The Wednesday 11-30-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - December 1, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Romney gets teed off during Fox News interview. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As the Republican Party absorbs a new front-runner, Newt Gingrich, it is worth looking back four years. On November 30, 2007, Rudy Giuliani was leading the Republican pack, Fred Thompson was second, John McCain third. Right now Gingrich and Mitt Romney are almost neck-and-neck, so there's no question that the former Speaker of the House is a legitimate contender.

That means Governor Romney will have to go after Gingrich, as he did last night on Special Report with Bret Baier, when he called the Speaker a career politician. It is clear Governor Romney is running as America's CEO, a Washington outsider who will clean up the federal mess.

But Romney still has to deal with conservative Republicans, some of whom are suspicious of him. When Bret Baier asked about 'Romney-care,' it was obvious that Romney doesn't want to keep revisiting that question. Talking Points believes that unless there is another seismic event, the race will come down to Gingrich against Romney.

The difference from four years ago is that there have already been twelve Republican debates; reporters and voters have gotten a good look at the contenders. There's always the possibility that someone might surprise in Ohio or New Hampshire, so nothing is settled, but the trend line is in.
Then Bret Baier was on, who elaborated on his so-called confrontational interview with Mitt Romney. Baier said this: "I wanted him to clear up some of these clips that are being used against him, and that's why I went down that road. He clearly got upset with the questions and he was irritated after we were done. He said he thought the interview was 'overly aggressive' and he didn't like it."

Baier defended his line of questioning as eminently fair, saying this: "I was trying to address the issues that are happening right now. He's under attack and his biggest vulnerability is what he said back then and what he's saying now, so I was giving him the opportunity to address that head-on."

Then O'Dummy advised Governor Romney to "deal with this with humor and acknowledge that he's flip-flopped in the past."

Then Dick Morris was on to talk about the polls. With Newt Gingrich now holding a slim lead over Mitt Romney in most national polls, Dick Morris said that President Obama and his team are rooting for a Gingrich victory.

Morris said this: "It's fascinating that Barack Obama is having the Democrats attack Romney and not Gingrich, then you couple that will Bill Clinton saying nice things about Gingrich. And every chance he gets, President Obama points out that 'Romneycare' in Massachusetts is what he patterned his bill after."

O'Dummy said that Gingrich will make a juicy target if he is the nominee, saying this: "If you're President Obama you certainly want to run against Newt Gingrich because you can demonize the Speaker as a doctrinaire conservative and Washington insider, while Romney crosses over and gets independent votes."

And btw, if Newt does beat Romney, he will have no chance of beating Obama in the general election because he is a far-right loon that only Republicans will vote for, and without the Independent vote Newt can not win against Obama.

Then O'Reilly had Steve and Andrew DeAngelo on to discuss medical marijuana. Federal narcotics agents are threatening to prosecute California "medical marijuana" storefronts that have opened up. They run a medical marijuana facility in Oakland. Steve DeAngelo said this: "I'm a medical cannabis patient for degenerative disc disease, and marijuana helps me deal with the chronic pain that I suffer. We know this is good medicine and it's not acceptable to us to not help people."

Andrew DeAngelo declared that medical pot should be used solely for medical reasons, saying this: "We will say right here on this show that we do not support the legalization of cannabis for recreational purposes. This is for patients with serious medical conditions."

But of course O'Reilly disagreed and warned the DeAngelo brothers that legal medical marijuana is an invitation to abuse, saying this: "Many people in California use medical marijuana for 'anxiety.' All human beings have anxiety, so that means that every person on the planet could get a medical marijuana card."

Okay, so let me get this straight. O'Reilly is opposed to people using marijuana for their medical problems because a few people may abuse the system. Which is ridiculous, because if we used that rule nobody would ever get anything because every system can be abused in some way.

Then Juliet Huddy was on for did you see that, and they did not have a did you see that video, all they did was cry about Obama having a fundraiser in New York. Which is just more proof they are right-wing stooges, because if Bush had done it they would not have said a word about it, and it had nothing to do with any video you need to see. And btw, who cares what the crazy right-wing Donald Trump is mad about.

Donald Trump was upset at President Obama's decision to hold fundraisers in Manhattan just as the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree was being lit, blasted the President as someone who "doesn't give a damn about inconveniencing people." Huddy said this: "Donald Trump is right. It's matinee day for Broadway and it's the tree-lighting ceremony. The President's people knew this is the tree-lighting day, he can raise money tomorrow night. He should have done this another day."

Then Dennis Miller was on for his weekly comedy segment, which I do not report on because it's not news.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Karl Rove on to trash Barney Frank some more. O'Dummy said that the Democratic National Committee official Brad Woodhouse is claiming that Barney Frank saved the economy by co-authoring the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill.

Rove said this: "The Dodd-Frank bill was ironically written by the two guys who stood in the gates against reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years. So far only 26 of the 140 rules in this 2,300-page bill have been promulgated, and already those 26 rules are estimated to cost more than one billion dollars.

This is going to do a bunch of things that are going to be bad for the economy, and community bankers are worried that they're going to be wiped out by all the rules and regulations. This bill enshrines the concept of 'too big to fail.'" Rove added that Barney Frank is "a smart liberal but a very nasty person."

Yeah, according to Karl Rove, a far-right stooge, and a paid right-wing spin doctor. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance, or to speak out for Barney Frank or the DNC.

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

The Tuesday 11-29-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 30, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Herman Cain and Barney Frank are both finished. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It's now clear that Herman Cain will not secure the Republican nomination for president. He waged a spirited campaign, but in the 24/7 news cycle no mistakes are forgiven if you are conservative. I think Cain is basically a good man and I hope the rest of his life is peaceful.

As for Barney Frank, his departure from national politics is more significant. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out, Mr. Frank is the face of American liberalism, an indignant man who believes he has a copyright on compassion. If the Democrats were riding high, Barney Frank would most likely run again; he loves power and believes that he is good for the nation.

Here's what I believe: Barney Frank is sincere in wanting to help the less fortunate, but his big-spending policies just don't work. And because he is unwilling to understand economics, his tenure in the House has harmed the country.

Giving people stuff is a recipe for failure, but if you tell Barney Frank that, you're a bad person. America does not owe anyone a living. Barney never got that, but we wish him well anyway.
Wow, good job being a partisan hack O'Reilly. Folks, that is what you call right-wing spin on Barney Frank. He is not the face of liberalism, and the policies he supported mostly worked, until Bush and the Republicans bankrupted the country. O'Reilly simply did a smear job on Frank, who was mostly a good Congressman.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to assess the imminent departure of Herman Cain from the GOP race. Crowley said this: "You're going to see a direct funneling of people who had supported Cain go to one of three people. His support will go to Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney or Michele Bachmann, who has been struggling over the past couple of months."

Colmes ridiculed the notion that Michele Bachmann is even a factor, saying this: "She hasn't shown any gravitas, she's made a lot of misstatements and she doesn't seem to know a lot. Maybe the people who were for Herman Cain will go to Bachmann because he doesn't know a lot either."

Colmes also leaped to the defense of Barney Frank, saying this: "Why do we beat up on this guy who has basically been good for America?" Crowley quickly answered Colmes' rhetorical question, saying, "Barney Frank was almost single-handedly responsible for the financial crisis."

Which is a total lie from Crowley, and I have another blog on that with proof she is lying.

Then for some crazy reason Glenn Beck was on with his analysis of the political landscape. Beck said this: "The problems in our country are not going to be fixed by politics, but politics are important. I agree that it looks like Herman Cain is through and we now seem to be having the battle of the 'big government Republicans' - Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are both big government Republicans.

I've talked with all of the candidates and there are really only two who fall into the Abraham Lincoln or George Washington 'character' category, and that would be Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann. The person I would vote for is Michele Bachmann and I can't tell you why she is not connecting with the American people."

What a joke, I'll tell you why Bachmann is not connecting with the American people. Because she is a far-right loon who is so far right most Republicans do not even support her.

So then Glenn Beck was was back to promote his stupid book, which I will not report on.

Then O'Reilly talked about an illegal immigrant from Mexico named Santana Gaona who is being held on a sexual assault charge in Texas, then was ordered released by an unknown federal agency, after which he proceeded to kill Jesse Benavides. The victim's brother Juan Benavedes was on. Benavides said this: "Gaona had a history of violence and a sexual assault charge. He was put into custody but quickly released, and after a few weeks he showed up uninvited at a party. My brother tried to escort him outside - there was an exchange of words and Gaona shot my brother twice."

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to discuss it. with Wiehl suggesting that Eric Holder's Justice Department is most likely the agency that ordered Gaona's release. "We are very close, to linking the lifting of the detainer to the Department of Justice. We can't say it 100% right now, but it's very close." O'Reilly said this: "The American people need to know what federal agency let the man out so he could murder an American."

Then they talked about Conrad Murray, the doctor who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in Michael Jackson's death. "This is in the county jail," Guilfoyle said, "which is much easier time to do. They say this wasn't a crime of violence or an intentional killing, but I would have charged him with second-degree murder for a reckless homicide."

Wiehl agreed that Murray will get off easy, saying this: "The sentence is automatically cut down to two years, and if there's overcrowding it could be less than that, and he could do some of that in home confinement."the Syracuse University assistant basketball coach Bernie Fine sex scandal, which I will not report on.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly put Charles Krauthammer on to slam Barney Frank even more. Krauthammer said this: "He had a long run, and it's good that it's over. He's the face of American liberalism and in many ways he's the face of the failure of American liberalism. He'll be remembered above all as the man who protected Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at a crucial time. In 2003, just when we might have been able to rein in the monster, he famously said that the two entities were not facing financial crisis."

O'Reilly reminded viewers that Frank came on the program and according to O'Reilly, flat-out lied, saying this: "He's delusional. If it doesn't fit into his worldview, he's going to say pretty much anything."

HAHA, talk about delusional, look in the mirror O'Reilly. You will say anything to slam liberals and praise conservatives, and you are a delusional joke. At least Barney Frank was a Congressman. You are just a hack of a biased and pretend journalist on a fake News Network.

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

Reality Check: Republicans Are Going To Raise Your Taxes
By: Steve - November 30, 2011 - 10:00am

And not only are they going to cause your taxes to go up, they have lied to you about a number of things, including how good of a job President Obama has done considering the situation he had to deal with when he took over as the President.

To begin with, all six of the Republican members of the super-committee wrote a joint op-ed for the Washington Post Saturday, trying to avoid blame for the panel's failure. There's a lot of nonsense in the piece, but the gist is about what you'd expect: Democrats wanted the GOP to accept some tax increases as part of a balanced compromise, and Republicans refused.

There was one thing in the op-ed that stood out for me:
The 2001 and 2003 changes to the tax code reduced marginal rates for all taxpayers as well as the rates for capital gains, dividends and the death tax. For technical reasons, all of these provisions expire at the end of next year - meaning that if Congress does not act, Americans will face the largest tax increase in our history.

This prospect has put a wet blanket over job creation and economic recovery. It would be the wrong medicine for our ailing economy. As President Obama has famously said, "You don't raise taxes in a recession."
But The six Republican co-authors of the piece are playing fast and loose with several key details, hoping the people won't know the difference. For example, the possibility of tax increases in 2013 is not holding back the economy in 2011. That's fricking ridiculous.

So let's look at the argument at face value: these six powerful and influential Republican lawmakers are saying they're against a tax increase in the short term, and believe such an increase would hurt the economy.

And that leads to a different question: doesn't this mean these same Republican lawmakers will have to agree with President Obama's call for an extension of the payroll tax cut, which is set to expire next month.

The White House is eager for the payroll break to go through 2012, with projections showing weaker economic growth next year without it. Republicans have balked and said they want taxes to go up on practically all American workers in January because, well, they haven't exactly explained why they want this.

And that leaves GOP lawmakers in an interesting position. On the one hand, they're killing a super-committee deal because they refuse to raise taxes on the wealthy in 2013.

On the other hand, at the exact same time, the identical Republicans have no problem supporting a tax increase on practically every American who earns a paycheck, which would kick in on January 1st, 2012.

You see the problem for me? Republicans are afraid a tax increase affecting a small section of the population over a year from now is awful for the economy, but they have no problem with a tax increase affecting practically everyone a month from now.

The GOP spin machine is an impressive operation, able to convince millions of people to not only believe nonsense, but oppose their own interests. And I can't wait for the GOP spin machine to explain the Republican support for a major tax increase on working families during a jobs crisis and a weak economy.

Doocy & Fox Again Blame Barney Frank For Housing Crisis
By: Steve - November 30, 2011 - 9:00am

Here we go again, more lies from Steve Doocy and pretty much everyone at Fox News. They are using Barney Frank's retirement announcement to rehash old theories of how he, through his support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, caused the subprime bubble and subsequent meltdown.

Even though it was Wall Street -- not affordable housing programs -- that was the primary cause of the housing crisis. On Tuesday morning Steve Doocy said this on Fox & Friends: "If You Had To Put One Face To The Catastrophe That Was 2008, It Would Probably Be Barney Frank"

O'Reilly even played a clip of him arguing with Frank from a couple years ago, where O'Reilly blamed Frank for the housing crisis. Which is ridiculous, and Frank even said O'Reilly was too stupid to listen to the facts so he is wrong.

Now here are those facts: Investors, Economists, And Government Agencies Agree: Fannie And Freddie Did Not Cause The Housing Crisis. Investor Barry Ritholz: Narrative That Fannie/Freddie Caused the Crisis is "The Big Lie." From The Washington Post:
Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.

The arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny. But that has not stopped people who should know better from repeating them.

The previous Big Lie -- the discredited belief that free markets require no adult supervision -- is the reason people have created a new false narrative. [The Washington Post, 11/5/11]
From the majority report by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission:
We conclude that these two entities contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary cause. Importantly, GSE [government-sponsored enterprises] mortgage securities essentially maintained their value throughout the crisis and did not contribute to the significant financial firm losses that were central to the financial crisis. [Conclusions Of The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, 11/28/11]
Not to mention, Bush and the Republicans had TOTAL control of Congress for 6 years and they did not change the lending rules for Fannie or Freddie, or try to stop them from making home loans. So they are more to blame than anyone, including Barney Frank or Wall Street.

The Monday 11-28-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 29, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: NBC's attack on Michele Bachmann. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Last week NBC's Jimmy Fallon program played a disrespectful song in introducing Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. That kind of thing is not unusual anymore, which is why I called out Headline News when Joy Behar and Ellen Barkin lied about this program on the air.

We asked HLN to apologize; it would not. NBC apologized to Mrs. Bachmann, but she said this: 'When something is done to a conservative, it's just passed off and forgotten.' When you have major media doing things that are dishonest and disrespectful without any sanctions, you have a major problem.

To be fair, since Comcast took over NBC things have been better over there. The far-left MSNBC network, which routinely slandered people in the past, has been toned down a bit. I believe Comcast does have standards, but the company has its hands full.

If the American people can not trust its press, the republic is in trouble. We all know that part of the Internet is a sewer and, sadly, it looks like the mainstream media is following that path.
To begin with Ellen Barkin did not lie, O'Reilly did. NBC did not attack Michelle Bachmann, Jimmy Fallon did, and it was not an attack, it was a song with a bad name. And finally O'Reilly said this: "If the American people can not trust its press, the republic is in trouble." HAHA, WOW! Look in the mirror pal, you and your entire News Network put out lies and biased news 24/7, so give me a break.

Then O'Reilly had Newt Gingrich on to let him spin for his own campaign. Billy said Newt is surging in the polls and he is fresh off an endorsement from the influential Manchester Union Leader. Billy asked the former Speaker about his appearance with Nancy Pelosi in a 2008 public service announcement about global warming.

Newt said this: "That was one of the dumbest things I've done, and making the commercial was just a mistake. I think the evidence about global warming is not complete and I'm certainly not prepared to spend trillions of dollars on the theory."

Turning to immigration, Gingrich endorsed the idea of a border fence, saying this: "I would use whatever resources we need. There are 23,000 Department of Homeland Security employees in the Washington, DC area - I'd move half of them to Texas, New Mexico and Arizona where we need the manpower. It's a national security imperative and I would take whatever resources are needed to get the job done."

Gingrich added that he would "support a universal registration of those who are here illegally and the immediate deportation of those who did not sign up within a certain time."

Which is a pipe dream that is impossible and will never ever happen. O'Reilly even knows that but he still let Newt spin that garbage out.

Then Leslie Marshall & Janine Turner were on to assess the Gingrich interview. Turner said this: "I think he's very refreshing. He speaks his mind, he's a thinker and he analyzes situations. When it comes to immigration we need to find common sense solutions and I agree with what he said."

Marshall said this: "I am not the only American who is going to remember that ad with Nancy Pelosi, and no matter what he says now, that puts confusion in a voter's mind. And on immigration, I don't necessarily agree with building the wall and placing all of the blame on the people who come here."

O'Reilly argued that "you have to have the wall and you have to have the National Guard, which will stop illegal immigration and drug trafficking."

Then Brit Hume was on to talk about the Pakistanis who are enraged over a NATO air attack killed 24 of their soldiers over the weekend. Hume said this: "This is a mess, because this is a relationship that has not gone well, but it's one we can not afford to give up on. We have trans-shipment lines and routes through Pakistan, we have need of intelligence that they provide, but they also give us trouble as well. It is a very difficult relationship and anti-Americanism there is rampant."

O'Reilly said that U.S. leaders seem befuddled by Pakistan, saying this: "Politicians in both parties don't know what to do. If you alienate Pakistan you have a rogue country hating you with a nuclear weapon. We have warned Pakistan but they will not clean up the Taliban sanctuaries in their own country."

Then O'Reilly Harvey Weinstein on, one of Barack Obama's most loyal supporters in Hollywood. Weinstein said this: "I don't think he'll have any problem winning reelection. He's a man of great intellect and great moral character, he did an amazing job with the car companies and he did the right things with the banks."

When Weinstein said he'd gladly pay higher taxes, O'Reilly challenged him to specify a percentage, so Weinstein said this: "I don't know any specifics. I honestly haven't thought about the percentage, but I think people like Warren Buffett and myself get tax breaks and we have to give back something to this country."

Then O'Reilly questioned the wisdom of socking it to the rich, saying this: "Higher taxes on the top 1% is the government saying we're going to take your success and give it to Solyndra, which goes bankrupt to the tune of a half-billion dollars. I don't trust the government to do the right thing with my money."

Which is a stupid argument, because I do not like a lot of what the Government uses our money on either, but that does not give me the right to avoid paying my taxes. Statements like that just show what an idiot O'Reilly is, not to mention, Solyndra was ONE example, what about all the money wasted on Republican programs, it's billions, but O'Reilly ignores that.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to weigh in on the Michele Bachmann - Jimmy Fallon controversy delineated in the Talking Points Memo. Goldberg said this: "They would have gotten away with it, except for one thing - Michele Bachmann demanded an apology from NBC. She got the apology, but if the band played that song when Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton came on, somebody would have been fired. If you do it against a conservative woman running for president, you just apologize and that's the end of it."

O'Reilly said that heads should have rolled at NBC, saying this: "I would have replaced the executive producer of the Fallon show. This was thought out, they selected the song to embarrass the woman."

But when someone at Fox News does something wrong O'Reilly never calls for heads to roll, in fact, he ignores it and never reports on it at all. And if we went by his rule, he would be fired, and everyone at Fox.

And finally in the last segment it was the Factor Reality Check. Which I do not report on because it's just O'Reilly by himself putting his right-wing spin on something someone else said.

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

O'Reilly Mostly Ignores Obama Terrorism Success
By: Steve - November 29, 2011 - 10:00am

Imagine if a Republican President had done as much as Obama in fighting terrorism and destroying Al Qaeda. O'Reilly would praise him every other night and twice on Friday, he would report it all the time and praise him for getting the bad guys and knocking out a terrorist group.

But when a Democratic President does it, O'Reilly is pretty much silent. Yes he reported a little of it, maybe about 1% of what he would have reported if a Republican President was doing it. And the best part is that Obama has kept us safe, even though O'Reilly and the right said he was weak on terrorism and if he did not support waterboarding we would not be safe.

None of that happened, and O'Reilly was wrong. Not to mention, O'Reilly defends what Bush did (as far as waterboarding) when the terrorist attacks happened under Bush. But when Obama bans waterboarding and still kept us safe, O'Reilly says nothing about it, while at the same time arguing that if Obama does not waterboard people we will not be safe, and that makes Obama weak on terrorism, according to O'Reilly and the right.

But almost 3 years later after Obama banned waterboarding we are still safe, proving O'Reilly was wrong, and that you can keep the people safe without using torture.

Here are some thing that have happened under Obama:
-- The leadership ranks of the main al-Qaeda terrorist network, once expansive enough to supervise the plot for Sept. 11, 2001, have been reduced to just two figures whose demise would mean the group's defeat.

-- Ayman al-Zawahiri and his second in command, Abu Yahya al-Libi, are the last remaining high-value targets of the CIA's drone campaign against al-Qaeda in Pakistan.

-- "We have rendered the organization that brought us 9/11 operationally ineffective," a senior U.S. counterterrorism official said.

-- Asked what exists of al-Qaeda's leadership group beyond the top two positions, the official said: "Not very much. Not any of the world-class terrorists they once had."
This would have been hard to predict as recently as five years ago. At that point, evidence suggested al Qaeda was growing in size and strength, with increased fundraising, and recruiting boosts resulting from the war in Iraq and the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Now, however, the network has been all but crushed. Remember a few years ago, before the 2008 elections, when Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) proclaimed on Fox News that al Qaeda members would be "dancing in the streets" if Barack Obama were elected president? Well, that turned out to be backwards.

Given all of this, can we pretty much wrap up the whole "war on terror" thing? Apparently not. The same piece that reported on al Qaeda’s dismantling also tells us that the terrorist network could regroup if we move on, and that its Yemen-based spin-off group - al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula - remains a key international threat.

But in the wake of Osama bin Laden's demise, the fact remains that al Qaeda, whatever its intentions for the future, has been reduced to a largely defeated force. And O'Reilly does not give Obama any credit for it.

Proof For Bill O'Reilly That The 99% Is Right
By: Steve - November 29, 2011 - 9:00am

When it comes to the reasons that drive the Occupy protests, Floyd Norris shines a light on a dynamic that speaks volumes. To put it simply, this just won't do:
In the eight decades before the recent recession, there was never a period when as much as 9 percent of American gross domestic product went to companies in the form of after-tax profits. Now the figure is over 10 percent.

During the same period, there was never a quarter when wage and salary income amounted to less than 45 percent of the economy. Now the figure is below 44 percent.

For companies, these are boom times. For workers, the opposite is true.
There's just no way to spin this. We're looking at an era in which, at least as a share of the larger economy, after-tax corporate profits have soared to levels unseen since we began keeping track, while after-tax working men and women's incomes have fallen to levels unseen in generations.

The previous record for corporate profits as a share of GDP was 8.98% -- set in 1929. Last year, it was over 9.5%. This year, it's over 10%.

It's a Gilded Age that we're apparently not supposed to talk about.

There is, of course, a political angle to all of this. It's elected policymakers who help set tax rates, for example, and choose not to ask corporations to contribute a little more, despite record profits, despite extremely low corporate tax burdens, despite enormous public needs, and despite an enormous debt.

O'Reilly and the Republicans look at these conditions and, with a straight face, insist that more must be done to intensify these circumstances, and blame President Obama for creating an uncooperative climate for corporations. Andrew Sullivan's reaction:
Does this seem to you to be an era in which the president knows nothing about business and needs to get out of the way of the great American job-making machine by, er, cutting taxes even further?

Or does it seem an era in which global corporations can make serious global money even when domestic workers are suffering, and where the obvious primary worry for any government would be the collapse of demand and risk of deflation at home?

That reality suggests a country veering fast into two countries, and one party, the GOP, proposing to accelerate the shift. I'd lean on the rudder right now somewhat toward getting revenues from those currently enjoying a boom, while the rest try slowly to recover from excessive debt.

Not because I hate the successful, or despise the wealthy. But because that's the obvious way to stabilize the polity and economy.
What's obvious has no meaning to those who choose to be oblivious. O'Reilly and the Republicans not only fail to see this as a problem in need of attention, but condemn those who even mention out loud as radical class warriors, hell bent on tearing the country apart.

If the people in the mainstream of America disagree with O'Reilly and the right, you are going to have a chance to say so in about a year. That means you all need to vote for Obama and the Democratic candidates in the 2012 election. No they are not perfect, but they sure are a hell of a lot better than any Republicans.

Jack Abramoff Exposes Newt Gingrich As Corrupt
By: Steve - November 28, 2011 - 9:00am

And of course you never heard a word about any of this from O'Reilly, because Gingrich is a Republican and a friend of O'Reilly, so he helps Newt to cover this up by ignoring the story.

You should think twice when even Jack Abramoff thinks you're corrupt. Not that Newt Gingrich cares.

Abramoff, the convicted influence peddler lobbyist, told David Gregory that presidential candidate and former Speaker of the House Gingrich is one of those "people who came to Washington, who had public service, and they cash in on it. They use their public service and access to make money."

Newt, he said, is "engaged in the exact kind of corruption that America disdains. The very things that anger the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement and everybody who is not in a movement and watches Washington and says why are these guys getting all this money, why do they go become so rich, why do they have these advantages?"

Abramoff's in the middle of his promotion tour of confession and attempted redemption, a pot obscenely eager to call his kettle and former mentor black -- especially if it sells books. But Abramoff does have a point.

Gingrich is a perfect example of everything rotten about the ATM machine we call Washington: the merchandising of favors and votes; the conversion of past incumbency into insider information, making your contacts and the ability to play the system available to the highest bidder; the revolving door between government service and shilling for corporate America and the wealthy.

And there he is, suddenly riding to the top of the polls, his debate skills praised, his ridiculous dismissal of the so-called liberal media promoted by Fox and the right-wing media. It's like Kim Kardashian calling herself Housewife of the Year.

Gingrich is now trying to play the inside-outside game both ways, saying this last week: "We just tried four years of amateur ignorance and it didn't work very well. So having someone who actually knows Washington might be a really good thing."

In fact, a quick look at just a few of Newt's activities since his GOP colleagues tossed him out of the speakership in 1998 is sufficient to expose him as the ultimate poster boy for inside-the-Beltway game playing -- adherence to ideology often shoved aside in favor of expedience and the chance to make a buck.

Remember hearing just this past spring about the Gingrich revolving, no-interest credit line at Tiffany's, a luxury store they treated like a diamond encrusted version of the Home Shopping Network, and Tim Carney's report in The Washington Examiner that, "Christy Evans, formerly a top staffer to Gingrich, is a registered lobbyist for Tiffany's."

Carney also wrote this: "We know that Gingrich has been paid by drug companies and by the drug lobby, notably during the Medicare drug debate. A former employee of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (the main industry lobby), told me Gingrich was being paid by someone in the industry at the time. A spokeswoman for Gingrich's health care consulting firm, Center for Health Transformation, told me that drug companies have been CHT clients. PhRMA confirmed in a statement that they had paid Gingrich. Bloomberg News cited sources from leading drug companies AstraZeneca and Pfizer saying that those companies had also hired Gingrich."

"Three former Republican congressional staffers told me that Gingrich was calling around Capitol Hill and visiting Republican congressmen in 2003 in an effort to convince conservatives to support a bill expanding Medicare to include prescription-drug subsidies. Conservatives were understandably wary about expanding a Lyndon Johnson-created entitlement that had historically blown way past official budget estimates. Drug makers, on the other hand, were positively giddy about securing a new pipeline of government cash to pad their already breathtaking profit margins."

Last week, the chair of Gingrich's Center for Health Transformation estimated its revenues over the past decade at $55 million. Fees are flexible, she said, with "charter memberships" going for an annual fee of $200,000. According to the November 21 Wall Street Journal, "The health think tank also charges for consulting sessions with the former speaker and Mr. Gingrich's speeches, according to two health care trade groups."

And the center's PR materials promised "direct Newt interaction" as The Washington Post wrote: "The biggest funders, including such firms as AstraZeneca, Blue Cross Blue Shield and Novo Nordisk, were also eligible to receive discounts on 'products and workshops' from other Gingrich groups." Which sounds like the Gingrich edition of "The Price Is Right."

Another Center for Health Transformation charter member was Gundersen Lutheran Health System of La Crosse, Wisconsin. The New York Times reported that in July 2009, without reporting his connection, Gingrich praised the company in The Washington Post "for its successful efforts to persuade most patients to have 'advance directives,' saying that if Medicare had followed Gundersen's lead on end-of-life care and other practices, it would 'save more than $33 billion a year.'"

Advance directives means helping families determine future care for the terminally ill, but when Tea Partiers and others started yelling about "death panels" during the healthcare reform fight, Gingrich made a quick flip-flop to the right and changed sides.

Listening to Newt attack child labor laws last week, I thought one of his clients might be Miss Hannigan's Orphanage. In reality, others who have anted up for his advice include GE, IBM, Microsoft, Growth Energy (a pro-ethanol lobby group that between 2009 and 2011 paid him $575,000) and the US Chamber of Commerce.

The Wall Street Journal notes that, "The Chamber, the largest lobbying organization in Washington, paid Mr. Gingrich about $840,000, or about $120,000 a year for seven years, beginning in 2001, to serve on an informal board of advisers to its president and senior staff."

And then, of course, there's Freddie Mac, which triggered this recent tsunami of scrutiny when Gingrich claimed at the November candidates debate that it was for his expertise as an historian that the home mortgage giant had paid him $300,000.

Bloomberg News then reported that the number was actually as much as $1.8 million, paid as consulting fees right up until 2008, when the failing agency was taken over by the government and such outside contracts were suspended.

Gingrich claims he warned Freddie about "insane" loans and then told USA Today, "I was advising them over a period when they weren't in crisis. I'm pretty happy to say, I gave these guys advice on how you build opportunity for the poor to learn to be non-poor?"

Until caught, he had not bothered to mention his own involvement, even as he attacked Barney Frank and others for taking Freddie Mac's campaign contributions.

Through it all, Gingrich has denied being a lobbyist, apparently adhering to a very narrow definition – he's not officially registered with Congress under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.

But you do the math: according to Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Kristin Jensen at Bloomberg News, "The former Georgia congressman reported assets in 1997 of between $197,000 and $606,000, according to his last House personal financial disclosure report, which permits lawmakers to record their wealth in broad ranges.

But according to his 2011 presidential disclosure report, the Republican primary candidate today is worth between $7.3 million and $31 million." Not bad for government work.

Average Bush Tax Cut More Than Average Yearly Wages
By: Steve - November 27, 2011 - 10:00am

Here is another story you will never hear O'Reilly report. The average Bush tax cut for the top 1% will be more than the average wage the other 99% make a year.

As Occupy Wall Street protestors continue to demonstrate across the country, the super committee failed to craft a deficit reduction package due to Republican refusal to consider tax increases on the super wealthy. In fact, the only package that the GOP officially submitted to the committee included lowering the top tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent, even as new research shows that the optimal top tax rate is closer to 70 percent.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), who co-chaired the super committee, explained that the major sticking point during negotiations with the GOP was what to do with the Bush tax cuts. With that in mind, the National Priorities Project points out that those tax cuts this year will give the richest 1 percent of Americans a bigger tax cut than the other 99 percent will receive in average income:
The average Bush tax cut in 2011 for a taxpayer in the richest one percent is greater than the average income of the other 99 percent ($66,384 compared to $58,506).
Not to mention, 30% of the debt each year is from the Bush tax cuts, and yet O'Reilly blames all the debt on Obama, his policies, and Democratic supported social programs. On top of that most of the other debt is from the job losses under Bush, the recession, and what Bush did while he was President.

The super committee failed to grapple with the extraordinarily costly Bush tax cuts for the richest—tax policies that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, cost more in added federal debt than they add in additional economic activity, said Jo Comerford, NPP's Executive Director.

Frank Knapp, vice chairman of the American Sustainable Business Council, added in a statement yesterday, "the high-end Bush tax cuts are a big part of the problem – not the solution. It's obscene to keep slashing infrastructure and services for everybody on Main Street to keep up tax giveaways for millionaires and multinational corporations."

The Bush tax cuts have done nothing but blow up the federal debt and hand billions in tax breaks to the Americans who needed them the least. As a reminder, past deals when it came to the budget included substantial new revenues, to balance the pain of getting the country's budget in order. Instead of adopting that approach, the GOP wants to continue lavishing tax breaks onto the 1 percent, while asking everyone else to sacrifice.

In other words, the Republicans do not give a damn about fair tax rates or improving the economy, all they want to do is protest those Bush tax cuts for the top 1 percent. And that is all they care about, they are even hoping the economy stays bad for political reasons so Obama loses his re-election in 2012.

To me that is borderline treason, it's un-American for sure, and every Republican in Congress should be voted out of office for it. They are putting tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires ahead of the people, ahead of lowering the debt, and ahead of fixing the economy. And if Democrats were doing this with a Republican President, O'Reilly would call them traitors, but when Republicans do it he is as silent as a mouse.

Republicans Slam Obama For Using Their Own Idea
By: Steve - November 27, 2011 - 9:00am

Thisshows just how dishonest the Republicans are. As part of the debt-reduction agreement initiated by congressional Republicans over the summer, the Pentagon was already preparing to cut $450 billion over the next decade. In addition, Republicans offered over $500 billion in automatic Pentagon cuts as part of the super-committee process.

The result is one of this year's most insane Republican attacks on Obama:
Republicans see an opening with the $500 billion in automatic cuts that would hit the defense budget beginning in January 2013, and several candidates seized on the issue in the last GOP debate.

But since the cuts don't take effect until January 2013, Congress will have plenty of time to change them, and the GOP will have plenty of opportunities to beat up Obama over the issue.
The question that matters is why Republicans would beat up President Obama over their own idea.

I'll trll you why. Congressional Republicans, in a move without precedent in American history, were holding the economy and the full faith and credit of the United States hostage. Democrats, fearful that the GOP wasn't bluffing and that the nation would pay a severe price, was willing to cut a bad deal: $900 billion in debt reduction, on top of another $1.2 trillion agreement to be worked out by the super-committee.

But the Democrats were not completely willing to roll over - they wanted to create an incentive for Republicans to work in good faith on the $1.2 trillion in savings. So the Democrats proposed the threat of automatic tax increases to push GOP officials to be responsible, but Republicans refused and offered an alternative: if the committee failed, the GOP would accept $600 billion in defense cuts and the Democrats would accept $600 billion in non-defense domestic cuts.

Remember, the point was to create an incentive that the parties would be desperate to avoid. The Pentagon cuts were Republicans contribution to the process. These cuts were their idea. They struck a deal and agreed to accept these consequences.

But now the dishonest partisan fools have decided they don't like their own idea anymore, they no longer want to hold up their end of the bargain, they want to increase government spending, no matter what it does to the debt, and they will claim President Obama is to blame for their own proposal.

And yet, what you are likely to hear, over and over again in the coming months, is that Republicans are fighting to prevent dangerous defense cuts, and are meeting resistance from Democrats.

Here are the facts: Republicans started this fight demanding debt reduction, then offered massive spending cuts to a part of the government they care about. They're now demanding less debt reduction and more government spending - and if Democrats blink, these same Republicans will spend an election year accusing them of being anti-military.

Every GOP official and or candidate whining about this should be asked two simple questions: Why are you blaming Democrats for a Republican proposal, and if you're against this idea now, why didn't you say anything in August.

The Friday 11-25-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 26, 2011 - 10:00am

There was no review because O'Reilly was still off for Thanksgiving. And as usual he ran a re-run of the Factor that had 99% Republican guests who were on to spin for the right.

This is what O'Reilly does when he is off for a holiday, pick a past show that had almost all right-wing guests so he can spin for the Republican party even when he is not there.

And btw, I want to say I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving, and I want to especially thank everyone who donated to my website this year, and the people who donated to help me and my Father pay our car repair bills.

It's been a rough year for me because my Fathers Alzheimers is getting worse, but I am still thankful he is alive. And I am thankful for my health so I can continue to take care of him.

Thank you,


News Corp. Under Investigation For Bribing Senator
By: Steve - November 26, 2011 - 9:00am

And this is another story O'Reilly will never report, but if the parent company of CNN or MSNBC did it he would be all over it like stink on you know what.

For months, News Corp. has been embroiled in controversy after it was revealed that the worldwide media conglomerate hacked the phones of more than 5,800 people. The scandal widened earlier this month when a reporter for the Sun newspaper, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., was arrested on charges of bribing a police officer.

Murdoch's company sustained another major blow today as police revealed they are investigating News Corp. for attempting to bribe a former Australian senator into voting for favorable legislation. The charge stems back to 1998, when Senator Bill O'Chee was approached by an "unnamed executive of News Ltd" and promised favorable treatment by the media conglomerate's numerous outlets if the conservative lawmaker voted against proposed digital TV legislation. The AP has more:
The newspapers reported that an unnamed executive of News Ltd asked O'Chee during a lunch on 13 June 1998 to vote against his conservative government's legislation on the creation of digital TV in Australia. The news group stood to profit from the legislation failing.

O'Chee, a former senator for the state of Queensland with a track record of voting against his National party's wishes, alleged the executive told him that while voting against the digital TV legislation would be criticised, "we will take care of you."

The executive "also told me we would have a 'special relationship', where I would have editorial support from News Corp's newspapers, not only with respect to the legislation but for 'any other issues' too," O'Chee reportedly told police in his statement.
Murdoch, who was born in Australia, "has a near monopolistic control of the media in many major cities," notes Joe Romm. His media empire includes the largest Australian newspaper – The Australian – as well as "the sole dailies in Brisbane, Adelaide, Hobart and Darwin and the most popular metropolitan dailies in Sydney and Melbourne."

The bribery charges, which are punishable by up to six months in prison, underscore how pervasive the culture of corruption has been at News Corp. for years. From Australia to the United Kingdom to the United States, major ethical breaches appear to have been the norm, rather than the exception, at Murdoch's media conglomerate.

And despite the endless parade of scandals, Murdoch and his sons were re-elected to News Corp.'s board last month.

Fox Still Lying That Lower Taxes Generate More Revenue
By: Steve - November 25, 2011 - 10:00am

Fox host Stuart Varney and The Wall Street Journal claimed that lowering tax rates increases tax revenue. In fact, many economists -- including former Bush advisers -- have rejected this claim.

During the November 22nd Fox & Friends, Fox host Stuart Varney claimed lower tax rates lead to more revenue:
KILMEADE: So, let's talk about the downgrade. How about this: The New York Times postulates that maybe this is going to work out good because in 2013, the Bush tax cuts go away, and the 1.2 trillion in cuts, it'll get us on the negative term when it comes to the deficit, and a lot of people don't really care that much about defense, and they're willing to take these cuts and this increase in taxes.

VARNEY: If you think that the way to tackle our debt problem is to raise taxes and cut the military, OK, I suppose this is a good thing. If you think that that will have a good outcome for our debt and our economy, yeah, OK, The Times has a point. I think the exact opposite.

The way to fix the debt problem is not with higher taxes and cutting the military, it's to grow the economy. How do you grow the economy? In my opinion, tax reform. Lower rates, fewer deductions, more revenue to the Treasury. Better economy.
In a November 22nd editorial titled, "Thank You, Grover Norquist: The super committee's failure is rooted in a clash of visions," The Wall Street Journal claimed that "nearly all economists agree that lower rates and a more efficient tax code would increase economic growth and lead to more revenues over time." [The Wall Street Journal, 11/22/11]

In Fact, most Economists -- Including Bush Advisers -- Reject The Claim That Tax Cuts In The Past Have Increased Revenue. In a July 26 New York Times blog post, Bruce Bartlett, former policy adviser to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, wrote this:
In a previous post, I noted that federal taxes as a share of gross domestic product were at their lowest level in generations. The Congressional Budget Office expects revenue to be just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year; the last year it was lower was 1950, when revenue amounted to 14.4 percent of G.D.P.

But revenue has been below 15 percent of G.D.P. since 2009, and the last time we had three years in a row when revenue as a share of G.D.P. was that low was 1941 to 1943.

Revenue has averaged 18 percent of G.D.P. since 1970 and a little more than that in the postwar era. At a similar stage in previous business cycles, two years past the trough, revenue was considerably higher: 18 percent of G.D.P. in 1977 after the 1973-75 recession; 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984 after the 1981-82 recession, and 17.5 percent of G.D.P. in 1993 after the 1990-91 recession.

Revenue was markedly lower, however, at this point after the 2001 recession and was just 16.2 percent of G.D.P. in 2003. The reason, of course, is that taxes were cut in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006.

According to a recent C.B.O. report, they reduced revenue by at least $2.9 trillion below what it otherwise would have been between 2001 and 2011. Slower-than-expected growth reduced revenue by another $3.5 trillion.
In a July 2010 post on his New York Times blog, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote this:
KRUGMAN: "The revenue track under Reagan looks a lot like the track under Bush: a drop in revenues, then a resumption of growth, but no return to the previous trend."

"This is exactly what you would expect to see if supply-side economics were just plain wrong: revenues are permanently reduced relative to what they would otherwise have been." concluded on June 11, 2007, that "it is clear" the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 "did not 'increase revenues'" as Sen. John McCain and other Republicans have claimed.

Fox News Idiot Calls Occupy Protesters Domestic Terrorists
By: Steve - November 25, 2011 - 9:00am

In a November 22 tweet, Fox's Todd Starnes (@toddstarnes) suggested that the Occupy Wall Street protesters are domestic terrorists:
Todd's @cnndebate question "What should be done with the domestic terrorists who are occupying our cities and college campuses?" #ows
What should be done with them Todd. How about respecting their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly.

And btw, I have not seen any domestic terrorists at the protests, I have only seen great Americans exercising their rights given to them by the Founding Fathers. Only Fox News idiots see terrorists.

The Wednesday 11-23-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 24, 2011 - 11:00am

There was no review because O'Reilly was gone for the Thanksgiving Holiday. But he did have a show, it was called the best of Dennis Miller.

Yes O'Reilly had re-run clips of Dennis Miller for an entire hour, how you call that the best of anything is beyond me, but that is what O'Reilly did on the night before Thanksgiving.

And in case you are not as well informed about O'Reilly as I am, think about this. Not one time in the 13 year history of the Factor has O'Reilly ever had an hour long best of re-run clip show with any of his liberal regulars, like Alan Colmes, Ellis Henican, Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, etc.

Every single one of these so-called best of re-run clip shows are don with conservative regulars. And think about this too, O'Reilly claims to not be a partisan.

O'Reilly & Kristol Lie That Obama Has No Deficit Plan
By: Steve - November 24, 2011 - 10:00am

Fox News Bill Kristol and Bill O'Reilly both suggested that President Obama has not laid out a plan for reducing the nation's deficit. But in fact, Obama put forward a plan in September that would reduce the deficit by approximately $3 trillion over the next decade.

From the November 21st Fox News Special Report:
BAIER: Do you buy that the Democrats were that united in their own proposal, going forward in the supercommittee, that it was actually a real deal?

KRISTOL: Well, where was the Democratic proposal? The House Republicans passed a budget, the Paul Ryan budget, which would cut much more than 1.2 trillion. Senator Toomey put out a proposal, which we've seen a fair number about of the details of, which would have gotten to 1.2 trillion.

Maybe I'm unaware of it, but is there a Democratic proposal that we've seen? Where is President Obama? He's up there, "Oh, this is a disgrace. It's terrible, It's irresponsible." Where's his proposal? Where's his proposal?

I didn't notice him coming back from Asia, or not even -- or even before he went to Asia and saying, "OK, here's how to do 1.2 trillion." It's a total abdication of leadership on his part. [Fox News, Special Report, 11/21/11]
From the November 21 edition of Fox News The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: We, the people, well understand the chaos in Washington. The Democrats, generally speaking, want to spend. They often get elected by promising entitlement to minorities, to unions, to special interest groups.

The Republicans want a much smaller government. They want to strangle what's in place now by denying it revenue. The GOP also wants President Obama out of there, so they are not likely to compromise much.

In the meantime, little gets done. The debt grows larger, the economy weaker. And where is President Obama on leadership? He should have laid out his vision for spending cuts, but he didn't.

In fact, he's MIA. Running around with the Indonesians, having fun in Bali. Meantime, Washington is collapsing. Mr. Obama should be showing leadership, demanding trillions in spending cuts. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 11/21/11]
Now the facts: In September, President Obama Released a Plan "For Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction." Obama's plan assumes $1.2 trillion in savings from the Budget Control Act passed in August, and reduces the deficit by more than $3 trillion over the next decade:
OBAMA: The Budget Control Act that I signed into law last month will cut annual Government spending by about $1 trillion over the next 10 years. It also charges the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction with finding an additional $1.5 trillion in savings.

As part of this jobs bill, I am asking the Congress to increase that amount so that it covers the full cost of the American Jobs Act. In addition, I believe that the Congress should seize the opportunity that this new Committee presents and do much more so that we can put the country on a sustainable fiscal path, which is critical for our long-term economic growth and competitiveness.

I am sending to the Congress this detailed plan to pay for this jobs bill and realize more than $3 trillion in net deficit reduction over the next 10 years. Combined with the approximately $1 trillion in savings from the first part of the Budget Control Act, this would generate more than $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade.

This would bring the Nation to the point where current spending is no longer adding to our debt and where our debt is no longer increasing as a share of our economy - an important milestone on the way to restoring fiscal discipline and moving us toward balance. [The President's Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction,, September 2011]
And btw folks, O'Reilly has said over and over that he NEVER uses any Republican talking points. And yet, here he is using Republican talking points from one of the leaders of the Republican party, Bill Kristol. O'Reilly even used them on the very same day as Kristol.

Not only do Kristol and O'Reilly ignore the fact that Obama does have a deficit reduction plan, they ignored the fact that the Republicans in the Senate voted it down.

Not to mention, O'Reilly is lying when he says the Republicans will spend less. Because in the 8 years under Bush the Republicans spent more than the Democrats did under Clinton, And they bankrupted the country, especially the Bush tax cuts that are 30% of our debt every year. And O'Reilly never says a word about any of that, ever.

People Who Watch No News Know More Than Fox Viewers
By: Steve - November 24, 2011 - 9:00am

When pollsters and academics single out Fox News viewers and try to determine what they know, or don't know, as compared to other media consumers, the results tend to be embarrassing.

Then again, that's what happens when a national cable news channel with vast resources devotes itself to misinformation, it misinforms people.

A new report from Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind Poll continues the awkward Fox News trend, and adds a new twist -- Fox News viewers are less informed than people who don't watch any television news.

From PublicMind Poll, which surveyed adults in New Jersey:
Sunday morning news shows do the most to help people learn about current events, while some outlets, especially Fox News, lead people to be even less informed than those who they don't watch any news at all.
Here's an example of how consumers who don't turn to TV news at all are more informed than consumers who regularly tune into Fox:
But the real finding is that the results depend on what media sources people turn to for their news.

For example, people who watch Fox News, are 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government than those who watch no news at all.
Fairleigh Dickinson political science professor Dan Cassino stresses that because of the survey controls that were implemented, it's not true that Republicans in general were uninformed about current events.

But rather it was specifically Fox viewers who scored poorly. "The results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don't watch any news at all," he said.

The good news for Fox, misinformation is definitely working. The bad news. With survey results like this, Fox will be the butt of more jokes at them.

The Tuesday 11-22-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 23, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Obama's 2012 strategy: Blame the rich. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It's now quite clear that President Obama and his advisors believe the only chance they have to win reelection, outside of the Republican candidate blowing up, is to convince Americans that rich guys have caused the bad economy.

The President and the Democrats will put forth that rich Americans and corporate greedheads are responsible for the economic mess, including the massive debt. Millions of Americans will buy that, failing to understand that another four years of wild spending will pretty much doom the country.

