Republican Group Ads Pulled: O'Reilly Ignores It
By: Steve - October 31, 2010 - 10:00am

Recently on the Factor O'Reilly has shown some unfair campaign ads, except he only shows unfair ads that were run by Democrats. While having only Republicans on to discuss them. But he ignores all the unfair ads run by Republicans, like Sharron Angle, etc.

Some of her ads were even taken down by YouTube because they were full of lies, and yet, O'Reilly never said a word about any of them, let alone have only Democrats on to discuss them.

Now we have even more unfair ads run by Republicans, that were taken off the air by TV stations in two states. And what do you know, O'Reilly has not said a word about it.

TV stations in two states have pulled advertisements by the American Action Network, a conservative 501(c)(4) headed by former Republican Senators Norm Coleman and George Allen, because the ads contained flagrant falsehoods: one ad running in Connecticut claimed you would be jailed for not obtaining health insurance under recent health care reform laws, and another in Colorado said the reforms provided Viagra to rapists.

And as usual the group does not disclose its donors. The Coleman group's donors are anonymous, and the same ads still run on other stations nationwide.

However, the booted commercials show one pitfall of the independent-expenditure route. By federal law, candidate ads cannot be censored, though at least one Supreme Court decision forced a spot to be moved to a less family-friendly time. Independent expenditure ads have no such protection.

And not only does O'Reilly only show unfair ads run by Democrats, he shows positive campaign ads run by Republicans, while not showing any positive ads run by Democrats. O'Reilly did show one negative ad run by a Republican, Sharron Angle. But he did not hammer her like he does to Democrats, and he only had a Republican guest on to discuss it. And we all know that O'Reilly only showed the one negative Republican ad, so he could use it if anyone said he only showed negative ads about Democrats.

GOP Dumps Palin Backed Joe Miller In Alaska
By: Steve - October 31, 2010 - 9:30am

And as usual you never heard a word about this from O'Reilly, he ignored it, as he does every story that makes the Tea Party look bad. In fact, not only does O'Reilly ignore all the Tea Party stores that make them look bad, he also tries to help them by defending them, and by cherry picking polls to say they still have a chance to win.

That makes O'Reilly a double biased right-wing hack of a pretend journalist. And btw folks, Joe Miller was also recently caught lying about his past, and how he was almost fired for using Government computers to rig some poll results. Which O'Reilly also ignored, even though it was a big story reported by almost everyone. And now here is the Joe Miller story O'Reilly ignored.

A high-level GOP source told ABC's Jonathan Karl that party leaders have essentially given up on Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller and are now banking on a victory by write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski as the best bet for Republicans to keep the Alaska Senate seat.

Murkowski defied party leaders by running a write-in campaign after she lost the Republican primary last month. But with Miller's campaign faltering, the source tells me that Republican leaders are now worried that Democrat Scott McAdams has a shot of winning and that Murkowski may be the only way to stop him.

The nightmare scenario for Republicans is that McAdams comes in second on Election Day, trailing "write-in candidate." Those write-in votes won't be counted unless there are more write-in votes than there are votes for any candidate on the ballot. Once the write-in votes are counted, however, some of them will inevitably be disqualified (illegible writing, wrong name, etc.). And a small number will be for candidates other than Murkowski. If enough are tossed out, second place McAdams would be the winner.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee has been forced to spend precious resources in Alaska. But take a look at the latest ad running in Alaska: It spends 25 seconds attacking Democrat McAdams and less than five seconds mentioning Joe Miller.

If the NRSC really wanted to help Miller, it would be attacking Murkowski. Indeed, an anti-McAdams ad may be the last thing Miller needs right now. At this point, what he really needs is for McAdams to siphon anti-Miller votes away from Murkowski.

And Sarah Palin endorsed this corrupt joke Joe Miller. He is so bad the GOP does not want anything to do with him now, think about that. They still support the Nazi reenactor Rich Iott in Ohio, but they refuse to support Joe Miller. In fact, the Republican minority leader John Boehner not only gave money to Iott, he campaigned for him at the Lucas County Republican Party headquarters in Ohio on Saturday.

Ben Stein Calls Joe Miller A Dangerous Stupid Clown
By: Steve - October 31, 2010 - 9:00am

And what a shocker, O'Reilly never said a word about it, even though it's a Republican calling another Republicans a dangerous stupid clown. If a Democrat had said this about another Democrat O'Reilly would report it for a week. Ben Stein wrote an op-ed in the Alaska Dispatch, about the Sarah Palin backed Tea Party Republican Joe Miller, who is running for the Senate as the GOP candidate.

Here are a few quotes from the Ben Stein op-ed:
The GOP candidate for (much too) high office in Alaska, Joe Miller, who beat the redoubtable GOP stalwart, Lisa Murkowski, in the primary, with major Tea Party help, is a bit reminiscent of Willy Stark. Only stupid.

Joe Miller supposedly is a graduate of Yale Law School, as I am, and I never knew one stupid person at Yale Law, which makes me wonder if Mr. Miller really went there. A Yale Law grad would not have security guards who would for a moment consider "arresting" and handcuffing a member of the Alaska press, Tony Hopfinger, who had the audacity to ask questions about Miller's past transgressions involving computer stuffing of a polling place in an unofficial GOP poll.

A Yale Law grad, especially one supported by the Tea Party, which is all about curbing abuses of power by the government, would not even think of taking away the reporter's video camera, as Miller's guards did. That's what stupid people do. Maybe I am wrong and he somehow slipped through the Ivied doors when they weren't looking. Maybe Miller thinks he is boss of some kind of third world country and his mirrored sunglass-wearing Tontons Macoutes can just bully anyone who gets in his way.

Can you imagine a statewide official doing this or allowing his guards to do this -- and not then sending out a full throated apology? Yet Miller is accusing the reporter of assaulting his guards, who, as apparently seen by witnesses, surrounded Hopfinger and menaced him, and then cuffed him when he tried to escape. How stupid can a candidate be? How can this be happening?

It gets a lot worse. When asked how the USA could seal the border with Mexico, Miller, astonishingly, gave as an example of effective border closure the regime of Communist East Germany. That border sealing involved shooting or blowing up with mines or electrocuting potential border crossers. Can a GOP candidate actually be suggesting such brutal means of border control -- which took the lives of hundreds of East Germans seeking freedom -- as a model for the United States?

Yes, he can and he did.

But the character of a candidate for high office is a very big thing. So is his intelligence. Lisa Murkowski is waging a write-in campaign. Maybe it's time for people in The Last Frontier to stop listening to Mr. Miller, prosecute him and/or his guards, and start writing. M-U-R-K-O-W-S-K-I.

Someone's been listening to "Send in the Clowns" a little too often. "Don't bother, they're here," is what keeps occurring to me. Only this is a dangerous, stupid clown. Time for him to go home and cool off.
And the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly is ignoring it all, because it makes one of the Palin puppets look bad to have another Republican tell the truth about Joe Miller.

O'Reilly ignores all these negative stories about Republicans, as he is complaining about the rest of the media ignoring negative stories about Democrats. Making him just as guilty as they are, except he is the hypocrite who complains about it, when he is doing the exact same thing.

Proof Dick Morris Is Nothing But A Partisan Fool
By: Steve - October 30, 2010 - 10:00am

Before I get to how much of a fool Dick Morris is, let me say this. Yes it looks like Republicans will pick up a lot of seats in the House, and maybe 6 or 8 in the Senate. But that is based on polls, and a lot of them are toss up races. So nobody really knows until after the election, including me.

But here is what the crazy Dick Morris did, on the Wednesday O'Reilly Factor Morris said the Republicans would pick up 10 Senate seats and get the majority back in the Senate. To do that they have to win all 10 of these seats.
North Dakota
West Virginia
And not only that, Morris cited a Real Clear Politics poll, and said this: "In Connecticut, Linda McMahon is hot on the heels of Richard Blumenthal."

WRONG! As of 10-26-10 Real clear Politics has Blumenthal up by 11 points over McMahon. So she in not only not hot on his heels, she is going to lose.

In New York Morris said the Republican Joe DioGuardi was one point behind Kristen Gillibrand, so the Republicans might win that race too.

WRONG! As of 10-24-10 Real clear Politics has Gillibrand up by 22.4 points over DioGuardi.

In Delaware, Morris said the last poll showed Democrat Coons way ahead but it may well have closed since.

WRONG! As of 10-27-10 Real clear Politics has Coons up by 15.8 points over O'Donnell. And 2 polls have her down by 21 points, so she has not gained at all, except in a couple right-wing biased polls. not to mention, if you are down by 16 points with 5 days until the election, you are most likely done.

Morris also said this: "The only piece of bad news is that Fiorini is 3 points behind Boxer, but Barbara is still under 50% of the vote."

WRONG! As of 10-27-10 Real clear Politics has Boxer up by 6.5 points over Fiorina. And 2 polls have Boxer up by 9 points.

Which means that in all those races Morris spotlightled on his website, he will be wrong on all of them. And yet, he went on the Factor and said the Republicans will pick up 10 seats in the senate, when all those polls have the Democrats winning, and winning big in most of them.

Morris wrote that on his website on October 6th, but he was on the Factor on October 27th, where he repeated it all, even though the polls had changed, he just spewed out his right-wing propaganda anyway.

As of 10-29-10 Real Clear Politics has the Democrats winning 49 Senate seats, Republicans with 45 seats, and 6 toss ups. Toss up means it could go either way, the Democrats could win all 6, and that would give them 55 senate seats.

Morris even has the Republicans winning, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Washington, and West Virginia. But Real Clear Politics has all 6 of those races listed as a toss up. And that is the source he used to claim the Republicans would win all 6 of them, when RCP calls them toss up races.

It shows that Morris says what he wants to happen, not what might actually happen. And it also shows that he is dishonest in his poll reporting, because when they changed in favor of a lot of the Democrats he just ignored it, and reported what he had from polls that were 3 weeks old.

The polls he cited changed, he even used the Real Clear Politics polls. But he never reported the changes, that is dishonest, and it shows what a partisan hack Morris is. And it also shows what a hack O'Reilly is for putting that fool on the air to give his biased political analysis.

The Democrats may lose some Senate seats, but as of 10-29-10 it sure does not look like they will lose 10 of them as Morris claimed. And they only need to win 2 of the 6 toss ups to have 51 and the majority. They would have to lose all 6 toss up races for the Republicans to get to 51, and that is highly unlikely. But Morris went on the Factor just a few days ago, and made all these claims that the CURRENT polls show will most likely not happen.

The Friday 10-29-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 30, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Bad news continues for the Democrats. O'Reilly talked about the elections, and how most of them will be won by Republicans. He also had the Republican biased pollster Scott Rasmussen on to discuss it, with no Democratic pollster on for balance. Which is not something a so-called fair and balanced journalist would do 3 days before a national election. A real fair and balanced journalist would have had a Republican pollster and a Democratic pollster on to discuss it.

I noticed a couple things about this, O'Reilly made predictions based on some different polls, and in almost every race he predicted the Republican would win. Except for the Brown/Whitman and Coons/O'Donnell races. While ignoring most of the races where Democrats are winning big, like the Cuomo/Paladino race.

And I noticed something else, O'Reilly was spinning for crazy Christine O'Donnell again. O'Reilly said this: "In Wisconsin, say goodbye to the very liberal Senator Russ Feingold, who is nine points behind Republican Ron Johnson."

So if you are a Republican who is ahead by 9 points it's over, say goodbye. But then he said O'Donnell is only down by 10 points so she is not out of it yet. Think about that for a minute, in O'Reillyworld a Republican winning by 9 means it's over, but a Republican down by 10 means they still have a chance.

In fact, O'Reilly said a new poll shows her only 10 points down and it could be a stunning upset. Are you kidding me, if you are 10 points down with 3 days to go, you are toast, it's over, she will never make up 10 points in 3 days.

But that's not all, O'Reilly cherry picked the one poll from 10-27-10 that has O'Donnell only down by 10 points, while ignoring the Real Clear Politics average that has her down by 14 points, and ignoring the 10-26-10 Fairleigh Dickinson poll that has her down by 21 points. The Fairleigh Dickinson poll is new too, but he never mentioned it, because she is down by 21 in that poll. So he used the one poll that had her only down by 10 points to imply she was not out of it, while never saying a word about the poll taken one day sooner that has her down by 21 points.

Then Karl Rove was on to discuss the terrorists who tried to send explosive devices to Chicago on cargo planes, and the elections. And of course no Democratic political analyst was on to discuss it with Rove, or after Rove was gone. In a shocking turn of events Rove actually praised the job Obama does on counter-terrorism, and so did O'Reilly.

Then they turned to the elections and Rove talked about all the races Republicans are going to win. He said they will win the House, but he is not sure about the senate. When O'Reilly asked Rove if O'Donnell can win over Coons, Rove refused to answer, so O'Reilly asked again, Rove refused again. O'Reilly said ok, that's a no. So basically Rove said no, but O'Reilly implied she can still win, which is just ridiculous, because she will never win. For some strange reason O'Reilly loves him some Christine O'Donnell, even though she is a far right nut who will never win.

Then O'Reilly had Leslie Marshall and Andrea Tantaros on to cry about the story has on Christine O'Donnell about a guy who says he had a one night stand with Miss no sex ever Christine O'Donnell. O'Reilly was so mad he even refused to mention the website name,, haha. O'Reilly called it a brutal attack, and called the website owners cowards and sleazebags. When all they did was report a story about a man who says O'Donnell is a hypocrite, because he had sex with her one Halloween when she was drunk.

Tantaros and O'Reilly were outraged, but Marshall said this: "When someone like Ms. O'Donnell puts herself out as a poster child for morality, she's going to get this type of below-the-belt response."

O'Reilly also claimed that attacks like this help O'Donnell, which is just ridiculous. And btw folks, O'Reilly said the crazy Paladino stuff also helped him when he was 18 points down, then 2 weeks later he was losing by 28 points. Yeah Billy, it helped him, not. And reporting that Miss no sex ever (not even masturbation) had sex will help her is crazy.

Then O'Reilly had the crazy Geraldo on to talk about his trip to Afghanistan. Geraldo said this: "Militarily, we are kicking the butt of the Taliban enemy. We've endured horrible casualties, but the Taliban is suffering five or ten times as many losses. You don't see that in the newspapers, and the impression here is that we're getting a bloody nose and they're getting off scot-free. That is not happening, we are kicking butt!"

Which is funny because a new report by the Washington Post says the Taliban have been unscathed by the U.S. strikes. The report says the opposite of what Geraldo reported. here are some quotes:
Escalated airstrikes and special operations raids have disrupted Taliban movements and damaged local cells. But officials said that insurgents have been adept at absorbing the blows and that they appear confident that they can outlast an American troop buildup set to subside beginning next July.

"The insurgency seems to be maintaining its resilience," said a senior Defense Department official involved in assessments of the war. Taliban elements have consistently shown an ability to "reestablish and rejuvenate," often within days of routed by U.S. forces, the official said, adding that if there is a sign that momentum has shifted, "I don't see it."

The blunt intelligence assessments are consistent across the main spy agencies responsible for analyzing the conflict, including the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency.

U.S. intelligence officials present a similar view - noting tactical successes but warning that well into a major escalation of the conflict, there is little indication that the direction of the war has changed.

Among the troubling findings is that Taliban commanders who are captured or killed are often replaced in a matter of days.
What this shows is that O'Reilly and Geraldo can not be trusted to give you accurate information on what is happening in Afghanistan. The Washington Post report quotes Government officials, and other intelligence reports. And it says the exact opposite of what O'Reilly and Geraldo reported.

In the next segment O'Reilly put Glenn Beck on to promote his new book, and to discuss the elections. And nobody but right-wing nuts care about his book, or care about what he has to say about anything, so I will not be reporting anything Beck said. I will say this, as usual O'Reilly ignored all the stuff about Beck inciting violence with the far right nuts who watch him. One persons cousin even said in court that his cousin watched Beck every day and that is what led him to make the death threats against the Democratic Sen. Patty Murray. And O'Reilly never said a word about any of it. The guy was arrested and in court, and O'Reilly does a weekly legal segment, and he still never said a word about any of it.

And in the last segment O'Reilly had Greg Gutfeld and Arthel Neville on for dumbest things of the week. And my God is this segment a total waste of time, which I will not report on because it's just stupid.

Then the highly edited Factor e-mails and the lame pinheads and patriots. And I want to mention an e-mail O'Reilly read. Someone asked O'Reilly if he knew why George Soros visited the White House, and instead of saying no, which is what he should have done.

Instead O'Reilly speculated his ass off, and said he is guessing it was to meet with some Obama aides to see where he should spend his money to help Obama the most. He is guessing! Ar you kidding me, guessing! Hey Billy, what happened to that no speculating zone you claim to have.

O'Reilly Speculated About Soros & Some Obama Aides
By: Steve - October 30, 2010 - 9:00am

Now get this, O'Reilly claims to be Mr. no speculation, he says he has a no speculation zone, and that he never allows speculation. Then he speculated his ass off about what he thinks happened between George Soros and some Obama aides he met with at the White House.

After an e-mailer asked O'Reilly if he knew what Soros was doing at the White House, O'Reilly said no, but then he guessed that he was there to ask them how he can spend his money to help Obama. If that is not pure 100% speculation, there is no such thing as speculation.

Basically O'Reilly guessed that Soros talked about where to direct the political cash to help Obama the most during visits with the Obama aides. O'Reilly was not there, so he has no idea what they talked about, and yet, he guessed anyway. Proving that he does not even follow his own rules.

And btw folks, do you think any George W. Bush aides met with any right-wing billionaires when he was in office, and told them how to best spend their money to help Bush, of course they did, but O'Reilly never said a word about that, and never had a problem with it then. he only has a problem with it when a left-wing billionaire does it, and he was just guessing, so he does not even know if it's true or not.

In fact, right-wing billionaires are giving millions and millions of dollars to Republicans like the Rove and Morris 527 groups. But O'Reilly never says a word about it, and has no problem with it. Talk about bias, this is it. In O'Reillyworld it's only wrong for billionaires to give money to left-wing groups, even though it's 100% legal.

More Speculation In The No Speculation Zone
By: Steve - October 30, 2010 - 8:30am

Before I show you what happened on the Factor Wednesday night, think about this. Bill O'Reilly has said a hundred times that the Factor is a no speculation zone, and that he does not allow any speculation. Except he is a liar, and he does allow speculation, he even speculates all the time himself.

The real truth is that O'Reilly and his Republican friends are allowed to speculate at will, the only people that can not speculate are the few Democrats that get on the show. Now lets look at what happened Wednesday night.

In 2 different segments both Dick Morris and Dennis Miller were allowed to speculate that elections in Washington and Nevada will be stolen by Democrats if the Republican loses. Even though they have no evidence of voter fraud, and voter fraud almost never happens. Not once did O'Reilly say to Morris or Miller that they are just speculating, or ask them for evidence of voter fraud, as he does when a Democratic guest speculates.

In this video Dick Morris baselessly claims the Washington Senate election will be stolen by Democrats:

And what's really telling is that when a Republican wins an election they never claim voter fraud, it's only when a Democrat wins that they say it was voter fraud, or possible voter fraud.

In this video dennis Miller claims Sharron Angle is going to win in Nevada, and if she don't, then the Democrats stole it from her. Miller said this: "If she doesn't win, this is going to be the biggest heist since Ocean's Eleven."

All of that is pure 100% speculation, O'Reilly allowed it all, and never once told them he does not allow speculation. And he never once said where is your evidence, nothing. He just let them throw that garbage out there with no evidence to back up what they were saying.

Not to mention, after all the voter fraud claims in the 2008 elections by O'Reilly and Fox, not one case of voter fraud was proven. There was no voter fraud by ACORN, none, zero. They found a few examples of voter registration fraud, but that was done by temporary employees to make more money. Because they got paid for every registration they got, and they faked a few, names like Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck were registered.

But Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck did not walk into a voting booth and cast a ballot. So there was no voter fraud, just registration fraud, which is a whole different situation and not voter fraud. Before every election O'Reilly and his crazy friends cry voter fraud, but it is never proven. And they are doing it again, even though O'Reilly claims to have a no speculation zone.

Some Info On O'Reilly & Fox Viewers
By: Steve - October 29, 2010 - 11:30am

Recently I wrote this information to someone by e-mail, and I thought I would share it with everyone, because it shows what is really going on at the Factor, and Fox News. This is information you will never hear from O'Reilly, or anyone at Fox News.

Because it shows that they have no power to influence elections, because 87% of their viewers are already voting for all the Republicans. And only 1% of the people are watching them anyway. So of that 1% who watch Fox, 87% of them are voting Republican already.

Fox News is not a major influence on the elections, mostly because almost nobody is watching them. The Factor gets about 3 to 3.5 million viewers, the other big Fox shows are around 2 to 2.5 million, Hannity, Beck, etc. That means less than 1% of the people watch any of them, and most of that 1% are Republicans.

So Fox is just preaching to the choir. It was proven that they have no major influence in the 2008 elections, they tried every trick in the book to get McCain elected, lied for him, covered for him, and they spent 3 months promoting him, while smearing Obama with Pastor Wright, etc.

And none of it worked, McCain got crushed. You know why, because most of the Fox viewers are already voting for the Republicans. Why do you think all the Democratic candidates are not going on Fox, because it's a waste of time, and none of their voters will vote for them.

In 2008 the polls showed that 87% of Fox viewers were voting for McCain, and 9% for Obama. So why would any Democratic candidate want to go on Fox to speak to that 9%, it would not make sense.

Here are a few quotes from an August 2008 article on the election:
Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Fox News viewers say they are likely to vote for John McCain, while those who watch CNN and MSNBC plan to support Barack Obama in November by more than two to one.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of CNN voters plan to vote for the Obama, versus 26% who intend to go for the Republican. Similarly, MSNBC watchers plan to vote for Obama over McCain 63% to 30%.

Only nine percent of those who watch Fox News say they will vote for Obama.
Do you see that, 65% Obama to 26% McCain at CNN, 63% Obama to 30% McCain at MSNBC. That is a decent balance, now look at Fox, 87% to McCain, and only 9% to Obama. That shows how Fox is not balanced, and that most of their viewers are Republican voters. Even if some of them claim to be Independents, they are lying, because they are right-leaning Independents who always vote Republican.

While it is true that CNN and MSNBC viewers favor Obama by significant margins, but still nowhere near the 87% margin by which Fox viewers favor McCain. In fact, CNN and MSNBC are offering very balanced coverage, but because so many conservatives have turned to Fox, their viewership is slanted. Conservatives didn't like the balance, so they went to Fox.

Another problem is that Fox viewers turn out to be highly uninformed about basic facts in the current political environment. The Pew Center found Fox viewers to be the second lowest informed audiences of all news outlets, ahead only of network morning shows.

So not only is Fox excessively slanted toward Republicans, with their viewership favoring Republicans by nearly 10-1 margins, they are also the least informative news network of all. Yeah, I can see a lot of good reasons for Democrats to go on a network like that, NOT!

O'Reilly claims Fox is fair and balanced, while CNN and MSNBC are not, he calls them far left smear networks. But the facts show the exact opposite. Because 26% of the CNN viewers said they plan to vote for McCain, 30% for McCain at MSNBC. While only 9% of the Fox viewers said they plan to vote for Obama. This shows that Fox is not balanced at all, and that CNN and MSNBC have a pretty good balance.

But mostly it shows that it would be a total waste of time for any Democratic candidates to go on Fox, because it would be crazy to talk to people when 87% (or more) of them are voting Republican. And after 2 years of non-stop Obama smears and lies by O'Reilly and Fox, I bet it's closer to 95% of the Fox viewers who are voting Republican in the November election.

When O'Reilly says Democrats should go on his show so they can get more votes from his 6 million (lol) viewers, it's ridiculous. To begin with, he does not have 6 million viewers, 3.7 million is not 6 million. On the average night O'Reilly has 3.0 to 3.7 million total viewers. And 2nd, most of his viewers are old Republicans over 54 years old. In fact, the average age of a Factor viewer is 71 years old.

So basically, most of the Factor viewers are 71 or older, and Republican. On the average night he gets about 700,000 viewers in the 25 to 54 demo. That means the other 2.3 to 3.0 million viewers are all old Republicans. Do you think they would vote for a Democrat, no matter what he says, of course not.

It's all a con-game by O'Reilly to try and get Democrats on his show, so he can hammer them and try to make them look bad, for ratings. Notice that it has not worked, because not one Democratic candidate has done his show, and none ever will.

In fact, most of the Republican candidates do not do his show, a few have, but not many. And they only do it to raise money, not to get more votes, because they know his viewers are already voting for them. O'Reilly claims they are scared of his tough questioning, but that is total bull. Especially when his interviews of Republicans are mostly softball questions.

They are not scared of O'Reilly one bit, they just know it's a waste of time, because the people who watch the Factor are already planning to vote for them. That is why they do other shows on CNN and the networks with more moderate and Independent viewers, because that might actually get them more votes.

The only reason any Republican candidate does O'Reilly, or any Fox show, is to raise money from the right-wing viewers who watch them, not get votes.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About His Ratings (Again)
By: Steve - October 29, 2010 - 10:30am

At this point O'Reilly is just a serial liar, because he has lied about his ratings at least 10 times that I can think of in the last few years. And once again on the Wednesday night Factor O'Reilly lied about his ratings again. Before I prove again that O'Reilly constantly lies about his ratings, I have to say this.

I do not care about ratings for news shows, on cable or the networks. I could care less what the ratings are for any news show, it's meaningless to me. Because I do not believe news shows should even have ratings. They should be in the business of informing the American people, not in the business of getting ratings so they can make more money selling commercials.

The only reason news shows are rated is so they can decide how much they can charge to air a commercial. That is wrong to me, and I oppose it. One reason I report the ratings for O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck, is because people have asked me to, but that is not the main reason. The main reason I do it is to show people how O'Reilly lies about his ratings.

If O'Reilly did not lie about his ratings, I would most likely not even report them. And now you know how I feel about ratings for news shows, and why I report them.

On the Wednesday 10-27-10 O'Reilly Factor, Billy said this:
O'REILLY: "Strickland doesn't have the cojones to show up here. Six million people watched this broadcast last night, he might get some votes if he comes on."
And now back to reality. I am looking at the Tuesday night ratings from Neilsen right now, for all the Fox cable news shows. And not one show had 6 million viewers, not the Factor, or anyone. Here are the facts, as in the truth, these are the ratings for all the afternoon to late night Fox shows:
O'Reilly - 3.734 Million
Hannity - 2.720 Million
Greta - 2.296 Million
Baier - 2.284 Million
Smith - 2.244 Million
Beck - 2.154 Million
Notice that O'Reilly not only DID NOT have 6 million viewers, he did not even have 4 million viewers. The facts show that 3.734 million is NOT 6 million.

This means that Bill O'Reilly is nothing but a liar, and if he will lie about his ratings when it can easily be proven he is lying, it means he will pretty much lie about anything. In fact, it's insulting to his viewers, because he thinks they are so stupid they will believe anything he says.

Which they probably do, but the facts are the facts, and 3.734 million is not 6 million, it's not even close. Making Bill O'Reilly a proven liar. And Beck is dead last, I thought he was the next coming of God, haha, he can't even beat Smith, Baier, or Greta, let alone Hannity or O'Reilly.

The Thursday 10-28-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 29, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called President Obama and the upcoming election. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The President continues his campaign to try to convince Americans that his administration is on the verge of success and voters should not toss the Democrats out of office. On Monday, however, the President made a mistake, telling the Univision radio network that Hispanic Americans should vote against their 'enemies,' clearly referring to Republicans.

Yesterday Mr. Obama spoke with Jon Stewart in the hopes of mobilizing young voters. The President claimed his administration 'prevented a second Great Depression, we've stabilized the economy, and an economy that was shrinking is now growing.'
Earth to O'Reilly, how is it a mistake to remind Hispanic Americans that the Republicans are your enemy, especially when it was said on a Hispanic radio network, and it's true. Are you kidding me, is that what you call accurate political analysis. It's nothing but right-wing spin, it would be like saying Ann Coulter made a mistake when she slammed Obama at the RNC convention. They loved it, and agree with it, so how in the hell was it a mistake.

Then O'Reilly said the President "claimed" his administration 'prevented a second Great Depression, we've stabilized the economy, and an economy that was shrinking is now growing.'

Earth to O'Reilly part 2, the President is "claiming" it because it's true, you right-wing spin doctoring fool. When Obama took office the economy was losing 750,000 jobs a month, and on the edge of a 2nd great depression, then Obama took over and passed the Stimulus bill, etc. Then about 10 months later the economy was adding jobs every month. That is reality Billy, not the made up spin you put out. If a Republican had done what Obama did to save the economy you would praise him as a God for years, but when Obama does it you say he "claims" to have saved the economy. He is not just claiming it, he did it.

Then O'Reilly had Laura Ingraham on to evaluate President Obama's interview on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Are you kidding me, what a joke. You put that right-wing stooge on to evaluate it, give me a break. Of course she hated it and said it hurt Obama more than it helped him. Because she is a lying, biased, joke of a partisan spin doctor, that's what she does, lie and spin about Democrats. Ingraham said this: "Every single poll shows that the more we see of him, the smaller he becomes. This appearance was an utter flop and I think it probably did him some harm. He doesn't look serious; he looks like he's desperate."

Really, every single poll shows that, name one. If Ingraham can show me one poll that says the more people see of Obama the more people dislike him I will take this website offline. And the crowd cheered over everything Obama said, as did the mostly liberal viewers for the show, so how in the hell was it an utter flop. My God Ingraham is a liar, and O'Reilly is a fool for putting her on to give that ridiculous analysis.

It would be like saying if George W. Bush went on the Fox comedy show Red Eye, and talked to a conservative audience he was an utter flop. Which would also be ridiculous, because they would love him, as the Daily Show viewers loved Obama. Wow is Ingraham an idiot. And the worst part is O'Reilly sitting there letting her spin out that garbage as if it's true. Making him a bigger right-wing fool than she is.

Then O'Reilly had Joe Trippi on to reply to his spin that Obama has moved even more to the left, why, simply because he has met with George Soros and talked to some left-wing bloggers. Joe Trippi of course disagreed, he said this: "George Soros has some views on the global economy, where he's done quite well, so there would be reasons to meet with him. And the bloggers aren't necessarily people the President agrees with. At least this White House is putting out exactly who they're meeting with, unlike the Bush White House."

O'Reilly pretty much ignored that to continue with his talking points spin. Then O'Reilly argued that President Obama should be more selective in who he talks to, as if they care what O'Reilly thinks, Billy said this: "George Soros is a dubious character, a convicted felon and a far-left radical. That troubles me as an American citizen and it doesn't help Barack Obama to be associated with him."

Memo to Bill O'Reilly: Nobody care what you think, except the far right meatheads who watch your show.

In the next segment O'Reilly attacked Joy behar with the 2 right-wing Culture Warriors Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson. They were all mad because Behar called Sharron Angle a bitch who is going to hell. What they failed to mention is that she said it after Angle sent Joy a smart ass note thanking her for helping her to raise money. they acted like Joy just said it out of thin air for no reason. Carlson said she is highly offended when a woman calls another woman a 'bleep.' And how dare she say that Sharron Angle should go to hell. Hoover called Joy an angry, left-wing, burned-out radical from the '70's, and said Joy has lost all her credibility.

Earth to Carlson and Hoover, where was your outrage when the male Republican Rand Paul supporter stepped on the liberal womans head. That is much worse than calling a woman a name, and yet you were not outraged at all about that. And btw you right-wing freaks, Joy Behar does not have any credibility to lose. Because she is a comedian, let me spell that out for you. C-O-M-E-D-I-A-N, you idiots.

And where is your outrage when Dennis Miller the C-O-M-E-D-I-A-N, calls Nancy Pelosi every insulting name in the book on the Factor. Neither one of you right-wing hypocrites say a word about the things Miller says about Nancy Pelosi or any other Democrat. So as Joy Behar might say, shut up you phony bitches.

Then O'Reilly had another illegal alien story to fire up Republicans to vote, which I will not report on. And btw O'Dummy, it's illegal immigrants, or undocumented immigrants, they are not aliens from outer space, they are people just like you and me. they might be in the country illegally, which is wrong, but they are still people.

In the next segment O'Reilly had Megyn Kelly on to talk about a federal court who overturned an Arizona law requiring people to provide identification when they register to vote. Kelly said this: "The court ruled, that federal law doesn't require you to submit proof of citizenship when you register to vote, and therefore the Arizona law was unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs in this case, a group of Latinos and others, said people can't be 'disenfranchised' if they don't have a driver's license or passport or birth certificate. They want to follow the federal law, which says you have to affirm and swear that you're a citizen. This will clearly allow more illegals to vote."

Wow, that is some kind of right-wing spin. Let me get this straight, you think it's ok to ban people from voting if they do not show a photo ID. Even though it's a violation of the constitution. And it means that anyone who does not have a photo ID can not vote. So you support violating a persons right to vote. You are an idiot. you are saying that because a few illegals may vote, it's ok to keep other legal citizens from voting if they do not have a photo ID. And you call yourself a supporter of the constitution, give me a break.

And of course O'Reilly denounced the circuit court and the ruling, saying this: "This is insane. We have an illegal immigrant problem, we have a problem with voter fraud, so the solution is to make sure we know who's voting."

What's insane is hearing you 2 right-wing stooges disagree with the constitution, even though you both claim to support it. Let me pull an O'Reilly here, hey Billy, show me where it says in the constitution that if you don't have a driver's license or passport or birth certificate, you can't vote. Show me, I'll be waiting. then cite a legal case that backs up your opinions, jerks.

And the last segment was the total waste of time Factor News Quiz, with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum, that I will not report on because it's nothing but right-wing garbage with 2 right-wing Fox stooges.

Then the highly edited Factor e-mails, and the lame pinheads and patriots. Guest list count - 7 Republicans - 1 Democrat.

The Wednesday 10-27-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 28, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Why NPR and PBS do not deserve tax dollars. O'Reilly wasted the entire TPM crying about NPR and PBS. Basically he said the Government should take all their funding away, because conservatives do not like what they do. Which is a ridiculous argument, because it ignores the fact that a lot of people like what they do, so O'Reilly is ignoring what they want. Of course O'Reilly does not care what anyone who is not conservative wants.

O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Talking Points has analyzed both NPR and PBS to see how their analysts break down. Of the 18 we looked at, 17 are liberal-leaning individuals, one is a moderate, and there are no conservative analysts. None!
Except that is a lie, because they have David Brooks, who is a conservative, O'Reilly classified him as a moderate. Here is proof that Brooks is a conservative, in February of this year the Daily Beast came out with a top 25 list of right-wing journalists, O'Reilly was listed at #5, guess who came in at #7, David Brooks.

And that's not all, Sean Hannity was #8, who is as conservative as it gets, and yet, Brooks came in one spot ahead of Hannity, but O'Reilly says Brooks is not a conservative. Which just goes to show you that O'Reilly can not be trusted to tell you who is a moderate or a conservative. So his analysis of the people that work for NPR and PBS is worthless. And btw, only the far far right republicans say David Brooks is not a conservative.

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing idiot Dick Morris on to give his election predictions. And of course Morris was his usual crazy self, he said the Republicans will pick up 60 to 80 seats in the House, and 10 seats in the Senate. Even O'Reilly said he does not believe that. Morris even said Democrats who are ahead by 5 to 13 points will lose. But in races where Republicans are ahead by 5 to 10 points, he said they will all win. It made no sense, he basically said don't believe the polls in the races he talked about with democrats winning, but if the Republican is winning, believe those polls. Huh?

Then O'Reilly had a segment with Alfonso Aguilar, head of a conservative Latino organization. And the right-wing Professor Chris Metzler, who both slammed Obama. So it was 3 Republicans with no Democrats. President Obama, making a pitch for Democratic votes, told Univision that Latinos should be saying "we're gonna punish our enemies." Obama was talking about Republicans, who are the enemy of Latinos, and he was saying they should vote for Democrats who are their friends.

The only mistake Obama made was telling the truth, so O'Reilly had 2 Republicans on to slam Obama for what he said. O'Reilly just did not like Obama telling the truth about republicans being the enemy of Latinos. So he put 2 right-wingers on to smear Obama for it.

In the next segment O'Reilly had Larry Sabato and Erin Billings on to talk about the elections. They both said the Republicans will pick up about 50 seats in the House, and maybe 8 in the Senate. During the segment O'Reilly called out Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, who has complained that Fox News is helping his Republican opponent John Kasich, Billy said this:
O'REILLY: Strickland doesn't have the cojones to show up here. Six million people watched this broadcast last night, he might get some votes if he comes on.
WHAT! ARE YOU KIDDING ME. Strickland is a Democrat, why the hell would he want to go on Fox when 90% of the people watching will not vote for him, or donate money to his campaign. It has nothing to do with not having the cojones to show up, it's about being smart and using your time in a smart way. If I was Strickland I would not do Fox either. And the problem is O'Reilly and Fox putting Kasich on all their shows, with the website name to donate money to him on the screen.

O'Reilly is just mad that Strickland told the truth about Fox using their news network to promote Republicans who are running for office. Now lets talk about that 6 million viewers statement. WOW, THAT IS A LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE.

For the record, the Tuesday night O'Reilly Factor show had exactly 3.734 million total viewers. Not 4 million, not 5 million, and clearly not 6 million. Those numbers are right from Nielsen. Earth to Bill O'Reilly, you are a liar. 3.734 million is not 6 million, and it's not even close you lying fraud.

Then O'Reilly had Professor Caroline Heldman on to talk about NPR and PBS. She defended the subsidy, she said this: "You're wrong in thinking that NPR is left-leaning. I actually think they deliver a type of news program no one else is delivering, one that is not concerned about profit and is not in the hands of corporations. They serve a very important function of doing in-depth journalism."

Heldman also argued that NPR and PBS, despite their dearth of conservative analysts, are straight down the middle. "I'm much further to the left than NPR or PBS because when I watch them they seem very mainstream. Whatever left-leaning instincts they might have is not translating into coverage."

Remember this, O'Reilly said David Brooks is not a conservative, so he is hardly anyone to judge who is a conservative or not. O'Reilly said ok, but why should his money go to Bill Moyers. Even though Bill Moyers left PBS a long time ago. And he ignores the fact that a lot of Americans support the Government giving them money. He acts like only his opinion matters. If 50% of the people support it, and 50% oppose it, who is O'Reilly to decide if they get the money or not.

The next segment was Miller Time with the comedian Dennis Miller. I do not report what Miller says because he is a comedian, but I will say this much. O'Reilly brought up the liberal woman from getting her head stepped on by a Republican man at the Rand Paul gathering. But he just casually mentioned it, O'Reilly said it was wrong to step on her head, and reported that the guy who did it was charged. but them Miller and O'Reilly made a couple jokes about it.

There was no full segment on it with any Democratic guests, nothing. Just O'Reilly and Miller talking about it for about a minute, then making jokes about it. But if Ann Coulter gets a pie in the face, O'Reilly has a full segment on it and spends half the show talking about it. Miller also implied that if Sharron Angle does not win in Nevada it will be because the Democrats rigged the election. Miller said "If she doesn't win, this is going to be the biggest heist since Ocean's Eleven." Hey O'Reilly, what happened to that no speculation rule.

And in the last segment O'Reilly had Juliet Huddy on for did you see that. They played some video by the guy who does right-wing movies, David Zucker, O'Reilly was even in one of his movies, where he slapped an actor who was playing Michael Moore. The video mocks California's Barbara Boxer for ordering a military officer to "call me Senator." And of course both O'Reilly and Huddy loved it and thought it was very funny. How that is a must see video, I'll never know. It was just a cheap shot on Boxer, and only Republicans would think it was funny.

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

Liberal Woman Has Head Stepped On By Republican
By: Steve - October 28, 2010 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly ignored it, except for a 1 minute mention of it in the Dennis Miller segment. Which is a comedy segment, and after it was barely mentioned, O'Reilly and Miller made a joke about it. Now imagine what he would say if a Republican woman had her head stepped on by a Democrat. He would scream bloody murder, and report it for a week.

Tim Profitt, the former Bourbon County campaign coordinator for Kentucky GOP Senate nominee Rand Paul's campaign, gave the AP a non-apology apology yesterday for stomping on the head of a activist outside a Senate debate Monday night, saying this: "I apologize if it appeared overly forceful."

But apparently his phony remorse was short-lived, as Profitt told a local CBS affiliat WKYT this on Wednesday, "I don't think it's that big of a deal."

(The Lexington Police think otherwise, because they issued Profitt a criminal summons).

And astonishingly, when asked if he planned to apologize to Lauren Valle, whose head he stomped on, and Profitt said this: "I would like for her to apologize to me to be honest with you."

Profitt has attempted to blame Valle for the incident in which he and another large man wrestled the 23-year-old woman to the ground. Profitt has said he restrained Valle because he feared the petite woman represented a danger to Paul, and said he stepped on her because "I couldn’t bend over because I have issues with my back."

In her first TV interview since the incident last night, Valle told Keith Olberman that the incident captured on video was actually only the very end of a lengthy altercation she had with Profitt, tea party activist Mike Pezzano, and several other Rand Paul supporters. "It was premeditated" Valle said, saying that Profitt and his friends knew she was a progressive activist and not any kind of threat.

Rand Paul has claimed to disown Profitt, despite the fact that the campaign ironically ran a full page ad Tuesday touting the endorsement of Profitt, among many others. But apparently not all conservatives are prepared to denounce violence against an innocent woman. Right-wing talk radio host Neal Boortz tweeted this Wednesday: "Wanted: A Rand Paul supporter with a bad back to stand on a Media Matters staffer's head for a while."

Stay classy Boortz, you right-wing jerk. And the great journalist Bill O'Reilly has not said a word about it. But when Ann Coulter had a pie thrown in her face by a Democratic activist O'Reilly devoted an entire segment to it with Coulter, and spent most of the show talking about it.

So in O'Reillyworld if a Republican woman gets a pie thrown in her face, she gets her own segment and most the show is spent discussing it. But when a Democratic woman gets her head stepped on by a Republican man, O'Reilly ignores the entire story.

O'Reilly Proven Wrong On Afghanistan (Again)
By: Steve - October 28, 2010 - 9:30am

As anyone who is a regular Factor viewer knows, O'Reilly has said a million times that the troop increase, and the increase in drone attacks in Afghanistan is working and things are improving.

O'Reilly praised Obama for sending an extra 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, and also said he was right to increase the drone attacks, because it was working, and it will help us win the war there.

But as usual, O'Reilly was wrong. And what he said turned out to be the same old right-wing propaganda he always spins out. Then on top of that, when the truth comes out, O'Reilly ignores it because it proves he was wrong. O'Reilly even based most of his information of what the right-wing told him, and now we know they were wrong too.

A new report by the Washington Post says the Taliban have been unscathed by the U.S. strikes.

Here are some quotes from the article:

An intense military campaign aimed at crippling the Taliban has so far failed to inflict more than fleeting setbacks on the insurgency or put meaningful pressure on its leaders to seek peace, according to U.S. military and intelligence officials citing the latest assessments of the war in Afghanistan.

Escalated airstrikes and special operations raids have disrupted Taliban movements and damaged local cells. But officials said that insurgents have been adept at absorbing the blows and that they appear confident that they can outlast an American troop buildup set to subside beginning next July.

"The insurgency seems to be maintaining its resilience," said a senior Defense Department official involved in assessments of the war. Taliban elements have consistently shown an ability to "reestablish and rejuvenate," often within days of routed by U.S. forces, the official said, adding that if there is a sign that momentum has shifted, "I don't see it."

The blunt intelligence assessments are consistent across the main spy agencies responsible for analyzing the conflict, including the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, and come at a critical juncture. Officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

U.S. intelligence officials present a similar, but inverted, view - noting tactical successes but warning that well into a major escalation of the conflict, there is little indication that the direction of the war has changed.

Among the troubling findings is that Taliban commanders who are captured or killed are often replaced in a matter of days. Insurgent groups that have ceded territory in Kandahar and elsewhere seem content to melt away temporarily, leaving behind operatives to carry out assassinations or to intimidate villagers while waiting for an opportunity to return.

U.S. officials said Taliban operatives have adopted a refrain that reflects their focus on President Obama's intent to start withdrawing troops in the middle of next year. Attributing the words to Taliban leader Mohammad Omar, officials said, operatives tell one another, "The end is near."

While no major change in strategy is expected in December, critics could use the latest assessments to argue that the continued investment of American resources and lives is misguided, particularly when the main impediment to progress that analysts cite is beyond American control.

U.S. officials said the two main branches of the insurgency - the Taliban and the Haqqani network - have been able to withstand the American military onslaught largely because they have access to safe havens in Pakistan.

And what this also shows is that O'Reilly can not be trusted to give you accurate information on what is happening in Afghanistan. His answer to everything is, more troops, and kill more of them. Except that does not always work, and in this case it is not working.

But O'Reilly does not tell you that, he just puts right-wing military spin doctors on like Col. Ralph Peters and Col. david Hunt. Who then agree with his spin, while ignoring the facts. Think about that for a minute, O'Reilly puts his spin on what is happening in Afghanistan. But when the facts come out, he ignores it, so you think he was right, when in reality he was dead wrong.

All this does is get more U.S. troops killed for no reason, when we are not winning. Then the jackass O'Reilly claims he supports the troops, when he is helping to get more of them killed, with all his spin about how the increase in troops and drone attacks are working. It's madness, and it shows what a lying idiot O'Reilly is.

More Proof Factor Viewers Are Braindead Idiots
By: Steve - October 27, 2010 - 11:30am

On Wednesday I got this e-mail:
From: cards - [email protected]
Subject: Are you serious?
To: [email protected]
Date: Wednesday, October 27, 2010, 8:02 AM

I watch O'Reilly every night and there is NO WAY the ratio of GOP to Dems is 6-1!!!! This is why only quacks follow you hard-core liberals. You can't make a point without distortion of the truth. O'Reilly sends invitations to Dems to come on his show all the time and most refuse the offer. I know for a fact that he has almost begged Obama to come on several times. He asked the witch that runs NPR to appear and she will not come out of hiding. You are a serial liar. If you can honestly deny anything I have just stated, feel free to write back. But I am sure I will never hear from you again.

WHAT A JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jim Stafford
St. Joseph, MO
Wow, what an idiot. And now the facts, here is what I wrote to Jim:


You are clueless. I watch O'Reilly every night, and I have for over 10 years now. I also count the guests, and I count if they are a Republican or a Democrat. The average is about 6 to 1, sometimes 7 to 0. or even 7 or 8 to 0.

Can you even count?

Do you know the difference between a Democrat and a Republican?

Are you retarded?

What you are saying is ridiculous. On most shows it's nothing but Rove, Ingraham, Morris, Beck, Kelly, Goldberg, Krauthammer, Ham, Doocy, Gutfeld, Huddy, Coulter, Stossel, Hoover, Carlson, Miller, and on and on. Only a braindead fool would even deny it's 6 to 1 Republicans to Democrats, especially when it's closer to 7 to 1.

Just last night (Tuesday) O'Reilly had 7 REPUBLICAN GUESTS. Guess how many DEMOCRATIC GUESTS he had on, 1, yes I said ONE. Alan Colmes.

Here is the Tuesday guest list:

1) Monica Crowley - REPUBLICAN
2) Alan Colmes - DEMOCRAT
3) Stephen Hayes - REPUBLICAN
4) Heidi Harris - REPUBLICAN
5) John Stossel - REPUBLICAN
6) Lis Wiehl - REPUBLICAN
7) Kimberly Guilfoyle - REPUBLICAN
8) Charles Krauthammer - REPUBLICAN

That is 7 to 1 sparky. So what do you have to say now you idiot!


P.S. Jim you are pathetic, and I feel sorry for how braindead and brainwashed you are.

WHAT A JOKE YOU ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And btw folks, this guy Jim is so stupid he did not even remove the no-spam text off of my e-mail address. It said this in my inbox:

Fw: Returned mail: see transcript for details

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- [email protected] (reason: 554 delivery error: dd This user doesn't have a account ([email protected]) [-15] -

And that my friends, is how you make a clueless right-wing O'Reilly loving idiot look like a fool.

UPDATE -- 11:55am Wednesday - This fool Jim replied to my reply, and called me a liberal liar again, even after I proved to him that O'Reilly has 6 to 8 Republicans per show, and only 1 to 2 Democrats. On the Tuesday show it was 7 to 1, 8 to 1 if you count O'Reilly. But in Jim's mind, I am a liar, which is just laughable. This is what I'm dealing with folks, braindead right-wing morons.

The Tuesday 10-26-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 27, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Just one week left before midterm election. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: All the polling indicates Republicans will do very well next Tuesday, as millions of Americans are angry about the economy and the general direction of the country. A new Gallup poll says 63% of Republicans are enthusiastic to vote; just 37% of Democrats say they're jazzed to go to the polls.

That's huge because a low turnout among Democrats will doom the party. Talking Points is an independent voter, but I do believe the country is on the wrong track. President Obama made a calculated gamble with massive spending and it has not translated into more jobs.

Americans understand that simple equation and they also understand that, under Democratic leadership, the nation has added an amazing $5 trillion in debt. Obviously that has to stop, and the folks know it.
Notice that O'Reilly is lying, about being an Independent voter, and he lied about Obama, because he did not add $5 Trillion to the national debt.

The latest information from the Treasury Department shows the National Debt has increased $2 trillion dollars since President Obama took office. The debt now stands at $12.6 trillion. On the day Mr. Obama took office it was $10.6 trillion. Proving that Bill O'Reilly is a massive liar.

Then O'Reilly had Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes on to talk about the election. Crowley said this: "He's going to face a stark choice. Either he's going to moderate his positions and his approach to governance, or he's going to double down on his ideological agenda. Knowing what we know about this President, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that he will moderate and work with the Republicans."

Colmes said this: "I think the President was very smart to get as much done as he could in the first year and a half. Republicans aren't going to repeal Obamacare - are they really going to repeal kids having no punishment for pre-existing conditions?"

Crowley is just insane, Obama tried to work with Republicans but they refused, and decided to just vote no on everything for political reasons. She is just another partisan hack who lies her ass off, and O'Reilly says nothing.

In the next segment O'Reilly had the far right Stephen Hayes on to talk more about NPR firing Juan Williams. Which I refuse to report on anymore, because it's old news. But of course no Democratic guest was on to discuss it.

Then O'Reilly had the far right Heidi Harris on to talk about a campaign ad by Sharron Angle. O'Reilly said Angle is running an ominous TV ad warning of illegal aliens streaming across our border. Which is the first time O'Reilly has talked about an unfair ad by a Republican. So they were supposed to talk about how the ad was deceptive, instead they spent the entire segment talking about how bad Harry Reid is. With no Democratic guest to comment on the Angle ad.

And btw, in the ad Angle shows Mexicans crossing the border, as if they are going into Nevada. But Nevada is not on the Mexican border, and the Mexicans in the ad are paid actors, plus another Republican used the same actors in his ad. YouTube pulled both ads, because they are dishonest, and O'Reilly finally mentioned it. A week after it happened, and only after he took some heat for not showing any unfair Republican ads.

Then O'Reilly had John Stossel on to talk about the Prop 19 issue in California, which would legalize marijuana. O'Reilly is opposed to it, and predicts it will lose. Stossel supports it, and thinks it may pass, but he admitted O'Reilly might be right. They bet $10,000 to charity, and O'Reilly said he will make Stossel write the check live on the Factor. Even though the show is taped, so it will not be live.

O'Reilly said this: "One in six people who begin using marijuana gets addicted to it." And I would say that is ridiculous, because I grew up at a time when everyone I knew smoked pot, including myself, and out of the 20 or 30 people I knew, not one of them ever got addicted to pot. Earth to O'Reilly, pot is not addictive. THC is not clinically addictive, and that is what gets you high.

In the next waste of time segment O'Reilly had Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle on to talk about the chance that Juan Williams could sue NPR. Which is just ridiculous, and I will not report on it.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Charles Krauthammer on to talk about the election. Krauthammer said this: "Gallup asked people to describe how they feel, and anger came in at 12%. If Republicans win, it has to be a result of something irrational and out-of-control."

Krauthammer also said that conservative opposition to President Obama is reasoned and logical. "I think you're getting a very reasonable response to an overreaching Obama administration. The country is standing up and saying 'no, that's not what we want.' This is a very important referendum on the size and reach of government."

But what he failed to mention is the racism from the right over a black president. And that a lot of the disapproval on the right is simply because he is black. Both O'Reilly and Krauthammer ignore that, and deny it, even though it's a proven fact. They also lie that Obama caused all the debt, when he has only added $2 Trillion to the debt, and that he had to so the country would not dive into a depression, or that it worked.

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

Imus Slams O'Reilly for His Muslim Comments
By: Steve - October 27, 2010 - 9:30am

You know you screwed up when a fellow Republican like Don Imus says you are wrong.

But of course O'Reilly will ignore what Imus said, because he is too scared to have him on. Imus is wealthy enough to stand up to O'Reilly, that is why he will never be on the Factor to discuss it.

O'Reilly Attacks Cartoon Of Fox Employees
By: Steve - October 27, 2010 - 9:00am

O'Reilly is attacking a guy who put out a cartoon of Him, Palin, Hannity, Williams, and Beck. In the cartoon Beck is dressed as a Nazi, and that made O'Reilly mad. Even though he uses Nazi comparisons all the time. So I guess it's ok for him to do it, but nobody else.

O'Reilly said this on the Monday Factor in his so-called Reality Check Segment:
O'REILLY: The Detroit Free Press published a cartoon by Mike Thompson showing Juan Williams alongside Glenn Beck in a Nazi uniform and Bill in a shirt reading 'Obama = Hitler.'

The Factor's Check: "Mr. Thompson is a far left zealot, and you can reach him at [email protected] Please don't sink to his level, but you can let him know what you think. The far left is seething over all this NPR stuff, so the blowback has begun."
So Billy published the guys e-mail address, over a cartoon, for all his crazy far right viewers to flood him with hate mail, stay classy Bill.

Just read the next blog posting and you will see all the Nazi comparisons O'Reilly makes, proving that he is a massive hypocrite with double standards. And what makes it worse for O'Reilly is that he does it as a so-called journalist. The O'Reilly/Palin/Hannity/Williams/Beck cartoon was just a cartoon, and it was not done by a person with a tv news show.

O'Reilly Nazi Comparison Hypocrisy
By: Steve - October 27, 2010 - 8:30am

Think back to the Bush years, any time a liberal compared Bush to Hitler O'Reilly did a segment on it and slammed them for using Nazi and Hitler comparisons. Billy said it was wrong, and he said nobody should use Nazi comparisons, he even called on people to stop with the Hitler comparisons.

And as usual O'Reilly does not even follow his own rules, because since then he has used many Nazi comparisons to liberals. Here are some documented examples of the O'Reilly hypocrisy. And btw folks, some of the Nazi comparisons from O'Reilly happened while Bush was still in office, as he was calling for everyone to stop with the Nazi comparisons, he was doing it himself.

1) On the June 14, 2004 O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly compared both Michael Moore and Al Franken to Goebbels. O'Reilly also compared a group of Hollywood celebrities who attended a premiere of Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 to "the people who would turn out to see Josef Goebbels convince you that Poland invaded the Third Reich."

2) On the July 28, 2004 O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly said that Michael Moore "has more power than probably anybody else other than Senators John Kerry and John Edwards," adding that Moore's purported power was scary because "this happened in Nazi Germany." O'Reilly went on to ask: "Who was the most powerful person in Nazi Germany other than Hitler and Himmler and Goering, Goebbels. The propaganda minister."

3) On the July 16, 2007 O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said that the Daily Kos is "like the Ku Klux Klan. It's like the Nazi party. There's no difference here." A day later, O'Reilly said "That website traffics in hate, as do the Nazi websites. No difference."

4) On July 19, 2007, O'Reilly said of Daily Kos: "The hate this website traffics in rivals the KKK and Nazi websites."

5) On the December 13, 2007 O'Reilly Factor, Jane Hall said that comments made by actor Tim Robbins while campaigning for John Edwards were "valid." In response, Bill O'Reilly said, " But Von Ribbentrop in the Nazi hierarchy made valid points too, Jane."

6) On The March 5, 2008 O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said this: "And I said that these tactics that are being used on this website, The Huffington Post, are the same exact tactics that the Nazis used in the late '20s and early '30s to demonize certain groups of people, so it would become easier for them, the Nazis, when they took power, to hurt those people." 7) On February 27, 2008 O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said that "I don't see any difference between Arianna Huffington and the Nazis. ... I don't see any difference."

8) In his July 16, 2009, syndicated column, O'Reilly wrote that "The far left is trying to create a huge federal apparatus that will promote income redistribution and social justice. Under the guise of hard news reporting, the media is pushing rank propaganda on the citizenry. Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, successfully developed this tactic in the 1930's."

9) On the March 2, 2010 O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said liberals who support gun control are "today's totalitarians," adding that in the past people like "Hitler and Mussolini" held such positions in favor of "state control."

So once again you can see that O'Reilly is a massive hypocrite with double standards, who does not even follow his own rules, and who does exactly what he says not to do, as he is doing it himself.

The Monday 10-25-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 26, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called The election and the Muslim controversy. O'Reilly spent the entire TPM trying to justify his Muslim comments on the View by saying this:
O'REILLY: When voters show up a week from tomorrow, the Muslim situation will not be the first thing on their minds; economic well-being will be. But as the NPR fiasco and The View fracas proved, Americans are in no mood for politically correct nonsense about the Muslim threat. It is real, the Taliban is real, Al Qaeda is real, and the Islamic theocracy of Iran is perhaps the most threatening nation on Earth. I rest my case.
What an idiot, the things Americans care about are jobs, the economy, and health care. Worrying about Muslims is barely even on the list, except with O'Reilly and the right. The same with illegal immigration, O'Reilly and the right are just using those 2 wedge issues to fire up the right to get out an vote.

O'Reilly had Ahmed Rehab of the Council on American-Islamic Relations on to discuss it. Rehab said this: "Iran has not been a physical threat to the United States or to Americans. I'm not a fan of the Iranian regime or extremist ideologies, but I don't like it when you exaggerate the realities."

Rehab also took issue with the notion that the world faces a Muslim threat. He said this: "There are violent extremists, but the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful. When you call it a Muslim problem, you have a problem. The problem is not that they're Muslim, it's that they're extremists."

And Rehab is right, it's not a Muslim problem, what are the good Muslims supposed to do, take up arms and try to kill the bad Muslims, it's ridiculous, and O'Reilly is just a right-wing fool. It would be like saying when a bad pro-life Christian kills an abortion doctor, the other Christians should do something about it. It's crazy, and O'Reilly is out of his mind. Sometimes I wonder if O'Reilly cheated his way to that Masters degree, because he says some stupid things.

Then O'Reilly cried some more about the NPR ombudsman Alicia Shepard, who said NPR practices "objective journalism," and she also slammed Fox News. So what does O'Reilly do, have 2 people on from both sides to debate it, of course not, he had Bernard Goldberg on to spin it to the right.

Goldberg said this: "When you live inside the bubble for too long, you have no touch with reality. The woman who runs NPR, Vivian Schiller, is incompetent and should be fired, and ombudsman Alicia Shepard said Bill O'Reilly believes every Muslim on the planet is an extremist bent on attacking America. Where the hell do you get this from? She is the ombudsman for NPR, an organization that is always telling us about 'NPR values.' How could she make a statement like that?"

Earth to Bernie, she got it from Bill O'Reilly, did you forget already that O'Reilly said Muslims killed us on 9-11, you a-hole. O'Reilly implied that ALL Muslims are trying to kill us, open your eyes you fool, and stop kissing up to O'Reilly. You are a joke, a far right joke.

So what does O'Reilly do, he makes a joke about an ombudsman, Billy said this: "The word 'ombudsman' in Gaelic means 'goes out to lunch.'"

That's what passes for fair and balanced journalism on the Factor, 2 right-wing stooges spinning out right-wing propaganda. With nobody from NPR, or the left, to provide the counter point.

Then O'Reilly had Brit Hume on to talk about the elections. O'Reilly asked Hume if Obama stumping for Democrats was helping because some of the races have tightened up in the last couple weeks. And of course Hume said no, even though it's true. Not to mention they ignored Paladino and O'Donnell, who are getting crushed now. Just as in the segment before it was a one sided biased joke, with 2 right-wing stooges putting their spin on it, with no Democratic guest to give the other side.

In the next segment O'Reilly finally had a Democratic guest on, sort of, because it was a Fox News Democrat, which means she is actually a moderate who agrees with O'Reilly half the time. Alicia Menendez was on, and she said this: "It's definitely a Republican year, but these expectations have been overstated. It seems that the Republicans won't get a majority in the Senate and the House is up for grabs. There are a lot more people identifying as Democrats, the question is whether they will turn out." Menendez also slammed the GOP for focusing on the negative, she said this: "Republicans have really missed an opportunity to speak to the average American voter. They could have offered some vision for leadership, but instead they offered up a nonsense plan and voters don't want it."

Then O'Reilly sent Jesse Waters to do an ambush interview with NPR boss Vivian Schiller, who has refused invitations to appear on The Factor. O'Reilly had Mary K. Ham and Williams on to discuss it. So she refused the invitation, and you send someone to ambush her anyway, stay classy Bill.

And then you have Juan and Ham on to discuss it, give me a break, where is the balance you claim to have. And btw folks, in the Memendez segment O'Reilly said the Factor has a 50/50 balance of Democratic and Republican guests. Which is just laughable, and I will have another blog posting about that later. I will say this, it is insane to claim the Factor has a balanced guest list, because it's not even close.

In the last segment O'Reilly had his ridiculous Factor Reality Check, one check was about the Detroit Free Press, who published a cartoon by Mike Thompson showing Juan Williams alongside Glenn Beck in a Nazi uniform and Bill in a shirt reading 'Obama = Hitler.' The Factor's Check: "Mr. Thompson is a far left zealot, and you can reach him at [email protected] Please don't sink to his level, but you can let him know what you think. The far left is seething over all this NPR stuff, so the blowback has begun.

Earth to O'Reilly, it was a cartoon. So you are going to have your crazy viewers flood the man with hate mail over a cartoon. Stay classy Bill, you a-hole.

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

O'Reilly Caught Lying About His Guest Balance
By: Steve - October 26, 2010 - 10:00am

On the Monday Factor show, O'Reilly told Alicia Menendez that he has a 50/50 balance of Democratic and Republican guests. Which is a flat out lie, and just ridiculous. And to show you what a fake Democrat Memendez is, she never called O'Reilly on it, and in fact, she said O'Reilly is correct.

Proving they are both liars, because it's not even close, I document the Factor guest list on this website, going all the way back to May of 2009. In the average Factor show O'Reilly has 6.9 to 7.2 Republican guests per show, and 1.3 to 1.6 Democratic guests per show.

In most shows it's 6 Republicans to 1 Democrat, but once in a while O'Reilly has 7 Republicans to 0 Democrats, while never having 7 Democrats to 0 Republicans. Here are a few examples from the last 6 months:

1) In September of 2010 O'Reilly had 22 shows, with a total of 184 guests, 152 Republicans, and 32 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.9 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.4 Democrats per show.

2) In August of 2010 O'Reilly had 22 shows, with a total of 195 guests, 160 Republicans, and 35 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 7.2 Republicans per show, while only having an average of 1.5 Democrats per show.

3) In July of 2010 O'Reilly had 22 shows, with a total of 181 guests, 145 Republicans, and 36 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.5 Republican guests per show, while only having an average of 1.6 Democratic guests per show.

4) In June of 2010 O'Reilly had 22 shows, with a total of 179 guests, 153 Republicans, and 26 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.9 Republican guests per show, while only having an average of 1.1 Democratic guests per show.

5) In May of 2010 O'Reilly had 21 shows, with a total of 173 guests, 144 Republicans, and 29 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.5 Republican guests per show, while only having an average of 1.3 Democratic guests per show.

6) In April of 2010 O'Reilly had 22 shows, with a total of 183 guests, 148 Republicans, and 35 Democrats. The Factor had an average of 6.7 Republican guests per show, while only having an average of 1.5 Democratic guests per show.

So as you can see, O'Reilly was lying. And btw, In the same segment O'Reilly said the media is lying when they say Fox is a right-wing news network with all Republicans.

And here is my challenge to Bill O'Reilly, name one liberal who has a show on Fox. Alan Colmes used to have part of a show, and they dumped him. Now it's just Hannity. I'm waiting O'Reilly, name one liberal who has a show on Fox.

O'Reilly Buddy Carl Paladino Getting Crushed
By: Steve - October 26, 2010 - 9:30am

Bill O'Reilly's good friend Crazy Carl Paladino is getting crushed now in the race for Governor of New York. In the latest 10-20-10 Real Clear Politics poll they have Andrew Cuomo up a whopping 27 points, yes I said 27 points.

And this is after O'Reilly said the crazy things Paladino said would not hurt him, it would help him. Back then Paladino was only down 18 points, so he has dropped 10 more points over the last couple weeks.

Now remember this, O'Reilly even had Paladino on the Factor to try and help him, but it did not do any good. That's because Paladino is a right-wing joke, and should not be elected to anything.

And yet, O'Reilly and all of Fox News tried to help him and cover for him, just because he is a Republican. It shows that no matter what Fox does, if the person is a nut, and a bad candidate, their promotion can not help them, as much as they try.

Notice that O'Reilly does not report these numbers anymore, but 2 weeks ago when ONE poll had Paladino only 6 points down O'Reilly reported that, and said it was stunning he was so close to Cuomo. Now that Paladino is getting crushed by 27 points O'Reilly has suddenly forgot how to report on the NY Governor polls. But you can bet the farm if Paladino was winning, or even close, O'Reilly would report it.

Karl Rove Opposed 527's until He Started One
By: Steve - October 26, 2010 - 8:30am

Karl Rove said 527's undermine democracy, until he started one himself, to get Republicans elected. Thursday night Michael Isikoff reported that a network of special interest money led by Karl Rove is expecting to raise $250 million to flood the airwaves in these last few weeks of the election. Rove has been able to raise all of this money from millionaires and billionaires by promising them anonymity.

But in 2004, Rove benefited from a similar avalanche of outside money in his quest to help secure President Bush's re-election. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were funded in part by Texas homebuilder Bob Perry, who is now funding Rove's new group. The Swift Boat group, which operated as a 527, received over $20 million in donations to air television ads that smeared the war record of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA).

After the 2004 election concluded, Rove was asked how he felt about the impact of outside groups spending millions of dollars to shape the outcome of elections. Echoing a line offered by many Democrats today, Rove said the potential for a few wealthy contributors to tip the electoral balance was a concern and could potentially undermine democracy:
Rove said the 527's - named for the section of the tax code they are formed under - potentially undermine democracy by allowing a few wealthy individuals to spend tens of millions of dollars under less stringent disclosure requirements than before campaign laws were overhauled more than two years ago.

Democratic donors, led by at least $27 million from billionaire George Soros, funded such anti-Bush groups as America Coming Together and the Media Fund. Republican leaders originally thought these groups would be prohibited by the Federal Election Commission but when they were not, GOP activists joined the 527 parade late in the campaign. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which ran ads attacking Kerry's Vietnam War service and anti-war activities, were the most notable of these groups on Bush's side.

Rove condemned them all.

"I am a firm believer in strong political parties, and things that weaken the parties and place the outcome of elections in the hands of billionaires who can write checks and political consultants who can get themselves hired by billionaires who write the checks, give me some concern," Rove said.
Of course, now Rove isn't as big a believer in strong political parties, as he works to build a shadow RNC. He also is not as concerned about the subversion of democracy at the hands of a few wealthy donors. Instead, when President Obama makes the same argument that Rove did in 2004, the Rove of 2010 slams him for having an enemies list and claims he is engaging in a desperate political ploy.

And btw folks, In a Fox News interview with Bill O'Reilly on Nov. 1, 2004, President Bush said this:
O'REILLY: OK. Do you think the swift boat vets' charges against Kerry are unfair?

BUSH: I think that these ads -- first of all, I said clearly, all these ads, these 527's, with billionaires funding campaigns, ought to be gone.
Also in an interview with CNN on Aug. 31, 2004, Rove said this: "Look, I'm against all the 527 ads and activities. I don't think they're fair. I don't think it's appropriate. They're misusing the law. They all ought to stop.

Now he is running a 527, even though he said they were unfair and misusing the law. Which just goes to show how dishonest people like Karl Rove are.

Conclusive Proof O'Reilly Is Dishonest & Crazy
By: Steve - October 25, 2010 - 9:30am

In this blog posting I will show you two things, how O'Reilly ignores his own no speculation rules, and how he says one thing one minute, and another thing the next minute. O'Reilly actually says what Juan Williams said was a feeling not an opinion, and then 2 minutes later O'Reilly said it was an opinion, and honest opinion.

Here is O'Reilly speculating that NPR waited 36 hours before firing Juan Williams.
O'REILLY: Let's walk through. When you said that on "The Factor," I heard it and I was going to say well, I'm not scared of Muslims on a plane. I was going to but I said, you know, it's not worth it. It's a small point. It's a small point.


O'REILLY: First of all, millions of Americans feel the same way. That's beyond a reasonable doubt. So you say it. When did the fallout start? How quickly after you said it? This was on Monday night you said it.

WILLIAMS: Monday night on your show and on Wednesday afternoon, I get a call from Ellen Weiss, the vice president in charge of news at NPR and she says "What did you mean to say?" I said, "I said what I meant to say."

O'REILLY: So it took them 36 hours to get to you.

WILLIAMS: Not to get to me. They can get to me any time. I work for them. They know how to reach me.

O'REILLY: You didn't hear anything for 36 hours.

WILLIAMS: Nothing. In fact...

O'REILLY: Do you know what that tells me? Somebody put heat on them.

WILLIAMS: Yes, without a doubt.

O'REILLY: Because if they had heard it and there'd been so much outrage, you would have heard Tuesday morning.
Hmmmmm, hey O'Reilly. Maybe the people at NPR do not watch your show, and they did not hear about what Juan said for a couple days. Did you ever think of that, of course not, because you were too busy speculating about what happened while you were spinning and kissing the butt of your buddy Juan Williams.

Did you even ask NPR when they found out what Juan said, of course not, because you are not a journalist, you are a partisan hack. You have a no speculation rule, that is your own rule, and yet you violate that rule virtually every night. The above transcript proves that you speculated NPR heard what Juan said and then they waited 36 hours to fire him.

Maybe they did not hear about what Juan said for a couple days, then they had a meeting and decided to fire him, with no pressure from any outside groups, did you ever think of that, of course not, because you are a biased right-wing hack. As you would say yourself, can you prove it, if not, it's pure speculation.

Now look at this, here is where O'Reilly goes off the rails:
WILLIAMS: They take something totally out of context, like one word or one line and forget the fact that here I am engaging you, Bill O'Reilly, right? We are having an honest discussion. This is what America should be. People having a real debate and telling you, you pointed out rightly in the "Talking Points Memo." This is what I felt.

O'REILLY: It wasn't an opinion. That's where this Schiller, do you know her by the way?

WILLIAMS: I have met her.

O'REILLY: I mean, this woman is stone-cold dumb. I'm not saying it, with all due respect. Williams gives -- you are not allowed to give personal opinions as an NPR analyst. You are not allowed to give personal opinions. We don't want personal opinions. You weren't giving an opinion.


O'REILLY: You were saying, look, if you had said after that, "And I think all Americans should feel the same way that I do," that would have been an opinion.


O'REILLY: This woman doesn't understand what a feeling is as opposed to an opinion.

WILLIAMS: She must not have lived in America after 9/11.
Now think about that, O'Reilly is saying that what Juan said WAS NOT an opinion, it was a feeling. Then O'Reilly claims the NPR President Vivian Schiller is stone cold dumb because she does not know the difference between a feeling and an opinion. And Juan even claims he was not giving an opinion, even though that's crazy, it is what they both claimed.

O'Reilly even called for her to resign, because he said she is not smart enough to run a media company.

O'REILLY: Vivian Schiller should resign immediately because she is simply not smart enough to run a media company, even if it is NPR. Juan Williams did nothing wrong. He was just being honest -- something NPR might strive to learn.
And now, here is the insanity from O'Reilly, after saying Juan was NOT giving an opinion, and that Vivian Schiller is stone cold dumb for saying it was an opinion, O'Reilly says it was an opinion, a sincere, honest opinion. These are his own words, from his very own transcript on
O'REILLY: Look, I'm not here to assassinate Ms. Schiller's character. I think she is a coward. She could have come on here. She didn't. She fired you. She didn't talk to you. Somebody else did, an underling.

WILLIAMS: In fact, I said why can't I even come in and talk to you. I have been there 10 years. I have taken shows at that network to unprecedented heights. I have served key roles there, raised tons of money for them.

O'REILLY: She wouldn't talk to you.

WILLIAMS: She said I wouldn't even come in to talk to the assistant. I never got a word from Ms. Schiller.

O'REILLY: Now you haven't raised this. I want everybody to know Juan hasn't raised this. About a year ago, the society of Black Journalists chastised NPR for not having any black journalists. You are the only one, Williams.

WILLIAMS: I'm the only black male on the air at NPR.

O'REILLY: Now you are gone because you offered a sincere, honest opinion and you didn't celebrate the opinion. You didn't say I'm happy I feel this way.
Notice that O'Reilly said it was a sincere, honest opinion, and that Juan did not celebrate the opinion. O'Reilly not only called it an opinion, he called it an opinion 2 times. Now look at what he said 2 minutes earlier, I will show you both quotes:
O'REILLY: I mean, this woman is stone-cold dumb. I'm not saying it, with all due respect. Williams gives -- you are not allowed to give personal opinions as an NPR analyst. You are not allowed to give personal opinions. We don't want personal opinions. You weren't giving an opinion.


O'REILLY: You were saying, look, if you had said after that, "And I think all Americans should feel the same way that I do," that would have been an opinion.


O'REILLY: This woman doesn't understand what a feeling is as opposed to an opinion.
Right there it is, in black and white, O'Reilly is saying Juan was NOT giving his opinion, then 2 minutes later O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It wasn't an opinion. That's where this Schiller, do you know her by the way?

WILLIAMS: I have met her.

O'REILLY: I mean, this woman is stone-cold dumb. I'm not saying it, with all due respect. Williams gives -- you are not allowed to give personal opinions as an NPR analyst. You are not allowed to give personal opinions. We don't want personal opinions. You weren't giving an opinion.


O'REILLY: Now you are gone because you offered a sincere, honest opinion and you didn't celebrate the opinion. You didn't say I'm happy I feel this way.

Wow, O'Reilly has gone off the deep end. One minute he says NPR claims they fired Juan for giving an opinion, then O'Reilly claims it was NOT an opinion, but 2 minutes later O'Reilly admits it WAS an opinion, and he even called it a sincere and honest opinion.

I know he tells so many lies he can not keep them all straight. And I have seen him lie like this before, but not 2 minutes apart. Billy, up the meds buddy, you are losing it. Not to mention he called the President on NPR stone cold dumb for saying it was an opinion, then he says it was an opinion himself, so how dumb does that make O'Reilly, double stone cold dumb?

Here is what happened folks, O'Reilly started out spinning for Juan that it was not an opinion, then later in the interview he forgot he was saying it was not an opinion, and the truth slipped out that he really knows it was an opinion. And he probably did not even understand what he did at the time.

And now you can see just how dishonest O'Reilly is, because this shows he would lie to defend someone he works with. It also shows that he would trash someone for doing something, that he also admitted was true. Because he called the woman at NPR stone cold dumb for saying what Juan said was an opinion, when he said the same thing.

Tea Party Candidate Says Violence Is On The Table
By: Steve - October 25, 2010 - 8:30am

Wow, and neither O'Reilly or Beck are reporting this. Even after they said nobody on the right is calling for any kind of violence. Here is the story.

Stephen Broden, a so-called constitutionalist pastor from Texas who won the Republican nomination for Texas 30th Congressional District, made a threatening statement at a Tea Party event last year. He described the federal government as tyrannical and said that "we have a constitutional remedy. And the Framers say if that don't work, revolution."

Then on Thursday, a political reporter for WFAA in Dallas-Fort Worth asked Broden to explain whether he was actually calling for violence against the federal government. After a "prolonged back-and-forth," Broden said a violent overthrow is on the table:
BRODEN: If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary, Broden said, adding the nation was founded on a violent revolt against Britain's King George III.

Watson asked if violence would be an option in 2010, under the current government.

The option is on the table. I don't think that we should remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms, Broden said, without elaborating. However, it is not the first option.
Broden's comments were slammed by local Republican officials, but they continue to endorse his run for office. Jonathan Neerman, head of the Dallas County Republican Party, said it is a disappointing, isolated incident, and that he planned to discuss it with the campaign.

Ken Emanuelson, a leading tea party organizer in Dallas, said he did not disagree with the philosophical point that people had the right to resist a tyrannical government, but added, "do I see our government today anywhere close to that point? No, I don't."

So when will O'Reilly and Beck report this, haha, never.

Media Matters Does Not Smear Or Attack Anyone
By: Steve - October 24, 2010 - 8:30am

After the Juan Williams firing by NPR all the right-wing nuts, O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, Morris, Rove, etc. have said that Media Matters is smearing and attacking them. Folks, this is ridiculous.

Media Matters is a media watchdog group, they simply record what O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. say. Then they print a transcript and or a video of what they said. This is not smearing or attacking them, it is simply documenting their own words. That is neither a smear, or an attack.

A smear would be telling lies about them, which they do not do. An attack would be running a tv ad telling lies about them, which they do not do. They simply quote their own words, then publish it for everyone to see.

And btw folks, Brent Bozell at the Media Research center does the exact same thing to left-leaning people in the media. But O'Reilly, Beck, etc. have no problem with that, and do not call them smear merchants, or say they are attacking liberals.

Which proves that O'Reilly, Beck, Williams, Morris, etc. are lying hypocrites with double standards. Because they only have a problem with media watchdog groups that report on Republicans in the media, while not saying anything about media watchdog groups that report on Democrats in the media.

Let me be clear, if you record a news show, then you publish the transcript and the video, you are not smearing or attacking anyone. You are simply documenting what they said, so the people can see the truth, and know what they are doing. It's called being a media watchdog, there is no smear, and no attack.

How Stupid Is Sarah Palin: Very Stupid
By: Steve - October 24, 2010 - 8:00am

Last week Sarah Palin put out a tweet asking people to vote for Republican John Raese for Senate in Pennsylvania. Sounds good right, wrong!

Because John Raese is running for the Senate in West Virginia. Palin is so stupid she can not even get the State right of the nuts she is endorsing and promoting.

Here is what she wrote, word for word:
Pennsylvania:makes sense 2 send GOP 2 DC 2 avoid PA economic disaster that will occur under Obama/Pelosi Cap & Tax scheme;workers need Raese
And btw folks, John Raese is a radical right-wing nut, who is calling for repeal of the minimum wage. As if making $7.25 an hour is too much, which is $13.920 a year, can you imagine trying to live on that, and yet, it's too much for Raese.

The crazy Sarah Palin says workers need Raese, yeah they need him like they need a hole in their head. They only need Raese if they want to work for less than $7.25 an hour. I was making $13.00 an hour at International Paper Company back in 1995, which is 15 years ago, and I could not even imagine trying to get by on $7.25 an hour in 2010.

And this is a woman who might run for President, wow. I would not vote her to be my garbage man, let alone the President. Now think about this, she used to be the Governor of Alaska. What does that say about the people of Alaska, that they would vote this moron to be their Governor.

Dick Morris Lied About His Compensation On The Factor
By: Steve - October 23, 2010 - 10:00am

On Wednesday's O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor Dick Morris said he is working hard for the Republican Party "without compensation."

And that was a lie: During this election cycle, Morris has received payments from the Republican-aligned group Americans for New Leadership ($25,228), New York State Senate candidate Greg Ball ($5,000), the Alabama Republican Party ($15,000), Pennsylvania Republican Party ($10,000) and the Christy Mihos for Governor campaign (MA) ($80,000).

Recent disclosure reports filed with the Federal Election Commission show that four federal candidates also paid the Morris firm Triangulation Strategies $33,000:
Steve Pearce for Congress (NM) paid Morris $15,000 for a "speaker fee" on October 12. The New Mexico Republican Party stated in an October 14 note about Morris: "Dick Morris will be in Hobbs supporting Steve Pearce. Mr. Morris will be at the Republican headquarters around 5:00PM for a book signing of his latest book "Take Back America 2010".

Brad Zaun for Congress (IA) paid Morris $8,000 for a "speaker fee" on October 6. Morris headlined a September 22 fundraiser for Zaun in West Des Moines.

Nan Hayworth for Congress (NY) paid Morris $5,000 for a "speaker fee" on October 5. Morris was the headliner at a September 26 fundraiser.

Dan Debicella for Congress (CT) paid Morris $5,000 for an "event expense" on August 6. Morris participated in an August 6 fundraiser.
In total, Morris has received at least $168,228 this cycle. (And this is just from what we know from disclosure reports that have to be federally filed).

Morris touted Brad Zaun on the September 22 edition of The O'Reilly Factor. O'Reilly introduced Morris by stating he is in Iowa "where is he advising a Republican candidate." Morris mentioned Zaun:
MORRIS: So, the problem Obama has now is that there is no strategy. There is no message. One minute he is attacking Boehner as being a lobbyist. The next minute, the Tea Party is hysterical. The next minute, this is propaganda from Fox News. It's a lurch, because they have nothing to say. They are panic stricken. They don't have a campaign.

And, each of these local campaigns - like I'm in Iowa today for a guy named Brad Zaun. He said people should take responsibility for cleaning up and combating natural disasters like floods and they are making a big deal that he doesn't want to get government help. They will use anything they can because nothing is working, and they're -

O'REILLY All right, now -

MORRIS: All losing.
While he said he's in Iowa for Zaun, Morris did not mention he received any payment. And despite the Morris lies and lack of disclosure, Fox News and executives like Bill Shine have not said a word about his compensation.

Williams Admits His Muslim Comment Was Irrational
By: Steve - October 23, 2010 - 9:30am

A lot of media spin has resulted from news that NPR fired Juan Williams for making a bigoted remark that he gets worried and nervous when he sees Muslims in their garb on airplanes. Williams defenders have blown the issue way out of proportion, with some falsely claiming he was taken out of context.

In fact, Williams stood by his comments while discussing his firing on Fox News yesterday. He complained that he got fired for being honest and that his comments were not bigoted. But what seems to be getting lost in the story is that regardless of the intent of Williams conversation about Muslims, his comments about Muslims on airplanes are misplaced and bigoted.

As the Washington Post's Greg Sargent correctly observed, "The problem is that in his initial comments he didn't clarify that the instinctual feeling itself is irrational and ungrounded, and something folks need to battle against internally whenever it rears its head."

Friday on Good Morning America, Williams admitted that his comments were irrational:
STEPHANOPOULOS: I guess some people are wondering, should you have gone the extra step and said, "Listen, they're irrational, they are feelings I fight?"

WILLIAMS: Yeah, I could have done that. In fact, I think it's very important to sort of parse this. What I said was, that if I'm at the gate at an airport and I see people who are in Muslim garb who are first and foremost identifying themselves as Muslims and in the aftermath of 9/11, I am taken aback, I have a moment of fear and it is visceral, it's a feeling and I don't say, I'm not getting on the plane. I don't say, You must go through additional security.

I don't say I want to discriminate against these people, no such thing occurs. So to me, it was admitting that I have this notion, this feeling in the immediate moment.
Thursday night, Rachel Maddow cut through the spin on Williams firing to put it in the right context. Maddow noted that targeting Muslims has been a Fox News specialty for a long time now, and that the other important side of this story is that Fox News handsomely rewarded Williams with a $2 million contract for his Islamophobia. Ironically, in abetting O'Reilly's conspiracy theory that George Soros may have been behind his firing at NPR, Williams said, "Money talks. He is a puppeteer."

Maddow then knocked down the right-wing lie that Wiliams free speech rights have been violated:
MADDOW: Let's be clear here. This is not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment does not guarantee you a paid job as a commentator to say what you want. Your employment as a person paid to speak is at the pleasure of your employer.

In this case, it displeased Juan Williams employer, at least one of them, for him to have reassured the Fox News audience he too is afraid of Muslims on airplanes and that's not a bigoted thing.

And so, Juan Williams lost that job. This is not a First Amendment issue. This is an issue of what your employer is OK with.
Basically, Williams joined the right-wing crowd at Fox by smearing all muslims as scary, then after he was busted and fired for it, now O'Reilly and all of his right-wing friends are crying about it. The sad part is that Williams argued the Tea Party folks were doing the same thing with Obama, saying he is the scary black man and they are scared of him because he is black.

Then he said it was wrong for them to do that, so he does the same thing with Muslims, and then wonders why he got fired, give me a break. Williams was a fake Democrat, and everyone knows it, and I say good job NPR. He should have never worked at NPR to begin with, so he was lucky they employed him for as long as they did.

The Friday 10-22-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 23, 2010 - 9:00am

Juan Williams was the fill in, and his Top Story was called Obama Attempts To Woo Back Voters. And just as if O'Reilly was there himself, Juan had a Republican (Chris Wallace) on to smear Obama for simply doing what all Presidents do in the lead up to a mid-term election, try to get votes for his party. Basically they both said Obama is trying to energize the Democratic base, ok, so what, tell us something we don't know. Crazy Juan said Obama is targeting women, because he is losing touch with women voters. Which sounds like the same speculation O'Reilly would spin out. Even though it's supposed to be a no speculatin zone.

Here is my question, how do you know Obama has lost women voters, before they even vote. Until they vote and you see how many women voted Democratic, you have no idea if he has lost women voters or not. And even then you really do not know if he has or not, because Obama is not on the ballot. You will only know for sure if he has lost women voters or not, after the 2012 Presidential election. So Juan, the so-called Democrat, put out the same right-wing spin that O'Reilly would have.

Then Juan spent the entire next segment crying some more about NPR firing him, he even had Lanny Davis on to cry about it with him. And I am not going to report on this cryfest anymore, suck it up and move on. You were fired, and you deserved it. In fact, if I was running NPR I would have fired you a long time ago. So shut up cry baby.

Now get this, Juan pulled an O'Reilly in the next segment. In the Unresolved Problems Segment Juan claimed he was going to have the Muslim response to his statements. On the Factor website it said this: "Muslim response to Juan's statements."

Juan said that after he made his Muslim comments on Monday's Factor, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and some other Muslim groups demanded that NPR take action. So what did Juan do, have guests on from those groups to say why the did what they did, of course not. He found some right-wing Muslim to be on and agree with him, and Jasser even slammed the other Muslim groups. Juan put Zuhdi Jasser from the American Islamic Forum for Democracy on to discuss it.

What a joke, Juan is just as dishonest as O'Reilly. How do you debate Muslim groups telling NPR to take action, and get the Muslim response, when you do not have anyone from those groups on, then you only put a right-wing Muslim on to agree with you. Talk about a one sided, biased, and rigged debate, that was it. And how is it the Muslim response, when you only have one side of it, while not having anyone on who had the problem with you, it was just laughable.

Then Juan pulled another O'Reilly, he had Steve Hayes and Leslie Marshall on to slam Bill Clinton for going around the country talking to Democrats to get them to vote. This is massive hypocrisy, from Juan and Hayes. Because when Republicans do the same thing they say it's great and promote it, when Democrats do it they say it's a sign of how bad Obama is doing, because he has to get Clinton to campaign for them. Except Obama did not even ask Clinton to do it, and Obama himself is out giving speeches to get Democrats out to vote. Marshall even said Bill Clinton has a great economic history and he will help. Juan and Hayes just don't like it because they know Clinton will help get the voters out.

In the next segment Juan had Geraldo on to talk about Afghanistan. Why, I have no idea, the elections are in less than 2 weeks. And while Afghanistan is an important issue, it's seems out of place to discuss it with the mid-term elections so close. Geraldo basically said we are taking the fight to the bad guys, and we are winning. Ok, now tell us something we don't know. It seems to me that this segment was just a military promotion by Fox to show they care about the troops, it was a PR move. Every so often Fox has to pretend to care about the troops, so they send Geradlo to Afghanistan to do a report.

Then Juan had the Republican Senator Tom Coburn on to ask him if he would try to get the funding for NPR stopped. And of course Coburn said he would, to get revenge on them for firing their good buddy Juan Williams. Think about that for a minute, if Juan Williams is not a Republican, then why are Republicans in Congress now calling for NPR to lose it's Government funding as revenge for firing Juan. I don't see any Democrats calling for NPR to lose it's funding, it's only Republicans.

And in the last segment Juan pulled out an old interview with O'Reilly and Terry Gross from NPR, an interview that happened in 2003. Why, who knows and who cares. It has nothing to do with anything, Juan just did it to try and make NPR look bad. When he failed, because the interview makes O'Reilly look bad. It was ridiculous, and you know you are an idiot when you have to go back 7 years to find something to smear them with.

And the Juan Williams hour long cryfest was over, thank God. Hopefully we will never have to talk about this again. In fact, I am not going to discuss the Williams firing ever again. It's over, you got fired, move on with your life and stop crying about it.

Katharine Heller Slams O'Reilly In Off Broadway Play
By: Steve - October 22, 2010 - 10:30am

This clip is from the hit Off-Broadway episodic sitcom, Naked in a Fishbowl. In it, the character Sara educates her friend Jean about the rarely discussed sexual harassment lawsuit brought against Bill O'Reilly in 2004. And then she decides that there should be an awareness month dedicated to reminding everyone that Bill O'Reilly likes the dirty talk. The full episode can be viewed at

Juan Williams Fired By NPR For Muslim Comments
By: Steve - October 22, 2010 - 10:00am

And I have 2 things to say about it, good, and it's about time. Because Williams is a fake Democrat, who is in reality a moderate Republican, and has even admitted it. He spends most of his time on Fox pretending to be a Democrat, while agreeing with all the Republicans there 80% of the time.

What gets me is why it took them so long to get rid of him, everyone has known he is a moderate Republican for years, and yet, they just let him pretend to be a Democrat on Fox. The question now is, will O'Reilly and Fox still try to pass him off as a Democrat, or will they finally admit the truth and say he is a moderate Republican.

And btw folks, O'Reilly and Fox did that with Tammy Bruce. They used to put her on as a liberal, O'Reilly would even say to her, "as a liberal what do you think about this" and he did it for years, when we all knew she was a Republican because she agreed with O'Reilly 90% of the time. Now they admit she is a Republican, and they are not lying about her anymore.

Here is the Juan Williams story:

The New York Times reported that "NPR has terminated its contract with Juan Williams," after comments Williams made on the October 18 edition of The O'Reilly Factor.
The move came after Mr. Williams, who is also a Fox News political analyst, appeared on the "The O'Reilly Factor" on Monday. On the show, the host, Bill O'Reilly, asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a "Muslim dilemma." Mr. O'Reilly said, "The cold truth is that in the world today jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet."

Mr. Williams said he concurred with Mr. O'Reilly.

He continued: "I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Mr. Williams also made reference to the Pakistani immigrant who pleaded guilty this month to trying to plant a car bomb in Times Square. "He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts," Mr. Williams said.

NPR said in its statement that the remarks "were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR."
Media Matters and have also noted the ethical concerns related to Williams appearances on The O'Reilly Factor.

The Thursday 10-21-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 22, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called NPR's Disgraceful Decision. Basically O'Reilly spent the entire show crying like a bitch about NPR firing Juan Williams. I will not report everything, but I will talk about a few things that was said.

To begin with O'Reilly did a TPM about it, crying about fairness and free speech, etc. Which has nothing to do with it, NPR can hire or fire anyone they want to, it has nothing to do with fairness or free speech. Because you do not have free speech rights to be on a tv or radio show. The only time free speech comes into play is if the GOVERNMENT shuts your free speech down. And when the View fired Rosie O'Donnell for what she said, or when ABC fired Bill Maher for what he said, O'Reilly and nobody on the right were outraged about that, in fact, they were happy about it.

And btw folks, when ABC fired Rosie, O'Reilly supported that decision, he even called for them to fire her for what she said about the 9-11 attacks. So when liberals are fired for something they said O'Reilly supports that, because he does not like them.

O'Reilly had Juan Williams on to cry about it with him after the TPM. During the segment O'Reilly said that what Juan said was a feeling, not an opinion. O'Reilly even said that what Juan said about Muslims was not an opinion. Are you kidding me, it's the same damn thing moron. When you say Muslims on a plane scare you, that is your opinion, on what planet is that not an opinion.

Now get this, not 2 minutes later in the very same segment with Juan, O'Reilly said that it was an opinion, he even said it was an honest opinion. Wow, O'Reilly is nuts, one minute he says it was not an opinion, and the next minute he says it was. Juan even claimed they fired him for saying something that is true. It may be true for him, but not for everyone, so that is an opinion.

And btw, here is what an opinion is:
1) A belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2) A personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
Based on that, what Juan Williams said was an opinion. He said Muslims on planes scare him, that's an opinion you morons.

Then Karl Rove was on to cry about it. Rove called it an outrage, etc. He talked about how the left wants to shut everyone up they disagree with, which is just ridiculous. Because nobody is shutting Juan up, he can say whatever he wants anywhere else, except while working for NPR. It was so ridiculous it's not even worth reporting. Rove even called for the Government to cut off the funding to NPR, as O'Reilly did. O'Reilly even said it will lead to NPR losing their Government funding, even though he says he never speculates.

In the Rove segment he called Juan an honest liberal, which is just laughable. To begin with, he is not a liberal, he is a moderate Republican pretending to be a Democrat. He is a classic Fox News Democrat, more conservative than liberal. And Juan has even admitted on the Factor that he is more conservative than liberal. Juan is a moderate Republican, and that is a fact, I even count him as a Republican in my guest list count. Mostly because he admitted he is more conservative than liberal, and because he agrees with O'Reilly 80% of the time.

Then Laura Ingraham was on to discuss it, and she claimed it was a free speech situation, when it is no such thing. The usual right-wing garbage from Ingraham.

Next up was the attorney Megyn Kelly, who instantly shut down the free speech garbage from O'Reilly, Ingraham, Rove, etc. She said it's not a free speech issue, oh snap. Now shut up about free speech losers. Kelly did say that Juan has a lawsuit against NPR, which is ridiculous, and even O'Reilly was not convinced.

In the next cry for Juan segment Glenn Beck was on to discuss it. Beck claimed it was all because of George Soros, and O'Reilly agreed. Ummmm, maybe it was because of what Juan said, and it had nothing to do with Soros. Beck and O'Reilly dreamed up this conspiracy, with Soros as the puppet master because he donated money to NPR and Media Matters.

Beck even said that Media Matters assault him and O'Reilly, and of course O'Reilly agreed with Beck. Really, are you kidding me. Earth to Beck and O'Reilly, Media Matters is a media watchdog group, they simply quote your own words, or show the video, or both, to show what biased liars you are. That is not an assault, it's journalism, and what they do is the truth. To call quoting your own words an assault, proves you are both idiots.

And then after all that O'Reilly had the stupid Factor news quiz with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum. Then the highly edited Factor e-mails, and the lame pinheads and patriots. And btw folks, not one Democrat was on the show to discuss the firing of Juan Williams, not one. It was all Republicans, all the time, Rove, Ingraham, Kelly, Beck, etc.

Pro-Life Group Runs Angel Of Death Obama Ad
By: Steve - October 22, 2010 - 9:00am

Now this is an outrage, and of course O'Reilly has not said a word about it because a right-wing pro-life anti-abortion group is running it. For the people that do not know it, when you use the words "Angel Of Death" it refers to Josef Mengele, who was called the Angel of Death.
Josef Mengele, also known as the Angel of Death (Todesengel in German), was a German SS officer and a physician in the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau. He earned doctorates in anthropology from Munich University and in medicine from Frankfurt University.

He initially gained notoriety for being one of the SS physicians who supervised the selection of arriving transports of prisoners, determining who was to be killed and who was to become a forced labourer, but is far more infamous for performing grisly human experiments on camp inmates, for which Mengele was called the "Angel of Death".
Personhood Colorado is a radical right-wing pro-life organization supporting Amendment 62 on the ballot this November, which if passed, would define a fertilized egg as a person, essentially outlawing abortion in the state. Personhood CO has put out some disturbing ads in support of the amendment, particularly one radio ad likening abortion to slavery.

But the group has upped the ante this week, releasing a new ad that calls President Obama "the Angel of Death" and those who presumably support him as lurking from the depths of hell. Here is a screen shot from the ad:

Politics Daily reports that "Amendment 62 would ban all abortions, without exceptions for rape, incest or to save a mother's life. It also would ban stem cell research and birth control other than barrier methods.

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said the amendment "reaches into birth control, it reaches into fertility treatments. The legal turmoil this could create is so immense. I think that's just the purpose of this go far beyond choice; it's to take away a women's right to family planning."

Ed Schultz called this the worst ad he has ever seen, and yet O'Reilly has totally ignored it, while showing every negative ad the Democrats run, when this Angel Of Death ad is 20 times worse than any ad a Democratic group or candidate has run.

Now imagine what O'Reilly would say if a liberal group like ran an ad comparing a Republican to the Nazi "Angel Of Death" Josef Mengele.

Black Fox Employee Suing Fox For Racism
By: Steve - October 22, 2010 - 8:30am

Will O'Reilly report this, haha, never.

Fox News is facing a lawsuit from a former technician who claims that while at the network, he faced "daily abuse, fear and humiliation" from other employees because of his race, and when he eventually complained, he was fired.

One instance occurred during the 2008 presidential campaign. According to the complaint filed by Harmeen Jones, 32, who is African-American, two of his coworkers said in front of him that they wouldn't feel comfortable having a black president. Jones alleges that one of the men looked at him, saw he was uncomfortable and said, "Am I offending your blackness?"

Another example came during the health care debate, when he and his co-workers were working in the "intake room" with screens showing footage from a tea party rally. "This is what happens when you mess with white people's health care," one of the men allegedly told Jones.

Jones filed the complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming Fox News and seven of his former colleagues as defendants. He is seeking $5 million in damages.

The complaint alleges that several of the defendants "continually made racist, sexist, and extremely offensive comments throughout the course of every working day. These comments concerned African-Americans, Arabs, Muslims, Hispanics, women, and Jews." Jones also claims he was often told "you look like a gangster" or "like you're ready to shoot someone."

According to Jones, when he tried to speak with other African-American employees at the network, they "told him to keep his head down and not say anything." He claims that he was treated differently -- such as not being allowed to take sick days and being blamed for mistakes he did not have any control over -- and received poor marks on his employee review that were based on reasons that were "factually inaccurate."

Jones finally did speak to the head of Human Resources, who set up a meeting with him and several of the defendants on Sept. 24, 2009. On Oct. 2, Jones was fired.

Mark Taylor, the attorney handling Jones's case said, "Eventually he did complain to management because things were getting out of hand, and what particularly makes it a very strong legal case is that they fired him almost immediately thereafter." The complaint charges that the firing was retaliation for complaining about the discrimination.

And btw folks, I sat on this story for 3 days to wait and see if O'Reilly would report it, and of course he has ignored the entire story, and not said one word about it.

Proof That Dick Morris Is A Right-Wing Idiot
By: Steve - October 21, 2010 - 9:30am

First he admitted he is a partisan hack who is working very hard for the Republican party, even though he is put on Fox as a political analyst. And here is my question, how does this fool have any credibility at all as a political analyst when he admits to being a partisan hack.

Morris said this on the Wednesday O'Reilly Factor: "I'm working very, very, very hard" for the GOP "without compensation"

Now imagine what O'Reilly would say if a paid political analyst on MSNBC, admitted to working for the Democratic party to get Democrats elected. O'Reilly would scream bloody murder, do a week of shows on it, and called for the Feds to investigate.

And my other question is this: How is it legal for a person that is paid by a News Network to use that Network to promote and raise money for a political party. Oh yeah I forgot, Fox is not a News Network. But seriously, should it not be illegal for paid employees of a News Network to work for and raise money for a political party.

A few years ago O'Reilly flipped out when employees of NBC simply had a meeting with candidates in the Democratic party. But when Fox News employees openly work for (and raise money for) the Republican party O'Reilly has no problem with it.

And this is the best one I have heard in a long long time. On the same O'Reilly Factor show Morris said this: The NAACP is trying "to stimulate black turnout by pretending that the Klan is coming back"

He was talking about the NAACP study that proves the Tea Party is linked to racist groups. Ok let me get this straight, a study comes out that proves there is a link between the Tea Party and some racist groups, and somehow that is stimulating blacks to vote. Wow, and I guess the earth is flat too.

Let me throw this one at you Morris, maybe the study is true, and all it shows is that some people in the Tea Party are racist, and that is has nothing to do with stimulating anyone to vote. Did that ever cross your mind, haha, I guess not.

The Wednesday 10-20-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 21, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Why Americans Are Fed Up. And it turned out to be just another right-wing smear job attack on Obama for all his spending, etc. When that spending was done to bail us out of the worst depression we have seen in 50 years, that was caused by George W. Bush and the Republicans.

As usual O'Reilly used his TPM to do a partisan hit job on the President, while claiming to be fair to Obama, which is just laughable. Especially when O'Reilly spent 8 years defending Bush and everything he did. And it's the same old stuff we have heard a million times before. O'Reilly is like a broken right-wing Obama smear job record. And btw folks, the DOW was up again on Wednesday and it's over 11,000, but of course O'Reilly never says a word about it.

Then O'Reilly and Dick Morris cried about the new NAACP study that shows a link with the Tea Party and racist groups. Now get this, O'Reilly has said there is no racism in the Tea Party, and that he has not seen any evidence of it. So when the NAACP does a study and provides the evidence, O'Reilly dismisses it as a far left biased study, and said he is throwing the whole thing out in the garbage. But he said the Republican study on the Tea Party is valid.

So here is the bottom line with O'Reilly, when a right-wing group does a study it's a good study, but when a left-wing group does a study it's garbage and he is throwing it out. O'Reilly finally mentioned that Dick Morris is working for the Republican party, and then Morris admitted he is working for the them, he even said he is working very hard, with no compensation. Then Morris gave his predictions, and he is still predicting the Republicans will win the Senate back. He said he leans toward Coons in Delaware, wow, O'Donnell is down by 17 points, earth to Morris that is more than leaning, it's falling over you idiot.

In the next segment O'Reilly had the Republican Tom Tancredo (who is running for governor of Colorado) on to try and help him get elected, by giving him free air time on the #1 rated cable news show. And of course O'Reilly did not have his Democratic opponent on to make it fair and balanced. I will not report what Tancredo said, but I will say that O'Reilly kissed his ass and did a big softball interview.

Ignoring all the crazy far right things Tancredo has said he wants to do. O'Reilly even ran one of the Tancredo campaign ads during the interview, but of course never ran one of the ads of his Democratic opponent, John Hickenlooper. Nobody from the Hickenlooper campaign was on either, so it was a totally one sided biased interview.

And in the next segment O'Reilly had the right-wing fraud pollster Frank Luntz on to talk about what he called a group of ordinary folks that reacted to Bill's appearance on The View last week. Yeah right, and I'm Bill gates too. When he says ordiany folks, what he really means is slightly right leaning folks, and very right leaning folks.

Luntz is a documented and proven biased right-wing fraud of a pollster, he has even been caught writing talking points memos for the Republican party. And yet, O'Reilly bills this fool as a non-partisan pollster, and even calls him a Doctor. If he is a Doctor, I'm a Brain Surgeon. I also refuse to report what Luntz says because it's 100% right-wing propaganda, and he's a fraud.

Then the body language mumbo jumbo with the blonde body language bimbo, that I do not report on. And then Dennis Miller was on to make jokes about Obama and the Democrats, that I also do not report on.

And in the last segment O'Reilly had Juliet Huddy on for did you see that. It's billed as a segment of must see videos, but in reality it's usually just lame youtube videos that anyone can see if they want to. I believe it's just a segment for O'Reilly to have another blonde Fox bimbo on to get ratings. Because it's not news, and has nothing to do with any news.

Then the highly edited Factor e-mails, and the lame pinheads and patriots that nobody cares about.

The Facts On The Obama Job Approval Numbers
By: Steve - October 21, 2010 - 8:30am

O'Reilly and the right are still pushing this lie that the Obama job approval numbers are going down and down, more and more, every day, every week, every month, and every year. Except it's all a lie, because the Obama job approval numbers have remained steady for the last year.

So let me show you once again that they are lying. Look at the Gallup Daily Tracking poll, they have documented the Obama job approval numbers since the day he was elected on January of 2009. From January 2009 to August 2009 the Obama job approval slowly dropped from 68% to 50%, and that is a fact.

Go here and look for yourself:

Since August of 2009 until today, the Obama job approval has only dropped 4 points, from 50% to 46%, which is hardly a crashing, or a big drop, because it's almost nothing. In fact, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan both had lower job approval ratings after 2 years then Obama did, who both got re-elected, and they also went on to be known as great Presidents.

Those are the facts, there has not been a crash, or a massive drop, the Obama job approval numbers have stayed at a steady 45 to 50 percent approval. And btw folks, O'Reilly and the right never mention this. All these poll have a + or - 3 point margin of error, so when a poll says 46%, it could actually be 49%, so you have to remember that. And some polls have a 4 point margin of error.

But O'Reilly and the right never mention that, as they are lying to you about the Obama job approval numbers crashing. And let me also add this, it is not too good to have a 46% approval and a 46% disapproval, I admit that. But it's worse to lie that the Obama approval numbers are crashing, when they have been virtually unchanged over the last 13 months.

Video Evidence O'Reilly & Hume Are Right-Wingers
By: Steve - October 21, 2010 - 8:00am

Both O'Reilly and Brit Hume claim to be impartial journalists, even though the facts show the exact opposite. In one video Brit Hume defends the crazy Muslim statement by O'Reilly, and in the other video O'Reilly goes one step farther by saying there is a big Muslim problem in the world.

When he knows it is not a big Muslim problem, it's a small terrorism problem. So as they say, he just keeps digging that hole deeper. And at this point I am almost positive O'Reilly is saying this garbage to get publicity and higher ratings for his lame cable news show.

Then again, he might actually believe the garbage he is saying, which makes it even worse. And btw folks, you are 10 times more likely to get hit by lightning, then you are to be involved in a terrorism attack.

If you do not live in a big city like New York, Chicago, etc. you will most likely go your entire life without being involved in a terrorist attack. So it's not a big problem as O'Reilly claims, and maybe 1/100th of 1% of all Muslims are terrorists.

The Tuesday 10-19-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 20, 2010 - 10:00am

The TPM was called Nancy Pelosi And Capitalism. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Many Americans believe President Obama and some in the Democratic leadership lean toward a socialistic philosophy when it comes to economics. Now, Nancy Pelosi may have come out of the closet when she said government should 'address the disparity' of income. The Speaker seems to be calling for government intervention into the private marketplace to spread wealth in a more 'just' way.

Liberal Americans believe the deck is stacked against most people and that the federal government has an obligation to regulate capitalism so everyone profits. But that isn't capitalism. If the feds begin intruding on the private sector, you enter the socialistic arena.

Ever since Washington was sworn in, we have been competing for our money, our benefits, and our retirement. Now the Speaker of the House says that system is no good and Washington should decide what we all get. The Democratic Party will be destroyed if it embraces Ms. Pelosi's vision.
To begin with, what's this come out of the closet garbage about Pelosi, that is a tatement for when a secret gay person tells everyone they are gay. Then O'Reilly said liberal Americans believe the deck is stacked against most people, but I am a liberal and I do not believe that, so as usual he pulls that nonsense out of his butt.

And she never said the system is no good, she just said it needs to be changed a little to get more money to the middle class, because the wealthy are getting too big of a slice of the pie now. And she is right, if the middle class dies out, we will really be in trouble, because the middle class is the engine that drives the economy. O'Reilly better think real hard about what will happen if we have no middle class, it will be a disaster for the country.

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to talk about Nancy Pelosi's apparent embrace of income redistribution. Crowley said this: "She is talking about fairness, which is the code word she and Barack Obama use. This is about wealth redistribution and I think she's doing it to try and energize the base. They are true believers, and that's why in two weeks there is going to be a huge comeuppance for the party."

Alan Colmes said this: "She's basically saying we have always had a progressive tax system in this country, and she talked about ownership. She is talking about the same kind of policies Republican Jack Kemp used to talk about."

Then crazy O'Reilly said he was perplexed by Pelosi's speech, he said this: "She has to know the Democratic Party is in trouble, at least for this election cycle, but she goes out and says we have to do more of this, we have to control capitalism even more."

In the next segment O'Reilly had Scott Rasmussen on to give his analysis of the mid-term elections, including Sharron Angle's attempt to unseat Harry Reid in Nevada. But notice that no Democratic pollster was on, so it was a biased one sided segment with only a Republican pollster.

Rasmussen said this: "We have Angle up by three points, and it's been close ever since Labor Day. She helped herself in a debate last week when she exceeded expectations and if I had to bet I'd say she wins." Rasmussen then turned to California, where Democrat Barbara Boxer has increased her lead over challenger Carly Fiorina. "That is a Democratic state and the President's job approval rating is over 50%. The only bad number for Boxer is that her approval ratings are under 50%."

Rasmussen also predicted that Democrat Patty Murray will retain her Senate seat in Washington, tea party favorites Christine O'Donnell and Linda McMahon will be defeated in Delaware and Connecticut, respectively, and Democrats are likely to retain their majority in the Senate.

Now remember that, because Dick Morris predicted the Republicans will get control of the Senate back. While you have a Republican pollster saying they will not get it back. Which proves that Dick Morris is a biased partisan hack, who makes these predictions based on what he wants to happen, not what might actually happen.

Then John Stossel was on to say what matters the most to him in the upcoming election. As if anyone cares what Stossel thinks, I sure don't. He is just a right-wing nut who got on tv somehow, and nobody gives a damn what he thinks about anything.

Stossel said this: "I'm for smaller government and less taxes, I may vote for some Republicans, but they haven't done what they've promised. I would like divided government - the beauty of divided government is that they increase spending by a third as much as when one party controls government." Stossel also said his vote in the New York State gubernatorial race is still up for grabs. "I'm going to meet Carl Paladino Thursday and I'll decide then, but I may vote for the ex-prostitute just as a protest vote." Stossel predicted that marijuana will be legalized by California voters, and wagered a $10,000 charitable contribution. O'Reilly predicted it will not be legalized.

And if you want to know how much of a right-wing nut Stossel is, he said he might vote for crazy Carl Paladino, who is 22 points down in the polls, and should not be elected to dog catcher, let alone the Governor of New York. Anyone who is even thinking of voting for Paladino has a screw loose somewhere.

Then O'Reilly had Deepak Chopra on who talked about the walkout by The View's Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg. Chopra said this: "They shouldn't have walked out, because that's a cop-out. Your view is a very popular view and we should try to understand why that is. As you said, 70% of people are against the mosque, but 65% of Americans know nothing about Muhammad or Islam. Americans are outraged and in fear, but they don't understand that Muslims in America are the most diverse population. We need to elevate this conversation so we can find a solution."

When Chopra endorsed the mosque near Ground Zero, O'Reilly said this: "I want to hear Imam Rauf condemn what happened on 9/11 and condemn the jihad. All he and his crew have to do is say that they're dedicating the mosque to peace and I'll get a hammer and help him."

Which is ridiculous, because the Imam has already done that. O'Reilly just refuses to report it, he is too busy smearling and lying about the Imam to report that he already said that.

Then the right-wing is it legal team Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to talk about another mosque story in Tennessee, where local Muslims want to build a mosque. And I will not report it because it's just more right-wing garbage to try and divide the country.

In the last segment O'Reilly had the far right Charles Krauthammer to talk about why health care premiums are going up. Krauthammer said this: "Obama said the reason we're in debt is because of entitlements, and that we needed Obamacare to save the economy by driving down the cost of medical care.

Any 12-year-old knows there's no such thing as a free lunch and if you're going to add 30-million people onto the rolls and mandate new benefits, of course your premiums are going to have to go up.

They made all kind of promises they knew couldn't be kept because they want to change the structure of American society."

O'Reilly even accused the President of pulling a bait-and-switch on the American people, Billy said this: "Shouldn't he have said, 'I'm going to make it fairer but everybody's going to have to pay a little more?' That would have been honest."

And that is what he said, he said the cost will go up for the wealthy to pay for it, I guess O'Reilly forgot all that. And btw folks, Obama did not say health care costs would not go up, he said his plan would save the Government money over time, and he said the increases would not go up as much as they have been.

What O'Reilly and Krauthammer failed to mention is that the plan does not take effect until 2012, and that the health insurance companies are just using the Obama plan as an excuse to rob people with higher premiums. The bad guys are the health insurance companies, not Obama, and yet O'Reilly and Krauthammer dishonestly attack Obama for simply giving health care to a hell of a lot of people that could not afford it.

This makes me sick, how O'Reilly and Krauthammer (who are millionaires) cry like little bitches about a few more dollars in premiums, when it will help millions of people to get health care. So here is what I have to say to O'dummy and Krauthummer, shut the hell up you right-wing scum, you can afford it, so pay it for the good of the country.

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

O'Reilly Caught Spinning/Cherry Picking Polls Again
By: Steve - October 20, 2010 - 9:00am

And of course it goes without saying that he did it to try and make a crazy far right Republican look better. Which he never does to make any Democrats look better. Here is what happened.

On the Monday O'Reilly Factor, Billy had his so-called reality check segment, he said this:
O'REILLY: On another Sunday talk show, John McCain's daughter Meghan claimed Delaware Republican Christine O'Donnell is "making a mockery of running for public office." The Factor's Check: "The latest Rasmussen poll has Ms. O'Donnell down by eleven points to Chris Coons, so she's closed the gap a bit.
Before you read the rest of what I write about this, remember that O'Reilly said that in his reality check segment, so you would think it's reality, when the reality of it is that it's nothing but biased poll cherry picking, and right-wing spin.

Let me show you why it's not reality, to begin with, there are 5 polls out on the Coons vs. O'Donnell Senate Delaware race, from 10-10-10 to 10-14-10. They are listed at, they are: SurveyUSA, CNN/Time, Monmouth University, Magellan Strategies, and Rasmussen Reports.

And 4 of those polls have O'Donnell 18 or more points down, with the RCP average having her 17.6 points down. So what does O'Reilly do, he cherry picked the ONE poll that has her 11 points down, and that ONE poll just happened to be the biased right-wing Rasmussen poll.

O'Reilly ignored the other 4 polls, and the RCP average showing her 17.6 points down, to ONLY report the ONE right-wing poll that has her 11 points down. Proving that he is a biased right-wing fraud of a pretend journalist.

So O'Donnell has not closed the gap, because all the other polls still have her 18 to 21 points down. But O'Reilly implied that, based on the ONE biased right-wing Rasmussen poll. Not to mention, he should have disclosed what the other polls said, but he did not disclose any of that. A real journalist would have said ONE poll has her within 11 points, and disclosed that it was a right-wing poll, and said the other 4 polls still have her 18 to 21 down, but he did not do that.

Folks that is not impartial journalism from a so-called Independent with a no spin zone. It's partisan spin from a proven right-wing spin doctor. So not only does it prove that the Factor Reality Checks are ridiculous right-wing propaganda, it proves that O'Reilly is not an Independent with a no spin zone.

O'Reilly Sucks 4th Quarter Fund Drive
By: Steve - 10:00am

Hello visitors, my name is Steve and I own I run this website all by myself with no help from anyone, and I do not get paid to do it.

I have run this website for 10 years now, and I will continue to run it as long as I am alive, or until O'Reilly drops the I am a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone lie.

I do this website as a public service to the American people, to expose O'Reilly for what he is, a biased, partisan, right-wing hack of a pretend journalist. And I mostly do it because he lies about what he is.

We all can see that despite the fact that O'Reilly claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone, who has been fair to President Obama, it's clear he is a 99% right-wing partisan spin doctor, with 97% right-wing guests.

And as you can see I have a couple ads on the website, Google ads and a couple online poker website ads. But those ads do not pay much on a small website like this, I am lucky to make $100.00 every 3 months from Google, then it takes another month to actually get the check.

So about once every 4 months I get a small check from them, and the poker ads are paid by the year, which also do not pay much, not to mention that money has already been spent to help my 87 year old retired Father pay his bills. Due to the fact that he lost a large amount of money recently because he has alzheimers, dementia, and no memory.

That means I need to raise about $150.00 to pay for my next 3 months expenses. So please donate if you can, even $5.00 would help, it all ads up.

Click Here To Donate!

If just 30 people donated $5.00 each I could raise the money I need to last me until January of 2011. And I know people see websites like this asking for donations, and think I don't need to donate because a lot of other people are donating.

But you would be wrong, in this economy I almost never get any donations unless I ask for them, and even then I usually only get a few small donations of $5.00 to $10.00. I have been running my 4th quarter fund drive for about 4 days and only 2 or 3 small donations have been made since then.

So at least in my case, when you see the donation request I really need it, because almost nobody is making any donations. That means you can help me keep the website online, even if it's a small $5.00 donation, it helps, thank you.


The Monday 10-18-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 19, 2010 - 10:00am

The TPM was called The Muslim Dilemma And Sensitivity. O'Reilly talked about his controversy on the View last Thursday, because the ladies discussed it on Monday. Billy said this:
O'REILLY: Today on The View, the ladies addressed the shootout I had with them last Thursday when I said that building a mosque near Ground Zero is inappropriate because Muslims killed us there. That caused Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar to walk off the set. Of course, what I said is absolutely true, but is insensitive to some.
As usual O'Reilly was wrong, and he will not admit it. To begin with, Muslims did not kill us there, because the proposed mosque would be 2 full city blocks from Ground Zero. And 2nd, Muslims did not kill us, Muslim extremists did. So once again O'Reilly said Muslims killed us on 9-11, but when a Christian Army of God member bombs an abortion clinic he does not say Christians bombed it. O'Reilly is not only a right-wing idiot with double standards, he is a hypocrite.

And btw, it is not about being insensitive to Muslims, I could care less about that. It's about being right, and saying terrorists, or Muslim extremists. Because what I worry about is if you label all Muslims terrorists as O'Reilly and Kilmeade have done, you might make some non-terrorist Muslims decide to become terrorists. Which is just not smart, and why would you want to do that by saying all Muslims are terrorists.

Later in the TPM O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: I have had enough of the politically correct nonsense, and I condemn the far-left fanatics who label people with whom they disagree 'bigots.' Finally, wherever I went this weekend people were high-fiving me.
Are you kidding me, what a joke. Now O'Reilly is fed up with the politically correct nonsense, but when Bush was in office he called for everyone to watch what they say, what a dishonest jerk. And to claim what you said was ok because the people you hang with were high-fiving you, is fricking laughable.

Then O'Reilly had Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham on to discuss it. And if you want proof Juan Williams is not a Democrat, just look at what he said: "I think you're right," Williams said, "that political correctness can lead to a kind of paralysis where you don't address reality. When I get on a plane and I see people in Muslim garb and I think they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get nervous. But you have to be careful - we don't want people having their rights violated or attacked in the streets."

Juan said O'Reilly is right, when only Republicans think that. Now think about this, Juan is put on the show as a Democrat to give the liberal side of an issue. Except 80% of the time he agrees with O'Reilly, and has even admitted that he is more conservative than he is liberal. This is what O'Reilly calls a Democrat, and what I call a moderate Republican.

Then the right-wing parrot Mary K. Ham mocked Joy and Whoopi for stomping off the set. She is just a right-wing stooge that O'Reilly has on to agree with him on everything, to make it look like he is always right, so it's not even worth reporting what she said. Then O'Reilly pointed out that German Chancellor Angela Merkel now says Muslims are creating major problems in Germany, Billy said this: "According to Merkel, it's not extremists - most of the Muslims who have come there are not assimilating. But that hasn't happened in America, where most Muslims have assimilated."

Ummmmmm, ok, so what's your point idiot, that's how it is in Germany, which has nothing to do with what is happening in America. Not to mention, when a liberal cites something Merkel or any other foreign leader says, O'Reilly says who cares what they have to say.

In the next segment O'Reilly went back to attacking President Obama with Brit Hume. Because no matter what is happening in the country, he can not go one show without a right-winger on to slam Obama. Billy mentioned that President Obama has been on the campaign trail stumping for Democratic candidates. And the right-wing Brit Hume said he has doubt about the President's effectiveness, Hume said this: "He's out trying to make a sale to the public about his party, but remember that he went out for the better part of a year trying to make a sale to the public on his health care plan. He gave dozens of speeches on the subject and in the end he couldn't sell it."

And most of the reason he could not sell it is because Fox and the Corporations spent millions and millions of dollars lying about it, with the death panel lies etc. Hume failed to mention that Obama sold it to everyone who knew the truth, and the only people he did not sell it too were Republicans and the fools that believed their lies about it.

Hume also failed to mention that when you tell people what's actually in the bill, the vast majority support it, and even now a majority support it. Then once it goes into effect all the way, more people will support it. Hume basically ignored all the facts on the issue, to spin out his right-wing propaganda that Obama could not sell it. even though it passed, so in reality, he did sell it.

Then O'Reilly played a re-run of the Dennis Miller segment from last week, because the Chile trapped miner coverage bumped him off the air. Really, with all the news out there you have to re-run that un-funny right-wing garbage, give me a break.

In the next segment O'Reilly had Tammy Bruce and liberal Mark Levine on to talk about radio show listener reaction to his dustup on The View. Crazy Bruce said this: "The first reaction, was that when Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg left the set, suddenly The View became watchable. The second reaction was they all should have left so it would have The Factor in the afternoon. People were thrilled and they loved how you addressed the issue of political correctness."

WTF? Wow, that bitch is crazy. If they had all left there would be no show, and they sure as hell are not going to have the Factor in the afternoon. O'Reilly is so much of a right-wing idiot he is even lucky they let him on the air. If he did not get them ratings they would ban his crazy right-wing ass. And he only gets ratings because people tune in to see what crazy garbage he will say.

Then the liberal Mark Levine said this: "My liberal listeners were also thrilled, but for the exact opposite reasons. They thought that Joy and Whoopi were absolutely right to walk out and they felt the walkout forced your apology."

Then O'Reilly said he clarified his apology, Billy said this: "My apology was not about what I said, but if someone took it the wrong way. I'll stand by what I said - Muslims killed us on 9/11 and there's a huge Muslim problem in the world."

Which is ridiculous, because if you stand by what you said, then there was no apology. What happened is Mr. Tough Guy said he was sorry when Barbara Walters called him on his misinformation, then later after he left the View he turned into a fake Tough Guy again, haha, what a punk. Now he is saying he stands by what he said, and there is a huge problem in the Muslim world. When it's only a small problem with a few radical extremists.

And btw, Levine slammed O'Reilly for his hypocrisy and double standards, when he could get a word in. But of course O'Reilly dismissed everything he said, and tried to explain away all his arguments. Not to mention, once again O'Reilly could not just have Levine on alone so it was a balanced segment, he had to put the crazy Tammy Bruce on to make it a 2 on 1 so it would look like O'Reilly was right when she agreed with everything he said, what a joke.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, since you are a Republican who always takes the Republican side of an issue, you should never have another Republican on with a Democratic guest. If you are so Tough, why are you scared to have Democrats on without a Republican to use up all their time. Prove you are a real Tough Guy, let Democrats on alone without a crazy Republican to counter what they have to say.

And finally the ridiculous Factor Reality Check, which I do not report, except for this one thing. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: On another Sunday talk show, John McCain's daughter Meghan claimed Delaware Republican Christine O'Donnell is "making a mockery of running for public office." The Factor's Check: "The latest Rasmussen poll has Ms. O'Donnell down by eleven points to Chris Coons, so she's closed the gap a bit.
To begin with, McCain is a Republican. O'Reilly has claimed that only liberals think O'Donnell is a joke, when quite a few Republicans have said she is too, proving that O'Reilly lied about that. And what O'Reilly failed to mention is that only the right-wing biased Rasmussen poll has O'Donnell within 11 points, while all the other polls have her 18 or more points down. The RCP average has her 17.6 points down, which is a poll O'Reilly has even cited himself.

So what O'Reilly did was once again cherry pick the ONE poll, out of the 5 polls that are out on the race, to make O'Donnell look better. While ignoring the fact that the other 4 polls all have her getting killed by 18 to 21 points. And btw folks, if you are down by more than 10 points with 2 weeks until the election, you are toast, unless their is a major scandal that would cause a problem for her opponent.

Now think about this folks, that was a Factor Reality Check, haha. Except there was no reality, just right-wing spin and poll cherry picking.

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

More Obama Poll Spin From O'Reilly
By: Steve - October 19, 2010 - 9:00am

On the Monday Factor show O'Reilly told Brit Hume that Obama is in trouble because his job approval rating in Ohio is 33 percent. Billy said Ohio is a middle America state that shows the mood of the country, and if Obama is at 33 percent it means he is in big trouble with most of the country.

So I thought to myself, hey check it out. And of course I found out that O'Reilly was lying. Because SurveyUSA has Obama at 40 percent approval in Ohio. Notice that when O'Reilly claims Obama is at 33 percent approval in Ohio he never cites a poll name, he just says it is 33 percent with no source named.

Oh and guess what else I found out that O'Reilly never mentioned, his good buddy and former Republican Congressman from Fox News, John Kasich is running against the Democrat Ted Strickland in Ohio.

Here are the facts, the facts O'Reilly lied about.

President Obama Job Approval - Ohio

Approve - 40%

Disapprove - 56%

And here is something else O'Reilly failed to mention, his approval in Ohio with whites is 34%, but with blacks it is 81%, funny how O'Reilly never mentioned any of that, especially the fact that his overall approval is 40%, not 33%, as O'Reilly claimed.

One more thing O'Reilly did not mention, is that these polls have a + or - margin of error of 3 to 4 points, the SurveyUSA poll has a + or - margin of error of 4 points. So Obama could actually be at 44% approval in Ohio.

Not to mention this, A new Rasmussen poll of the Ohio gubernatorial race finds Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland well within striking distance of Republican former Rep. John Kasich.

The latest survey shows the incumbent governor behind 48%-45%-- within the survey's margin of error of ±4.0 percentage points. When Rasmussen took a look at the race on September 27, Kasich was ahead by a more significant eight-point margin, 50%-42%.

So Strickland is actually gaining on Kasich, while O'Reilly claims the exact opposite. O'Reilly claims that Obama is losing support in Ohio and that it is hurting the Democrat Strickland, but the polls show that Strickland is doing better, and gaining ground.

And to this day I can not find one poll that shows the Obama job approval in Ohio at 33 percent, as far as I can tell, O'Reilly just made it up, and he does not cite a poll name so nobody can check to see what it really says, if it is even a real poll he cited.

More Republicans Call On COC To Disclose Donors
By: Steve - October 19, 2010 - 8:30am

Remember this folks, O'Reilly said it was a liberal smear job on the Chamber of Commerce, when they were asked to disclose their donors. Since then at least 3 Republicans have also called on them to disclose their donors. So does O'Reilly do a follow up and report that, hell on, he just leaves the false impression that only liberals want them to disclose their donors.

Many on the left, including Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) and Reps. Steve Driehaus (D-OH) and Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH), have called for a formal investigation into the Chamber's finances, as have some on the right, including Ohio's 18th congressional district Republican nominee Bob Gibbs. Ron Johnson, the Republican Senate nominee in Wisconsin, has also demanded the Chamber reveal its sources of funding.

Now, two more Republicans have added their voices to the bipartisan call for greater transparency. Republican nominee Steve Stivers from Ohio's 15th congressional district, was asked if he was comfortable with this outside spending. Stivers said that he absolutely thinks everyone should be forced to disclose where their funding comes from:
STIVERS: I think everybody should be forced to disclose. Sunlight is good for everybody and I think disclosure makes a lot of sense.
Ken Buck, the Republican Senate nominee in Colorado, also came out in favor of transparency in a recent debate. When asked whether outside groups should be forced to disclose where their funding comes from, Buck agreed, saying it was "important that people know who is paying for the ads."

But O'Reilly will ignore this, because he has to keep the lie alive that only liberals are calling for the COC to disclose their donors. In fact, O'Reilly defended the COC, and said there is no evidence they have done anything wrong, so everyone should leave them alone.

Which makes no sense, because if their donors are secret and they refuse to disclose them, how can you get any evidence. That's what I call O'Reillylogic, it makes no sense, and only applies to Republicans or Republican groups.

Republican Calls For Shoot To Kill On Border
By: Steve - October 19, 2010 - 8:00am

Now this is a good one, some crazy Republican in Georgia is saying we should put troops on the border with orders to shoot to kill. I wonder if he wants to shoot and kill women and children too. It's insane, they just want to get a job, so you are going to kill them. And I am not an attorney, but I would think that is 1st degree murder.

At a candidate forum last week, Georgia state Rep. John Yates(R) was asked for his recommendations on what to do about illegal immigration in Florida. Yates replied that troops on the border should be given shoot to kill orders and that flyers should be dropped in Mexico warning of the new immigration policy.

"They ought to be armed and if warned leaflets dropped all over Mexico says that we will shoot to kill if anybody crosses and be serious about this and if they do that then there won't be anybody killed."

He was even given a chance to change his insane statement, and he refused. In an interview with Atlanta's Fox5, Yates stood by his comments:
When asked if he could see why people would be upset with his comments Yates said this: "No, I don't think they would be upset with what I'd say."

"If they come over here, on these raids killing ranchers and everything, you got to stop them some way," said Yates.

Yates also said illegal immigrants are enemies of the country.

"Stopping Hitler was worth the price," Yates said. "It's our border, they're invading us."
Wow, that is insane. How can you compare a Mexican crossing a border to get a job, to Hitler trying to take over the world and killing millions of Jews. A lot of people are very upset about Yates remarks, particularly the Anti-Defamation League. "We are seeing a frightening ratcheting up of hate speech about undocumented workers from Mexico, and John Yates has taken the rhetoric to a level of extremism that is shocking and deeply disturbing," said Bill Nigut, the ADL's southeast regional director.

"Comparing Mexicans crossing the border illegally to Hitler's army is grossly offensive to Jews and others who suffered the tragic consequences of the Nazi's so-called Final Solution."

This guy John Yates is insane, and an idiot. And of course O'Reilly did not say a word about this story. But a week from now O'Reilly will say that Republicans are not anti-Mexican, and that they never make comparisons to Hitler, they just want to protect the border. As he ignores this story, and pretends it never happened.

O'Reilly Ignores Another Christine O'Donnell Story
By: Steve - October 18, 2010 - 10:00am

Could it be any more obvious that O'Reilly and all of Fox News are trying to help Christine O'Donnell by ignoring any negative news about her. Especially this, when she says she has Sean Hannity in her back pocket. Not a word from O'Reilly, he just ignored the entire story.

Christine O'Donnell Tells GOPers: 'I've Got Sean Hannity In My Back Pocket'

10-14-10 - WASHINGTON -- Christine O'Donnell may not be a witch, but she knows how to use scare tactics to raise money, top Republican strategists and officials are saying.

They say the Delaware Republican is loudly complaining about how they won't support her -- and they are not -- as a way to generate angry, send-them-a-message donations from her Tea Party base.

Specifically, according to two top GOP insiders, she said at a strategy meeting with DC types last week: "I've got Sean Hannity in my back pocket, and I can go on his show and raise money by attacking you guys."

And that was precisely what she was doing on the radio last week. On Hannity's popular afternoon drive-time show, the Tea Party-inspired Senate contender criticized the party, specifically the National Republican Senatorial Committee, for not funneling any serious cash into her race against Democrat Chris Coons.

Earth to the witch, the reason they are not giving your crazy ass any money is because you are 19 points down with no chance to win. So don't blame them for not giving money to a far right nut that can not win, it's your own fault for being a far right nut. And it's also the fault of the crazy Republican voters for voting you the winner of the primary.

Now imagine what O'Reilly would say if her Democratic opponent Chris Coons said he had Keith Olbermann in his back pocket. O'Reilly would write at least 2 talking points memo's on it, do half the show on it, and spend a week reporting it, calling for the feds to investigate, the FEC, and anyone who would listen to him.

But when the Tea Party Republican (Christine O'Donnell) says she has Hannity in her back pocket O'Reilly is silent as a mouse.

Glenn Beck wants You To Donate Money
By: Steve - October 18, 2010 - 9:30am

Now think about this, does Beck want you to donate to the Red Cross, Wounded Warriors, or a Military family charity. No! He wants you to donate your hard earned money to a multi-million dollar right-wing corporate group, that plans to use that money to run partisan political ads for Republicans.

Are you kidding me, this is ridiculous. They raise millions of dollars every year, from corporations. And this right-wing freak Glenn Beck wants you to give them more money, it's an outrage.

Glenn Beck is telling his listeners to donate money to the Chamber of Commerce. And the Chamber of Commerce is not just an advocacy organization pursing an ideological right-wing agenda, like the National Rifle Association. It is a trade association representing some of the largest corporations in the world. Its board of directors counts among its members executives from Pfizer, Lockheed Martin, AT&T, US Airways, JPMorgan Chase & Co., IBM, and Verizon.

And the crazy Glenn Beck is literally asking American workers to give their hard-earned wages back to their employers, so their employers can use that money to advocate a public policy agenda that benefits the rich at the expense of everyone else.

And Beck is serious, he even donated $10,000 of his own money to them, and said he wants to set a record for fundraising for the COC. He wants you to send your money off to the Pfizers and JPMorgans of the world, as a gift. For Glenn Beck, it isn't enough to have a power structure that favors the corporate elite. He wants you to pay for it, too.

Here is what I would do, laugh at the crazy Glenn Beck, and if you have any money to donate, give it to a Military charity, like the Wounded Warriors fund, or something like that. Nobody should give a dime to these corporations that already take in millions and millions of dollars to pay for ads to help Republicans.

They plan to spend $75 million dollars on right-wing political ads, so ask yourself this one simple question. If they can afford to waste $75 million dollars on partisan political ads, do you think they need your $10 or $20 dollars, think about that.

Republican Calls For FEC To Audit Chamber Of Commerce
By: Steve - October 18, 2010 - 9:00am

O'Reilly claims the story about the right-wing U.S. Chamber of Commerce possibly using Foreign money to pay for campaign ads against Democrats is just made up liberal nonsense. O'Reilly said it's a smear job on the COC by liberal groups because they do not like what they are doing. O'Reilly also said there is no evidence they are using Foreign money.

If that's true, why are Republicans calling for the FEC to audit them, why did they admit they raise Foreign money, as much as $880,000 dollars a year, and why are they refusing to disclose what they spend that money on.

The whole thing is fishy, they raise money from Americans and from Foreign countries, and then they claim the Foreign money goes into their general fund and that money is not used to buy political ads. Which is still pretty shady, and if a Democratic group was doing it O'Reilly would lose his mind and call for the Feds to investigate. But when a Republican group does it, he defends it and says there is no evidence.

Now a Republican Bob Gibbs (R) is even saying he would be ok with the FEC doing an audit on them to make sure the Foreign money is not being spent on political ads or campaigns in America.

Wednesday night, the topic of anonymous donors to outside groups came up in a debate between Gibbs and Zack Space. ThinkProgress caught up with Gibbs after the debate to get his thoughts. He noted that organizations are required by law to segregate their foreign and domestic money and said that as far as he knows the Chamber has a firewall in place.

They pressed Gibbs on whether he trusts them to enforce their own secret system. And Gibbs conceded that he would not have a problem with the Federal Election Commission having the ability to go in and audit them and make sure that they had the firewall.

Here is my question, why is any group or persons, that spends money on political ads or political campaigns not forced by law to disclose where they go the money, and what they spend it on. How is that possible in America today. We should all know how much money was donated to who, where it came from, what it was spent on, and who did the spending.

Anyone who is opposed to that is trying to do something dishonest, or at least giving the impression they are, otherwise they would have no problem making that disclosure. And the reason it is not the law, is because Republicans voted against the diclose act, that would have made those donations known to the public.

I bring to mind the slogan, "if you are hiding something, then you have something to hide."

Which fits perfectly here, if they have nothing to hide, they why are they hiding it. And the fact that all the Republicans voted against the disclose bill, proves they want to hide that information. They all claim to be for full disclosure, but when it comes to doing it they are all talk. O'Reilly even said he supports full disclosure, then slams the Democrats for asking the COC to disclose who their donors are, and what they use the money for.

O'Reilly Has Goldberg On To Trash Whoppi & Joy
By: Steve - October 17, 2010 - 9:00am

This is great, O'Reilly makes the mistake of saying Muslims killed us on 9-11, which implies that all Muslims are terrorists, so then he puts the crazy far right Bernie Goldberg on to trash Whoppi Goldberg and Joy Behar, when O'Reilly is the one who screwed up.

O'Reilly even said that liberals do not like it when he tells the truth that Muslims killed us on 9-11 because we have sympathy for them. Which is just crazy, because I am a liberal and I have no sympathy at all for any Muslim terrorists.

The problem is not that liberals have sympathy, it's calling all Muslims terrorists, as O'Reilly did. That could make more Muslims mad and possibly cause them to join a terrorist group, which would just create more terrorists. But I guess O'Reilly is too stupid to understand that.

I could care less about Muslim terrorists, but if you make normal every day Muslims mad by calling them all terrorists, it could lead to more terrorism, and more Americans getting killed. So what liberals care about is all this right-wing tough guy talk that does more harm than good.

And of course O'Reilly twists and spins that into liberals do not like it when you say Muslims killed us on 9-11 because it's the truth, is just crazy right-wing spin to make liberals look bad. If he had said Muslim extremists killed us on 9-11, or said Muslim terrorists killed us on 9-11 nobody would have said a word, including me.

Now think about this folks, when a Christian, pro-life, right-wing, Army of God terrorist bombs an abortion clinic, O'Reilly does not say Christians bombed an abortion clinic, he says a far right extremist bombed an abortion clinic. Think about that for a minute.

Bachmann Caught Lying For Chamber Of Commerce
By: Steve - October 17, 2010 - 8:30am

Monday on the Fox Business Network, Republican Michele Bachmann (R-MN) was asked by Charles Payne to comment on the White House and Democrats calls for the Chamber of Commerce to disclose its donors, who has been accused of using Foreign money to run ads against Democrats.

She said they have a PAC that only accepts money from Americans, and they only use that money to pay for the ads. Here is her answer:
BACHMANN: This is about as low as it goes. It's more than just disingenious, it's a flat-out, patent lie. The Chamber of Commerce, who has been accused of taking foreign contributions to spend on elections, is absolutely not doing that. They have a separate political action fund and they use that only from American donors.
Except that is a lie, because the Chamber of Commerce does have a political action fund. But, its PAC has only raised $161,000 and spent $104,000. The Chamber has spent more than $12 million so far this election season (and plans to spend $75 million), to help Republican candidates.

So it's impossible for their PAC to pay for the ads, when the PAC only has $161,000 and they have spent $12 million.

The question is, why are they spending so much while its PAC stays on the sidelines? Disclosure. Federal election law requires political action committees to reveal who is giving money to fund its campaign interests.

So they are trying to hide where they get the money, which is dishonest, and as they say, where there's smoke, there's fire. But what really gets me is that O'Reilly is not doing an investigation of the Chamber of Commerce. When you know if a Democratic group was doing this for Democrats, O'Reilly would do a 20 part investigation, call for the feds to investigate, and slam them every night until they disclose what they are doing.

They could possibly be using Foreign money to pay for ads in American elections, and not only does O'Reilly not care, he defends it and claims there is no evidence so there is no problem. Ignoring the fact that if you do not have to disclose your donors, and there is no investigation, how the hell do you get the evidence.

Proving once again how biased and dishonest O'Reilly is, because if a group funded by say (George Soros) was possibly using Foreign money to pay for ads against Republicans, O'Reilly would be all over it like stink on you know what. The whole thing is shady, and O'Reilly ignores it all because they are helping Republicans.

Monica Crowley Caught Lying About Obama Approval
By: Steve - October 17, 2010 - 8:00am

Once again the totally dishonest far right spin doctor Monica Crowley has been caught lying about the Obama approval numbers. And she did it on the O'Reilly Factor, which is called the no spin zone. On top of all that, not once did O'Reilly correct her, or dispute her numbers.

Here is exactly what she said, word for word, right from the Factor transcript:
CROWLEY: Mid-terms are usually referenda on the sitting president, and this year is shaping up to be a collective protest vote against most of Obama's policies. 70% of the American people oppose what he has done and what he stands for. Obama turned his candidacy and his presidency into a cult of personality, so all of these Democratic candidates are rising and falling on Obama and his policies.

And now the facts, Gallup has the Obama job approval/disapproval at 45% approval, 48% disapproval. That means 48% of the people disapprove of what Obama is doing, which is not even close to 70% as Crowley claimed.

Even the right-wing biased Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll has Obama at 45% approval, 54% disapproval. So even if you use the Rasmussen poll, it's still not 70% as Crowley claimed.

Proving that she is a massive liar that has no credibility. But O'Reilly continues to put her on his show every week, which also ruins his credibility. And then after she put out the lie, O'Reilly did not cut her off or correct her, he just let it stand as if it was true.

And remember this, O'Reilly claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone, who is fair to President Obama. He says that almost every night. Those are his own words. Then he has people like Monica Crowley on every night to lie and smear the President, making him as bad as she is, worse really, because he is the one who enables her lies.

This is what O'Reilly does, he puts 97% right-wing guests on to smear and lie about Obama, and he does not dispute or correct any of their lies, then the viewers get the impression it's all true. And when Colmes tries to talk and tell them what right-wing spin doctors they are, he is called names and told to stop putting out his liberal spin, when he is stating the facts, and they are the lying spin doctors.

The Friday 10-15-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 16, 2010 - 11:00am

The TPM was called A view of The day later. And of course O'Reilly continued with his spin of what happened on the View. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The nation is talking about my debate with the ladies of The View over how to describe the brutal attack on 9/11. Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar walked off the set, objecting to my statement that Muslims killed Americans on 9/11.

This is a classic 'liberal vs. traditional' situation. I believe there is a problem in the Muslim world, and if you look at polls most Muslims have a poor opinion of America. Therefore, many of them are inclined to sympathize with people who are giving America a hard time, and in some cases that includes violent terrorists.

The whole world fears that Muslim terrorists will murder people in their countries. So while Ms. Goldberg and Ms. Behar may be offended that I did not use the words 'Muslim terrorists,' the truth is that there is bitter conflict between the Muslim world and the West.

Why do liberals want to sever the connection between terrorism and Islam? Part of the reason is that far left people have always believed it's partially America's fault that some Muslims hate us. But there comes a time when the truth must be told.

Anyone watching this program knows that I am not anti-Muslim, but you also know that I deplore the continuing terror acts committed under the banner of Islam.
Wow was that ridiculous, notice that O'Reilly said "This is a classic 'liberal vs. traditional' situation." When he should have said liberal vs. conservative, but since he lies about being a conservative he can not even say it, then he claims to tell the truth, when he will not even call it what it is, liberal vs. conservative, he uses traditional instead of conservative, which is the same damn thing.

And it's not about liberal vs. conservative, it's about being right, words matter, so get it right. Notice that when a far right pro-life loon, bombs an abortion clinic O'Reilly does not say Christians killed people at the abortion clinic, he calls them terrorists, or extremists, even though they did it in the name of the Christian religion, as the Army of God does. But he wants to say Muslims killed us on 9-11, so he is the hypocrite with the double standards, not Joy Behar or Whoppi Goldberg.

O'Reilly also said liberals are inclined to sympathize with people who are giving America a hard time, this is insane right-wing propaganda. I am a liberal and I do not sympathize with people who are giving America a hard time, I hate them as much as O'Reilly does. I hate Muslim terrorists just as much as O'Reilly, so he is lying his right-wing ass off. What I object to is what Behar and Whoppi objected to, idiots like O'Reilly saying Muslims killed us on 9-11, when it was Muslim terrorists who did it.

And btw, if O'Reilly is not anti-Muslim as he claims, why is he going on national tv and saying Muslims killed us on 9-11, instead of saying Muslim extremists, or terrorists. O'Reilly has even slammed liberals for not calling a terrorist a terrorist, and for not using the word terrorist, and now here he is doing the exact same thing by not calling them terrorists. What say you hypocrite?

Then O'Reilly found some right-wing Muslim who agrees with him, and the 2 of them sat there and agreed with each other. With no opposing view from a Muslim that disagrees with O'Reilly. What a joke, and I am not even going to report on it because it was so biased and so one sided.

In the next segment O'Reilly had the crazy far right Bernie Goldberg on to discuss it. Crazy Goldberg said this: "The media loves confrontation, and this confrontation was too good to be true. What happened tells us that too many liberals have forgotten how to be liberal."

What a joke, O'Reilly was in the wrong, he was the bad guy. So what does Goldberg do, use diversion tactics to attack Behar and Whoppi for walking off the set on O'Reilly. If it was me, I would have punched O'Reilly in the face, and then walked off, now that would be real news, haha. Goldberg is a right-wing O'Reilly ass kissing joke, who is about as qualified to do news analysis as Sarah Palin is, which is not qualified at all. The story is O'Reilly saying the wrong thing, not what Behar and Whoppi did.

Then O'Reilly had a segment with Dana Perino and Leslie Marshall, who were on to talk about the claims from O'Reilly that President Obama is out of touch with working Americans. Which is so ridiculous I am not going to report on it anymore. It's not only ridiculous, it's un-American, especially when he is a Democrat. The only Presidents who might have been out of touch with working Americans were Republicans, and that is a fact. To say a Democratic President is out of touch with working Americans is just pure insanity. It's pure 100% right-wing propaganda, from O'Reilly and the right, and it makes them look like fools.

Then Geraldo was on to talk more about money to Haiti. Geraldo said this: "This is an open wound that continues to bleed. There is now $1.15 billion that was approved by Congress for reconstruction, to begin getting the Haitian people roofs over their heads. Not one dime of that money has been spent. This 'emergency' process has taken from January until late October and we haven't spent a dime of that money."

And the Republicans are blocking that money because they want an offset to the budget to pay for it. So they are to blame, but O'Reilly and Geraldo blame Obama, the Democrats, and Bill Clinton somehow, it's crazy.

Then the insane Glenn Beck was on to talk about his medical problems and a decision by Cambridge, Massachusetts to give students a day off for a Muslim holiday. Really, are you serious, who fricking cares. And O'Reilly never said a word about the crazy things Beck has been doing, or the highway shooter who shot at the cops and tried to kill liberals at the Tides Foundation, who called Beck his hero. That's real news, not this garbage about Beck and his medical problems, or a school giving students a day off for a Muslim holiday.

Hey Billy, if you are not anti-Muslim why are you reporting this nonsense, don't the school have a right to do what it wants to. If they wanted to teach intelligent design you would say they have a right to, you anti-Muslim hypocrite.

And in the last segment O'Reilly had Greg Gutfeld and Arthel Neville on for dumbest things of the week. Neville picked the Internet video in which an actor portrays President Obama singing and smoking a cigarette. "That guy is good, and it's not dumb at all. They just posted this thing on YouTube and it's already gotten about 23,000 hits."

Are you kidding me, if it's great and not dumb why the hell are you picking it for the dumbest things of the week segment. This Arthel Neville is a moron, she is so stupid she does not even understand what the segment is for. And I nominate her as dumbest thing of the week. Not to mention, 23,000 hits is nothing.

Gutfeld also picked an Internet spoof, this one dealing with the Ground Zero mosque. "The people who did this want to stay alive, so they don't poke fun at the developers and they don't poke fun at Islam. What they're really poking fun at is American attitudes about Islam."

Gutfeld also gave his opinion about the real reason Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg walked off the set of The View Thursday. "What people don't talk about is the sexual tension. They got angry and they left because they know they can't have you, Bill, and it drives them crazy."

Oh my God, I am about to puke. Gutfeld is so much of an O'Reilly suck up it's not only sad, it's pathetic, and not funny either. Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails.

Here is a bonus, a great e-mail that was sent to O'Reilly Friday, read it, but just imagine what O'Reilly edited out.

Patrick Sandham, Wichita, KS: "O'Reilly, you are a pinhead. We were attacked by the government of Japan. The 9/11 attack was by a fringe element of the Muslim religion. What you said was hate speech." And btw, O'Reilly had no comment on that e-mail, because he knows they are right.

Kilmeade Proves He Is Dumber Than O'Reilly
By: Steve - October 16, 2010 - 10:00am

This is like the movie Dumb and Dumber, with O'Reilly being dumb, and Kilmeade being dumber. Stupid O'Reilly said Muslims killed us on 9-11, and Kilmeade went one step farther, he said ALL terrorists are Muslims. He even said later on his radio show that it was a FACT that all terrorists are Muslims.

When in FACT, all terrorists are NOT Muslims. Here is what the giant right-wing idiot said.

Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade defended Bill O'Reilly's recent appearance on The View by absurdly claiming that "not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims." When there have been numerous domestic terror attacks committed by non-Muslims.

On the October 15 edition of Fox & Friends, Kilmeade defended O'Reilly's comments on the October 14 edition of ABC's The View by claiming the show's hosts "were outraged that somebody was saying there's a reason -- there was a certain group of people that attacked us on 9-11. It wasn't just one person. It was one religion. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."

Later during his radio show, Kilmeade asserted that it's a "fact" that "every terrorist is a Muslim." On the October 15 edition of Fox News Radio's Kilmeade & Friends, Kilmeade stated: "Not every Muslim is an extremist, a terrorist, but every terrorist is a Muslim. You can't avoid that fact."

I guess Kilmeade has no clue what a fact is, because the facts show the exact opposite of what he said. Numerous domestic attacks and attempted attacks have been committed by non-Muslims.

In December 2007, Timothy McVeigh was executed for the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. CNN noted that McVeigh was angered at the government because he believed it was trying to take away his rights and weapons. McVeigh and his partner, Terry Nichols, killed 168 people.

Not a Muslim!

In April 2003, William J. Krar, Judith Bruey, and Edward Feltus were arrested for possession of chemical weapons. Krar was a right-wing extremist with ties to white supremacy groups.

Not a Muslim!

Clayton Lee Waagner was convicted in December 2003 of "mailing hundreds of threat letters containing bogus anthrax to abortion clinics in 24 states." USA Today noted that "during his trial, prosecutors documented Waagner's ties to the Army of God, an extremist group that believes violence against abortion providers is an acceptable way to end abortion." The Philadelphia Inquirer also reported that Waagner described himself as a "terrorist to abortionists."

Not a Muslim!

Army of God member Eric Rudolph carried out a series of bombings against abortion clinics and the 1996 Olympic Games.

Not a Muslim!

In FACT, some of the most notorious terrorists like the Tamil Tigers, who invented suicide bombing, the Irish Republican Army, and the Lord's Resistance Army are not Muslims. In FACT, recent domestic terrorists like the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh, the Hutaree militia, John Patrick Bedell, Joe Stack, Jerry Kane Jr., and white supremacist James von Brunn were also not Muslims.

California highway shooter Byron Williams, who tried to start a revolution in July, was actually inspired by Fox News pundit Glenn Beck, not Islam or any Muslims. A FACT that O'Reilly, Kilmeade, and all of Fox News has ignored btw.

According to the National Counterterrorism Center, non-Muslims account for 16,868 recorded incidents of terrorism, 967 less than Islamic extremists.

Geraldo Rivera even tried to point this out. In reaction to Kilmeade, Rivera noted that when people talk about the abortion bombers, "they don't say Christians blew up the abortion clinic. They say crazy people or extremists did it. You can't, and that's part of the noise that is causing Muslim Americans to feel besieged and singled out." But Kilmeade scoffed at the comparison.

I think you get the picture, Kilmeade is an idiot. In fact, this moron is wrong at least once a day, so my question is, what does it take to get fired at Fox, do you have to be wrong a million times before they fire you, 2 million, 3 million, where is the cut off point.

O'Reilly Proves Once Again How Stupid He Is
By: Steve - October 16, 2010 - 9:30am

After his View show comment, O'Reilly went on the Glenn Beck show and made one of the dumbest comparisons I have ever heard. O'Reilly said Muslims killed us on 9-11, when he should have said Muslim extremists, or Muslim terrorists. Basically he implied that all Muslims are evil and they want to kill us.

And btw, O'Reilly knew what he said was wrong, because he later said he was sorry. But he has such a big ego, and he hates liberals so much, he can not leave it at that, he has to try and defend it later on Beck and his own show.

Now get this, O'Reilly said when we talk about WWII, "do we say we were attacked by Japanese extremists? No."

And of course we do not say that, because it does not make sense. To begin with, we went to war with Japan because it was the nation of Japan that attacked us. The Japanese government ordered their military to attack us at Pearl Harbor. We are not at war with Islam because it was not the religion of Islam that attacked us.

On 9/11 we were attacked by a terrorist organization called Al-Qaeda, which is a small group of Islamic extremists, also known as terrorists who have no Government, and no military. To even make that comparison is insane, and just stupid.

That kind of ridiculous comparison is something you might hear from a 5 year old, not a Harvard Graduate. I guess O'Reilly is so senile now, he does not even know when he makes these ridiculous statements. My 87 year old Father with Alzheimers and Dementia makes more sense than O'Reilly does.

Condi Rice Caught Lying On The O'Reilly Factor
By: Steve - October 16, 2010 - 8:30am

Condoleezza Rice Claims the Bush Administration Made The World A Safer Place From Terrorism While In Office. Which is a flat out lie, and she knows it, so does O'Reilly, but of course he never said a word about it either.

Former Bush national security adviser and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been on a tour of the media to promote her new book. Then on Tuesday, she appeared on The O'Reilly Factor. While most of Rice's media tour has been focused on her childhood and upbringing, O'Reilly spent most his time asking her about her views on current events.

He asked Rice if the world is a more dangerous place two years after she left office. Rice replied that she thinks the Bush administration made the world a safer place:
O'REILLY: Before we get to your book, Madam Secretary, is the world a more dangerous place two years after you left office?

RICE: The world was most dangerous in 2001, when we didn't have a net to deal with terrorism. I think in that sense we made it a safer place from the time that we were in office. But Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon. That's more dangerous. North Korea seems somewhat unstable with nuclear capability.

That makes the world more dangerous. But, in fact, you're always dealing with circumstances that are very difficult for a United States that has to lead.
Rice can claim the Bush administration policies made the world a safer place from terrorism, but the facts tell a different story. In 2007, terrorism experts and research fellows at the Center on Law and Security at the New York University School of Law (Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank) conducted a survey of terrorism incidents worldwide since the Bush administration-led U.S. war in Iraq.

Their study found that terrorism incidents worldwide increased by seven times, or six hundred percent, since the Bush administration invaded Iraq.

And what a shocker, not a word of that was reported by O'Reilly ,or mentioned by Rice, I'm shocked I tell ya, yeah right, not.

And just recently, researchers Robert Pape of the University of Chicago and James Feldman from the Air Force Institute of Technology found that, "from 1980-2003, there were 350 suicide attacks in the world, only 15% of which were anti-American."

But since the Bush-led war in Iraq, there have been 1,833 suicide attacks, 92% of which were anti-American. And once again not a word of this was reported by O'Reilly or Rice. They just spin out their made up right-wing facts and hope someone believes it.

It should also be noted that the Bush administration was well aware that its war against Iraq could lead to an increase in terrorism. Because a declassified State Department memo shows that the Bush administration was privately worried that the war would lead to more radicalization of British Muslims, the great majority who opposed the 9-11 attacks, who are increasingly upset about what they see as an anti-Islamic campaign.

And in July of 2005, British Muslim extremists who were radicalized by the war in Iraq detonated bombs throughout London, confirming the bush administration's fears.

But if you had watched O'Reilly and Rice on the Factor Tuesday night, you would not know any of this information, because O'Reilly and Rice just ignore it to spin out the claims that the Bush administration made us safer from terrorism, when they actually made terrorism 10 times worse.

More Proof O'Reilly Spins Polls To Favor Republicans
By: Steve - October 15, 2010 - 10:30am

This is for the people who have doubts that O'Reilly spins and cherry pics polls to make Republicans look better, more electable, and less radical. This is a perfect example of what O'Reilly does, and it proves beyond a doubt that O'Reilly is a biased right-wing spin doctor when it comes to the polls.

And btw folks, O'Reilly has cited the RCP polls, so that means he believes they are a trusted polling website, otherwise he would not use them. And everything I am about to show you is from Real Clear Politics own website.

Here is what happened, on 3-29-10 Real Clear Politics started using a series of polls to come up with their RCP average for the NY Governor race between Andrew Cuomo and Carl Paladino.

They use these 5 polls to calculate their RCP average: Marist, SurveyUSA, Quinnipiac, Siena, and Rasmussen Reports. They also used a CNN/Time poll, and a PPP (D) poll, but only one time from 10-1-10 to 10-5-10.

As I said above they started using those polls on 3-29-10 up until the most current poll from SurveyUSA that was taken 10-5-10 to 10-7-10. Now look at the listing of the polls they have used. This is every single poll they have used,
Rasmussen - 3-29-10 - Cuomo +23
Quinnipiac - 4-11-10 - Cuomo +36
Siena - 4-15-10 - Cuomo +45
Rasmussen - 4-27-10 - Cuomo +30
Marist - 5-5-10 - Cuomo +45
Siena - 5-20-10 - Cuomo +43
Siena - 6-9-10 - Cuomo +37
Quinnipiac - 6-20-10 - Cuomo +36
Rasmussen - 6-24-10 - Cuomo +30
Siena - 7-12-10 - Cuomo +41
Rasmussen - 7-20-10 - Cuomo +29
Quinnipiac - 7-26-10 - Cuomo +30
Siena - 8-16-10 - Cuomo +33
Quinnipiac - 8-29-10 - Cuomo +37
Rasmussen - 9-16-10 - Cuomo +16
Siena - 9-21-10 - Cuomo +33

Quinnipiac - 9-20-10 - Cuomo +6

Marist - 9-22-10 - Cuomo +19
SurveyUSA - 9-21-10 - Cuomo +9
Marist - 9-29-10 - Cuomo +15
Siena - 10-4-10 - Cuomo +24
Quinnipiac - 10-5-10 - Cuomo +18
CNN/Time - 10-5-10 - Cuomo +14
SurveyUSA - 10-7-10 - Cuomo +23
Now look at those numbers, from 3-29 to 10-7 only one poll had Paladino within 6 points, and that is the one poll O'Reilly reported. He even said it was stunning that Paladino was only 6 points down to Cuomo.

So in 6 months of polls where Paladino was 9 to 45 points down, O'Reilly waited until October to cherry pick the one poll that had Paladino only 6 points down. Then after that day when ALL the polls show Paladino 14 to 24 points down, including the 9-20-10 Quinnipiac poll that had Paladino only 6 points down, O'Reilly has ignored them.

Not one poll number on the Cuomo/Paladino race has been reported since then by O'Reilly. Basically he ignored every poll there is, except the ONE poll that had Paladino only down 6 points, ONE time in a 6 month period. And that my friends is classic O'Reilly poll cherry picking to try and make the Republican look better, and more electable.

Now ask yourself this, when has O'Reilly cherry picked a poll to make a Democratic candidate look better and more electable. Answer: NEVER, not once, ever.

The Thursday 10-14-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 15, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called Obama, Muslims, The View and Bill. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: I went on 'The View' this morning and was asked why President Obama's poll numbers are falling. That ignited a fiery debate when I said Americans 'see a widening gulf between President Obama and them' and that '70% of Americans don't want that mosque down there' because 'Muslims attacked us on 9/11.'

Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg stormed off the set and Barbara Walters said this: 'We should be able to have discussions without washing our hands and screaming and walking off stage.' The poll I cited was taken by CNN in August - about 70% of Americans agree with me that the Ground Zero mosque is inappropriate.

No one wants to insult Muslims, but almost everybody is tired of the political correctness surrounding the 9/11 attack. The truth is that if moderate Muslims all over the world would stand with America against radical Islam, the terrorists couldn't exist. I am not in the business of sugar-coating harsh realities. This program and my book state the truth as I see it.
Wow, that is almost close, but not quite. O'Reilly left out a lot of things, how he was condescending and insulting to Behar and Whoppi. At one point O'Reilly cut Behar off and said this: "Listen to me because you'll learn!" as the audience gasped. The audience was actually shocked that O'Reilly would be so insulting, funny how he never mentioned that.

O'Reilly also failed to mention that Barbara Walters called him a pinhead. O'Reilly claims the fireworks started when he asked why the Obama poll numbers are falling. But that's a lie, it started after he said Muslims attacked us on 9-11, and after he basically told Behar to shut up and listen to him so she can learn something. I saw the video of it, at least 3 times and O'Reilly's version of it does not match the facts.

O'Reilly also failed to mention that he later said he was sorry, so he knew he did something wrong, otherwise he would not have sad he was sorry. Not to mention, the Obama poll numbers are not falling, they are at 45%, and they have been for about a year now. O'Reilly put his spin on what happened, but he missed a lot, as expected.

Then O'Reilly had the crazy far right Laura Ingraham on to discuss it, and since Ingraham is a far right nut who hates almost everyone on the View, you can just imagine what she said about it. Ingraham did not discuss what happened, she just attacked Joy Behar and quoted some things she said about Christians. But she failed to point out that Behar is a COMEDIAN and the things she said were jokes. Ingraham and O'Reilly both get comedy confused with things people in the media say.

O'Reilly accused Joy and Whoopi of trying to avoid the truth, he said this: "The distinction Ms. Behar and Ms. Goldberg make is that you can't say Muslims attacked us on 9/11, you have to say 'Muslim extremists.' But did we say in World War II that we were attacked by 'Japanese extremists' or 'German extremists?'"

And that is just ridiculous, because they are not trying to avoid the truth, O'Reilly is, he was the guy that screwed up by saying Muslims killed us on 9-11, when it was a small terrorist group that killed us, not Muslims. The correct wording would be Muslim extremists, or just say terrorists. And the comparison to Japan or German extremists is just laughable, not to mention it does not even make sense. Because Japan and Germany attacked us from orders by their Government with their military.

Then Alicia Menendez was on to discuss it, she called O'Reilly out on his apples to oranges comparison of Japan extremists and Muslim extremists. But O'Reilly disagreed and said his comparison was valid, when it's not, and it's ridiculous.

Then she said this: "There's the much bigger question of how we talk about 9/11, and how much politics we want involved. I don't want any politics; it's supposed to be a day of remembrance and resolve for America. Furthermore, it concerns me when religion is used as a wedge issue and that's why we need to be careful. How would you feel if you are a Muslim family who lost a loved one, maybe even a first responder, to this horrible tragedy?"

O'Reilly defended the words he used to describe the 9/11 attacks, Billy said this: "Religion is the reason we were attacked - these Muslims felt that Americans are infidels and evil people. I'm tired of the political correctness. I didn't mean to denigrate the Muslim religion, but I aptly described who attacked us on 9/11, causing two very liberal women to walk off the set. I'm still amazed."

What an ego, just admit you should have said Muslim extremists you fricking a-hole.

Then O'Reilly had Megyn Kelly on to talk about some more illegal immigration garbage, which I will not report on. I will say this, O'Reilly asked Kelly what she thought about his View controversy. And of course she mostly agreed with O'Reilly, but she did point out that he was insulting and condescending to Joy Behar.

In the next segment O'Reilly had the 2 right-wing vulture warriors Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson on to talk about a researcher who studiously analyzed banners and signs at a large tea party rally in Washington. Carlson said this: "The majority of the signs, were emblematic of what the tea party stands for, which is limited government and less spending. 1% dealt with the ridiculous 'birther' controversy, but if you watch other broadcasts you wouldn't know that."

Hoover said the tea partiers are probably more 'normal' than most citizens. "The study found that of all the people on the National Mall, 6% were 'nuts.' I always accepted the premise that 10% of people out there are crazy, which means the tea party is a more sane sample than ordinary Americans."

Billy complained that, aside from the Washington Post, the research has largely gone unnoticed, he said this: "Most of the other media ignored the study because they have a vested interest in making their audience think the tea partiers are racist people."

And all that is right-wing spin. What they failed to mention is that the study was done after the Tea Party was called out for their racist signs. So of course they stopped bringing the racist signs to their protests. Not to mention, nobody said they are not normal, people have just said they are far right conservatives that hate Obama, and some of them are racists. The media mostly ignored the study, because it's a joke, and it was taken after they mostly stopped using the racist signs.

And btw folks, O'Reilly has ignored 2 or 3 other recent studies about the Tea Party, because it makes them look bad, then he complains about the media ignoring a study that makes them look good. When he did the exact same thing he is crying about them doing, can you spell hypocrite boys and girls, I can, I spell it O'Reilly.

Then O'Reilly had the 2 right-wing is it legal guests on to talk about a federal judge who ruled that the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy violates the Constitution, and that gays should be able to serve openly. Billy asked Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle whether the administration will challenge that ruling. When he knows they are, because they already said they were going to.

Wiehl said this: "The Pentagon wants the judge to delay this, and wants sixty days to figure this out. On December 1st the Pentagon will issue a report on whether or not 'don't ask, don't tell' hurts the military, so right now they're trying to buy time."

What's funny is every other military in the world already allows gay people to openly serve, but they still want to discuss it, and debate it. Give me a break, I am not gay, but even I think this is ridiculous. I would say that if a gay person wants to join the military and risk their life for their country, let them. And if you disagree with that, you are an anti-gay idiot. And btw, the only people I know that are opposed to gay people openly serving in the military are Republicans, think about that when they tell you they are not anti-gay.

Finally in the last segment it was the total waste of time Factor News Quiz, with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum. Which I do not report on because it's not news, and has nothing to do with the news.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw folks, O'Reilly had 7 Republicans on the show, to 1 Democrat. That way he can get everyone but 1 person to agree with him about what happened on the View, to make it look like he was right. Talk about bias and stacking the deck, that was it.

Joy Behar Statement On Bill O'Reilly
By: Steve - October 15, 2010 - 8:30am

On her HLN show Thursday, Joy Behar explained to viewers why she walked off "The View" during a heated conversation with Bill O'Reilly earlier in the day.

"Today on 'The View,' Bill O'Reilly had a real pinhead moment," she said. "First he said a mosque should not be be built close to Ground Zero here in New York, and then he said this: 'Muslims killed us on 9/11.'

"Well I was really angry," Behar said explaining her walk-off. "I thought he was saying something that I construe as hate speech, frankly."

Behar hosted former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura for a discussion on the situation. Ventura did not mince words when it came to O'Reilly or his Fox News colleages.

"He's a spineless puke," Ventura said of O'Reilly. "The whole Fox network won't have me on. The nighttime guys. I call them the three stooges, and we all know which one's Curly. I view him and Hannity and them as the Three Stooges, because if they can't intimidate you, they won't have you on."

O'Reilly Claims President Obama Has Lost The Folks
By: Steve - October 15, 2010 - 8:00am

Which is a ridiculous claim, and I will show you why it's nothing but right-wing propaganda from O'Reilly.

On the Wednesday night Factor O'Reilly told George Stephanolopous on to talk about Obama and his approval. To begin with O'Reilly pulled his time tested poll cherry picking tactic, he used the Reuters poll to quote because it has Obama the lowest at 43% approval.

When Gallup and even Rasmussen both have Obama at 45% approval, what O'Reilly did was find the poll that had the lowest approval for Obama to make Obama look as bad as possible. While ignoring the highest poll that has him at 50% approval. And the RCP Obama job approval poll has him at 44.8% approval. During the segment O'Reilly even lowered the Reuters poll from 43%, when he said Obama was at 40%, which is not what any poll says.

O'Reilly kept saying Obama has lost the folks, over and over, at least 3 times. Stephanolopous disagreed and pointed out that both Reagan and Clinton had lower job approval numbers than Obama after 2 years, and they were re-elected to a 2nd term. But that did not stop O'Reilly, he repeated again that Reagan and Clinton had not lost the folks like Obama has, and once again Stephanolopous disagreed.

Basically O'Reilly dismissed everything Stephanolopous said and just continued on with his right-wing talking points that Obama has lost the folks. It was basically right-wing propaganda, and nothing was going to derail his hit job on Obama. Now you may be asking what he means by losing the folks. And the answer is that it's more right-wing propaganda to make Obama look worse.

When O'Reilly says the folks, he implies they are average mainstream middle American working men and women. But O'Reilly is misrepresenting the facts. And I will de-spin it for you.

In America roughly 30% of the country are registered Democrats, 30% are registered Republicans, about 30% are registered Independents (including me) and the other 10% are Libertarian etc. I am a registered Independent, and have been all my life. But I clearly lean left, and I am a liberal, a proud liberal btw.

So while I am counted as an Independent, I am clearly not an Independent. The studies that looked at Independents show that almost nobody is a real Independent. About 9% of Independents are what they call real Independents. That means the other 91% lean left or lean right.

So 30% of the country are Independents, and what O'Reilly has done is take the 15% of right leaning Independents, who are clearly Republicans, and who just happen to be registered as Independents, who now disapprove of Obama, and labeled them as the folks.

O'Reilly makes this claim based on the fact that they are Independents, and that 15% of Independents now disapprove of Obama. Which is how you get to the 54% disapproval. So in his right-wing spin world that means the folks have turned on Obama. But it'a all a right-wing talking points lie.

Because in reality, the only thing that happened is the 15% of right leaning Independents now disapprove of Obama. The other 15% of left leaning Independents still approve of Obama, along with the 30% of the Democrats. That is how you get the 45% approval. As it is shown at Gallup and Rasmussen.

But O'Reilly spins that into the crazy claim that Obama has lost the folks. When the only thing he has lost are the right leaning Independents, who are actually Republicans that are registered as Independents. In O'Reillyworld, that is losing the folks, which is just ridiculous, and nothing but right-wing propaganda.

And one last thing, it is insulting to the rest of us when O'Reilly claims the folks do not approve of President Obama, and that Obama has lost the folks. Basically he is saying that if you do not disapprove of Obama you are not one of the folks. It's crazy right-wing garbage, because Obama has not lost the folks, he has only lost the right leaning Independents.

The only folks Obama has lost are the right-wing folks, and that is a fact. Proving once again that O'Reilly wants to smear Obama so bad he has to make things up to make him look worse. When we all know if a Republican was in the White House right now, O'Reilly would be defending everything he does, and attacking anyone that said anything bad about the President.

Behar & Goldberg Walk Off View Set Over O'Reilly
By: Steve - October 14, 2010 - 11:00am

And the first thing I have to say, is you go girl, it's about fricking time. In fact, you should have walked off the set on his crazy right-wing ass the last time he was on the View. If I were in charge, I would not even have him on the show, because he is a right-wing fool, and he is just there to promote his lame book.

Here is what happened. O'Reilly said "Muslims killed us on 9-11," prompting View walk-off by Joy Behar and Whoppi Goldberg, and then O'Reilly later said he was sorry.

Things got so heated between O'Reilly, Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg on "The View" that the co-hosts walked off the set of the show.

The incident occurred during a fiery exchange about the proposed Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero. O'Reilly said President Obama's qualified support of the center was evidence of the gulf between him and the American people. Goldberg and Behar objected strongly to O'Reilly's claim.

"This is America!" Behar said.

"Listen to me because you'll learn!" O'Reilly interrupted her, to gasps from the audience.

Goldberg asked if O'Reilly was saying that Americans were not smart enough to agree with Obama's position.

"We're Americans! We agree with him!" Behar added.

"70% of Americans don't want that mosque there. So don't give me the we business!" O'Reilly replied.

More heated crosstalk followed, until O'Reilly said, "Muslims killed us on 9/11!" That really set Behar and Goldberg off.

"Oh my God!" Behar said.

"That is such bullshit!" Goldberg said. "Extremists did that!"

Behar then stood up, saying, "I don't want to sit here now. I don't! I'm outraged by that statement." She and Goldberg proceeded to walk off the set to loud applause. After it died down, Walters cut in, admonishing her co-hosts.

Walters also criticized O'Reilly for his statements about Muslims.

"You cannot take a whole religion and demean them because of what some did," she told him.

Behar and Goldberg returned to the set following a commercial break.

And now I predict O'Reilly will spin the whole thing on the Thursday night factor, to make Behar and Goldberg out to be the bad guys in the wrong. When he is the idiot with the right-wing garbage that Musims killed us on 9-11, knowing that it was terrorists in Al-Qaeda that killed us.

I would also bet that O'Reilly did it on purpose, to get publicity and to promote his book. I doubt that he expected them to walk off the set, but I would bet he planned to say something he knew would make them mad so the national media would report it. And it worked, it's all over the media and the blogs already.

The Wednesday 10-13-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 14, 2010 - 10:00am

The TPM was called The dirtiest campaign trick we've seen so far. But what gets me is that it was started back in August. And yet O'Reilly used a 3 month old Target boycott to smear liberals, 3 weeks from the election. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Target stores are all over the country, with the company based in Minnesota. According to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Target is being targeted by dishonest far-left fanatics.

Last July, Target donated $150,000 to a pro-business group called 'MN Forward,' which supports politicians that are business-friendly. 'MN Forward' put out a TV ad supporting Tom Emmer, a Republican running for Governor of Minnesota. The ad highlighted his positions on taxes and spending, but Mr. Emmer is also a conservative socially.

Enter the vicious crew, funded in part by George Soros. Because Tom Emmer opposes gay marriage, MoveOn accused Target of bias. Unfortunately, some folks did what MoveOn told them to do and Target got hammered in some areas. If that scenario isn't dirty, dishonest and disgusting, nothing is. So the next time you hear the left scream about dirty money and shifty tactics on the right, think about Target.

You might also go to a store and buy something at Target just to send MoveOn and its acolytes a message.
And now the reality, if they want to boycott Target they have every right to, but somehow in O'Reillyworld it's wrong to boycott them, while he never has a problem with right-wing groups that call for boycotts. And it has nothing to do with dirty tricks, or any political campaign as O'Reilly claimed.

Not to mention, all the facts O'Reilly left out. He said they simply donated money to a pro-business group. But he failed to report that the $150,000 donation went to a Minnesota politician who opposes gay marriage - and that the group decided not to give a matching amount to pro-gay candidates for balance. Somehow O'Reilly forgot to mention that. O'Reilly claimed Target just gave the money to MN Forward, and they did not know the money would go to an anti-gay Republican.

Which is just a lie, in fact, O'Reilly also failed to report that after pressure from, the Human Rights Campaign and other gay rights groups, Target was asked to donate money to pro-gay candidates, and they refused to contribute any money to pro-gay rights candidates. None of that was reported by O'Reilly, he ignored it all to claim dishonest far left liberals were unfairly boycotting Target.

That facts are simple, target could have stopped the boycott by donating a matching $150,000 to pro-gay candidates, and they refused. So the boycott was valid, and nobody on the left was dishonest for doing it. But you would not know any of that if you watched how O'Reilly reported it. The dishonest one here is Bill O'Reilly, for dishonestly spinning the boycott to smear the left with it, when the bad guy is Target, and O'Reilly. And now you have the facts on the boycott, not that right-wing spin from O'Reilly.

Then O'Reilly had Karl Rove on to talk about the attacks on him for all the money he is spending on ads for Republican candidates. I have another blog posting on this, so I will not review it here. I will just say O'Reilly and Rove were totally dishonest in what they reported on the issue.

Then O'Reilly had another segment where he claimed there is more bad news for Obama. George Stephanopoulos was on to discuss it, and he pretty much disagreed with almost everything O'Reilly said. I will have another blog posting about this tomorrow. I will say that O'Reilly was caught cherry picking polls again, and that he used the segment to smear Obama, and claim that Obama has lost the folks. It's pretty much all lies, and nothing but right-wing propaganda to make Obama look bad.

In the next segment O'Reilly had Dick Morris on, who of course disagreed with the Stephanopoulos analysis of President Obama's declining popularity. Morris said this: "His was an antiseptic view, that the economy is to blame. But the reason Obama is in serious trouble now, and the reason the Democrats are going to get swept in November, is because of what they did - the spending, the borrowing, the Obamacare. And they did it all in such a high profile way."

Morris also said this: "We are going to have the most fundamental shift in American politics in more than a century. I think the Republicans will take both houses and there will be an unbelievable seismic shift."

And what Morris failed to mention is that a lot of that spending was put in place by Bush, or that if Obama had not spent so much the economy would have crashed, the banks would have failed, the stock market would have crashed, and we would have had a 2nd great depression with 20% unemployment or more, soup lines, etc. Morris and O'Reilly ignore all that and spin out this garbage that people hate Obama because he spent so much money. While ignoring the fact that he saved the country from disaster, and that his approval is still at 45%, which means everyone does not hate him just the right-wing of America.

Then the stupid body language segment, and the lame Dennis Miller comedy segment, which I do not report on because it's not news, it's just right-wing garbage to get ratings.

In the last segment O'Reilly had Juliet Huddy on for did you see that, they watched tape of former President Clinton as he ridiculed Fox News and claimed half of Republicans "need psychiatric care."

Huddy said this: "You always hear the left demonizing Fox News, but isn't it a little unstatesmanlike to say that about your countrymen? He's talking about Republicans needing psychiatric help."

Huddy also talked about Christine O'Donnell's new ad that ominously portrays her opponent Chris Coons as "The Taxman." Huddy said this: "It's pretty effective and slick, and I'm sure that ad cost a fortune. But Delaware is 'Obama-land' and she's too far behind right now."

Then crazy O'Reilly said this: "If she keeps concentrating on Coons being a big spender, she might make some inroads."

A you kidding me, O'Donnell is 19 points down with 3 weeks to go in a Democratic State. And yet, O'Reilly is still giving her a chance. It's insane, and O'Donnell has 2 chances, slim and none. Not to mention O'Reilly ran her campaign ad just to give her free air time. While not running any ads for Coons to balance it out, or having any Democrats on to comment on it.

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

O'Reilly & Rove Spin His GOP Political Fund
By: Steve - October 14, 2010 - 9:00am

Wow, this some of the biggest spin I have ever seen from O'Reilly and Rove. Basically O'Reilly put Rove on the Factor to let him spin his right-wing ass off, about his political group that is spending million of dollars on campaign ads to get Republicans elected without disclosing who gives them money.

Maureen Dowd from the NY Times, and John Podesta from the Center For American Progress both slammed Rove for what he is doing. But here is where the right-wing spin from O'Reilly and Rove starts.

In the Factor segment O'Reilly and Rove ignored their main point, that Rove is spending the millions of dollars in ads to get Republicans elected while he is an EMPLOYEE of FOX NEWS. That is most of the problem, that Rove is doing it while he works for a News Network. But O'Reilly and Rove ignored that, when that is the main issue. If Rove was not working for Fox News, almost nobody would have a problem with what he is doing.

O'Reilly said he has no idea why they are slamming Rove, really, are you kidding me, that is just dishonest, because O'Reilly and everyone with a working brain knows they are slamming Rove because he is doing it while working for a news network, and because they do not disclose their donors. Then Rove said they are only slamming him because he is a conservative, and they do not like him spending money to get Republicans elected. Which is a 100% lie, and both Rove and O'Reilly know it.

Rove called them hypocrites, and said they only oppose what he is doing because he is a conservative. Which is just ridiculous, and not even close to the truth. The problem is not Rove paying for the ads, it's the fact that Rove is doing it while working for a NEWS NETWORK.

O'Reilly and Rove also compared what John Podesta does at the Center For American Progress to what Rove is doing, and Rove said it was the exact same thing.


Earth to the insane Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove, John Podesta does NOT work for any news network, none, zero. If Podesta worked for MSNBC or CNN then you would be right, but he does not work for MSNBC, CNN, or any other news network. So what they do is not the exact same thing, because Podesta is not working for a news network.

And btw, another thing Rove got wrong is that the Center for American Progress does not electioneer or run candidate campaign ads. In response to Rove's lies, CAP released a statement noting that it is not involved in any electioneering, and that it does not run candidate campaign ads.

Not only that, CAP said that if they ever do run such ads, they will disclose the donors funding that activity. In an October 12 posting Greg Sargent wrote this about Rove's claim: "The comparison to the Center for American Progress is absurd, because it does not and has never run campaign ads."

The main problem is Karl Rove paying for these right-wing ads while he is a FOX NEWS EMPLOYEE. But you would never know that was the main issue, because neither O'Reilly or Rove even mentioned it.

And no Democratic guest was on to point that out, so all you got is total one sided right-wing spin from O'Reilly and Rove. It was a joke, and about as biased as it could get. Folks this is not journalism, it's 100% right-wing propaganda. And they make sure they get their propaganda out by not having a Democratic guest on to counter their spin.

Although the law says some of these groups do not have to disclose their donors. It is wrong, and they should all have to disclose their donors, liberal or conservative, if they have anything to do with politics, or political ads.

Update On O'Reilly & Fox Favorites O'Donnell & Paladino
By: Steve - October 14, 2010 - 8:30am

As of 10-7-10 the RCP average at Real Clear Politics has Carl Paladino losing to Andrew Cuomo by 18.8 points in the NY Governors race. So I hate to break it to you O'Reilly, your buddy Paladino is done, toast, stick a fork in him.

So all the promotion you and Fox News did for him was a total waste of time, because he is a far right idiot that should never be elected to any political office.

As of 10-12-10 the RCP average at Real Clear Politics has Christine O'Donnell losing to Chris Coons by 18.3 points in the Delaware Senate race. And O'Reilly's favotite right-wing witch is also done, toast, stick a fork in her.

And btw, as I predicted O'Reilly never did air the video he had on O'Donnell saying crazy things on his show. Even though he said he was not going to air them, not yet, he never did, as I knew he would never do.

Then on the Wednesday night Factor O'Reilly tried to help O'Donnell even more. In the did you see that vodeo segment with Juliet Huddy, O'Reilly showed a campaign ad that O'Donnell put out. Which was a total political dirty trick, O'Reilly pretended to be talking about the video, as if it was news.

When we all know he simply ran it to give her free air time on the #1 rated cable news show. Notice that O'Reilly only does these segments with Republican ads that are positive to them, he never does any segments where he shows positive ads run by Democrats.

The only time O'Reilly runs an ad by a Democratic candidate, is when he says it's an unfair and dishonest ad. Every time O'Reilly shows a campaign ad for a Republican it's great to him, and a positive ad in his book. But every time he runs an ad by a Democrat, O'Reilly slams it and trashes it as the worst political ad ever.

O'Reilly Slams Soros For Donating Money To Liberals
By: Steve - October 14, 2010 - 8:00am

Talk about some ridiculous right-wing bias from O'Reilly, this is it. On the Tuesday Factor show, O'Reilly said George Soros donates to organizations that do vicious things. But then he did not name any vicious things those organizations have done. Which does not measure up to his own standards of proof.

If a Democratic guest makes a claim about him or a Republican, O'Reilly demands they provide him with evidence that their claims are true. If they do not have that evidence, then he says they are liars and he dismisses their claims.

Then O'Reilly claims Soros donates to organizations that do vicious things, with no evidence to back up his claims. And the reason he did not provide any evidence, is because he does not have any, he just made it up to make Soros look bad.

In fact, George Soros simply donates money to liberals and liberal groups. Which is 100% legal, and how the political system works. The funny thing is, O'Reilly only has a problem with wealthy Democrats who give money to liberals, but he has no problem with wealthy Republicans giving money to conservatives.

And talk about hypocrisy, O'Reilly is the king of hypocrisy and double standards. Because while the conservative Chamber of Commerce might be using Foreign money to pay for dishonest attack ads against Democrats, O'Reilly defends it and says nothing. But if George Soros give money to liberals or liberal groups O'Reilly hammers him, and claims he gives money to groups that do vicious things.

Think about this, when has O'Reilly ever attacked a wealthy Republican for giving money to conservatives or conservative groups. Answer, never, it's never happened. That alone shows what a biased right-wing hack O'Reilly is, because he only has a problem with wealthy liberals who give money to liberals, even when it's all legal. Not to mention, most of the donors to Rove are far right billionaires, but O'Reilly has no problem with that.

And here is the kicker, O'Reilly and the Republicans supported the Supreme Court ruling that opened the door to unlimited campaign ad spending by groups that do not have to disclose where they got the money. So that also means people like Soros can donate his money and not have to disclose it. So O'Reilly should just shut up and stop crying, because he supported the ruling that let these rich guys donate all that money with no disclosure.

The Tuesday 10-12-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 13, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called More Bad News For The Democratic Party. And as usual O'Reilly used his TPM to attack Democrats, which is what his right-wing viewers love to see. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Far-left bomb thrower George Soros says he's going to stand down from the upcoming election, saying he doesn't want to get in the way of an 'avalanche.' Mr. Soros apparently believes the Republicans are going to rout the Democrats in three weeks, but I don't believe Soros.

I think he'll continue pouring tens of millions of dollars into organizations like MoveOn that try to verbally assassinate Republican candidates. Of course the bad economy is hurting the President and Democrats in general, but there is also uneasiness about the general direction of the country.
Wow, they verbally assassinate Republican candidates. Are you kidding me, all they do is quote thm and tell the truth about them. In O'Reillyworld that is a verbal assassination, give me a break. And what the Republicans do to Democrats is even worse, but O'Reilly never calls that verbal assassination. Not to mention, who uses the word assassinate when talking about political ads, nobody I know of except O'Reilly. All Soros does is give money to Democrats, and O'Reilly hates that so he smears the man, when nothing he does is illegal.

O'Reilly even compared the French Government trying to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62 to President Obama and his policies. Which is more ridiculous then saying Soros gives money to groups that do vile and vicious things. Clearly O'Reilly has gone off the deep end with his insane smears of Obama, now he claims Obama admires what France does and he wants to turn America into France, which is just laughable.

So O'Reilly had Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley on to discuss it. Colmes said this: "President Obama is on par with where Reagan and Clinton were at this point in their presidencies, and you can't always predict based on what the President's poll numbers are. But there is clearly anti-incumbency fever and people want to see split government."

Colmes makes a good point, that O'Reilly never mentions. That Obama has about the same approval numbers both reagan and Clinton had after their first 2 years, and they both got re-elected, and now they are both known as good Presidents. O'Reilly ignores all that to claim Obama is in trouble, because he is a partisan right-wing hack.

Crowley, not surprisingly, painted a far bleaker picture of the President's standing among the electorate. Crowley said this: "Mid-terms are usually referenda on the sitting president, and this year is shaping up to be a collective protest vote against most of Obama's policies. 70% of the American people oppose what he has done and what he stands for. Obama turned his candidacy and his presidency into a cult of personality, so all of these Democratic candidates are rising and falling on Obama and his policies."

Wow, that is a big time lie. Where does she get this 70% number, as of today (Wednesday 10-13-10) the Obama job approval is 46%, which means Monica Crowley is a massive liar. She pulled that 70% number out of her ass, and the corrupt O'Reilly never said a word about her lie. Not to mention, all Presidents lose seats in the first mid-term election after a new President takes over, a fact she never talks about. So it is not a referenda on the sitting president, because it happens to every one of them, no matter what they do, or what party they are in.

The next segment was great, O'Reilly cried about GE getting $25 million in federal stimulus money. Yes I said $25 million, not billion. Billy had Charles Krauthammer on to discuss it, but he threw O'Reilly a curveball and refused to criticize the company.

Krauthammer said this: "The fact that GE got $25 million is meaningless. If you're the head of a corporation you have the fiduciary duty to try to maximize your profit, and if the government comes along and offers you a check, you say, 'Thank you, I'll take it.' If the government offers you a 'green' project, you take it. That's what business is about."

Bang, Boom, Snap, Krauthammer takes O'Reilly down with a single blow, now that's funny. Even the far right nut job Krauthammer would not go with the ridiculous O'Reilly smear job of GE for simply taking $25 million dollars for a green project. It's a non-story, except with the right-wing fraud O'Reilly. So then O'Reilly dropped it and admitted his attack on GE was bogus, haha, wrong. O'Reilly then claimed GE should have rejected the money, and the fool then said this: "It gives the appearance of a greedy corporation letting the little people go out the door when they're getting taxpayer money."

Wow, that makes no sense at all. And here is my advice to O'Reilly, up your crazy old man medications. Stop digging the hole deeper, it was $25 million lousy dollars, which is like a penny to GE or the Government, GE made $156 BILLION dollars last year, do you think they care about $25 million, when even crazy Krauthammer does not care. Get a clue man, you are a smear job fraud of a right-wing hack pretend journalist. And this segment proves it.

Then O'Reilly had Republican Senator Tom Coburn on to spin how he is holding up a $1.5 billion dollar aid package to Haiti, with no Democratic guest to provide the balance. So it was all one sided propaganda, with Coburn trying to defend his actions. He claims he is not holding up the $1.5 billion, but he admits to holding up $500 million. Even though we have proof he is doing it, O'Reilly's buddy Geraldo even reported it.

So what does O'Reilly do, attack Coburn for holding the money up, haha, of course not. O'Reilly defended what he is doing, and put him on his show all alone to let him spin his side of it, which is all lies, and yet, O'Reilly never slammed him for any of it. In fact, Billy cried about the attacks on Coburn, he told Coburn that he's being portrayed as a villain, O'Reilly said this: "The argument is that you're the mean guy because people are dying and suffering in Haiti and you're not going to send them the $500 million because it's unfunded."

Then O'Reilly talked about a sex scandal at Duke University with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle, which I will not report on because it's tabloid garbage, and not real news. I will say this, O'Reilly wasted the entire legal segment on this tabloid garbage. I guess he is so senile he thinks he is back hosting Inside Edition, instead of a so-called hard news show, on a so-called real news network.

In the next segment O'Reilly had Condoleezza Rice on to promote her new book, because she is a Republican, and so is O'Reilly. Which I clearly am not going to report on, because it's not news, and has nothing to do with any news. It was just a waste of time right-wing book promotion segment.

In the last segment O'Reilly had John Stossel on to talk about the state of public education. Which is ridiculous, as if anyone cares what the crazy far right Stossel has to say about it. Stossel said this: "If I lived in the right place. I'd send my kids to public school. But I live in Manhattan where the public schools aren't very good. The system is a government monopoly, which always cheats its customers and never improves. It's crazy, yet that's what's accepted. You can't fire a bad teacher and the good ones don't make more money."

Now let me point something out here, the issue is public education. So what does O'Reilly do, have a public education expert who is liberal and one who is conservative on to discuss it, which is what a real journalist would do, no he has the insane far right partisan nut John Stossel on to discuss it. How crazy is that, about as crazy as you can get.

Then the ever lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw folks, O'Reilly had the legal segment with his 2 right-wing stooge legal analysts, but they never even talked about the Federal Judge ruling don't ask don't tell unconstitutional. Instead they talked about a stupid sex scandal at Duke, give me a break.

And as usual, the Factor was almost all right-wing spin, with 7 Republican guests, to 1 Democratic guest. And the 1 Democratic guest (Alan Colmes) had to share his time with the far right nut Monica Crowley. Tell me how that is fair and balanced.

Republican Claims Nobel Prize Winner Unqualified
By: Steve - October 13, 2010 - 9:30am

Now this is a good one, Monday, Federal Reserve Board nominee Peter Diamond won the Nobel Prize in Economics. But, despite the fact that President Obama nominated this Nobel laureate to the Fed nearly six months ago, his nomination is currently being blocked by just one senator. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), he believes that this year's winner of the highest honor in the economics profession is unqualified to actually set economic policy:
Under an arcane procedural rule, the Senate sent Mr. Diamond's nomination back to the White House on Thursday night before starting its summer recess. A leading Republican senator, Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, said that Mr. Diamond did not have sufficiently broad macroeconomic experience to help run the central bank.

As Shelby noted, Mr. Diamond is not a specialist in monetary economics - the control of the supply of credit and the setting of interest rates - which is the Fed's traditional purview.

But of the five current governors of the Fed, only two, Mr. Bernanke and the vice chairman, Donald L. Kohn, are academic economists who specialize in monetary economics. The other three include a former community banker, a former Wall Street executive and a legal scholar.
Proving that Shelby is blocking the vote for partisan political reasons. And of course O'Reilly and Fox News never say a word about any of this. But when Democrats got control of the house back in 2006 and blocked some up or down votes, O'Reilly and Fox reported it every day and said it was un-American.

Now that Republicans are doing it, suddenly it's not un-American to O'Reilly, and it's not even news anymore. Shelby even has a history of this kind of abuse of the Senate Rules to prevent qualified nominees from being confirmed. Earlier this year, Shelby held over 70 nominees hostage in an attempt to strongarm the administration into awarding a $35 billion defense contract to his state - although he later lifted these holds once they became politically embarrassing.

But Shelby, is only able to get away with these kinds of dirty tricks because the Senate rules are easy to abuse. While it is common wisdom that 60 senators are required to get virtually anything done, the reality is much bleaker - most Senate business now requires all 100 senators to consent.

The reason for this is because dissenting senators can force the Senate to waste hours or even days effectively doing nothing in order to pass a single bill or confirm a single nominee. As a recent Center for American Progress white paper explains, there is not enough time in two entire presidential terms to confirm all of a new president's nominees by the time that president leaves office.

The House has also passed over 300 bills that the Senate has not even had a vote on, and probably never will, because Republicans block all the votes, and unless you have over 60 votes nothing ever gets voted on.

As I said above, none of this is ever reported by O'Reilly or Fox News. Because Republicans are doing it, but when Democrats were doing it they reported it every day and acted like it was treason. Now it's suddenly not treason, or un-American, simply because Republicans are doing it. And all this happens while they claim to be fair and balanced.

The GOP Finally Found A Republican To Oppose
By: Steve - October 13, 2010 - 9:00am

This is a miracle, there is actually some radial the GOP will not support, a Nazi War Reenactor. They support Privatizers, Tenthers, Birthers, Racists, Tea Partiers, NY Thugs Who Threaten to Kill Reporters, and & An Ex-Witch. But they draw the line at Nazi War Reenactors.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) finally revealed just how extreme a GOP candidate needs to be in order to be rejected by their party leadership. Reacting to Ohio GOP Congressional candidate Rich Iott's membership in a Nazi reenactment group that "salutes Nazi sympathizers who viewed the Third Reich as the protector of personal freedom and their very way of life," Cantor finally repudiated Iott's candidacy in an exchange with Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL):
WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: You have one candidate in Ohio who actually thinks it's a good bonding experience to reenact Nazi battles with his son.

CANTOR: She knows that I would absolutely repudiate that and do not support an individual that would do something like that.

WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: Well you haven't.

CANTOR: I'm doing it right here.
Oh btw, notice that Cantor did not repudiate Iott until after Wasserman-Schultz brought it up on national tv. Cantor did the right thing by repudiating Iott, but his decision to do so is surprising in light of the fact that Cantor and other GOP leaders have consistently refused to denounce all the other extreme right-wing candidates in this election cycle.

More Fear Tactics Beck Claims To Never Use
By: Steve - October 13, 2010 - 8:30am

Beck has said over and over that he never uses fear tactics, but then he uses them again and again, it never stops. In fact, I could start a website page called "Beck Fear Tactics" and probably fill it with examples from every day he is on the air. The fear tactics are endless, and here is another example.

Now Beck is telling Seniors that the "country is on fire" so they need to get off the golf courses and home school their grandchildren. Other than the fact that's a lie, and crazy talk, what if the parents of the grandchildren do not want their kids home schooled by a Senior citizen.

And btw, Beck also told his followers to not let anyone tell you what to do, as he is telling them what to do. If you listen to this fool, you are just as bad as he is for spreading these lies and fear. Not to mention, not once has O'Reilly ever reported any of these fear tactics Beck uses, but when the subject is talked about, O'Reilly defends Beck and claims he does not use fear tactics.

The Monday 10-11-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 12, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Democrats Creating A Scandal. Billy implied the DNC is creating a scandal by accusing the Chamber of Commerce of using Foreign money to pay for attack ads against Democrats. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: If foreigners are donating money to the Chamber of Commerce, which is pro-business, and that organization is using the money to buy anti-Democrat ads, that would be a scandal. But right now there is simply no evidence of that and some might say desperation has set in.

Nevertheless, the Democrats have to do something, and people like George Soros, Al Franken and other far-left radicals aren't going to give up. So we can expect a bunch of scandal charges intended to divert attention away from the state of the union. That tactic rarely works, but it looks like the Democrats are committed to it.
Except there is evidence, and an investigation is needed because the COC will not disclose what they do with the Foreign money they take in. And if a Democratic group was possibly using Foreign money against Republicans O'Reilly would lose it. But when a Republican group could be doing it, O'Reilly defends them and attacks the Democrats. When all they want the COC to do is prove that no Foreign money is being used in campaign ads. And they refuse to disclose what they are doing, even though they admit they take in Foreign money. The whole thing is shady, but of course O'Reilly defends them and turns it into an attack on the Democrats.

Penny Lee was on to discuss it, and she defended the targeting of the Chamber of Commerce. She said this: "The White House is saying, that this thing could be all over if we just knew who was giving these contributions. We have seen more money being spent in the mid-term elections than ever - millions and millions by special interest groups that have no requirement to be disclosed."

Lee, a former adviser to Harry Reid, also predicted that her former boss will defeat Sharron Angle in Nevada. "There are more registered Democrats than Republicans in Nevada, and you will see a ground game like you've never seen before. Harry is focusing hard."

So O'Reilly bet her a $1,000 contribution to Doctors Without Borders, and he is betting on the far right nut Sharron Angle.

Then Brit Hume was on to discuss it, and of course he agreed with the right-wing spin from O'Reilly, which is not really worth reporting much. It was basically Hume and O'Reilly spinning out right-wing talking points. Hume said it was a get out the vote tactic to smear Rove and the COC, except that is a lie, they actually care that Foreign money could be paying for ads in American elections.

Then O'Reilly had Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham on to talk about crazy Carl Paladino getting in trouble for some statements he made about gay people. Williams said this: "This doesn't work, just as a matter of political strategy. This looks like pure bigotry at a time when more than half of the American people have no objection to gay marriage."

Ham said that Paladino continues to shoot himself in the foot. "There's a way of communicating your faith and your concern for children without disrespecting other people's lifestyles. This is all people will be talking about for a few days, and that is not what Carl Paladino needs to be talking about."

O'Reilly agreed that Paladino should be focused on jobs and taxes, Billy said this: "The only chance a guy like Carl Paladino has is the economic card because New York is in such desperate economic shape, but instead he goes after homosexuals. I hate to break it to everybody, but gays aren't causing the high taxes."

And for once they all agreed that Paladino was wrong, usually O'Reilly and Ham defend the Republican no matter what he does. But they see that Paladino is a fool, and that he is now 19 points down and they are jumping ship. And btw folks, not once in the segment did O'Reilly mention the fact that Paladino is now losing by 19 points. But when one poll had Paladino only 6 points down a week ago O'Reilly could not wait to report it. Now that he is 19 points down O'Reilly does not say a word about it, even when he does a full segment on the man.

Then O'Reilly had Ann Coulter on to discuss the Gloria Allred skit on SNL, Paladino, and Homeland Security boss Janet Napolitano. Which I will not report on, because Coulter is a far right lying propagandist. And O'Reilly is a fool for even having her on his show, it's a joke. I will say this, at one point Coulter said the whole country is boiling mad over illegal immigration. Which is just ridiculous, because the polls show that illegal immigration is maybe the 6th or 7th most important thing to people, with the economy, jobs, health care, etc. coming in ahead of illegal immigration.

In fact, almost nobody cares at all about illegal immigration, except Republicans. If O'Reilly, Fox News, and the Republicans would not talk about it every day, it would be a non-issue. And I suspect that after the elections are over it will go back to being a non-issue. The Republicans are using it as a wedge issue to fire up their base to get the to vote. And after the election it will barely be talked about anymore.

And btw, at the start of the show O'Reilly played a partial clip of the Gloria Allred skit on SNL, and then he implied that because they did that it shows that the liberal media is turning on President Obama. And I was like, what the hell, are you kidding me. How is a skit about Gloria Allred on a COMEDY show, evidence that the liberal media is turing on Obama, when it was a skit about Allred and it was not done by the liberal media, it was done by a COMEDY show. Sometime I wonder if O'Reilly is really crazy, because he says some crazy thing.

To begin with SNL is not part of the liberal media, in fact, they are not part of any media. THEY ARE A COMEDY SHOW, EARTH TO O'REILLY, IT'S A COMEDY SHOW. They are not in the media, you moron.

Then O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to discuss it, and he pretty much agreed with O'Reilly. Goldberg even said that the mainstream media would look foolish if they defended policies that the American people have overwhelmingly rejected. Which is just ridiculous, because a small majority of the people were against one or two things Obama has done, the majority support everything else he has done. So basically Goldberg is a right-wing liar.

Goldberg acted like Obama has a 30% job approval and the people are opposed to everything he has done. When he has a 47% approval, which is almost half, most likely the half that voted for him. And the vast majority of the people support 90% of what he has done. Goldberg forgets all that to spin and lie the issue, with of course no Democratic guest to counter his right-wing spin and lies.

And in the last segment O'Reilly had his ridiculous so-called reality check. I usually do not report on it because there is no reality and almost no checks. But I will report one so-called reality check. Just to show you how ridiculous this segment is. O'Reilly talked about 17 year old Miley Cyrus doing a sexy music video, he called it suggestive, and of course then he showed part of it, after the warning that you might not want your kids to see it, haha, what a joke. Especially when they have seen 100 times worse on the internet, and most likely seen it every day.

O'Reilly said this: "17-year-old former child star Miley Cyrus can now be seen writhing around in a suggestive music video. The Factor's Check: "We edited out the worst parts of that, and the Parents Television Council says Ms. Cyrus is sending a bad message to young girls."

So he shows a sexy video of Miley Cyrus, then he says it send a bad message to young girls. Now think about this, the average age of a Factor viewer is 72 years old. And it's most likely a 72 year old white Republican male, ok, now what good does it do showing that video and making it a reality check. Answer, nothing, zero, not a thing. It does nothing, except get ratings for O'Reilly from the old perverts who watch his show. That's why O'Reilly shows that stuff, it has nothing to do with any reality check, it's all about using sex to get ratings.

Ask yourself this, how many kids do you think watch the Factor, I would guess none, unless they are made to watch it with their parents. So that segment was a total waste of time, and it was a cheap way to get ratings using a sexy video of a young girl.

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

O'Reilly Still Hiding From Levin & Sullivan
By: Steve - October 12, 2010 - 9:30am

It's been almost a week now since Mark Levin and Andrew Sullivan both called out O'Reilly and asked to debate him on the Factor. So not only has O'Reilly not agreed to debate either one of them, he has ignored them, just like the coward he is.

On his radio program last Monday night, Mark Levin tore into Bill O'Reilly for failing to give him credit for his attacks on lawyer Gloria Allred. Levin called O'Reilly "a fraud" and asked Hannity, "Why is the 8 pmer so scared of me?"

Levin also said O'Reilly is welcome to come on his program to debate "anything.

Basically Levin is mad at O'Reilly for not giving him credit for his biased attack on Gloria Allred over the Meg Whitman illegal maid scandal. Because on the Monday Factor O'Reilly had Greta Van Susteren on to discuss it, and he gave credit to Greta for slamming Allred. Even though Greta made a fool of herself, and allred had the facts, which she ignored.

The whole thing is ridiculous, but the worst part is having 2 Republicans (Levin & O'Reilly) mad at each other because one of them only gave credit to Greta for the biased attacks on Gloria Allred. And when Levin calls out Mr. tough guy (O'Reilly) he runs and hides under his desk, just like he claims other people do when he calls them out.

Around the same time Andrew Sullivan called out O'Reilly for his dishonest smear jobs on President Obama. So what does O'Reilly do about that, nothing. He ran and hid under his desk just like he did with the Levin situation.

In one of his blog posts last Thursday, Andrew Sullivan took offense with a Talking Points Memo from O'Reilly's Wednesday night broadcast. He claims that, unlike the clown Glenn Beck, O'Reilly is a propagandist who distorts the state of the American progressive movement:
SULLIVAN: O'Reilly, is a propagandist - not as bad as Hannity - but dishonest and wrong. Mr O'Reilly, allow me to debate this Talking Points Memo with you, and reveal what a completely half-baked piece of nonsense it was.

I'm not Dee Dee Myers. I am not a progressive. And I think your version of this president is a caricature so unfair it deserves a real thrashing out on air, in public.
And to this day O'Reilly has not talked about anything either one of them said about him, even though he promised his viewers he would confront anyone who talked bad about him. Proving that O'Reilly is a liar and a coward.

O'Reilly talks all this tough guy stuff, but when he is called out, he hides under his desk hoping the story will die out and he will never have to deal with it. Which is what he is doing with Mark Levin and Andrew Sullivan.

Newt Gingrich Political Food Stamp Hypocrisy
By: Steve - October 12, 2010 - 9:00am

Here is proof that Newt Gingrich is a massive political hypocrite. And of course you will never hear about any of this from O'Reilly, or anyone at Fox News. In fact, almost everyone at Fox agrees with Newt, and have lied for him as well.

Basically Gingrich put out the right-wing talking points spin that Food Stamps do not stimulate the economy, even after all the experts say it is the #1 most stimulative thing you can do. Nancy Pelosi pointed this out, so the right sent out a memo to disagree with her by using lies and spin, for political reasons, simply because they hate her.

And as I have reported here, almost everyone at Fox News is parroting the lies and spin from Gingrich about it. It's the one lies (Gingrich) and everyone at Fox swears to it line. The hypocrisy is that when Bush extended Food Stamps Gingrich supported that, but when Obama does it he is opposed to it.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has launched a new crusade to label Democrats as the party of food stamps. He told reporters in Minneapolis this week that "it's perfectly fair to say Democrats are earning the title of the party of food stamps," and, in a memo to Republican candidates, urged them to use this framing as a closing argument before the November elections.

Gingrich said this: "It turns out that Barack Obama's idea of spreading the wealth around was spreading more food stamps around." And despite the obvious economic evidence, Gingrich does not believe food stamps can be stimulative to the economy. "I don't understand...liberal math," he said.

If there were a party of food stamps, however, it would certainly have bipartisan membership - including Gingrich himself. In 2002, the Bush administration sought to expand the food stamp program, and it passed. The Bush proposal extended food stamps to 363,000 more people.

The New York Times reported that the move was likely intended to curry favor with Hispanic voters, and while it wasn't popular with many conservatives, Bush did find a strong supporter in Newt Gingrich:
In an interview, Newt Gingrich said this: "I strongly support the president's initiative. In a law that has reduced welfare by more than 50 percent, this is one of the provisions that went too far. In retrospect, it was wrong. President Bush's instincts are exactly right."
Gingrich's food stamps spin memo perversely tries to credit Congressional Republicans with job gains during the Clinton years, and to blame President Obama and Democrats for a recession that began under the Bush administration. And his previous support for food stamps under Bush makes the attack even more confusing.

Fox Stooges Deny Reality On Food Stamps
By: Steve - October 12, 2010 - 8:30am

And they wonder why most people do not consider them an honest and impartial source of news, duh, this is just one reason why, they deny reality, even when the facts prove them wrong. They simply put out the right-wing spin on things, when they know it's a lie, because that is what their viewers want to hear, and that is how they get such high ratings. It's called preaching to the right-wing choir.

Here is what happened, Newt Gingrich started the lie about food stamps, and all the rest of the Fox stooges repeated his lie, it's the old one lies and the rest swear to it routine.

Fox News hosts and contributors have recently dismissed estimates of food stamp programs stimulative effect on the economy as some strange multiplier effect study, liberal math and a complicated economic multiplier theory. But in fact, economists agree that food stamps are one of "the most effective ways to prime the economy's pump."

-- On Fox & friends Michelle Malkin falsely claimed "the only thing that these programs stimulate, of course, is a bigger government."

-- On the same Fox & Friends show Stuart Varney dismissed the economic consensus regarding the stimulative nature of food stamps as a "complicated economic multiplier theory."

-- On the Fox business network Stuart Varney hosted Rick Santorum to attack food stamps and claim that "the numbers are phony."

-- On the Record with Greta Van Susteren show, Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich said this: "I don't understand how liberal math turns one dollar into $1.79."

-- Fox's Tracy Byrnes called Pelosi "loony" for saying food stamps have the best stimulative effect on the economy.

-- Fox's Gasparino called Pelosi's food stamps remark "stupid," and said he hopes she won't be speaker for much longer, even though she is right.

And now the facts:

Almost every economist in America agrees that food stamps have the best stimulative effect on the economy.

In January 27, 2009, before the House Budget Committee, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf said this: "transfers to persons (for example, unemployment insurance and nutrition assistance) would ... have a significant impact on GDP." He added: "Because a large amount of such spending can occur quickly, transfers would have a significant impact on GDP by early 2010."

In his July 24, 2008, written testimony before the House Committee on Small Business, economist Mark Zandi, a Republican who advised John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, stated that "extending food stamps are the most effective ways to prime the economy's pump."

Zandi also said this: "People who receive these benefits are very hard-pressed and will spend any financial aid they receive within a few weeks. These programs are also already operating, and a benefit increase can be quickly delivered to recipients."

Zandi included with his testimony a table stating that a "Temporary Increase in Food Stamps" had the highest "Fiscal Economic Bank for the Buck" of any other potential stimulus provision he analyzed.

Those are the facts, but Fox News ignores them to spin out their right-wing propaganda. As they claim to be the most trusted name in news, fair and balanced, and America's News Headquarters.

More Proof Bill O'Reilly Is A Conservative
By: Steve - October 11, 2010 - 10:30am

As you probably know almost every night Bill O'Reilly tells us he is a non-partisan Independent who has been fair to President Obama, and he also claims to be fair to both sides with an equal amount of conservative and liberal guests.

Despite the fact it's all a lie, O'Reilly makes the claims anyway. Because we all know he is a conservative who has not been fair to President Obama, who has 99% conservative views, and 95% right-wing guests. And now I have even more proof O'Reilly is a conservative.

The conservative website is giving away the new O'Reilly book. For anyone that does not know it, is one of the most conservative websites on the internet. They have this on a website page at

Since Bill O'Reilly interviewed Barack Obama in 2008, America has changed rapidly-some would even say seismically. And many believe these shifts are doing more than just rocking the political and social climate; they're rocking the American core.

What are these changes? Who, in addition to President Obama, have been the biggest forces behind them? What exactly do they mean for you, the everyday American citizen? How are they affecting your money, health, safety, freedom, and standing in this nation? Which are Pinheaded moves and which are truly Patriotic?

In his latest spirited book, Bill O'Reilly prompts further debate with the President and the American people on the current state of the union.

Subscribe to 12 issues of Townhall Magazine for $34.95 and receive Bill O'Reilly's Pinheads and Patriots FREE

In fact, they even say this on their website:, the nations #1 site for conservative news and politics, Townhall Magazine is the fastest growing conservative magazine with political news and opinion. Rush Limbaugh calls "must reading for conservatives who want to make a difference."

New subscribers receive their choice of a free book by Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Rebecca Hagelin, Glenn Beck, Michael Medved, Newt Gingrich, Hugh Hewitt or Mark Levin. If you are a conservative republican, libertarian, or independent who cares about our country and Washington DC, Townhall is the conservative magazine for you.
So they link every far right nut in America to O'Reilly, and then they even lie for him too, it says this on the free O'Reilly book promotion page:
For more than thirteen years, Bill O'Reilly has presided over The O'Reilly Factor on the FOX News Channel, the highest-rated cable news program, frequently topping those offered by broadcast networks.
Wrong! The O'Reilly Factor has never topped any broadcast news network. Even the last place Katie Couric at CBS has over 5 million viewers a night, and O'Reilly has never beat her, let alone ABC or NBC who get way more than 5 million viewers a night. The Factor averages about 3 million viewers a night, and that is a fact.

Here is my question, if O'Reilly is not a conservative, why is the most conservative website in America giving his book away for free. What say you Billy?

O'Reilly Blames Liberal Media For Bad Race Relations
By: Steve - October 11, 2010 - 9:30am

Okay let me get this straight, the media reports on racism from mostly white Republicans and whites in the Tea Party etc., and somehow in O'Reillyworld that means the media is to blame for deteriorating race relations in America. Wow, that is some kind of right-wing spin there.

Here is what crazy O'Reilly said:

It's crazy, it would be like having a black neighbor, and you call them the n-word every day, then the media reports it and calls you a racist. Then you complain that the media is making race relations worse in America. Which is what happened, the real media simply report on racism, unlike O'Reilly and Fox who ignore it and deny it. Then O'Reilly blames the media for reporting on real racism.

And if you think this is just my opinion of what O'Reilly said, think again. I will copy some comments about what O'Reilly said from Media Matters. They pretty much show what a biased right-wing idiot O'Reilly is, and make the same points I made.

1) Sooooooo, the far right racists/tea partiers/birthers have absolutely no responsibility huh? Says the guy who was surprised I can use a knife and fork and not scream "more iced tea m-fer". Stay classy Bill.

2) Coincidental that the perceived deterioration of race relations coincides with the ascension of the tea party? Hmmmmmmm...

3) It was the "far left media" ( I assume this means actual reporters who are not at Fox) documenting the racist signs and statements of an Astroturf scam movement that can't seem to articulate why they suddenly got very angry and scared when a black man was elected president.

That's what made people furious. I'm not sure why anybody but racists would get furious at racism being exposed, but Bill-O seems able to convince himself that none of the racism exists.

4) Well -- who knew Glenn (Obama is a racist with a deep-seated hatred of white people) Beck was a member of the far left media?

Somebody get Ailes on the line . . .

5) Maybe it's the constant, endless drumbeat from Fox News and Bill-O.

When Is A Democratic Pollster Not A Democrat
By: Steve - October 11, 2010 - 8:30am

When he works for Fox News. I have said a million times that this guy Schoen is a pretend Democrat, as in a Fox News Democrat, and now I have proof I was right.

Fox News "Democrat" Schoen to do fundraiser...for a Republican

On Fox News, where hosts and "political analysts" openly endorse and raise money for Republicans, even the "Democrats" are raising money for the GOP.

The congressional campaign of John Gomez (a Republican from NY) announced that it will hold a fundraiser this weekend featuring "top political strategist Doug Schoen." Schoen is a Fox News contributor who is usually identified as a "Democratic pollster" or "Democratic consultant."

Okay, hold it right there. What kind of Democrat is the featured speaker at a Republican fundraiser. The kind of Democrat who is not a Democrat, and who pretends to be a Democrat so O'Reilly and Fox can say they have all kinds of Democrats working for Fox.

And that's not all, guess who the other Democratic pollster at Fox is, Pat Caddell. A favorite of Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, and a guy that does nothing but praise Republicans and trash Democrats. So both the Fox News Democratic Pollsters are actually Republicans.

Schoen's Gomez event appears to be yet another appearance linked to Fox News host Sean Hannity. Remember that Hannity promised New York Republican and Conservative Party leaders he would "do all he could" to promote Gomez, help him fundraise and bring in headliners for events if they gave Gomez their party nods.

In September, Newsday reported that "Gomez arranged Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich's fundraising visit through Sean Hannity." Gomez has also drawn support from Hannity pals Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Sarah Palin, and Mark Levin.

Schoen is a frequent guest on Hannity's Fox News program. According to a search of Nexis, Schoen has appeared on Hannity's Fox News program 27 times in the past year.

So now that Schoen is fundraising for the GOP, here is my question, will Fox News still identify him as a Democratic pollster. I bet they will, most likely they will just ignore this entire story and act like it never happened, and just keep calling him a Democratic pollster, just like Pat Caddell.

Fox has 2 actual Democrats working for them, Bob Beckel and Alan Colmes, the rest are fake Democrats. Beckel is never on the Factor, because O'Reilly is scared of him, and Colmes is only on once a week, and he has to share his time with Monica Crowley, so he is not even put on alone and he can barely get a word in. When he does speak, O'Reilly and Crowley dismiss it and call him a liberal liar.

And of course O'Reilly will never report a word about any of this, because it proves that most of their so-called Democrats, are actually Republicans pretending to be Democrats, so they can use them to claim they are fair and balanced.

Palin Demands Bankrupt Republican Who Then Lost
By: Steve - October 10, 2010 - 9:30am

This may be the best story I have written about this year, except maybe the fact that both O'Donnell and Paladino are losing by more than 16 points and will get crushed in the November election.

Remember when Sarah Palin was running for governor, one of her big talking points had to do with the extravagance of then Governor Frank Murkowski. He bought a big fancy private jet. And Sarah Palin, who was just regular people like you and me, decided she would have none of that. Wild indulgences like a 2 million dollar jet just didn't mesh with her commom sense conservative values. She even claims she bought her own clothes at a consignment store, proving she was just a regular mom.

She campaigned hard against the jet, and even mentioned how she put it on eBay during that famous speech when she was tapped to be John McCain's running mate in 2008. What she failed to mention is that nobody actually bought it after four tries, and she ended up selling it at a loss, but hey, it's the thought that counts right.

Stupid Sarah has come a long way since then. Recently she went down to Georgia to campaign for Karen Handel in her Republican runoff election with Nathan Deal in the governor's race. And that is a little visit the Handel campaign will not soon forget.

Because the Handel campaign is still paying for Palin's visit. Palin's demand of a $92,000 private jet and $13,000 in hotel rooms left the campaign $83,000 in debt.

According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, "Handel's campaign paid an Ohio jet charter service almost $92,000 for the Palin trip. Handel also paid an additional $13,000 in expenses to the InterContinental Hotel in Buckhead for the event. Handel's quarterly finance report shows her campaign committee is $28,000 in debt, with another $55,000 in outstanding expenses."

And now here is the best part, wait for it, drum roll. Handel lost. So basically Stupid Sarah cost the Handel campaign over $100,000, which left them defeated and in debt. In a race that Handel lost by only 2,579 votes, don't you think the campaign is second guessing their decision to spend six figures on a jet and hotel rooms for Sarah Palin?

That money could have been used to aid the get out the vote effort on Election Day instead of meeting Sarah Palin's need to be treated like a Queen.

The big question is why didn't SarahPAC pay for this. Why did Palin force the Handel campaign to foot the bill. She was campaigning for a Republican candidate, which is exactly the kind of expense that a PAC can legally pay for.

I am guessing that Palin did not want to pay the bill because it would ruin her down home regular mom lie. She did not want private jets and expensive hotels to be on SarahPAC's disclosure report, so like any dishonest Republican, she moved her elitist tastes off her books.

Good job Palin, your expensive demands bankrupted a Republican campaign, and then she lost. Please do more of that, and then run for President, I beg you.

O'Reilly Lied His Ass Off Over Obama Policies
By: Steve - October 10, 2010 - 9:00am

If you want more proof that Bill O'Reilly is a lying, spinning, right-wing propagandist who unfairly smears President Obama, just look at this. On the Friday night Factor show O'Reilly said this in his talking points memo:
O'REILLY: The new unemployment figures are out and the jobless rate remains at 9.6%, the 14th consecutive month unemployment has been over 9.5%. Many workers are angry, even if they have jobs, because there is a fierce climate of uncertainty in the air.
Let's start with unemployment, and what O'Reilly failed to report. That same report that showed unemployment at 9.6% also said this: "Fewer people applied for unemployment benefits for the fourth time in five weeks, the Labor Department said Thursday."

So that means things are getting better, because in the last 4 out of 5 weeks less people are filing for unemployment benefits. But O'Reilly does not report that, because it makes Obama look good, and it shows that the job situation is improving.

And btw, the report also said this: "Companies are laying off fewer workers and advertising more job openings, two encouraging signs that arrived a day before the government issues the September jobs report."

And of course O'Reilly does not say a word about that either. What he also failed to mention, that is not in the report, is that a new survey of American workers showed that 83% of them say their employer is under-staffed. This means that a lot of Companies who are owned by Republicans, are not hiring on purpose, even though they need new employees, to hurt Obama politically.

You can bet that once the elections are over, if the Republicans get control of the House, they will start hiring, and then say the Republicans created those jobs. They are delaying the hiring until after the elections for political reasons, and that is not only wrong, it's un-American. And the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly does not report any of that.

But here is the worst thing O'Reilly said:
O'REILLY: Uncertainty breeds hostility and often folks lash out at the source of the insecurity. Enter President Obama, who is bearing the brunt of voter anger these days.

That's not entirely fair because the economy collapsed on President Bush's watch, but there is no question that President Obama's massive spending strategy has not improved things.
Now that is the big lie, O'Reilly contradicts himself in a matter of seconds, to unfairly smear President Obama by saying it's not fair to blame him because the economy collapsed under Bush, then what does he do, he unfairly blames Obama and claims his massive spending has not improved things.

My God is that a massive right-wing lie. I guess he forgot that when Obama took office the economy was losing 750,000 jobs a month, then within 8 months it was down to 200,000 jobs lost a month, then a couple months later it was down to 0 job losses a month, then a few months after that the economy was gaining jobs every month.

Making O'Reilly a giant right-wing liar, because the Obama spending did improve things, and it improved things a lot.

In the last 13 months of the Bush administration the economy lost 3.6 million jobs alone. Within a year after Obama took over those job losses turned around to a positive number, but according to O'Reilly the Obama spending did not improve anything, are you fricking kidding me. That is an improvement, and a massive improvement.

What else has improved you might ask, the stock market. The DOW just broke 11,000 on 10-8-10, and it's up over 12% in the last year. But according to O'Reilly the Obama spending has not improved anything.

So far in 2010 we have added an average of 196,400 jobs per month. Compared to the Bush Administration record of losing an average of nearly 750,000 jobs per month in its last three months.

And none of that also takes into account the number of jobs that were saved by the Obama stimulus, it is estimated that 2 to 3 million more jobs were saved by the Obama stimulus, and those numbers do not show up in the job number stats. Not to mention, O'Reilly and the right never give Obama credit for that, ever.

I could literally go on forever listing things the Obama spending has improved. And O'Reilly would still ignore it all to claim the Obama spending has not improved anything. Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: "There is no question that President Obama's massive spending strategy has not improved things."
Remember that folks, because it is the biggest lie O'Reilly has ever told about President Obama. And what it mostly shows is how biased O'Reilly is towards Obama, because only a totally dishonest right-wing hack would ever say that, and make that false claim.

The Obama spending/policies saved; jobs/created new jobs, the car companies, wall street, the banks, the economy, prevented a depression, increased the stock market, and on and on and on. But according to Bill O'Reilly, Obama's massive spending strategy has not improved anything.

Proving that O'Reilly is a low life right-wing hack that will say and do anything to make Obama look bad for political reasons. And the kicker is that if a Republican President had done 10% of what Obama has done to improve things, O'Reilly would scream to the high Heavens praising him every night.

Crazy O'Reilly Slams Celebs Over Haiti Telethon
By: Steve - October 10, 2010 - 8:30am

Talk about ridiculous right-wing insanity, this is it. In the Fridays with Geraldo Segment on 10-8-2010 O'Reilly showed once again what a giant far right idiot he is. during the segment he asked where all the Haiti aid money has gone. Here is what he did.

Celebrities helped raise millions of dollars to help Haiti after January's earthquake, but most Haitians who lost their homes are still living in the streets or in tents. So O'Reilly asked Geraldo where the celebrities have gone. Geraldo said this:
GERALDO: "There are many catastrophes competing for center stage, and a lot of people run to the light when the spotlight is on a particular issue. Then they follow the spotlight."
Which is just ridiculous, because those celebrities did a good thing by donating their time to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for a good cause. Then once they donate their time, they move on with their life to do their normal business. It is not their duty to watch where the money goes, even though some of them do, as George Clooney has done. Then Clooney even called O'Reilly out, and O'Reilly refused, because Clooney wanted to do it at a neutral place so O'Reilly could not edit the segemnt to make him look better.

Then on top of that the real money that is not being spent on Haiti, is the $1.5 billion the Republican Senator Tom Coburn is holding up. But O'Reilly never said a word about that, and when Geraldo mentioned it O'Reilly just dismissed it and moved on to slamming the celebs again. So O'Reilly is crying about the $100 million or so the celebs helped raise for Haiti, while not caring one little bit about the massive $1.5 billion Coburn is blocking.

Geraldo saved his harshest criticism for Republican Senator Tom Coburn, he said this:
GERALDO: "Coburn is holding up $1.5 billion for Haiti reconstruction, and he was doing it secretly. This is the largest segment of unpaid money that has been pledged to restore that broken nation."
So O'Reilly just ignores that and moved on to say that many stars have moved on to other causes and have forgotten Haiti, Billy said this:
O'REILLY: "We asked a bunch of celebrities to come on this program tonight to re-direct attention to the problem, but so far they have all declined and won't even issue statements. I'm angry about celebrities getting 'cred' for going down there and then, when the going gets rough, they won't issue a statement."
Yeah you idiot, because no celeb will ever do your right-wing joke of a show, unless they are Republicans. O'Reilly is just mad because no celebs will do his show so he can use them to get ratings. The old line, you made your bed now you have to sleep in it, comes to mind here.

O'Reilly is just mad at the celebs because they will not do his show, when he is the reason they will not do it, and they should not do his show to talk about it because stupid Fox News did not even air the telethon. Not to mention, not once did O'Reilly report that Fox did not air the telethon, and that is most likely the main reason no celeb would do his show, or any Fox show to discuss it.

And btw, Fox News is pretty much the only network in America that did not show the Haiti telethon, it was on almost every channel, including CNN and MSNBC who showed every minute of it, so that means O'Reilly has no right to question anything they did. If your so-called News Network does not even show it, you lose any right to criticize anyone for anything. You massive jerk.

What really makes my blood boil is how these celebs take time out of their busy schedule to donate their time to the Haiti telethon, which raised millions and millions of dollars, and the jackass O'Reilly slams them for it. Even though Fox did not show it, so they were no help, and even though it is not their duty to follow up on where the money went, while at the same time he ignores the real money for Haiti (the $1.5 billion) that the Republican Coburn is blocking.

The person O'Reilly should be slamming is the Republican Tom Coburn, and Fox News for not even showing the telethon, not the celebs who donated their time for a good cause. Instead he ignores that, to get in a cheap shot on the celebs because they refused to do his right-wing biased fake news show.

The whole thing was a cheap smear job by O'Reilly, and when Geraldo tried to name the real bad guy, Tom Coburn, O'Reilly ignored that and continued the smear of the celebs, simply because they refused to do his lame cable news show.

The Friday 10-8-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 9, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called O'Reilly uses the TPM to smear Obama again for the millionth time. Actually it was called Voter Anger Continues To Grow. But it was basically just another example of O'Reilly using his show to dishonestly smear President Obama because he does not like him, or his policies. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The new unemployment figures are out and the jobless rate remains at 9.6%, the 14th consecutive month unemployment has been over 9.5%. Many workers are angry, even if they have jobs, because there is a fierce climate of uncertainty in the air.

Uncertainty breeds hostility and often folks lash out at the source of the insecurity. Enter President Obama, who is bearing the brunt of voter anger these days.

That's not entirely fair because the economy collapsed on President Bush's watch, but there is not question that President Obama's massive spending strategy has not improved things.
Wow is that some kind of right-wing propaganda, check back Sunday because I am working on a detailed posting that will show what a giant liar O'Reilly is when he said the nonsense that the Obama spending did not improve anything. It is stunning to say the Obama spending did not improve anything, when it saved jobs, created jobs, saved the banks, the car companies, the economy, wall street, the stock market, prevented a new depression, and on and on.

Then O'Reilly had Dana Perino and Jehmu Green on to talk about a taped conversation between Jerry Brown and an aide, where the aide is overheard referring to Brown's opponent Meg Whitman as a "whore."

And of course they both said it was, as does everyone else, including me. It is wrong to call her a whore, everyone knows that. But here is the problem, O'Reilly never reports on any of that stuff when Republicans do it, he only reports it when a Democrat does it. Just imagine what Republicans say about Democrats behind closed doors, you can bet whore would be the best thing they say about liberal women. But you never hear any of that from O'Reilly.

Then O'Reilly gave Whitman campaign advice, he suggested that Meg Whitman would be wise to brush off the slur, Billy said this: "She could say I'm not going to make a big deal out of this, I'm just going to move ahead and my policies are better than his policies."

Take note of something folks, O'Reilly never says anything bad about a Republican, and then he even gives them advice on what to do. But you never see him give advice to a Democrat, and everything he says about Democrats is bad, he never reports the good stuff.

Then O'Reilly had Lou Dobbs on to spin his scandal that had illegals working for him. And of course no Democrat was on to balance the segment, it was Lou all alone. Lou is a massive hypocrite just like Meg Whitman. They slam employers for hiring illegals, then it turns out they both had illegals working for them.

They even say the employer should be held accountable no matter what, that it is their duty to make sure they do not have illegals working for them, except when it happens to them, then it's suddenly not their fault, and they are not to blame. So they demand other people do the same thing they did not do, it's a double standard, and massive hypocrisy. So what does O'Reilly do, report the hypocrisy and the double standard with a fair and balanced segment, haha, of course not, he had Lou on alone to spin it.

In the next ridiculous segment O'Reilly talked about how only one-third of Americans who believe relations between blacks and whites are improving. Billy laid part of the blame on the media, he said this: "The far-left media often labels people who disagree with President Obama's policies 'racists,' which has made millions of Americans furious. The far-left has been using the racial card over and over."

Which is just ridiculous, the far-left media and people like me, only call some of them racists, and only if they have a history of racism in the past. O'Reilly implied that we call everyone who disagrees with Obama racists, which is just a total lie. It's made up garbage by O'Reilly and the right to dismiss their racism, and discredit anyone who claims they are racists. As I say, if the shoe fits, wear it. O'Reilly and some people on the right are racists, and they have made numerous racist statements in the past. Which proves they are racist, he just will not admit it.

Sally Quinn said this: "The whole idea of President Obama being thought of as a Muslim, has been a huge issue between blacks and whites, so I think there's an element of bigotry involved here. And when the economy is not doing well and people are losing jobs it polarizes the races."

Then Chris Metzler said this: "You can't criticize President Obama if you're white, because then you're a 'racist.' The problem is that we're supposed to be looking at the President despite his race, so that contradiction is making a lot of people upset."

Which is more right-wing garbage, because nobody is called a racist unless they are a racist, and they have a proven history of racist statements. What this is, is a planned strategy to say that by the right, so it will stop people from calling a racist a racist. It's nonsense, and if you are not a racist you will not be called a racist.

Then O'Reilly had Geraldo on to slam Celebrities over the aid to Haiti fundraiser they had, when the Fox News Network did not even show it, CNN and MSNBC aired every minute, but Fox never showed a second of it. So the jackass O'Reilly has no right to slam anyone, when his fake news network did not even show it. Not to mention Geraldo reserved his harshest criticism for Republican Senator Tom Coburn, he said this: "Coburn is holding up $1.5 billion for Haiti reconstruction, and he was doing it secretly. This is the largest segment of unpaid money that has been pledged to restore that broken nation."

O'Reilly said that many stars have moved on to other causes and have forgotten Haiti, Billy said this: "We asked a bunch of celebrities to come on this program to re-direct attention to the problem, but so far they have all declined and won't even issue statements. I'm angry about celebrities getting 'cred' for going down there and then, when the going gets rough, they won't issue a statement."

Are you fricking kidding me, get real man. To begin with no celebrities are going to do your show, unless they are Republicans. And 2nd, why should they go on a network that did not even show the fundraiser, my God man you have lost your mind. O'Reilly is mad they will not do his right-wing show, on a network that refused to air the telethon, wow is he insane!

Then O'Reilly had Glenn Beck on to spin out his usal right-wing nonsense that is not even worth reporting, so I will move on to the next ridiculous segment.

In the last segment O'Reilly had Greg Gutfeld and Arthel Neville on for dumbest things of the week. Neville picked Presidents Bush and Obama, both of whom were criticized by "Dog Whisperer" Cesar Millan for allowing their pooches to walk in front of them. "The 'Dog Whisperer' is right," Neville said, "and Presidents Obama and Bush are in the doghouse when it comes to walking the dogs properly. The dog should be in back of you."

Okay now, hold on a second. Talk about dumbest things of the week, this is it. Who fricking cares if Obama or Bush let their dogs walk in front of them. And I would bet 99% of the people who have dogs do the same damn thing. In fact, I have never seen anyone walk a dog that was not in front of them, it's ridiculous, and really dumb. Not to mention, how the hell is this news.

Gutfeld singled out LeBron James, who suggested that race played a role when Cleveland fans denounced him for signing with the Miami Heat. "It's because he's black, not because he's a jerk?" Gutfeld asked rhetorically. "Don't inject race into every problem."

And once again Gutfeld proves he is an idiot. Because LeBron was flooded with racist hate mail etc. after he said he was leaving Cleveland. Which would never happen if he was white, so there was racism. Proving that Gutfeld is the dumbest thing of the week, for ignoring the actual racism LeBron had to deal with, these idiots on the right just refuse to admit there is racism.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, O'Reilly is not only afraid to debate Mark levin and Andrew Sullivan on his show, he has not even mentioned the fact that they have both called for him to debate them. Even though he promised his viewers he would respond to anyone who slams him or calls him out. Making O'Reilly a massive coward, just as I claim, thanks for proving me right Billy.

Nevada GOP Leader Supports Democrat Harry Reid
By: Steve - October 9, 2010 - 9:30am

And you can bet the farm you will never see this reported on the O'Reilly Factor. Not by O'Reilly, not by anyone. O'Reilly claims that Harry Reid is so bad he should not be in the Senate, but if that is true, why in the hell is the State GOP leader supporting him and slamming Christine O'Donnell.

If O'Reilly was a real journalist he would report this, have the State GOP leader on his show, and do some real journalism. But this story will never see the light of day on the Factor, because O'Reilly is a partisan hack who is protecting O'Donnell because he is a Republican just like she is. And now, here is the story, as reported by

Nevada GOP Leader Bill Raggio Endorses Harry Reid, Rips Sharron Angle

A powerful state Republican has thrown his support behind Democrat Harry Reid in the race for Senate in Nevada, while also leveling some harsh words at GOP candidate Sharron Angle.

State Minority Leader Bill Raggio released a statement Thursday endorsing Reid and describing Angle as an "ineffective" four-term assemblywoman with an "inability or unwillingness" to work with others.

Angle has not commented on Raggio's endorsement of her opponent.

Reid pointed out that it was the first time Raggio has endorsed a Democrat. "I am honored to have the support of Senator Bill Raggio, a man I deeply respect not only for his commitment to public service, but his love for this state," Reid said in a statement.

"Senator Raggio's strength as a leader stems from his fierce advocacy for northern Nevada and his willingness to get things done regardless of which party occupies the governor's mansion or controls the state legislature."

So how bad are you when your own State GOP Party leader endorses a Democrat. I would say pretty bad, but of course you will never hear about this from O'Reilly or Fox News.

Republicans Will Not Admit Palin Qualified For President
By: Steve - October 9, 2010 - 9:00am

Talk about disrespect, Sarah Palin endorsed Christine O'Donnell and pretty much got her a win in the Nevada GOP Senate primary. And yet, O'Donnell refused to say Palin was qualified to be the President.

During a taped interview with CNN correspondent Jim Acosta, the Delaware Senate candidate declined to say whether she believes Sarah Palin is qualified to be president, instead asking: "Is she running for president? ... Again, hypothetical."

O'Donnell did say the former Alaska governor gives her "'You go girl!' advice.'"

And she is not the only one, Republican Senate nominee Joe Miller was also endorsed by Palin, and he also refused to say she is qualified to be the President.

How bad are you if people that you endorsed, and people you helped get a primary win will not even say you are qualified to be the President. Pretty bad, and of course you never hear a word about this from O'Reilly, even though it's a big national news story. Todd palin even sent an angry e-mail to Joe Miller, which is the kind of stuff O'Reilly loves to report on, but only when Democrats are doing it.

Todd Palin angrily complained that Miller did not say that Sarah Palin was qualified to be president when he was asked. Sarah Palin had endorsed Miller, and in his email, Todd Palin sarcastically asked if "this endorsement stuff" will "be completely one sided."

"Sarah spent all morning working on a Face book post for Joe, she won't use it, not now," Todd Palin wrote. "Put yourself in her shoe's Joe for one day."

Media Matters is suggesting that the email exchange raises questions about a "presidential endorsement quid pro quo."

"The e-mail from Todd Palin, seems to confirm that Sarah Palin is at least doing some early work towards running for president in 2012, while being employed by and regularly appearing on Fox News as a political analyst," the group says.

"At the same time, Palin is promoting candidates like Miller on-air at Fox, and according to the email, her husband at least seems to expect that when asked (by a Fox anchor) if Palin is qualified to be president, they should be answering in the affirmative."

Now imagine if a Democrat who worked for MSNBC was doing what Palin is doing, what would O'Reilly say about that. He would call for MSNBC to be shut down, and call for the FEC to investigate them for campaign violations. But when Palin uses Fox to more or less promote her Presidential campaign, while working for Fox, O'Reilly ignores the entire story and says nothing.

Not only does this make Palin look bad, it also makes O'Reilly look like a right-wing tool, for ignoring the story. And btw, Sarah Palin has as much of a chance of being the President, as O'Donnell has winning in Delaware, slim and none.

Gingrich Plays Dumb About Food Stamp Benefits
By: Steve - October 9, 2010 - 8:30am

Basically he played dumb about the stimulative effects food stamps have on the economy. And of course he was on Fox News doing it. Then on top of playing dumb he lied about the facts, and claimed it was all liberal spin, even though the right-wing Wall Street Journal said the same thing. When it was just Newt spinning out the right-wing talking points on it like a good little far right nut.

Gingrich's new messaging strategy has been to tell Republican candidates to label Democrats the party of food stamps, while, claiming the GOP is in turn the party of paychecks. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi fired back at Gingrich. "There is some subliminal message that is being sent out there about us and them," she said, adding that food stamps are the biggest bang for the buck in terms of economic stimulus.

So Wednesday night on Fox News Greta Van Susteren show, Gingrich responded. "She seemed to get very upset," he said. "She says that for every dollar a person receives in food stamps, $1.79 is put back in the economy."

But Gingrich couldn't quite wrap his head around the fact that food stamps have a stimulative effect on the economy:
GINGRICH: Well, you know, I carry around a bumper sticker that says 2 plus 2 equals 4. So I'd be very curious how a dollar given to somebody becomes a $1.79. And I think if we could get that to work with the U.S. Treasuries, so if people gave the Treasury $1,000, it became $1,790, we could pay off the federal debt and never worry about spending or anything. I mean, I - you know, somehow, I don't understand how liberal math turns $1 into $1.79.
And of course Greta the stooge never once reported the facts, that Pelosi is right, and as usual she just let the right-wing spin doctor spin his propaganda out.

Pelosi is correct, and CNN reported that she actually understated the stimulative effect of food stamps, noting that Pelosi said "that $1.79 is put back into the economy" when someone uses $1 worth of food stamps, but "the U.S. Department of Agriculture cites an even higher figure of $1.84." In 2009, the conservative Wall Street Journal explained this so-called "liberal math" that Gingrich does not understand:
Money from the program - officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, percolates quickly through the economy. The U.S. Department of Agriculture calculates that for every $5 of food-stamp spending, there is $9.20 of total economic activity, as grocers and farmers pay their employees and suppliers, who in turn shop and pay their bills.

While other stimulus money has been slow to circulate, the food-stamp boost is almost immediate, with 80% of the benefits being redeemed within two weeks of receipt and 97% within a month, the USDA says.
It has also been reported in a Moody's financial study finding that "the fastest way to infuse money into the economy is through expanding the food-stamp program." And btw, Moody's is also not a liberal anything, in fact, they are conservative.

John King from CNN reported what Gingrich said, and he said there are some things that annoy me, referring to Gingrich's party of food stamps strategy. King said: "One thing [the election] is not about is whether Democrats like putting people on food stamps. What does that have to do with it?"

As Stephen Colbert once said, just like the truth about food stamps, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

The Thursday 10-7-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 8, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Fox News Channel Turns 14. O'Reilly went on and on about how great Fox News is, and talked about their 14 years in business. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: In the beginning there was 'The O'Reilly Report,' which came on at 6 PM. Chances are you couldn't see us in 1996 because we had very few cable clearances back then, but now we dominate television news in America.

The reason that happened was that FNC filled a void. Up until '96, most of the TV news was very liberal and few conservative voices were heard. Fox News changed all that, giving access to the right, center and left. And you, the American people, responded. A fascinating part of the Fox News story is the hatred it has engendered on the left.

Our cable news competition has been destroyed; ratings for liberal TV news are dismal and after 14 years on the air there is no doubt who has clout in America. But with that success comes a greater responsibility - we have to be vigilant every second because if we make any mistakes it becomes a page 1 story.

After 14 years, it is still you the viewer who makes the call on Fox News, and we thank you all very much.
Wow that is some big time fantasy land garbage there. Where to start, to begin with Fox is only dominating the news to the old, white, 1 to 3 million right-wing stooges that watch them. Most of America does not watch Fox, like 99% of them. And the 1% of Americans that are watching Fox, are almost all right-wing fools that love their propaganda. NBC is dominating the news, because they get 8 to 10 million viewers a night. All fox does is get the right in America to watch them.

O'Reilly also said Fox News is giving access to the right, center and left. Are you kidding me, name one person on Fox from the center or the left who has a show. Let me think, maybe it's ummmm, no. Maybe it's ummmm, nope. Can't think of any, because they are all right-wing stooges. Fox has about 5 or 6 so-called Democratic news analysts, and 4 of them are pretend Democrats.

The only real liberals they have are Bob Beckel and Alan Colmes. Beckel is never on the Factor, because O'Reilly is scared of him, and Colmes is only on once a week, and when he does get on it's always with Monica Crowley, so he has to share his time with Crowley and O'Reilly, and he barely gets a word in. Fox is all right-wing, all the time, and they let a Democrat on once in a while just to make it look good. That is a fact, that has been documented, making O'Reilly a massive liar.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to talk about how San Francisco is considering a law that would require restaurants to serve fruit and vegetables in any meal that includes a promotional toy. Crowley said this: "They say they just want the kids to be healthy, but that's not what it's about. What these things are really all about is government control over every aspect of our lives. The more power government amasses, the less power you have over your own life."

And Crowley is as crazy as Glenn Beck. They just want kids to eat more healthy food when they give out a toy in a meal, and it has nothing to do with government control. Even O'Reilly said maybe they just want kids to eat more healthy. And btw, O'Reilly said he does not allow speculation, but then he let Crowley speculate her ass off.

Colmes said this: "This does not represent liberals all over the country, this is nuts! So let's not tie this together and try to 'connect the dots.' You know who is the biggest purveyor of this stuff in America? Michael Bloomberg, the Republican Mayor of New York City."

Then O'Reilly said this to Colmes: "Surely you have noticed that the President spent a lot of currency on Obamacare, and surely you have noticed that the Obama administration wants to run the energy industry."

Are you kidding me, what the hell does that have to do with the city of San Francisco wanting kids to eat more healthy food when a fast food place has a toy in the meal. O'Reilly did just what Crowley did, he tried to link Obama to it, when he has nothing to do with any of it. Not to mention, Republicans claim to support States rights, except when they disagree with what the State wants to do. Making them massive hypocrites.

Then O'Reilly had Democratic Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell on to talk about Howard Dean saying the Tea Party is helping Democrats and hurting Republicans. Howard Dean claims the tea party has "created a monster" that is harming Republicans. Rendell said this: "I understand what Howard Dean is talking about. There are clearly people flying the tea party banner who are saying bizarre and extreme things, and that is helping the Democrats. There are Republican candidates out there who are saying some shockingly disturbing things - for example, if you're the victim of rape you have to bear the child of the rapist."

O'Reilly said that the tea party, despite including some extremists, is generally looked upon favorably, Billy said this: "I think the perception in America is that the tea party is a positive force. The individual kook is not swaying independent voters."

Except that ignores reality, because only about 20 to 30 percent of the country see the Tea Party as favorable. And what Howard Dean was talking about is how radical far right Tea Party loons have beat moderate more electable Republicans in some primary races, and now they are losing by 15 to 20 points, when the moderate would have been much closer, and maybe even winning, so Dean was right. O'Reilly ignored all that to attack Dean, because he does not like him, when what Dean said is 100% true.

Then O'Reilly had Albert Snyder and the family's lawyer Sean Summers on to talk about the Supreme Court hearing the Westboro Baptist Church case. They pretty much said they think they will win, and O'Reilly said he supports them 100 percent. O'Reilly even offered to pay his legal fees. I feel sorry for the father, but I also believe in the 1st amendment, so I think he will lose his case.

Megyn Kelly was on in the next segment and she disagreed with the Father. Kelly said this: "You can have nothing but sympathy for Mr. Snyder, but it's a question of how far the First Amendment goes. I don't think the case went well for the Snyder family this week. If the Supreme Court says that 'outrageous' speech can give rise to a claim like Mr. Snyder's, just wait for the flow of lawsuits. Abortion clinic protests and protests outside of a mosque will be banned."

Then they talked about the John Edwards case for the millionth time, the case O'Reilly said he has pretty much ignored, even though he has reported on it more than any other journalist in America. They claim he might have improperly used campaign funds. Kelly said this: "The grand jury is casting a wide net of new subpoenas to staffers and associates to try and get more information, and it all boils down to whether he used campaign funds to pay off his mistress as hush money. I have to question how strong the case is if it's taken this long."

Then O'Reilly had the Culture Warriors Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson on to talk about a naked get out the vote ad campaign in Illinois, my home State btw. The Illinois ad, intended to promote mail-in ballots, shows people voting naked. The 2 so-called warriors speculated that it was an ad targeted to young liberals, even though O'Reilly said he does not allow speculation. Not to mention, O'Reilly even disagreed with them and said it might get conservatives to vote too. Billy said this: "I don't understand why this would appeal to liberals rather than conservatives. Everybody would pay attention to this."

And the last segment was the total waste of time Factor Quiz with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum, which is a joke and not worth reporting on. Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails.

Bad News For O'Reilly & Morris & Meg Whitman
By: Steve - October 8, 2010 - 9:30am

O'Reilly and all of Fox News has defended the massive hypocrite Meg Whitman, over the illegal maid story. instead of dealing with the issue, that Whitman spoke out against employers having illegals working for them and saying they must be held accountable.

Then she got caught with an illegal working for her, so O'Reilly and Fox spin the story with diversion tactics, to attack Gloria Allred and make the story about her. When the story is about Meg Whitman, her hypocrisy, and her having an illegal working for her for 9 years.

Now she is going to lose to Jerry Brown, and that $120 million she spent will all be a waste of time. Instead of attacking Whitman, O'Reilly and the Fox stooges attack Gloria Allred, which is just ridiculous, and total bias.

Here is what the RCP poll says:

2010 California Governor - Whitman vs. Brown

RCP Average - Brown 49.5% - Whitman 43.3% - Brown +6.2%


Brown 50% - Whitman 43% - Brown +7

Rasmussen Reports:

Brown 49% - Whitman 44% - Brown +5


Brown 47% - Whitman 43% - Brown +4


Brown 52% - Whitman 43% - Brown +9

And btw, what happened is Whitman hired the maid, not knowing she was illegal, then she found out she was illegal in 2003, so she just let her work for her until 2009 anyway, hoping nobody would find out. Whitman even admitted she was a part of the family, and you protect your family. So that is what Whitman did, she tried to keep her working for her, and she knew the maid was illegal, the papers prove it.

The story is about Meg Whitman, not Gloria Allred. O'Reilly and Fox ignore that, and all the facts, to attack Allred, when all she did was be an attorney for the illegal maid. Proving that O'Reilly is a massive right-wing fraud of a hack journalist.

Bad News For O'Reilly & Morris & Carl Paladino
By: Steve - October 8, 2010 - 9:00am

Too bad O'Reilly, your favorite thug Carl Paladino is going down hard in New York. So when are you going to report this poll. It's from your favorite political website, Real Clear Politics. And yet, you are still ignoring it. You dishonest right-wing hack.

Look at this O'Reilly: RCP has Cuomo beating the far right jerk Paladino by, wait for it, drum roll, 17.2 fricking points, yes I said 17.2 points.

2010 New York Governor - Paladino vs. Cuomo

RCP Average - Cuomo 54.4% - Paladino 37.2% - Cuomo +17.2


Cuomo 55% - Paladino 41% - Cuomo + 14


Cuomo 55% - Paladino 37% - Cuomo + 18


Cuomo 56% - Paladino 32% - Cuomo + 24

PPP (D):

Cuomo 53% - Paladino 38% - Cuomo + 15


Cuomo 53% - Paladino 38% - Cuomo + 15

What say you Billy, you right-wing stooge. Even after you and Fox News tried to spin for Paladino, and you even put him on your show to help him, the jerk is still losing by 17 points.

The guy is a right-wing idiot, and a thug, and yet you still support him and put out the spin that he can win, when he is getting crushed like the low life scum he is.

Not to mention, you ignore the polls now. When he was only down by 6 points in ONE poll, you reported that, and said it was stunning he was so close to Cuomo. Now that the jerk is down by 17 points you are as silent as a mouse. Proving you are a biased right-wing fraud of a hack journalist.

And btw folks, O'Reilly is so much of a partisan hack of a right-wing spin doctor, he said that after Paladino told the reporter he would take him out, as in kill him, O'Reilly said it would help Paladino. Since then Paladino has dropped more than 10 points in the polls, proving that O'Reilly is not only a right-wing stooge, he is a clueless right-wing stooge.

Bad News For O'Reilly & Morris & Christine O'Donnell
By: Steve - October 8, 2010 - 8:30am

Looks like O'Reilly, Morris, and all of Fox News will be wrong, they all predicted Christine O'Donnell had a chance to win in Delaware, even after her dabbled in witchcraft comments were released, and Morris even predicted she would win.


O'Reilly's favorite political website Real Clear Politics has Coons beating O'Donnell in Delaware by get this, 16 fricking points, not 6 points, 16 points. Which is a landslide in politics, anything over 10 points is a crushing, and she is down by 16 points. Read it and weep O'Reilly, you right-wing fraud.

2010 Delaware Senate Race - O'Donnell vs Coons

RCP Average - Coons 53% - O'Donnell 37% - Coons +16

Fairleigh Dickinson:

Coons 53% - O'Donnell 36% - Coons +17


Coons 55% - O'Donnell 39% - Coons +16

FOX News/Rasmussen:

Coons 54% - O'Donnell 39% - Coons +15


Coons 50% - O'Donnell 34% - Coons +16

Even the biased Fox/Rasmussen poll has her down by 15 points. Funny how you never hear O'Reilly reporting this poll now. And just a couple days ago Dick Morris was still saying she had a chance to win.

And btw, if you can not get at least 40% in the polls you have no chance to win, and Morris knows that, but he still keeps saying she has a chance, which proves he is nothing but a biased partisan liar.

It's a wipeout, even though O'Reilly has tried to cover for her, by ignoring all the crazy things she has said, and her radical positions, she is still getting crushed.

So what does O'Reilly do, ignore the RCP poll, and have Morris on to say she can still win. It's laughable, and it makes O'Reilly and Morris look like the right-wing fools they are.

The Wednesday 10-6-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 7, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Obama's Disconnect From Working Americans. Which is just ridiculous, and all right-wing spin from O'Reilly. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A new AP poll says white working Americans are President Obama's biggest nightmare. Back in 2008, white voters without college degrees favored Republican candidates by 11 percentage points, but that figure has now doubled.

Talking Points believes it is the 'class factor.' President Obama and the Democrats are simply not in synch with white working class values on illegal immigration, the 'Ground Zero mosque,' and things like religion and guns. Talking Points has advised the President many times that suing the state of Arizona, failing to prosecute Black Panthers who menace a polling place, among other issues, could have easily been handled in other ways.

The liberal media would have you believe that white working class Americans are opposing Mr. Obama because of his skin color, but that is a blatant lie. The media ignores the cultural aspect of Mr. Obama's declining poll numbers because the media also looks down on working class Americans. White blue collar voters now perceive that the President does not think the way they do, and that is likely to be reflected in the November vote.
And wow is that a right-wing joke. White voters do not like Obama because he is black, and because the economy is down. What the poll shows is that there are still a lot of racist white voters, who are mostly Republicans. O'Reilly spins that into Obama is disconnested from the working white voters. Which is just insane, and nothing but right-wing spin from O'Reilly's warped mind. Even Dick Morris disagreed with him.

In the Top Story segment Dick Morris was on to analyze President Obama's apparent disconnect from many white voters. the apparent disconnect only coming from the mouth of Bill O'Reilly, and nobody else. O'Reilly dreamed it up, then he pretends everyone thinks the same way he does. And what is the O'Reilly evidence that Obama is disconnected from many white voters, he told Morris that all his friends tell him that. Are you kidding me, he based his conclusions on what his friends tell him, that is just laughable.

Morris said this: "Your reasoning is a little off. I don't think it's cultural as much as it's economic. The grass roots level is dominated by tea party activists who are mainly focused on the debt, the deficit, Obamacare, and not social issues. The reason the white working class is moving away from Obama is that they feel he doesn't believe in upward mobility, he doesn't believe in working overtime to get what you want, and he doesn't believe in the American dream. It's not about abortion, gays, guns and that kind of stuff."

Morris disagreed with O'Reilly on the disconnect part, but the rest of that nonsense is just made up lies. How the hell does he know Obama does not believe in working overtime to get what you want, that is just crazy talk from Morris.

O'Reilly insisted that cultural issues are playing a role, Billy said this: "Yes, the economy is a great concern, but my blue collar friends say the President doesn't understand them and doesn't care about them."

And you are just as big of an idiot as your friends are. And btw folks, Morris said a lot of whites do not like Obama because of the color of his skin. But O'Reilly disagreed, and cut Morris off, then he told him again that it has nothing to do with skin color. Proving that O'Reily is in denial, and ignoring the facts.

Then O'Reilly had Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano on to talk about the administration's crackdown on illegal aliens. She said this: "What we've done, is focus on criminal aliens in the United States. We've installed a system that allows us to remove aliens who have committed crimes and they're not just returned over the border, they're repatriated into the interior and southern parts of Mexico, which makes returning more difficult."

And they are deporting far more illegals than Bush did, about double, which O'Reilly gave her credit for, and said it was a good thing. Ignoring the fact that he slams Obama over illegal immigration almost every night, even though he is doing far more than Bush ever did.

Then O'Reilly pulled his usual bait & switch trick, he asked Napolitano whether her agents will deport illegal alien Nicky Diaz, who lied about her immigration status when she worked for California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman. And then he spent the entire rest of the segment talking about that one story. When Napolitano was on to talk about what a good job the Obama administration is doing deporting illegals. She did not fall for it though, and all she would say is that they will look into it.

Then O'Reilly had Alicia Menendez on to comment on the campaign ad by Florida Congressman Alan Grayson. O'Reilly said this: "Grayson's ad indicates a basic character flaw. That's probably the most vile thing I've ever seen. I don't think I've seen a more dishonest political ad and this goes to Grayson's character - he is flat-out dishonest and will do anything to get elected."

Menendez said this: "It's definitely over the top, but I have to give him credit because I've seen him get more media off of that ad. I would rather cast a ballot for someone who has a tasteless ad than for someone who has tasteless positions."

Notice that O'Reilly only attacks Democratic campaign ads, he never says a word about dishonest campaign ads by Republicans, never. In fact, all the campaign ads by Republicans that O'Reilly shows are what he calls great ads. Not once has he ever slammed a Republican ad, even though almost every one of them is dishonest.

In the follow up segment O'Reilly had the dishonest and biased far right pollster Frank Luntz on to name the most and least effective political ads of the current campaign. Luntz said this: "We showed ads to 24 swing voters, and the best one was done by the Chamber of Commerce in Ohio for Republican Rob Portman. Since that ad has been on Portman has surged, and it's because it itemizes specific proposals and transcends ideology and politics. People want specifics and not just negativity."

Luntz also sort of criticized the new ad in which Delaware's Christine O'Donnell declares she is not a witch. But then he said this: "She has a chance to win, but when she says 'I'm not a witch,' it's an embarrassment. If you take that line out it changes the entire dynamic."

Are you kidding me, to begin with Luntz rigs his focus groups with right-leaning and far right leaning people. He told O'Reilly 14 of the 24 were Obama voters, but then he said it was 24 swing voters. How can you be an Obama voter and a swing voter at the same time, it's a lie, and Luntz is a proven fraud. Then he said all the people in his group liked the Republican ad by Portman. Which is just insane, because if the 14 people were actual Obama voters they would never like a Republican ad. Luntz is a dishonest right-wing fraud, and O'Reilly is just as bad for putting that joke on the air.

Then O'Reilly had Dennis Miller on to make jokes about liberals, which I do not report on because it's not news, it's comedy, or so they claim. but I will say that Miller admitted to doing a fundraiser for Sharron Angle, even though he admitted he did not know much about her. He said he supports her because she is a Republican, and because he hates Harry Reid. Proving he is a total fool, and an idiot.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Juliet Huddy on to discuss a video of circus lions mauling their trainer in Ukraine. Which I will not report on because it's just stupid, who the hell cares about what happens to a lion trainer in the fricking Ukraine. I only care about what happens in America, and the lame Huddy made a big deal out of saying Ukraine instead of the Ukraine. Who fricking cares, wow.

Huddy also watched an Internet video in which a supposedly homeless man puts on a show with two singing puppets. Huddy said this: "It turns out that this guy is a performer who is just trying to raise awareness and this was a cute way to do it. I love it!"

And btw, O'Reilly had it all wrong. He was reporting the guy was dishonest, and pretending to be homeless man doing a puppet show to raise money. When none of that was true, so that crack O'Reilly staff got it all wrong again. The website link the guy had on the screen went to a website, with information about how to help the homeless, and it did not even ask for money. So as usual O'Reilly had it all wrong, and Huddy had to correct all his misinformation.

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

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Nevada RCP Senate Poll
By: Steve - October 7, 2010 - 9:30am

And of course he lied to make the crazy Tea Party Republican Sharron Angle look better. You never see O'Reilly lying about a poll to make a Democrat look better. Here is what the dishonest right-wing hack of a pretend journalist did.

O'Reilly said this on the Tuesday Factor show in his talking points memo:
O'REILLY: According to, Democrats are likely to retain 49 seats in the Senate, the Republicans may get 47, but four races are too close to call. In Nevada, tea party favorite Sharron Angle has pulled ahead of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid 49% to 46%, which reflects the fact that 52% of voters in Nevada disapprove of President Obama's job performance.
O'Reilly implied that Angle was ahead, and that she could win because 52% of the voters in Nevada disapprove of the job President Obama is doing. That all sounds good, except it's pretty much a lie, with O'Reilly using dishonest poll cherry picking to make that claim.

If you go to and look, you will see that they use 5 polls in the Nevada Senate race, then they average them and put out a projected winner number. Here are the 5 polls they are using:

2010 Nevada Senate Race
Fox/Rasmussen - Angle 49% - Reid 46%

Retail Ass. of Nevada/POS - Reid 45% - Angle 40%

LVRJ/Mason-Dixon - Reid 43% - Angle 43%

CNN/Time - Angle 42% - Reid 41%

Reuters/Ipsos - Reid 46% - Angle 44%
The RCP Average is 44.2% for Reid and 43.6% for Angle. So as you can see Harry Reid is ahead, but O'Reilly could not report that, so what he did was cherry pick the Fox/Rasmussen poll that has Angle ahead by 3 points, 49% to 46%, without disclosing that fact that only the Fox/Rasmussen poll says that.

While he represented that the RCP poll says that, which it does not. Not to mention O'Reilly implied that all the polls have Angle ahead, by saying she has pulled ahead of Harry Reid.

Folks, this is about as dishonest as a journalist can get. O'Reilly cited the RCP poll, then lied about what it says. Then on top of that only 1 poll has Angle ahead by more than 1 point, and that is the biased right-wing Fox/Rasmussen poll.

And O'Reilly is looking at the same poll I am, so that means he knowingly and dishonestly cherry picked the poll to claim Angle was ahead by 3 points, when the actual RCP poll has Reid ahead. It even says right on the poll that Reid is winning by 0.6 percentage points.

So O'Reilly looked at that and said, that does not make Angle look good, so I will just lie about the poll and say Angle is winning by 3 points, based on the Fox/Rasmussen poll, that has a known right-wing bias, while ignoring all the other polls that has Reid ahead.

Which is about as biased as you can get, and what makes it worse is that O'Reilly claims to be a non-partisan, fair and balanced Independent, with a no spin zone. As he is lying and spinning the RCP poll to make people think Angle is ahead.

And the fact that he would do that for the crazy far right Sharron Angle, is also proof that O'Reilly is a 100% Republican spin doctor, because you never see him doing this stuff for Democrats.

Sullivan Called O'Reilly A Dishonest Propagandist
By: Steve - October 7, 2010 - 9:00am

Which is what I have been saying for 11 years now. The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan is taking issue with a half-baked piece of nonsense that the dishonest O'Reilly put out in a talking points memo, and Sullivan is requesting that Fox News let him bring his complaint to O'Reilly's No Spin Zone.

In one of his posts last Thursday, Sullivan took offense with a Talking Points Memo from O'Reilly's Wednesday night broadcast. He claims that, unlike the clown Glenn Beck, O'Reilly is a propagandist who distorts the state of the American progressive movement:
SULLIVAN: Beck is in many ways a clown. But my own sense of him is that he is, at times, a genuine clown, not entirely fake. (I know many disagree, and I cannot judge the man's soul from a distance, but that's my hunch.)

O'Reilly, meanwhile, is a propagandist - not as bad as Hannity - but dishonest and wrong. Mr O'Reilly, I know Fox has long had a blanket ban on having me on as a guest, but here's a challenge: allow me to debate this Talking Points Memo with you, and reveal what a completely half-baked piece of nonsense it was.

I'm not Dee Dee Myers. I am not a progressive. And I think your version of this president is a caricature so unfair it deserves a real thrashing out on air, in public.
Sullivan's blog post was inspired by Mark Leibovich's profile of Glenn Beck in the New York Times Magazine. In it, Leibovich wrote that "several Fox News journalists have complained that Beck's antics are embarrassing Fox, that his inflammatory rhetoric makes it difficult for the network to present itself as a legitimate news outlet."

Sullivan said he was baffled by this, since, in his opinion, Beck was not nearly as embarrassing for Fox as Sean Hannity or, especially, Bill O'Reilly.

Sullivan had harsh words for Hannity too, saying that, compared to him, "Beck seems to me to be a relative innocent. Hannity is a cynical liar and cool propagandist...shameless does not even begin to describe the man's public character."

But he reserved most of his criticism for O'Reilly. Writing that he had watched Wednesday's "Talking Points Memo," Sullivan wrote that it was "so full of meaningless cliches about 'big government' and 'progressives,' so divorced from any coherent engagement with the reality of Obama's record and stated views, that it beggared belief."

Sullivan then responded to several of the points O'Reilly made in his segment--including one about foreign policy:
SULLIVAN: He says first that in foreign policy, progressives believe that America is a "bully" and "too aggressive."

Obama, however, has retained most of Bush's executive powers against al Qaeda (except torture), has poured more troops into Afghanistan than was ever the case under Bush, has ramped up the drone campaign in Pakistan, retained Bush's defense secretary, stuck to Bush's withdrawal timetable in Iraq, and embraced targeted killings of al Qaeda operatives, even US citizens...there is no other description of this than a travesty of the truth.
Beck is "a clown," but a genuine one. O'Reilly, though, did not get off so gently. Sullivan called him a "a propagandist - not as bad as Hannity - but dishonest and wrong." He concluded by asking O'Reilly to debate him.

And I predict it will never happen, because O'Reilly is scared to death of Andrew Sullivan, or anyone who dares to dispute his right-wing propaganda. So Mr. Sullivan, sit back and relax, because the coward Bill O'Reilly will never debate you.

Survey Shows Tea Party Part Of Religious Right
By: Steve - October 7, 2010 - 8:30am

Remember back to the good old days when O'Reilly and all of Fox News claimed the Tea Party is a grassroots movement of Independents, Republicans, and Democrats. And if you disputed it O'Reilly and Fox would hammer you by saying you were insulting those honest Independent Americans.

Now fast forward to October of 2010, O'Reilly and the stooges at Fox no longer say any of that, because it's clear that it was all a lie. And a new survey proves it, as if we did not already know. Here are the results, read this O'Reilly, then report it you fraud.

Tea Party Is Much Like the Religious Right -- Only More So

The common view that the Tea Party movement is a rebellious, libertarian threat not only to the Republican establishment but also to traditional Christian conservatives is upended by a new survey that shows a broad overlap between the religious right and voters who identify with the Tea Party.

For example, nearly half (47 percent) of Americans who consider themselves members of the Tea Party movement also consider themselves part of the "Christian conservative movement," and among the more than 8 in 10 Tea Partiers who identify as Christian, nearly 6 in 10 (57 percent) also consider themselves part of the Christian conservative movement.

The American Values Survey, released in Washington on Tuesday, was conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) and shows that two-thirds of Tea Partiers say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, while 45 percent say there should be no legal recognition for same-sex relationships. That is hardly the profile of a libertarian fringe and more closely reflects the Republican base.

On the other hand, just 11 percent of Americans identify with the Tea Party movement, as opposed to 22 percent who identify with the conservative Christian movement. So the Tea Party is perhaps not as large as it is vocal and visible in the media.

Besides puncturing some myths, the research also confirms some assumptions about Tea Party followers: Notably, they tend to be white and male, Republicans and Southerners, and they watch Fox News and love Sarah Palin.

"On nearly all basic demographic characteristics, there are no significant differences between Americans who identify with the Tea Party and those who identify with the Christian conservative movement," write the authors, Robert P. Jones, head of PRRI and Daniel Cox, the institute's director of research.

Compared to the general population, for example, Tea Partiers more likely to be non-Hispanic whites (80 percent vs. 69 percent of Americans overall), and they are far more likely to be Republicans (76 percent are Republicans or lean Republican) and are planning to support GOP candidates (8 in 10).

They remain fans of Sarah Palin (80 percent favorable rating vs. mid-40s among the wider population), don't like President Obama (75 percent unfavorable) and find Fox News to be the most trusted name in news.

Indeed, 57 percent of Tea Partiers say they find Fox News to be the "most trusted source for news about politics and current events," significantly higher than Republicans overall (48 percent are Fox fans) or Christian conservatives (39 percent) or the wider population (23 percent, vs. 20 percent who favor CNN).

In short, the profile of Tea Partiers can look much like that of some of their vocal leaders, such as Fox News personality Glenn Beck and South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint.

General findings from the survey note that the economy remains the highest priority across all categories of voters, but the profile of the Tea Party movement suggests that moral conservatism and a Christian patriotism are also closely identified with the right kind of politician, one who will deliver on the movement's economic demands.

Among the general population, one finding that goes against the received wisdom is that 54 percent of voters say they are more likely to support a candidate who voted for health care reform. That includes 51 percent of independents and nearly 8 in 10 Democrats.

The Tuesday 10-5-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 6, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called Midterm Election Four Weeks Away. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There's no question the upcoming election is about President Obama. Wherever his approval ratings are low, Republicans are leading in the polls. According to, Democrats are likely to retain 49 seats in the Senate, the Republicans may get 47, but four races are too close to call.

In Nevada, tea party favorite Sharron Angle has pulled ahead of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid 49% to 46%, which reflects the fact that 52% of voters in Nevada disapprove of President Obama's job performance. On the other side, the President has good numbers in Connecticut, and that's reflected in the Senate race where Democrat Richard Blumenthal leads Linda McMahon 52% - 42%.
Notice that O'Reilly cites the poll, then he claims Sharron Angle has pulled ahead of Harry Reid 49% to 46%, too bad it's a lie. If you go to their website right now, it has Reid at 44.2%, and Angle at 43.6%, which is a 0.6% lead for Harry Reid. I am not a math expert like O'Reilly is, but in my world 44.2 percent is higher than 43.6 percent.

The poll that has Angle ahead of Reid 49 to 46 is a FOX News/Rasmussen poll. RCP uses 5 polls, then they average them, one poll has Reid ahead by 5 points, another has him ahead by 2 points, another has it a tie, and another has Angle ahead by 1 point. Those are the polls RCP used to get their average of 44.2 to 43.6, with Reid ahead. What O'Reilly did was throw out the other 4 polls, and only report the Fox/Rasmussen poll numbers, while also ignoring the RCP average that has Reid winning.

If that's not dishonest journalism, what is. And if you think I'm spinning or lying, go look for yourself.

Then O'Reilly had the far right Newt Gingrich on to discuss it. And of course Newt agreed with O'Reilly, because they are both Republicans. Crazy Newt said this: "There is dissatisfaction with the Democratic Congress as well as President Obama."

Gingrich also predicted a GOP tsunami in November. He said this: "Democrats could lose the Senate and they're almost certainly going to lose the House."

Wow Newt, you're a genius, not. We have heard all that a hundred times before, and that's your great political analysis, give me a break.

Then the Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich was on to put out a far different outlook for his party. Kucinich said this: "Mr. Gingrich says Democrats won't go to the polls, but the fact is that as Democrats become more aware of the impact of Republican control of Congress, I think more Democrats will vote. And all the polls represent 'likely voters,' but the polls are skewed and over-represent Republicans."

Kucinich urged his fellow Democrats to plead their case to the embattled middle class. "If the middle class feels it's threatened by the set of economic programs presented by the Republicans, they won't vote Republican. And if we Democrats don't define what we're going to do, people will vote against us."

Then instead of doing a segment with the facts that show Meg Whitman is a hypocrite who knowingly had an illegal maid working for her, O'Reilly asked the is it legal team if her accuser could be arrested. Billy asked Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle whether Diaz is now in danger of being arrested and deported. "I've seen the documentation," Wiehl reported, "and Diaz had a bogus Social Security number, a bogus driver's license and a bogus employment verification form. The feds have to take action and I think she'll be arrested."

Guilfoyle agreed that Gloria Allred put Diaz in jeopardy. "This was a confession for the whole world to see - she will be arrested and eventually deported." Then Billy slammed Allred for engineering a politically motivated publicity stunt that harmed her client, he said this: "If Nicky Diaz is arrested, that leads to all kinds of charges against Gloria Allred, who put her in this position."

Which is just laughable, the guilty party is Meg Whitman, she is the one who preached against employers hiring illegals, then gets caught with one, and denies it. So O'Reilly and the right slam Gloria Allred, when all she did was expose the truth, what a joke.

Then the far right idiot John Stossel was on to talk about a local fire department in Tennessee that refused to help a man whose house was burning down because he had not paid the $75 annual fee for fire protection. Stossel argued that the fire department made the correct decision. "A contract is a contract, If he wants fire protection, he has to pay the money, and if they had put out his fire, who would ever pay the $75?

It sounds cruel, but if the fire department goes out of business and no one has coverage, that's crueler. Everybody will pay the 75 bucks next year." Even O'Reilly said that was just stupid, and he came up with a better solution, Billy said this: "If I were the fire chief, I would have put the fire out and then told the guy he owes $1,000."

Then O'Reilly did another one sided biased political segment to help Christine O'Donnell, which I will not report on, except for this. O'Reilly showed the first campaign ad O'Donnell put out, then he had Laura Ingraham on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest to provide any balance. And of course, no campaign ads by her Democratic opponent were shown. This was simply done to give O'Donnell a free campaign ad on the #1 rated cable news show, as he was pretending it was valid news reporting. So O'Reilly and Ingraham could praise O'Donnell, which is exactly what they did.

And in the last segment O'Reilly had the far right Charles Krauthammer on to slam ABC News for simply doing some real journalism. Radical Islamic cleric Anjem Choudary, appearing on ABC's This Week, proclaimed that "one day the flag of Islam will fly over the White House."

Krauthammer said this: "What's interesting about that loudmouth imam, is that he was speaking from London. In Europe you have these large, radicalized Muslim communities and imams who are outspoken in support of jihadism and Sharia law." O'Reilly criticized ABC's Christiane Amanpour, saying this: "She should have challenged that statement because the only way an Islamic flag would be flying over the White House would be by force. You either laugh at the guy or you ask him exactly what he means."

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And once again it was almost all Republican guests, one Democratic guest was on the entire show, to 6 Republicans, 7 if you count O'Reilly, which I do.

Mark Levin Calls O'Reilly A Scared Fraud
By: Steve - October 6, 2010 - 9:30am

I guess Levin is mad at O'Reilly for not giving him credit for his attack on Gloria Allred, over the Meg Whitman illegal maid scandal. Because on the Monday Factor O'Reilly had Greta Van Susteren on to discuss it, and he gave credit to Greta for slamming Allred. Even though Greta made a fool of herself, and allred had the facts, which she ignored.

Now Levin is mad because O'Reilly, or as he calls him the 8 pmer. Here is the story:

On his radio program Monday night, conservative host and close Sean Hannity friend Mark Levin tore into Bill O'Reilly for failing to give him credit for his attacks on lawyer Gloria Allred. Levin called O'Reilly "a fraud" and asked, "Why is the 8 pmer so scared of me?"

Levin also said O'Reilly is welcome to come on his program to debate "anything. Including your legal issues." From Levin's radio program:

LEVIN: Why is the 8 pmer so scared of me? Why is Bill O'Reilly so fearful of me? My name can't even cross the man's lips, not that I want anything to cross his lips, but you get the point. I laid out the whole Gloria Allred thing; it's been all over the internet.

I'm just watching this fraud during the break before I come on the program. That's what he is - a fraud. Tell you what, fraud. Anytime you want to come on here, more than happy to debate you on anything. Including your legal issues.

Who the hell would put Bill Maher on his program? That piece of crap. That loathsome piece of crap who is nothing but brutal and vicious to conservatives, who had the worst things to say about the U.S. military.

Who would put that piece of fecal matter on their program in giddy conversation? The point being what, exactly? Unless you're going to kick his ass for the whole world to see, what kind of a quote, unquote, news program does that? Yeah, Rush nailed it, absolutely nailed it. Ted Baxter. That's about right.

The happily combative Levin has attacked not only progressives, but also conservatives such as John McCormack ("ass"), Steve Hayes, Powerline's Paul Mirengoff ("small-minded"), David Frum ("nuts"), and Glenn Beck ("clown"). Levin has previously lobbed attacks at O'Reilly, as well.

Levin is, however, a close friend of Fox News host Sean Hannity, who coined Levin's nickname, "The Great One." Levin also appears on Fox senior VP Neil Cavuto's programs.

I suspect Levin is doing this for publicity, if you start a fight with O'Reilly it makes the news and that leads to higher ratings for both of them. But Levin also has a strong dislike for O'Reilly, because Levin is a far far right nut, and O'Reilly is only a far right nut.

Levin thinks O'Reilly is too moderate so he does not like him, which shows just how far right Levin is, he's basically the unknown Rush Limbaugh.

Sorkin Calls Sarah Palin Jaw-Droppingly Incompetent
By: Steve - October 6, 2010 - 9:00am

To promote his new movie, "The Social Network," screenwriter and producer Aaron Sorkin appeared on the first episode of CNN's "Parker & Spitzer" Monday night. In the process, he made some political statements, including calling Sarah Palin an "idiot."

Sorkin went on to say that the former Alaska governor is a "remarkably, stunningly, jaw-droppingly incompetent woman."

What's really stunning is that he is right, and nothing he said is not true. But of course O'Reilly and all the Fox News stooges will attack him and claim he is out of touch. When the facts show that he is 100% correct.

Fox Bias For Republican Meg Whitman Is Stunning
By: Steve - October 6, 2010 - 8:30am

As I have documented a million times, Fox News proves every day they are not a news network, but a 24/7 political arm of the Republican party. Monday's example of their bias comes from Fox & Friends, where Brian Kilmeade and Fox News contributor Peter Johnson Jr. bent so far backwards to defend Meg (hold employers accountable) Whitman's nine year employment of an illegal immigrant they nearly fell over.

First, let's look at the facts: In the race for California governor, Republican candidate Meg Whitman campaigned heavily on the immigration issue, stating that she wanted to "hold employers accountable" for hiring illegal immigrants.

Then came the allegations that Whitman employed an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper for over nine years, only to fire her just before she started her campaign. Whitman claims she didn't know the woman was in the United States illegally, and that the allegations are politically motivated. Even though there is a copy of the Social Security letter to her, with her husbands hand written note on it.

So, Kilmeade had Johnson Jr. on to cover what they claimed were "both sides" of this housekeeper issue, saying that Brown "didn't waste any time attacking Whitman in their big debate." With nobody from the other side, so it was not both sides of the issue, it was one side, and that one side defended the Republican Whitman.

Johnson Jr. didn't waste anytime carrying water for Whitman, making sure to mention Whitman's claim that she didn't know the woman was illegal, and then decided that Democratic candidate Jerry Brown's behavior was "sick" and "cynical" because he simply pointed out that Whitman broke the law.

He and Kilmeade then jumped all over Brown, claiming that he was the mayor of a sanctuary city and therefore had no right to talk about Whitman, and he had the chance to eliminate sanctuary cities and he failed, he failed. And, just for good measure, Kilmeade went for a little divisiveness, asking what they were doing having a Spanish debate in America.

So Brown is "sick" for simply pointing out that Whitman hired an illegal immigrant despite calling for "accountability" for employers who do the same. And that's called fair and balanced on Fox, when the reality is it's 100% right-wing bias.

The Monday 10-4-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 5, 2010 - 10:30am

The TPM was called A Political Hit Job. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Last week the nation saw an example of how dirty politics can get. In the California gubernatorial race, liberal lawyer Gloria Allred accused Republican candidate Meg Whitman of employing an illegal alien named Nicky Diaz. Ms. Whitman denies any wrongdoing, saying she thought her employee was legit. Californians are smart enough to decide the issue for themselves, but there's no question that Ms. Diaz is being used to hurt Ms. Whitman.

Greta Van Susteren confronted Gloria Allred on Fox News and told the lawyer she had 'outed' her client. But the attacks on Meg Whitman did do some damage - a new poll shows Jerry Brown now leading 49% - 44%. This whole incident brings up questions of loyalty, lies and dirty tricks. In other words, it is politics as usual.
There is so much wrong in that statement I barely know where to start. To begin with, it's not dirty politics, because Jerry Brown had nothing to do with it. It was done by Gloria Allred, an attorney, and she is not in politics. And it only hurts Whitman because it shows her hypocrisy, she hurt herself by having an illegal working for her. O'Reilly defends Whitman, and acts like she did not know the maid was illegal, when we know she did because there is a copy of a letter with her husbands wrting on it.

Then O'Reilly had Greta Van Susteren on to discuss her interview with Gloria Allred, with nobody to balance Van Susteren. So it was a biased interview with only one side of the story. Then O'Reilly said Van Susteren skewered Gloria Allred Friday evening. Which is just laughable, and nothing but his biased opinion. I saw the interview, and Allred made a fool out of Van Susteren. All Van Susteren did was accuse Allred of playing politics to unfairly hurt Meg Whitman. While Allred had the facts, and even held up a copy of the letter, which Van Susteren ignored.

Van Susteren said this: "I thought it was disgraceful, that Gloria, as a lawyer, would throw her client under the bus, both for the illegal documentation issue and also for perjury. Then O'Reilly predicted that Gloria Allred's tactics will backfire, Billy said this: "The polls show that Jerry Brown benefitted from this, at least in the short term. But I think when the dust settles, people will start to figure out that this whole deal was pretty unseemly. Meg Whitman is a billionaire and she didn't need to hire an illegal alien."

All during the segment O'Reilly defended Whitman, and agreed with every word Van Susteren said. But they never talked about the facts. They just went on and on about how unfair it was to Whitman, and how bad Allred is for doing it. But if you look at the O'Reilly TPM he even admitted it was politics as usual, and we all know that if it was happening to a Democrat they would not even care.

The FACTS show that Whitman knew the maid was illegal in 2003, and that she was part of the family when they found out, so they let her keep working for them. The letter proves it, plus the husband denied he knew, then once the letter was put out he admitted he knew. Making him a proven liar, who can not be trusted to tell the truth. But O'Reilly and Van Susteren ignore all that to cry unfair politics, when everything that is legal, is fair in politics and they both know it. They only cry foul when it happens to a Republican, and it's ridiculous.

Then O'Reilly had the Republican Carl Paladino on to kiss his ass and let him spin his threats etc. O'Reilly did a mostly softball interview, but he did ask him about the threat, and if he regrets it. but the crazy Paladino said he had no regrets, showing that he is crazy. Because O'Reilly only put him on to say he was sorry for the threat, and the dumb ass Paladino blew it. At one point Paladino said all he wants to do is talk about the issues, but O'Reilly never called him on that lie. Because he is the guy who accused Cuomo of cheating on his wife, and said he had proof of it, but when asked for the proof, he did not produce it.

If that's talking about the issues, I'm Joe Montana. The interview was a joke, and O'Reilly should be ashamed to call himself a journalist. Then as it was ending O'Reilly said we invited Mr. Cuomo on to be balanced, haha, yeah right. I would bet that is a lie, and I would also bet he will never have Cuomo on the Factor.

Then Brit Hume was on to discuss it, and for once Hume actually acted like a real journalist. Brit Hume said that Paladino hurt himself in the prior segment. Hume said this: "When I heard he was going to be on with you. I felt he would do everything he could to get the incident behind him. Instead, he said he didn't regret it at all. He should regret it! It's just not smart politics to get into a shouting match with a reporter and tell him he's going to 'take him out.' When you do that you cross the line between tough guy and thug."

Wow, I'm shocked. Hume actually sounded like an impartial journalist, for once. But then of course O'Reilly defended Paladino, Billy said that Paladino's combativeness may be an intentional strategy, he said this: "People are fed up and I think Paladino knows he's not going to get any establishment help. Some people are going to vote for 'thugs' this time around - they've had it with the genteel stuff that's crippling this nation."

All during the interview O'Reilly did nothing but defend Paladino and make excuses for him. At one point Hume even mentioned the racist e-mails Paladino sent out, and O'Reilly cut him off to say yeah yeah yeah we already know all that, then changed the subject to cover for Paladino.

Then O'Reilly had Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham on to talk about a poll on Obama. It showed that Obama's popularity remains sky-high among black Americans, and he asked them if it will help Democrats in the November elections. O'Reilly made a ridiculous statement that if you take blacks and liberals out of the poll Obama has very little support with the rest of the Country, and I say duh, no shit sherlock. And of course Ham agreed with O'Reilly. Juan said this: "You're starting to see, what pollsters call a 'tightening.' The numbers are closing in states across the country, and in large part this has to do with Democrats making the case that there are some extreme Republican candidates."

Then O'Reilly had the far right Factor media bias analyst on to discuss the Rick Sanchez firing for calling Jon Stewart a Bigot, and for saying Jews control the media. Goldberg said this: "Even though what Sanchez said was really dumb, I don't think he should have been fired."

Billy argued that Sanchez, whose ratings were microscopic, had to go, O'Reilly said this: "CNN sells their credibility as a hard news organization. If you're going to have an anchorman making stupid statements, how can you have a dumb guy there?"

Which is just laughable, Sanchez is not dumb, he just said something stupid, which O'Reilly does every night. And if they fired everyone in the news business for saying stupid things, O'Reilly and everyone at Fox would be in the unemployment line.

In the last segment O'Reilly talked about the One Nation For Jobs rally by liberals on Saturday in Washington. Which O'Reilly called a flop, even though he admitted that thousands of people were there. In O'Reillyworld if a rally does not have 300,000 people it's a flop. Except the Beck rally only had 87,000 and O'Reilly called that a great event. Billy also lied during the segment that the Beck rally had hundreds of thousands of people. When the official crowd estimate done by an ariel photo service said the crowd was 87,000, with a plus or minus margin of error of 9,000. That means it could have been 78,000, or 95,000, which is not even close to hundreds of thousands.

And who was the guest to discuss the One Nation rally, Ann (total right-wing nut job) Coulter, that's who. Of all people, Ann Coulter, are you kidding me. And of course there were no Democratic guests on to discuss it, none, not one, nobody. And I normally do not report anything Coulter says, but this time I will, because it was so stupid, and so ridiculous I want everyone to see what an idiot she is.

Coulter said this: "I think they wanted to get the last 10,000 Obama supporters together, for one last hurrah. Maybe they thought they'd estimate the crowds based on the garbage left behind."

Coulter also ridiculed those on the left who accuse tea partiers of racism.

"Apparently if you don't have an exact proportion of every race in your rallies, that's evidence of racism. And I didn't see a lot of white faces Saturday, so we can conclude that this rally of the last 10,000 Obama supporters was a racist event. I call on the Democratic Party to denounce the extremist elements in their movement."

Wow is she an idiot, other than Beck she may be the biggest right-wing jerk in America. And btw, it was a positive rally about jobs and the economy, with no hate and no racism. But O'Reilly called it a flop, and said it hurt the liberal cause. Which proves that he is just a total right-wing jackass.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. And btw, not one Democratic guest was on the entire show, it was all Republicans all the time. One e-mail was great, because it actually told the truth, but of course O'Reilly ignored it after reading it. Here it is:

Lim Leverett, Atlanta, GA: "O'Reilly, you are not fair. If you disagree with someone you loud talk them and cut them off."

Fox Defends Paladino Take You Out Threat
By: Steve - October 5, 2010 - 9:30am

Before I show you what two-faced (biased) right-wing stooges almost everyone at Fox News are, let me say this. It is crossing the line for anyone in politics to make threats against a journalist, even if that journalist works for Fox News. Which is what makes the defense of Paladino from the Fox stooges so shocking.

And let me also say this, as far as I can tell Brit Hume is the only person at Fox who has said the threat from Paladino against Fred Dicker was crossing the line. Remember, these are people who claim to be fair and balanced impartial journalists.

Most of the Fox stooges have praised Paladino for the altercation, calling him "refreshingly honest" and "iconoclastic," while criticizing Dicker for being "unprofessional."

For anyone who does not know what happened, because Fox almost never shows the whole tape, read this. It started when Dicker asked Paladino if he had any proof of his shocking allegation that Democratic rival Andrew Cuomo cheated on his former wife during their marriage:
"What evidence do you have for something most people would consider a smear?" Dicker asked.

Instead of responding to Dicker's question, Paladino accused him of sending a "goon" to stake out his former mistress at the home where she lives with their love child.

Sunday's Post featured a front-page story about Paladino's wife, Cathy, and his ex-lover, Suzanne Brady. It included an exclusive interview with Cathy Paladino.

"You send another goon to my daughter's house and I'll take you out, buddy!" Paladino told Dicker.

When Dicker asked how he planned to do that, Paladino replied, "Watch!"

"Are you threatening me?" Dicker asked.

When the candidate's aides jumped in to separate the men, Paladino, referring to Dicker, told them, "F--k him."
And btw, on the Monday O'Reilly Factor Paladino told O'Reilly he has no regrets for saying what he did, and that he does not take it back, or plan to say he is sorry.

Here is what the Fox stooges said:

-- Mike Huckabee: "I really like" Paladino, NY Post "stepped way over the line." He went on to criticize Dicker for having "injected himself into the story" and being "unprofessional" and "confrontational."

-- Bill O'Reilly: "Paladino helped himself with altercation because people are so fed up. I think Paladino doing what he did, you know, the wisdom is that he hurt himself. I think he helped himself."

-- David Asman: After Democratic strategist Christopher Hahn said that Paladino "derailed his campaign," Asman replied, "I would not be so sure of that. By the way, a guy standing up to a guy in the media -- the media, after all, is down there along with Congress in terms of low opinion."

-- Gretchen Carlson: On Fox & Friends, Gretchen Carlson said of Dicker: "I have to say, after seeing that now, that reporter was in his face. She added that she was not going to "defend what Paladino said at the end, because that did sound like a threat."

-- Sean Hannity: On his September 30 show, Hannity said that Dicker's original question to Paladino was "legitimate," then praised Paladino's reaction, saying, "I'm kind of enjoying that he's got the establishment off-balance, and they don't know how to deal with this guy because he's so outspoken."

Then Paladino went on a mission to spin his side of it on a friendly right-wing news network, Fox News. He had interviews with Megyn Kelly, Sean Hannity, Eric Shawn and Bill O'Reilly. While refusing to do any show on CNN or MSNBC. Because he knew the Fox stooges would support him, and give him a softball interview, which they did.

O'Reilly Makes A Fool Of Himself Again
By: Steve - October 5, 2010 - 9:00am

While talking about the Obama job approval numbers at a 45% average for September, O'Reilly made a total ass of himself. He said "If you don't count African-Americans and liberals, Obama has very little support in the rest of the country."

That's like saying if you don't count old white right-wing nuts, O'Reilly has very little support in the rest of the Country. And if you said that, O'Reilly would be highly insulted. Just as it's insulting to cite a poll then throw out everyone with views you do not like.

Earth to O'Reilly, you can not cherry pick a poll and only talk about what you like in it. The purpose of a poll is to measure what everyone thinks of something, not just the people you agree with, dumb ass.

O'Reilly Bias In Ignoring The Stock Market
By: Steve - October 5, 2010 - 8:30am

Ever since President Obama took office 21 months ago, whenever the stock market has a one day, two day, or even a week of down days O'Reilly will report on it. And he blames it on Obama, O'Reilly will say the market was down because Wall Street does not like his liberal policies. O'Reilly will say it's all Obama's fault, simply because the market had a temporary drop, that happens under every President.

But when the market had these same temporary drops in the 8 years under George W. Bush, not once did O'Reilly blame it on him. In fact, O'Reilly would ignore it, or in the rare case when he did talk about it he would blame it on everyone but Bush. One time O'Reilly even blamed it on the Democrats, when the Republicans had the White House, the House, and the Senate.

What really shows the right-wing bias from O'Reilly against Obama is that when the market goes up O'Reilly ignores it, and does not say a word about it, or give credit to Obama. So in O'Reillyworld, when the market drops it's Obama's fault, but when it goes up, he gets no credit for it, and O'Reilly does not even report that the market went up.

Including September of 2010. This September, traditionally the most difficult month for the stock market, is turning out to be the best September since 1939. The S&P 500 added 2.05% thanks to the 2.12 percent pop on Friday when Germany's IFO Business Climate Survey slightly improved in September setting the tone for higher open in the futures market.

Then came the durable goods report for August from Department of Commerce which showed overall demand in durable goods rose 2 percent excluding the volatile transportation sector.

It also reported a healthy 4.1 percent increase to capital goods, signaling a rebound in business spending after falling 5.3 percent in July.

And here are some other facts:
-- In the last 30 days the Dow is up 3.04%.

-- In the last 3 months the Dow is up 10.47%.

-- In the last 6 months the Dow was down 1.42%.

-- In the last year the Dow is up 12.84%.
As you can see the Dow has been up in every period except the slight 1.42% drop in the 6 month time frame. But if you watch the Factor you would think the market had dropped like a rock and it was doing terrible, and O'Reilly blamed it all on Obama.

When in fact, the market is up 12.84% over the last year, and Obama was in office the entire time. But not once has O'Reilly ever mentioned any of those numbers, or given Obama credit for it. Because he is too busy lying to you, with the false smears on Obama, as he blames him for a short term temporary drop in the market that happened one time in the last year.

It's like A-Rod hitting 350 for 4 months, then he has one bad month where he hits 250, and O'Reilly slams him as a bad hitter because of one bad month, while ignoring the other 4 good months. That is what O'Reilly does with Obama and the market, ignore the good days, but slam him for the few bad days.

And that is just one more example of the right-wing bias from O'Reilly against President Obama. Making the statement that he has been fair to Obama, laughable to the 10th power.

O'Reilly Shills For Crazy Carl Paladino
By: Steve - October 4, 2010 - 10:30am

In this video the so-called non-partisan Bill O'Reilly basically spins his ass off shilling for the Republican Carl Paladino, as if he is working for Paladino as his damage control man.

O'Reilly defended Paladino, for saying he would take a reporter out, as in kill him. Paladino told the reporter he would take him out, but to O'Reilly that was a positive because he claimed it reflects the people's anger. But that anger had nothing to do with the people, he said it because the newspaper the reporter worked for sent someone to get photos at Paladino's Daughters house. Paladino threatened to kill a reporter for sending someone to a house where his daughter lived, which has nothing to do with the anger of the people.

If that's not bias what is, because the number of times O'Reilly has defended a Democrat for threats to a reporter is ZERO. Then on top of that O'Reilly is going to have Paladino on the Monday Factor to help him spin it, and to get him publicity.

While not having the Democrat running against him, Andrew Cuomo on to spin for his campaign. Which is 100% proof that O'Reilly is a biased right-wing con man.

Another Fox Anchor Defends Paladino
By: Steve - October 4, 2010 - 9:30am

On the 10-1-10 America Nightly show on Fox, David Asman joined O'Reilly to praise Crazy Carl Paladino for what he called sticking up to the media. Asman praised the NY governor candidate who threatened a reporter, Asman called it "standing up to a guy in the media."

Okay so get this, not only are O'Reilly and Asman biased for Paladino, they are hypocrites with double standards. Because when a Republican does what they call standing up to the media, they defend him, and praise him. But when President Obama stands up to Fox and calls them out for their bias, they slam him and call him a liar.

And if a liberal running for office told a Fox reporter he would "take him out" what do you think O'Reilly and Asman would say. You can bet the farm they would slam him, and say the man is a thug who should not be elected. In fact, O'Reilly did not just defend Paladino, he said what he did would help him, and then invited him to be a guest on the Factor.

What gets me is how they can do this and then claim to be impartial fair and balanced journalists. When what they are doing is the same thing people on their campaign are doing, spinning for his screw up. And btw, Paladino later said he was sorry for the threat, and also admitted he has no evidence that Cuomo cheated on his wife.

O'Reilly slammed Democrats for unfair personal attacks on Meg Whitman, even when it was not a personal attack, just the truth. And yet when Paladino uses a personal attack on Cuomo by saying he cheated on his wife, with no evidence, then later admits he has no evidence, O'Reilly is silent as a mouse.

Folks, this is hard evidence of bias from O'Reilly. Open your eyes, just look at what O'Reilly does every night. It's nothing but attacks on Obama with 95% partisan right-wing guests, and covering for crazy Republicans like Palin, O'Donnell, Paladino, Angle, etc.

Obama Job Approval Since September Of 2009
By: Steve - October 3, 2010 - 9:30am

About every 2 days O'Reilly will do a TPM or a segment, or both, on the Obama job approval numbers. In each case O'Reilly claims the Obama job approval numbers are going down, down, down, or dropping like a rock, crashing, etc.

If that was true, his approval would be down to 30 percent by now. But's it's not, the Gallup daily tracking poll has President Obama at 46 percent approval, as of 10-3-10.

O'Reilly makes these false claims to make you think the people are getting more and more disappointed in what Obama does. When in fact, the Obama job approval numbers have virtually stayed the same over the last year, from September of 2009, to October of 2010. Here is the screen capture of the chart from

As you can see, the Obama job approval numbers slowly dropped to about 50 percent approval in August of 2009. This happens with every President, especially when you start at 70 percent approval. From January of 2009 to August 2009, his ratings slowly dropped 20 points, to 50 percent approval.

But since then his numbers have remained mostly the same, dropping to 42 percent one time, but the rest of the time it has stayed between 45 and 50 percent. That is a 5 point swing, over a year, it will go up a point or two, and down a point or two.

So there has not been a big drop over the last year, as O'Reilly claims. No crashing poll numbers, no dropping like a rock, just a mild flucuation of 3 to 5 points, which is normal for any President.

What this shows is that O'Reilly is a biased liar, that he tries to fool people into thinking everyone is hating Obama more and more the longer he is in office. It's all lies, from O'Reilly. And what's really shocking is that he claims he is a non-partisan Independent, who has been fair to Obama.

When the facts show he is a partisan right-wing hack, who has not been fair to Obama, and who has used almost every show he does to smear and lie about Obama. Once in a while he will say something to defend Obama, maybe 1 percent of the time. Then he uses that as evidence to claim he has been fair to Obama.

Which is just ridiculous, and classic O'Reilly. It would be like me slamming Stupid Sarah Palin every day for a month, then I say something good about her one day, then I say I have been fair to Stupid Sarah. That would also be ridiculous, just as what O'Reilly claims.

Fox Media Watchdog Show Ignored GOP Donations
By: Steve - October 3, 2010 - 8:30am

Riddle me this: When is a media watchdog show not a media watchdog show?

Answer: When it's a Fox News media watchdog show.

On the Saturday 10-2-10 Fox News (so-called) media analysis show, Fox News Watch, host Jon Scott and the show's panelists lined up to slam President Obama's criticism of their network as pushing a "destructive" political viewpoint. But they never did talk about the recent news that News Corp. gave $1 million to an organization (Chamber of Commerce) spending tens of millions of dollars to defeat Democratic congressional candidates.

Obama told Rolling Stone magazine that Fox News is part of the tradition of using the press "very intentionally to promote their viewpoints" because Fox "has a very clear, undeniable point of view" that "is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth" of the country.

And as I have pointed out a million times, Fox has a long history of promoting the Republican agenda, and of opposing economic positions which economists say would stimulate growth.

And the Fox News Watch stooges were not happy. Because they really hate it when the President tells the truth about them.

And there was no mention, none, that News Corp. had donated $1 million to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is also planning to spend $75 million on the 2010 election, and has already devoted nearly $7 million to the benefit of GOP Senate candidates alone.

A Nexis search reveals that the Fox News Watch show has also never mentioned the August News Corp. $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association, the GOP organization that helps coordinate Republican gubernatorial campaigns and pays for independent ads in support of their candidates.

According to Bloomberg News, News Corp. was "the Republicans' biggest corporate donor" this year. Politico's Ben Smith has reported that according to a source "close to News Corp.," the company believed the donations were "supposed to be secret."

And Fox News Watch is doing everything it can to keep it a secret. Not to mention, Bill O'Reilly has not reported on either million dollar donation. Even though he does a weekly media watchdog segment with the right-wing Bernie Goldberg, they have both ignored the donations, and not said one word about it.

Which is probably why there is no Democratic media watchdog on the Factor, so they can cover for Fox and the Republicans, by only reporting what they claim is liberal bias in the media, while ignoring all the conservative bias on the Factor, Fox, etc.

O'Reilly Ignores New Poll While Promoting Paladino
By: Steve - October 2, 2010 - 10:30am

Here we go again, O'Reilly is so biased for Republican candidates it is ridiculous. First he lied for Meg Whitman, and then he lied for Carl Paladino. To begin with, last week O'Reilly cherry picked a poll about the NY governor's race with Republican Carl Paladino and Democrat Andrew Cuomo. The Quinnipiac poll had Paladino only 6 points down and O'Reilly called it stunning that he was so close.

While ignoring a Siena Research poll, that had Cuomo leading by 34 points, 57 percent to 24 percent. So Friday morning a new poll comes out that has Cuomo ahead by 16 points. Cuomo is leading Paladino by 56 percent to 40 percent in a Marist Institute poll conducted Sept. 27-29. But O'Reilly never said a word about either poll, the only poll he reported is the one that had Paladino 6 points down.

And here is what makes it ever worse, if that's possible. On the Friday night Factor show O'Reilly had a segment on the race with Geraldo. Not only did O'Reilly ignore the new poll, he promoted Paladino, said his threat to take out a journalist would help him, and he plans to have him on the Factor Monday night.

So in O'Reillyworld if a Republican tells a journalist he will "take him out" as in kill him, That's a positive to O'Reilly. Now imagine if a Democratic candidate said that to say a Fox News reporter, me thinks O'Reilly would have a slightly different view of that. Just look at what O'Reilly said:
O'REILLY: Carl Paladino, the Republican candidate for Governor of New York, nearly came to blows with a political reporter this week.

People in New York are so fed up and the state is so dysfunctional that I think Paladino helped himself. People are going to say he might be what we need to get the state under control. Carl Paladino will enter the No Spin Zone Monday evening.
Wow, can you be any more of a right-wing ass kisser. If Cuomo did that to a Fox reporter, O'Reilly would call for him to quit the race, and tell people to not vote for him. But when the Republican does it, O'Reilly loves it, says it helped him, and invites him on the Factor to kiss his ass some more.

Then on top of that, not once does O'Reilly mention the new poll that now has Paladino 16 points down. And that Factor visit is only being done to give Paladino free air time, on the #1 rated cable news show to help him gain votes. But you notice that Cuomo is not given the same free air time.

This is ridiculous, and the FEC should be cracking down on this partisan election bias. O'Reilly claims he is just doing an interview, when we all know it's a free infomercial for Paladino, to make him look good on a friendly show that will not cost him a dime.

On the O'Reilly website it even says this: "Nastiness ratchets up in New York gov race"

Yeah and it's all from Paladino, the man is a jerk, he has said he will use a baseball bat to clean up New York, he made threats to a New York reporter, he put out false rumors that Cuomo cheated on his wife, and he forwarded racist e-mails about President Obama and his wife.

So what does O'Reilly do, reward him with a Factor interview, promote him, ignore most of what Paladino has done, fail to report most of the polls on the race, and basically send out the message to vote for Paladino.

My question is this, after the Meg Whitman ass kissing, and the Carl Paladino ass kissing, how the hell can O'Reilly claim to be a non-partisan Independent journalist. It's like he is working for their campaigns, instead of being an impartial journalist.

Paladino is a far right nut, who should be in anger management classes, not the Governor of New York. And instead of reporting that, O'Reilly promotes the guy and helps him by giving him a free campaign add on his show.

The Friday 10-1-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 2, 2010 - 9:30am

The TPM was called More Propaganda From Rep. Maxine Waters. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Yesterday Rupert Murdoch, CEO of Fox News parent company, traveled to Capitol Hill to urge passage of a fair immigration law. Congresswoman Maxine Waters, a far-left zealot, turned the immigration testimony into an anti-Fox News diatribe, complaining about 'hosts talking about anchor babies.'

Ms. Waters gives herself away with the 'anchor babies' line - for her the issue is not about legal immigration, it's about illegal immigration, which she likes and wants. Some of us here at Fox News believe chaotic illegal immigration is harmful to the country. That doesn't make us anti-immigration, it makes us anti-lawbreaking.

We have robust debates here with plenty of views on immigration. To accuse Fox News of being anti-immigrant is dishonest and disreputable. Ms. Waters owes this entire network an apology.
And that is just laughable, if anyone owes anyone an apology it's O'Reilly, Fox News, and virtually all the Republicans. Because they are anti-immigration, and that's a fact, so Ms. Waters is right, and she does not owe anyone an apology. The right wants to change the Constitution to ban babies born here to illegals from becoming American citizens. And virtually everyone at Fox supports it. To claim O'Reilly and Fox are not anti-immigrant is a joke.

Then O'Reilly had Democratic Congressman Luis Gutierrez on to discuss it. Gutierrez said this: "When I come on, there's usually an anti-immigrant Congressman."

O'Reilly challenged Gutierrez to set the record straight, Billy said this: "This is the premier broadcast on Fox News and we have been flat-out fair in this debate, we put on just as many liberal voices as conservative voices. But Ms. Waters characterizes Fox News as anti-immigrant."

Wow is that insane, because O'Reilly has not been fair in the immigration debate. For one thing he calls them illegal aliens, which is not fair at all. He has also lied about the crime rate among illegals, and he has used right-wing propaganda to spin the debate, when they just come here for work. And to say he has as many liberal voices as conservatives in the debate is beyond a lie. O'Reilly has a 7 to 1 ratio of Republicans to liberals on his show, and it's really 7 to 0, because almost none of his guests are actual liberals, most of the Democratic guests who get on are moderate Democrats, and half of them work for Fox News.

Then O'Reilly had another smear segment on Obama for doing exactly what Bush and every other President does, campaign for their people before an election, O'Reilly called it desperation. O'Reilly had Dana Perino and Leslie Marshall on to discuss it. And of course the right-wing stooge Perino agreed with O'Reilly. But Marshall said it's fine for President Obama to do it. She said this: "I don't think it's desperation. What I think I heard from the President is energizing the base and stimulating them to get out and vote."

Then O'Reilly talked about the 10-2-10 Washington One Nation jobs rally by liberals, and of course he hates it, and tried to smear them. "Our march," said the NAACP's Hilary Shelton, "is focused on the real values that emanated from the original march by Martin Luther King Jr. in 1963. This is a coalition of people working on jobs, justice and education. We want to create a million more public sector jobs."

So it's a group of liberal Americans who are marching on Washington to speak out on jobs, justice, and education. Great idea right, not in O'Reillyworld. O'Reilly implied the communist party was involved, Billy asked Clarissa Martinez to comment on the participation of the Communist Party, but she sidestepped the issue. She said this: "We have the power, to build an economy that works for everyone. Most Americans are concerned about the state of our economy right now and believe we need jobs that allow us to provide for our families and a good education system."

It's a jobs and education rally by honest hard working liberal Americans, but O'Reilly turned it into a communist party rally. What a fricking joke he is, and that statement just proves what a right-wing idiot O'Reilly is. He claims to never use right-wing talking points, but that is exactly what he did, claim the communist party is involved to make them look like bad Americans.

Then O'Reilly had a segment on the NY Governors race with Paladino and Cuomo, and I have another blog on that. And Glenn Beck was on to talk about President Obama, who has criticized unnamed "talk show hosts" who call him names and question his citizenship. Beck and O'Reilly played dumb as said who me, we do not do that. O'Reilly said this: Billy theorized that President Obama may have the wrong idea about some radio and TV hosts: "He might put you and me in the category of hosts who are mean and despicable. But he doesn't really see us enough to know what we're doing, that we're just trying to get the bottom of President Obama."

Wow is that a load of garbage, he even mentioned the fact that Beck called Obama a racist. But they ignored the million other times Beck and everyone at Fox has called Obama names, like marxist, communist, etc. It happens every day, a hundred times a day on Fox, and O'Reilly knows it. He just refuses to admit it, because he is a right-wing stooge who lies when he gets caught doing something wrong.

And finally the two Republicans Arthel Neville and Greg Gutfeld were on for dumbest things of the week. Which is not worth reporting, because this segment is the dumbest thing of the week, and it has nothing to do with reporting the news. This is more of that equal liberal voices garbage O'Reilly claims, 2 Republicans and 0 Democrats. Same thing with the Culture Warriors, the legal team, the Factor news quiz, Dennis Miller, etc. The facts show that 95% of the Factor guests are Republicans, and yet O'Reilly still lies about it.

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

O'Reilly Caught Lying For Republican Meg Whitman
By: Steve - October 1, 2010 - 9:30am

On the Thursday O'Reilly Factor Bill O'Reilly had a talking points memo and segment on the Meg Whitman illegal housekeeper story. And it may be one of the most dishonest things I have ever seen O'Reilly do. To begin with O'Reilly called it a dirty tricks political smear job by her Democratic opponent Jerry Brown.

O'Reilly defended Meg Whitman and said nobody knows if she knew the housekeeper was an illegal. When that is a flat out lie, and we know she knew because the housekeepers attorney has a copy of a letter from the SSA with her husbands hand written note on it.

On the O'Reilly website, on the segment summary page it said this before the show even aired.

"We take a look at some dirty tricks going on in a few races."

Notice it says he is going to take a look at some dirty tricks in a few races. That was also a lie, because he only looked at one race, the race between Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman for Governor of California. So his own website was lying about the TPM and the segment on it.

O'Reilly claimed it was dirty tricks for Jerry Brown to run an ad about the illegal housekeeper, ok how, where is the dirty tricks, when the ad was true. And btw, O'Reilly did not even mention the letter from the IRS, or that Whitman's husband had written a note on it, proving he got it. Not to mention after the copy of the letter was made public he suddenly remembered that he got the letter. And O'Reilly did not report any of that.

O'Reilly also failed to mention that Whitman has spoke out against employers who hire illegal immigrants, she even said that if you own a business it is your duty to make sure you do not have any illegals working for you. That the employer must be held accountable if they are caught with an illegal working for them. Then she is caught, and she blames it all on Jerry Brown, with no proof he had anything to do with it.

And yet, O'Reilly defended Whitman and called it a dirty trick by Brown, for simply running a campaign ad that told the truth. When he has no evidence, none, that Jerry Brown had anything to do with it. And the Brown campaign has said they did not know the housekeeper, and have never spoken to her. O'Reilly tells liberals they can not make charges without proof, then he does it himself.

The central issue is whether Whitman knew about a letter that the Social Security Administration sent her in 2003 that raised discrepancies about the housekeeper's documents - a possible tip-off that she could be illegal. The letter is the foundation for claims by former maid Nicky Diaz Santillan that Whitman and her husband knew for years she was in the U.S. illegally, but kept her on the job regardless.

For two days, Whitman forcefully denied receiving any such letter and said she fired the housekeeper last year immediately after learning she was illegal. But Whitman's husband changed course Thursday after a letter surfaced with his handwriting, forcing him to say he may have been aware of the correspondence back in 2003.

Revelations about the illegal housekeeper have also thrown Whitman's carefully managed campaign completely off track and opened the door for Democrats to accuse her of hypocrisy.

The former eBay chief executive has called for tougher sanctions against employers who hire illegal workers, and the fact that she employed an illegal immigrant maid from Mexico for nine years could undermine her credibility. She has also spent millions courting Latino voters, who could play a key role in determining the outcome of the race.

The housekeeper and lawyer Gloria Allred later produced a copy of the letter that shows Whitman's husband, Dr. Griffith Harsh III, partially filled it out and told the housekeeper to "check on this."

The April 22, 2003 letter addressed to the Whitman's home in Atherton included a handwritten note - which Diaz said was that of Whitman's husband, Dr. Griffith Harsh - saying "Nicky, please check this. Thanks."

Earlier that day, Whitman appeared in an hour-long press conference with Dr. Harsh standing at her side and repeatedly denied that either one of them had ever been contacted by the Social Security Administration about a "mismatched Social Security number for Diaz.

And btw. Whitman and her campaign have alleged that Diaz and Allred are fronts for Democratic groups and the campaign of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown. But Allred denied the allegation and said she had not been in touch with Brown for years.

And Bill O'Reilly did not report any of this information, as he was saying nobody knows if Whitman knew the housekeeper was illegal. Then O'Reilly had Laura Ingraham on to agree with him, and they both lied about Whitman not know she had an illegal working for her for 9 years.

Basically O'Reilly tried to help the Republican Whitman with a cover up, by ignoring all the facts, and spinning out her explanation, as if he was working for her. And if you had any doubts O'Reilly was a biased right-wing hack of a fraud journalist, those doubts were removed in this segment.

In the 10 years I have been monitoring O'Reilly, this was one of the most biased right-wing spin job segments I have ever seen O'Reilly do. He pretty much tried to cover the whole thing up, by using the talking points from Whitman and her campaign spokesman. It was like he was working for her campaign as the damage control man.

The Thursday 9-30-10 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 1, 2010 - 9:00am

The TPM was called Dirty Tricks in Politics. O'Reilly reported on some dirty tricks being used in a few political races. And of course O'Reilly did not talk about any dirty tricks by Republicans, even though they use them far more than Democrats do. O'Reilly said he does not endorse political candidates, haha, yeah he just smears all the Democrats, and tells people not to vote for the Democrat.

O'Reilly cried about the illegal housekeeper Meg Whitman had, and called it a dirty trick by the Democrat. But that is ridiculous, and O'Reilly defended her. Even though there is a letter from the IRS that notified her the housekeeper was illegal. And who believes she worked for her for 9 years and she did not know she was illegal. What a joke, it's not a dirty trick to point out the truth.

Then O'Reilly had Laura Ingraham on to discuss it. And she just joined in with O'Reilly calling it dirty tricks, sleazy, and a drive by attack. While ignoring the fact that the facts show Meg Whitman knew the woman was illegal. They defened her because they are Republicans, and Whitman is a Republican too. Ingraham also slammed the housekeeper's attorney, Gloria Allred, and said she gives attorneys a bad name.

And btw, if this had happened to a liberal, O'Reilly and Ingraham would say it was just politics, they only complain when it happens to a Republican. Now here is a good one, neither O'Reilly or Ingraham reported that Whitman said just 2 days ago that employers should be held accountable who have illegals working for them. Then she is caught with an illegal working for her, for 9 years in her own house, and she denies it with no accountability.

Then Megyn Kelly was on for the Kelly File segment. Kelly also talked about the Whitman case, Kelly said because the maid was paid $23.00 an hour it was ok, and O'Reilly called it a bogus lawsuit, even though no lawsuit has been filed. O'Reilly said nobody knows if Whitman knew she was illegal, when that is a lie, we do know she knew, because they have a copy of a letter from 2003 that the IRS sent her telling Whitman the maid was illegal, her husband even admitted he saw the letter. O'Reilly is such a right-wing stooge it's pathetic. They also talked about David Beckham suing InTouch magazine. My comment to that is who fricking cares, and how is this hard news we need to know. It's ridiculous tabloid garbage and I refuse to report on it.

Then the Culture Warriors Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson were on. they talked about a student who jumped from a Bridge after being caught having sex with a male student on a camera placed by his roommate. Funny how O'Reilly reports this, but ignores the O'Keefe story. Then they cried about kids using dirty words, they claims kids use dirty words more these days, are you kidding me, what a joke.

Then O'Reilly had the parents of a 17-year-old who was shot to death by an illegal alien on to talk about Stephen Colbert's Congressional testimony. And my God you have to be kidding me. I even agree it was wrong for Congress to have Colbert testify, but this was ridiculous. To put the parents of a kid who was killed by an illegal, just to use it to smear the Democrats and Colbert. O'Reilly is a low-life for using these kind of tactics. Especially when the story is a week old, and everyone has moved on.

Then it was part 2 of the highly edited Bill Maher interview, where almost all the good stuff Maher said was edited out and only on the website version. If O'Reilly was a real journalist he would not edit these interviews, and let the people see the whole thing, un-edited. O'Reilly cried about Bill Maher saying people are stupid, and he also said the people who believe in religion are morons.

Maher said 60% of the American people are stupid and uninformed, and to be honest, Maher is probably right. Maher said christians are hypocrites, because they only want to believe in the happy half of the bible. O'Reilly said he does not see it that way. Maher pointed out how they cite portions of the bible that are good, while just ignoring the parts they do not want to talk about. O'Reilly also said he does not know if evolution is real, so he is a wanna be creationist. He says God may have created everything, which is fantasy, and exactly what Maher told him.

And finally is the last segment was the ridiculous total waste of tv time Factor News Quiz, with Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum. Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the highly edited Factor e-mails. As usual O'Reilly ignored a bunch of big news stories, like the O'Keefe story, and the news about all the O'Donnell lies, etc.

More Proof O'Reilly Lied About Health Care Costs
By: Steve - October 1, 2010 - 8:30am

Remember this, back in early August O'Reilly blamed his own $2,100 health care premium rate hike on the Obama health care plan. O'Reilly decided that Obama was to blame for the rate increases, claiming that "American health insurance companies are building in the anticipated costs of Obama-care.

I reported here that he was lying, and now I have the proof. The Chicago Tribune, and other websites like, are reporting the real reason premiums are going up.

Health care costs rise 6 percent to 8 percent annually, primarily because advances in medical technology and the increasing use of medical services by an aging population. (Michael Tercha/Tribune)

So health care costs go up 6 to 8 percent every year, with or without Obama-care. O'Reilly blamed the entire increase on Obama, when in fact the cost of health care goes up 6 to 8 percent every year.

In 2011, the combined average of premium and out-of-pocket costs for health care coverage for an employee is projected to climb to $4,386, according to an annual study by Hewitt Associates. That's a 12.4 percent increase, or $486, over this year.

Overall health care costs continue to rise 6 percent to 8 percent annually, primarily because advances in medical technology and the increasing use of medical services by an aging population.

And in the wake of the recession, employment trends also are affecting health care costs: Companies are hiring fewer younger people, so premiums paid by this segment of the working population who typically use fewer health services are not absorbing the costs of older employees who do.

"An older population tends to have chronic conditions like diabetes," Vlajkovic said. "And when your hiring rates have slowed, you are not bringing in a younger work force."

Premiums are being affected by the implementation of the new federal health care law, but the impact is expected to be minimal.

"Health care reform has added to the cost burden, but that is only an additional percent or two," Vlajkovic said.

Industry analysts have said the health law could temper cost increases for everybody once the more than 30 million uninsured have coverage because it will spread risk over a larger population. Although several major new consumer benefits started last week, this broadened coverage will not go into effect until 2014.

"Reform creates opportunities for meaningful change in how health care is delivered in the U.S., but most of these positive effects won't be felt for a few years," said Ken Sperling, Hewitt's health care practice leader.

Next year, workers are expected to contribute about $184 a month, 12 percent more than they do now. Their out-of-pocket costs will jump, too, rising 12.5 percent, to $181 a month in expenses, which include covering deductibles as well as co-payments and co-insurance for prescriptions and visits to the doctor.

Workers will get a first glimpse of health care costs during the coming weeks of open-enrollment season, the annual corporate ritual that allows employees to select or change their benefit plans for the following year.

Hewitt's projections are calculated using data from 350 major employers and more than 14 million health plan participants spending more than $50 billion annually on health care, and they are averaged out per worker. Employees with family coverage tend to pay more, and workers with single coverage tend to pay less.

Funny how O'Reilly never reported any of that information. Yeah because it includes the facts, not the right-wing spin O'Reilly used to smear Obama. What it shows is that O'Reilly lied when he blamed the increases on the Obama health care bill.

All Of Fox News Ignored The O'Keefe Story
By: Steve - October 1, 2010 - 8:00am

Wednesday, the news broke that conservative James O'Keefe tried to pull an odd and ill-advised prank on CNN reporter Abbie Boudreau. O'Keefe set up a boat with overtly sexual props, and planned to lure Boudreau on to the boat and videotape her being "seduced" by O'Keefe.

The story even led to condemnations by a few conservatives, but not anyone on Fox News. A search of Fox's primetime shows and Wednesday morning's Fox & Friends showed no mentions of the O'Keefe scandal.

And it's not as if Fox has no idea who O'Keefe is, they obsessed for months and months over his bogus ACORN videos. Hannity called O'Keefe a "pioneer in journalism," O'Reilly said he should receive a congressional medal, and Beck called him "courageous." Fox & Friends even hosted O'Keefe in a pimp costume on their After the Show Show.

I suppose a story depicting O'Keefe less as a "courageous" "pioneer" of conservative journalism, and more of an immature creepy kid doesn't quite fit into Fox's narrative.

So what did Fox & Friends cover instead of this breaking news story. They continued with their freak out over Stephen Colbert's congressional testimony from six days ago, apparently taking co-host Gretchen Carlson's promise to make him the lead story of the show for the days following his testimony very, very seriously.

To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: