On the November 8 O'Reilly Factor, Mary Katherine Ham said of Obama: "I'm worried about where he stands on things like being able to answer a question about jihad, which is a present danger to our country."

And not only is this right-wing spin to smear Obama, by saying he will not admit what jihad really is, they never said a word about George W. Bush saying almost the very same thing, or the fact that he was not attacked by O'Reilly or the right when he said it.

In a October 17, 2005, speech, Bush said that "These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against anyone who does not share their radical vision, including Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics."

In a November 11, 2005, speech, President Bush said that "these extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Hindus and Jews -- and against Muslims, themselves, who do not share their radical vision."

And that's not all, the September 2006 National Strategy for Combating Terrorism -- authored by the Bush administration's National Security Council -- stated of Today's Terrorist Enemy: "This enemy movement seeks to create and exploit a division between the Muslim and non-Muslim world and within the Muslim world itself. The terrorists distort the idea of jihad into a call for violence and murder against those they regard as apostates or unbelievers, including all those who disagree with them."

Not to mention, this: In an April 7, 2007, Associated Press report, Karen Hughes, who served as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Bush administration, took credit for urging President Bush to stop using the term "Islamic jihad" because of the way it's heard by Muslims.

Karen Hughes, a Bush confidant who served as his top diplomat to the Muslim world in his second term, urged the White House to stop.
HUGHES: I did recommend that, in my judgment, it's unfortunate because of the way it's heard. We ought to avoid the language of religion, Hughes said. Whenever they hear 'Islamic extremism, Islamic jihad, Islamic fundamentalism,' they perceive it as a sort of an attack on their faith. That's the world view Osama bin Laden wants them to have.
So there you have it, 2 Republican who say we should not be using the word jihad to represent all muslims. And when they said it not one right-wing idiot at Fox said a word, not O'Reilly, or anyone. But when Obama tries to avoid saying all muslims are part of a jihad O'Reilly and the right flip out, and ask why he will not say jihad killed 3,000 Americans.

It's total bias, a double standard, and 100% hypocrisy from O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends. And the proof that O'Reilly is as right-wing as any of them, is that only far right loons are part of the Obama smear job for his johad statement. Which I thought was a good answer to the question. And only a right-wing jerk would slam him for it.

The Monday 11-8-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 9, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Who exactly is President Obama. O'Reilly did this crazy 6 minute TPM asking who Obama is, that sounded like one of Beck's insane rants. Billy asked why President Obama does not reveal who he really is. Which is just ridiculous and I will never even report what he said, except to say this.

For 2 years O'Reilly has been saying we know exactly who Obama is, a far-left liberal, and he calls him a liberal President, O'Reilly even claims Obama is the most liberal President we have ever had. Now all the sudden he comes out with this who is Obama nonsense. during the Juan Williams/Mary K. ham segment O'Reilly even asked what America Obama loves. Which may be the dumbest thing he said that night. Earth to O'Dummy, Obama loves the same America you do, jackass. Except he does not love all the right-wing idiots like you.

Then O'Reilly had Brit Hume on to answer his ridiculous question about Obama and the jihad answer, with no Democratic guest on for balance. O'Dummy asked Hume why President Obama continues to avoid addressing some of the toughest issues facing us today. Which is ridiculous, because Obama did address it, Billy just did not like his answer, so he claimed Obama dodged the question. So as usual it was a biased one sided segment with 2 Republicans spinning out their views on what Obama did or did not do, and of curse they both slammed him, because that is what biased partisan spin doctors do. In the next segment O'Reilly had Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham on to talk about why the left keeps saying fox is a propaganda arm of the Republican party. Billy asked them this question: "Why do loons on the far left continue to claim that FNC is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the GOP."

Ummmm, maybe because it is, you moron. And it's not just the far-left who make that claim, everyone else is who is not a Republican is saying it too. Only Republicans deny it, and some of them even admit it, I will have a future blog on that, where a Republican also admits Fox is an arm of the Republican party, and he even says, so what!

Then O'Reilly played partial clips of him on the Bill Maher show. As usual it was edited to make O'Reilly look good, with all the good parts where Maher slammed O'Reilly and Fox left out. Billy edited it, which he says he never does, about a year ago Billy said nothing is ever edited on the Factor. Then he edited the Maher interview on his show, the Maher segment with O'Reilly on his HBO show, and the Jon Stewart segment, that I know of.

Which is a lot of editing for a guy that claims to never edit anything on his show. And at the end of the clips segment from the Bill Maher show, O'Reilly even admitted that the only reason he did his show was to sell his lame book. Good luck with that, because I doubt many people that watch Bill Maher will buy a book from O'Dummy.

Then O'Reilly jumped the shark for about the 100th time. At this point he is not just jumping a shark, he is jumping a skyscraper. Billy actually asked the far right loon Bernie Goldberg, if the national media will become more conservative after last weeks election. Yes he really asked him that. And even Bernie said no, showing that the question was stupid to begin with.

And the reason there are not more conservatives in the media, is because they do not go to journalism school so they can get a job in the media. Most of them are liberals, so they get most of the jobs in the media. Goldberg even said they should have an affirmitave action plan to get more conservatives in the media. Which is funny, because conservatives oppose affirmative action plan when it involves minorities, or the poor, but somehow it's ok to do it to get more conservatives in the media. yeah right, hypocrite.

O'Reilly actually thinks that just because the Republicans picked up 60 seats in the House (in one mid-term election) that the whole country has moved to the right, including the media. Which is just ridiculous, and even the far right loon Bernie Goldberg did not buy it. And it shows what a far right idiot O'Reilly is, to even think that, or ask the question. As he denies he is a Republican, or that Fox has a right-wing bias. Talk about denial, O'Reilly is the king of denial, and stupidity.

Then in the last segment O'Reilly had the ridiculous so-called Reality Check. Which has no reality, and usually no checks. I do not report on this segment because it's garbage, basically it's O'Reilly alone playing clips of things Democrats said, then he gives you his opinion of what they really meant. It's not a reality check, it's just his biased right-wing opinion about something a liberal said. And a lot of them do not even have a reality check.

Then the ridiculous and highly edited Factor e-mails, and the ever lame pinheads and patriots. And finally another joke of a fraud Factor news show was over, with almost no balance from O'Reilly and the 95% Republican guests he had on to talk about the news in America.

O'Reilly: Nonsense That Fox Promotes Republican Party
By: Steve - November 9, 2010 - 8:30am

On the Monday Factor show O'Reilly said it's nonsense that Fox News "is in business to promote the Republican Party," as far-left loons claim.



And now instead of me saying O'Reilly is either a liar, or crazy, or both, let me show you a comment I read about what O'Reilly said.

"If you actually believe that, Bill, you are truly delusional...or you have never watched FOX."

In fact, what O'Reilly said is more ridiculous than him saying Fox is not an arm of the Republican party, and that only far left loons think that. When everyone knows they are, even most Republicans. It's a fact, and yet O'Reilly denies it anyway. Proving that he is so much of a Fox stooge he can not even admit the truth.

More Fox Bias News O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - November 9, 2010 - 8:00am

As anyone who watches the O'Reilly Factor on a regular basis knows, O'Reilly is constantly attacking anyone who dares to speak out with the truth about him and Fox News. O'Reilly claims the only people who say Fox is a right-wing propaganda network are far-left liberals who hate them, because they give both sides of the issue, and they are jealous of their great ratings.

And all of that is dishonest garbage. To begin with, nobody cares about ratings for any tv news show, except the people that do the show, and the people at the network it is on. NBC News is #1 in the ratings with 8 to 10 million viewers a night, and I don't care. I do not even watch them, or ABC, or CBS. Nobody says hey, they are #1 so let's watch them, people watch what they like, no matter what the ratings.

Not to mention, if O'Reilly was not #1 in the ratings, he would never mention it. And if anyone is jealous of his ratings it would be the other people who have cable tv news show, nobody else cares, the folks don't care, and nobody I know cares about ratings. When I talk to people about O'Reilly or cable news, not one person mentions their ratings, ever. So how could anyone be jealous of his ratings when nobody cares about them, and I would bet 99% of the people do not even know what the ratings are for any cable news show.

So O'Reilly claims only the far-left loons say Fox is a right-wing propaganda network, but we have evidence that is not true. In the past, anonymous Fox sources have said they are troubled with the bias at Fox, and did not like the hiring of Glenn Beck. Because it makes them look bad to hire such a far-right goof that spins out all those lies and fairy tales about Obama and the Democrats.

That was said by Republicans who work for Fox, not some liberal at MSNBC. But as usual O'Reilly ignored all that, to spin out his propaganda that Fox is more than just a right-wing propaganda network. And now we have even more evidence that some Republicans at Fox do not like what they are doing.

Joe Strupp is reporting on what a couple anonymous sources at Fox told him about it. Here are some quotes from his article:

Signs of friction within Fox News continue to grow as two more sources indicate "frustration" and "surprise" at the direction the news channel is taking, with one source pointing to concerns that the "opinion side bleeds over the news side."

One source complained about the "political slugfests and extremists" on the network, while the other said the network "pander(s) to the extreme."

These concerns follow the MMFA recent report that sources familiar with the situation say that the Fox Washington bureau is slanting more to the right in recent years under Bill Sammon, vice president of news and Washington managing editor, who took over for Brit Hume in February 2009.

The latest sources to speak out -- a current Fox News staffer and a longtime contributor -- responded to Media Matters' questions about Fox's employment of five Republicans who have expressed interest in running for president.

They documented the potential candidates -- Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, John Bolton, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum -- appeared on Fox at least 269 times in the first nine months of 2010.

Asked by Media Matters about the potential candidates frequently appearing on Fox, the longtime Fox contributor expressed concerns about the "increasingly incestuous" nature of the network.

"It becomes increasingly incestuous. If you look at the line-up and who is on the shows, they feed on each other. You see Beck on O'Reilly and it is not just the candidates. They do not have the real serious contenders, which are not Huckabee and Palin. That surprises me because it is a news organization. I don't recall a time in news when this has happened."

The same source also complained about the presence of extreme views: "I think Fox has very good coverage on Shep Smith, Chris Wallace and Bret Baier. The others are more political slugfests and extremists. It narrows your audience."

Asked if the "political slugfests and extremists" included Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, the contributor responded, "Yes."

The other source, a current Fox News staffer, cited Shepard Smith's show as among the few straight news programs on the network: "I wish we had more programs like that, with high news content."

The staffer added, "There are people who are concerned that the opinion side bleeds over the news side. More of our programs are turning into opinion programs. It is frustrating."

"We are a 24-hour news operation and in that time there are sometimes three stories we cover," the staffer also said. "We cover the ones that we cover to death. Even as a viewer, I am like, 'I get this, can we move on to the next thing?'"

"Can't we do something new and different? I am bored with hearing the same stuff over and over again."

The veteran staffer also said that the assignments are made based on what will draw ratings, not news content: "When you sit in the meetings, it is all about ratings. I would like to do more real journalism and it is frustrating. Why do we have to pander to the extreme?"

Asked about the potential candidates who frequently appear on Fox, the staffer responded: "Our bookers are begging Democrats to come on, we bend over backwards to get them and they won't go on. It is ridiculous and unfortunate. I don't think it is a valid reason not to go on, but they feel that way and it hurts our credibility if we can never get Democrats to go on."

----------------------

Notice he said that it is not just 2 people at Fox who worry about the right-wing bias and extremism they have, he said a lot of other people there have the same concerns.

And notice that he said everything they do is about getting ratings from their right-wing viewers. They target their coverage to the right, to get higher ratings, so they kill 2 birds with one stone. They get the right-wing message out, and it gets them higher ratings.

What this shows me is that they do not care about real news and informing the people with the truth, all they care about is getting right-wing propaganda out to their right-wing viewers, to get them higher ratings. That is not being an honest news network, that is being a propaganda arm of the Republican party to get ratings.

Which is exactly what I have said they are doing a million times, and O'Reilly denies it every time. Then he even attacks people for saying it, and claims only liberals say it, when the evidence shows it's true, and that even people who work at Fox confirm it.

And btw, just last night on the Monday Factor, O'Reilly said that only left-wing loons think Fox is an arm of the Republican party, Juan Williams even agreed with him, and called it a myth. Proving beyond a doubt that Juan is a Republican, because only a total Republican stooge would ever say anything like that.

Study On Late Night Comedians Shows A Lot
By: Steve - November 8, 2010 - 9:30am

Okay, before I report on this study let me say this. I do not care what any COMEDIAN says about anything or anyone. I do not care if a COMEDIAN does a joke about liberals, or a joke about conservatives. Because they are COMEDIANS, and they make a living telling jokes.

I do not care if a COMEDIAN does a thousand jokes and 999 of them are about a liberal, just as I do not care if a COMEDIAN does a thousand jokes and 999 of them are about a conservative. I do not care because they get paid to do jokes, that is their job, and they only do jokes that they think are funny. I also wonder why a study was even done about it, because nobody I know even cares how many political jokes a COMEDIAN does about what party.

Somehow O'Reilly thinks COMEDIANS have to be fair and balanced, which is just ridiculous, because they are not in the news business, they are COMEDIANS THAT MAKE JOKES FOR A LIVING, and there are no rules in COMEDY that say you have to be fair and balanced.

In a study from the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, which analyzed 1,652 political jokes told by late-night hosts this year. Dr. Robert Lichter, claims the late night hosts are as divided as Fox and MSNBC.
According to CMPA President Dr Robert Lichter, "Just as conservatives get their political news from Fox and liberals from MSNBC, conservatives are getting their political humor from NBC and liberals from Comedy Central. Noting Stewart's October 30 Washington DC 'Rally to Restore Sanity,' Dr. Lichter added, "Jon Stewart's approach to Glenn Beck is to beat him and then join him."
But when you look at his data you find some surprising results, that the so-called liberal COMEDIANS tell more jokes about Democrats then they do Republicans. And get this, O'Reilly claims that all the late night COMEDIANS are liberals who do almost all their jokes about Republicans. When this study shows the that they do more jokes about President Obama than any Republicans. This data shows beyond a doubt that O'Reilly is a liar, because he claimed they are all liberals that do nothing but jokes about Republicans.

While it is true that overall Stewart and Letterman do more jokes about Republicans then they do Democrats, it's not by much, and neither one of them only do jokes about Republicans, and in fact, they both do a lot of jokes about Obama and other Democrats like Joe Biden. With Jay Leno and Jimmy Fallon doing far more jokes about Democrats then he does Republicans.

Let's look at some numbers from the study:
Jon Stewart: 1. Barack Obama (72 jokes); 2. Glenn Beck (44); 3. Sarah Palin (35); 4. John McCain (29); 5. Michael Steele (28).

David Letterman: 1. Barack Obama (92 jokes); 2. George W. Bush (72); 3. Sarah Palin (58); 4. Scott Brown (38); 5. Michael Bloomberg (37).

Jay Leno: 1. Barack Obama (68 jokes); 2. Al Gore (29); 3. Joe Biden (27); 4T. Sarah Palin (24); 4T. George W. Bush (24).

Jimmy Fallon: 1. Barack Obama (77 jokes); 2. Joe Biden (27); 3. Sarah Palin (19); 4. Eric Massa (14); 5. Bill Clinton (12).
Jon Stewart did 72 Obama jokes, while doing 136 jokes about Republicans. So even he does not only do jokes about Republicans as O'Reilly claimed.

David Letterman did 92 Obama jokes, while doing 205 jokes about Republicans, but 37 of them were about the Republican Mayor of New York where he does his show. So even Letterman does not only do jokes about Republicans.

Jay Leno did 68 Obama jokes, but he also did 29 Gore jokes and 27 Biden jokes, that adds up to 124 jokes about Democrats. While only doing 48 jokes about Republicans. So Leno actually does more jokes about Democrats then he does Republicans.

Jimmy Fallon did 77 Obama jokes, but he also did 27 Biden jokes, 14 Clinton jokes, and 14 Eric Massa jokes, which adds up to 132 jokes about Democrats. While only doing 19 jokes about Republicans. So fallon does way more jokes about Democrats then he does Republicans.

And all of this data shows that O'Reilly just made it up when he said all the late night COMEDIANS are liberals who only do jokes about Republicans. In fact, O'Reilly even does a segment once in a while about jokes the late night COMEDIANS do, crying about them making fun of Sarah Palin. But not once has he had a segment crying about them when they do jokes about Obama or a Democrat.

O'Reilly only has a problem with them when they do jokes about Republicans. Then he lies that they are partisan liberals who only do jokes about Palin, etc. When the numbers show they are actually almost fair and balanced in their jokes, even though it does not matter because they are COMEDIANS.

In closing, nobody should care how many political jokes ANY COMEDIANS do about anyone. I don't care, and you should not care. They are in the business of writing funny jokes to get laughs, and political ideology has nothing to do with it. They just do jokes they think will get a laugh.

And I only reported the results of this study to show what a liar O'Reilly is about it. Not to mention that when you look at the numbers they show only one of them does a lot more jokes about Republicans then liberals, and that is David Letterman. So the facts show that O'Reilly is wrong, and an idiot for slamming them for the jokes they do, when they are COMEDIANS who make jokes for a living.

O'Reilly Caught Lying For Christine O'Donnell
By: Steve - November 8, 2010 - 9:00am

Here is a great example of how O'Reilly lies for Republicans. On the Friday night factor show, O'Reilly had the far right loser Christine O'Donnell on to discuss her loss to Chris Coons in Delaware. O'Reilly asked her why she lost, and she said because the Republican Delaware leadership never came out to support her and that hurt.

So she blamed her loss on the fact that the state Republican leaders did not support her. And btw, the reason the state Republican leaders did not support her is because she was 17 points down and she was clearly going to lose. So it would have been stupid for them to waste money on her, when she was going to lose by a mile.

They put their money into closer races where the Republican still had a chance to win. And if she would have been a better candidate who was closer than 17 points they would have supported her, so the only person to blame for their lack of support is Christine O'Donnell, for being such a bad candidate.

Now what do you think O'Reilly said was the reason she lost, wait for it, Billy said she lost because she was running in an overwhelmingly liberal state. A reason Christine O'Donnell herself does not even believe. And here is the proof O'Reilly was lying.

Because in this so-called overwhelmingly liberal state, the polls had the "Republican" Mike Castle beating the Democrat Chris Coons in the general election. So if Castle had beat O'Donnell in the Republican primary, Castle would have beat Coons, while the far right O'Donnell lost by a whopping 17 points.

That is proof a Republican could have won the Senate race in Delaware, if it was a Republican not named Christine O'Donnell. And that kills the argument from O'Reilly that she only lost because she was running in an overwhelmingly liberal state.

It also shows how much BS O'Reilly puts out when he has Republicans on his show. Because he knows what he said was crazy, O'Reilly even recently cited a poll that said Castle would beat Coons. He did it when he made the bet with Ingraham that O'Donnell would lose.

O'Reilly even pointed out that it was a mistake for the Republicans to run O'Donnell, because Castle is the guy who could beat Coons. Then a week later he is saying O'Donnell only lost because she was running in a liberal state. When he knows Castle could have beat Coons, because he mentioned it himself on a recent show.

O'Reilly tells so many lies he can't keep them all straight. And he makes these crazy statements when he knows they are not true. Just to make it look like she only lost because she was running in a liberal state.

More Proof Glenn Beck Is A Biased & Partisan Joke
By: Steve - November 8, 2010 - 8:30am

Beck promoted a show he is doing on George soros, he calls him a puppet master, and says because of Soros your republic's at stake.



Now what did George Soros do that is so bad, that would make him a puppet master, and would mean your republic is at stake. He did what every Republican and Democrat in America does, he gave money to groups he supports politically. Nothing more, nothing less. He simply made a 100% legal donation to a few liberal groups, which is what everyone in America does when they support someone.

Beck has turned George Soros into the devil, for simply donating some of his money to liberal groups. But notice what Beck does not do, attack Republicans for doing the exact same thing. Karl Rove has a 527 that spend millions and millions of dollars on winning elections for Republicans, without disclosing who gave him the money, and that is far worse than what Soros does, but Beck never says a word about any of it.

With Soros you know he gave the money, so there is full disclosure, and he is not giving it directly to candidates for office, like the Rove group does. Making what Rove does 10 times worse than what Soros does. Not to mention, it's 100% legal, and people are even encouraged to give money to people they support politically.

But somehow in the crazy land of Glenn Beck, George Soros is this evil puppet master who is trying to destroy the country, for simply donating money to people he agrees with politically. And it's not just Glenn Beck who is spewing this nonsense out, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh are doing it too.

They are all 100% right-wing liars, every one of them. This is crazy, it's garbage, it's nonsense, and it's nothing but right-wing propaganda. Because George Soros is just a liberal who is trying to make the country better, and he is trying to counter the billions of dollars that are being spent by far right groups like the Rove group.

The fact that Beck only goes after Soros for giving money out to liberals is proof he is a biased right-wing idiot. Because he does not say a word about the billions Republicans are getting from billionaires in the Republican party. And it's all legal, Soros is not breaking any laws, or doing anything wrong.

In Beckworld, you are only the puppet master devil if you give money to liberals, but if you give money to far right conservatives you are a hero.

Hell Froze Over: Bill Kristol Defends Olbermann
By: Steve - November 7, 2010 - 10:30am

Now this is shocking, the conservative Bill Kristol is defending the liberal Keith Olbermann. Kristol wrote this on his blog at the Weekly Standard:

Keep Keith!

On Olbermann’s unjust suspension.

2:50 PM, Nov 5, 2010 • By WILLIAM KRISTOL

MSNBC's suspension of Keith Olbermann is ludicrous.

First, he donated money to candidates he liked. He didn't take money, or favors, in a way that influenced his reporting.

Second, he's not a reporter. It's an opinion show. If Olbermann wants to put his money where his mouth is, more power to him.

Third, GE, the corporate parent of MSNBC, gives money to political organizations. GE executives and, I'm sure, NBC executives give money. Why can't Olbermann?

Perhaps Olbermann violated NBC News "policy and standards." But NBC doesn't have real news standards for MSNBC-otherwise the channel wouldn't exist. It's a little strange to get all high and mighty now.

But there's now a Republican House, and perhaps GE is trying to curry favor by dumping Olbermann?

Republicans of the world, show you believe in the free expression of opinion! Tell the crony corporatists at NBC-keep Keith!

Kurtz: Fox GOP Fundraising Worse Than Olbermann
By: Steve - November 7, 2010 - 10:00am

On CNN Friday Howard Kurtz said the GOP fundraising by Fox's Rove, Morris, and Hannity is "worse than what Olbermann did."



And btw folks, Fox News does not have a rule against their employees donating money to political campaigns or groups. In fact, the head of the network Bill Shine has even said he has no problem with anyone at Fox making personal political donations.

One comment I read about this even speculated that Olbermann did it on purpose. he said this: "Olberman is a smart guy. I'm willing to bet this was a deliberate move to call attention to this and to expose the media in general for just how they accept Fox News outright lies without question, and how they knew that Fox News executives, contributors, and personalities were not only donating to PACs and campaigns but engaging in campaign fund-raising, yet remained woefully silent."

I am not so sure that is true, I kinda doubt it, but it does show that Fox has no rules, and that they have people who can make political donations any time they want. And not only that, it shows that they use their tv news shows to raise millions and millions of dollars for Republicans. Which is 10 times worse than what Olbermann did.

Olbermann Suspended For Political Donations
By: Steve - November 7, 2010 - 9:30am

On Friday Keith Olbermann (from MSNBC) was suspended indefinitely without pay for having contributed $2,400 each last week to the campaigns of three Democratic congressional candidates. NBC News guidelines prohibit such contributions without prior approval.

Which is a little ridiculous, because he has an opinion show, and everyone already knows he is a liberal. And in today's partisan political climate, some media experts say it's time for the rules to change. At MSNBC and Fox News Channel, every prime-time host has a clear political bias. And that bias is what drives their viewership.

Alex S. Jones, director of Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy said this:
JONES: "Requiring employees to be politically agnostic makes sense when they work for objective news organizations, Jones says. However, MSNBC and Fox don't follow that standard [in prime time], and it's absurd to pretend anything else. It's a fig leaf that doesn't cover anything."
Rich Hanley, director of graduate programs at Quinnipiac University's School of Communications, goes so far as to call the rules "quaint and disingenuous," particularly in light of Fox owner Rupert Murdoch's recent $1 million-plus contributions to Republican groups.

At MSNBC, where Olbermann is paid to give opinions, the irony is inescapable to Hanley: "It's funny how a network that calls itself ‘the place for politics’ pulls a host for being political."

The solution, according to Hanley, is for cable to follow the model of a newspaper op-ed page and make a distinction between daytime and nighttime lineups. Before opinion-driven programs, they could run a simple disclaimer that would distance the host's views from their own.

"Prime time could become the op-ed page of cable news," says Hanley. "It just needs to be labeled as such."

Olbermann is clearly not Brian Williams, who is an objective and non-partisan journalist. He is a liberal with an opinion, and everyone knows it. Now if the NBC rule says no political donations without prior approval, he broke the rule and he should be suspended.

In my opinion that rule should be changed for people who have a clear partisan opinion, that rule should only apply to the straight news journalists. And what's really ridiculous is that Olbermann is suspended for a political donation, when he is a known liberal, while Hannity, Palin, Huckabee, Rove, Morris, etc. can work for Fox as they have freedom concerts, raise money for Republicans on the air, promote their websites, and not get suspended at all.

Keith Olbermann simply made a personal donation to 3 Democratic candidates. He did not use his tv news show to raise money for them, or promote their websites, he simply made a private donation, which should be allowed.

What Hannity, Rove, Palin, Morris, and Huckabee do is 10 times worse, they use their tv show to raise money for Republicans, million and millions of dollars, not the thousands Olbermann donated, and they were not only not suspended, they were not fired or told not to do it.

Basically Fox has no rules, while NBC does not even allow private political donations. And I think they both have the wrong rules. Any journalist should be allowed to make a private political donation, they should just have to disclose it. But no news network should let their employees use their network to fund raise for any political party.

As Rich Hanley said, just have a disclaimer at the start of the show saying "your name here" is a partisan who does an opinion show.

Another Great E-Mail From An O'Reilly Lover
By: Steve - November 7, 2010 - 9:00am

I got this e-mail Saturday, notice that the braindead and brainwashed O'Reilly lover does not dispute anything I wrote about O'Reilly, or discuss any of the documented and detailed information I have on the website, all he does is call me a progressive socialist who is full of hate.

Here is the e-mail:
Subject: WOW....
Date: Saturday, November 6, 2010 12:06 PM
From: Rich Sellers - [email protected]
To: [email protected]

Just stumbled across your website.

I hope all of the hatred you obviously have for O'Reilly (and FOX in general) keeps you warm at night. You must be the hero of your lefty-progressive socialist cult.

"When you hate, the only one that suffers is you because most of the people you hate don't know it and the rest don't care."

- Medgar Evers

Have a nice life.
To which I calmly informed him that being a progressive is not a cult, but being a far right O'Reilly lover is. And that I do not hate O'Reilly or anyone, I simply hate what O'Reilly does, which is lie to the American people with all his right-wing bias, hypocrisy, and lies, while pretending to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone.

O'Reilly is the bad guy, but for some reason Rich is attacking me for simply telling the truth about his hero. What's funny is people like Rich who call anyone who dares to expose the truth about a Republican a hater. But when one of his right-wing friends expose the truth about a Democrat, Rich calls them great Americans.

Basically it shows how clueless most Republicans are. In their world, if you report on a Democrat you are a great American, but if you report on a Republican you are a socialist communist. I do not hate O'Reilly, I just document his bias, lies, hypocrisy, and his double standards, and I do it with a passion. To idiots like Rich, that is hate.

Big Story O'Reilly Has Ignored On Economy & Jobs
By: Steve - November 7, 2010 - 8:30am

O'Reilly and the right want to blame the slow economy and the slow job recovery on President Obama and the Democratic party. But what O'Reilly fails to mention is that Republicans in the Senate have blocked a lot of what Obama wanted to do to fix the economy with the filabuster.

That corporations are refusing to hire people they need until after the election. And that Republican Governors have refused stimulus money, or used it to make their state debt lower instead of using it to create jobs.

None of that information is ever reported by O'Reilly. He has also ignored the fact that since January 2009 the House has passed 420 bills that have sat on the Senate shelf.

House Democrats said the lack of Senate action on legislation they had cast tough votes on had left them twisting in the wind before an increasingly agitated electorate. At the top of the list was the June 2009 cap-and-trade energy and climate bill, which passed the House by a slim margin but never made it to the Senate floor.

O'Reilly has also ignored the story about corporations sitting on 2 trillion dollars in cash. They are doing this to hurt Obama politically by not using that money to hire people. Anyone who doubts what is happening in this country should go read Fareed Zakaria's column about why corporations are hoarding cash. Hoarding to the tune of nearly 2 TRILLION dollars.

On July 15th Ed Schultz had a segment about it, and here is that transcript:
SCHULTZ: this is the story that has me fired up tonight. The United States Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party -- they are working hand in hand, and they are acting un-American. Nothing more American about creating jobs. Elected Republicans have done all they can to block any and all progress President Obama and his agenda with the Democrats have been trying to provide for desperate Americans who need jobs, better health care and a decent shot at life.

Righties like Mitch McConnell actually seem to take joy in accomplishing the mission. McConnell told his fellow Republicans, quote, "We've got our groove back." Harry Reid, deservedly so, is disgusted.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): They're betting on failure. They think that the worse the economy is come November, the better they're going to do election-wise, as was indicated very loudly in the health care bill. One Republican senator said that they wanted this to be Obama's Waterloo. The other senator said he hoped somebody died during the night so that we couldn't get our 60 votes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: OK, Harry. I'm with you. Now we got to take that message on the road with passion and make sure the American people know that. It's far more than just Republicans trying to break the president. According to "The Washington Post," the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent time at their jobs fair ripping the Obama administration for dumping onerous regulations on businesses. They claim the president has created an environment of uncertainty which is causing firms to hold back on hiring.

Give me a break! Look at their profits. They're using regulation as an excuse to be tight with a buck and defeat the Democrats. Wall Street and big businesses are making record profits, while millions of Americans have nothing, zero, nada, and are losing their homes? The last report I saw said that we could lose a million homes this year.

But meantime, JPMorgan Chase just reported a 76 percent increase in profit for the second quarter! Now, let me ask you the profound question tonight, my friends. How'd you do in the second quarter? Did your family do a 76 percent increase or better? I doubt it. The last remnants of the most selfish generation are trying to destroy President Obama's agenda before it really ever has a chance to work.

Now, according to the same article in "The Washington Post," a survey a month ago of more than a thousand chief financial officers by Duke University in "CFO" magazine showed that nearly 60 percent of those executives -- well, they don`t expect to bring their employment really back to pre-recession levels until 2012 or maybe later. Gosh, I wonder if white-collar America is hoping this president fails. Did you hear that, 2012 or later?

Now, I believe that this is no coincidence. Big business knows that if it doesn't hire anybody, the unemployment rate stays where it is, and so the American public can just turn on the president and the Democrats and we can see a power shift. Then they can use, you see, these unlimited donations via the Supreme Court to pick up candidates who will dump regulations and protect tax cuts for the top 1 percent in this country. You want to see this play again?

Now, there's no sense -- to me anyway, there doesn't seem to be any sense of any economic patriotism in this country anymore. American companies, what are they doing? Well, they're shipping jobs overseas, and they hide their profits in foreign banks. When they faced financial ruin, where did they go? Well, they went to the American taxpayer, who bailed them out. Now, when Americans and American workers desperately need their help, they're sitting on piles of money and sitting on the American dream. Does that sound American to you?

Yes, the Republican Party and the Chamber of Commerce in this country, in my opinion -- they are acting very un-American.
Now think about that, how many times has O'Reilly reported any of this, I watch the Factor every night and read the transcript the next day, then I write a review of the show, and I can tell you that O'Reilly has never reported any of this, ever, not one time.

Then Schultz had the Democratic Senator Tom Harkin on, and he said this:
SCHULTZ: I want to talk first about the unemployed. What's going to happen, if anything, before the Senate goes on recess? What do you think?

HARKIN: Well, first of all, I want to thank you for your commentary. I listened to the whole thing. You're right on the mark. You got to ask, where's the patriotism of these companies that are holding all this cash? You know, if they hire people, then people have money and they can spend it, and we get the wheels of the economy going. But these big businesses aren't doing that. So I thank you for your commentary.

SCHULTZ: Well, I think that this has been going on for a long time, and I think we've seen this train coming. There's no reason, with their profits, that they can't invest in the American workers to expand our economy. Do you think the Republicans are trying to do everything they can to ditch this economy before the mid-terms?

HARKIN: I have no doubt about it, Ed. I watch what they do here every day. They're hand in glove with the Chamber of Commerce. They're sitting back, thinking the more that they can get people mad in this country, then people will take it out on Congress. And obviously, who runs Congress? The Democrats. So they're blocking things.

For example, Ed, you said, what are we trying to do before we leave here in August? We're trying to increase the unemployment benefits. That puts money in the hands of people that are unemployed. They can then go out and buy things and spend money and get the wheels of the economy starting to go again. Republicans are opposed to that. They've been opposing it for months now, just to help people who are unemployed.

You tell me. Does this sound like it's Americanism? Does this sound like people that are really interested in helping our country, or are they only interested in winning the election?

SCHULTZ: We can't be afraid to say it, Senator. I'm not. It's un-American. It is absolutely un-American for a political party to use the tool of the filibuster to stop the jobs bill when we're in the worst financial straits that we`ve been in since the Great Depression. I don't know why Mitch McConnell -- and I want your insight on this. Why doesn't he just, you know, take pride in going home and saying, You know what? We helped on the jobs bill and we want to put Americans back to work. How can he not see that as a victory for America? I don't get it.

HARKIN: Well, the Republicans have figured out that the more they can block things up here and stop us from putting people back to work, people get angry. They get upset, and they'll take it out on whoever the incumbents are. And let's face it, Democrats are more up than Republicans this year. They think -- they're gambling on this, the Republicans are, along with the Chamber of Commerce. If they can just keep things blocked up, that people are going to take it out on the Democrats.

SCHULTZ: Senator, in all of your years -- decades, I might add -- in the Congress in, in the Senate, to your knowledge, has the Democratic Party ever filibustered a jobs bill the way the Republicans are now?

HARKIN: Never. I can tell you we've never done that. And I'm telling you, these Republicans, they're saying, you know, Look, we can't have unemployment benefits because it increases the deficit. But we can keep the tax breaks for the wealthy, even though that increases the deficit. So you tell me where their loyalties lie.
And now you have the facts, the facts O'Reilly has never once reported. He has totally ignored this story because it makes the Republicans and the big corporations look un-American. Now just imagine if Democrats did something like this, O'Reilly would call for them to be put on trial for treason, but when Republicans do it he helps them cover it up by ignoring what they are doing.

The O'Reilly Hypocrisy Is Off the Chart
By: Steve - November 6, 2010 - 10:30am

Let me set this up, on the Monday Factor show O'Reilly and Bernie Goldberg devoted an entire segment to complaining about the media. They cited a media study from the biased and discredited right-wing Media Research Center (MRC) run by the Republican Brent Bozell.

To begin with, the MRC has no credibility with anyone but Republicans. And only Republicans cite any media study they do. Which I find funny, because O'Reilly claims to be a non-partisan Independent, and yet, he is caught using a biased right-wing study to prove a point.

MRC lost any credibility they had years ago when they did a media study on Bush, I read it, and one example they had of liberal bias against Bush was a joke. They cited a Republican Senator who was on MSNBC, he said something negative about Bush on MSNBC, and the MRC counted that as an example of liberal bias at MSNBC against Bush, when a Republican said it. So they have zero credibility.

Now let's get to the hypocrisy from O'Reilly and Goldberg. They claim the mainstream media is biased against Republicans because they call people on the right conservative, or far right, etc. But that they do not call anyone on the left liberal or far left, etc.

And I do not know if that is true or not, because I do not watch the mainstream media. I do not watch ABC, NBC, or CBS News. So I do not know if what the MRC study reported is true or not. But I do know they are a biased right-wing media watchdog, that has been caught rigging a media study in the past. So I do not believe anything they report any more.

Here is the hypocrisy and the double standard from O'Reilly. On the Thursday night Factor show O'Reilly had the usual 7 Republican guests to the 2 Democratic guests. And 1 of the Democratic guests was Dennis Kucinich, before his segment O'Reilly said next up is Dennis Kucinich (a far-left guy) to talk about the elections. O'Reilly actually called him a far-left guy.

Okay, but when the other 6 Republicans were on, not once did O'Reilly call them far-right guys or girls. In fact, at no time has O'Reily ever called one of his Republican guests a far-right guy or girl, it never happens, ever.

So he did the exact same thing him and Bernie were complaining about from the mainstream media. They complained that the mainstream media labels Republicans conservative or far-right. But they do not label Democrats liberal or far-left.

When he does the very same thing, O'Reilly labels Democrats, liberals, loons, far-left, socialists, and on and on. But he never labels Republicans, conservatives, loons, far-right, etc. So he is a massive hypocrite, who does the very same thing he complains about.

The Friday 11-5-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 6, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Drama continues within Democratic party. And TPM #1001 slamming the Democrats was put out. Here is a good question, when will O'Reilly ever write a TPM slamming Republicans for something, never?

Billy said this:
O'REILLY: As we reported last night, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has 'no regrets' over how her party has conducted itself since President Obama was elected. That sounds kind of defiant, especially since Americans rejected the performance of the Democratic Party this week. Ms. Pelosi and Barney Frank, two of the biggest liberals in Congress, don't see it that way. Mr. Frank lashed out at the Boston Herald and Fox News.

But President Obama shows some humility, saying his administration 'stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn't just legislation.' If the economy turns around, President Obama will be a force in 2012. But if the far-left elements continue to control the Democratic Party, the President is doomed. Most Americans reject the quasi-socialistic agenda they put out, but people like Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank will never admit that, so tension remains inside the Democratic Party.
In fact, that is not quite right. Because if the economy had turned around quicker, the Democrats would have held the House, and the so-called liberal policies of Obama would not have mattered, it's all about the economy and jobs. What O'Reilly fails to mention is that Obama was punished for not getting the jobs back (that Bush lost) fast enough. And one of the reasons it did not happen is because the Republicans in Congress, the Republican Governors, and the mostly Republican owned corporations blocked new job creation.

Most Republican Governors refused all or most of the Stimulus money Obama got passed, that is why a lot of it has not been spent. Republicans in the Senate stalled or flat out blocked some of the Obama economic plans to create jobs. And corporations are sitting on a record $1 trillion in cash, and they are not hiring as many people as they need. I was talking to someone who works at a warehouse the other day, and he told me they need to hire at least 20 people.

But the word around there is the Republican company owner has delayed it until after the election. That way it makes Obama look bad, and then it makes the Republicans in the House look like they were the reason jobs picked up. It's partisan politics with jobs, and if you ask me it's un-American. And O'Reilly never reports any of this, even though it is well known around the country, Ed Schultz at MSNBC has reported on it quite a bit, but O'Reilly has ignored the entire story. I will have another blog on this story later today or tomorrow.

Then O'Reilly had A.B. Stoddard and Rick Klein on to talk about how the Obama administration will react to Tuesday's vote. Stoddard said this: "President Obama seems to be in a bit of denial. He cites economic frustration and a failure to communicate; he has yet to say that this election was a rejection of his agenda. He will make grand gestures of cooperation with Republican leaders, but he doesn't really have a big strategy in place. He and his team were sort of stunned by the results."

What? How were they stunned when all the polls had the Republicans winning the House back with 50 to 60 seats. That is just crazy, and it looks like Stoddard is drinking that O'Reilly/right-wing kool-aid.

Klein predicted that the administration will, in effect, go back to the future. "They're going to look for specific areas where they can go back to what Obama stood for in 2008. He ran on bipartisanship and changing the way Washington works, and I think they realize they got away from some of those principles and will try to go back to them."

Now get this, O'Reilly SPECULATED that any change will be mainly cosmetic, Billy said this: "I think President Obama is saying that if the economy turns around he'll be re-elected so he can continue with his left-wing agenda. The President is a confirmed ideologue and he's not going to change."

And that my friends is 100% pure SPECULATION. Because O'Reilly has no clue what Obama is going to do now, so he was just guessing he will not change much, and that it will not be much of a change. In fact, O'Reilly is the king of SPECULATION, even though he claims to have a no SPECULATION zone, and that he does not allow SPECULATION. As he SPECULATES his right-wing ass off every night. Obama will probably move to the center and work with the Republicans more, so not only was O'Reilly SPECULATING, he was probably wrong.

And now I usually do not do this, because 99% of the time he does not do anything to deserve it, but I am going to praise O'Reilly for something. O'Reilly reported that this right-wing lie about the Obama India trip costing $200 million dollars a day is nothing but right-wing propaganda. O'Reilly had Dana Perino and Leslie Marshall on to discuss it, and they both said it was ridiculous. O'Reilly dismissed the $200-million a day estimate as totally bogus, saying "that figure is nuts, but the story blew up on talk radio."

For once O'Reilly shot down a right-wing lie about Obama, as far as I can remember it's the first time he has ever done something like that. And if he did more of this he could gain a little credibility back, but I am guessing stuff like this will not happen very often. And 90% of the right-wing lies about Obama are not debunked by O'Reilly, hell he is part of the crowd that puts out 90% of the right-wing lies about Obama. But this one time he did the right thing.

In the next segment O'Reilly had the far right Christine O'Donnell on. And of course O'Reilly softballed her. What's funny is she would not do his show before the election, but she does now, haha, just to get publicity and keep her name in the news. So she can most likely write a book, go on a speaking tour, and maybe even get a job at Fox News. She cried about losing, and said people did not listen to her speeches they just attacked her, wah, wah, wah, cry me a river.

O'Reilly said she lost because she was running in a mostly liberal state. Except that's a lie, she lost because she is a far right Sarah Palin clone, who is not smart enough, and not qualified to be in the Senate. People attacked her for the crazy things she has said, and her far right positions on things like abortion. As usual O'Reilly lied for her and defended her, because she is a Republican and he agrees with her on most of the issues.

In the is it legal segment O'Reilly talked about the ACLU siding with a New Jersey Transit worker who was fired after he set the Koran on fire to protest the proposed mosque near Ground Zero. Lis Wiehl said this: "It was his day off, and he wasn't representing himself as a New Jersey Transit worker. He didn't burn the whole Koran, he burned three pages, and it wasn't meant to harass or intimidate anyone. The ACLU will win on this hands-down."

Guilfoyle agreed that the man was well within his First Amendment rights. "It is not illegal, unfortunately, to burn the U.S. flag or the Koran. This will come down to whether or not he was on the job and he was not. It was an overreach to fire him - he'll get his job back and he'll get damages."

Then O'Reilly had Glenn Beck on to talk about the elections and promote his new book, which I will not name, and will not talk about. Beck is a total right-wing idiot, and O'Reilly looks like a fool putting him on his show every week. As long as he keeps doing stuff like this only Republicans will listen to anything O'Reilly says. If you have Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck on your show you are a right-wing fool, which is what O'Reilly does.

In the last segment O'Reilly had Greg Gutfeld and Arthel Neville on for dumbest things of the week. They talked about a new study that scrutinizes the leading late-night comics and their targets. Neville said this: "The study found that Jay Leno aims 67% of his jokes at Democrats and liberals, and there are a lot of Al Gore jokes. I was surprised that Leno makes so much fun of liberals."

Gutfeld talked about David Letterman. He said this: "Roughly 60% of his jokes target conservatives and Republicans. But the study misses the real point, which is that the jokes they make about Obama are pretty soft, while the jokes about Republicans are personal. Republicans are portrayed as stupid and mean."

The Factor added that Jon Stewart "tilts his humor to the left, but he has increasingly been growing skeptical of the far left."

Okay, but that kills the lie from O'Reilly and Bernie Goldberg that all the late night COMEDIANS only do jokes about Republicans. Because Leno, Letterman, and Fallon all did more Obama jokes than they did about any Republican. O'Reilly does not admit the study proves him wrong, he just says stewart tilts his humor to the left. WOW, what a stunning analysis, not. Stewart tilts his humor to the left because most of his viewers are liberals. And who cares what jokes late night comedians do anyway, nobody but O'Reilly and the loser who did the study.

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

Kondracke Admits Palin A Joke Within Her Own Party
By: Steve - November 6, 2010 - 9:00am

As we have seen at Fox, when a news network has both politicians considering running for office and analysts expected to give their honest political assessments, things can get messy. A split is emerging at Fox between people who think Sarah Palin is qualified to run for president, and those who don't.

Karl Rove recently indicated that he did not feel Palin has the gravitas necessary for the presidency. Palin responded by questioning why Rove feels "so threatened and so paranoid." But Rove has some company among other Fox employees.

Fox contributor Mort Kondracke said he thinks Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin "are responsible for the fact that the Senate did not go Republican" due to their support of candidates Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Ken Buck, and Joe Miller.

Discussing whether Palin could be the Republican Party nominee in 2012, Kondracke said that she is "a joke even within her own party" and "the idea that she would be the presidential nominee is unthinkable."

Kondracke has also had harsh words for Palin in the past, saying this: "She is utterly unqualified to be President. She is the Dan Quayle of - she's worse than Dan Quayle. Dan Quayle at least had served as a senator and was, you know, and was conversant with national issues."

What happened is Palin got mad at Rove and Kondracke for telling the truth about her. It's the same thing O'Reilly does, whenever anyone tells the truth about O'Reilly he attacks them and claims they are liars. it's the old attack the attacker trick, O'Reilly uses it a lot, and Palin also used it in this case.

The Thursday 11-4-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 5, 2010 - 10:00am

The TPM was called Nancy Pelosi refuses to concede. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is out of there, but Mrs. Pelosi is not conceding a thing - she told Diane Sawyer she has 'no regrets' and that Democrats tried to 'reduce the deficit and create jobs.'

She did nothing to reduce the deficit, which is at record levels; she may have wanted to create jobs in America, but she and her party failed. The one point Mrs. Pelosi may have is consumer protection - there must be strict federal oversight of Wall Street and the health insurance companies.

But mostly Nancy Pelosi is devoid of reality because she has created her own world where everybody she knows thinks the way she does. Unfortunately, many politicians in both parties have separated themselves from reality, and that may even be true of President Obama.

I have never met Speaker Pelosi. She will not speak to me because I would intrude on her 'bubble world' and she knows it. The bottom line is that some of the most powerful people in America simply cannot grasp reality.
Now that's funny, because the Democrats did try to reduce the deficit, and they did create jobs. As usual O'Reilly is lying, and he hates Pelosi so he never gives her credit for anything. The health care bill was passed to reduce the deficit in the future, and the GAO says it will, in fact, the GAO says if Republicans could repeal the Obama health care bill it will add $160 billion dollars to the deficit. This is a fact, not the right-wing spin and lies you hear from O'Reilly.

He also said they did not create any jobs, but the GAO says the Obama stimulus saved or created 2 to 3 million new jobs. O'Reilly ignores all that to spin out his lies to make Obama look bad. And btw, in the last year alone under Bush the economy lost 3 million jobs. Obama got those jobs back, and yet O'Reilly denies it. And just last month the economy added 151,000 jobs, so when will O'Reilly report that, answer: never. Not to mention the stock market was up 219 points on Thursday to close at 11,400, and O'Reilly never says a word about it. But when it had a one day drop of 200 points O'Reilly blames it on Obama, when it goes up 200 points he is silent as a mouse.

Talk about being separated from reality, Bill O'Reilly is not only separated from reality, he is on another planet. Obama came into office in the middle of a disaster, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month under Bush, the financial system was on the verge of collapse, housing crisis, banking crisis, and we were almost in a new depression. So within 2 years Obama has turned it around and things are getting better, but O'Reilly hates Obama so much he does not give him credit for any of it. All he does is smear and lie about him, for partisan political reasons. Frankly it makes me sick, and O'Reilly nothing but a biased, lying, spinning, right-wing, un-American jerk.

Then O'Reilly had Laura Ingraham on to discuss his TPM and the elections. The first thing O'Reilly did was ask Ingraham for the 5 grand he bet her on the O'Donnell loss. She had the cash in $100 dollar bills and O'Reilly crowed about how great he was on predicting her election. Ignoring the fact that he lost his bet on the Harry Reid election. Ingraham said O'Donnell only lost because once the image of her being a witch came out she could not get past that. Which is ridiculous, O'Donnell lost because she was a stupid far right nut, just like Sarah Palin. And btw, how hard is it to predict a loss when the woman is down by 17 points in all the polls, not very hard. And only an idiot would bet O'Donnell wins.

Then O'Reilly had Dennis Kucinich on, the only Democratic guest who was on the entire show alone. Kucinich admitted it was a big defeat for Obama and the Democrats, but he said now the Republicans will have to share some of the blame of the jobs do not come back fast enough over the next 2 years. And let me point something out that O'Reilly never talks about. Over the last 2 years the Republicans in Congress, the 27 Republican Governors, and the mostly Republican owned corporations did everything possible to stall job growth, to hurt Obama politically.

I read an article that said American corporations are sitting on $1 trillion dollars in cash, the most in history, and they are not hiring, even though they are short-handed and they need to hire people. This was all being done to limit job growth to make Obama and the Democrats look bad until after the election. And it was done to help the Republicans win the House back, they also wanted it to help them win the Senate back, but they failed in that. What they did was un-American, and borders on being a traitor. But O'Reilly never says a word about any of it, and if Democrats had done something like that he would call for them to be put on trial for treason.

Then O'Reilly had Megyn Kelly on so they could talk about how big the ratings were for Fox on Tuesday night. As if anyone cares but them. Nobody cares, and they only got the highest ratings because everyone knew it would be a good night for Republicans. Just as in 2008 when Obama and the Democrats were expected to do well, CNN won the ratings for that night, and nobody cared about that either, except the people at CNN.

Then John Stossel was on to pay O'Reilly his $10,000 bet on marijuana not passing in California. Stossel said it did not pass because of old people like O'Reilly who voted against it, and he said exit polls showed the people with the least education voted against it. O'Reilly said people voted against it because Soros got involved, and Stossel said that's crazy, because 99% of the voters probably did not evn know he was involved.

Stossel was right for once, it did not pass because old Republicans like O'Reilly voted it down. In 10 years when those people are dead it will pass. And legal or not, anyone who wants to smoke pot is already doing it. In my 50 years, I have never seen one person not smoke pot because it was illegal. Legal or not, it's everywhere and you can get it any time. Nobody even cares if it's illegal, if they want to smoke it they do.

Margaret Hoover was a guest on Bill Maher's HBO program when comic Zach Galifianakis lit up a joint and passed it around. Hoover said this: "I wasn't sure if it was real or not, I don't smoke pot, so of course I wasn't going to smoke it on the show. It was an outrageous stunt, it was funny, and by the way medical marijuana is legal in California."

Alicia Menendez, sitting in for Gretchen Carlson, also said she does not smoke pot. she said this: "I have never smoked marijuana in my entire life, I say 'hugs not drugs.' But this guy is a comedian and he did what comedians do - he made people laugh and he made people wonder whether he was really doing that." Menendez was unsurprised that Californians voted against pot legalization. "This proposition had a number of problems - for example, there was no clear definition of what 'driving under the influence' would be."

And in the last segment O'Reilly had the lame news quiz with Brian Kilmeade and Martha MacCallum. Which I do not reporr on because it's not news, and it has nothing to do with the news.

Then the highly edited Factor e-mails, and the lame pinheads and patriots. And btw, O'Reilly had 2 Democratic guests, but he only had 2 because Gretchen Carlson could not do the show Thursday. So it would have been 1 Democratic guest if she would have been on for culture warriors.

O'Reilly Speculates About Comcast Changing MSNBC
By: Steve - November 5, 2010 - 9:00am

Bill O'Reilly speculated about upcoming adjustments at MSNBC. O'Reilly was speaking to Bernie Goldberg, and the two spent a good deal of time slamming MSNBC's election coverage:
GOLDBERG: I thought I was watching the view without Elisabeth Hasselbeck. And as bad as they were, the real villains are the executives at MSNBC who make no pretense anymore. There is no pretense anymore that MSNBC is a serious honest news organization. Because when you take a national election and have five liberal commentators being snarky all night with their comments and giggling like school girls half the time, the shark has been jumped. it's over.

O'REILLY: Comcast takes over soon. I think they are going to change that whole thing over there. That's what we hear anyway.
Which is all speculation, the same speculation O'Reilly claims to never do. Now that's funny, as if Fox is an honest news organization. And to hear Bernie Goldberg complain about MSNBC not being an honest news network is just laughable. When he is on Fox, the most dishonest news network in America.

And btw folks, while Comcast executives are not known to be liberals, the idea that they would walk in and fire everyone at MSNBC appears unlikely. Straight news is not leading CNN to ratings wins, and turning MSNBC into a right-leaning network would only put it in more direct competition with Fox.

Not to mention, outside of Fox news, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow have the 2 highest rated news shows on cable. It would be equal to Fox firing O'Reilly and Hannity, which will never happen. So not only did O'Reilly speculate, he was wrong with his crazy speculation.

Comcast is like any other corporation, they are in the business to make money, and MSNBC's more partisan direction is increasing the network's profits. So why would they change anything, when they are making more money now then they did when they were less partisan.

Dick Morris: Wrong & A Liar
By: Steve - November 5, 2010 - 8:30am

Here is another example of how Dick Morris is a liar, and how he was wrong on a political race. He lied about being right on the House races, and he was wrong wrong Kirsten Gillibrand in New York.

Morris said she was under 50 percent, so she could be beat by the Republican Joe DioGuardi. And the night before the election he told Hannity the Republicans would gain well over 74 seats.

On September 16th, Morris wrote this on his website:
MORRIS: Polls show her only barely above 50 percent before the Republican primary. Now, she is probably under 50 percent.

Joe DioGuardi, a committed conservative with a fine record in Congress, offers an alternative that voters will find attractive.

Once an incumbent is under 50 percent, she is very vulnerable, particularly with Gillibrand's record of support for every Obama big-spending scheme. And she stands for nothing in a year when voters are looking for sincerity.
That all sounds good, except none of it was true. Kirsten Gillibrand was re-elected with 61 percent of the vote, a result that was completely predictable to everyone. Except Dick Morris.

This, of course, will not prevent O'Reilly or Fox News from pretending that Dick Morris is some kind of great political analyst.

Morris predicted the Republicans would pick up well over 74 seats in the House, they picked up 60 seats. Morris also predicted the Republicans would pick up 10 seats in the Senate, they picked up 6 seats. In other words, Morris should be the last guy you go to for political analysis.

The Wednesday 11-3-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 4, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Surprises from last night's election. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Most Americans believe President Obama has not yet proved himself to be an effective leader; therefore his policies were widely repudiated across the country. On the tea party front, Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle and Joe Miller did not prove themselves to independents, so they lost, while Rand Paul and Marco Rubio won big because they ran very effective campaigns.

It all comes down to performance, as it should. The Harry Reid victory surprised me - I thought the guy was through because he epitomizes the big spending liberal agenda, but apparently in Nevada the Democratic machine is very effective.

Senator Barbara Boxer winning big is incredible. She is a notorious far-left zealot who rubber stamps just about every spending program. The most gratifying part of the election was seeing that pinhead Alan Grayson booted out of Congress by voters in Orlando. They don't come lower than Grayson.

All in all, there was a correction last night in America but we remain a divided country politically.
Notice what O'Reilly ignored, the country was in Republican control for 8 years before Obama took over, and they are the people who caused most of the problems we have now. But he blamed it all on Obama and his liberal policies, when 90% of the problem was caused by Bush and the Republicans. He said the Obama policies were widely repudiated across the country, and that's a lie. A couple things Obama did were not approved by the majority, but most of the disapproval came from the right-wingers in the country.

He also said Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle and Joe Miller lost because they did not prove themselves to independents. That's a lie, they lost because they are far right idiots who are not qualified to be in office. And Miller has not even lost yet, but O'Reilly has him losing anyway. O'Reilly also ignores the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger was the Governor of California, and he is a Republican. He replaced Gray Davis the Democrat after Davis was impeached. At the time O'Reilly supported it, and said Schwarzenegger would fix the debt problems.

And yet O'Reilly blames the California debt on liberals, when they had a Republican Governor, and he ignores all the other states with debt problems that are run by Republicans. For the record, every state in the country is in debt, except for one, because of the recession Bush caused, and most of them are run by Republicans. But O'Reilly never mentions that, as he is slamming California and the liberals. He also ignores the fact that California is the biggest state in America, so of course their debt will be bigger than the other states.

Then Dick Morris was on to talk about the elections, Morris said we won 6 seats in the Senate, and that is great. But O'Reilly pointed out he said it would be 10, and Morris said yeah but we barely lost those. Earth to Morris, a loss is a loss. And btw, O'Reilly said what is this we stuff, do you have a mouse in your pocket. Morris said no, I work for the Republican party. So he admits it, and yet O'Reilly has no problem with it. morris even said Harry Reid won by using dirty tricks, which O'Reilly was not even buying.

Morris said Reid used buses to get voters to the polls etc. So where are the dirty tricks, because that is not a dirty trick and every good politician does it. O'Reilly said Angle lost because hispanics broke 3 to 1 to Reid, and of course Morris disagreed, because he is a right-wing stooge who can not admit the truth. What O'Reilly did not mention is that Angle also lost because she is a far right radical idiot.

Then as O'Reilly had George Stephanopoulos on to discuss it. Stephanopoulos basically said if the economy turns around, Obama will be okay, but last night showed just how deep a hole he's in. He also said this: "The tea party did bring a lot of energy to the Republican Party in this election, which helped overcome some of the negativity the party has had."

Then O'Reilly had Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley on to talk about the election. crowley said this: "He looked like he was passing a gallstone, he was so unhappy to be there. President Obama is in hell, but it's a hell of his own making. He's trying to say he has a 'communication' problem, and there is no self-awareness that this man has any understanding of the vast unpopularity of all of his major legislative achievements."

Colmes said this: "The President took personal responsibility and he acknowledged that people are frustrated because job numbers have not gone in the right direction. He said all the right stuff and offered an olive branch to Republicans. This is not a man lacking in self-awareness."

O'Reilly said President Obama is a true believer in his policies: "He's telling Americans we had to spend a wild amount of money or we would have been in 1931 again. It's impossible to prove or disprove, but he believes it."

What an idiot, it is true that we had to spend a wild amount of money to keep us out of a depression, all the economic experts were saying that. And yet, O'Reilly (who is not an economist) denies it, and says it can not be proven. The proof is the fact that we did not go into a depression, and we are even out of the recession. O'Reilly just makes it up and hopes someone believes it. The Obama stimulus and other spending saved the country, and yet O'Reilly denies it all. But if a Republican President had done what Obama did, O'Reilly would call him a hero.

In the next insane segment O'Reilly had the far right idiot Bernie Goldberg on to talk about the Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank who claimed Fox News election coverage featured only conservative voices, but The Factor pointed out that FNC's lineup included Democrats Geraldine Ferraro, Joe Trippi, Juan Williams, Kirsten Powers, Pat Caddell, and Doug Schoen.

To begin with, Milbank did not say Fox only had conservative voices, so O'Reilly is lying about what he wrote. I read the Milbank article, he watched Fox for 18 straight hours, then reported what he saw. He said Fox was in party mode, and that they mostly had conservatives on to report on the election. He even mentioned they had one Democrat in his op-ed, but he never said he was the only Democrat on Fox. O'Reilly twisted that into Milbank said it was only conservative voices, which he never said. Then O'Reilly wasted an entire segment crying about something Milbank said, that he never said.

Goldberg denounced Milbank's shoddy reporting. Goldberg said this: "Milbank wrote this piece for only one reason, and that is to take a shot a Fox. He and many other journalists have Foxophobia, an irrational fear of Fox News. He's a columnist for an important newspaper, and the day after one of the biggest elections in a generation he decides to write about Fox News."

Earth to O'Reilly and Goldberg, Milbank wrote his article on the op-ed page, that is where people give an opinion. And he did it just to show how much right-wing bias Fox had in their election coverage. Not one word he wrote was a lie, in fact, he was pretty easy on Fox. What he wrote is that roughly 90% of the Fox reporting was done by conservatives, and that once in a while they let a Democrat comment. And he was right, his reporting was accurate. O'Reilly and Goldberg only attacked him to discredit him, because they were mad he told the truth.

O'Reilly even said Milbank should be fired for lying, even though he was not lying. And O'Reilly has said in the past that if you write an op-ed you are allowed to give your opinion. Unless a Democrat writes it, then you should be fired for your opinion. Goldberg would not say he should be fired, when O'Reilly asked him if he should be fired, Goldberg just avoided the question and attacked MSNBC, who had nothing to do with it.

Now here is the kicker, Goldberg said this: "He's a columnist for an important newspaper, and the day after one of the biggest elections in a generation he decides to write about Fox News."

Okay, and you 2 idiots did the exact same thing. Both of you are on the #1 rated news show on cable, and a day after a big election, you waste an entire segment crying about something ONE guy wrote for an op-ed page of a newspaper. So you 2 are the fools, and you had to lie about what he wrote to justifiy your lame attacks on him. And btw folks, O'Reilly told Goldberg to watch MSNBC and report back to him about it. Which is the same thing Milbank did about Fox, but they slam him for writing about Fox, when they did the very same thing.

Then Dennis Miller was on, which I refuse to report on because he is a comedian. And in the last segment it was did you see that with Juliet Huddy and the fraud of a pollster Frank Luntz. They talked about a few political ads, and O'Reilly even implied that an ad run by Harry Reid helped him win in Nevada.

Which is ridiculous, Reid won because Sharron Angle is a far-right idiot, who made so many mistakes it was laughable. She told a group of hispanic kids that they all look Asian to her, that alone probably lost her the election. not to mention her far right positions, refusing to speak to the media, running away from her own press conference when question time came up, the crazy Mexicans are invading Nevada ad, even though it's not a border state, and on and on.

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

Tea Party Republican Rand Paul Proves He Is Crazy
By: Steve - November 4, 2010 - 9:30am

How insane is Rand Paul, during an interview with Wolf Blitzer he said There are no rich. There are no middle class. There are no poor. Then he said he would do everything he can to protect the wealthy. I wonder if he knows he was elected by the people to represent the people. I guess not, because he never said a word about the people, he only talked about helping the rich.

Speaking to Wolf Blitzer, Paul announced his intention to do anything it takes to shield the rich and corporate America. Asked if he would end the $830 billion, unpaid-for Bush tax cuts to the rich, Paul said such a move would cause a second great depression and said that anybody who proposes such a policy is unfit to be making decisions.

Paul then clarified his delusional worldview by telling Blitzer that there are no rich and there are no poor. In Paul's mind, even taxing yachts would somehow punish the working poor in Kentucky:
BLITZER: What if they just raised taxes on the richest, those making more than 250,000 dollars a year?

PAUL: Well, the thing is, we're all interconnected. There are no rich. There are no middle class. There are no poor. We all are interconnected in the economy. You remember a few years ago, when they tried to tax the yachts, that didn't work. You know who lost their jobs? The people making the boats, the guys making 50,000 and 60,000 dollars a year lost their jobs.

We all either work for rich people or we sell stuff to rich people. So just punishing rich people is as bad for the economy as punishing anyone. Let's not punish anyone. Let's keep taxes low and let's cut spending.
Paul has fashioned himself a protector of the privileged class, for instance arguing repeatedly against regulating BP in the wake of its oil disaster.

But an honest look at American society reveals a world divorced from Paul's rhetoric. Many of America's most profitable corporations, including Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and ExxonMobil, paid essentially nothing in corporate taxes in all of 2009.

And btw, the Republicans and the Tea Party said they would not spend any money unless it was paid for. They claim that is why were are in the mess we are now, and yet, here he is calling for un-paid for tax cuts to the wealthy. Not to mention, anyone who says there are no rich, no middle class, and no poor, is not only a fool, they are insane.

More Evidence Rasmussen Runs Biased Polls
By: Steve - November 4, 2010 - 9:00am

And it goes without saying that you will never see this reported by O'Reilly, in fact, on the Wednesday Factor show Rasmussen was not even invited to discuss his poll results on the elections. Maybe because he got so many wrong, and O'Reilly did not want to make him look bad.

Nate Silver from the polling website FiveThirtyEight.com confirmed on Wednesday what most independent observers had been saying all year: That the Fox News friendly pollster Scott Rasmussen is in the tank for Republicans. Which is fine if you're a partisan pundit. But it's not good when you are in the polling business.

Silver wrote this:
Rasmussen polls quite consistently turned out to overstate the standing of Republicans. Of the roughly 100 polls released by Rasmussen in the final 21 days of the campaign, roughly 70 to 75 percent overestimated the performance of Republican candidates, and on average they were biased against Democrats by 3 to 4 points.

Every pollster is entitled to a bad cycle now and again - and Rasmussen has had some good cycles in the past. But their polling took a major downturn this year.
Now look at this Rasmussen poll for the race in Hawaii, with the democrat Daniel Inouye and the Republican Cam Cavasso. The Rasmussen survey in Hawaii showed Inouye (D-HI) leading the challenger Cavasso (R) by 13 points, 53% to 40%.

Seems like a standard political poll, except the Democrat won by 51 points, yes I said 51 points, 72 percent to 21 percent. Rasmussen had the Republican only down 13 points, and yet he lost by 51 points. That is not just bad polling folks, that is a biases partisan rigging a poll to make one of his guys look better.

And now here is the kicker, not one poll Rasmussen has ever done is like that for Democrats. He never makes the Democrat look closer than he really is by rigging a poll to make him look better. It only happens with Republicans, and that is not just a one time thing, I have seen a lot of Rasmussen polls that do the same thing.

He also did it in the Paladino poll, the Rasmussen poll was the only poll in America that had Paladino only 14 points down. Every other poll had Paladino 20 or more points down, with Quinnipiac getting it exactly right, they had Paladino 20 points down, which is what he lost by, 20 points.

So while Rasmussen does get a few polls right once in a while, a lot of the time he is wrong, and he is always biased to the right. And yet, O'Reilly and just about everyone at Fox put him on as an Independent, and accurate pollster. When it's clear he is a biased pollster who tries to make Republicans look better with his polls.

Comments On The 2010 Mid-Term Elections
By: Steve - November 3, 2010 - 10:00am

Since most of the elections are over, I have a few comments. To begin with, as I expected Dick Morris was wrong on some of the Senate races. Basically he was dreaming that Republicans would pick up 10 seats. They picked up 6 seats, as most of the real political experts predicted. Morris is just a right-wing hack who says what he wants to happen, and his analysis is biased.

Boxer in California won by 10 points, which is a landslide. Both Morris and O'Reilly said Boxer might lose. Coons beat O'Donnell in Delaware by 16 points, O'Reilly had cherry picked one poll that had her down by 10, and claimed she was gaining, and that she could pull off a stunning upset. WRONG!

It shows that O'Reilly was dreaming and being dishonest, by cherry picking the one poll. Because O'Reilly was crushed by 16 points, and she was not gaining. Jerry Brown beat Meg Whitman in California by 7 points, even though she spent $150 million dollars of her own money. How bad of a candidate are you if you spend that much money and still lose by 7 points, really bad.

Crazy Carl Paladino was crushed by 20 points in New York by Andrew Cuomo. And this is the race where Rasmussen had Paladino only 14 points down and closing. But he was the only pollster who had him down by only 14 points, all the other polls had him down by 20 or more, and he lost by 20 points. Quinnipiac had Cuomo winning by 20, so they were exactly right.

And let me point this out, O'Reilly keeps saying over and over how accurate Rasmussen is because he got the numbers exactly right on the 2008 Obama election for President. But that was a Presidential race, and quite a few other pollsters got it right too, or very close, within one point. But Rasmussen gets it wrong all the time, as in the Paladino race, the problem is O'Reilly never mentions that. He ignores the fact that the biased Rasmussen is wrong a lot.

The far right Linda McMahon was also crushed by 10 points, which shows that money can not always buy an election, if you are so bad no amount of money can get you a win, just ask Meg Whitman. A couple Republicans tried to buy their elections, and they failed big time.

And the big one is the Senate race in Nevada, O'Reilly, Morris, and all the Republicans had Sharron Angle beating Harry Reid in Nevada. In fact, O'Reilly said it was over for Reid, and Angle will beat him, as if it was a fact. When it turns out he was just speculating.

Harry Reid not only won, he won by 5 points. This shows what happens when you cherry pick polls, you are proven wrong, and you look like a fool. And what a lot of this shows is that you can be too far right, Palin are you hearing this. Paladino, O'Donnell, and Angle were all too far right to win. And if the Republicans had elected more moderate candidates in those races they could have won.

In closing, it looks like the Republicans will pick up about 60 seats in the House, and 6 in the Senate. With a few races still undecided. Like the Senate race in Alaska, where Joe Miller is losing by 7 points to write-in. How bad are you when the write in votes are beating you, really bad. And this is the dope Sarah Palin endorsed.

It also looks like the Democrat Bennet will beat Buck in Colorado, which is another senate race Dick Morris said the Republicans would win. That will give the Democrats 52 Senate seats. Murray and Rossi are tied in Washington, but if Murray wins that will give the Democrats 53 Senate seats.

And btw, I was shocked that Sharron Angle was ahead in the polls in Nevada after all the crazy things she said. I was thinking how can this nut be winning, well it turns out she was not winning, and the polls were wrong. To my surprise she lost by 5 points, which is what should have happened. She is another far right Palin endorsed loser. It seems that almost all the polls were wrong, and it just goes to show you that polls are not always right.

The Republicans did well, but in all the Senate races where they ran far right nut-jobs they lost. What that shows is that a lot of far right republican voters decided to vote for a radical, and they lost for it. Basically it shows that no matter how much O'Reilly and Fox promote these far right radicals (Paladino, Angle, O'Donnell) they are still going to lose.

The Tuesday 11-2-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 3, 2010 - 9:30am

No Tuesday show because of the mid-term election coverage by Fox.

O'Reilly & Palin Caught Lying About KTVA
By: Steve - November 3, 2010 - 9:00am

Both Sarah Palin and Bill O'Reilly have been caught lying about the KTVA station in Alaska. They are both saying it is a CBS affiliate, but it's not.

CBS put out a statement that said KTVA is not an affiliate: "KTVA News is owned by the Alaska Broadcasting Company."

Which does not do much good now, because everyone in the media has reported that KTVA is a CBS affiliate, and you can not put the toothpaste back in the tube.

Palin is more guilty here, because she keeps saying it was a CBS affiliate, with no correction, as she complains about journalists not doing their job right.

O'Reilly did clarify it at one point on his Monday show, after saying they were a CBS affiliate, he later corrected it and said they only show some CBS programming. But that was after the damage was done, and CBS had been linked to them.

Not to mention, O'Reilly has this on the Segment Summary page of his website Monday, and as I type this on Tuesday it is still there:
Personal Story Segment

CBS affiliate flubs, bashes Joe Miller

Sarah Palin's thoughts on a CBS affiliate that mistakenly insulted Alaska Tea Party Senate candidate Joe Miller.
Notice how O'Reilly made sure everyone thought it was a CBS affiliate, by saying it 2 times on the Segment Summary page. And on top of that, O'Reilly did not have his website people correct the error, because it's still there, and will most likely never be corrected on the website.

Stupid Sarah Says You Can Not Be Too Far Right
By: Steve - November 3, 2010 - 8:30am

To begin with, she was saying you can not be too far right to run for a political office, but what kind of fool would even say that. Of course you can be too far right, just as you can also be too far left. And Stupid Sarah did not just say you can not be too far right, when asked by O'Reilly if a person can be too far left, she said of course they can.

Palin said this: "At this point in time, you can't be too far right, more power to the far right."



What does that even mean, at this point in time you can not be too far right. Let me clue you in to reality Sarah, you can never be too far right, just as you can never be too far left. If you want to win a general election you have to be sort of moderate, or just a little to the right or left.

Nobody wants a far right loon representing them in Congress, except other far right loons. The fact that she even said you can not be too far right, shows that she is a fool. O'Reilly even disagreed, and in the next segment Bernie Goldberg also disagreed.

And btw, when you listen to Stupid Sarah answer questions, she sounds like a team of political experts coached her up with a bunch of right-wing talking points, and you can tell she has no clue what she's talking about.

That's the real reason she refuses to talk to anyone in the media, except for the people at Fox of course. Because she is stupid, and when real journalists ask her tough questions (that she has not had a chance to plan for) she looks like a fool. even on fox where she mostly gets softball questions, you can tell she is just like a robot that was programmed to spew out the same talking points over and over.

At least guys like Romney and Gingrich are smart, they are right-wing stooges, but they are smart. Palin is just a dummy who was taught to spin out a few talking points, and when you listen to her talk you can tell she is not very smart.

And btw, I predict that if she does run for the Republican Presidential Primary in 2012, she will lose. I am betting Romney will win it. Palin is too stupid to beat Obama, and the GOP knows it, and that is why they will back someone like Romney, and he will get all the money. I hope Palin wins, but it will never happen.

Sarah Palin Backs Crazy Glenn Beck 100 Percent
By: Steve - November 3, 2010 - 8:00am

As you may or may not know, over the last 6 months or so, Glenn Beck has used violent language on his radio and tv show. Beck talks about revolution, piling bodies on the streets, etc. Which has lead to a few people that watch his show to try and kill liberals, etc.

So David Brock from Media Matters called on Beck to stop using the violent language, instead of doing what Brock asked Beck continued with the violent rhetoric, and ignored the request from Brock. David Brock also called on Sarah Palin to denounce what Beck is saying, and not only did she refuse, she told Beck she supports him 100 percent.

And why not, she has also used violent rhetoric, she put rifle scope crosshairs on a map of America to mark the districts where Democrats are up for election. She also used words like reload and shoot to kill, while talking about beating Democrats in specific elections. So she is just as bad as Beck, minus the radio and tv show.

Last week, Sarah Palin rejected Media Matters for America CEO David Brock's call to condemn Glenn Beck's violent rhetoric. Beck's rhetoric was recently cited as inspiration for death threats issued against Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) and against debate organizers in Illinois. Pittsburgh police shooter Richard "Pop" Poplawski revealed that he "loved Glenn Beck" and was obsessed with survivalist theories Beck, and beck also inspired the would-be Tides assassin Byron Williams who said Beck is like "a schoolteacher on TV for him."

Brock to Palin: "stop this insanity." In an October 26 appearance on The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, David Brock called for Sarah Palin to "stop this insanity." Brock explained that Palin is uniquely poised to help scale back Beck's violent rhetoric.

Palin responds on Beck's radio show: "I stand with you, Glenn." Responding to Media Matters, Palin called in to the October 28 edition of Glenn Beck's radio show to reaffirm her support for Beck.

Now of course both Beck and Palin have a right to free speech, and I support that right 100 percent, even for them. But when you knowingly use violent language and images to make a political argument, it is wrong. Just because you have a right to do it, does not mean you should.

I hate most Republicans, but I do not put rifle scope crosshairs on a map to mark their districts, or say it's time to reload, or make death threats to any of them. I call them idiots, and brainwashed fools, but I never use violent language or images when I talk about them. And you never hear about anyone who reads my blog getting a gun and going to kill conservatives.

I could do what Beck and Palin do, and call for armed revolution against conservatives with violent language and images, But I don't, because you never know what kind of nut will listen to you and try to kill someone based on what you said. I have a right to do it, but I don't. And what makes it worse is that a lot of what Beck and Palin say that make their followers so mad is either spin, or flat out lies, like Death Panels, etc.

The Monday 11-1-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 2, 2010 - 10:00am

The TPM was called The country takes a turn to the right. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: One day before the big vote, late polling indicates a big Republican victory. Gallup says 55% of likely voters will go for the GOP candidate, 40% for the Democrats. In addition, a new poll says just 26% of Americans believe President Obama has performed well enough to be re-elected.

There's no question Democrats will lose the House, so Nancy Pelosi is finished as Speaker, but the Senate will most likely remain in Democratic hands. President Obama's power will be diminished, but he'll remain a potent force - his veto alone provides for that.

Talking Points believes it is your patriotic duty to vote, no matter how much you despise the political system. So we hope you'll exercise your power on Tuesday.
And for once, I don't really have much to say about the TPM, because most of it is accurate, except the part about the 26% who think Obama should be re-elected, that is from one un-named poll. the polls I have seen say 38%, so I have no idea where O'Reilly got that 26% number from, probably out of his ass.

Then Brit Hume was on to talk about the election. Hume said this: "The most striking number is the generic preference from Gallup. The 15% Republican advantage is about double what it was in 1994 when the Republicans picked up 54 seats. If that number proves accurate, we're talking about a Republican victory that could get up into the 60's and 70's and maybe even higher. But Republicans need to recognize that this is not a vote for the Republican Party - this is an anti-Democrat, anti-Obama protest vote."

Hume is speculating and dreaming, no way the Republicans pick up 60 or 70 seats in the House, because most of the experts are saying 40 to 50, maybe 55 at best. And it's not an anti-Democrat/anti-Obama protest vote with anyone except Republicans. A lot of it is just an anti-incumbent vote. The people are voting out a lot of incumbent Republicans too, something Hume failed to mention. As usual it was a biased one sided segment with no Democratic guest.

Then O'Reilly had Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham on to discuss it. And they put out the usual garbage, Juan said there will be gridlock, and Ham said that Obama will not move to the center as Clinton did. Then O'Reilly made a stupid joke, he said this: "I want to take a moment to make a public service announcement of sorts, I am going to issue a viewer warning for children not to watch MSNBC Tuesday because some people may commit suicide over there."

Then O'Reilly had Stupid Sarah on to cry about the media in Alaska. Palin, who denounced the KTVA folks as "corrupt bastards," said this: "There's no accountability, and there was only a bogus explanation. The media is very biased and I hate to see somebody else go through what Todd and I went through, but now there is some light shed via this tape."

O'Reilly also asked Palin if Tuesday's vote is a referendum on liberalism, and of course she said yes. When all the problems were caused by Bush, and Obama is just getting the blame for it because he is in office now.

But here was the best part of the show, O'Reilly says and now to be fair and balanced, and yes those were his exact words, he said and not to be fair and balanced we have the Democratic strategist Alicia Menendez on to discuss it.

WTF? Are you kidding me. O'Reilly was on with his right-wing TPM, then the right-wing Brit Hume, then the 2 right-wing stooges Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham, then the far right Stupid Sarah Palin, and then finally he has one Democratic guest on, and that's fair and balanced, wow, on what planet. How is 5 to 1 balance? especially when after she was on the next segment had Bernie Goldberg, so it was 6 to 1 Republicans to Democrats. Earth to Bill O'Reilly, how is that being fair and balanced.

Menendez said this: "I think this is a rejection of Washington, If you go back to the primaries there were a lot of Republicans who lost, so it's more a rebuke of Washington than of liberal ideology. The bottom line is that people are looking at their current economic state - there are people who don't have jobs."

But O'Reilly repeated his claim that voters are rebelling against liberalism, Billy said this: "Americans tried the liberal policies and don't think they work, it's as simple as that. $5 trillion has been added to the debt and the unemployment rate keeps going up. I want problem-solvers who will bring down the national debt and I don't care what party they're in."

And btw, O'Reilly lied again, he said Obama added $5 trillion to the debt, that's a lie, he has only added $2 trillion. The debt went from $10.6 trillion under Bush, to $12.6 trillion under Obama, and this moron Menendez agreed with O'Reilly, she said right, when he said Obama added $5 trillion to the debt, making her a dope.

Then O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to talk about a biased and bogus media study put out by the biased and bogus right-wing Media Research Center. Then claim the media is biased against Republicans, because when they talk about them they call them conservatives, which is just laughable, because they are conservatives.

This is the same MRC (run by Brent Bozell) that put out a media study one time that counted something negative a Republican said about Bush on MSNBC as liberal bias, so they have no credibility at all. And the fact that O'Reilly cited their study, shows that he is also a right-wing idiot. Because nobody but Republicans believe anything they put out.

And in the last segment O'Reilly had his ridiculous reality check, that usually has no reality that I do not report on. In one check, O'Reilly talked about the Jon Stewart rally last saturday, but never once mentioned the crowd estimates of 215,000, which was 3 times more than Beck had. And after the Beck rally O'Reilly spent a week lying that Beck had 200 to 300 thousand people. When the actual official crowd estimate was 87,000.

O'Reilly said this: "Comedy Central's Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert held their "Restore Sanity" rally in Washington over the weekend. The Factor's Check: "A straw poll showed that 86% of the folks at the rally plan to vote Democratic on Tuesday, just 1% Republican."

Wow, what a shocker, NOT! Earth to O'Reilly, it was a liberal rally. And there were not any nasty signs. They were all funny signs, you found one person with a sign that said something about turning Fox off, that is not a nasty sign, except in your mind.

Then the highly edited Factor e-mails, and the lame pinheads and patriots. And I am still waiting for O'Reilly to explain how 6 Republican guests to 1 Democratic guest is being fair and balanced.

Personal Information About The Jon Stewart Rally
By: Steve - November 2, 2010 - 9:00am

A Friend of mine (John) wrote this to me about the Jon stewart Rally, he was there, and this is what he wrote to me, word for word, un-edited.
I was at the Stewart Rally, both The Metro polive I talked to said they had NEVER seen such a rush of people and they were not expecting it but there had not been any disturbances and were amazed how friendly and orderly everyone was being in the huge crowds they'd seen. All the Orange lines trains were packed solid for hours one said and my train could not possibly have fit even another person on it.

At the end of the Rally I passed by a group of 5 park police and I asked them if they'd also worked the Beck Rally, they had, I asked the one appearing to be in charge what it was like compared and he said "I am shocked at this, Beck's rally was roughly a 1/3 of this turnout".

1/3 turns into almost 215k based on CBS's account of both rallys.

I can tell you in almost 25 years of concert and event going, I have NEVER seen such a crowd. It was absolutely impossible to make your way close to the stage, it was solid people as thick as could be.

Beck can lie and spin it all he wants, I am quite positive he was outdone. The place was PACKED.
And btw folks, on the Monday Factor O'Reilly talked about the Stewart rally. Only to dismiss it and make fun of it. He even dishonestly sent a Fox camera crew to find 2 or 3 crazy people to interview, so he could make it look like everyone there were all crazy liberals. Not one normal person was interviewed by Fox, then O'Reilly played edited clips of the tape and made fun of the people they interviewed. And not one time did O'Reilly mention the crowd size, proving once again that he is not a journalist, he is a partisan right-wing hack.

More Palin News O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - November 2, 2010 - 8:30am

Bill O'Reilly loves him some Sarah Palin, he is constantly saying how great she is, and he even said she is qualified to be the President. But O'Reilly is in the minority, because the vast majority of the people think the exact opposite. What O'Reilly also fails to mention is that in an October 2010 poll the Palin approval rating is only 22 percent.

O'Reilly sure loves to report the Obama approval rating, which is 47% btw, but he never reports the Palin approval rating, which is 22%, while saying the 47% is bad news he never says a word about the 22% for Palin which is a disaster. And he never reports that only 44% of Republicans approve of her, or that only 21% of Independents approve.

And now we have this, Politico is reporting that top Republican advisers and veteran GOP operatives now have a common mission of halting the momentum of Sarah Palin. They are saying that Palin's polarizing political style and superficial answers when pressed on policy, make GOP advisers view the prospect of her 2012 nomination as a disaster waiting to happen.

From Politico:

Top Republicans in Washington and in the national GOP establishment say the 2010 campaign highlighted an urgent task that they will begin in earnest as soon as the elections are over: Stop Sarah Palin.

There is rising expectation among GOP elites that Palin will probably run for president in 2012 and could win the Republican nomination, a prospect many of them regard as a disaster in waiting. Many of these establishment figures argue that Palin's nomination would ensure President Barack Obama's reelection.

"There is a determined, focused establishment effort to find a candidate we can coalesce around who can beat Sarah Palin," said one prominent and longtime Washington Republican. "We believe she could get the nomination, but Barack Obama would crush her."

This sentiment was a nearly constant refrain in POLITICO interviews with top advisers to the candidates most frequently mentioned as running in 2012 and a diverse assortment of other top GOP officials.

Top Republicans, from presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty to highly influential advisers such as Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, are said to be concerned she will run, and could win, according to the officials.

A Palin adviser declined to comment. Then shortly after this article was posted, Palin went on Fox News, where she is a paid commentator, to criticize POLITICO and any unnamed critics.

The stop-Palin talks are by no means coordinated among the various campaigns. But top advisers for most of the 2012 hopefuls told us the candidates - as well as many establishment figures - are fixated on the topic, especially on how to keep her from running or how to deny her the nomination if she does run.

A longtime Republican leader said party elders hope to thwart Palin by strengthening the Republican National Committee, which has been a magnet for controversy and has seen lackluster fundraising under current Chairman Michael Steele, and outside groups such as those blessed by Rove and Gillespie and now spending heavily on congressional races.

O'Reilly even had Palin on the Monday Factor, and he never once asked her anything about this story, or about her 22% approval rating, it was a total softball interview, even though he claims to be a tough guy who does hard core interviews. Basically O'Reilly kissed her dumb ass, simply because she is a far right stooge, and she works for Fox.

Fox News Proves They Are Dishonest (Again)
By: Steve - November 2, 2010 - 8:00am

Last Tuesday, the Fox Business Network devoted five full hours of programming to a California ballot initiative, Proposition 24, which would repeal corporate tax breaks. All during their reporting, which overwhelmingly attacked Prop. 24, The Fox Business Network never once reported on one big fact: that its parent company, News Corp., spent $1.3 million dollars to defeat the proposition.

Folks, that is a violation of journalism 101, that says you must disclose any conflict of interest in your reporting on a story. They slammed Proposition 24 for 5 hours, and not once did they mention that their parent company spent over a million dollars to defeat the Proposition they were reporting on.

And News Corp. is just one of the many major media companies that have spent more than $1 million each seeking to defeat the proposition, which supporters say would repeal $1.7 billion in corporate tax breaks to help close the state's budget gap.

Tracy Byrnes, the anchor for one of the reports, expressed the opinion that "the proposition was setting up businesses to be destroyed, quite frankly."

Fox also failed to report that the small-business man it featured in the news reports was asked to do the interview by the same group News Corp. donated the money to.

Industry observers said the News Corp. contribution to the group, and the organization's role in arranging the interview, raised a conflict of interest that warranted disclosure.

It's the same as if someone at MSNBC had donated money to a political group, then reported on that group, and did not disclose that they donated money to them. It's wrong, and it's a violation of the first rule of journalism, full disclosure.

Jon Stewart Restore Sanity Rally Had 215,000 People
By: Steve - November 1, 2010 - 10:00am

Now who wants to bet me that O'Reilly and all the right-wing websites say that number is wrong, and say it was much lower than that. Here is my guess, O'Reilly will mock the Rally and say 20 or 30 thousand stoned slackers showed up, and then say the CBS paid for estimate is wrong.

Here are some quotes from the article about the Rally from cbsnews.com:

Jon Stewart Rally Attracts Estimated 215,000

An estimated 215,000 people attended a rally organized by Comedy Central talk show hosts Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert Saturday in Washington, according to a crowd estimate commissioned by CBS News.

The company AirPhotosLive.com based the attendance at the "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear" on aerial pictures it took over the rally, which took place on the Mall in Washington. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 10 percent.

CBS News also commissioned AirPhotosLive.com to do a crowd estimate of Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally in August. That rally was estimated to have attracted 87,000 people. Amid criticism from conservatives that the estimate was low, CBS News detailed the methodology behind it.

TBD reported that because of the high turnout many would-be rally attendees retreated to bars to watch the event.

The National Park Service does not estimate crowds. The New York Times' Brian Stelter wrote on Twitter during the event that the Park Service privately told Viacom there were "well over 200,000" people at the rally, according to an executive.

Stewart joked during the rally that there were ten million people present and, in reference to the difficulty of making crowd estimates, solemnly promised to "count them all."

Comedy Central's permit for the event said it was expecting 60,000 people, though, as the Wall Street Journal notes, it ordered enough port-a-potties for 150,000. the NY Daily News and many other media sources also reports the crowd at 200,000 or more, so it was not just one source reporting it.

--------------------------

And to be honest I was shocked that 200,000 to 215,000 people showed up. I was thinking maybe 50,000 would be there, and I am betting Stewart and Colbert were also shocked, because they made jokes about it at the Rally, and talked about being worried that almost nobody would show up before the Rally. On Letterman Stewart said his biggest fear is that after spending all that money to have the Rally nobody would show up.

The right-wing fools at www.freerepublic.com are saying it's all a lie. That everyone is lying about the crowd size. Here are a few of their comments:
To: tobyhill

There is absolutely No Way there were more than 20,000.

11 posted on Saturday, October 30, 2010 10:26:50 PM by Vendome

---------------

To: xuberalles

No one except the mentally infirm and leftist idiots believe that the media is anything but a tool of the progressives/liberals/socialists/communists.

18 posted on Saturday, October 30, 2010 10:29:37 PM by Blood of Tyrants

---------------

To: tobyhill

Well that's good then because that means that Beck's rally must have had 3,215,000 attendees ;-)

19 posted on Saturday, October 30, 2010 10:29:53 PM by rockrr
The thread at freerepublic had 54 replies, and not one of them believe that 215,000 people were at the Stewart Rally. And my comment to them is this: A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

And btw, the Mythbuster guys were there and they started a wave from the front of the crowd all the way to the back, which took 30 seconds, and yes they timed it, they also estimated 150,000 people were there. That's a lot of people, especially when they were about 100 people wide doing it. When I first saw the crowd size on Saturday I guessed it was about 150,000 to 200,000, and that was before I saw the CBS estimate on Sunday.

And one last thing, what this Rally also shows is that if you have a TV show you can get 200,000 people to show up for anything. Beck, did you hear that?

2010 Mid-Term Election Blog Posting
By: Steve - November 1, 2010 - 9:30am

Tuesday November 2nd is election day. And it looks like the Republicans will win the majority back in the House, but until it happens nobody knows for sure. That means every registered voter in America who remembers what happened in the 8 years under Bush, should get out and vote for a Democratic candidate.

Every vote counts, so get out and vote against a Republican. And yes the Democrats have not been perfect, but the worst Democrat is still 10 times better than the best Republican. If the Democrats can hold the Senate the Republicans will not be able to do much, especially with a Democratic President.

So if you live in one of these States, make sure you vote Democratic in the Senate races, because these are toss ups that could go either way:
California - Vote For Boxer

Colorado - Vote For Bennet

Illinois - Vote For Giannoulias

Nevada - Vote For Reid

Pennsylvania - Vote For Sestak

Washington - Vote For Murray

West Virginia - Vote For Manchin

Alaska - Vote For McAdams

Kentucky - Vote For Conway

Missouri - Vote For Carnahan

Wisconsin - Vote For Feingold
Even if the Democrat is ahead a little, or behind a little, do not believe the polls, get out and vote anyway. Remember this, the media has said a few of those races are over, but that may not be true. it all comes down to turnout, in a lot of those races there are more registered Democrats than Republicans, so if the Democrats turn out, they can win.

My advice to everyone would be to ignore what the media says, and go vote. Polls are not always right, especially with young people who only have cell phones. If you can vote Democrat, you need to make sure you get out and vote. Let's prove the pollsters wrong on some of these races and get the Democrats a few more wins then predicted.

Hell, just do it to make O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends at Fox look like fools on some of their predictions, especially that arrogant smart ass Dick Morris. Who predicted the Republicans will pick up 10 Senate seats, let's prove him wrong.

Great Example Of Right-Wing Bias By Rasmussen
By: Steve - November 1, 2010 - 9:00am

If you want proof the Rasmussen polls are biased to the right, just look at this. Right now the non-partisan political website Real Clear Politics has 6 polls listed on the NY Governor race with Democrat Andrew Cuomo and Republican Carl Paladino. Now get this, 5 of the 6 polls have Cuomo 20 to 37 points ahead of Paladino.

1) Quinnipiac - Cuomo - +20

2) Marist - Cuomo - +23

3) surveyUSA - Cuomo - +26

4) NY Times - Cuomo - +35

5) Siena - Cuomo - +37

One poll has the Republican Paladino 14 points down, and what a shocker (Not) it's the Republican biased Rasmussen poll.

6) Rasmussen - Cuomo - +14

And the actual RCP average is Cuomo +25.8, which is the average of the 6 polls. But the only reason it's just a 25.8 point lead is because the Rasmussen poll brings the average down. If you take the Rasmussen poll out of the mix, Cuomo has a 28 point lead.

This shows that Rasmussen is biased to the right with his polls, because no other poll has Cuomo with less than a 20 point lead but the Rasmussen poll. It's 100% proof that Rasmussen has a right-wing bias, and yet, O'Reilly puts him on the Factor as an Independent and impartial pollster. Which is just laughable.

To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page:
www.oreilly-sucks.com