Talking Points is not partisan - I realize the Republican Party is in disarray, divided between the moderates who will compromise and the zealots who will not.

But the Republicans do have an advantage: Every poll shows Americans have lost confidence in Mr. Obama's economic leadership, and if the Republican candidate can show a plan of fiscal responsibility he'll win. But it will be nasty getting to next November.
Now that is funny, O'Reilly said this: "Talking Points is not partisan." Yeah right, and pigs can fly too. What a joke, because O'Reilly is as partisan as it gets, he is a right-wing spin doctor and as partisan as Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, or any of them. To deny that is to deny reality. And making that ridiculous statement destroys any credibility O'Reilly might have, meaning he has zero credibility as a journalist.

Then O'Reilly had his right-wing friend Karl Rove on to assess the wisdom of President Obama's escalating attacks on the wealthy. With no Democratic guest on for balance, which a non-partisan would not do.

Rove said this: "President Obama is counting on the latest poll, which shows that more people blame Republicans than Democrats for the failure of the 'Super Committee.' The President hopes people blame the Republicans more and more, but I think this is a mistake because 58% of Americans now disapprove of President Obama's ability to deal with Congress. He's diminishing people's confidence in him as a leader, and the most powerful asset a president has is the vision of him as a strong leader."

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle & Lis Wiehl were on to talk more about the Penn State scandal, which do not report on because it is not political news. But of course no Democratic guests were on to discuss it. Which is not what a non-partisan would do.

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about the dishonest Romney attack ad on Obama, and of course no Democratic guest was on, which is not what a non-partisan would do.

Krauthammer said this about the Romney ad: "Mitt Romney is not doing an ad against anyone in the Republican field running against him. He's saying, 'I'm presidential and I deal only with President Obama toe-to-toe.' This shows disdain for the others who have been nipping at his leg one at a time, and this is about competence and running the economy, which is his strong suit."

Krauthammer also said that Herman Cain's candidacy is toast: "I think it is, and it has nothing to do with allegations from women. It has everything to do with competence. When he's asked about China, he replies '9-9-9', when he's asked about Medicare he replies '9-9-9.' Here's a guy who proudly said last week the 'we need a leader, not a reader.' That's expressing a pride in lack of knowledge."

And of course neither O'Reilly or Krauthammer pointed out that the Romney ad is misleading and dishonest. Because Romney claims a quote about the economy was made by Obama, when it was actually made by John McCain. The ad also attacks the number of foreclosures under Obama, but Romney has said he would let the banks foreclose on as many homes as they want to.

Then Monica Crowley & Alan Colmes were on to discuss green jobs. Colmes pointed to the Tesla automaker as an example of wise government investment in "green" technology. The feds gave Tesla nearly $500 million in guaranteed loans to help the company build an electric car: "They're actually investing the $500 million in a factory, that will be used to build future cars. They're building these to promote the idea of getting off oil and getting on renewable energy."

Crowley said that Tesla should be luring private investment: "That's what they would be doing if they had a product that could compete in the marketplace without a government subsidy. We already have an electric car called the Chevy Volt, but nobody wants to drive a toaster oven. Massive government intervention in the private sector is what socialist nations do!"

To see what a right-wing idiot Monica Crowley is just look at what she said about the Chevy Volt: "nobody wants to drive a toaster oven." Proving she is a right-wing loon, because a lot of people want it, I would love to have one because of the money it would save my Father in gas.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to spin and lie about the O'Reilly/Barkin story. Goldberg said this: "Here's my rule of thumb. If Ellen Barkin or anyone went on a cable program and said that Bill O'Reilly called President Obama a communist spy, then everybody involved would have to apologize because that kind of accusation is important. But when a celebrity makes a dopey comment on a silly little cable TV show, that's not important."

O'Reilly said that Headline News executives should put forth a retraction: "They know this is flat-out false and they're basically saying we don't care what she said. That means there are no rules over there. There should be rules of behavior."

Which is just laughable, because O'Reilly did attack her in his daily newsletter on November 8th, and he never does any retractions, even though he is wrong 3 or 4 times a show. The hypocrisy from O'Dummy and Goldberg is just laughable.

And finally in the last segment Dick Morris was on talk about the latest national poll of Republican voters that says Newt Gingrich has a slim lead over Mitt Romney, while Herman Cain and Rick Perry have fallen back.

Morris said this: "This is still an unstable situation, because both frontrunners - Romney and Gingrich - have difficulty getting the votes of Tea Party people and evangelicals. Romney because of his religion and his position on health care, Gingrich because of some of the stuff he's done on global warming and the personal stuff. So the Tea Party evangelicals, who are a large portion of the vote, don't really have a candidate yet. I believe that the final race will feature Romney, most likely Gingrich, and one of the other candidates."

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

The First Romney TV Ad Is Totally Dishonest
By: Steve - November 23, 2011 - 10:00am

The Romney campaign's very first television ad, released Monday, dishonestly presents a 2008 McCain campaign quote as the words of President Obama.

The ad features a voice-over of Obama saying "if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose."

Then-candidate Obama did say those words, maybe dozens of times during the closing month of the 2008 campaign.

The only problem? Obama was actually quoting the words of a strategist from Sen. John McCain's campaign. Romney claims Obama said it, when it was the McCain campaign that was saying it, and Obama was simply quoting them.

Another dishonest point of the ad comes when it attacks "record foreclosures," despite the fact that Romney's stated housing policy is this: "Don't try and stop the foreclosure process."

And btw folks, O'Reilly did a segment on this ad on the Tuesday Factor with Karl Rove. Neither one of them mentioned any of this, and this was after O'Reilly aid earlier in the show that he was not partisan. Except a non-partisan would have reported it, and a non-partisan would have had a Democratic guest on to discuss it, not just Karl Rove.

Insane Megyn Kelly Says Pepper Spray Is A Food Product
By: Steve - November 23, 2011 - 9:00am

She was on The O'Reilly Factor Monday night to defend the use of pepper spray at UC Davis on PEACEFUL protesters, even though the police who used it were put on leave and are under investigation.

Basically Kelly said the pepper spray is a simple food product so it's not that bad to have it used on you.

Really now, ok, so then let's have someone shoot some pepper spray in her eyes live on the air and see what she thinks about it then. Now don't you just love how people who have never been pepper sprayed say how it's not so bad, what a fricking joke.

The 11-21-11 Monday O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 22, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Congressional supercommittee goes down in flames. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It's really embarrassing: The federal government is so inept that it cannot represent the good people of the United States. Last August Congressional leaders, deadlocked over the budget, agreed to name a 'Super Committee' to cut spending and possibly raise taxes because the nation is bankrupt.

From the beginning, few pundits believed these people would agree on anything and we were right. Generally speaking, the Democrats want to spend and often get elected by promising entitlements to minorities, unions and special interest groups. The Republicans want much smaller government and they want to strangle what's in place by denying it revenue.

The GOP also wants President Obama out of there, so they are not likely to compromise much. In the meantime, little gets done, the debt grows larger and the economy grows weaker. And where is President Obama? He should have laid out his vision for spending cuts, but he didn't.

We can revise the tax code so more money flows to Washington, but this 'tax the rich' ruse is a disgrace. Raising taxes on businesses and the affluent won't solve anything and could well make the economy even worse. You guys better get on it in DC, or the voters will throw all of you out.
On the subject of "throwing them out," Billy had CBS correspondent Steve Kroft and author Peter Schweizer, whose book "Throw Them All Out" is a searing indictment of Congress.

Schweizer said this: "The headline of the book, is that we have in Washington a permanent political class that enriches itself with insider information and access to taxpayer dollars. Part of the reason we are not getting much movement in Washington is because they are doing very well and they like the status quo."

Kroft, who has investigated questionable stock trades by powerful members of Congress, singled out former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, saying this: "A lot of people were upset over the fact that Nancy Pelosi took a very lucrative initial public offering from Visa when there was a major piece of legislation moving through the Congress that would have affected the credit card companies. You can't do this stuff if you are a federal judge or if you're in the executive branch, but somehow the laws don't apply to Congress."

Juan Williams & Janine Turner were on. They talked about Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich, who offered "Occupy" protesters some advice: "Go get a job right after you take a bath."

Williams said this: "He was playing to the base, and you could hear from the applause that it was a hit with the far right Republican audience. But once you get into deriding and mocking people who are homeless and who may be emotionally troubled, it looks like you're a heartless lion. Newt has a roar, but he doesn't seem to have a heart."

Turner endorsed Newt Gingrich's premise, saying this: "You can't get a job sitting in a tent and Newt was correct. The majority of the people are not with the 'Occupy Wall Streeters,' who have ironically become the 1%. Most Americans still believe in true grit and independence. The 'Occupy' people are a disgrace with their behavior."

O'Reilly advised the protesters to show some ambition and drive a cab until a decent job comes around.

Then Brit Hume was on. He talked about libertarian Ron Paul who has the most devoted followers. Hume said this: "There's a certain category of conservatives who are libertarians, and Ron Paul is about as pure a libertarian as you'll find in American politics today. He is heir to a certain core of loyal supporters who have stuck with him over the years. Libertarians are deeply distrustful of governmental action on many levels, not least of them foreign military undertakings."

O'Reilly criticized Paul for claiming that Iran poses little danger to the United States, saying this: "Based upon Iran's actions in the past and their fostering of terrorism all over the world, to make a statement like that seems so incongruous that it just snaps my head back that anyone would buy it."

Jon Huntsman the former Utah Governor was on, who has been unable to gain traction in the GOP race, nevertheless exuded confidence. Huntsman explained his new ads that criticize Mitt Romney for avoiding interviews, saying this: "Getting elected president means you get out and talk to the American people, and it means you don't shy away from interviews. You should get out there at a time when there is limited trust on the part of the American people for politicians."

Huntsman also insisted that he will eventually win over hard-core conservatives, saying this: "People are beginning to look at my record - the largest tax cut in the history of Utah, number one in job creation, pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, health care reform without a mandate. It's a conservative record that people are beginning to lock onto. I like our chances."

Then Megyn Kelly (the idiot) was on to talk about the actions of UC Davis cops, who used pepper spray on protesters who refused to disband. Kelly said this: "The chancellor ordered the police to go in and force these students to disperse, and ten of the students were charged with unlawful assembly and failure to disperse. The tape looks bad, but from a legal standpoint I don't know that the cops did anything wrong. They're allowed to use reasonable force to effect compliance with an arrest."

She also said being pepper sprayed was no big deal because it's a simple food based product. Which is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. It's made from pepper and they spray it in your eyes, it hurts big time and burns like the devil. And I suggest Kelly be pepper sprayed in the eyes then report how it feels.

And finally the ridiculous Factor Reality Check. It's just O'Reilly alone spinning what other people said. It's not reality, and there are barely any checks.

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

NY Times Says Police Lied About Pepper Spray Attack
By: Steve - November 22, 2011 - 10:30am

The NY Times is suggesting the UC Davis police lied about the attack on peaceful OWS students. A spokesperson for the U.C. Davis police did not respond to a request for comment Saturday.

Annette Spicuzza, the U.C. Davis police chief, told The Sacramento Bee that the officer used pepper spray on Friday because the police were surrounded by students. "There was no way out of that circle," she told the newspaper.

"They were cutting the officers off from their support. It's a very volatile situation."

The videos, however, show officers freely moving about and show students behaving peacefully. And the university reported no instances of violence by any protesters.

Videos of the Davis incident uploaded to YouTube show police officers dousing the protesters — mostly students, with orange pepper spray, after repeatedly asking them to disperse from the main quad on campus. The protesters were seated with their arms linked on a sidewalk.

More than a dozen videos of the Davis incident have been uploaded to YouTube. The most-watched video has been viewed more than 200,000 times. The videos have generated outcry online and were rebroadcast on television on Saturday.

In one of the videos, the officer steps over a line of seated protesters, holds the pepper spray bottle in the air, then sprays it in the protesters faces in a coordinated fashion as eyewitnesses gasp and shout, Shame on you.

In a video taken from another direction, two officers can be seen dousing protesters with pepper spray at the same time. Though not visible in the videos, the operator of the Facebook page for the Occupy U.C. Davis organization claimed that one police officer "shoved a pepper spray gun down a student's throat and pulled the trigger."

On Saturday afternoon, the Facebook page announced that protesters would be working with attorneys to pursue legal action.

In the video, after the arrests, protesters and bystanders are seen asking the police to leave. "You can go," they chant. The police then appear to walk away from the quad, to applause from protesters.

A spokesperson for the U.C. Davis police did not respond to a request for comment Saturday. Annette Spicuzza, the U.C. Davis police chief, told The Sacramento Bee that the officers used pepper spray on Friday because the police were surrounded by students.

"There was no way out of that circle," she told the newspaper. "They were cutting the officers off from their support. It's a very volatile situation."

The videos, however, show officers freely moving about and show students behaving peacefully.

The pepper spray incident took place at the end of a week of peaceful demonstrations on the U.C. Davis campus.

Kristin Koster, who helped one of the protesters, Dominic Gutierrez, told The Davis Enterprise that she was horrified by what took place. "When you protect the things you believe in with your body, it changes you for good. It radicalizes you for good," Ms. Koster said.

And you never heard any of this from O'Reilly or Megyn Kelly, because they were too busy defending the police, and saying pepper spray is not that bad to be sprayed with because it's a simple food product.

UC Davis To Investigate Police Use Of Pepper Spray
By: Steve - November 22, 2011 - 10:00am

From CNN -- The chancellor of the University of California, Davis, under calls to resign, Saturday called police use of pepper spray on seated Occupy protesters "chilling" and established a task force to look into the incident.

The video broadcast by CNN Sacramento affiliate KOVR showed an officer, in a sweeping motion, spraying protesters point blank on Friday before other officers moved in. Eleven people were treated on site for effects of the yellow spray. Two of them were sent to the hospital, university officials said.

"Yesterday was not a day that would make anyone on our campus proud; indeed the events of the day need to guide us forward as we try to make our campus a better place of inquiry, debate, and even dissent," Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi said in a statement.

The incident set off a flood of comments on the school's Facebook page, most of them critical of police and the administration. Protesters rallied again Saturday evening.

In a press conference later Saturday, Katehi refused calls from faculty members and others for her to step down, saying she did not violate campus policies.

"Very unexpected, sad and very inappropriate at least on the face of it," she said of the video, adding she wants the task force to look at how students can express their opinions.

The Davis Faculty Association, citing incidents at other campuses, demanded "that the chancellors of the University of California cease using police violence to repress nonviolent political protests." It called for greater attention to cuts in state funding to education and rising tuition.

Ten people were arrested during the face-off, Morain said late Friday. Tentative charges were failure to disperse and lodging without permission. Morain said the pepper spray was used in lieu of batons. "Obviously, they use this only as a last resort," she said of the officers.

O'Reilly Wants More Prisons To Control Illegal Immigration
By: Steve - November 22, 2011 - 9:00am

Crazy O'Reilly said this on the Wednesday 11-16-11 Factor show:

But of course he refuses to pay more in taxes to pay for it, and he has said a million times that the Government is broke and we MUST cut spending, not add to it. So if we are broke how can we afford to build more prisons, and how many more prisons do we need, 10, 20, 100, how many O'Reilly?

And if you refuse to pay more in taxes, how can we pay for it?

Not to mention I do not think most taxpayers want to pay $30,000 dollars a year to house illegal immigrants in American prisons.

Why not just give more money and add federal agents to the Border Patrol so they can do their job. Answer that O'Reilly you idiotic fool.

Insane O'Reilly Claims Jesus Is Not Religious
By: Steve - November 20, 2011 - 10:00am

On the 11-18-11 O'Reilly Factor, the moron Bill O'Reilly said that celebrating Jesus "Doesn't Have To Be Religious"

Which may be the dumbest thing he has ever said, and that is saying a lot. Jesus is religious, and anyone who says he is not, should be locked in a padded room.

O'Reilly Lied About Green Energy Companies On Long Island
By: Steve - November 20, 2011 - 9:00am

On the Tuesday 11-15-11 Factor show O'Reilly said he can not find anyone to install a residential wind or solar system at his home on Long Island.

"No one will do that," he told Alan Colmes. So then Colmes suggested O'Reilly look online for installers, and O'Reilly insisted that "there's nowhere, no one."

Which is pretty surprising, he pointed out, because Long Island "is a big place."

And as usual O'Reilly was lying, because a quick Google search shows that there are quite a few Green Energy options for Long Island residents, here is a liat for O'Reilly:
- Eastern Energy Systems
- OnForce Solar
- GreenLogic Energy
- Advanced Solar Power
- SUNation Solar Systems
- Mercury Solar Systems
- Clean Energy Solutions
- Built Well Solar
- Long Island Renewable Energy
- Go Solar
- Horizon Solar
- Energy By Choice
One of them is even named "Long Island Renewable Energy" and he still missed it somehow. I mean c'mon, does anyone really believe O'Reilly can not find any Green Energy companies on Long Island. The truth is he was probably just lying, and most likely he has never even tried to find someone to install solar or wind power at his home on Long Island.

The Friday 11-18-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 19, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Will bumbling congress reach deficit deal? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: By midnight on Monday the so-called 'Super Committee' is supposed to present the nation with $1.2 trillion in spending cuts over the next ten years. But the committee may not be able to come up with the cuts because they continue to argue about raising taxes.

The Democrats, of course, want a tax hike on the affluent and business people; the Republicans, of course, do not, saying it would harm the economy. Here's the real deal: The 'Super Committee' should triple the amount of cuts and forget about tax increases for the moment. Next year, if the government shows the taxpayers it's serious about not wasting money, some targeted tax hikes might be considered.

But I don't want my substantial tax check paying for Solyndra; I don't want it paying for $16 muffins; and I don't want to continue funding programs that don't work. If the Super Committee comes back next week with nothing, the stock market is going to implode and the American economy will be badly damaged.

Are we Greece? Are we a nation that can't fix the out-of-control spending? Tax reform and entitlement reform - done fairly - can increase revenue and decrease the enormous debt, but it is insane to ask high-end taxpayers to pay more into a system that's clearly broken. So let's cut the crap, along with the spending.
Wow is O'Reilly nuts, if they triple the spending cuts it will put us into a recession. What they should do is raise taxes on the wealthy along with some small spending cuts on things that will not hurt the economy. O'Reilly should shut up about paying more in taxes, because he does not pay enough now. What's insane is letting the wealthy pay so little in taxes, and O'Reilly is insane to call it insane.

Then O'Reilly had the moron Rick Perry on for a 2nd time to try and help his campaign, which is dead btw. In a new TV ad, Texas Governor Rick Perry pounds President Obama for saying "we've been a little bit lazy over the last couple of decades."

But even O'Reilly admitted that Perry may be taking the President's words out of context. Perry said this: "It's a fair ad, because this President has been apologizing for America. Then he gets on TV and says Americans are lazy and we've lost our ambition and imagination."

O'Reilly said that President Obama "really wasn't talking about the folks, he was talking about trying to get investment to come to the USA." Perry then accused the President of being fundamentally at odds with American values, saying this: "I think he cares for America, but he truly misunderstands the values this country was based upon, which are free enterprise and the ability to risk your capital and have a chance to get a return on your investment. I think Barack Obama is a socialist."

Coming from the idiot that can not even remember the three Government programs he want to get rid of. Give me a break, Perry is a fool that has no chance to win the GOP nomination, let alone be the President. And O'Reilly is a fool for putting this moron on his show after he has shown that he is an idiot in the debates.

Then O'Reilly had another segment on the Penn State child sex scandal, which I do not report on because it is not political news. It's tabloid news to get ratings, nothing more and nothing less.

Then Geraldo was on to talk about the how the police are going to reopen the Natalie Wood death investigation. Really? Why is O'Reilly reporting it, this is not the kind of news O'Reilly should be reporting on. This is stuff for Geraldo and Inside Edition, not a so-called serious news show.

Then O'Reilly had the blonde bimbo Marina on, who is the Internet's most popular wordsmith, because she has sexy photos on her website, Billy had her on to talk about the meaning of some Thanksgiving words. Really O'Reilly, what a cheap attempt to get ratings.

Now get this, then O'Reilly had two far-right stooges on to talk about how some American cities are on the verge of bankruptcy. And of course not one liberal was on for the debate. Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal and Niles Gardiner of the conservative Heritage Foundation were on. And of course they only attacked California, while ignoring all the Republican run states that are also on the verge of bankruptcy.

Gardiner said this: "California's biggest problem, is overspending, a hugely bloated public sector, and tremendous union power. This is a state whose spending has been out of control for many years, if not decades."

Moore said this: "California has the most generous welfare benefits in the country. Illegal aliens and people from the rest of the country move there for the benefits. The other side of the problem is that California has virtually the highest income tax and the highest sales tax in the country. Productive people who start businesses are moving out."

And finally in the last segment Arthel Neville and Greg Gutfeld were on for dumbest things of the week. I'll tell you the dumbest thing of the week, having the hot for words Marina on a so-called news show.

Neville picked city officials in Berkeley who complained about the raid on Osama bin Laden, saying this: "They're upset, because it was called 'Operation Geronimo,' which they say is insensitive to Native Americans. They want President Obama to apologize."

Gutfeld went with the Smithsonian, which is gathering artifacts from the "Occupy" protests, saying this: "They want to collect things that represent the occupation, so I was thinking we should all send them diapers because the occupation was really a bunch of babies."

O'Dummy picked Barney Frank, who is blaming Republicans for the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Frank conveniently forgets that in 2008 he extolled Fannie and Freddie as "fundamentally sound."

Earth to O'Reilly, they were sound before Bush ruined the economy and crashed the housing market, and Barney Frank had nothing to do with it. All during that time Republicans were helping to keep Fannie and Freddie going, including Newt Gingrich who was paid $1.8 million dollars to lobby for them. It only got into trouble because of what Republicans did, and what Wall street did with the bundled mortgage derivitive deals, which the Republicans allowed under Bush and his head of the SEC from 2000 until 2008.

I guess O'Reilly just forgot all that, yeah right, and I'm Elvis too!

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

Arizona Supreme Court Reverses Brewer Impeachment
By: Steve - November 19, 2011 - 10:00am

In a stunning reversal, the Arizona Supreme Court tonight reversed an attempted power grab by Gov. Jan Brewer (R) and her Republican colleagues in the state legislature.

Last month, the state Senate took up Brewer's push to impeach Colleen Mathis, the chairwoman of Arizona's independent bipartisan redistricting commission. Even Brewer herself couldn't explain how Mathis had exhibited "neglect of duty and gross misconduct," the only grounds for impeachment in Arizona.

In fact, Mathis only real so-called crime appears to be that she led a commission which drew a new congressional map with more competitive districts than had existed previously.

But, justice prevailed as the Arizona Supreme Court rebuffed Brewer and decided to reinstate Mathis to lead the commission:
The Arizona Supreme Court Thursday evening reinstated the chairwoman of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, rebuffing Gov. Jan Brewer's unprecedented action earlier this month.

The ruling came less than three hours after the court heard arguments on the case, which revolved around the extent to which the commission is free of outside political interference.

The court decided the governor's Nov. 1 removal letter to Colleen Coyle Mathis did not demonstrate "substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office or inability to discharge the duties of office."
Now Mathis and the commission will resume their duty to finalize Arizona's new congressional district maps. As Daily Kos notes, the group "published draft congressional and legislative maps last month, and since then, the commissioners have been hearing public feedback and have indicated that they plan to make changes to the maps in response."

Barring any more unconstitutional power grabs from Brewer, the commission will be able to finalize the map in advance of next year's election.

And of course you will never hear a word about this from O'Reilly, because Brewer is a Republican and he does not want to make her look bad.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About His Ellen Barkin Insult
By: Steve - November 19, 2011 - 9:00am

O'Reilly slammed actress Ellen Barkin Thursday night after she criticized Fox News for its fundamental dishonesty, offering the ridiculous denial that he never once mentioned Barkin, while hoping nobody read his daily newsletter that dismissed Barkin's career.

In a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times Magazine, Barkin criticized Fox News for its dishonesty, saying this:
The blatant lying that passes itself off as journalism. I don't even need to get there to go mental. Can you imagine a legitimate newsperson -- Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw -- just lying on the news?
Barkin discussed those comments, and Fox News reaction to them, during an appearance on The Joy Behar Show, saying that she was now "on Bill O'Reilly's radar."

Barkin and Behar went on to hypothesize what it would mean to be on O'Reilly's "radar," with Barkin saying that she thought O'Reilly had called her "a washed-up has been, D-list celebrity."

O'Reilly took issue with those comments thursday night, calling it a "flat out lie" and protesting: "I have never mentioned Ellen Barkin on this broadcast - ever. And I would never call her names." O'Reilly even demanded an apology.

Which is ridiculous, because O'Reilly did call out Barkin in his daily newsletter. He also calls people names virtually every night, he calls people pinheads, loons, fools, and on and on. Notice he said he never mentioned her on "this" broadcast, while not telling people that he slammed her in his website newsletter back on November 8th.

Here is the headline from the O'Reilly newsletter:
Ellen Barkin Attacks Fox News, Calls Its Correspondents Liars
And after that headline O'Reilly quoted her from the interview, and then he wrote this about her:
In other news: Ellen Barkin is still alive! Ellen Barkin is still alive! There can now be a Johnny Handsome II!
So basically O'Reilly is the liar, because he did mention her.

The 11-17-11 Thursday O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 18, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Occupiers are not going quietly. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Today marks the second month that the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement has been present, and a poll shows that 63% of Americans disapprove of the occupiers. But these protesters are not going quietly into the night; today in New York City they caused all kinds of mayhem. All over the country the occupiers are costing the taxpayers - you and me - tens of millions of dollars.

Talking Points has been dead on in assessing the movement from the beginning. We predicted there would be death; there has been. We predicted crime would flourish; it has. And we predicted the cost to the taxpayer would be enormous; that has come true as well. Now the occupiers are starting to target individual Americans, people like Karl Rove.

A group of them tried to shout him down while Rove was giving a speech in Baltimore. Once protesters start to infringe on the rights of individual people, the courts absolutely have to step in. Every American city is giving the occupiers plenty of time and space to get their message across, but that's not good enough for them. They want chaos, so here's another prediction: More people will die.
What a joke, folks if you want to see right-wing propaganda there it is. O'Reilly simply hates the Occupy movement because it is mostly liberals, if they were conservatives he would support them 100%, and defend everything they do.

Then O'Reilly had two Fox reporters on to discuss it, Sharon Crowley & Rick Leventhal, yeah that's fair and balanced, NOT! I will not report all of what they said, but I will show you what Crowley said.

Sharon Crowley said this: "I was here the other night when the police evicted the protesters from Zuccotti Park and there was a lot of dismay. Today it has slowly been progressing with sporadic skirmishes and fights. But the large majority of people are here to make a political statement and are not causing problems."

Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about a new Fox poll of Republican voters that has Newt Gingrich, who was basically written off two months ago, with a slim lead over Mitt Romney. And of course no liberal guest was on to discuss it.

Billy asked Ingraham if the former Speaker can actually win the nomination. Ingraham said this: "I think he can, but it's going to be really difficult. Regardless of how much people want there to be an alternative to Romney, establishment types usually get their way in the Republican Party. And Newt Gingrich has to have a fairly strong organization in states beyond Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Romney has the operation on the ground but conservatives are not yet comfortable with him. People are desperate for passion, fight, and consistent conservatism."

Earth to Ingraham, you are a fool, Newt has two chances, slim and none. Especially after we found out he was paid $1.8 million to lobby for Freddie and Fannie, Jack Abramoff even called it corruption. So Newt is done.

Then O'Reilly cried about actress Ellen Barkin trashing Fox News & O'Reilly himself, so he lied about it and called her a liar. Barkin said this on the Joy Behar show: "I'm now on Bill O'Reilly's radar ... he called me a washed-up, d-list, has-been celebrity."

O'Reilly said this: "Here's the problem with Ms. Barkin's statement - it's a flat-out lie. I have never mentioned Ellen Barkin on this broadcast and I would never call her names. We know Ms. Behar and what she does, and today HLN announced she will no longer be doing it on that network. Her show is finished at the end of this year. But Headline News and CNN, the parent company, have an obligation not to allow blatant lies on their air.

So we have asked HLN to issue a written apology; we have also asked Ms. Barkin and Ms. Behar to do the same. The bigger issue is the tremendous decline of the American media. It's now totally acceptable in many precincts to print or broadcast flat-out falsehoods. The media is now in business to destroy, not to enlighten!"

And now here is what O'Reilly failed to report, he did slam her on November 8th, but not on his show, it was in his website newsletter. So O'Reilly is the liar, and the dishonest con man here.

Then the two right-wing Culture Warriors Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover looked ahead to the Christmas season and whether the bogus secular assault on the holiday O'Reilly dreams up will happen again this year.

Hoover said this: "I think the war on Christmas is largely receding, 95% of ordinary Americans celebrate Christmas and 51% say they do so with strong religion, so you can claim a Factor victory."

But Carlson provided a stark reminder that the battle requires eternal vigilance, saying this: "Just this week Santa was thrown out of a cancer center in South Carolina. He was a volunteer Santa who came to give good cheer to chemotherapy patients, and the center threw him out because they get state funds and they thought there might be a conflict of interest. But the public won because in a newspaper response 98% of the people said this was the wrong thing to do, and within two days Santa was reinstated."

O'Reilly pointed out that "no other media people fought the war, and in fact most people in the liberal media attacked me for sticking up for Christmas."

That's because you take one or two isolated examples of something a moron did in one or two cities and claim it's a WAR on Christmas that is happening everywhere in America. There is no WAR on Christmas, it's a joke, a fraud, and O'Reilly is an idiot for even talking about it.

Then Megyn Kelly was on for her legal segment. Back in May of 2010, when a California high school banned students from wearing the American flag on Cinco de Mayo, Fox News anchor and attorney Megyn Kelly predicted that the school would be slapped down in the courts. But in fact, a federal judge ruled last week that the school was within its rights, so O'Reilly invited Kelly to dine on a heaping helping of crow.

Kelly said this: "The ruling said the school had the right to tell the Caucasian students to go home. The school had to show that there was the likelihood of 'substantial disruption' by the kids wearing the flag. But this was viewpoint discrimination because the vice-principal only sent home the kids wearing the American flag t-shirts and not the kids wearing the Mexican colors. This was a boneheaded decision!"

O'Reilly defended the judge and did some boasting in the process, saying this: "The judge made the right ruling. I taught in a school that was similar to this one and I know how explosive these things can get. The bottom line is that the non-lawyer O'Reilly, was correct against the board certified lawyer Kelly."

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had the total waste of time Factor News Quiz with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum, that I do not report on because it's garbage, and not news.

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

O'Reilly Caught Lying About His Ellen Barkin Insult
By: Steve - November 18, 2011 - 10:00am

O'Reilly slammed actress Ellen Barkin Thursday night after she criticized Fox News for its fundamental dishonesty, offering the ridiculous denial that he never once mentioned Barkin, while hoping nobody read his daily newsletter that dismissed Barkin's career.

In a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times Magazine, Barkin criticized Fox News for its dishonesty, saying this:
The blatant lying that passes itself off as journalism. I don't even need to get there to go mental. Can you imagine a legitimate newsperson -- Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw -- just lying on the news?
Barkin discussed those comments, and Fox News reaction to them, during an appearance on The Joy Behar Show, saying that she was now "on Bill O'Reilly's radar."

Barkin and Behar went on to hypothesize what it would mean to be on O'Reilly's "radar," with Barkin saying that she thought O'Reilly had called her "a washed-up has been, D-list celebrity."

O'Reilly took issue with those comments thursday night, calling it a "flat out lie" and protesting: "I have never mentioned Ellen Barkin on this broadcast - ever. And I would never call her names." O'Reilly even demanded an apology.

Which is ridiculous, because O'Reilly did call out Barkin in his daily newsletter. He also calls people names virtually every night, he calls people pinheads, loons, fools, and on and on. Notice he said he never mentioned her on "this" broadcast, while not telling people that he slammed her in his website newsletter back on November 8th.

Here is the headline from the O'Reilly newsletter:
Ellen Barkin Attacks Fox News, Calls Its Correspondents Liars
And after that headline O'Reilly quoted her from the interview, and then he wrote this about her:
In other news: Ellen Barkin is still alive! Ellen Barkin is still alive! There can now be a Johnny Handsome II!
So basically O'Reilly is the liar, because he did mention her.

The Wednesday 11-16-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 17, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Cities continue crackdown on Occupy protesters. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: In the beginning there was some sympathy for the 'Occupy Wall Street' protesters, who believe the federal government should take action against financial institutions that cheat. But the more we saw and heard, the more fair-minded Americans came to believe the occupiers were not interested in legitimate issues so much; many of them simply want to blow up the economic system.

In addition, some of their behavior was and is reprehensible violent crime, provocation against the police and depraved behavior in general. The left-wing media is still trying to portray the occupiers as the liberal equivalent to the Tea Party.

One simple question: Would you prefer that your daughter demonstrate with the Tea Party people or the occupiers? 63% of Americans now say they do not support the 'Occupy' movement, while just 28% say they do.

And because President Obama was sympathetic to the movement in the beginning, along with many members of the Democratic Party, this presents a big political problem. So officials in eleven cities got on a conference call to discuss how to deal with the occupiers. The 'Occupy Wall Street' movement is dead, finished as a legitimate political force in this country. And that's a good thing.
What a joke, O'Reilly used a biased poll from the Wall Street Journal that was taken on November 5th. On top of that, he is a massive hypocrite. Because when some of the Tea Party had racist signs O'Reilly said you can not slam all of them because of a few bad apples. But when the Occupy protests have the same thing, O'Reilly slams them all for it and calls them loons on top of it. When he never once called anyone in the Tea Party any names.

And btw, O'Reilly declared the Occupy movement dead, which is just laughable, it's not even close to dead, in fact it's getting stronger.

Then O'Reilly had the liberal Congressman Keith Ellison on to disagree with everything he said. Ellison said this: "I don't think this movement is dead, and I also think it is important not to blame everyone for the bad actions of a few. This movement has raised important points and I believe it has been successful in that it has changed the national dialogue. We're talking about accountability on Wall Street for the first time and that is a good thing."

Then O'Dummy asked Ellison why occupiers aren't protesting the lavish salaries paid to executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Ellison said this: "You have to ask them, but I think they probably strongly disapprove. This compensation package is problematic."

And one other thing, O'Reilly showed a photo of a pile of used needles on the street and then speculated that the Occupy protesters used them, with no proof, it was pure speculation. Then he said they are all high, with no proof, none. And that's coming from the guy who says he never reports anything unless he can prove it to be true.

Then Dick Morris was on to talk about the executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who are taking heat about their seven-figure annual salaries. Morris said this: "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have always been factories for producing huge bonuses. Franklin Raines, who was Bill Clinton's budget director made $90 million in bonuses over six years at Fannie Mae. I've called this a retirement home for Democrats."

Morris also reacted to the news that Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich was paid $1.6 million as a "consultant" to Freddie Mac, saying this: "Gingrich maintains that he never lobbied for them, but they basically gave him a $20,000 a month consulting contract. What Newt has to do now is explain what he did and what advice he gave them."

And what they failed to mention is that while Newt was being paid by them to lobby, he was also on TV saying they were bad and the Democrats are keeping them going, when in fact he was lobbying members of Congress to keep them going himself. Which O'Reilly and Morris never reported.

Then Tom Mesereau was on give O'Reilly a lesson in the law, he is the attorney who successfully defended Michael Jackson against charges of child molestation, and he was asked about the Penn State case. Mesereau said this: "In both cases, there was a grand jury indictment with information handed to the media. Remember that in a grand jury proceeding there is no judge, no defense attorney and no cross examination, so everything is stacked against the defendant. And in both cases the media swarmed all over that indictment and basically convicted the defendant before the defendant had the chance to defend himself."

Mesereau also criticized Sandusky for admitting he occasionally showered with young boys, saying this: "His statement was very foolish and I don't know why his lawyer let him do that. But technically speaking, showering with boys is not sex. The defense will have to draw a distinction."

Then Jesse Watters went to New Jersey, to an alcohol-infused tailgate party, where he challenged some pro football fans to identify photos of Republican presidential nominees. Most were able to identify Cain, Gingrich, Perry and Romney, but after that things got dicey. Watters said this: "I showed them a picture of Jon Huntsman, but no one got it right, they thought he was a weatherman. And a few guys got Ron Paul, but others thought he was the Perdue chicken guy."

Watters summed it all up with the fact that half of Americans can't even name one Republican running for president. To fix that, O'Dummy ordered Watters to visit every house in America and "demand that they pay attention."

Then Dennis Miller was on for his weekly comedy segment, which I do not report on because it's not news, and it's not even close.

And finally Juliet Huddy was on for did you see that, she showed a new ad in which Michele Bachmann skewers her less conservative Republican rivals. Huddy said this: "This is typical with candidates who are on their last leg, it's a last-ditch effort to get out there and go for the jugular. She doesn't have much money and she's going into Iowa with a weak campaign chest. She might get a little boost from this."

So then Billy added this: "Her point is that she has been a true conservative from the beginning and has not wavered, whereas some of the other candidates have wavered." And btw, nothing in the Bachmann ad was untrue, she used clips of their own words to show what flip-flopping hypocrites Romney, Perry, etc. are. And even O'Reilly pointed out that Bachmann was accurate in her ad, to which Huddy agreed.

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

House GOP Classifies Pizza As A Vegetable
By: Steve - November 17, 2011 - 10:00am

And then you would ask why would they do that, so the corporation that makes pizza for school lunches can continue to make a profit doing it.

Here is the story. Earlier this year, the USDA made an attempt to bolster the nutrition guidelines for the federal school lunch program. Under the new guidelines, school lunches would be limited to one cup of starchy vegetables a week and the ability of schools to count tomato sauce on pizza towards their fruit and vegetables requirement would be scaled back.

But House Republicans, in a new spending plan unveiled Monday, have done away with those changes:
The spending bill also would allow tomato paste on pizzas to be counted as a vegetable, as it is now. The department's proposed guidelines would have attempted to prevent that.

The changes had been requested by food companies that produce frozen pizzas, the salt industry and potato growers. Some conservatives in Congress have called the push for healthier foods an overreach, saying the government shouldn't be telling children what to eat.
According to a bill summary released by Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee, these provisions are meant to "prevent overly burdensome and costly regulations."

What they will actually do is ensure that a steady flow of dollars continues toward certain favored food manufacturers, at the expense of children's health.

"We are outraged that Congress is seriously considering language that would effectively categorize pizza as a vegetable in the school lunch program," said Amy Dawson Taggart, the director of Mission: Readiness, a group advocating for healthier school lunches. "It doesn't take an advanced degree in nutrition to call this a national disgrace."

And this is hardly the first time that the GOP has attacked attempts to boost the nutritional content of school lunches. Back in May, House Republicans derided the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, which was signed into law late last year, as a massive and costly federal intrusion. They did this despite the fact that escalating obesity rates cost the nation $147 billion per year in direct medical costs.

Education policy analyst Theodora Chang wrote this: "Student nutrition programs ensure that students are ready to learn and are not stymied by hunger. Schools are ideal locations for social services like healthy meals because they have unparalleled access to low-income students and their families."

But instead, the GOP has decided to roll back what little progress has been made in terms of school lunch nutrition. And of course you never hear a word about any of this nonsense from O'Reilly, because it would make his right-wing friends look stupid.

Mayor Bloomberg Served With Temporary Restraining Order
By: Steve - November 17, 2011 - 9:00am

At 6:30 a.m. Tuesday morning, following a midnight police raid evicting protesters from Zuccotti Park, Justice Lucy Billings issued an order requiring the protesters to be readmitted to Zuccotti Park with their tents.

ThinkProgress spoke to one of the plantiff's attorney's, Gideon Orion Oliver, who confirmed that the order was served on Mayor Bloomberg and the other defendants via fax at 7:50 a.m.

During his 8 a.m. press conference, Mayor Bloomberg seemed to acknowledge he was familiar with the temporary restraining order, but claimed he had not been served and was keeping the park closed.

And of course you never heard a word about this from O'Reilly or anyone at Fox. Even though Billy talked about Bloomberg in a segment with Dennis Miller they never once mentioned the temporary restraining order requiring the protesters to be readmitted to Zuccotti Park with their tents.

The Tuesday 11-15-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 16, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Fannie & Freddie execs score big pay day. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were set up to give working Americans a shot at owning a decent home. The feds don't run those agencies outright, but they do provide funding. When Fannie and Freddie went bankrupt a few years ago, the government gave them $156 billion to keep operating, and Fannie and Freddie still owe U.S. taxpayers $141 billion.

Now CNN is reporting that executives at Fannie and Freddie are set to receive nearly $100 million in compensation from 2009 to the end of this year. So my question is simple: Why aren't the 'Occupy' loons demonstrating in front of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

The hypocrisy is staggering - while the occupiers focus on private industry where money is earned in the marketplace, they totally overlook the largely liberal programs that have caused so much economic damage to America.

Next year Americans will have to make a decision whether to vote for the Democratic Party, which largely wants to continue the 'social justice' madness, or vote for a rather chaotic Republican Party that says it wants smaller government. The election next year is not about President Obama or his opponent; it's about saving the USA from economic collapse.
Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to discuss the Fannie and Freddie compensation packages. Colmes said this: "They shouldn't get those salaries, but Fannie and Freddie are saying that the bad guys who ruined things are out and the guys in there now are turning it around. And if they're turning it around they should get bonuses based on that."

Crowley ridiculed the notion that the huge agencies can ever be efficient, saying this: "If you're going to argue that they're turning Fannie and Freddie around, then why did Fannie and Freddie ask the American taxpayers for another $12 billion last week? Why should the federal government be involved in the housing sector in any way, shape or form? It has bankrupted the United States."

Which is nothing but a load of right-wing bull, because the Bush tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the recession, and the massive job losses under Bush are what bankrupted the United States.

Then John Stossel was on to talk about the NYPD clearing out the Wall Street protesters. A New York judge has ruled that Mayor Michael Bloomberg acted properly when he ordered police to evict 'Occupy Wall Street' protesters from Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan.

Stossel endorsed the ruling and the eviction, saying this: "You don't get to 'occupy' a park. Free speech is really important and you get to assemble, but you can't 'occupy.' You get to speak but you don't get to destroy other people's lives. This should have happened long ago."

O'Reilly then faked his surprise at Stossel's sudden outbreak of reasonableness, saying this: "You and I - the libertarian Stossel and the traditionalist O'Reilly - agree that the 'occupiers' should have a place to gather and make their points, but they can't live there."

Then Lis Wiehl & Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to talk about the constitutionality of the Obama health care bill. Basically all 3 of them, including O'Reilly, predict Obama will lose in a 5 to 4 decision.

Then they were back for a 2nd segment, Wiehl and Guilfoyle scrutinized the case of Santana Gaona, an illegal alien from Mexico. He was being held on a sexual assault charge in Texas, then was ordered released by an unknown federal agency, after which he proceeded to kill a man.

Guilfoyle said this: "We've been trying to get information from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They say that another federal agency insisted that he be released, and that there were 'compelling reasons' for his release."

Wiehl declared that whichever agency ordered Gaona's release was obviously negligent, saying this: "Even if he was a major witness helping the government, that agency had a duty to supervise him. They have blood on their hands."

And of course they do not have all the facts so they are speculating the Feds did something wrong when ordered his release.

O'Reilly demanded that the feds step up and explain what transpired, saying this: "This guy was deported twice, came back twice, and was in jail on a sexual assault charge. But someone made a call and ordered him released, and the government won't tell us who. We've asked Janet Napolitano to come on the program and tell us who it is. If she won't, we'll file a Freedom of Information Act request."

Then O'Dummy had another segment on the Penn State scandal, which I do not report on because it is not pilitical news. O'Reilly is simply reporting on it to try and get higher ratings.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Charles Krauthammer on to talk about Newt Gingrich. Krauthammer said this: "Back in April I had Gingrich at 12 - 1 odds to win, and right now I'd say his odds are not much better. He's got baggage, and I'm not talking about the personal stuff, I'm talking about the ideological heresies. In the 90's he supported an individual mandate for health care, and a few years ago he cut an ad with Nancy Pelosi about global warming being a real threat. I think he's going to have problems talking his way out of that."

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

Fox Lying About Number Of Jobs On Keystone XL
By: Steve - November 16, 2011 - 10:00am

And even their so-called straight news anchors are lying about it. Fox News has claimed that TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL pipeline would create somewhere between 50,000 and a million jobs.

In fact, even TransCanada acknowledges that the total jobs created would be far fewer, and an independent report has found that the project could actually destroy more jobs than it creates through higher fuel costs and environmental damage.

Anchor Megyn Kelly Continues to Inflate the Number of Jobs Keystone XL Could Create. Kelly: "Keystone XL Pipeline Would Create At Least 50,000 Jobs."

Many man other Fox hacks have said the same thing and worse, while the company that would create the jobs (TransCanada) Said In 2010 That The Keystone XL Pipeline "Is Expected To Create About 13,000 New Jobs For American Workers."

In a 2010 press release by TransCanada, the company funding the Keystone XL pipeline, touted their connection with various unions and claimed they would "create over seven million hours of labor and over 13,000 new jobs for American workers." From the press release:
TransCanada Corporation (TransCanada) (TSX, NYSE: TRP) is pleased to announce a Project Labor Agreement for a significant portion of U.S. construction of the proposed US$7 billion Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion Pipeline Project (Keystone XL).

The agreement will provide TransCanada with a capable, well-trained and ready workforce in the U.S. to construct Keystone XL. During construction, the project is expected to create over seven million hours of labor and over 13,000 new jobs for American workers.
But a November 5 article in The Washington Post reported that TransCanada CEO Russ Girling "said Friday that the 13,000 figure was actually not a true job number, but actually accounted for "one person, one year."

The Post went on to state that "if the construction jobs lasted two years, the number of people employed in each of the two years would be 6,500." From the article:
Girling said Friday that the 13,000 figure was "one person, one year," meaning that if the construction jobs lasted two years, the number of people employed in each of the two years would be 6,500. That brings the company's number closer to the State Department's; State says the project would create 5,000 to 6,000 construction jobs, a figure that was calculated by its contractor Cardno Entrix. [The Washington Post, 11/5/11]
Proving once again that not only does the partisan analysts at Fox lie to you, like O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. the so-called non-partisan straight news anchors also lie to you.

The Monday 11-14-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 15, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The Penn State child molestation scandal. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: All Americans should be horrified and a bit sad by the situation unfolding at Penn State University. 84-year-old football coach Joe Paterno has been fired for failing to take aggressive action against one of his former assistants whom a grand jury has indicted on forty counts of child sexual abuse.

Paterno says he notified college officials when he was told Jerry Sandusky was seen molesting a child, but did not call the cops. That is unacceptable. If you hear or see about any child being physically abused in any way, you have an obligation to aggressively protect that child. That means Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary, who testified that he did see Sandusky molesting a little boy in a locker room shower, should have immediately stopped that abuse.

Penn State has finally done the right thing by cleaning house, but what about these moronic students who caused a near-riot when objecting to Paterno being dismissed? Do they have no sense of decency? The fact that Sandusky was given $100,000 bail and no ankle bracelet is also a disgrace. The bigger picture here is that child molesters and rapists are the lowest form of life.

You may remember The Factor went on a huge campaign to have Jessica's Law passed in all 50 states. Pennsylvania has a watered down version: a 10-year mandatory sentence for child rape on the first offense; if you do it again you get 25 years. But that's ridiculous! Why give a child predator a second chance? There should be no second chances for child rapists and no quarter for people who do not act aggressively against them.
Then O'Reilly had Janine Turner and Juan Williams on to discuss it. Williams said this: "You and I are on the same page. Child predators are the lowest form of life and the damage they do is incredible. But the kids at Penn State say Joe Paterno opened up a building here and they somehow excuse what is morally inexcusable."

Turner denounced the religious-like cult of big-time college football, saying this: "It disturbs me how America is so infatuated with football that the lines of reason and moral integrity get blurred. And it starts at the top - if Joe Paterno and the heads of the school weren't going to take it seriously, then why should the kids take it seriously?"

O'Reilly added that some large organizations, notably the Catholic Church, also have their priorities skewed, saying this: "We saw time and time again that bishops and cardinals put the church's reputation above the welfare of children."

Then Karl Rove was on to talk about movement in the Republican presidential race, with Herman Cain and Rick Perry losing ground while Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich gain momentum. Billy asked Rove if Cain has been permanently damaged by charges of inappropriate behavior.

Rove said this: "If he can ride this out for another week the topic may turn elsewhere, but substantial damage will have been done to his prospects because the doubts will remain."

Rove also said this: "The most important thing of the past few days, is President Obama's approval rating on the economy, which is at just 34%. People have watched the President with a Democratic Congress in '09 and '10 doing everything he wanted to do and the economy didn't improve like he said it would."

Now that is a total load of right-wing propaganda, becuse Obama has not been able to do anything he wantd to do, except pass his stimulus bill in 2009, the Republicans have blocked everything else. So when Rove says Obama has done everything he wanted to do, he is flat out lying. In fact, the Republicans are blocking every jobs bill Obama tries to pass because they know it will create jobs and make him look better.

Then Brit Hume was on to talk about the occupy protests. Hume speculated that the Democrats will be damaged by the movement, saying this: "Some Democrats thought this would be the great battery of energy to power the party and its ideas, but it hasn't worked out that way. It doesn't help the President and Democrats if their theme is being articulated by street protesters whose operations have been shut down because of squalor and violence. My view is that 'Occupy Wall Street' is a definite net minus for Democrats."

Now remember this, Hume is a far-right stooge who works for Fox so he is not an Independent voice, he is a partisan hack who hates the occupy protesters, but loved the Tea Party protesters.

Then Diane Sawyer was on to talk about Gabby Giffords. For the first time since she was shot in the head in January, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords sat down for a television interview. Sawyer said this: "She has words, she can talk, she understands what you're saying. You can see her communicating to you through her eyes while she's spending the time to get the words she wants to say. The bullet simply eradicated certain words and she's practicing every day."

Sawyer added that Giffords will eventually decide whether to continue in office, saying this: "She is absolutely aware of the distance she has traveled but the distance she still has to go. She says that she will make the decision when it's time."

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to cry about what else, the so-called liberal media bias he thinks is happening. He said that some conservatives have denounced CBS anchor Scott Pelley, who got into a contentious back-and-forth with Newt Gingrich during Saturday night's debate.

But Goldberg thinks that Pelley did nothing wrong, saying this: "Scott Pelley just asked whether Gingrich would sign off on killing a suspected terrorist, and I am still trying to figure out why all my conservative friends think Pelley was wrong. He asked a legitimate question and he asked follow-ups."

Goldberg turned to CNN correspondent Dan Lothian, who asked a question to President Obama about GOP candidates who don't believe waterboarding is torture. Lothian asked the President if he thinks the Republicans are "uniformed, out of touch, or irresponsible."

Goldberg said this: "When I first saw this, I thought it was a Saturday Night Live comedy routine. President Obama even looked embarrassed by the question. That was the most ridiculous question I have ever had by a regular reporter from a mainstream news outlet!"

What a joke, it was a great and honest question from the CNN reporter, and Obama did not look embarrassed by it, then he answered it and said waterboarding is torture. John McCain even agreed with Obama and slammed the Republicans for saying it is not torture. Which the joke of a media analyst Bernie Goldberg never said a word about.

And finally O'Reilly had his ridiculous Factor reality check segment, that I do not report on, because it's just O'Reilly all by himself putting his spin on what someone else said.

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

More Proof O'Reilly Is Wrong About The U.S. & Greece
By: Steve - November 15, 2011 - 10:00am

One of the most common Republican talking points in response to the Eurozone crisis is to connect European debt to our debt. Which btw, is the very same talking points O'Reilly uses almost every day on the Factor.

In other words, as O'Reilly and the right see it, fiscal mismanagement and large welfare states have pushed an entire continent to the breaking point, and unless U.S. policymakers want to see a replay here, we should impose harsh measures here, shrink government, and focus on debt reduction.

The problem with the talking points from O'Reilly and the GOP is that they're wrong. For one thing, plenty of countries with generous welfare states - most notably, Sweden - are weathering the storm quite well, and are in some cases, thriving.

As Paul Krugman wrote in his new column, that's the last of the trouble with the conservative argument:
KRUGMAN: First, if you look around the world you see that the big determining factor for interest rates isn't the level of government debt but whether a government borrows in its own currency. Japan is much more deeply in debt than Italy, but the interest rate on long-term Japanese bonds is only about 1 percent to Italy's 7 percent. Britain's fiscal prospects look worse than Spain's, but Britain can borrow at just a bit over 2 percent, while Spain is paying almost 6 percent.

What has happened, it turns out, is that by going on the euro, Spain and Italy in effect reduced themselves to the status of third-world countries that have to borrow in someone else's currency, with all the loss of flexibility that implies. In particular, since euro-area countries can't print money even in an emergency, they're subject to funding disruptions in a way that nations that kept their own currencies aren't - and the result is what you see right now. America, which borrows in dollars, doesn't have that problem.

The other thing you need to know is that in the face of the current crisis, austerity has been a failure everywhere it has been tried: no country with significant debts has managed to slash its way back into the good graces of the financial markets.

For example, Ireland is the good boy of Europe, having responded to its debt problems with savage austerity that has driven its unemployment rate to 14 percent. Yet the interest rate on Irish bonds is still above 8 percent - worse than Italy.
For over a year, O'Reilly and his Republican friends, including GOP leaders on Capitol Hill, have cried Greece! anytime they hear someone dare to suggest now would be a good time to invest in job creation.

That argument is the result of hackery, dishonesty, ignorance, or all three, but regardless of the reason, it's nonsense. And those who consider O'Reilly and Congressional Republicans credible on economic policy simply aren't paying close enough attention.

Basically they are lying to you, and spinning out a right-wing talking point to justify big cuts to social programs they have wanted to put in place for 50 years. It's dishonest, and the so-called Independent with a no spin zone Bill O'Reilly is just as bad as the Republicans in Congress for doing it.

Hannity Guest Tells The Truth About His Show
By: Steve - November 14, 2011 - 10:00am

And you can bet the farm he will never be invited back. Steve Murphy was a guest on the Sean Hannity show and he said this to Hannity: "This Show Isn't The Media, This Is A Conservative Propaganda Show"

The only problem is that anyone watching Hannity will just dismiss and ignore what Murphy said because they think Hannity is a journalist. Even though he never went to college, or journalism school.

Not to mention, Hannity is the Rush Limbaugh of Fox, and he should get his checks directly from the RNC, because he is a 100% full time right-wing propaganda show host.

O'Reilly's Lincoln Book Banned & Full Of Errors
By: Steve - November 13, 2011 - 10:00am

Now here is some news about the O'Reilly Lincoln book you will never hear a word about from O'Reilly or anyone on the Factor. Not only is the book full of errors, a reviewer for the official National Park Service bookstore at Ford's Theatre has recommended that Bill O'Reilly's bestselling new book about the Lincoln assassination not be sold at the historic site "because of the lack of documentation and the factual errors within the publication."

The book is riddled with factual inaccuracies. In one instance, the book claims Ford's Theatre was burned down in 1863 when it was actually destroyed at the end of 1862. The book contains multiple references to Lincoln in the Oval Office, which wasn't built until decades after his death. It also includes the line "He furls his brow"; furl is a nautical term, the correct word is furrows.

The book has also taken heat from a slew of critics. Christian Science Monitor's Jackie Hogan chastises the book for covering up negative aspects of Lincoln's presidency in favor of a good story. As she puts it, "style and image often take precedence over evidence and substance." She also calls the book "sensationalized, suggestive, and overly simplistic." wrote this headline for a story they ran on the book:

"Ford's Theatre flunks O'Reilly's Lincoln book"

The National Park Service finds that the Fox host's best-selling new book is riddled with factual errors

Rae Emerson, deputy superintendent at Ford's Theatre, which is a national historic site under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, has penned a scathing appraisal of O'Reilly's book. In Emerson's official review, she spends four pages correcting passages from the book before recommending that it not be offered for sale at Ford's Theatre because it is not up to quality standards.

At one point O'Reilly writes of generals Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee, "The two warriors will never meet again." In fact, according to the Emerson review, Grant and Lee met for a second time in 1865 to discuss prisoners of war.

The book is also getting hammered in customer reviews on Amazon, with some charges of historical inaccuracy and an average rating of just two stars out of five.

I counted at least 10 factual errors that Emerson documented. So if you buy the book you are a fool. In fact, O'Reilly did the book the same way he does his show, full of errors and spin.

The Friday 11-11-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 12, 2011 - 11:00am

Juan Williams was the fill in for O'Reilly and he did not do a TPM, he went right to the Top Story with attorney Stacy Schneider, and I did not report on it because this is not a political news story.

Then the Republican Dee Dee Benkie was on to talk about a new poll that has Newt Gingrich in 2nd behind Romney. Benkie said this: "Newt Gingrich is always the smartest guy in the room, he's a walking encyclopedia and people like the fact that he gives the press a hard time. He has warmed up to everyone and he's doing better with each debate. People want someone who understands government and he has an institutional knowledge like no one else."

Democratic strategist Christopher Hahn contended that President Obama would make mincemeat out of Gingrich, saying this: "I think he is Obama's dream. Let's not forget that he is one of the most divisive figures in American political history - his reign as Speaker of the House was very negative and Republicans forced him out. He's a very flawed candidate in the general election."

Then Juan discussed the increasing violence at the occupy protests with Democratic strategist Tara Dowdell and Republican strategist Ford O'Connell. Dowdell said this: "There have been some unfortunate incidents, but the overwhelming majority of people are out there to exercise their rights and we should not lose sight of the important issues they're raising awareness about - income inequality and a lack of fairness in the system."

O'Connell said this: "This has become a destructive force with no real end game. I don't understand how occupying public places and tearing down public property is an economic solution. They're not helping their cause."

Juan concluded that the "Occupy" movement has been taken over by thugs and miscreants, saying this: "These protests are attracting people who are involved in nihilism. They're destroying themselves, they're destroying property, and they're attracting an element that seems to be intent on destroying the community."

Then Juan talked about a A federal judge that ruled this week a California high school was within its rights when it banned five students from wearing the American flag on Cinco de Mayo. Juan played a re-run of an interview O'Reilly conducted in May 2010 with two of the students' mothers.

Then Juan tried to cover for Rick Perry by saying Perry suffered a bad case of 'brain freeze' during this week's Republican debate when he couldn't name a cabinet department. Juan had physicians Leigh Vincour and Patrick Lyden on to discuss it.

Vinocur said this: "It happens to all of us, and certainly in a situation where you're campaigning and running all over the place and stressed out in a debate. It's how you encode and decode information and pull it from your brain."

Lyden explained what actually happens inside our heads: "We store language in one part of the brain and we use another part of the brain to actually produce speech, so those two parts of the brain have to communicate with each other. Under conditions of stress or sleep deprivation, it's hard to connect one part of the brain to the other. We worry about patients who come to us and say it's happening more often or becoming more severe, but for most of us it's a benign condition."

Or maybe Rick Perry is just a moron, and they never said a word about the oops. Why did the dummy say oops, a smart person would have just said it slipped my mind.

And finally in the last segment Juan had two students on to talk about the Penn State scandal. Which I also will not report on.

Then the lame as ever pinheads and patriots nonsense.

Fox Approved Pinkerton Secrecy On Bachmann Book Deal
By: Steve - November 12, 2011 - 10:00am

Here is some news you will never see reported on the Factor by the so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly. Fox News contributor James Pinkerton confirmed that he was paid to "partner" with Michele Bachmann on her new book, but said he did not disclose his role in the project at the request of Bachmann and her publisher.

Pinkerton also revealed that Fox News knew of his arrangement from the start and approved of his keeping it from viewers.

Now imagine what O'Reilly would say if a paid contributor at CNN or MSNBC helped a Democrat who was ruiing for President write a book, and did not disclose it as they put out so-called non-partisan political analysis about the very person they helped write the book for.

O'Reilly would lose his mind, call for the feds to investigate, call for heads to roll, and call for the person at CNN or MSNBC to be fird. But when a Fox employee does it O'Reilly is as silent as a mouse.

Here is the full story: Pinkerton said this: "I was bound by a confidentiality agreement. They said, 'Don't tell anybody,' I said, 'Okay.' I told my superiors at Fox and they knew," Pinkerton said Monday. "I helped on the book from June, July and August, I helped, in a collaborator sense. ... I helped as a collaborator to her. She was busy on the road, so she would have thoughts and tell me things and I would try and help put them together."

Pinkerton is a regular panelist on Fox News' media criticism show and has frequently discussed Bachmann and the other presidential candidates. And btw, Fox News did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Media Matters.

Pinkerton's role in the book first came to light Monday in a Politico story by Ben Smith that said this:
Michele Bachmann hired former speechwriter and domestic policy adviser to the first President Bush and to President Reagan, Jim Pinkerton, to help write her forthcoming memoir, "Core of Conviction," POLITICO has learned.
Contacted by Media Matters Monday evening, Pinkerton confirmed he had collaborated on the book, saying he is mentioned in acknowledgements as "research and writing partner."

Pinkerton said he had "zero regrets" about keeping his part in the book secret from Fox viewers, saying he always disclosed that his wife, a former Bachmann campaign chief of staff, was working for Bachmann.

"I chose not to [disclose my part in the book] because I wanted to protect the confidentiality of the book, although I told my Fox superiors," he said. "Every time Bachmann came up, I said that my wife was working for the campaign, and I was making it clear that I had an interest, as it were, in the Bachmann campaign, through my wife's work."

Asked why he did not disclose his book connection, Pinkerton said: "I felt the need to keep the book confidential at the request of all parties involved."

Which parties?

"The publisher, the candidate, the campaign."

Pinkerton said he was paid to collaborate on Bachmann's book, but would not disclose the amount. Pinkerton said he told Fox News "superiors" about his connection to the book in June. He declined to identify the superiors.

"I am a commentator, my views are well-known. I have been on Fox for 15 years, I've got lots of opinions on lots of things," he added. "Any time that I mentioned Bachmann, I mentioned that my wife was working with Bachmann. The book is a different project not connected to Fox."

He later sought to point out: "I am a contributor, and contributors are in a different category than full-time employees on Fox."

Are you still involved in the book?

"No, book's done. My part was done, finished including edits and everything in early September.

"Let me make clear, I am a fan of Michele Bachmann, but I am not involved in her campaign and neither is my wife, at present."

And now my opinion. What a load of bull from Pinkerton, if you help someone running for President write a book, and you are a paid political analyst on a news network you should disclose it early and often, if you do not do that you are a dishonest hack, case closed.

The Thursday 11-10-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 11, 2011 - 11:00am

Laura Ingraham was the fill in for O'Reilly and there was no TPM, she went right to the Top Story with Newt Gingrich.

Ingraham asked him about the wisdom of having so many debates. Gingrich said this: "It is a chance to communicate with the American people unedited, and it is a chance to communicate without raising millions of dollars. One of the most interesting stories of this campaign has been that some people could go out and raise huge amounts of money but couldn't survive the debates. It's good for America to have a free-wheeling discussion at a time when there are huge problems that deserve being aired."

Gingrich also talked about Rick Perry's brain freeze, saying this: "I'm very sympathetic to Governor Perry, who is a very smart man. I always have this fear that something will happen to me exactly as it happened to Rick, so my heart goes out to him. What he has to do is get back out and do lots of town hall meetings."

Finally, Gingrich laid out why he is the best man to take on President Obama, saying this: "For us to win this election we have to undo Obama's billion-dollar campaign by debating him head-to-head, and I think most people agree that I would be the most effective at articulating our values and communicating his failures."

Really? I think most people agree that Gingrich is a far-right joke that has no chance to beat Obama if he wins the GOP nomination.

Then Margie Omero & Mark Sawyer were on to evaluate the Republican debate. Omero said this: "Romney continues to be consistent. He dodges some questions but doesn't have any gaffes. And Newt Gingrich has been consistently good, this what he likes to do. Rick Perry was obviously the loser - he has a hard time eking out a sentence and saying what he believes coherently. That's why he's sinking in the polls."

Sawyer dismissed the entire Republican field as lightweights, saying this: "As a Democrat, I'm happy to run against any of them. Romney can't close the deal because he looks like a guy whose whole life has been a dress rehearsal for running for president, Herman Cain obviously has his problems in terms of electability, and Rick Perry is not good at speeches or debates. Tell me what he is good at!"

Ingraham said this: "Rick Perry has successfully run one of the most important states as a chief executive, which is more than I can say for Barack Obama."

Then Jason Whitlock & Steven Greenberg were on to discuss the Penn State/Joe Paterno scandal. Which I will not report on because it's not the kind of news the Factor should be reporting on.

Then Bret Baier was on to talk about a Fox News Special, and a new Gallup poll that shows 45% of Republicans believe that Mitt Romney will be their eventual nominee. Baier said this: "We have spent more than a year on the ground with undecided voters in Iowa, and in this special we'll show you how the Iowa caucuses work as these voters go through their decision process. If you don't know how it works, it really lays it all out there for you."

Baier also reported that Rick Santorum, who barely registers in national polls, has focused nearly all his energy on Iowa, saying this: "Santorum has been to all 99 counties and he is anecdotally doing a lot better than he is in the national polls. Iowa always has something that's a little bit of a surprise, and the question is whether a candidate can take something there and slingshot into momentum for the rest of the campaign. Right now Mitt Romney looks very effective in what he's doing and obviously GOP voters think he has a really good chance of being the nominee, but they're still closing the deal."

Then Ingraham had two attorneys, Mark Eiglarsh & Fred Tecce on to talk more about Penn State. Which I will not report on.

And finally in the last segment Ingraham had the former Secretary of Defense William Cohen on, who graded the foreign policy credentials of the Republican candidates.

Cohen said this: "If you had to assess who has the most experience, it would be Jon Huntsman. He served as ambassador to Singapore, ambassador to China, and he worked for various presidents. Newt Gingrich probably has the most experience other than Huntsman and obviously Governor Romney has some credentials. Governor Perry doesn't have credentials in that field and doesn't pretend to. Foreign policy will be secondary or tertiary to the economy in the election, but once you get into the office foreign policy takes over."

Then the lame as ever pinheads and patriots nonsense.

Journalists Slam Pinkerton & Fox For Bachmann Book Secrecy
By: Steve - November 11, 2011 - 10:00am

Journalism veterans and media experts are criticizing Fox News and commentator Jim Pinkerton for failing to disclose that Pinkerton was being paid to partner with Michele Bachmann on her book while regularly speaking about the presidential campaign on Fox.

Among the critics is Fox News contributor Marvin Kalb.

"I believe in transparency and if Jim Pinkerton was talking about [Bachmann's] campaign on Fox News as a Fox News contributor it should have been pointed out to viewers that he was part of this campaign," said Kalb, former host of NBC's Meet the Press and a 30-year television news veteran. "I don't understand why this had to be a secret connection."

The reaction follows the disclosure -- first reported by Politico's Ben Smith -- that Pinkerton spent June, July and August 2011 as a paid collaborator on a book with Bachmann. Pinkerton did not tell Fox viewers about his role in the book while regularly appearing on Fox News Watch.

Pinkerton told Media Matters that his Fox News "superiors" knew of his secret arrangement and approved of it. He declined to name the superiors.

Pinkerton also said he had "zero regrets" about keeping his part in the book secret from Fox viewers, saying he always disclosed that his wife, a former Bachmann campaign chief of staff, was working for Bachmann.

David Zurawik, media critic for The Baltimore Sun, finds hypocrisy in Pinkerton being secretive while appearing on Fox News Watch, a media criticism program.

"All the dishonesty is multiplied by him doing this on a media review show," Zurawik said. "First of all, a media review show is the last place a guy who tries to shade his conflicts of interest this way and keep necessary information from viewers should be. And if Fox News knew, it tells you what management there thinks of telling the truth on such shows."

He later stated: "If Fox knew and did allow this, it gives lie to all of their P.R. about how unfair it is to call them biased. They can trot Bret Baier out all they want, but if they allow this kind of dishonest behavior, they are not an honest news operation that citizens should trust."

Bill Kovach, founder of the Committee of Concerned Journalists and former New York Times Washington, D.C., bureau chief, called the actions "deceitful."

"Both Pinkerton and Fox withheld deeply relevant information from their audience," he said in an email. "It was deceitful. Such self-interested information undermines any claim either to journalism, the interest of their viewers as citizens or the larger public interest."

Tom Fiedler, former Miami Herald editor and currently dean of the College of Communication at Boston University, went one step further.

"I would like to know who Pinkerton's 'superiors' are at Fox who were aware of this conflict and were apparently untroubled by his failure to disclose it to the Fox audience," Fiedler said. "They should be fired."

Fox News has yet to respond to requests for comment.

"Fox News has failed Journalism Ethics 101," said Alex S. Jones, director of the Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. "This is a transparent breach of the most fundamental journalism ethics. I think it is outrageous that they would have allowed this."

Pam Fine, a former managing editor of The Indianapolis Star and currently a journalism professor at the University of Kansas, also commented on the transparency problem.

"My presumption is that Fox viewers would want to know whether commentators have a financial or other significant relationship with any candidate and that the right thing for the commentator to do is disclose," Fine said via email.

Former National Public Radio Ombudsman Alicia Shepard, also a veteran journalist and author, stated:

"I've always liked Jim Pinkerton, but I disagree with him. This is the age of transparency. We can't pick and choose what we want to disclose and what we think we should disclose. As journalists and/or commentators, we owe it to our audience to let them know about any conflicts of interest. You can't work on a book and not have a conflict of interest."

Deadbeat Republican Father Wins Pro-Family Award
By: Steve - November 11, 2011 - 9:00am

Now this may be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen, and it also shows how crazy these partisan groups like the right-wing Family Research Council are.

In July, it was reported that Congressman Joe Walsh (R-IL), a Tea Party freshman in Congress, owed $117,000 in unpaid child support to his ex-wife. Walsh, despite earning a hefty salary as a member of Congress, has continued to refuse to pay his ex-wife to support his children.

Now, an influential Christian right lobbying group is lending some support to the deadbeat congressman. The Sun-Times reports that the Family Research Council has awarded Walsh a 100 percent rating as a True Blue member of Congress. The FRC said it gave the honor to Walsh because of his unwavering support of the family:
"We thank Cong. Walsh who has voted consistently to defend faith, family and freedom," said FRCA President Tony Perkins.

"Cong. Walsh and other 'True Blue Members' have voted to repeal Obamacare, de-fund Planned Parenthood, end government funding for abortion within the health care law, uphold the Defense of Marriage Act, and continue support for school choice. I applaud their commitment to uphold the institutions of marriage and family."

"I am proud and honored to be recognized by the Family Research Council as the only member from Illinois with a 100 percent pro-family voting record," Walsh said in a news release.

"Defending American values have always been one of my top priorities, and this reward reaffirms my dedication to that fight."
Despite their very poor understanding of what the term pro-family means - the Family Research Council was recently designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center because of their virulently anti-gay views.

Their legislative arm's annual Values Voters convention drew such speakers as Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), and former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) this year.

It's also worth noting that Walsh's failure to pay child support isn't even his only failure to look out for the basic needs of his own family. Walsh also rejected the congressional health insurance plan for his own family on principle, much to the chagrin of his current wife, Helene, who had a preexisting condition and needed surgery while the couple was uninsured.

Recently, a judge even scolded Walsh for failing to show up to a court hearing about his missed child support payments, telling the Chicago-area lawmaker that he doesn't deserve special treatment and that he's "no different than anyone else."

The Wednesday 11-9-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 10, 2011 - 11:30am

For some strange reason O'Reilly was off and the far-right spin doctor Laura Ingraham filled in. Maybe he knew the GOP was going to get hammered at the ballot box so he took off and had Ingraham spin the bad news for him. She had a TPM called: Lessons from election day. Crazy Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: While the media were obsessing about Herman Cain yesterday, voters in key states were going to the polls. First, the good news for the GOP: In Virginia, a state Obama won by six points in 2008, Republicans chalked up historic victories in the state legislature, and in Ohio 66% of voters approved an anti-Obamacare constitutional amendment.

And the bad news: A bold Republican attempt to curb union power in Ohio went down in flames. This is a teachable moment for conservatives. Ohio Governor John Kasich made a no-nonsense, free market case for curbing unions' collective bargaining rights, but he failed to win over independents, the working class, and even many Republicans.

Kasich and his allies were branded as anti-teacher, anti-firefighter, and anti-middle class, and his message was swamped by $30 million in union money. So if you're one of those Republicans who thinks President Obama is bound to lose next year because he's done a really bad job on the economy, think again. He has an enormous amount of money, a huge get-out-the-vote machine, and the support of the media.

The GOP must not be distracted by media-fueled sideshows or by candidates who are not fully prepared to discuss the breadth and complexities of the problems we face as a nation. It's going to take more than highlighting Obama's failings for Republicans to win next November; they will need to unify behind a compelling pro-growth agenda that the voters cannot resist and Obama's war chest cannot defeat.
Wow, is that some big time right-wing spin. The GOP got their butts kicked, they lost every big issue and it was a slaughter for the left. But Ingraham said there was some good news for the GOP, yeah 1% good news, the other 99% was bad news. But she ignored almost all of it, she never said a word about the ballot measures where the GOP lost in Maine, Mississippi, or the fact that the anti-immigration state Senator in Arizona was recalled, in Kentucky 4 of 5 House races were won by Democrats, etc. etc. etc.

The Democrats won 99% to 1% and yet Ingraham acted like it was a 60/40 night. Proving she is a total right-wing stooge.

Then Ingraham had Dick Morris on to spin for Cain, and of course he did not disclose the fact that he takes money from the Cain campaign.

Morris said this: "This has been huge. It has dominated the race in the past two weeks and has cost the Republican Party momentum, which is what I think the purveyors of the scandal wanted it to do. This is largely a Democratic setup - the woman who was on television the other night lives in the same building as David Axelrod and she was shepherded around the press conference by Gloria Allred, a long-time Democratic operative."

Morris offered Cain some surprising advice, saying "he should take a lie detector test and challenge his accusers." But Ingraham disagreed with Morris on all counts, saying this: "I do not think we have clear evidence that the Democrats have orchestrated the takedown of Herman Cain. I wouldn't put it past them, but the stuff you lay out is a lot of speculation. And a lie detector test would give these women more credibility than they deserve."

And in fact, the Cain campaign accused Rick Perry of leaking the info, the Cain campaign even demanded an apology from Perry. But Morris still claims it's a Democratic set-up, with no proof, and even Laura Ingraham does not believe it.

Morris concluded that Cain could still win the nomination because Romney "is stuck in a rut, he's been at 25% every since he started."

And I predict Morris will be wrong as usual, Romney is going to win, and that is my prediction.

Then Alexis McGill Johnson and Robert Zimmerman were on to talk about a conservative group that created an anti-Obama ad that includes footage of Bill Clinton strongly advising against any tax increases, but of course they took his statement out of context, which Ingraham did not mention.

Zimmerman said this: "It's a great ad for political insiders, but it has no relevance in moving the agenda forward for Republicans. Republicans have to start articulating their own ideas and put their own programs on the table. The country is smarter than this ad shows."

Alexis McGill Johnson denounced the ad as dishonest, saying this: "This is an effective ad if you believe that deception is an effective tactic. Bill Clinton has put out a statement saying that all of these clips were taken completely out of context. Wall Street has been doing better and President Obama is simply asking the 1% to do their share."

Then Larry Sabato was on to help Ingraham spin the election day for the GOP. Sabato said this: "This is the third bad election year in a row for Democrats in Virginia. Republicans gained so many seats in the House of Delegates that they're now at an all-time high and have a chance to be in power for decades. President Obama is going to have a tough time, which is why they're putting so much money and organization into Virginia."

Sabato turned to Ohio, where organized labor won a major victory, saying this: "This was a big psychological boost, for Democrats and President Obama. Ohio is a state he may have to carry given what's happening in the South and he got a big boost yesterday."

While ignoring what happened in Maine, Mississippi, and Arizona. The GOP lost on all three big issue votes, unions, abortion, and same day voter registration, but Sabato only talked about 1 issue. And he totally ignored Arizona recalling the anti-immigration law author.

Then Ingraham put Rick Santorum on to try and help him because she is as far-right as he is and she loves everything he says.

Santorum said this: "This isn't a national election, it's a state-by-state election. The first one is Iowa and I'm the only candidate who has spent the time to develop relationships there, I've been to all 99 counties. We're building momentum in Iowa and I think we have an excellent chance of winning and getting this race turned around on its head."

Earth to Rick (man on dog) Santorum, you have 2 chances of winning the GOP nomination, slim and none.

Santorum then complained about the inordinate amount of media attention devoted to the accusations against Herman Cain, saying this: "It is certainly a great distraction - we should be focusing on Barack Obama and the terrible job he's been doing, but that's not been the conversation."

Ingraham praised Santorum for sticking to his substantive message, saying this: "You stand firm as the stalwart social conservative in this race. If you win Iowa that will be an unbelievable story."

Then David Callahan was on to talk about how some "Occupy" protests have been marred by crime, filth and violence. Callahan, a supporter of the protests, talked about reports of rape and sexual assaults.

Callahan said this: "I'm impressed with these young protesters, who are willing to camp out for weeks to draw attention to our unfair economy. These are committed folks who have changed the debate and unfortunately some have paid the price. But let's put this into perspective. The violence has come from hangers-on from outside the movement and there has not been an epidemic of violence. You all like to focus on this 'bad stuff' to distract attention from the important issues."

Ingraham argued that 'Occupy' protests have thrown some cities into near-anarchy, saying this: "I interviewed the Oakland police union representative and they're concerned that people who need help in other parts of the city aren't able to get it. So we have small businesses complaining, we have enormous amounts of damage being done, and somehow you think this is all great."

Ignoring his point, that it is not the Occupy protesters doing the crime, it is people outside their group using the protests to do the crimes.

And finally in the last segment Ingraham had Justin Logan of the libertarian Cato Institute on to talk about Iran. Logan said this: "We haven't moved the ball very far. The Obama administration is continuing the Bush policy by trying to bring allies together to sanction the Iranian government, to cause Iran enough pain to change its behavior. That hasn't had any effect, and what's new in this report is that they have detected work in Iran on particular weapons technologies that have very little use other than for a nuclear program."

Ingraham said this: "We have Iran on the verge of a nuclear weapon, and a Middle East that went through an 'Arab spring' but could be more Islamist than ever before. We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars, we've reached out to the Arab world and Muslims, and I would submit that today we are no better off."

Then the lame as ever pinheads and patriots nonsense.

Arizona Recalls Author Of Anti-Immigration Law
By: Steve - November 10, 2011 - 11:00am

Arizona's radical Senate President Russell Pearce conceded defeat to fellow Republican Jerry Lewis yesterday in "an unprecedented recall election."

The author of Arizona's notorious anti-immigrant law SB 1070, Pearce languished under serious backlash to his extremism, which included a forceful role in pushing business tax cuts, abortion limits, and union restrictions.

Despite his Tea Party supporters attempts to recruit a sham candidate and to deceive Hispanic voters, Pearce only earned 45 percent of the vote while Lewis earned 53 percent.

"I'm grateful for the battles that we've won," he said in his concession speech. "If being recalled is the price for keeping these promises, then so be it."

This recall that was forced by a citizen petition drive, was the first for an Arizona legislator. And of course neither O'Reilly or anyone on the Factor ever said a word about it.

O'Reilly Spins Like A Top Defending Herman Cain
By: Steve - November 10, 2011 - 10:00am

This is what O'Reilly does when a Republican is accused of sex abuse, he defends him, spins for himm, attacks the media for reporting on it, and says it could actually help him.

O'Reilly: Herman Cain's Defense Against Sexual Harassment Accusations Was "Very Strong"

O'Reilly: People Are "Very Suspect" About Accusations Against Cain And "The Backlash Could Help Him"

Now that is flat out 100% right-wing spin. For two reasons, the Cain defense was not strong, it was laughable, all he did was say he did not do anything wrong. But if that's the case why did the NRA pay the two women out of court settlements and make them sign a no talking about the settlement agreements. And O'Reilly never said a word about the out of court settlements.

Second, most people are not suspect about accusations against Cain, the only people that are suspect are Republicans like O'Reilly who are trying to cover for Cain and spin for him. Most people believe Cain did something, and that he is trying to cover it up to save his campaign.

So O'Reilly was wrong on both counts. All O'Reilly did was prove once again that he is a Republican that uses right-wing talking points. And if Cain were a Democrat, O'Reilly would slam him and report all the facts of the settlements, etc. every night. Instead he spins for Cain, defends him, and even claims it could help him, which is just ridiculous.

Rick Perry Proves He Is A Moron At The GOP Debate
By: Steve - November 10, 2011 - 9:00am

The highlight of the entire debate was when Rick Perry forgot what three Government departments he wants to get rid of. He could not remember the names of the three departments from his own plan, what an idiot.

Perry could only name Commerce and Education. Paul suggested there are five; Romney suggested the EPA. Perry said, no that's not it, but couldn't name the third.

Here is an actual quote from Rick Perry:
PERRY: "Commerce, education, and the umm, what's the third one there? Let's see. The third agency of government I would do away with – education, uh the, commerce, and let's see, I can't. The third one I can't. Sorry. Oops."
And this dummy wants to be the President, haha, good luck with that sparky, not gonna happen. In fact, Perry should just drop out of the race before he makes an even bigger fool of himself than he already has.

Perry also said his tax plan will let Americans keep more of what you work for. Actually, it would raise taxes on most middle-class and low-income families.

And btw, 15 minutes later Perry remembered the other department he wants to do away with, the Department of Energy. Perry said this: "By the way, it was the Department of Energy that I was reaching for before."

Republicans Lose On All Three Big Issue Votes
By: Steve - November 9, 2011 - 11:30am

Let's see O'Reilly spin this. The Republican party lost all three big votes yesterday in Ohio, Maine, and Mississippi. They got voted down by the people, and not just one time, three times. So my question to O'Reilly is this: How can you claim America is a center right country when you lose all those votes.

The Associated Press reports that Ohio voters have resoundingly defeated Gov. John Kasich's (R) anti-labor law, Senate Bill 5, delivering a significant blow to the beleaguered governor in his first year of office. The rejection marks a victory for Ohio's teachers, firefighters, police, and veterans whose collective bargaining rights were stripped by the law.

On MSNBC's Ed Show, state Rep. Nina Turner (D) demanded that Kasich apologize to Ohioans for attacking workers rights instead of focusing on jobs.

And btw, this is the first vote on workers collective bargaining rights in the nation's history and it also marks the first time a governor has seen his signature legislation rejected by voters in his first year.

In Mississippi, voters rejected a radical right-wing "personhood" constitutional amendment that defined a fertilized egg as a person, which effectively banned all abortions, birth control, and couples from conceiving children through in vitro fertilization.

With even anti-choice activists concerned about the bill's ambiguity, the amendment failed with 58 percent voting against. Noting that Mississippi ranks as one of the most anti-choice states in the nation, Planned Parenthood said voters "understood [the bill] Is government gone too far, and would have allowed government to have control over personal decisions that should be left up to a woman, her family, her doctor and her faith."

And finally the Republicans got stomped in Maine too. Maine Republicans had eliminated the state's longstanding practice of same-day voter registration on election day.

But Tuesday, Maine voters defeated this voter suppression law at the polls. Even though conservative groups committed serious money and launched incendiary tactics to preserve this law but earned a defeat through the "people's veto."

O'Reilly says we must go by the will of the people, but I doubt he will think so on these issues, and he will most likely ignore them all, or if he does report on it he will spin for the right. And btw, I just found out O'Reilly will have Laura Ingraham filling in for him tonight, so my guess is that when he comes back he will never talk about the Republicans losing on all three of those votes.

The Tuesday 11-8-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 9, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The political fallout of the Cain allegations. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Since nobody knows what happened in the 1990's regarding Herman Cain and accusations of inappropriate behavior, it is very difficult to analyze the situation with any clarity. Today Mr. Cain denied doing anything wrong, saying 'I have never acted inappropriately with anyone.'

The question remains whether the Cain campaign can survive all of this? There's no question that his supporters are standing by him - he's raised millions of dollars in the past week and his poll numbers continue to hold among likely Republican voters.

Talking Points believes it is far too early to reach any conclusions about the whole mess. But there is no question that on the Republican side the political dynamic in this presidential election is changing.
Notice that O'Reilly is almost defending Cain, even though 4 or 5 women have come forward now. But when just "1" woman accused John Edwards of having an affair O'Reilly was all over it slamming Edwards, before it was proven to be true. This shows just how biased O'Reilly is, because if Cain was a Democrat O'Reilly would report the story every night and slam him.

Then O'Reilly had James Rosen and Carl Cameron on to discuss it. Cameron said this: "Republicans and Cain's supporters are circling the wagons and trying to defend him, but now there are four or five accusers. He's tried to battle back by saying there is no substantiating evidence, but another woman came out publicly today and she's calling on some of her fellow accusers to hold a joint news conference. That is the kind of thing that really disturbs establishment Republicans and it potentially does political damage to Mr. Cain."

Rosen said this: "I know of a very talented GOP political operative, who was asked to join the Cain campaign in a very senior role since this scandal broke. After thinking about it, this individual said no, which is an example of talent fleeing the campaign."

O'Reilly suggested that Cain could actually benefit, saying this: "Because there is an anger growing in this country about the industry that is set up to smear politicians on both sides."

Are you kidding me O'Reilly, how is he going to benefit from a sex abuse scandal, that is just insane right-wing spin, especially if it is proven to be true. And it most likely will be, because we know 2 of the women were paid out of court settlements, and yet O'Reilly still denies Cain did anything and that it could help him. Give me a break, what a joke. Notice that O'Reilly never mentions the out of court settlements, or the agreement that they would never talk about the cases.

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to speculate on which Republican candidates could benefit from Herman Cain's difficulties. In the so-called no-speculation zone, breaking O'Reilly's own rules. O'Reilly even asked them to speculate on it.

Colmes said this: "It may help Newt Gingrich. There seems to be a 'Newt boom' - a lot of people who haven't looked at him in a while may be reconsidering because they want a conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. But Michele Bachmann has kind of rendered herself almost irrelevant."

Crowley thinks that Texas Governor Rick Perry may pick up some defecting Cain voters, saying this: "Alan is right, Newt Gingrich has started something of a mini-surge. And Rick Perry, who receded when Herman Cain started rising, has a strong conservative record with a great economic story to tell. In the final analysis, primary voters are going to pull the lever not based on emotion. Their calculation will be based on which candidate can stand up to Barack Obama in a debate and in the election."

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about if AG Holder will hang on to his job. Kelly said this: "He can survive, because there are 34 House Republicans calling on him to resign but no Democrats and no Senators. There is no direct proof showing that he knew about this operation."

Kelly also discussed the guilty verdict in the case of Dr. Conrad Murray for his role in Michael Jackson's death, saying this: "He could get probation or house arrest, California's prisons are so messed up and overcrowded that people don't have to serve any of their sentences. But the bigger penalty to him is the loss of his medical license, and I think that's why he's on suicide watch right now. His career is gone."

Then John Stossel was on to talk about drug use. O'Dummy said there are reports of widespread abuse of prescription drugs like OxyContin among high school students. In light of that and Michael Jackson's death, O'Reilly asked Stossel whether he has second thoughts about drug legalization.

Stossel said this: "It's already illegal for kids to buy this stuff, but they buy it anyway. Did alcohol prohibition work? All it does is create crime, and banning drugs doesn't make them go away. Prosecute anyone who sells a prescription drug to kids, but do you want to ban OcyContin? It's a great pain reliever."

O'Dummy urged legislators to institute mandatory minimum sentences for anyone selling drugs to a minor, saying this: "I want to put punitive measures on people who sell it, including doctors, for frivolous reasons. Let's get tough on this!"

Then Lis Wiehl & Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to talk about the Penn State sex abuse scandal and Joe Paterno. Which I will not report on, because it more of a tabloid news story that does not involve the economy, politics, etc.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Charles Krauthammer on to say if Herman Cain can survive accusations of past improper behavior. Krauthammer said this: "I think he can, but it won't be easy. It's going to require repeated exertions like the one today when Cain had his press conference. It's a high wire act and today he crossed the wire just about intact, but he made one mistake, which was to blindly blame it on what he called the 'Democratic machine.'

You can't go around making charges if you don't know that they're true. But on the substance I thought he defended himself in a way that was rather effective. He should stop throwing out accusations and simply talk about the substance."

So then O'Dummy denounced "all of these people who came out 15 years after the fact who want to destroy Herman Cain and his family."

Funny thing though, O'Reilly never denounced anyone who came from the past to destroy a Democrat, in fact, O'Reilly has taken things from the past to try and destroy Democrats himself. So as usual he is showing he is nothing but a biased right-wing hypocrite with two sets of rules, one set of rules for Republicans and another set of rules for Democrats.

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

Ohio Voters Strike Down Republican Anti-Union Labor Law
By: Steve - November 9, 2011 - 10:00am

The Associated Press reports that Ohio voters have resoundingly defeated Gov. John Kasich’s (R) anti-labor law, Senate Bill 5, delivering a significant blow to the beleaguered governor in his first year of office.

The rejection marks a victory for Ohio's teachers, firefighters, police, and veterans whose collective bargaining rights were stripped by the law.

On MSNBC's Ed Show, state Rep. Nina Turner (D) demanded that Kasich apologize to Ohioans for attacking workers rights instead of focusing on jobs.

So take that O'Reilly, your pal John Kasich got his right-wing ass kicked. O'Reilly and the right supported the law, and the people said take your anti-union garbage and shove it. Next I predict Kasich will either be impeached, or voted out in the next election.

And of course O'Reilly will either spin it for Kasich, or just ignore the entire story. Because he is a proven right-wing hack of a fraud journalist. Not to mention O'Reilly supported the law, even though he claims to be a Union guy.

Fox Caught Lying About NEW Obama Health Care Survey
By: Steve - November 9, 2011 - 9:00am

On Monday Fox News reported that McKinsey & Co. has released a NEW survey this week estimating that a large number of employers will drop health coverage under the Affordable Care Act. But in an email to Media Matters, McKinsey stated that it has not released any new research on the topic in months.

It all started on October 27, when Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, led by House Republican Darrell Issa, issued a report critical of health care reform. The report cited research that McKinsey had released in June that stoked fears that "more than 30 percent of employers overall, and 28 percent of large ones, say they will definitely or probably drop coverage after 2014."

On Wednesday, just days after Issa's report cited McKinsey's June research, America's Newsroom co-host Bill Hemmer claimed that McKinsey itself was responsible for "a survey out this week."

On Monday, Happening Now co-host Jenna Lee claimed that "a new survey conducted by an independent research firm finds that 30 percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering company-sponsored health coverage once the new health-care law kicks in."

When Media Matters contacted McKinsey & Company to obtain a copy of the new survey, the organization told Media Matters via email that it has not released one on this topic since June. From the email:
We did not release any other survey on this topic. The Fox News piece is based on the survey that was conducted in February of this year and published in June.
In June, Fox aggressively promoted the McKinsey survey to warn that 30 percent of employers would drop health coverage once the Affordable Care Act was implemented, forcing 78 million Americans out of their current health insurance. Fox trumpeted the survey results as "blockbuster" research that undermined efforts to reform the health care system.

But those claims fell apart after McKinsey was forced to acknowledge that the survey was not intended to be a predictive economic analysis.

And this is not the first time Fox News has served as a mouthpiece for the GOP propaganda department.

Back in 2009, the Fox show Happening Now passed off a Senate Republican Communications Center press release as its own research -- typo and all.

More recently, Happening Now reported this: "Today, the headline is this ... government spending as a share of our economy will increase by nearly 70 percent by 2035."

Earlier that day, House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan had issued a press release stating that "government spending as a share of the economy will increase by nearly 70 percent between now and 2035."

In another example, Fox & Friends recited a misleading House GOP press release to distort President Obama's estimate of the stimulus' job impacts.

During the health care debate, Fox analysts and anchors repeatedly used the GOP's "ram it through" language to attack health care reform. They even adopted the GOP's choice phrase, "Obamacare," to describe health care reform, including O'Reilly who claims to be a non-partisan Independent that never uses GOP talking points.

More recently, in August, Fox & Friends used talking points similar to a Republican National Committee document released a day before to bash Obama for "pivoting" to jobs.

In September, Fox News waged a week-long war against government regulations in a series called "Regulation Nation," which echoed the name of a House Republican website that has existed since at least June.

And just last month, Fox's "report card" on Obama's first 1,000 days was a copycat of an RNC document -- but Fox host Megyn Kelly tried passing it off as "Fox Facts" from Fox's "brain room."

The Monday 11-7-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 8, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Occupy Wall street violence escalates. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Over the weekend the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement tried to interfere with the 'Defending the American Dream Summit' in Washington, DC, a peaceful meeting attended by conservatives and some Tea Party people. The confrontation got scant media coverage because it is embarrassing to the 'Occupy' movement.

Some of these irresponsible protesters even brought their own children. And in Oakland, the 'Occupy' kooks are even protesting Burger King, a chain that provides low-cost food to the folks. There is no question the 'Occupy Wall Street' protest has been hijacked by loons.

A new poll shows that 33% of voters have a favorable view of the protesters, 43% unfavorable. The folks know what's going on, but that doesn't stop the left-wing media from continuing to support the occupiers. The New York Times actually wrote that 'the protesters seem to be increasingly welcomed' by their fellow citizens.

This whole exposition is an important lesson in American dissent. In the beginning some protesters voiced a legitimate beef, that there is far too much corruption on Wall Street. But soon the loons began to erode any legitimacy and the sincere protesters did not speak out about the violence and crime. Maybe the liberal media should finally take notice of the real story here and report it accurately.
Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to assess the insane Talking Points Memo from O'Dummy. Williams said this: "You talked about a lunatic fringe and I agree with you, but the American people are getting a daily reminder of the anger at Wall Street. It's wrong to say that because there are some anarchists out in Oakland or some rude people in Washington that that's the entire movement."

Ham characterized the movement as a double-edged sword for Democrats, saying this: "The Tea Party was able to change the course of an election in 2010, so these folks have power. But I think these folks are becoming far more dangerous to Democrats than the Tea Party was to Republicans."

O'Dummy said that the protests have been hijacked: "Americans honor dissent, but they don't want this kind of stuff. There's crime all over and the cops really have to clamp it down. The violent kooks are running that show now."

And there is more proof O'Reilly is a right-wing stooge. When the Tea Party protests he supports it and defends them, when liberal groups protest O'Reilly calls them loons and calls for the cops to shut them down. Hey O'Reilly you conservative jerk, the 1st amendment is good for liberals too.

Then O'Reilly had 2 full segments with Condoleeza Rice, which I will not report on, because it was total right-wing spin from Rice and O'Reilly.

Then Brit Hume was on to evaluate Condoleezza Rice's stance on Iraq. And of course no liberal guest was on to discuss it. Hume said this: "Iraq is one area where you'll find Rice, Rumsfeld and Cheney in agreement. They all are of the view that we should have a residual force of Americans there to make sure that the situation doesn't fly out of control upon our departure. A peaceful Iraq allied with the United States in that part of the Middle East is an important strategic asset, and the presence of American troops there would be a strategic asset as well."

O'Reilly talked about the tremendous human investment that has been made in Iraq, saying this: "I always look at it from the perspective of the families that lost loved ones. How are they going to feel if the whole thing goes crazy?"

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to cry about the media reporting on the Herman Cain scandal.

Goldberg said this: "I don't know what Herman Cain did or didn't do, and this may be a legitimate story. But I also thought Barack Obama's relationship with a former domestic terrorist was a legitimate and important story, and I also thought his relationship with a racist minister for 20 years was an important and legitimate story. But the media were late to those two stories and they can't get enough of the Cain story. The reason is simple - they like Barack Obama and his politics, they don't like Herman Cain and his politics."

O'Dummy said that the other cable networks pay a steep price for their dishonesty: "I look at the ratings of CNN and MSNBC every night and for ten years they haven't moved an inch. There's no reason for the low ratings that our competing cable news networks get other than a lack of credibility."

What a joke, ratings do not equal quality. For example, the #1 rated show on cable is fake wrestling. And you can bet the farm if Cain was a Democrat O'Reilly and Fox would have done 50 times more stories about it than CNN or MSNBC. O'Reilly ignores 10 stories a day that make conservatives look bad, while slamming CNN for reporting so much on Cain.

Which makes him a massive hypocrite, and btw, CNN reports on it because it's a real story that is getting them good ratings. The very same thing O'Reilly does on his show. O'Reilly admits it is all about ratings, so he reports what gets him the best ratings. But when CNN does the very same thing, O'Reilly attacks them for it, when they are just doing the very same thing O'Reilly does.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly did his bogus and ridiculous Factor Reality Check. Which I do not report on because it is laughable. It's basically O'Reilly by himself giving his right-wing opinion of something someone else said. It has no reality, and almost no checks.

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

Al Sharpton Responds To O'Reilly About Herman Cain
By: Steve - November 8, 2011 - 10:00am

As Herman Cain's sexual harassment scandal unfolded last week, Bill O'Reilly wondered why, despite Cain arguing that race was a factor in how he was being treated, civil rights leaders Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton had not come to his aid.

Monday, the Washington Times caught up with Sharpton, who replied that, yes, he had commented on it, just not in the way O'Reilly wanted him to.

Washington Times reporter Kerry Picket caught up with Sharpton and asked him for a few words on Cain. While he noted that "I don't think anyone knows the ins and outs of it but him and the ladies involved," he did say he was troubled by the fact that Cain had "given different stories in different times" in a way that had undermined his credibility.

As to O’Reilly's suggestion that his silence on Cain had been partisan, Sharpton replied that there was no silence at all. "I've spoken on a number of platforms about his inconsistencies," he noted.

"I think Bill O’Reilly's problem is that I'm not saying what he wants me to say...not that I'm not speaking, but that I'm not singing Mr. O'Reilly's song."

He concluded by suggesting that O'Reilly "should check with me before he asks me to talk."

O'Reilly & Goldberg Slam CNN For Cain Reporting
By: Steve - November 8, 2011 - 9:00am

After a week-long barrage of coverage relating to at least three women accusing Herman Cain of sexual harassment, Monday he was confronted with legal celebrity Gloria Allred's latest client, Sharon Bialek, who accused him of "reaching for my genitals" in a car.

But if you missed the press conference, you would not have found out about it from Bill O'Reilly, despite Billy and media critic Bernie Goldberg dedicating a full segment to the media's inadequate coverage of Herman Cain.

In a segment where the media was with the Herman Cain saga sometime last week, Goldberg and O'Reilly discussed the way the media was treating the Republican presidential candidate, with Goldberg prefacing everything with "I don't know what Herman Cain did or didn't do" and suggesting there was a possibility this was "in fact, a legitimate story."

That said, he would have wanted to see more coverage like this for President Barack Obama and his "relationship with a former domestic terrorist," Bill Ayers, in 2008. The reason that the coverage was more intense of Cain, Goldberg claims, is that, "while President Obama was young, cool, and black, Herman Cain is only black."

O'Reilly then noted that other networks were trailing him in the ratings, and the only explanation he could find for this is that "the folks get it" and don't find other networks credible.

Goldberg added that it was more complicated than that, that people "tune into political opinion shows to validate their own opinions" and, as America is a right of center country, this benefited Fox News.

Dedicating a segment to Herman Cain without noting that the accusations against him now have a face, and that they have escalated from harassment to assault, made the segment feel incomplete.

The elephant in the room is inescapable, it does not ring genuine to ignore the top story of the day in a segment evaluating political coverage elsewhere.

The press conference did air only on CNN live, so O’Reilly and Goldberg are not alone in neglecting to note it, but by not speaking of it, they leave themselves open to the same criticism to which the segment was dedicated.

O'Reilly Ignoring Big Vote On Ohio Anti-Union Law
By: Steve - November 7, 2011 - 10:00am

The entire country will be watching to see what happens in the Tuesday vote about Ohio's collective bargaining law that GOP Gov. John Kasich signed in March. And yet, O'Reilly has not said a word about it.

It's a ballot battle that pits the union rights of public workers against Republican efforts to shrink government and limit organized labor's reach culminates Tuesday in a vote with political consequences from statehouses to Pennsylvania Avenue.

A question called Issue 2 asks voters to accept or reject a voluminous rewrite of Ohio's collective bargaining law that GOP Gov. John Kasich signed in March, less than three months after his party regained power in the closely divided swing state.

Thousands descended on the Statehouse in protest of the legislation known as Senate Bill 5, prompting state officials at one point to lock the doors out of concern for lawmakers' safety.

The legislation affects more than 350,000 police, firefighters, teachers, nurses and other government workers. It sets mandatory health care and pension minimums for unionized government employees, bans public worker strikes, scraps binding arbitration and prohibits basing promotions solely on seniority.

One woman in Ohio said that she has never seen so many "Vote No on Issue 2" yard signs her life. With the latest polling showing a 25 point spread with the issue going down in the flames.

And the reason O'Reilly has ignored it is because it looks like Kasich is going to lose, and that would make him and the Republicans look bad. So O'Reilly is ignoring the story to help them cover it up by not reporting the vote, or the results of the vote.

Republican Gov. Caught Trying To Rig Redistricting Process
By: Steve - November 7, 2011 - 9:00am

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) has been under fire recently for her dramatic political move to interfere with the state's bipartisan redistricting commission. Annoyed that the commission did not redraw congressional districts to benefit Republicans, Brewer convinced the GOP-controlled state Senate to impeach the commission's independent chairwoman, Colleen Mathis.

State officials are only supposed to be impeached for "neglect of duty and gross misconduct." But during an interview this week on Alan Colmes radio show, Brewer became completely incoherent when trying to defend her actions. She could not explain what offenses Mathis had committed that could possibly justify her impeachment:
COLMES: What did Colleen do that was inappropriate, Colleen Mathis?

BREWER: Well she acted, uh, inappropriately. Well it was very, pretty much obvious that she in communications, and doing things, uh, not in the public, and the people of Arizona deserve that...

COLMES: You mean she was doing things secretly? Like what?

BREWER: They just simply need to operate in a lawful and open fashion...

COLMES: I'm trying to understand what she did. What are you accusing her of having done?

BREWER: Well she wasn't operating in the proper manner.
The Huffington Post also reported that Brewer moved to impeach Mathis after being lobbied by incumbent GOP congressmen who wanted to protect their seats.

Democrats have been calling for Brewer herself to be ousted for such an egregious attempt to compromise the integrity of the democratic process to rig elections for the GOP.

This is a clear dirty trick by a Republican Governor to rig the Congressional seats in her State, and of course neither O'Reilly or anyone at Fox News have said a word about it. But if a Democratic Governor was doing it to try and help Democrats get more Congressional seats O'Reilly and Fox would scream bloody murder for weeks, if not months.

Megyn Kelly Admits Voter Fraud Is No Big Issue
By: Steve - November 6, 2011 - 10:00am

The right-wing media, especially Fox News, love spinning out the terrifying story of voter fraud as a way to support and justify restrictive voter identification and registration laws.

It's hardly surprising -- the more restrictive the law, the fewer people vote; and when fewer people vote, more Republicans win elections. Unfortunately for the fear-mongers at Fox, study after study shows that cases of voter fraud are few and far between and fears of a massive-scale voter fraud effort are unfounded.

Surprisingly, Fox News Megyn Kelly now agrees. In a segment on voter fraud on the November 4 edition of America Live, Kelly admitted that the problem is "not overwhelming."

Here is a partial transcript:
KELLY: Well that's the classic debate. Because Democrats always say it's about disenfranchising, the Republicans always say it's about voter fraud. And you guys are never going to see eye to eye.

ALAN COLMES: We don't have enough cases of fraud to make this a real issue. It's an invented issue.

KELLY: Well, but there have been some instances, but you're right it's not overwhelming.
Kelly's reality-based opinion about the state of voter fraud in the country is entirely inconsistent with her network's feverish, obsessive coverage of the issue. Before every election, Fox breathlessly warns of potential fraud; every vote is constantly in peril of being stolen. The network has even gone so far as to establish a voter fraud hotline.

In fact, there are almost no cases of actual voter fraud, where a person walks into a voting booth and tries to vote under a fake name, etc. On average only about 40 or 50 cases a year are reported, out of 100 million people who vote, and maybe 10 are actually found to be voter fraud.

Why would Fox News devote such resources to a problem that is "not overwhelming"? Because Fox is a GOP propaganda operation and the Republican party benefits from driving their voters into a frenzy about supposed fraud and passing laws to suppress the vote.

Dick Morris Takes Cain Money Then Spins For Him
By: Steve - November 6, 2011 - 9:00am

Tuesday night, Greta Van Susteren hosted GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain to respond to the Politico story about past sexual harassment allegations against him. Van Susteren was once again pushing the boundaries of journalistic ethics, as she failed to disclose her husband's relationship with Cain during the interview. But Van Susteren wasn't the only Fox personality discussing the Cain allegations last night that has an undisclosed conflict of interest.

In the opening segment of Hannity's show, Fox political analyst Dick Morris joined Hannity to discuss, in Hannity's words, "Politico's attempt to smear the GOP's frontrunner." Even though the word is that the Perry campaign leaked it to the media, the Cain campaign manager is even demanding an apology from the Perry camp. And yet, Hannity still calls it a Politico smear job.

During the conversation, Morris said that "unless there are more facts in this, we cannot derail one of the most creative, forward-thinking, effective campaigns that's been waged this year on the strength of this kind of flimsy stuff." Even though it's not flimsy at all, the woman is willing to tell her story, they have people who were there when it happened, and Cain has even said something happened.

The Morris praise of Cain is even more complicated by fact that he has been profiting off the Cain campaign, which was not disclosed during his appearance with Hannity or any other Fox show.

Over the past few months, Dick Morris has conducted a series of softball interviews with Herman Cain. At least eight of the emails to the Morris mailing list promoting the Cain interviews have been paid for by the Cain campaign.

Each of the emails promoting the Cain interviews includes a note from Morris hyping the conversation, and most include an appeal to "please forward this email to any family or friends who are Cain supporters or would like to learn more about him."

Several of the videos end with Morris praising Cain's performance in the preceding interview with comments like "wow, what a lucid and articulate presentation of how to go about creating jobs," and "wow, that was impressive."

Then hours before his appearance defending Cain on Fox, Morris sent out two emails to his list "paid for" by Cain's campaign. One was a direct fundraising appeal from Cain, which was introduced by Morris as "a special message from our paid sponsor."

The second promoted the latest of the Cain/Morris softball interviews, with a note from Morris explaining that in this conversation, "Herman lays out the case for his candidacy and tells me why he would be the strongest candidate."

In the video itself, Morris follows up the conversation by declaring that Cain "would be a vast improvement over the guy we've got in there now." Like the previous emails sent to the Morris list promoting the interviews, it was "Paid for by Friends of Herman Cain" and included a direct link to the Cain campaign's fundraising site.

And btw, The Cain campaign's FEC filings for the third quarter didn't include any direct payments to Morris or his group, Triangulation Strategies.

Morris has sent out at least nine emails -- on July 22, July 27, August 3, August 10, September 26, October 5 and October 6, and two on October 31 -- "paid for" by the Cain campaign.

The Cain emails entailed a "full list sponsorship" -- they included banners as well as direct hyperlinks to the Cain campaign fundraising pages -- which would have cost at least $6,750 each.

Morris has repeatedly used his platform as a Fox News "political analyst" to help line his pockets. He frequently shoehorns plugs for his website -- as he did last night when directing people to his site to buy his children's book -- and helps pad his email list during Fox appearances. And yet, none of it is disclosed, not even by O'Reilly who demands full disclosure from everyone on CNN or MSNBC.

During the 2009-2010 election cycle, according to a Media Matters review of FEC filings, Morris and Triangulation Strategies received at least $229,174 in direct payments from political campaigns and groups (while Morris was going on Fox News and lying about how he had been working for the Republican Party "without compensation."

And not a word of it has ever been disclosed by Dick Morris, or anyone at Fox News.

The Friday 11-4-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 5, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: New poll shows Americans souring on Occupy protests. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: We told you from the jump the American people would not tolerate a radical movement; it's just not in our DNA to do that. In late September, when the 'Occupy Wall Street' protests began, a majority of Americans supported them. But a new poll shows that 39% of Americans now have an unfavorable view of the occupiers, while 30% think they're swell and 31% still don't know.

Talking Points is proud that our reporting on the occupiers has been dead-on accurate every step of the way. Violence is now defining the group, with destruction and harm to other people front and center. As for President Obama and the Democratic Party initially supporting the protests, that was misguided but understandable.

The left believes that Wall Street fat cats destroyed the economy, and Wall Street did contribute to the recession, but Mr. Obama's big-spending policies have made the economy even worse. It's easy to blame Wall Street greedheads for everything and ignore the problems the big-spending Democratic Party has brought upon the country.

But there is some good news tonight: The folks are now understanding what the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement is all about, and it's not about looking out for us.
What a joke, is calling them loons and the sludge of the earth being fair, give me a break O'Reiily. You have not been fair, you have slammed them and insulted them from day one, you even called for the police to get rid of them, even though the constitution gives them the right to protest.

Then Geraldo was on, who for once really disagreed with O'Reilly and told him he is wrong. Geraldo said this: "I don't agree that people have turned against the movement, and that poll can be read as being a virtual tie between those who are in favor and those who are opposed to 'Occupy Wall Street.'

It's inevitable that when there is free food and a social environment homeless people and street people are attracted to it. But they are not the majority and it's unfortunate that some newspapers are hyping the violence. These protesters have brought more attention to economic disparity than any political force ever."

The O'Dummy (Mr. Fairness) accused Rivera of glorifying an increasingly violent protest, saying this: "There's no central authority down there, and if you want to go down there and cause trouble no one is going to stop you. This whole movement has been hijacked by communists, anarchists and crazy people."

Then O'Reilly asked Why the African American leaders are not sticking up for Herman Cain. O'Dummy said that black "leaders" have been silent as Herman Cain is being vilified in the mainstream media. And he had Professor Marc Lamont Hill on to discuss it.

Hill said this: "Reverend Jackson and Reverend Sharpton don't jump in every time a black person is involved. They are interested in justice, just as I am interested in justice, and I don't think anything unjust is happening to Herman Cain right now. In fact, I think he's getting exactly what he deserves with this media scrutiny."

But of course O'Reilly disagreed and argued that blatant hypocrisy is in play, saying this: "If this were a liberal black politician, you can't tell me Sharpton and Jackson wouldn't be screaming bloody murder. They would."

Wrong idiot, because Cain is guilty, the woman was paid off and made to sign a no talk agreement. And now they are saying two women were paid off, so it's getting worse. The media is just doing their job, unlike O'Reilly who mostly ignores the story, defends Cain, and calls the rest of the media wrong for reporting it so much. But if Cain was a Democrat, O'Reilly and Fox would be all over the story 24/7.

Then Karl Rove was on to assess President Obama's re-election chances. Rove said this: "His approval rating is at 43%, and no president has been re-elected with a number that low a year from the election. 74% say the country is going in the wrong direction, while just 13% say they are satisfied with the condition of the country."

Except the market is up, the unemployment rate dropped, and jobs are being created, even with Republicans voting down every jobs bill. Obama is moving up in job approval, and it will most likely continue as the economy improves. And btw, RCP has the Obama approval at 45 percent and rising.

Rove added that President Obama's biggest handicap is the economy, saying this: "Unemployment next year is going to be between 8.5% and 9.1% and economic growth may be as low as 2%. The economy is not going to change significantly between now and next November, and that means that these numbers are going to be difficult to change."

Then O'Reilly asked conservative actress Janine Turner and liberal Fox News analyst Kirsten Powers why most women still approve of Obama. Turnesr said this: "Men have been hit the hardest in this recession, and they don't agree with the bailout and stimulus plans, which they think helped the wrong people. Women have historically voted for the Democratic candidate, but that number is trending down."

Powers said that women tend to trust government more than men, saying this: "There has long been a gender gap, usually around six or seven points. The reason is that women rely more on the safety net - they live longer and they tend to be the people who take care of the elderly. Women are in a more precarious financial position than men are."

Then O'Dummy predicted that the female vote will be split 50-50 next year between the President and his Republican challenger. And guess what O'Reilly, nobody cares.

Then the right-wing stooge Lou Dobbs was on. President Obama stresses that his main concern is reviving the economy. But according to Dobbs, the President is economically clueless. But remember this, Dobbs and his right-wing friends are the people who created the economic mess we have in the first place, it was fine when Clinton turned it over to Bush in 2000, so they are dishonest when they blame it all on Obama.

Dobbs said this: "The basic contest between the private and public sectors of the economy, elude this President. If there is not a government programmatic response to an issue, he does not seem to have it anywhere on his scan. It is peculiar, even acknowledging his ideological bent."

Dobbs also opined on the volatile stock market, saying this: "As long as you have enough cash to take care of six months or a year's expenses, then you have money available to invest. There are a lot of major brand companies that are selling at or near twelve times earnings, and those are companies to take a look at. I think there are good buys for long-term investors."

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Greg Gutfeld and Arthel Neville on for dumbest things of the week. Neville said this about people eating in restaurants nude: "This is sparked by the Castro district, a very liberal neighborhood populated by the gay community. They have guys who walk around naked and are showing up in restaurants. It's a health hazard and city supervisors have decided to make it illegal to eat naked in a restaurant."

Gutfeld said this: "Do you notice that every nudist is ugly. No attractive people would ever walk around nude because they know it's valuable. It's only strange looking weirdoes, they all look like Ed Asner. 99% of nudists are hideous."

O'Dummy picked Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, who has been stunningly incapable of dealing with the violent 'Occupy' protests in her city.

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

Fox Ignores Terrorism Link To Fox Terrorism Analyst
By: Steve - November 5, 2011 - 10:00am

Fox News is concealing a link between an Alabama-based blogger repeatedly featured on the network as an expert and allegations of a domestic terrorist plot.

Wednesday morning on America's Newsroom, Fox News ran an extensive report on the arrest of four Georgia men accused of plotting an attack on federal employees and U.S. citizens using explosives, guns, and the biological toxin ricin.

At the end of the segment, correspondent Jonathan Serrie pointed out that one of the defendants "allegedly cited the online novel Absolved, which discusses small groups of citizens attacking U.S. officials," with the defendant allegedly "saying that the attacks would be based on events in that novel."

Charging documents state that accused plotter Frederick Thomas repeatedly cited as an inspiration the novel Absolved, in which underground militia fighters declare war on the federal government over gun control laws and same-sex marriage, leading to a second American revolution.

But Fox's report neglected to mention the novel's author, who is no stranger to Fox because the author, Mike Vanderboegh, has been repeatedly featured as an expert on the ATF's failed Operation Fast and Furious. Fox has identified Vanderboegh as an "online journalist" and an "authority on the Fast and Furious investigation," and has consistently failed to acknowledge his extremist views, actions, and affiliations.

Vanderboegh, a former member of the militia and Minuteman movements and now a leader of the "anti-government extremist group" the Three Percenters, which claims to represent the three percent of gun owners who "who will not disarm, will not compromise and will no longer back up at the passage of the next gun control act" but will instead, "if forced by any would-be oppressor, ... kill in the defense of ourselves and the Constitution."

Writing in the introduction to Absolved that the novel is "a cautionary tale for the out-of-control gun cops of the ATF," who "need to know how powerful" the "armed citizenry" "could truly be if they were pushed into a corner."

Fox News has repeatedly presented Vanderboegh as a credible expert. And their failure to mention his authorship of a novel that allegedly inspired a terrorist plot is no surprise to me. But if he worked for CNN or MSNBC you can bet they would mention it, especially O'Reilly.

Kelly Calls O'Reilly Out Over Muslim Teacher Ruling
By: Steve - November 5, 2011 - 9:00am

Here is the story, Illinois middle school teacher Safoorah Khan, a Muslim, was on the job for less than a year when she demanded 19 days of unpaid leave to go on a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia. When her request was denied, Khan sued and was backed by the Justice Department - and she recently settled for $75,000.

So she won her legal case, which means she was right. And yet, O'Reilly was not happy with the ruling. Billy ridiculed the decision and lamented the state of our court system. On the Thursday Factor show he said this to Megyn Kelly who agreed with the ruling:
O'REILLY: "I can't believe you're sticking up for this con. This woman had no right to demand three weeks off - if she has a right to do that, than any teacher of any faith can do the same thing. You can't run any business or school system like that."
Except that the court disagreed, proving O'Reilly has no clue about laws or how they work. And Megyn Kelly even called O'Reilly out. Kelly took Khan's side in the dispute, saying this:
"The law says that schools have to grant you a reasonable accommodation, unless the school can show it would be an undue hardship. The Hajj is a once-in-a-lifetime pilgrimage and you're supposed to go when you feel the call."
And remember this, O'Reilly is not an attorney and most of his opinions on legal rulings are just that, his right-wing opinion on what he wants to happen. Kelly was at least an attorney at one time, so at least she knows something about the law and legal cases.

The Thursday 11-3-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 4, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Chaos in Oakland as protesters set fires and destroy property. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There is no question that professional agitators have infiltrated the ranks of the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement. There is tension between non-violent protesters and occupiers who want to destroy stuff, and last night in Oakland the destroyers won.

Talking Points wants to be fair, so here's a balanced perspective: In the beginning many of the protesters wanted to vent a legitimate beef, that banks and brokerage houses are manipulating the economy so that working people make less money. But anarchists, communists and violent psychopaths showed up and now we have chaos.

The worst part is that the chaos is being manipulated and financed at a very high level. Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers International, urged protesters to 'occupy bridges and banks themselves.' Talking Points thinks Mr. Gerard is nuts for calling for violence.

And today in the New York Times somebody paid for an expensive ad that posed the question: 'How much money does one need?' That is the crux of the matter - in a free society it's nobody's business how much money one needs, and who is supposed to make that decision?

This is a free country, not a totalitarian state, and we don't dictate incomes here. The bottom line: The 'Occupy' protests have been hijacked by extremists and more violence is on the way.
Then O'Reilly had Niles Gardiner of the conservative Heritage Foundation and Tamara Draut of the liberal Demos organization on to discuss the U.S. and world debt problem. And of course O'Reilly (the so-called Independent) agreed with everything the right-wing Gardiner said.

Gardiner said this: "Over the past few decades across Europe, we've seen destructive policies - high taxation, overspending, huge borrowing and massive deficits. Vast numbers of people are out of work as a result and I think we are now seeing the collapse of the European project, but President Obama has been trying to implement these European policies here to disastrous effect."

Earth to Gardiner the idiot, most of the problems we have were caused by Bush and the Republicans who had power from 2000 until 2009, you moron, and to blame it all on Obama shows what a dishonest jerk you, and O'Reilly are.

Tamara Draut of the liberal Demos organization offered a far different perspective, saying this: "There are a lot of European states, that have lower unemployment levels than the United States, even though they spend a lot more on the so-called welfare state. Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Belgium all have lower rates of unemployment. Germany does not have a problem taxing millionaires and they don't run deficits."

Then O'Dummy reminded Draut that Germany and other nations "don't have any defense budget because they don't protect themselves, we protect them."

Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about the Republicans running for President. O'Dummy said that Herman Cain has accused Rick Perry's campaign of leaking information about his alleged improper behavior more than ten years ago, but the Perry camp denies it.

Ingraham said this: "This is not helping conservatives, because the longer conservatives are pointing fingers at each other, the longer Obama gets to skate. And Mitt Romney is just kind of watching this unfold as the conservatives are fighting it out among themselves. So Romney benefits a little bit and Obama benefits a lot."

Ingraham also that "Newt Gingrich could be the last conservative standing against Mitt Romney." If that's true what does that say about the Republican party, that the best they could do against Romney is Newt (the big joke) Gingrich.

Then O'Dummy had Jesse Watters on to spin the $16 muffin story, instead of admitting he was wrong and doing a retraction, O'Reilly just added to his dishonesty by spinning the story even more.

Factor producer Jesse Watters, aka "The Muffin Man," went out to question some folks about the waste of taxpayer money. One woman put it best by saying this: "I think the Justice Department has better things to spend their money on than muffins."

Except they did not spend $16 on muffins, it was a made up story by O'Reilly and Fox News. And the $16 paid for an entire breakfast including tax and tip. So that woman is a clueless and misinformed Fox viewer.

Watters also said this: "There are actually more egregious examples. We looked into the report by the Justice Department's Inspector General, and there's a $5 Swedish meatball, a $7 Beef Wellington hors d'oeuvres, and a $10 serving of ice cream, so this is just the tip of the iceberg."

Then the two right-wing culture warriors were on. Gretchen Carlson & Margaret Hoover talked about Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal's suggestion that the federal government provide diapers to needy families.

Carlson said this: "Let's put this in perspective. This is part of a block grant that has sent $5 billion to the states so far in 2011. This diaper thing will not mean any additional money."

Hoover also found the proposed legislation reasonable, saying this: "This gives the ability to low-income people to spend some of their Medicaid dollars on child care needs, including diapers."

Haha, stupid O'Reilly just got slammed by his own culture warriors, because they think it's a good idea, and so do I, why not give free diapers to needy families O'Reilly you scrooge.

The Warriors turned to the New Jersey nurses who are suing their hospital because they are allegedly being forced to assist in abortions. Hoover said this: "They absolutely have a case. This is a culture war issue that everybody can agree on, whether you're pro-choice or pro-life. They have the right to conscientiously object to assisting in abortions."

And of course O'Reilly praised the nurses, saying this: "If you believe in something strongly you should stand up for your beliefs."

But I guarantee you if the shoe was on the other foot and it was a pro-choice issue O'Reilly, Hoover, and Carlson would say they should be fired for refusing to do their job.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to discuss the case of the Illinois teacher Safoorah Khan, a Muslim who was on the job for less than a year when she demanded 19 days of unpaid leave to go on a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia. When her request was denied, Khan sued and was backed by the Justice Department - she recently settled for $75,000.

And even Megyn Kelly took Khan's side in the dispute, saying this: "The law says that schools have to grant you a reasonable accommodation, unless the school can show it would be an undue hardship. The Hajj is a once-in-a-lifetime pilgrimage and you're supposed to go when you feel the call."

But of course O'Dummy ridiculed the decision and lamented the state of our court system, saying this: "I can't believe you're sticking up for this con. This woman had no right to demand three weeks off - if she has a right to do that, than any teacher of any faith can do the same thing. You can't run any business or school system like that."

And finally the last segment was the ridiculous waste of tv time Factor News Quiz with Brian Kilmeade & Martha MacCallum, that I do not report on because it's stupid and not news.

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

O'Reilly Still Spinning The $16 Muffin Story
By: Steve - November 4, 2011 - 10:00am

Now that we know the $16 muffin story was bogus you would expect O'Reilly to retract it, admit he was wrong, and report the truth. And if you believe that you are a fool, because instead of doing that O'Reilly said he does not believe Hilton or the updated DOJ report on the $16 muffins.

O'Reilly had his lame producer Jesse Watters go around New York and buy a muffin, juice, a piece of fruit, tea, and coffee. He paid $6.00 for all of it, then claimed it proves they still paid too much for a breakfast at the Hilton.

Except the morons forgot one thing, the entire breakfast at the Hilton cost $16 a person, including taxes and gratuity. Which O'Reilly did not include, or mention that hotels always cost more, try ordering room service once and you will find out.

It was a ridiculous comparison, and all it showed is that O'Reilly is an idiot who when proven wrong about a story instead of doing the right thing and put out a retraction, he does another dishonest segment to try and prove he was right anyway.

Republicans Now Oppose Spending They Once Supported
By: Steve - November 4, 2011 - 9:00am

Simply because Obama is proposing it, even though in the past many Republicans said they supported infrastructure spending, including the Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH).

Earlier this week, Speaker of the House John Boehner told a Kentucky audience that, in his view, "everybody believes" that the country should be doing more to upgrade its aging, crumbling infrastructure. The problem, he said, is that nobody wants to pay for it:
BOEHNER: "Everybody believes we have infrastructure deficiencies and more needs to be spent to repair, replace and in some cases build new infrastructure. The problem is nobody wants to pay for it."
Boehner did not specifically mention the region's bridge problems, but spoke broadly about transportation needs in his speech as part of the McConnell Center's fall lecture series at the university.

But it's simply not true that nobody has tried to craft a bill that both invests in infrastructure and is paid for. President Obama's American Jobs Act included money for infrastructure and was paid for by higher income taxes for the wealthiest Americans. So if it had passed it would have been paid for.

Senate Democrats, plan to hold a vote this week on a bill that combines $50 billion in direct infrastructure spending with another $10 billion to start a national infrastructure bank.

The Senate Democrats bill is paid for by a surtax on the very wealthiest Americans that, as Citizens for Tax Justice has found, will affect no more than 0.1 percent of the residents of most states. Far from jumping on board with this plan, Senate Republicans are gearing up to derail it:
A senior Senate Democratic aide predicted Tuesday that not a single Republican would vote for the latest jobs package of $50 billion in infrastructure spending combined with a $10 billion national infrastructure bank.

Senate Democratic leaders hope to vote Thursday on the jobs bill, but they expect the outcome to follow the same lines as the previous two jobs measures Republicans voted unanimously to block.
As Greg Sargent wrote Tuesday, "a number of GOP Senators in the past have explicitly endorsed infrastructure spending - in different contexts - as a good way to spur economic growth or maintain economic competitiveness."

For instance, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-FL) has said that "if you're a Republican and you want to create jobs, then you need to invest in infrastructure that will allow us to create jobs." But now that Obama is proposing just that, the GOP is lining up against him.

Boehner is simply trying to divert attention away from the GOP's constant obstruction of infrastructure bills. But this will provide the perfect test case as to whether everybody agrees that infrastructure is a priority, or whether the GOP thinks it's more important to protect super-low tax rates for the very wealthy.

The Wednesday 11-2-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 3, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Government waste at Fannie and Freddie. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Now we learn that mortgage agencies Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae paid almost $13 million in bonuses to their top executives in 2010. That's an outrage because those agencies currently owe the American taxpayers - all of us - $141 billion.

This is why the federal government is out of control - Fannie and Freddie receive taxpayer money in subsidies and loans. The White House should be outraged as Talking Points is, and Congress should immediately suspend Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We don't need these poorly run agencies that are hurting America.

If the federal government wants to practice 'social justice' - that is, funneling money to poor Americans for housing - do it under the authority of Congress, not flim-flam outfits run by incompetents. Where are the 'Occupy Wall Street' protests when it comes to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

The bottom line on this story: Government waste continues unchecked, our taxpayer dollars are being flushed away, and there are so many scams and out-of-control situations in Washington that it's impossible to keep track of them. What a disgrace!
Earth to O'Reilly, Fannie and Freddie are private companies that simply get Government money. We can not tell them what to do with that money, we can just hope they make smart decisions with it, which they did not, as did every other home loan company in America. Because they were fooled by the crooks on wall street with the bundled home loan stock scam, the same crooks you defend every night.

Notice that O'Reilly only complains about Government waste on things that help the poor or lower class, while never saying a word about waste to the wealthy or corporations that Republicans support. And that waste is 10 times more, but O'Reilly still ignores it.

Then the right-wing stooge Bo Dietl was on yo talk about robberies, sexual assaults and other crimes that are being reported at "Occupy" protests across America. Even though some of those crimes have nothing to do with the protesters.

Dietl said this: "There are a lot of criminal elements coming in now, and the homeless element is coming in. They have a code of conduct down there where you are not to report to the police if something gets stolen, you're not to report to the police if you're groped. This is being dictated by the alleged leaders and what's happening down there is chaos. Anarchists will start throwing bottles at the cops and we'll have turmoil, which is what they want."

O'Reilly complained that authorities have allowed this toxic brew to ferment far too long, saying this: "People know they can get fed, they know they can get drugs, and for them it's a party down there. Why don't the police just clear them out?"

Funny thing though, not once did Dietl or O'Reilly ever call for the police to stop any Tea Party protests. In fact, O'Reily, Dietl, and Fox supported them and would have been outraged if the police had cleared them out or stopped them from protesting.

Then Lis Wiehl & Diana Diaz were on to talk some more about the Border Patrol agent Jesus Diaz, who was sentenced to two years in prison for roughing up a 15-year-old Mexican who was suspected of drug smuggling.

Diana Diaz, wife of the jailed agent, explained why her husband didn't testify on his own behalf, saying this: "He didn't testify, because he had been videotaped giving Internal Affairs his version of what happened. I don't believe this was a fair trial because the judge had her agenda of what was supposed to happen. I want a pardon."

Wiehl argued that Diaz' conviction was warranted, saying this: "Six or seven Border Patrol agents came forward and testified against Mr. Diaz. The assault was not the big issue; the big issue was the five counts of lying and misleading his own Internal Affairs department."

Then Dick Morris was on to spin for Herman Cain, without once disclosing that his mailing list business takes money from Cain to send out campaign donation e-mails.

Morris said this: "I've been around a long time, and this is a speed bump that happens in every campaign. It blows up and dominates the news cycle for days or weeks, but time is the way to fight this stuff. Eventually it goes away, and I think that Cain can survive this. He will not be dumped from this race by the sexual harassment charge unless there's a smoking gun - it's just too vague and too anonymous. It may even cause some Republicans to rally around him."

Then Deepak Chopra was on, who took issue with the writers who promote atheism. Chopra said this: "The more we understand the nature of the universe through science, the more we also understand there is the unknown and the unknowable. Scientific discoveries show that the laws of physics preclude us from intellectually getting in touch with the source. You have to go beyond the intellect; you have to listen to the heart, and the great prophets like Jesus transcended to a level where they were in touch with the mysteries."

O'Reilly asked Chopra whether he believes in an active deity who intervenes in the world. Chopra said this: "I believe there is an active and intelligent source, that is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, and we have a connection to that. But we also have free will."

Then Dennis Miller was on for his regular weekly segment, which I do not report on because Miller is not a journalist and it is not news. It's just the comedian Dennis Miller on to do jokes about liberals, with no liberal comedian on to do jokes about conservatives.

And finally in the last segment Dagen McDowell was on for did you see that, she watched footage of TV reporter John Huddy being threatened by an "Occupy Wall Street" protester, saying this: "It's very dangerous, and if this group wants to send the right message they're going to have to involve the police. This guy who threatened John Huddy was charged with grand larceny and criminal possession of a weapon."

And now the truth. The guy had a pocket knife, and after the reporter asked him questions over and over and would not leave him alone, he told the reporter if he did not go away he would stab him.

McDowell also viewed a Jon Huntsman video in which his daughters make fun of the Herman Cain ad that included cigarette smoking, saying this: "They aren't smoking a cigarette, they're blowing bubbles. It's cute, but it's not going to do anything for Jon Huntsman's campaign. The three daughters have been very active and I think they're angling for media exposure for themselves."

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as ever pinheads and patriots garbage. And here is why I call this segment garbage, The Wednesday patriot was the former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who joked about the fact that Muammar Qaddafi was apparently obsessed with her. Really O'Reilly! How in the hell is that being a patriot?

More Crazy Mail To Laugh At And Enjoy
By: Steve - November 3, 2011 - 10:30am

Another O'Reilly fan tells me off good, haha, not.
Subject: I don't believe you!
Date: Thursday, November 3, 2011 3:12 AM
From: "mjcane" [email protected]
To: "[email protected]"

Steve Senti:

- You bother tabulate all the guests O'Reilly has as to their party affiliation:
- How do you find out what their party affiliation is ... see I have been trying to find out how many rich evil corporate executives are Democrats, and I can't ... but then I am probably not as smart as you are ... so would you please do it for me, because I'd like to point out filthy rich you Democrats are. OH! And name name too!
- And if you are going to bother to list the party affiliation, name names there too, I might believe you then!
- Funny O'Reilly has only D & R guests... I believe Stossel is a Libertarian? Out of 197 guests doesn't "O" ever have any "Others" like Independents?... Martian Party? etc.
- Steve your slip is showing... and shame on you, I didn't know you were that kind of guy!

Wow, what an idiot. This is real simple, if a guest agrees with the Republicans 80% of the time or more, they are counted as Republicans. If a guest agrees with the Democrats 80% of the time or more they are counted as Democrats.

And if you had a brain at all Mike you would know there are no real Independents, they either lean right, or lean left, only about 8% of the registered Independents are real Independents.

Cain Does Not Even Know China Already Has Nukes
By: Steve - November 3, 2011 - 10:00am

Judy Woodruff interviewed GOP presidential frontrunner Herman Cain on Monday night and wanted to know how the former pizza CEO would handle China should he occupy the Oval Office.

Boosting the us vs. them mentality the GOP usually promotes when talking about China, Cain said "they're a military threat," particularly because they're trying to get nuclear weapons:
WOODRUFF: Do you view China as a potential military threat to the United States?

CAIN: I do view China as a potential military threat to the United States.

WOODRUFF: And what could you do as president to head that off?

CAIN: My China strategy is quite simply outgrow China. We already have superiority in terms of our military capability, and I plan to get away from making cutting our defense a priority and make investing in our military capability a priority, going back to my statement: peace through strength and clarity.

So yes they're a military threat. They've indicated that they're (trying) to develop nuclear capability and they want to develop more aircraft carriers like we have. So yes, we have to consider them a military threat.
Fact Check: China is not trying to develop a nuclear capability, because they already have it, the Chinese conducted their first nuclear weapons test in 1964 and possess around 250 nuclear weapons, including thermonuclear warheads and around 150 tactical nukes.

O'Reilly Claims ID Does Not Contradict Science
By: Steve - November 3, 2011 - 9:00am

On the 11-2-11 O'Reilly Factor, crazy O'Reilly said Intelligent Design does not contradict Science.

And O'Reilly is wrong. Because Intelligent Design does contradict Science, in many ways. But O'Reilly is a right-wing stooge so as usual he defends it.

The Tuesday 11-1-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 2, 2011 - 11:00am

There was no TPM because O'Reilly had Herman Cain on to let him defend himself over his sexual harassment charges from more than 10 years ago.

Here is a partial transcript:
O'Reilly: Did you expect accusations against you once you became competitive in the race?

Herman Cain: "Yes, we did expect them, but we didn't know what type or what source they would come from. Once I got to the top in the polls they let all the dogs out." ... "My campaign was made aware ten days ago that this story might break, but we made a conscious decision not to go chasing two anonymous sources."

O'Reilly: "Shouldn't you have gone over this with your attorneys and formulated a response? You seem to be caught off guard."

Cain: "When questions got asked, some of them I didn't anticipate and I was trying to remember some of those facts in the middle of a busy day. But could we have started earlier so I would have been better prepared and more crisp with my responses? Yes."

O'Reilly: "Do you think it's hurt your campaign?"

Cain: "I don't think so. In the last 24 hours our fundraising has been the highest it has been since I have been in this campaign. And I have many former employees who have said they will be glad to do a testimonial to my character and my integrity."

O'Reilly: "Is there nothing else in your 42 years of experience that you anticipate you'll have to deal with down the road?"

Cain: "Absolutely. There are no other instances."
Then O'Reilly asked him about his campaign:
Cain: "We've had about nine or ten people working full time in Iowa for quite some time, so reports that we have a very skimpy team in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina and Florida are absolutely not true."

O'Reilly: "Nine employees in Iowa is not a lot compared to the others."

Cain: "But we have a lot of volunteers who are dedicated and devoted."
Cain returned for a second segment, where O'Reilly asked him about real issues:
O'Reilly: "The Dow Jones average has dropped 573 points in the past two days. Why do you think that happened?

Cain: "Financial markets are interrelated, and what's going on in Greece and Europe has a ripple effect here. Second, I believe it dropped because some of the latest projections show GDP growth in this country to be about 1.6%, which is anemic. This economy is still stuck because of the failed policies of this administration ... This is why I have proposed a bold growth and jobs plan. We have to grow this economy."

O'Reilly: "The Tax Policy Center says that under your plan the USA would lose $300 billion in revenue in the first year."

Cain: "That report is dead wrong. Let me remind your viewers that I was mathematics major in college and I understand what you can do to calculations if you change the assumptions. They changed the assumptions to try and discredit our analysis ... We have calculated that we would grow this economy at about 5% GDP growth and cut the unemployment rate in half."

O'Reilly: "What is the most important foreign policy problem the United States has to deal with today?"

Cain: "The Middle East, obviously, because our best friend in the Middle East is Israel and one of our worst enemies in the world is there, which is Iran."

O'Reilly: "What would you do that hasn't been done in Iran?"

Cain: "Number one, develop an energy-independent strategy. That will impact the world market for the price of oil, which will put pressure on Iran because they depend upon high oil prices. The second thing I would do is maximize the use of our ballistic missile defense capabilities. Iran understands only two things - economic pressure and our military might."
Then Monica Crowley & Alan Colmes were on to evaluate the Cain interview. And of course Crowley loved the far-right Herman Cain, saying this: "I thought he was very impressive. This is a simple and hard working guy who is resonating with the American people, who are really fed up with politicians of all stripes in both parties. He has come up through the ranks, he knows how to create jobs, and he has what people are craving, which is authenticity."

Colmes predicted that Cain will be hurt by his shifting responses to the allegations of improper behavior, saying this: "I don't think the accusations have hurt him, but the way he's handled the accusations has hurt him. At one point he said he only had 24 hours to deal with this, but before that he said he had heard about this ten days ago. He sounds like he's making it up as he's going along and he doesn't seem to have a clear sense of foreign policy."

Then John Stossel was on to talk about Cain and smoking. On the Sunday CBS News Bob Schieffer scolded Herman Cain for the Internet ad that included footage of Cain's campaign manager puffing on a cigarette.

So Stossel said this about it: "Enough is enough. We're just demonizing smokers but it's part of freedom - if you're an adult and you want to poison yourself, it's your right. One in five Americans smokes, and it's their choice. Let free people do their thing."

O'Reilly argued that the ad sent the wrong message, saying this: "I think it was an absolute lapse in good judgment. If you're in a position of leadership you shouldn't do anything to encourage smoking."

Then Lis Wiehl & Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to talk about a U.S. Border Patrol agent Jesus Diaz Jr. who was sentenced to two years in prison for roughing up a 15-year-old Mexican who was suspected of drug smuggling. O'Reilly said he was simply locked up for doing his job.

Wiehl said this: "Other Border Patrol agents testified against Mr. Diaz. They said what happened that night was not what Mr. Diaz told the Office of Internal Affairs. He lied to them."

Guilfoyle said that the Diaz punishment is excessive: "He was doing his job. He put the suspect on the ground with his arms handcuffed behind his back and he raised the suspect's arms for between two to five seconds. That's it! And you want to tell me this was a violation of the suspect's civil rights and this man should go to jail?"

O'Reilly added that the 15-year-old suspect was given amnesty and a visa in exchange for his testimony.

And finally in the last segment Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about a strange campaign speech Rick Perry made. While speaking to a friendly New Hampshire crowd last week, Texas Governor Rick Perry joked and jived so much that some observers questioned his sobriety.

Krauthammer said this: "It looks to me as if he was Rick Perry doing Dennis Miller doing Rick Perry. He was just getting into a little standup and I give him a pass on this. This is a guy who is giving 15 speeches in a day and he was a little out of control, maybe even a little lubricated, but it's tough out there on the trail."

Krauthammer also graded Cain's responses to what O'Reilly called The Factor's tough questioning. Krauthammer said this: "I thought he did fine but he's still having problems on his changing story. It's sort of tragic in the country - even if the charge against you is a baseless one, if you don't have your story straight you look deceptive. It shows a lack of discipline on his part."

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

Former GOP Judge Slams Ohio's Anti-Labor Law
By: Steve - November 1, 2011 - 10:00am

In eight days, Ohio voters will go to the polls to decide whether GOP Gov. John Kasich's deeply unpopular anti-labor law, Senate Bill 5, should remain on the books. Thousands of Ohioans, including right-wing radio host Bill Cunningham, have urged Ohioans to stand behind teachers, police officers, and firefighters and repeal the law by voting no on Issue 2.

Now, former Republican Ohio Supreme Court Justice Andy Douglas is lending his voice to the repeal effort, noting that before the state passed its 1984 collective bargaining law, it led the nation in safety forces work stoppages. Since collective bargaining became the law of the land, however, there have been no work stoppages.

"It would be tragic for our communities to return to those dark days," he said. That is what Senate Bill 5 - if it becomes law - would do:
DOUGLAS: In the decade before the enactment of Ohio's collective bargaining law in 1984, Ohio, for four years, led the nation in safety forces work stoppages. The reason was clear. When a city and its safety forces had a dispute concerning wages, working conditions, and adequate staffing, there was no way to resolve the dispute.

That is why we passed the collective bargaining law. The law has worked. There has been no safety forces work stoppages in Ohio since the law was passed. It would be tragic for our communities to return to those dark days.

That is what Senate Bill 5 - if it becomes law - would do. To fully protect our citizens and police officers and firefighters, Senate Bill 5 must be rejected.
Douglas added, "I'm a Republican and I've been working side by side with independents and Democrats to see that this bad bill does not become law."

He told Ohioans that "Senate Bill 5 must be rejected" to stop "politicians who would turn back the clock on public safety and on those who protect and serve us."

Tea Party Leader Says GOP Jobs Bill Unconstitutional
By: Steve - November 1, 2011 - 9:00am

In October, Senate Republicans pieced together many of their longstanding objectives, and called it a jobs bill to try to draw attention away from President Obama's popular American Jobs Act. But the plan backfired on the Senate GOP leadership when Tea Party lawmakers began lining up to denounce a key provision of their makeshift jobs bill as unconstitutional.

This provision - a proposal to impose damage caps on medical malpractice suits in both state and federal court - has now attracted the ire of yet another Tea Party heartthrob, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli:
With Senate Bill 197 - legislation that would have the federal government dictate how state judges are to try medical malpractice cases and cap what state courts may award - several Republican senators have reminded us that federal impositions on states that run contrary to the U.S. Constitution and to the spirit of federalism have never been the sole prerogative of just Democrats.

This legislation expands federal power, tramples the states and violates the Constitution.

And if it were ever signed into law - by a Republican or Democratic president - I would file suit against it just as fast as I filed suit when the federal health-care bill was signed into law in March 2010.
Cuccinelli's strident opposition to this law - and that of others such as tenther Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) - should stand as a warning to Republicans who raced to embrace a crackpot theory of the Constitution the minute President Obama signed a health care law they disapproved of.

Federally imposed tort reform has been a centerpiece of GOP health care policy for many years, and now this longstanding Republican goal many be unachievable because too many Republican lawmakers were conned into embracing Cuccinelli and Lee's tenther vision of the Constitution.

Those that live by right-wing crackpot distortions of our Constitution, die by the same right-wing crackpot distortions of our Constitution.

To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: