The Monday 11-31-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 1, 2011 - 11:00am

There was no TPM because Monica Crowley was hosting for O'Reilly. She went right to her top story with Karl Rove.

They started with the news that Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain was accused by two women of sexual harassment when he headed the National Restaurant Association in the 1990's. Rove said this: "The Cain campaign is not handling this well so far. When this broke over the weekend their first response was to say this is a smear by the mainstream media. Then today he came out and said he had been falsely accused. I suspect there will be a demand that the National Restaurant Association release the results of the investigations that were done."

Rove also criticized Cain and his staff for apparently being caught off guard, saying this: "He should be prepared for things like this because he's a serious presidential candidate. I find it hard to believe that his campaign didn't know this was coming and was as badly prepared as it was."

Rove then turned to the Obama team's escalating attempts to paint Mitt Romney as a flip-flopper and a "man with no core." Because of course he can not just do a segment on Republicans without hammering Obama for something.

Rove said this: "I don't think this is smart on the part of the Obama campaign, because it signals that the guy they're scared of is Mitt Romney. It's also laughable because Senator Obama ran an ad during the last campaign calling government-run health care 'extreme,' then came into office and passed 'Obamacare.' He attacked the debt under George W. Bush as being too big, then came in and ran up annual deficits ten times as large. And in the United States Senate he didn't vote 315 times on major issues. This is really sad and the President and his people are making a mistake."

Now think about this, Rove is a right-wing stooge, so when he says something a Democrat is doing is not smart, you can bet the farm what the Democrat is doing is smart, and that Rove just does not want to admit it, and that he has to say it is not smart to try and fool people into thinking he is right.

Then Brit Hume was on to talk about the latest poll in Iowa that shows Herman Cain and Mitt Romney in a virtual tie for the lead. Hume said this: "Both Romney and Cain have done reasonably well in the debates, and that has been the substance of the campaign so far. But when we get down to it in the final weeks before the voting begins in Iowa, voters will expect to see more of these candidates. They will make choices based on what they think of the candidates when they see them face-to-face and retail campaigning will become more important in the final weeks."

Hume also said that "the conservative base of the Republican Party is restless and is still looking for an alternative to Mitt Romney."

Then Juan Williams & Mary K. Ham were on to talk about the GOP candidates. Crowley said the former GOP front-runner Rick Perry, whose poll numbers have fallen with each debate, is now trying to position himself as a poor debater but a strong leader and job creator.

Ham said this: "You're never in a great position, when you have to concede that you're not great at something. He's banking on the fact that conservative voters are sick of a showy speaker like Obama and frustrated with a guy like Romney. He's also trying to say he has done things in Texas that are impressive. There's a chance that he can bring up his numbers, but it's going to take a lot of retail politicking and a lot of organizing in Iowa."

Williams was even more skeptical about Perry's attempt to re-launch his campaign and re-craft his image, saying this: "Just last week he put out his tax reform plan and got no traction whatsoever - people were mocking it and questioning it. And in Iowa he's not just behind Romney and Cain, he's behind Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann. It's going to be very hard to revive his fortunes and he's on the edge of oblivion."

Then Newt Gingrich was on, who Crowley claims has been surging in Iowa and elsewhere. Gingrich said this: "Part of it is substance and real solutions. People are looking at my track record - my involvement with Ronald Reagan, who brought unemployment down dramatically, and then as Speaker of the House working with President Clinton when we brought unemployment down to 4.2%. Folks are looking at what I'm doing as a very good step in the direction of rebuilding America, while President Obama represents a radically different vision of America's future."

Crowley claims Gingrich is gaining momentum because of his commanding performance in the debates, saying this: "We are one year away from the presidential election, and I think a lot of conservatives and Republicans are trying to visualize the first presidential debate. And they are seeing that you are the smartest guy in the room and probably the only guy who could make mincemeat out of President Obama."

Which just shows what a right-wing idiot Crowley is, and what a Newt butt kisser she is, because Newt has two chances to win the GOP nomination, slim and none.

Then the far-right stooge Bernie Goldberg was on to cry about the media reporting of the wall street protests.

Goldberg said this: "There is a handy rule of thumb, If the media share your values, you will get an easy ride; if they don't share your values, fasten your seat belt because it's going to be a bumpy ride. They treat the Tea Party one way because they see conservatives as people who aren't very nice and who are racist. But they see these demonstrators as young idealists, sort of the American version of the 'Arab Spring.' Many journalists will never look inward, they will never see their biases, and there is no hope for them ever coming around and doing the right thing."

So then crazy Crowley accused many reporters of hypocrisy and blatant bias, saying this: "Here we have the very rich irony of major network news anchors and reporters who are making a gazillion dollars a year empathizing with 'Occupy Wall Street.' These protests have some serious lawbreaking going on - there is drug use, violence, open sex, and anti-Semitism - and yet the media is romanticizing this movement."

And finally in the last segment Ben Stein the Republican was on to try and de-brainwash Crowley from her right-wing thinking over taxes, but of course it did not work.

Bill Gates talked about taxing the ultra-wealthy more, and Crowley debated the issue with Ben Stein, a conservative economist who endorses hefty taxes on wealthy Americans.

Stein said this: "I would raise taxes on the highest earners by quite a lot, and then I would have the government aggressively try to cut spending and get us into a position where we don't bankrupt this country."

Crowley said that higher taxes would kill the fragile economy, but Stein disagreed, saying this: "We don't know that. That is the hypothesis of the tax-cutters and supply siders, but we don't know if it's true. We had much higher taxes under Ronald Reagan for the first few years of his tenure, and it isn't clear at all that raising taxes on the very rich would have any harmful effect on the economy. We have cut taxes way too low relative to our spending."

Not to mention this: Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and the economy boomed for the next 8 years adding 24 million new jobs, which is something neither Crowley or O'Reilly will ever address. Because it kills their crazy spin that if you raise taxes on the wealthy it would kill the economy and not create jobs. They ignore that because it is proof they are wrong, and it's also proof that liberal policies can work, which they also ignore.

Then the lame pinheads and patriots nonsense.

O'Reilly Spins Koch Brothers Tea Party Link
By: Steve - October 31, 2011 - 10:00am

On the Friday Factor show O'Reilly slammed Leslie Marshall for daring to point out the connections between the Koch Brothers and the Tea Party.

O'Reilly claimed that Occupy Wall Street "is not a spontaneous protest," but rather is linked to "George Soros, MoveOn, the SEIC, and many far-left journalists." Marshall responded to O'Reilly's claims by pointing out the links between the Koch brothers and the Tea Party, a comment that O'Reilly did not appreciate.

Here is a partial transcript:
MARSHALL: Well first of all Bill, any organization, any movement, any protest is going to be exploited to use your term by somebody. Whether it be the Koch brothers with the Tea Party on the right, George Soros with the Occupy Wall Street Movement on the left.

I would say Bill that you are giving the movement, in a sense, more power when you're talking about this -- not just demonizing but anarchy and the real agenda, the real goal.

I really believe that the real agenda and the real goal and the majority of these people are just that -- people that are frustrated with the disparity in wages, are frustrated by the constant reports even this week that the rich are getting richer, they're frustrated by the current state of the country and the government.

O'REILLY: Well, you can believe in anything you want, you're an American. But you made a statement that the Koch brothers are tied into the Tea Party financially. Can you prove that?

MARSHALL: The Koch brothers did fund Tea Party candidates such as Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin.

O'REILLY: Leslie, Leslie, you are a Fox News contributor, you have a responsibility. Can you prove that the Koch brothers are tied into the Tea Party financially? Can you?

MARSHALL: With a check in hand, no. But --

O'REILLY: Thank you. Thank you --

MARSHALL: The Koch brothers have never denied the financial trail.

O'REILLY: Your turn is over, Leslie. Your turn is over. We'll get back. And I want to remind you not to make statements you can't back up on this network. We don't do that on this network. Other networks do. We don't.
Is that the funniest thing you have ever heard, O'Reilly lies and spins every night with no proof, then he claims he never does that, yeah right, and I'm Elvis too.

And that is not O'Reilly's first attempt to cover up the Koch-Tea Party connection. But no matter how much O'Reilly protests, the Tea Party and the Koch brothers are closely linked.

In August, 2010, New Yorker's Jane Mayer wrote that Americans for Prosperity, a foundation established by David Koch, "has worked closely with the Tea Party since the movement's inception" and "helped turn [the Koch brothers'] private agenda into a mass movement."

In a Bloomberg Television presentation of "Game Changers," which profiles the Koch Brothers, D.C. Executive Editor Al Hunt said that Charles and David Koch are very influential, not forthcoming, and "more active than ever."

According to Hunt, the Kochs' "philosophical, personal and political agenda" often overlaps with the "corporate agenda" of their "far-flung energy empire."

Bloomberg promoted the program by describing the Koch brothers by stating: "Using their immense wealth to shake up the game of politics, they've spent millions to found and fund think tanks and PACs. Along the way, they've laid the groundwork for the rise of the Tea Party, ensuring that American politics will never be the same."

In addition, Tea Party-supported candidates that took office following the 2010 elections have retained their links to the Koch brothers. In June, The Miami Herald reported Florida Governor Rick Scott (R-FL) flew to Colorado "to attend a secretive policy retreat hosted by powerful conservative donors Charles and David Koch."

Other elected officials at the retreat included: Texas Governor Rick Perry, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Scott's staff had previously refused to disclose the governor's plan to attend the retreat.

In February, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker took a strategy call from someone who posed as David Koch. During the phone conversation, the caller and Walker discussed potential strategies regarding the best way to continue Walker's attempts at passing union-busting legislation. Although the phone call was a prank call, it revealed, at minimum, the influence of the Koch brothers over Walker.

Finally, regarding O'Reilly's claims that Occupy Wall Street is linked to far-left journalists, maybe O'Reilly should take a look at his own network. After all in the days leading up to the Tea Party Tax Day protests in April 2009, Fox News aired at least 20 segments and 73 promos on the tax day protests and encouraged their viewers to take part.

Fox's so-called "straight news" anchors and sister organization, Fox Business, also promoted the events and urged viewers to join the protests and visit tea party websites. The network even aired on-screen text describing the protests that Fox news hosts would be attending as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties."

The hype led Fox News hosts to participate in over a dozen Tea Party events between April 14-17, 2010, the week of the Tea Party's Tax Day protests. Fox's involvement can also be seen in Tea Party activist Sal Russo's statement that "there would not have been a tea party without Fox."

O'Reilly & Kelly Promote Questionable Charges About PP
By: Steve - October 31, 2011 - 9:00am

On the Friday Factor show Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly suggested that Planned Parenthood conspired with the state of Kansas to shred evidence implicating Planned Parenthood in covering up statutory rapes.

But the charges are based on accusations by attorney Phill Kline who has been found to have engaged in "dishonest conduct" during his crusade to prove that Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers are violating Kansas law.

O'Reilly hosted Kelly to discuss charges leveled against Planned Parenthood by ex-attorney general Phill Kline:
O'REILLY: Now, State of Kansas and Planned Parenthood. Kansas is ground zero for the late-term abortion debate in this country. And Planned Parenthood is up to that to its neck. So they wanted to get some records from Planned Parenthood. Referrals. Abortion referrals to see how late they were, what the situation was. And Kansas destroyed the records.

KELLY: What happened was, you know, Planned Parenthood needs to keep records if it performs abortions in particular if you've got young girls going in there under the age of 14.

O'REILLY: Because of statutory rape.

KELLY: That's right. And when they perform an abortion like that, they have to keep a record to let the state know. And the prosecutor at the time the attorney general Phill Kline, who the viewers may know by this point, says that he had proof that there was up to 166 abortions performed, and they only had a record of one from Planned Parenthood.

O'REILLY: And the reason that Kline alleges that Planned Parenthood didn't turn that over to him when he asked for it is because they were statutory rape cases which are mandated to be reported to the authorities in Kansas.

KELLY: Right. So he is saying where are the other records?

O'REILLY: Does the state of Kansas routinely shred documents after a certain amount of time?

KELLY: They do, but, but the question here is whether you would ever do that when you knew --

O'REILLY: There's a criminal activity going on -- investigation.

KELLY: Yeah that there was a criminal investigation going on? That's highly unusual, there are rules.

O'REILLY: So you, Megyn Kelly, think something may be wrong.

KELLY: Something stinks here. I don't know who's got their fingerprints on it, but I think one of the things I find most highly suspicious is that why didn't the Department of Health go to the DA -- he's been litigating over those documents for, you know, months and years now -- and say, "don't argue over those. We destroyed them in 2005." Why did they wait?

O'REILLY: Because they were afraid that this whole investigation was going to blow up.

KELLY: Yeah, you tell me.
Now here is what they failed to mention, at no point during the segment did Kelly or O'Reilly question the credibility of Kline's allegations. Even though on October 12, the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys unanimously recommended that Kline should be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law based on Kline's violations of Kansas attorney ethics rules during his investigations of clinics that performed abortions.

The Kansas Supreme Court will make the final determination on whether Kline violated ethics rules and, if so, what his punishment should be. In coming to its recommendation, the board stated:
The Hearing Panel concluded that the Respondent has repeatedly violated many of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct, including the most serious of the rules, the rules that prohibit engaging in false or dishonest conduct.

Part of an attorney's oath in Kansas is:

You do solemnly swear or affirm that you will support and bear true allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Kansas; . . . that you will neither do, nor consent to the doing of any falsehood in court; and that you will discharge your duties as an attorney and counselor of the Supreme Court and all other courts of the State of Kansas with fidelity both to the Court and to your cause, and to the best of your knowledge and ability. So help you God.

(Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 720). In addition to the rule violations, as mentioned by the Review Committee in ruling on the Respondent's motion for reconsideration, it also appears that the Respondent violated the oath of attorneys by consenting to the commission of numerous falsehoods.
Basically Kline is a pro-life right-wing stooge who lied to punish an abortion doctor and or clinic. And what a shocker (NOT) neither O'Reilly or Kelly said a word about it.

They never mentioned any of this either:

-- The KS Supreme Court Sanctioned Kline For "Inexcusable" Behavior During Investigation Of Clinics That Perform Abortions.

-- The KS Supreme Court Previously Criticized Kline For "Troubling," "Defiant" Answers To The Court.

-- The KS Supreme Court Later Said That In This Case, Kline "Narrowly Escaped A Contempt Citation."

Kansas Officials Said Planned Parenthood Document Destruction Was Routine. From the Kanas City Star:
Johnson County prosecutors asked a judge to delay a Monday hearing to decide if there's enough evidence to try Planned Parenthood on 23 felony counts of falsifying pregnancy termination reports.

Prosecutors say the records, which are central to making their case, were shredded sometime in 2005, roughly two years before charges were brought against Planned Parenthood by former Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline.

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment shredded the records as a "routine" destruction of state documents, court files said.
And btw, O'Reilly Has A Long History Of Smears And Falsehoods Regarding Abortion:

-- O'Reilly Falsely Claimed That A Pregnant Woman's Life Could "Never" Be "In Danger" From Pregnancy Complications.

-- O'Reilly Claimed "Women's Privacy" Is "The New Mantra" Which Allows For "Infanticide."

-- O'Reilly Said Sebelius Is "Pro-Abortion, She Wants The Babies Done For."

-- O'Reilly On Kansas Abortion Provider Tiller: "IF I Could Get My Hands On Tiller -- Well, You Know. Can't Be Vigilantes. Can't Do That. It's Just A Figure Of Speech."

-- O'Reilly Asked Anti-Choice Activist If She "Believes That Planned Parenthood Is An Abortion Mill."

-- O'Reilly Promoted Myth That Planned Parenthood Is "Aiding And Abetting Child Sex Rings."

Proving once again that O'Reilly is not a real journalist, he is a partisan right-wing hack who has an agenda.

The Friday 10-28-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 30, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Liberal groups try to capitalize on the Occupy chaos in Oakland. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: On Tuesday, about 1,000 protesters gathered in Oakland, California, and major concerns began to arise. There was a rat problem, vandalism, fights and fire hazards. So the city of Oakland decided to move the protesters and police did that. But later on that day, some of the Occupiers tried to return to the plaza at City Hall.

Police told them they could not return, and violence broke out. The cops used tear gas and bean bag rounds to disperse the surging protesters. Enter the radical MoveOn organization, which is funding some of the Occupiers.

Talking Points showed an ad put out by the group just hours after the Oakland arrests. It claimed protesters were peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights, when police "shamefully, recklessly, brutally tried to silence them."

It is obvious that MoveOn was ready to exploit any violence so they could portray the U.S. as a police state. That is part two of the Occupy movement. First, demonize capitalism: tell the world how unfair the U.S. economic system is. Then show the world the cops are fascist.
Then O'Reilly had two liberal guests on to discuss it, Caroline Heldman & Leslie Marshall both told O'Reilly he was wrong and strongly argued that while there may be some level of exploitation by liberal organizations, the Occupy Wall Street gatherings truly are a populist movement, started by grassroots activists.

Then Kellyanne Conway was on to talk about Herman Cain. O'Reilly said that because Herman Cain is now a serious contender for the GOP presidential candidate, he's being scorned and mocked by the media. What effect will the media blitz have on Mr. Cain's campaign?

Earth to O'Reilly, they are mocking and scorning him because of that ridiculous ad he put out with the guy smoking, the very same ad O'Reilly even called stupid.

Kellyanne said that in the short-run, all the media attention will help Mr. Cain raise money and raise his profile. But what the liberal media is trying to do in the long-run is "Palin-ize" him - marginalize Mr. Cain and scare him out of the race by intimating that he's not bright enough to do the job.

O'Reilly said that the negative media hype surrounding Herman Cain will help him because it will make his supporters angry and people who don't know him will now be aware of him. The Factor's hesitation about Mr. Cain is that he still doesn't have a big political organization in some key states.

Then Geraldo was on to talk about 33-year-old Stacy Schuler, who was convicted of sexual battery for having sex with five male high school students in Ohio. She has been sentenced to four years in prison, a punishment at least one victim's mother found way too lenient.

O'Reilly asked why she didn't get a harsher sentence, considering Ms. Schuler clearly abused her authority as a high school teacher and corrupted these young boys.

Geraldo admitted he would lose the debate because his position is archaic and the minority view: "I just don't believe you can say this 33-year-old teacher is the same kind of sex predator as someone in the child sex trade. I just don't believe there's a parallel."

When Billy showed his surprise at Geraldo, who is a lifelong champion of protecting children, Geraldo said that contending the sex between Ms. Schuler and the boys would have been legal had she not been a teacher because the age of consent in Ohio is 16. Then Billy accused Geraldo of rationalizing a terrible crime.

Then Lisa Ling was on to talk about her show his Sunday at 10pm, the Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN) has a program called "Our America" that will take a hard look at the child prostitution problem in America.

Lisa Ling reported that these young girls hand all their money over to their pimps, making them full-blown sex slaves. She said this is happening in big cities and small towns all across America.

O'Reilly wondered how to solve this horrible problem since it's hard to build a case against the pimps because these little girls won't testify against them, saying this: "Do we put the Johns in jail for 10 years? They're at fault too."

Then Lou Dobbs was on to discuss the stock market, which has been up the past couple of weeks, which is very good news for the Obama administration because it's under tremendous pressure to fix the bad economy. A few weeks ago, when the market was down big, Lou Dobbs told Factor viewers to stay invested.

Earth to O'Reilly, it's been up more than the last 2 weeks, it's been up almost the entire month of October, and it's going to set a record gain for the month, and you pretty much ignored it.

Dobbs also expressed optimism that the economy is now getting on the right track. O'Reilly then suggested some right-wing radio guys might not like the direction this is going in because good news for the economy is good news for Obama's re-election.

And finally in the last segment it was dumbest things of the week with Arthel Neville & Greg Gutfeld. Arthel picked a 28-year-old Ohio mother led police on a high speed chase, and then emerged from her vehicle belligerent and topless. The whole thing was captured on the dash-cam.

Greg picked the Jersey Shore star Snooki, who gave Regis Philbin a makeover, resulting in Regis taking his shirt off! Gutfeld said this: "This is not dumb actually, because he's 80-years-old and he's in great shape. This is the first time in history that the phrases Regis and topless have been paired together."

Bill's dumbest thing was the results of a Fox News poll which asked, Would you rather see your child grow up to be a Wall Street executive, an Occupy Wall Street protester or neither? 48% said Wall Street exec, 26% chose protester, and 18% went with neither. Then Billy said that 26% of Americans are therefore insane.

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

DOW About To Set Record For A Monthly Gain
By: Steve - October 30, 2011 - 10:00am

And O'Reilly barely mentioned it in a segment with Lou Dobbs towards the end of the show Friday night. But when it drops 300 points in a day it's the top story on the Factor for 3 days, and O'Reilly blames it on Obama.

Despite conservatives (Especially O'Reilly) claims that the rhetoric used by President Obama and the 99 Percent Movement is hurting the economy, the stock market is on track to have one of its best months in history.

The Dow has added about 1,200 points this month by the closing bell Friday, which would be the biggest point gain in the index's history.

The S&P 500 also had its biggest point gain in history this month. Measured by percentage, both indices are on track for their best month since 1987.

For the month of October the DOW went up to 12.231.11, which is a 12.07% one month gain.

O'Reilly Ignores DOJ Update On The $16 Muffins
By: Steve - October 30, 2011 - 9:00am

Remember the $16 muffin, a sign of government spending out of control? It turns out that all the criticism was half-baked.

The Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General is apologizing for erroneously concluding that a hotel charged the government $16 apiece for breakfast muffins.

Friday, the Department of Justice's Inspector General officially retracted its allegation that at a 2009 conference, the DOJ had paid $4,200 for 250 muffins -- or, more than $16 per muffin. From the IG's statement:
After publication of the report, we received additional documents and information concerning the food and beverage costs at the EOIR conference.

After further review of the newly provided documentation and information, and after discussions with the Capital Hilton and the Department, we determined that our initial conclusions concerning the itemized costs of refreshments at the EOIR conference were incorrect and that the Department did not pay $16 per muffin.

We have therefore revised the report based on these additional documents and deleted references to any incorrect costs. We regret the error in our original report.
The additional information showed that the muffins were actually part of a modified continental breakfast priced at $16.80 and consisting of items such as pastries, fruit, coffee, tea and juice.

And btw, Fox News and Bill O'Reilly's coverage in particular -- was the only cable network that failed to report any of the statements that called the claim into question. Now that the facts are out, O'Reilly is still not reporting the truth, or doing a correction.

The Republicans Destroyed 370,000 Jobs In America
By: Steve - October 29, 2011 - 10:00am

House Republicans took the government to the brink of shutdown by demanding across-the-board budget cuts to many vital programs. Instead of focusing on job creation, as Americans wanted them to, the GOP turned its attention to slashing funds for programs that funded assistance for women and children, local law enforcement, the social safety net, environmental protections, and many other programs they deemed as either too expensive or unnecessary.

And even worse, when challenged on why they have not made the effort to tackle high unemployment, Republicans insisted that their slash-and-burn budget cuts were meant to create jobs.

The GOP succeeded in passing massive spending reductions as part of a continuing resolution that kept the government operating. But now according to a new report from the Center for American Progress, those cuts did not result in the job creating boon Republicans insisted it would. Instead, it has done just the opposite, as those cuts will result in the destruction of roughly 370,000 jobs.

The report focuses on three major areas where Republicans insisted on spending cuts: funding for local law enforcement, environmental cleanup of sites where nuclear weapons were disabled and destroyed, and investments into construction, repair, and maintenance of government buildings.

Cuts to just those three areas alone will result in the loss of 90,000 jobs, the report found - 60,000 from direct cuts, and 30,000 additional jobs lost from the secondary impacts of job losses in each community.

And according to CAP, those three areas were not even among the worst budget cuts forced through by the Republican House:
"Similar stories could be told about many other budget cuts made in this bill-cuts that resulted in further job losses," said Scott Lilly, author of the report and Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.

"All of the various 250 program reductions in the fiscal year 2011 Continuing Resolution probably eliminated more than 370,000 American jobs. The three areas selected for discussion in this paper are in my judgment neither the worst cuts made by the committee from a policy standpoint nor the best. But without a doubt they demonstrate the consequences of slashing government spending in a weak economy."
According to the report, the $2.5 billion cut to local law enforcement funding could have prevented 36,000 police layoffs nationwide, and similar cuts made to grant programs could have prevented the loss of other state and local government jobs.

Crunched by the recession and budget cuts, state and local governments shed more than 200,000 jobs in 2010 alone. Republicans not only cut such funding this spring but have now opposed the American Jobs Act - which included grants to state and local governments for the hiring of teachers, police officers, and firefighters.

And of course you never hear a word about any of this from O'Reilly, because he is covering for his right-wing friends.

More Republican Hypocrisy On Green Energy Loans
By: Steve - October 29, 2011 - 9:00am

Republicans are circling the wagons to destroy green jobs and the clean energy industry. The GOP seized on the Solyndra controversy as an excuse to cut all clean energy loan programs. The attacks have even led to the suspension of a program that employed veterans in clean energy jobs.

Bucking the trend, for one day, Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY) participated in a publicity event on Monday to celebrate the success of a government-backed solar energy initiative. Gibson spoke at the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering at the University of Albany to announce a deal to keep 17 solar energy research jobs.

The research center hopes to boost an effort to develop thin-film solar cells to be built in a 18,000-square-foot manufacturing facility near the campus. Speaking at the event, Gibson applauded the investment, but failed to credit how much of the money was authorized by Obama and the stimulus bill he passed:
GIBSON: Today's announcement continues our region's growth as the next place for 21st Century technology. This facility will preserve existing jobs and ensure that our area remains at the forefront of research into clean energy technologies that are so vital for our future.

I applaud CNSE's efforts to invest in our local communities and look forward to continuing to work with them to expand public-private partnerships here in Tech Valley.
What Gibson failed to mention is that this year the research center received a $5 million grant made possible by President Obama's Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus. And that's not all, during the election last year, Gibson made the stimulus a campaign issue and blasted his Democratic opponent for supporting such a failed policy. The solar jobs are also made possible by the SunShot Initiative, a Department of Energy program started by the Obama administration to spur solar energy technological developments.

So far at least 60 Republicans have been busted for writing letters to Secretary Steven Chu to request clean energy grants and loans for favored companies.

Basically they slam the loans and the Obama stimulus money, then promote it and take credit for it when the loans create jobs in their district. Without telling anyone that the jobs were created or continued only because of the Obama stimulus or other programs put in place by Obama.

The Thursday 10-27-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 28, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The GOP on the brink. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A new Fox News poll of likely Republican voters has Herman Cain leading Mitt Romney 24% - 20%, with Newt Gingrich at 12% and Rick Perry at 10%. Mr. Cain has taken supporters from Michele Bachmann and Governor Perry, and even though Mr. Cain is running a non-traditional campaign, his popularity is the story of the race thus far.

But the New York Times reports that Cain has just six paid workers in Iowa and New Hampshire combined, and that his campaign is disorganized in the extreme. There is a stunning difference between national and state polling. In New Hampshire, Romney is leading Cain 40% to 13%, and is also leading in South Carolina, Iowa, and Florida.

But Mr. Cain may have a secret weapon against Mitt Romney and that is Rick Perry. There's no question that Governor Perry is targeting Romney by highlighting Romney's big weakness, a history of changing his mind. So there's a chance that Rick Perry will become the new best friend of both Herman Cain and Barack Obama.

He will aggressively campaign in the months to come and can do enormous damage to Mitt Romney. Politics is a contact sport and there are some very hard hits coming down the road.
Then O'Reilly had Laura Ingraham on to talk about the reports of disorganization in Herman Cain's campaign. Ingraham said this: "We know the media love these types of stories, and pretty much every campaign is going to encounter stories like this. But we also know that if you're serious about running for president, you have to be able to run your campaign in an efficient and professional manner. Herman Cain is probably more surprised than anyone at where he is in the polls."

Ingraham also talked about the possibility that Perry's attacks will damage Mitt Romney, saying this: "I actually don't think this will be a problem for Romney in the end. Perry knows that he has to score big, but unless something crazy happens, a lot of people think Romney will be the nominee."

Then Barbara Walters was on to talk about billionaires. Walters said this: "Being a billionaire is almost a dirty word these days, but we chose four people who started from very humble beginnings. One of them used to sleep in his car with his son because he had so little money. What we wanted to do was show you four people who made it themselves, who are entrepreneurs, who had failure and success, and who are giving back."

Walters also talked about the anger among many 'Occupy' protesters, saying this: "They're saying there are certain aspects of our society where they feel taken advantage of and where things should change. I don't think they want capitalism wiped out."

And of course Billy disputed her conclusion, saying this: "Most of those people want us to be quasi-socialistic and have rules and regulations about the distribution of wealth."

Then John Stossel was on to slam the government, of course. O'Reilly said that some people on the far left believe there should be limits on how much individual Americans can earn, so Stossel said this: "Polls show that people are very uncomfortable with the income distribution in America. But I defend the bankers who shuffle the money around - they're trying to make money by directing capital to its best use. That's how we get Facebook and Google, what they do is a good thing. I want government protection against people stealing from me or killing me, and that's about it."

As usual O'Reilly is being dishonest, because the far-left does not want limits on what people can make, they just want the money that is out there spread around a little more fairly. As in more to the workers who earn that money then the fat cats at the top. The far-left thinks the fat cats get too much of the pie, and the working men and women do not get enough.

Then the culture warriors Gretchen Carlson & Margaret Hoover were on. They talked about how some public schools in New York will begin teaching 6th graders about all varieties of sexual behavior. Hoover said this: "We spend a lot of time on this show, talking about how parents are abdicating their duty to be active in their kids lives and teach their children about stuff that parents used to talk to kids about. Almost 50% of high school students are having sex and there is a need to talk about sex."

Carlson argued that education bureaucrats have overstepped their bounds, saying this: "I wouldn't even want to read about some of the stuff these 11-year-olds will read about. This is an erosion of parenting, and parents who would normally address these issues at home are the ones who will suffer."

O'Reilly said this: "I always recommend private schools so you don't have to deal with this craziness, but a lot of parents in New York City can't afford it and have no choice."

And I think the schools should mind their own business when it comes to sex. That is the job of the parents of the kids.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk more about John Edwards. Edwards is about to stand trial for allegedly using campaign funds to support his mistress. Kelly said this: "If convicted he would probably get between three and five years. The government hasn't showed its hand, but basically is alleging that Edwards used campaign cash to cover up his affair. Edwards lawyers say these weren't campaign contributions, they were gifts and he's allowed to use gifts however he wants."

O'Reilly predicted that Edwards will eventually be convicted. And I predict O'Reilly will be wrong, and that Edwards will be found not guilty. Because it will be hard to prove the money he used was from his campaign fund.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Martha MacCallum & Steve Doocy on for the lame Factor News Quiz, which I do not report on.

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

Majority Of Millionaires Support Raising Their Taxes
By: Steve - October 28, 2011 - 10:00am

Here is another poll you will never see reported by O'Reilly. According to a new survey by the Spectrem Group, "68% of millionaires (those with investments of $1 million or more) support raising taxes on those with $1 million or more in income."

And 61% of those with net worths of $5 million or more support the tax on million-plus earners.

Spectrem's George Walper told the Wall Street Journal, "what this tells us is that there are a number of wealthy folks who said: 'Gee, we need to increase taxes to stimulate the economy. No one likes to be taxed more, but the reality is maybe it has to be done.'"

So even most of the millionaires are willing to pay more in taxes, and yet O'Reilly and most of the right still oppose it. Proving they are not only out of touch with most of the American people, they are even out of touch with most of the millionaires.

O'Reilly Still Ignoring The Stock Market Increases
By: Steve - October 28, 2011 - 9:00am

A while back the DOW had some bad days, it had drops of 200 to 300 points over a 1 to 2 week time frame. And O'Reilly reported it every time it dropped, while blaming it on Obama and saying it dropped because the market does not like his jobs plan, his tax increase idea for the wealthy, his liberal policies, etc.

But since then the DOW has had many up days of 200 to 300 points, it has gained back almost all it lost, and it is back up to almost 12,000. And O'Reilly has ignored it all, he does not say a word on the days the DOW goes up, he only reports on it on the days it goes down.

And he ignores the overall numbers from a month ago, a year ago, year to date, etc. Which all have the DOW up since Obama took office. Here are those numbers O'Reilly never reports.

-- In the last 3 days the DOW is UP 2.45%

-- In the last 5 days the DOW is UP 2.07%

-- In the last month the DOW is UP 7.11%

-- In the last 3 months the DOW is down 3.82%

-- In the last 6 months the DOW is down 7.32%

-- Year to Date the DOW is UP 2.14%

-- Over the last year the DOW is UP 5.76%

-- Over the last 3 years the DOW is UP a whopping 26.81%

Notice that the DOW was only down for the last 3 months and 6 months, which is the time O'Reilly reported on, while the rest of the time it was up. And O'Reilly ignored it, he does not report when the DOW goes up, he only reports it when it was down.

Since Obama took office the DOW is up 26.81 percent, which means all the people in the market have made more money since Obama became the President. But if you only watch the Factor you would think the market is down 26 percent since Obama took office.

That's because O'Reilly spins the DOW flucuations to make it seem like the market is down under Obama. When the reality shows the market is up, and up quite a bit. Proving once again that O'Reilly is a dishonest right-wing Obama hating spin doctor.

The Wednesday 10-26-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 27, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Is wealth distribution in the U.S. unfair? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Last night in Oakland some 'Occupy' protesters tried to defy police orders and march on city hall. At least five protesters were arrested and several were injured; in addition, more anti-Semitism is surfacing among the occupiers.

In the face of that, a new poll shows that 43% of Americans agree with the views of the 'Occupy' movement, while 27% disagree and 30% are unsure. Talking Points believes that reflects the media coverage of the occupiers, most of it favorable despite the violence and anti-Semitism.

In the same poll, 66% said money and wealth are not distributed fairly in America. The key word in that question is 'distributed,' because there's no central authority that doles out salaries and investment returns. You earn it, steal it, inherit it or win the lottery.

The problem is that many Americans simply do not understand what's at stake here. The 'Occupy' movement is socialistic and essentially wants the government to control who gets what. There's no question that capitalism isn't perfect or fair, but the alternative is Cuba or Greece.

Do Americans really want that? And who exactly are the bad guys? The goal of the occupiers is to demonize capitalism, and it's right before our eyes.
And as usual O'Reilly spins for the right, and just does not get it. What they want is good pay for a days work, they want the rich to pay more in taxes because they see how they are not paying hardly anything compared to them, and they want some of that money that goes to the top 1% to get down to the actual workers who make them all that money. Here is an example, a corporation lays off 5,000 workers and then gives the top guys a bonus in the millions, that is wrong and has to stop.

Then Dick Morris, who predicted that President Obama and other Democrats will pay a price for sympathizing with the 'Occupy' protests was on. Morris said this: "There's a very good chance that this will devolve into violence, and this will demonize the left as the Tea Party never did to the right. This is a global movement, it's also part of the demonstrations in Greece and London, and this is a very serious mistake on Obama's part. I think it's going to backfire."

And of course O'Dummy agreed that Democrats may be hurt by the protests, saying this: "President Obama and the Democratic Party have to start distancing themselves from the protesters or they're going to get caught. This started as a populist movement but then the far-left radicals saw that they could use these people."

Then Ann Coulter was on to talk about Obama doing the Jay Leno show. And just the fact that O'Reilly would have the far-right loon Ann Coulter on to discuss it shows that he is also a far-right loon. Because no real journalist would ever put Coulter on to discuss anything, let alone Obama going on Leno.

Coulter said this: "He was smooth, and if you just landed from Mars you would think he's a pleasant fellow with nice mannerisms. But I think I am not alone in finding those mannerisms increasingly grating. He has a history of policies that are destructive to the country, he will not change course and he talks down to people who disagree with him. So even what were once charming mannerisms are getting very annoying."

Then the crazy O'Reilly asked Coulter to analyze a poll showing that half of Americans would be distraught if Obama wins reelection. Coulter said this: "Look what this guy has done. Our 401K's are in the dirt, housing prices are collapsing, the unemployment rate is through the roof, we have a $14 trillion debt, and Obama's answer is 'let's spend more.' What is the matter with the 50% of the country that would not be distraught with another four years of this guy?"

And that's a lie, because your 401k has gone up, along with the stock market, it's up 26% since Obama took office. So Ann Coulter is a 100% right-wing liar, and O'Reilly is just as bad for letting her spin out those lies. The facts show that if you have a 401k it's up over the last 3 years, not down.

Then O'Reilly had the Republican Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who is warning that health care reform will compromise medical privacy. Kobach said this: "They're assembling a giant database of over 200 million Americans' medical conditions. They're going to have every transaction, every prescription you've filled, every doctor's appointment. They'll assign a number to it, but they'll have a date of birth and other identifying information. The problem is that someone can decode those numbers, and there has been a history of government bureaucrats losing laptops."

Even O'Reilly was not buying it and reminded Kobach that the feds have vowed to safeguard the information, saying this: "Their point of view is that they'll know what the trends are so they can set prices, but they say no one will ever know it's Kris Kobach or Bill O'Reilly who has this condition."

Then the body language bimbo Tonya Reiman was on, which I do not report on because it's garbage and not news. After that Dennis Miller was on for his regular weekly segment, which I also do not report on because it's right-wing comedy nonsense.

And finally in the last segment Juliet Huddy was on for the stupid did you see that segment. She watched tape of an Islamic spokeswoman expressing solidarity with the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters.

Huddy said this: "The protests had a point and a message, but now that message has been muddled and any 'disenfranchised' group shows up and they get attention. There are a lot of people who are out there just because they want to be validated and be a part of something."

Huddy also watched the odd commercial in which Herman Cain's top campaign aide praises Cain's qualities and then puffs on a cigarette, saying this: "I love it, they're relating to people. You and the rest of the media called it 'weird' and 'bizarre,' but it's cool. This is a cool commercial."

Which just shows what an idiot she is, because almost everyone thinks it is a strange and dumb ad, all the late night comedians are even making fun of it. O'Reilly also thinks it is stupid, O'Reilly said this about it: "I thought it was stupid!"

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

O'Reilly NEVER Reported The Truth About $16 Muffins
By: Steve - October 27, 2011 - 10:00am

When the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General published a September 2011 audit of conference expenses, Bill O'Reilly and Fox News focused on one finding: the claim that the Justice Department had once paid $4,200 for 250 muffins at a conference in Washington -- or more than $16 per muffin.

And as dubbed by Bill O'Reilly, "Muffin-gate" was born, reinforcing a common conservative narrative of wasteful government spending. As O'Reilly himself said on September 21: "But the $16 muffin now becomes a symbol of how wasteful the feds are with our tax dollars."

But O'Reilly never reported this, within days, Hilton Worldwide, which hosted the 2009 conference in question, disputed the claim: "In Washington, the contracted breakfast included fresh fruit, coffee, juice, muffins, tax and gratuity for an inclusive price of $16 per person."

Within a week of that, Bloomberg Businessweek reported that the DOJ claimed "the actual price was $14.29 per person per day," and that "included breakfast and rental fees for the workshop space and conference rooms." Which O'Reilly also never reported.

Bloomberg also reported that the IG's office has "conceded that it might not have been in possession of all the facts." The IG's office told the magazine: "Since our report was issued, the Capital Hilton has stated that other food and beverage items, such as coffee, tea, and fruit, were included in the charged amount."

Even with all that information out there Bill O'Reilly continued to push the lie during a September 28 appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart -- after Hilton had disputed the $16-muffin claim.

And btw, an investigation of the media reporting on the story by Sam Stein found that Fox News -- Bill O'Reilly's coverage in particular -- was the only cable network that failed to report any of the statements that called the claim into question.

Of all the cable networks, Fox News and Fox Business devoted the most air time to the story and were the only channels that failed to report both Hilton's statement disputing the IG's $16 figure and the Inspector General's subsequent admission.

Bill O'Reilly's coverage was particularly aggressive; between September 21 and 29, the Fox News host devoted at least one segment during each of four separate broadcasts to the topic. He even brought up the $16 figure on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart during an interview for his new book. Then two weeks later, O'Reilly continued to push the story as a fact in three separate episodes of The O'Reilly Factor -- even after the claim was called into question.

Ed Schultz from MSNBC later took O'Reilly to task for his repeated hammering of the $16-muffin claim, which Schultz noted had been debunked, saying this:
SCHULTZ: Dude, give it a rest on the muffins, will you? First of all, O`Reilly did not break the story. But more importantly, the story itself is bogus. The 16-dollar amount was wrong.

According to the folks at the Hilton where the conference was actually held, the Justice Department paid $14.29 per person, per day, which included all food and fees for the workspace and conference rooms they used.
And to this day O'Reilly has not reported the truth, so his viewers still believe the Government paid $16.00 for muffins, when it is clearly not true.

Rick Perry Goes Birther & Calls For 20% Flat Tax
By: Steve - October 27, 2011 - 9:00am

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) joined the birther loons over the weekend, telling PARADE Magazine that he didn't "have a definitive answer" on whether President Obama was born in the U.S., even though he believes he was.

Then in an interview with CNBC's John Harwood Tuesday morning, Perry admitted that the flirtation was pure political pandering. "It's a good issue to keep alive," Perry said.

Later on, Perry said, "I'm really not worried about the president's birth certificate. It's fun to poke at him a little bit, and say, how about, 'Let’s see your grades and your birth certificate.'"

Which is just the kind of stuff Pat Robertson is talking about, if Perry does win the GOP nomination he will have positions so far to the right that he will lose to Obama.

Perry also became the latest GOP presidential hopeful to release a tax plan, as he tries to catch up in the polls, some of which even have him trailing former Speaker Newt Gingrich and libertarian favorite Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). The plan, as Perry has been explaining, revolves around a 20 percent flat tax.

Perry's flat tax was designed with the help of billionaire media mogul Steve Forbes, who ran twice for president, unsuccessfully, on a flat tax plan. Forbes plan would have provided a $1.9 billion tax cut for guess who, Steve Forbes.

Perry's plan is slightly different that Forbes flat tax of a decade ago, as it has a higher rate and preserves some popular deductions. But, like with all flat tax plans, Perry's plan would give the rich a huge tax cut, since it drops their rate from 35 percent to 20 percent and exempts their investment income from taxation at all.

When CNBC's John Harwood asked Perry why - in an era of massive income inequality - the rich should be given a tax break worth "hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of dollars," Perry replied, "I don't care about that."
HARWOOD: Dividends, capital gains, interest income taxes would provide a huge tax cut for wealthy people in this country. Given what's happened with income inequality, why is that a good idea?

PERRY: We're trying to get this country working again. And that's what I focus on. As a matter of fact, as we looked and as we talked and as we went through what are the ways to really get incentives to those who are going to risk their capital to create the jobs.

Those that want to get into the class warfare and talk about oh my goodness, there are going to be some folks here who make more money out of this or have access to more money, I'll let them do that. I'm worried about that man or woman sitting around the coffee table tonight or in their kitchen talking about how are we going to get to work, how are we going to have the dignity to take care of our family.

This plan does that. And it also is a tax cut across the board, it doesn't make any difference what strata you're in. It gives a tax cut across the board.

HARWOOD: But for those at the top, it is hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of dollars for them.

PERRY: But I don't care about that. What I care about is them having the dollars to invest in their companies.
And as Perry clearly knows Bush gave the wealthy a massive tax cut (two times) and it did not create any jobs. All it did was make the rich richer. Not to mention the wealthy say the reason they are not hiring is lack of demand, not taxes that are too high. So a tax cut would do nothing to create more jobs, it just makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Also we all know the real truth, a lot of corporations are owned by Republicans and they are not hiring (even though in some cases they need to) because every new job created makes Obama look better and helps him politically.

Perry is just pandering to the far-right to try and win the GOP nomination. Not to mention, a flat tax will never pass Congress, especially when Democrats have the majority in the Senate, and they may even win the House back next November.

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

The TPM was called: America in decline. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: According to a new poll, 69% of Americans believe the nation is in decline and an astounding 83% are now worried about the country's future. Talking Points believes the folks are right, we are in decline. But why? The answer is the decline in self-reliance.

America was founded on the principles of honor and hard work; after we achieved independence the federal and state governments basically stepped aside, allowing businesses and communities to grow without much interference. If you failed there was no safety net, so the folks became strong out of self-preservation. The foundation of America's growing power was a code of conduct based on honest labor and neighborly charity, and Judeo-Christian philosophy dominated the public square.

But in the late 1960's the winds of change swept in; America was no longer seen as a noble nation by many of its own citizens. Since then America has evolved into a country of two minds. Self-reliance remains the key to economic success, but for those who don't want to compete or simply can't the federal government has become their lifeblood.

The collapse of the family has led to massive entitlement spending on children and single moms, and the liberal belief that the feds have a moral obligation to provide for the have-nots has led to massive debt, which has weakened our economy and robbed America of power. Thus the decline that we all see.

The USA needs a philosophy overhaul, we have to get back to self-reliance and away from the nanny state. Imposing discipline on the federal government will be difficult and many liberal Americans will scream all day long, but if it is not done our decline will become permanent.
And that my friends is a total load of right-wing garbage. Because America did fine with all the Democratic Presidents and their liberal policies (just look at the Clinton years that actually produced a surplus) until Bush and the Republicans got control of the country for 8 years and bankrupted it. Funny how O'Reilly ignores all that to blame it on liberals and social programs. The rich make too much and the middle class working man makes too little, and until we fix that America will not be as great as it used to be.

Then Rick Perry was on to talk about his ridiculous flat tax plan and his campaign. Perry said this: "What I'm worried about is getting people back to work, because we have a spending problem. I'm looking at a tax process that will allow people to keep more of their money because when job creators get to keep more of their money they have the confidence to go out and create jobs and wealth."

Which is of course just more right-wing propaganda. Because corporations are not hiring because their taxes are too high, they are not hiring because of low demand. But of course O'Reilly never pointed that out.

Billy said he is worried that Perry's plan could reduce revenue and add to the massive national debt. Then Perry said this: "I truly believe we have to grow our way out of this. We have to cut spending, lower the tax burden and balance the budget by 2020. My plan calls for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution."

Then Perry addressed his steep decline in the polls, saying this: "This is a long way from being over, and we're just now laying out our economic plans. For ten years we created the most dynamic economy in America with a million jobs created in Texas, and people are beginning to focus in on who can actually get this country back to work."

So then Billy suggested that Perry's immigration policies damaged his campaign, saying this: "Illegal aliens and their children are getting benefits in Texas like in-state college tuition. When you said depriving those children of that education is 'heartless,' a lot of conservatives said it's heartless to take my tax money and give it to people who shouldn't be here."

Perry said this: "I agree with you that I used the wrong word, but the bigger problem is that the federal government has been a total failure when it comes to securing our border. I've been strong on the immigration issue."

Perry concluded by describing Mitt Romney as a flip-flopper, saying this: "You can't be for banning guns and then all of a sudden be for the Second Amendment, you can't be for abortion and then be pro-life. You can't be on both sides of the issues."

Then Charles Krauthammer was on give an analysis of the Rick Perry interview. And of course O'Reilly did not have any Democratic guest on to talk about Perry, because then it would actually be fair and balanced and we would find out the bad things about Perry. O'Reilly can not allow that, because he is covering for his right-wing friend Rick Perry.

Krauthammer said this: "It was quite revealing. His tax plan has the Reaganesque quality of being a radical cut in taxes, and he should have done that at the very beginning because he needs a defining issue. But when Reagan proposed his tax cut, we were not in the debt hole that we are now. Perry wants an astonishingly radical cut in taxes and he should have some idea about how much it'll cost. He wants to cut spending to 18% of GDP, under Obama it's 24%, so this is the biggest cut in galactic history. He has to explain how he'll make up for that."

Krauthammer also suggested that while Perry is down, he is not necessarily out, saying this: "Given the weakness of the rest of the field, and given the obvious hunger for someone other than Romney, I think he has a shot."

Then Monica Crowley & Alan Colmes were on to talk about Romney, and how the Democratic Party is attacking him for recommending that the government step back from the housing crisis, even if foreclosures rise.

Crowley said this: "The federal government should not be involved in any way, shape or form in the housing sector. Romney is arguing that government intervention in the housing market got us into this mess in the first place, and that the only way we're going to get soundness back into housing is to allow things to bottom out and get houses back to sustainable levels."

Talk about heartless, there it is from Crowley, she could care less if millions of people lose their homes. Instead of kicking them out, they should re-do the loans so they can afford it and let them stay in their homes.

Colmes explained why Romney is dead wrong, saying this: "The government urged people to go out and buy homes even if they couldn't afford it, so now the government has a responsibility to fix it."

Even O'Reilly disagreed with the insane Monica Crowley, and he told her that Romney's approach, which she endorses, would result in "millions of Americans being kicked out of their homes."

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle & Lis Wiehl were on. Attorney General Eric Holder went to Alabama and slammed their law that cracks down on illegal aliens. So Guilfoyle and Wiehl questioned the AG's tactics.

Wiehl said this: "Holder was completely out of bounds. You should never talk about ongoing litigation, it's ethics 101 for prosecutors that you don't do that!"

Guilfoyle agreed saying this: "Apparently we're just little minions in his fiefdom, and it's inappropriate that he made those comments. Alabama has the stronger argument in this case."

And of course they agreed, because they are both Republicans who hate Holder and disprove of everything he does no matter what it is.

In another case the ACLU is arguing that Florida's requirement that welfare recipients be drug-tested violates the Constitution. So O'Reilly (the non-attorney) offered his legal opinion, saying this: "The ACLU says this is an illegal search and seizure, which is insane! Taxpayer money will be wasted if you give it to people who spend it on illegal substances or gin. Don't we have the right to know you're not a junkie? C'mon!"

Talk about insane, it's O'Reilly who is insane. Because you are innocent until proven guilty. O'Reilly wants it to be guilty until proven innocent, which is not the way it works. And the last time I checked gin was not a drug, and legal to drink.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had fight promoter Don King on, who is going to visit the Occupy Wall Street protest to lend his support. King said this: "I'm going to tell them that they're right to protest because that's the First Amendment. Why are we so upset about it, why are we having so much controversy about our rights? They're trying to get their message across, which is that we are Americans."

Then Billy explained to King why he thinks the protesters are not universally loved, saying this: "When people block the Brooklyn Bridge, when they urinate and defecate on people's private property, when there's drug activity in the park, people get upset."

Except as usual O'Reilly is wrong, because the majority of Americans support the wall street protesters. O'Reilly hates them so he lies about it and will nor report the truth.

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

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Support For OWS Protesters
By: Steve - October 26, 2011 - 10:00am

On the Monday Factor show Bill O'Reilly said this:
"Most citizens are turned off by the "Occupy" excesses, "90% of independent Americans don't like them, don't trust them, and think they're radicals."
Wrong again jerk. An October poll published by Time magazine shows that 25 percent of those polled have a "very favorable" view and 29 percent had "somewhat favorable views" of the protesters "gathering on Wall Street in New York City and some other cities." A post about the poll on Time's blog Swampland stated this:
A closer look at the poll's cross-tabs provides a fuller picture of the movement's diverse support. Occupy Wall Street enjoys majority backing among men (57%) and women (51%), young (60% of respondents 18 to 34) and old (51%).

Self-identified Democrats, unsurprisingly, comprise the left-leaning movement's largest bloc, with 66% professing support. But more than half of independents (55%) harbor favorable views of the protesters, as do a third of Republicans.
Which proves that O'Reilly lied, because even 55% of Independents say they have a favorable view of the protesters.

Pat Robertson Says GOP Field Too Far Right To Win
By: Steve - October 26, 2011 - 9:00am

You know you are way to the far-right extreme when one of the most radical, hate-spewing, religious conservative man in America calls you extreme.

That's how televangelist Pat Robertson described the field of GOP candidates. On his show The 700 Club, Robertson warned that the GOP base is pushing their party's presidential nominees to take such extreme positions that they will be unelectable.

"I believe it was Lyndon Johnson that said, 'Don't these people realize if they push me over to an extreme position I'll lose the election?'" he said.

"Those people in the Republican primary have got to lay off of this stuff. They're forcing their leaders, the frontrunners, into positions that will mean they lose the general election. They've got to stop this! It's just so counterproductive!"

And for once Robertson is right, all these GOP stooges are taking every far-right position there is to win the Republican nomination. But when it comes time for the general election, Obama will use their positions against them in speeches and tv ads.

Then if they change their position he can say they are just doing a dishonest flip-flop to win the White House, and play video of them supporting the far-right positions on the issues. And of course O'Reilly never says a word about it, because he is trying to help them in every way he can.

The Monday 10-24-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 25, 2011 - 11:00am

There was no TPM because O'Reilly had the Republican Marco Rubio on to promote him as the VP candidate in the Republican party. Billy called him a rising star in the Republican Party. And he had him on to discuss to a Washington Post story that implied he has lied about his parents' being "exiles" from Castro's Cuba:
O'Reilly: "Did you mislead anybody about your family history?"
Rubio: "Absolutely not. I was always under the impression that my parents came in the late '50's, but they came earlier as legal residents. But that's irrelevant as to whether they're 'exiles' or not. On the day that I was born in 1971 my parents could not return to the nation of their birth unless they were willing to live under communism. There is not a single credible Cuban voice in Miami who will dispute that my parents were exiles."
O'Reilly: "Did they call you before they published the article?"
Rubio: "They actually published the article and then they interviewed me. The bottom line is that I don't need to embellish my narrative, which is very simple: I am the son of exiles and immigrants and that has framed my political thought."
Good job O'Reilly, once again you have proven beyond a doubt you are a right-wing spin doctor by only reporting one side of the story, the right-wing side.

Basically O'Reilly fell all over himself praising Rubio telling him how great he is and how he should take the VP job if it is offered, and Rubio said he would not take it. Then Brit Hume was on to discuss it.

Hume said this: "That's what you say, because if he would have suggested that he was willing, the word would go out that he's running for vice president. I think he's not going to campaign for it, but when the party selects a nominee he could still do it. Rubio is a very big hero to American conservatives because he articulates their case so well, and he has all the other stuff going for him."

Then Juan Williams & Mary K. Ham were on to talk more about the wall street protests. O'Reilly said violence is increasing at "Occupy" protests around the country. Williams said this: "This is Halloween season, and Republicans are in a fright over 'Occupy Wall Street.' You can judge the effectiveness of it by how scared Republicans are that it's activating the Democratic base and changing the narrative."

Ham said this: "Part of the movement recognizes that Obama and the Democrats have gotten a lot of donations from Wall Street, so this is not necessarily a partisan movement against Republicans. They love their civil disobedience and they will continue to do it because they don't have to pay a price for it in the media, but they're not using this movement to move national politics or to register voters."

O'Reilly said that most citizens are turned off by the "Occupy" excesses, saying this: "90% of independent Americans don't like them, don't trust them, and think they're radicals."

Which is a 100% lie, because the polls show that the majority of Americans support them and agree with them. O'Reilly just made it up, proving once again that he is nothing but a dishonest right-wing hack.

Then O'Reilly had the conservative Bill Bennett on to promote his book about being a man, and O'Reilly asked him what it means to be a man. Which I clearly will not report on, because it's nonsense and nothing but a cheap book promotion by O'Dummy for one of his right-wing friends.

Then the right-wing stooge Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about what O'Reilly claims the mainstream media folks are suddenly saying the economy is out of President Obama's control.

Goldberg said this: "The media can't possibly be as enthusiastic this time around as they were last time, because if they slobber over him as much this time, the media and the President would have to get a room. But will they be enthusiastic again? I think the answer is yes. Four years ago the media picked up their pom-poms and cheered him because Barack Obama was an historic figure, and once you fall madly in love with somebody it isn't easy to fall out of love just a few days later. Once Obama is facing a real opponent, the media will be enthusiastic for him again."

And finally the fantasy Factor Reality Check segment. That has no reality and almost no checks. It's just O'Reilly (by himself) putting his right-wing spin on something someone else said.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as hell pinheads and patriots nonsense. Which I will report on for once, because O'Reilly named George W. Bush a patriot for what he said was throwing a strike as the 1st pitch at the world series. And he named Nolan Ryan the pinhead for missing the pitch.

To begin with, it was not a strike, it was outside, and there is no way Bush should be named a patriot simply for throwing out the 1st pitch at a baseball game. Likewise, Nolan Ryan should not be called a pinhead for missing an outside pitch when he was not even a catcher, he was a pitcher.

Fox News Dreams Up A War On Halloween
By: Steve - October 25, 2011 - 10:00am

Friday, a Fox Nation headline read like this: "Schools Declare War on Halloween"

The headline linked to a story by correspondent Todd Starnes, that said this:
Public schools across the country are cancelling Halloween celebrations over issues ranging from candy corn to concerns that Americans are forcing their holiday traditions on new immigrants and many parents are angered by what they are calling political correctness.

The principal at Buckman Elementary School in Portland, OR recently banned costumes at his school, calling instead for boys and girls to embrace a "spirit of equity."

"For many reasons, the celebration of Halloween at school can lead to student exclusion," Principal Brian Anderson wrote in a letter to parents. "There are social, financial and cultural differences among our families that we must respect."

Anderson wrote that the "spirit of equity" has led most public schools in the city to "deemphasize the celebration of Halloween at school."
Now remember this, the schools aren't keeping elementary-school children from celebrating Halloween; rather, they're prohibiting them from wearing costumes during the school day and doing away with parties and costume parades during the school day -- not scrapping them altogether.

And parties will still be thrown after school, and children are free to wear their costumes then.

Telling kids to celebrate the occasion after school so as not to disrupt classroom time and offering healthy treats at school parties is banning Halloween to the idiots at Fox.

Here's another thing to remember. While Fox is busy defending this nonsense against Halloween, Pat Robertson has blasted the occasion as "Satan's night."
ROBERTSON: We need the power of God, not some kind of ersatz entertainment. I mean, we don't believe in "haunted." We don't believe in ghosts. We don't believe in all this business. Halloween is Satan's night. It's the night for the devil. It's, you know, skeletons and all this, like the dead rising.
So there is no ban, they just do not want the kids wearing costumes or having parties at school, because they are there to learn not have parties. The Halloween costumes and parties can still happen after school is over, that means they did not ban Halloween.

Republican Says GOP Wrong To Want To Stay In Iraq
By: Steve - October 25, 2011 - 9:00am

When President Obama announced last week that the U.S. troop presence in Iraq would end as scheduled on Dec. 31 - after nearly nine years, thousands of U.S. troops casualties, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent - right-wing criticisms started pouring in. A neoconservative architect of the Iraq war twisted his benchmarks (yet again) to call Obama's scheduled withdrawal a retreat.

And GOP presidential candidates came out in opposition to the withdrawal, ignoring altogether any Iraqi say in the matter and Americans opposition to the war.

But now, underscoring fractures in the Republican Party on foreign policy, a right-wing member of Congress is voicing consternation with his party about opposition to the pullout. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) tweeted on Sunday that he didn't understand the position from his party and its presidential candidates:
If we're going to get out of Iraq, I don't understand some of my GOP colleagues & Presidential Candidates.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry both blasted Obama last week for the withdrawal announcement, and other candidates followed suit until the entire field found itself in universal opposition to the drawdown.

The critiques from the GOP field have ignored two key points in the withdrawal. The first is that the agreement that is ushering out U.S. troops was signed in 2008 by the Bush administration, amid concerns that the pact would tie the next president's hands.

The second is the Iraqi agency in the pullout. Iraqis were eager to see U.S. troops leave. Former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Christopher Hill wrote this weekend that "Prime Minister Maliki got very little support from any other Iraqi political [bloc]." The government also opposed immunity from Iraqi law for remaining U.S. troops.

Al-Maliki said this weekend that it was "impossible to grant immunity to a single American soldier." The Pentagon had insisted on such immunity for troops to remain, and the U.S. policy changed as a result of Iraq's decision.

Michael Cohen wrote this about the Republican attacks on Obama's Iraq decision:
What is perhaps so maddening about this entire line of argument from the GOP that Obama has failed in Iraq is that it was Republicans, who were the loudest advocates of the 2007 surge on the grounds that escalation would help a sovereign, democratic government (as well as political reconciliation) take root in Iraq.

Republicans can't have this both ways: they can't on the one hand extol the virtues of democracy in Iraq and then get indignant when that country's democratically-elected government tells the United States they need to leave.
"If there was ever any question that the GOP's fundamental critique of President Obama's foreign policy is basically 'whatever he does we will argue the opposite,'" Cohen adds, "this past week should erase any doubts."

Scott Aide Admits Corporate Tax Cut Won't Create Jobs
By: Steve - October 24, 2011 - 10:00am

And he must be the only honest Republican in America, because this is the first time I have ever heard any Republican admit it. And btw, The Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) ran as a jobs candidate.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) started out as the jobs candidate, promising to create 700,000 jobs on top of the jobs added from Florida's normal growth. He then revised that plan down to just 700,000 before recently saying this: "I don't have to create any jobs."

Scott's need to divorce himself from his own job-creation promises is not surprising, since many of his policies have actually killed job growth. While admitting that his preference is to cut people, Scott has directed his focus toward corporate tax cuts rather than job creation.

In fact, his legislative affairs director Jon Costello publicly admitted as much. Asked about the value of Scott's most recent corporate tax break, Costello said "quite frankly" that the tax breaks might not be enough for a company to hire even one person:
Rep. Evan Jenne, D-Dania Beach, asked Costello of the governor's plan would require that companies create jobs in exchange for the new tax breaks.

"The last thing we would want to do is just have a CEO pocket the money and just say 'Thanks for the cash,'" Jenne said during a meeting of the House Economic Affairs Committee.

"Quite frankly, depending on the size and scope of the company, their savings and tax breaks might not be enough to bring a new person on," Costello answered.

"But it might be enough to buy a new piece of equipment or do something that injects money back into the economy."
And that's not all, in a state with 10.7 unemployment rate, Scott chose to kill a high-speed rail project that would've created 71,000 jobs, boasted about laying off 15,000 government employees, and plans to reject funds from Obama's new jobs plan that would create more than 60,000 jobs.

Instead, he champions corporate tax breaks that even his own administration says probably won't work. I have noted before how it is highly unlikely that Scott's corporate tax cut - especially his original plan to eliminate the corporate tax entirely - would create any jobs.

Asked point blank whether Scott is backtracking from his promise to create at least 700,000 jobs, Costello admitted, "it's a very difficult question." Given his policy choices, the answer actually seems pretty clear he is not trying to create any jobs.

What happened is all these Republicans ran on jobs in the last election, then once elected they did the opposite by doing everything they can to keep jobs from being created. Because if they helped to create new jobs it would actually help Obama politically, which would get him re-elected.

So they are being un-american by doing everything possible to not create new jobs, and in my book that is borderline treason. But of course O'Reilly never says a word about any of it because he is a Republican and he does not want to make his right-wing friends look bad.

Now if Democrats were doing this with a Republican President during a slow economy, O'Reilly would slam them every night as un-American traitors. But when Republicans do it he says nothing, because he is on their side and he agrees with what they are doing.

UPenn Disputes Cantor Explanation For Speech Cancellation
By: Steve - October 24, 2011 - 9:00am

Friday, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) abruptly canceled his speech on income inequality scheduled for the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. Cantor placed the blame squarely on the university, saying they changed the attendance policy at the last minute:
"The Office of the Majority Leader was informed by Capitol Police that the University of Pennsylvania was unable to ensure that the attendance policy previously agreed to could be met," wrote Cantor spokeswoman Laena Fallon.

"Wharton is a educational leader in innovation and entrepreneurship, and the Majority Leader appreciated the invitation to speak with the students, faculty, alumni, and other members of the UPENN community."
In a statement just released by the university, the school disputes Cantor's explanation, saying the speech was always billed as open to the general public:
Wharton deeply regrets that the event scheduled at the School this afternoon with Majority Leader Eric Cantor has been cancelled. The University community was looking forward to hearing Majority Leader Cantor's comments on important public issues, and we hope there will be another opportunity for him to speak on campus.

The Wharton speaker series is typically open to the general public, and that is how the event with Majority Leader Cantor was billed. We very much regret if there was any misunderstanding with the Majority Leader's office on the staging of his presentation.
Cantor's decision followed plans for a large march and protest prior to the speech, with participation by Occupy Philadelphia and other groups. Cantor has previously dismissed the Occupy Wall Street movement as a "mob."

And they did not really miss much because basically the only idea for addressing Income Inequality in Cantor's speech was this: Don't say mean things about rich people. He has no plan to solve the income equality problem.

O'Reilly Calls Park51 Housing Condos For Al Qaeda
By: Steve - October 23, 2011 - 10:00am

On the 10-20-11 O'Reilly Factor Bill O'Reilly called the proposed Park51 housing "Condos For Al Qaeda," then he claimed it was a jest. Then he complained about the "PC B.S."



Now get this, when a Democrat makes a joke like that and then uses the "it was just a joke" excuse O'Reilly says he is not buying it and slams them anyway for making the joke. But when he does it somehow it's ok, and it's PC B.S. if you call him on it.

It's total hypocrisy and a double standard from O'Reilly, and it's a violation of his own rules. But those rules only apply to everyone else, not O'Reilly.

Cantor Cancels Speech After Hearing It's Open To Public
By: Steve - October 23, 2011 - 9:00am

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has abruptly canceled a speech planned for Friday afternoon at the University of Pennsylvania that was meant to lay out the GOP's plans to address income inequality.

Cantor, who two weeks ago called the Occupy Wall Street and 99 Percent Movement protesters mobs, canceled his speech at the last minute after his office learned that the university's standard policy meant his speech would be open to the public.

Cantor had signed up for a "selected audience." The speech was seen as a response to the 99 Percent movement, and Occupy Philadelphia had organized a march from City Hall to the school. The march will still go on, as one of the the messages was that he refused to meet with his constituents to talk about jobs.

And even though Cantor canceled his speech a variety of local community groups including Occupy Philly, Americans United for Change, Philadelphia AFL-CIO, Fight for Philly, SEIU PA State Council, Protect Your Care, Keystone Progress, Moveon.org, NCPSSM, Progress Now, and AFSCME protested without his presence.

Hundreds of protesters marched into the Wharton School and chanted, "Eric Cantor You Can't Hide, Eric Cantor We're Inside!"

The Friday 10-21-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 22, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Occupy Wall Street out of control. Crazy O'Reilly said this
O'REILLY: As you may know, my pal Glenn Beck believes the 'Occupy' protest movement is just the beginning of a worldwide far-left revolt. Talking Points is not quite as agitated as Beck, but we are watching the situation very closely and there is no question that the violent component of the demonstrations is on the rise.

Right now the occupiers are clustered in about twenty American cities, with New York being the centerpiece. So far more than 900 protesters have been arrested in New York and the cost of the demonstrations is approaching $4 million. In Oakland things are getting rowdy - TV crews say they were 'manhandled' by protesters.

There is now danger of people being hurt and killed because some of these protesters are simply out of control. Whenever you have thousands of people emotionally charged anything can happen. America honors protest, but the 'Occupy' protests are not just about economics, there are radical people stirring up trouble.

The authorities must continue to be restrained, but they also must have very definite rules. Any lawbreaking has to be prosecuted and any threats have to be taken seriously. The Factor is all over this story because we believe it has the potential to get out of hand.
Yeah and anyone who is a pal of Glenn Beck is crazy. Notice that O'Reilly admits 900 people were arrested in NY, but on Letterman he said they only had about 1,000 people there. So if 900 were arrested then nobody is left right? Wrong, because O'Reilly was lying when he said it was only 1,000 people. He busted himself by admitting 900 people were arrested, what a dumbass.

Then he speculated people will be hurt and killed simply because a right-wing tv crew was pushed around. What a jerk, hey O'Reilly what happened to your no speculation rule. Try reporting when someone is actually hurt or killed, instead of speculating about it.

Then O'Reilly had the former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown on, who assessed the Bay Area's 'Occupy' protesters. Brown said this: "There has been some misunderstanding in Oakland, about the right to protest and where you can do it. It's just not healthy as it now stands and the mayor is going to have a difficult time controlling it. On the other hand, in San Francisco it's quite different - when protesters were creating problems on the sidewalk in front of the Federal Reserve building, they were relocated to another spot. You should protect the right to protest but you can not allow protesters to interfere with the space that all of us are entitled to."

O'Dummy said he was worried that a lot of these radical people will destroy property and will hurt other people for whatever reason.

Then O'Reilly said the VP Joe Biden is out of control, and he had Leslie Marshall and Caroline Heldman on to discuss the VP's tactics.

Marshall said this: "I think it's every politician's civic duty to go into the classroom, but not to pitch a jobs bill. He obviously didn't know his audience was 8 and 9-year-old children."

Heldman also took Biden and his handlers to task, saying this: "This is the second big gaffe that Biden has made to sell the jobs bill. This was kind of exploitive, and the fact that the Vice President is overshadowing the President indicates to me that maybe he is just a gaffe machine."

Billy said that Biden's schoolroom message was very calculated: "This was designed by the White House communications staff and thought out very thoroughly. It's not like he made a mistake - he was using a bunch of kids for political purposes and I don't think that's good."

Then Geraldo was on with his take on Muammar Gaddafi's death. "He got what he deserved, but it was savage and barbaric to see them pull him out alive and then put him on the hood of a car. I believe the lack of discipline they showed in disposing of Gaddafi will be reflected in the chaotic nature of the people who are now charged with governing Libya."

Geraldo also analyzed President Obama's decision to remove all combat troops from Iraq by the end of the year, saying this: "It's very possible that the Sunni-Shiite division will be exacerbated," he predicted, "and I think there could be a real civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. It cost of more us more than 4,000 lives and a trillion dollars, but I'm not sure we accomplished anything."

Then the Factor producer Jesse Watters went into what O'Dummy called the bizarre land of Comic Con, which bills itself as the world's largest comic book convention. Watters said this: "This is a Mecca for nerds," one attendee told Watters, who also spoke with folks dressed as Plastic Man, Batman, Captain America, Spiderman, Wonder Woman, and assorted other super heroes."

Then the right-wing stooge Lou Dobbs was on to evaluate the tax plans by Republican presidential hopefuls Rick Perry and Herman Cain. Dobbs said this: "The current tax code is a monstrosity, which is designed for anything but simplicity. The advantage of both of these plans is simplicity and directness, and it could help lead to openness and transparency. Both Herman Cain's plan and Rick Perry's plan are flat taxes with specific rates."

Dobbs then focused specifically on Herman Cain's '9-9-9' plan, saying this: "Most of the folks who have their fingers on this look at this as driving growth, and it also simplifies and takes out at least five taxes that are now hidden. There are downsides but there are tremendous upsides as well. This is the beginning of a very important conversation about how to rationalize our tax system."

Proving that O'Reilly and Dobbs are wealthy right-wing idiots, because nobosy supports the tax plan by Perry or Cain, except other right-wing rich people. And the 9-9-9 plan would be a disaster from everyone but the rich, most economists even say if it passed it would put us back into a recession. But of course neither Dobbs or O'Reilly said a word about any of that.

And finally in the last segment it was dumbest things of the week with Greg Gutfeld and Arthel Neville.

Neville picked the new Barbie doll that comes complete with pink hair and tattoos. "She is 'funky fashionista' Barbie, and she has tattoos on her neck and arms. I have a problem with that, we don't want kids to think it's fashionable to get a tattoo."

Gutfeld went with NPR radio host Nina Simeone, who was fired after helping to organize an 'Occupy' protest in Washington. "This is another example, of the media acting as a PR company for the protest. The movement is a lot like me - when you see me on TV I appear normal size, but in real life I'm tiny. That's what the 'Occupy' protests are like."

O'Dummy singled out former terrorist Bill Ayers, who praised the protesters and condemned his old pal Barack Obama for sending drones to kill terrorists.

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

U.S. Troops Burn A Box Of O'Reilly's Books
By: Steve - October 22, 2011 - 10:00am

Now here is a story I guarantee you will NEVER see reported by O'Reilly. A group of U.S. troops in Afghanistan burned a box of O'Reilly's books.

An anonymous soldier going by the name of Everqueer posted pictures of the burning on their Tumblr page. The book in question was "Pinheads and Patriots," which O'Reilly has sent to Afghanistan through a charity group.



"Some jerk sent us two boxes of this awful book (SPOILER ALERT: George Washington - Patriot; George Soros - Pinhead) instead of anything soldiers at a remote outpost in Afghanistan might need, like, say, food or soap," the soldier said. "Just burned the whole lot of them on my Commander's orders."

After a few readers objected to the burning, Everqueer wrote a followup post clarifying why it had happened:
The motivation behind the order to burn them was not political, as mentioned in the original post, we are in an extraordinarily remote location. We don't have a post office here, so sending them back wasn't an option. Extra space is scarce and alternatives that a few mentioned, like recycling, are nonexistent.

I'm aware of the historical implications of book-burning. I won't say I didn't take pleasure in removing a few copies of this bigoted twerp's writings from circulation, but the reason for doing so was military necessity.
Hey O'Reilly, next time you send something to the troops, make it something they actually need you jerk. Your stupid books are worthless to them, send them some food, or soap, or try asking them what they need.

Republicans Vote No On Jobs Bill For The 2nd Time
By: Steve - October 22, 2011 - 9:00am

For the second time, Senate Republicans unanimously voted to block a jobs measure "designed to prevent layoffs of teachers, police officers and firefighters in cash-strapped states."

President Obama called the vote "unacceptable," adding that "Americans deserve an explanation as to why they don't deserve those jobs."

At midnight, nine hours after hailing the death of Moammar Gadhafi, President Obama issued a statement condemning Republicans for voting against a part of his jobs bill to fund teachers, firefighters and police officers, calling it "unacceptable."

"Those Americans deserve an explanation as to why they don't deserve those jobs," Obama said. "And every American deserves an explanation as to why Republicans refuse to step up to the plate and do what's necessary to create jobs and grow the economy right now."

Senate Republicans voted last week to block consideration of Obama's overall $447 billion American Jobs Act.

Obama and the Democrats responded by saying they would introduce the bill piece by piece, starting with a $35 billion plan to help state and local governments prevent layoffs of teachers, police officers and firefighters; the Democrats proposed financing the plan with a surcharge on millionaires.

Obama also said this: "We must rebuild the economy the American way and restore security for the middle class, based on the values of balance and fairness. Independent economists have said the American Jobs Act could create up to 2 million jobs next year. So the choice is clear. Our fight isn't over. We will keep working with Congress to bring up the American Jobs Act piece by piece, and give Republicans another chance to put country before party and help us put the American people back to work."

And of course O'Reilly never said a word about it, because it makes his Republican friends look bad, especially when the vast majority of the American people support the Obama jobs bill.

The Thursday 10-20-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 21, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Libyan rebels kill former leader Gaddafi. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Another brutal dictator, Muammar Qaddafi, has met a violent end; throughout history terrible power-mongers have met violent ends. It's a karma thing - you can't brutalize fellow human beings and prosper. But the problem is that guys like Qaddafi, Saddam, Hitler and Mussolini survived far too long and did incredible damage.

The lesson over and over is that there is evil in the world and always will be. That is the basis of many theologies, the struggle between good and evil. Qaddafi was a psychopath and a narcissist who couldn't care less about his fellow human beings; he ruled Libya for an incredible 42 years before he met his fate.

The question is how much responsibility the United States has when it comes to killers like Qaddafi? The USA did not intervene when Hitler rose to power in the '30's, and we've allowed other killers to rule as well.

The hard truth is that we can't impose justice and morality in the world, and therefore people like Qaddafi are allowed to do their evil deeds for decades. But in the end, they always get what they deserve, either in this life or the next.
Then O'Reilly had Col. David Hunt and Col Ralph Peters on to discuss it, with no liberals on of course. Hunt said this: "NATO has been operating against the Qaddafi regime for about six months, slowly taking away his ability to hide. About three weeks ago we learned that there were five to six cars left in his entourage, and at about 7:00 this morning the cars were hit by French jets, French predators and U.S. predators. Qaddafi was all but dead, then he had a bullet put in his head by rebel forces."

Peters said this: "The rebels dragged him out of a sewer pipe, just the way we dragged Saddam out of a rat hole. The likely scenario is that they beat the daylights out of this wounded guy and then they just popped him. The mob killed Qaddafi, and good riddance! Ultimately we have to give Obama credit - his approach was far from perfect, but ultimately it was successful."

Wow, it's a miracle, Col. Peters actually gave Obama some credit for it, which is probably the first and last time he will ever do that. Notice that neither O'Reilly or Col. Hunt gave Obama any credit for the killing.

Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about the wall street protests. O'Reilly claims the "Occupy" protests in New York have attracted communists, socialists, anarchists, and assorted other radicals. So Ingraham said this: "Most of these people, don't even know the rudimentary teachings of capitalism. They've heard about capitalism but they don't really know what it is. They're sending tweets on their iPhones, they're getting big trucking companies bringing in sleeping bags, and they have huge restaurant groups bringing in food. There is a deep and nutty strain of anti-American folks out there, which is great for Republicans."

And of course O'Reilly agreed that many protesters simply dislike this country, saying this: "This isn't about Wall Street or economic justice, this is an amalgamation of anti-capitalist and anti-American people."

Proving that they are both right-wing stooges that will lie to the American people about the protesters and what they want.

Then Stuart Varney was on, who said some Democrats have expressed solidarity with the Wall Street protesters, Congressman Barney Frank among them, have raked in huge campaign contributions from financial companies.

Varney said this: "Barney Frank is an extremely powerful guy. He had a lot to do with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which blew up, and yet he got them excluded from any kind of financial reform. Doesn't power attract money, and isn't there an implied threat here? Is it not possible that Barney Frank insinuates what he can do to people if they don't pony up some money? And there is always going to be a constituency on Wall Street that is very supportive of Democrats. They're buying favorable treatment and they're buying influence."

Then the Culture Warriors Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover were on to discuss the latest developments in the proposed mosque near Ground Zero. Carlson said this: "Right now the group that wants to build this mosque, is in a court battle with Con Ed, the utility company, because they need to buy two buildings in order to put up this mosque and they owe $1.7 million in back rent on one of them. The guy in charge of the mosque now says maybe they'll put condominiums there."

Hoover said this: "The majority of Americans think they absolutely have the right to build the mosque, but that it would not be sensitive to 9/11 families."

Then O'Reilly predicted that the mosque will never be built in the proximity of Ground Zero. During the segment O'Reilly made a joke that the Park51 Condos will be a home for Al Qaeda, then he said it was just a joke, and that if any of the PC police go after him for it that will be B.S.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about the missing baby story. Authorities are still searching for 11-month-old Lisa Irwin, who has been missing for more than two weeks. Kelly said this: "Police are telling us they have not found a body, and they are saying Lisa's parents are not suspects, but police always say people are not suspects. Originally the parents said a screen was bent in and the baby was gone, but when I went out to interview them the story had changed dramatically.

We learned for the first time that Deborah Bradley had between five and ten glasses of wine the night the baby disappeared, and she told me it was possible that she blacked out. But she has no history of domestic violence and she is described as a good mother by those who know her." And finally Martha MacCallum & Steve Doocy were on for the ridiculous waste of time Factor News Quiz. Which I do not report on because it is not news. And for anyone who is counting, O'Reilly had 9 Republican guests on the show and 0 Democratic guests.

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

100% Proof O'Reilly Is Lying About President Obama
By: Steve - October 21, 2011 - 10:00am

If you want 100% conclusive proof Bill O'Reilly is a right-wing Obama hating liar, here it is, read this and you will see just how much O'Reilly is lying about Obama to make him look bad.

In one segment of his 10-18-11 Factor show, O'Reilly made a series of false and or misleading claims about President Obama's economic record, arguing that Obama's embrace of spending greatly expanded the deficit, that the stimulus "didn't work very well," that increasing taxes on the rich won't "put a dent" in the federal debt, and that the United States is on a path to Greek-style economic disaster.

Except none of those ridiculous claims are true, and O'Reilly just flat out lied about all of it.

Billy said this:

O'REILLY: There's no question the Obama administration has embraced out-of-control spending, it's not debatable. [The O'Reilly Factor, 10/18/11]

Please listen closely to these statistics. In the year 2007, during the Bush administration, federal deficit spending was $161 billion despite the Iraq and Afghan wars. Four years later, four years, under President Obama the deficit spending $1.3 trillion, eight times as much.

O'REILLY: So if you said the spend -- the stimulus spending work but unemployment went up considerably.

ALAN COLMES: Unemployment --

O'REILLY: And the federal debt rose to record levels.
And now the facts: The Large Deficit and its Roots -- The Tax Cuts and the Recession -- Preceded Obama's Term in Office.

O'Reilly Cherry-Picked The 2007 Deficit. It Was One Of Bush's Best Years. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the deficit was $158 billion in Fiscal Year 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $161 billion in 2007, $459 billion in 2008, and $1.4 trillion in 2009. The Deficit For FY09 Was $1.4 Trillion; FY09 Began "More Than Three Months Before President Obama's Inauguration."
The deficit for fiscal year 2009 -- which began more than three months before President Obama's inauguration -- was $1.4 trillion and, at 10 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the largest deficit relative to the economy since the end of World War II.

At $1.3 trillion and nearly 9 percent of GDP, the deficit in 2010 was only slightly lower. If current policies remain in place, deficits will likely resemble those figures in 2011 and hover near $1 trillion a year for the next decade.
The non-partisan CBO Projected A $1.2 Trillion Deficit Before Obama's Inauguration. In a budget report released on January 7, 2009 -- before Obama took office -- CBO said this:
The ongoing turmoil in the housing and financial markets has taken a major toll on the federal budget. CBO currently projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. That total, however, does not include the effects of any future legislation.

Enactment of an economic stimulus package, for example, would add to the 2009 deficit. In any event, as a percentage of GDP, the deficit will most likely shatter the previous post-World War II record high of 6.0 percent posted in 1983.

A drop in tax revenues and increased federal spending (much of it related to the government's actions to address the crisis in the housing and financial markets) both contribute to the robust growth in this year's deficit.

Compared with receipts last year, collections from corporate income taxes are anticipated to decline by 27 percent and individual income taxes by 8 percent; in normal economic conditions, they would both grow by several percentage points.

In addition, the estimated deficit includes outlays of more than $180 billion to reflect the cost of transactions of the TARP.
CBPP: "If Not For The Bush Tax Cuts. The Wars In Iraq And Afghanistan and The Worst Recession Since The Great Depression, The U.S. Would not be Facing Such Large Deficits."
The events and policies that pushed deficits to these high levels in the near term were, for the most part, not of President Obama's making.

If not for the Bush tax cuts, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression (including the cost of policymakers' actions to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.

By themselves, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $20 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019. The stimulus law and financial rescues will account for less than 10 percent of the debt at that time.
O'Reilly also said this:
O'REILLY: Now you would think President Obama for his own political survival would support drastic cuts in federal spending but he doesn't and neither does the Democratic Party in general.

In fact, the far-left loons want to spend more believing there's all evidence that it will get us out of the sovereign recession. So if the Republicans are smart, a big if, they will simply run a campaign on economics. There's no question the Obama administration has embraced out- of-control spending, it's not debatable. And if the deficit spending doesn't stop the U.S.A. will become like Greece, insolvent and chaotic.

O'REILLY: OK so, everybody but Colmes, everybody, maybe the Wall Street protesters, maybe that. But everybody else who is not ideological is going to say got to put a lid on it or we're going to be Greece. We got to. Because we can't pay our bills, we can't pay it back. [The O'Reilly Factor, 10/18/11
And now the facts: The Greek And American Situations are Fundamentally Different; The Greek Problem Is "Impossible Here."

In a June 14, 2010, blog post, former Bush Treasury official and conservative economist Bruce Bartlett noted that "the sort of problem Greece is experiencing is impossible here." From Bartlett's blog post:
The recent financial crisis in Greece has led to a lot of discussion about whether the United States might one day have a public debt so large that default becomes a real possibility.

While the sort of problem Greece is experiencing is impossible here, we have another problem that, to my knowledge, no other nation on Earth has: a legal limit on government debt that Congress must raise periodically.

This peculiarity of our fiscal system could indeed lead to a default on the debt, with repercussions that advocates of default -- yes, they exist -- have absolutely no clue about.

The main reason the U.S. cannot suffer the sort of debt problems of Greece and other eurozone countries is that all our debt is denominated in dollars, of which we essentially have an unlimited supply.

Because its monetary policy is controlled by the European Central Bank, Greece can't just print euros the way we can print dollars. And the Federal Reserve will always ensure the success of a Treasury bond auction.

De facto monetization of the debt could be inflationary, but default resulting from a lack of demand for Treasury bonds is not really possible.
O'Reilly also said this:
O'REILLY: Talking Points is playing Paul Revere this evening. Bankruptcy is coming and the Democrats are not considering that reality. The tax the rich mantra is a delusion. There are not enough rich people in the country to even put a dent in the federal debt. Government spending should revert back to the year 2007 when we had a manageable deficit.[The O'Reilly Factor, 10/18/11]
And now the facts: Allowing Tax Cuts To Expire For The Top 2 Percent Of US Households Would Prevent $826 Billion In Added Deficits And Debt Over The Next Ten Years. From CBPP:
Allowing tax cuts to expire for married filers with incomes above $250,000 and single filers with incomes above $200,000-- the top 2 percent of U.S. households -- will avert $826 billion in added deficits and debt over the next ten years.

The savings from allowing the top two marginal tax rates to expire for those high-income households constitute $443 billion of that $826 billion.

There is broad consensus among economists and fiscal policy analysts that the deficit and debt levels the government will experience if current tax and spending policies are continued will ultimately be harmful to the economy.
O'Reilly also said this:
O'REILLY: Now, to be fair, the economy collapsed on Bush's watch and both Republicans and Democrats committed almost $1 trillion to prop up the economy. As we all know the stimulus spending did not work very well. [The O'Reilly Factor, 10/18/11]
And now the facts: The Stimulus Worked As "Expected," Reduced Unemployment, And Increased Economic Growth.

Former White House Economist Bernstein said this: "The Weight Of The Evidence Is That The Recovery Act Did What We Expected It To Do."
Though we can never know alternative histories -- in this case, how the economy would have performed absent the stimulus -- the weight of the evidence is that the Recovery Act did what we expected it to do.

It created a few million jobs and shaved a few percentage points off the unemployment rate. But most important, it kept a bad situation from getting a lot worse.

Lots of academic, nonpartisan evidence reveals the Recovery Act created or saved millions of jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, for example, just released a report finding that at its height about a year ago, the act created around 2.5 million jobs, and shaved around 1.5 points off of the unemployment rate.

Again, that's what we expected in terms of unemployment reduction, though we clearly were too optimistic about the level of the jobless rate, in large part because we had not yet seen data on just how deep the unfolding downturn was.

What [critics] can't say, at least not without ignoring the evidence, is that the Recovery Act failed. It did what we expected it to do, creating jobs, lowering unemployment and preventing recession from morphing into depression.

If anything, what the evidence shows is that it ended too soon. And that is why President Obama is, as we speak, crafting a smaller package of targeted jobs measures to build on the success of the Recovery Act.
And now you have the facts, not the right-wing lies O'Reilly put out. All of what O'Reilly said is a lie, and he knows it, but he still said it to smear Obama. Proving once again that he is nothing but a partisan right-wing hack of a pretend journalist.

Tea Party Tells Small Businesses Not To Hire Anyone
By: Steve - October 21, 2011 - 9:00am

O'Reilly and the Republicans in Congress have acted shocked and offended at Democrats suggestions that they are intentionally sabotaging the economy to try to win back the White House in 2012.

Republicans have refused to pass President Obama's jobs plan - which experts estimate will create at least 1.9 million jobs - and proposed an alternative plan that Moody's says will likely push the economy back into recession.

So now influential Tea Party leaders are throwing caution to the wind and openly lobbying business owners to stop hiring in order to hurt Obama politically. This week, Right Wing Watch picked up on a message Tea Party Nation sent to their members from conservative activist Melissa Brookstone.

In a rambling letter titled "Call For A Strike of American Small Businesses Against The Movement for Global Socialism," Brookstone urges businesses not hire a single person to protest this new dictator:
Resolved that: The current administration and Democrat majority in the Senate, in conjunction with Progressive socialists from all around the country, especially those from Hollywood and the left leaning news media (Indeed, most of the news media.) have worked in unison to advance an anti-business, an anti-free market, and an anti-capitalist (anti-individual rights and property ownership) agenda.

I, an American small business owner, part of the class that produces the vast majority of real, wealth producing jobs in this country, hereby resolve that I will not hire a single person until this war against business and my country is stopped.
Brookstone cites Democrats support of the Occupy Wall Street movement as proof that Obama, media elites, and the like are against business, private property ownership and capitalism.

Although she fails to explain how a freeze on hiring would send a bold pro-business message, given that such a boycott would further damage the economy and exacerbate high national unemployment.

But these Tea Partiers are only too happy to put politics ahead of the well-being of 14 million unemployed Americans, not to mention the businesses who are looking for qualified workers.

And O'Reilly does not say a word about this, because it would make the Tea Party and the Republicans look bad. And it would also show how dishonest O'Reilly has been for saying the Republicans are not trying to kill job creation to hurt Obama politically.

The Wednesday 10-19-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 20, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Fireworks at the GOP debate! Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There were three central themes Tuesday night in Las Vegas. Number one, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry don't like each other; number two, all the Republican candidates don't like Herman Cain's '9-9-9' tax plan; and number three, Anderson Cooper lost control at a key moment in the debate.

Perry went after Romney on the illegal immigrant issue, leading to a heated back-and-forth. CNN's Anderson Cooper, the moderator, should have stepped in and allowed Romney to respond without interruption. Perry accused Romney of hypocrisy; Cooper should have provided Romney a moment to respond without chaos.

The facts are these: After learning that his lawn mowing company in Massachusetts was using illegal labor, Governor Romney fired them. You can decide whether the issue has any relevance. Also, Herman Cain was pounded over his '9-9-9' tax proposal. Low income folks would pay a little more to the feds if the 9% individual flat tax was passed into law, and a 9% sales tax would hurt things like the fast food industry and clothing.

However, Herman Cain is all in said his rivals don't understand the plan. The debate was the liveliest yet and marks Rick Perry's return to the fray. Mitt Romney maintained his status as the guy to beat, while Herman Cain lost some momentum, which is to be expected.

The other candidates are long shots with the primaries closing in. In order to compete in the presidential arena the candidates need big money, and that flows only to those who are perceived to have a good chance to win the nomination.
What a joke, O'Reilly is spinning for Romney and misrepresenting the terrible 9-9-9 plan by Cain. Romney knew for years that illegals were working for the lawn company, and he only told them to get rid of them after he decided to run for President. He even admitted it in the debate, by saying he told them the illegals have to go because he is running for President. And yet, O'Reilly never said a word about it.

The 9-9-9 plan is a give-away to millionaires, and it screws everyone else. It raises taxes on 84% of the people and yet O'Reilly supports it because it gives him a massive tax cut. Now think about this, O'Reilly has said you CAN NOT raise taxes on ANYONE right now, but he supports the Cain 9-9-9 plan when it raises taxes on almost everyone. Making O'Reilly a massive hypocrite who talks out of both sides of his mouth.

Then the right-wing fool Dick Morris was on to give his post-game analysis of Tuesday's GOP debate. Morris said this: "Romney won and Perry lost decisively. Nobody likes a dirty fighter and Perry looked like Richard Nixon, he looked like a dirty, low-blow fighter. On top of that he was talking over everybody and looked completely out of sorts."

Morris also said that Herman Cain was not at his best in the debate, saying this: "His defense of his tax plan was rather inept, it's a much better plan than he gave it credit for. Remember what happened when Reagan cut the top tax rate and the economy exploded with 20 years of prosperity? That's what would happen if '9-9-9' passed."

Morris is an idiot, because most economic experts say if the 9-9-9 plan passed the economy would go back into a recession. Not to mention how unfair it would be to the lower and middle class who would see tax rate increases while millionaires get huge tax cuts. Now remember what happened when Clinton raised the top tax rate, the economy exploded for 8 years and we created 24 million new jobs. Something neither O'Reilly or Morris ever talk about.

Then O'Reilly had the former Obama press aide Bill Burton on to discuss the debate. Burton said this: "I would give the debate to Rick Perry, who showed a little bit of energy and fight and landed a couple of punches. He did as well as he's done in any of these debates and it was fun to see what happens when you get under Mitt Romney's skin. Romney couldn't take it and he was begging Anderson Cooper to help him."

Billy said that Romney had no choice but to turn to the moderator, saying, "Romney was doing the proper thing by asking Anderson Cooper to give him his time." When asked to predict who will be facing President Obama next year, Burton went with Mitt Romney.

Then the crazy right-wing idiot O'Reilly had Michael Daly from Newsweek on to prove the wall street protesters are just regular Americans. Even though he never asked anyone to prove the same thing when the Tea Party protested.

O'Reilly said that according to a piece in Newsweek magazine, the Occupy Wall Street protesters are ordinary Americans. So O'Dummy challenged Newsweek's Michael Daly to back up that claim. Proving that O'Reilly is a right-wing stooge, because only a right-wing idiot would ask him to prove they are regular Americans.

Daly said this: "There's a general feeling in this country, that things aren't right and that there aren't any leaders taking us in the direction to make things right, and on both the left and the right there is frustration and anger and worry. The protest is not an articulation, it's an expression that has grown. It's very difficult to make generalizations about them."

then O'Reilly compared the Occupy Wall Street crowd unfavorably with their right-leaning predecessors: "The Tea Party protests got hammered by the media as racists and lousy right-wing people, but the Tea Party people want to work within the system and they want politicians to stop the massive spending. The Occupy people, by and large, want to blow the system up."

And that is where O'Reilly goes off the wagon with his right-wing lies. Because they do not want to blow the system up, they just want it to be fair to everyone so that more than the top 1% make all the money. They do not want to blow it up, they just want to change it so it's more fair to everyone.

Then O'Reilly had Dennis Miller on for his regular weekly segment, which I do not report on because it is not news. It's just the comedian Dennis Miller on to make jokes about liberals, with no liberal comedian on to make jokes about conservatives.

And finally in the last segment Juliet Huddy reacted to actress Susan Sarandon, who called Pope Benedict a "Nazi." Huddy said this: "She's been very quiet, and she's usually very outspoken. You would think that maybe she would apologize because she was so wrong about this. This may hurt her career because many people are very offended - when you start talking about Nazis and Hitler it takes it to a whole new level."

Huddy also watched footage of the wild animals who were let loose in Zanesville, Ohio, saying this: "There were bears, monkeys, cheetahs, and at this point 48 of the 56 have been killed. The question was why they didn't just tranquilize them, but cops in Zanesville don't have tranquilizer guns. This was horrible!"

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

Schoen Spins His Own Poll To Smear Protesters
By: Steve - October 20, 2011 - 10:00am

This is classic right-wing spin, do a poll, then spin the poll to say what you want it to say, not actually report what the poll said. And The guy who did it is a Fox News Fake Democrat, Doug Schoen. Not only that, O'Reilly also used the poll to smear the protesters, even though the poll was misrepresented by Schoen.

Proving once again that O'Reilly will do anything to smear the protesters, including using dishonest spin about a poll, instead of actually reporting what the poll said, O'Reilly cited the Schoen spin on the poll.

Here is what the dishonest and biased hack Doug Schoen did:

In the Tuesday Wall Street Journal, Doug Schoen reported on the results of a poll he conducted of Occupy Wall Street protesters:
What binds a large majority of the protesters together-regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education-is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth.
But when you actually look at the poll results you see that Schoen misrepresented the results of his own poll. He writes that a large majority are bound together by support for a radical redistribution of wealth.

But when he asked the protesters what they'd like the Occupy Wall Street movement to achieve, only 4% of them said radical redistribution of wealth, which btw, tied for last on the list of answers given.

And there is no mention of radical redistribution of wealth anywhere else in the poll. Which means Schoen put a right-wing spin on his very own poll. Only 4% said radical redistribution of wealth, and yet he called that a majority, which O'Reilly repeated on his show.

And only 35 percent said they would like to influence the Democratic Party, which is also not a majority. Killing the spin that a majority of them support left-wing policies, because 35% is not a majority, and it's not even close.

Schoen also wrote that a large majority express "opposition to free-market capitalism," but the poll question asked was what frustrates them most about the U.S. political process, and only 3 percent named our democratic/capitalist system.

So out of 198 poll takers, that adds up to five or six people, which is not a majority at all. Making Schoen a massive liar, and a fool who put a spin on the poll.

Schoen also writes that "sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost."

But the actual poll question makes no mention of costs.

Schoen, who bills himself as a Democratic pollster but has praised the Tea Party and advised Obama not to run for a second term, was determined to paint the Occupy Wall Street protesters as politically toxic. As a result, he grossly misrepresented the results of his poll to Wall Street Journals readers.

Now think about this, what kind of Democrat would spin his own poll that way, none of them, because this fraud is not a Democrat, he is a Republican. He is a full blown right-wing hack, and the fact that Fox tries to pass this fool off as a Democrat alone shows how biased they are.

And then the rest of Fox use his spin to cite the poll, and that is dishonest. O'Reilly even jumped on the dishonest bandwagon by using the Schoen spin to smear the protesters.

O'Reilly Has Totally Ignored The GOP Jobs Plan
By: Steve - October 20, 2011 - 9:00am

And the reason he has ignored it is because most economists say if it ever passed it would put the country back into a recession. And O'Reilly sure does not want to report that because it would make his right-wing friends look bad.

Last week, Senate Republicans unveiled their much-hyped alternative to President Obama's jobs plan. The "Jobs Through Growth Act" is heavy on Republicans favorite policies like cutting corporate taxes and reducing regulation, but light on details. Nevertheless, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) declared that it would create 5 million jobs.

But Moody's Analytics estimated that Obama's American Jobs Act would create 1.9 million jobs, grow the economy by 2 percent and cut unemployment by a percentage point. Their review of the Republicans plan is not nearly as favorable.

In fact, the Washington Post's Greg Sargent reports that one Moody's economist thinks it may damage the economy even more:
An economist I spoke to just now said it won't help the economy in the short term, and could even make matters worse.

“Gus Faucher, the director of macroeconomics at Moody's Analytics, told me."

"Should we look at regulations and make sure they make sense from a cost benefit standpoint? Certainly. Should we reduce the budget deficit over the long run? Certainly," Faucher said.

"But in the short term, demand is weak, businesses aren't hiring, and consumers aren't spending. That's the cause of the current weakness - and Republican Senate proposals aren't going to address that in the short term."
Republicans lofty claims about what their jobs bill will accomplish have centered around reducing uncertainty and restoring confidence, but Faucher points out "that's not an economic argument."

Furthermore, Faucher says Republicans insistence on including a Balanced Budget Amendment is "likely to push the economy back into recession."

Then this week, Senate Republicans filibustered Obama's jobs act. Which means nothing passed, and the Republicans blocked the jobs bill that had any chance to pass at all.

The Tuesday 10-18-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 19, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Record spending from the Obama administration. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: With a number of European countries on the verge of bankruptcy, attention is now shifting to the USA because bankruptcy could be looming here as well. In the year 2007, during the Bush administration, deficit spending was $161 billion. Four years later deficit spending is $1.3 trillion, eight times as much.

To be fair, the economy collapsed on President Bush's watch and both Republicans and Democrats committed almost a trillion dollars to prop up the economy. As we all know, the stimulus spending did not work very well, but the Obama administration has not cut back.

Today the feds are spending $9.8 billion every day. Tax revenue has actually gone up, but there is no way Americans can bring down the federal debt because the spending is just too massive.

You would think President Obama, for his own political survival, would support drastic cuts in federal spending, but he doesn't. So if the Republicans are smart they will simply run a campaign on economics. There's no question the Obama administration has embraced out-of-control spending, and if the deficit spending doesn't stop the USA will become like Greece, insolvent and chaotic.

Talking Points is playing Paul Revere this evening: bankruptcy is coming and the Democrats are not considering that reality.
Wow, O'Reilly is just an idiot. he keeps spinning out these bogus numbers to smear Obama, and you can bet the farm he will continue to do it until the election, to help the Republican beat Obama. The stimulus did work, and only right-wing hacks say different. Tax revenue has not gone up, and all the economic experts say you can not put drastic spending cuts in place while the economy is so slow, because it would put us back into a recession. And the USA will never become like Greece, because we can print money and O'Reilly knows it, but he keeps lying about it anyway.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to debate the insane Talking Points Memo. Colmes said this: "The stimulus did work, and we would be in a lot worse shape without it. And it's not fair to say President Obama doesn't want to cut spending. He had a $4 trillion 'grand bargain' he was ready to enact, but John Boehner said no."

Bingo, for once Colmes put the smackdown on O'Dummy. The stimulus did work and Obama would have passed spending cuts but the Republicans blocked it.

Crowley said this: "Liberals have controlled the White House and Congress until this year and we have run their Keynesian experiment. They have spent us into a coma and we now have the evidence that it did not work. If massive infusions of government spending were to create a booming economy, Greece would be booming and Western Europe."

O'Reilly said both parties should come together and stop the spending madness, saying this: "The United States is not prospering economically, but at the same time we're running up record debt. We have to find a different way."

Then the far-right biased hack Karl Rove was on to slam Obama, he was asked to identify states that President Obama carried in 2008 but is in danger of losing next year. Rove said this: "Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina are historically Republican states. I think Indiana and North Carolina are out of play for President Obama and he'll have to fight very hard for Virginia. That's 39 electoral votes among just those three states. I also think he has real problems in Ohio, which he won by 2.8% in 2008."

The biased Rove also looked at states carried by John McCain that could turn blue. Rove said this: "The two states that were the closest last time were Montana and Missouri, where McCain barely won. But I think both of those states are out of play for President Obama. He's going to be playing defense the entire time and he has a very narrow path to victory."

And as expected the two of them (Rove and O'Reilly) once again ignored the TIME poll that has Obama beating all the Republicans, even with a slow economy and weak job growth. Now just think what the polls will say if the economy improves and job growth gets better over the next year, Obama will win easily.

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing loon John Stossel on, who went to the Occupy Wall Street protest, Stossel said he was slammed with obscenities and derogatory chants.

Really? What a shocker, not! Of course he was, because he is a right-wing stooge that works for the biased and dishonest Fox News Network. What did you expect would happen O'Reilly when you send a Fox stooge down there after calling the protesters loons, sludge, dirty idiots, etc. In fact, Stossel is lucky he did not get his but kicked. And if I was there I might have tried to punch his lying ass in the nose.

Stossel said this: "There are some people who are really inflamed. I went down there to have a good discussion about capitalism, but they're angry about everything - there is visceral hatred of Fox News and of me. And I'm a libertarian and I agree with these guys about some stuff."

So O'Dummy pointed out that pollster Doug Schoen surveyed the protesters and found many to be far out on the fringe, saying this: "Most of them are radical leftists who hate capitalism and want to burn the system down. They want forced redistribution of wealth. They're not winning and they're not going to win - they're loons!"

Then O'Reilly had some right-wing psychiatrist Karen Ruskin on, who expressed a so-called concern for the Wall Street protesters and their general state of mind.

Ruskin said this: "I am actually extremely concerned. When we feel out of control in our lives it leads to depression, and what they're actually asking for is to be out of control. They're asking others to take care of their lives by giving to them, rather than self-empowerment and self-enhancement. That is concerning and it leads to mental instability. These people should make honest choices to make an honest living."

Wow, that is the biggest load of garbage I have ever heard, this Ruskin is a right-wing quack and she should be banned from tv after that insanity.

O'Reilly added to the madness saying that radical egalitarianism has had disastrous results, Billy said this: "It's a destructive emotion to think that everybody should get the same - there have been more atrocities and violence committed in the name of that than anything else in history."

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle & Lis Wiehl were on to talk about some of the Wall Street protesters saying they will tie up the court system by insisting on trials if they are arrested.

Wiehl said this: "These are misdemeanor charges, and they're saying they will make the city take them to a full trial. This is an empty threat and it's ridiculous because if they just plead guilty these charges will go away."

Guilfoyle turned to the hotel worker in St. Augustine, Florida who was fired because he refused to remove his U.S. flag lapel pin, saying this: "New management came in, and they said it's part of the guidelines that you're not allowed to wear buttons or pins. The guy got fired when he refused to take off the pin. The company has the right to do it, but it's not the right thing to do - the town is home to about 20,000 veterans."

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had the biased right-wing jerk Charles Krauthammer on to get one more shot in on Obama before the show was over, crazy Krauthammer predicted President Obama will manufacture villains and scapegoats as the election nears.

Krauthammer said this: "He can't run on how he has managed the country and the economy, after running up $4 trillion in debt in three years, an indoor galactic record. So he's running on class envy and demonization - the rich are responsible for America's ills and the Republicans are the protectors of the rich. He's saying the miseries of the country are because the wealthiest 1% robbed, stole and destroyed the American economy. But when you play on envy, it works in other countries but not in America."

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

NY Wall Street Poll O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - October 19, 2011 - 10:00am

O'Reilly has once again ignored another poll, because it disagrees with his position, this time it's a poll of New Yorkers and the Wall Street protests.

Despite Mayor Michael Bloomberg's aversion to the protests, 67 percent of New York City voters agree with the views of Occupy Wall Street and say by a 87-10 percent margin that it's "okay that they are protesting," according to a new Quinnipiac poll out Tuesday.

Even 52 percent of the city's Republican voters agree that protesters "can stay as long as they wish," as long as they obey the law.

O'Reilly is ignoring the poll because it shows the people agree with the protesters. And O'Reilly is opposed to the protests, so he does not report the poll because he does not want you to know the majority of New Yorkers agree with them and disagree with O'Reilly.

This is done by O'Reilly all the time, when the majority support something, he ignores it because it disagrees with him. But when a poll agrees with him and the majority agree with him, he reports it and says we must go by the will of the people.

Proving that O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack of a fake journalist. And btw, O'Reilly never agrees with the people when they support a liberal position, he only agrees with polls that support a conservative position. Which is just more prof O'Reilly is a Republican, despite his claim of being a non-partisan Independent.

Dick Morris Admits The KKK Is Part Of The GOP
By: Steve - October 19, 2011 - 9:00am

If you want some solid evidence that Dick Morris is an idiot, here it is. While trying to slam Obama and the wall street protesters, Morris actually admitted the KKK is part of the GOP base.

Morris said this: "Occupy Wall Street is to Obama as a Large Ku Klux Klan Movement Would be to GOP President."



So what Morris is saying is that if we had a Republican President and the KKK had protests, that would be equal to the wall street protests under Obama. Which is one of the dumbest things he has ever said, not because it's not true (because it is) but because it sure does not make the GOP look good.

And with guys like Morris on their side, it sure is not helping the GOP. In fact, I would bet the RNC gave Morris a call and told the fool to shut his stupid mouth, and most likely told him they do not need his help.

The Monday 10-17-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 18, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Pres. Obama and the Wall Street protesters. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The people behind the Wall Street protests are smart - they have designed a plan that deflects the bad economy away from President Obama and onto 'greedy' Wall Street people and, by extension, the Republican Party.

It works this way: The protesters scream that Wall Street greed is why the worldwide economy is so bad. And who supports big business? The Republicans do. President Obama lit the fuse for this plan by openly stating that corporations and the wealthy are not paying their fair share in taxes.

Talking Points doesn't know whether Mr. Obama knew that his class warfare rhetoric would ignite public protest, but it has. What people have to understand is that these demonstrators come from a variety of places - some are hard-core communists, some are socialists, some are just confused.

The commonality is that they despise capitalism, believing it unfair. And sometimes it is, just like every other system can be unfair. But you don't see these protesters screaming about Greece, Spain, Portugal and other 'social justice' nations going bankrupt because of excessive spending on entitlements.

You also don't see the protesters angry with the Democratic Party for spending this country into near-bankruptcy, badly damaging the currency and retirement accounts. The truth is that many protesters in America simply don't like their country; they don't want to compete in the free marketplace; they want to do their own thing and be guaranteed financial security while doing it.

Meanwhile, the demonstrations are costing working taxpayers millions of dollars. Capitalism gives the most number of people the most amount of freedom to succeed on their own. Europe is collapsing economically because of rampant 'social justice' spending, the Soviet Union collapsed, Cuba and Venezuela are disasters.

Socialism never works, but there are millions of people who want stuff without working for it, and they are capable of using force to get that stuff. Not a nice picture.
And that my friends is a giant load of right-wing propaganda, almost none of it is true, and the rest is spin. O'Reilly claims Obama is linked to the protests, which is a massive lie, and Obama had nothing to do with it. Then he claims it is a diversion from the bad economy, with no proof, it's pure speculation, something he said he never does.

Then the jackass says they hate their country, which is just laughable, because they do not hate their country, they just want it to be run the right way that benefits the majority of the people, not just the wealthy and the corporations. O'Reilly just can not admit the truth, and if he really was looking out for the folks he would support the protests. Instead he is nothing but a right-wing idiot who is opposed to the protests, even though the majority of the people support them.

Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to discuss the Wall Street protests. Williams said this: "This crosses political lines. A majority of Americans now think that Republicans represent the rich and that taxes should be raised on those who make more than $200,000. People are just mad at Wall Street and they say the class warfare strategy of President Obama is actually bringing the country together."

And of course Ham disagreed, saying this: "The Obama administration risks two things - one is the absurdity of a guy who took more Wall Street money than anyone in history running an anti-Wall Street campaign, and the other issue is that there are a lot of real radicals out there who want revolution, not reform."

Billy agreed that President Obama should keep his distance from the more radical protesters, saying this: "If he thinks this movement is going to help him, he's wrong, and if he throws in with them he'll alienate a lot of independents."

Are you kidding me O'Dummy, 2 minutes ago you said the protests are helping Obama by creating a diversion from the bad economy, then you say it is not helping him 2 minutes later. Billy, up the meds buddy because you are losing it pal.

Then Marc Lamont Hill was on. Professor Hill explained why few blacks have been involved, saying this: "Unless there is a racially motivated movement like a civil rights protest. I don't see black people at mass protests. We tend to devote our energy toward issues that directly affect African Americans."

O'Reilly asked Hill about the glaring media double standard. According to O'Reilly. Hill said this: "I don't think the Tea Party was marked as racist was because there weren't black people in the crowd, the issue was that people read the Tea Party agenda as racist. Most of us who are smart and honest won't say the Tea Party is racist, but I do find that people who are racist tend to connect with the Tea Party movement."

Then O'Dummy said Hill's claim was "totally fallacious." Except Dr. Hill is right, the media pointed out that no blacks were at the Tea Party protests because they are a right-wing movement and they had a lot of racism at the protests and on their websites. O'Reilly just will not admit that, because it's true and it hurts the Republican party, which he is a member of.

Then Brit Hume was on to talk about the latest crop of political polls, including one showing that Herman Cain defeating President Obama in a head-to-head matchup. With no Democratic guest on to discuss it of course. Hume said this: "This is a sign of real weakness for the President, who is essentially tied with a rank newcomer to the scene. It shows that his people are right to be worried about his reelection prospects."

While ignoring the TIME poll that has Obama beating every Republican they have. Talk about one sided right-wing poll cherry picking bias, here it is, from Hume and O'Reilly.

Hume also expressed some doubts as to whether the Cain surge will endure, saying this: "He's not campaigning in the early states like Iowa and it's not clear that this lead in the polls will hold up when it gets down to a state-by-state race. At the moment he doesn't really have the funds to put together an organization and he doesn't seem to be trying."

Cain will lose, he does not even have the money to do anything, so he is toast. But O'Reilly and his crazy right-wing friends keep saying Cain has a chance, when they know it's a lie.

Then the crazy far-right Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about the protests, that have included at least some folks who are not shy about blaming the world's problems on Jews and the "Zionist conspiracy."

Goldberg said this: "I don't know how widespread it is, but I do know there were signs at 'Occupy Los Angeles' that were clearly anti-Semitic. And I know for sure that if there were 10-million people at a Tea Party and there was one racist sign, it was going to get on the air. But here we have some anti-Semitism and I'd like to see it on the air in some media outlet."

Goldberg moved on to what he sees as a divide in the Republican Party, saying this: "There's a split between the 'realists' on the one hand who support Romney, and the 'purists' who won't be happy until Ronald Reagan rises from the dead. The purists say Mitt Romney is not a principled conservative, and they're right, but the realists want the most conservative candidate who can win. Mitt Romney is a far better candidate than John McCain was."

And finally O'Reilly had his bogus, biased, BS segment called reality check. Where there is no reality, and almost no checks, that I do not report on. Because it's simply O'Reilly by himself putting his right-wing spin on what someone said. It's the most laughable segment O'Reilly does, becuse he is a biased right-wing hack, so everything he calls a reality check is actually right-wing spin and nothing but his opinion.

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

O'Reilly Ignores Republican Who Wants To Go Taliban
By: Steve - October 18, 2011 - 10:00am

Now get this, a Kentucky GOP official said he wants to go Taliban on the wall street protesters. So O'Reilly reported it and slammed him, saying that kind of rhetoric is uncalled for and we can not allow it.

Hahahahaha, WRONG! O'Reilly said nothing, zero, zip. But if a Democratic DNC official had said that it would be the top story, O'Reilly would write a TPM on it, and he would spend half the show, if not more on it. With weekly follow up segments.

Here is the story: Covington, Kentucky city commissioner Steve Frank (R) recently took to Facebook to rail against the Wall Street protesters who are spreading across the country. In a post on Oct. 9, he wrote, "Turn out the lights on the Occupiers, I feel like going Taliban on them!!!"

The Cincinnati politician was not shy about explaining his disgust, saying this:
The Taliban, as they see it is resisting occupation. I am resisting the Occupiers and very proud to be a 1%'er.

I figured that the irony would be lost on most of the dummies in Occupation Nation who oppose the war in Afganistan because they see us as occupiers.

I happen to oppose the war too but for highly different grounds. PS I am proud of our troops and have a son in harm's way.
Frank's war analogy is a ridiculous reaction to the peaceful protests -- as is his comparing himself to Taliban fighters who kill American troops.

He is obviously proud to be part of the top 1 percent and stands opposed to the 99 Percent movement that is trying to speak for the vast majority of Americans.

Although, as a civil servant, its highly unlikely that he is actually in the top 1 percent of American wealth holders.

The Romney Middle Class Tax Cut Plan Is A Fraud
By: Steve - October 18, 2011 - 9:00am

To begin with, almost nobody in the middle class would get anything from it, and the people in the middle class that do will only see a $216 a year benefit.

During the last GOP primary debate, Newt Gingrich asked Mitt Romney why he has proposed eliminating capital gains taxes for only those making less than $200,000 annually (which is a key component of Romney's economic plan).

So Romney said this: "If I'm going to use precious dollars to reduce taxes, I want to focus on where the people are hurting the most, and that's the middle class. The people in the middle, the hard-working Americans, are the people who need a break, and that is why I focused my tax cut right there."

Romney may think we are stupid to believe he focused his tax cut on the middle-class, but according to an analysis of Tax Policy Center data, nearly three-fourths of households that make $200,000 or less annually would get literally nothing from Romney's tax cut, due to the simple fact that most of those households have no capital gains income.

To be exact, 73.9 percent of the households upon which Romney focused his so-called middle class tax cut will see zero benefit from it.

For families making between $40,000 and $50,000 annually, Romney's tax cut comes out to a whopping $216 per year.

Which would be far less than the payroll tax cut enacted by the Obama administration in 2011, which Romney called a "temporary little Band-Aid," and gave those same middle class households a tax cut of $800 to $1,000 a year.

According to the Tax Policy Center, 67 percent of the entire benefit from lower capital gains tax rates goes to millionaires. 75 percent of the benefit goes to richest 1 percent of Americans. So lowering the capital gains rate for those making less than $200,000 doesn't do many people in the middle class any good at all.

In a tax plan that costs nearly $7 trillion, you would think Romney would have found a way to actually focus his middle-class tax cuts on the middle class. It's the same old right-wing lies, he says it will help the middle class, when in fact it's just another big tax cut for the wealthy.

He is lying when he says it is focused on the middle class, and he hopes someone will believe him. And of course you never hear any of these details reported on the Factor by O'Reilly, because then it would expose Romney as a liar and a fraud, and O'Reilly will never do that because he is a Republican that wants Romney to win.

Cain Does Not Know How His Own Tax Plan Works
By: Steve - October 17, 2011 - 10:00am

And while O'Reilly is promoting and praising Herman Cain, you never hear a word about this, because if he reported this it would make Cain look like a fool and kill any chance he has to win the GOP nomination.

Former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain's 999 plan - which would scrap the current tax code in favor of a nine percent personal income tax, nine percent corporate income tax, and nine percent sales tax (on everything, including food) - was the undeniable star of the GOP's primary debate this week, with the number nine warranting 85 mentions during the course of the evening.

The plan would involve a huge tax increase on the poor while slashing taxes on the rich.

Cain, when faced with analysis showing how much his plan would slam low-income Americans, dismisses them, calling them "erroneous."

But as it turns out, Cain is not very well-versed in the nuances of his plan. Asked how his proposed corporate income tax would apply to products built in other countries and designed and sold in the U.S., Cain said he has no idea:
Cain made it clear Wednesday his plan remained a work in progress.

Visiting Concord, N.H., he added several new wrinkles. He would preserve the deduction for charitable donations, making the flat income tax not so flat; he would exempt any used goods, including previously owned homes and cars, from the national sales tax; and he would allow businesses to deduct new equipment purchases from their 9% corporate income tax, as long as the goods were U.S. made.

Asked how that would apply to a computer designed domestically but containing Malaysian components and assembled in China, he replied, "I have no idea."
Even the Cain campaign's own economist said the 999 plan "wouldn't be the one I pick" to run with. Remember, the plan was crafted by a Koch-affiliated financial adviser from a Wells Fargo branch in Ohio, not an actual economist.

As ABC reported Thursday, a long list of economists "say Cain's plan would be a tax hike for the lower middle class and a tax windfall for the wealthy."

Even the conservative economist Bruce Bartlett wrote that, "at a minimum, the Cain plan is a distributional monstrosity."

Imagine paying another 9% tax on everything you buy, on top of the state and federal taxes you already pay. And I mean everything, from food to shoes, to milk to prescription drugs. Cars, boats, TV's, Computers, paper plates, toilet paper, everything.

And the wealthy would see their tax rate drop from 35 percent to 9 percent. Making the 9-9-9 plan the dumbest tax plan ever proposed in the history of America, and the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly has not even talked about it. While he and Dennis Miller fall all over each other promoting Cain.

Kelly & O'Reilly Make Up Another Green Energy Scandal
By: Steve - October 17, 2011 - 9:00am

Now this is a good one, Megyn Kelly and Bill O'Reilly dreamed up another green energy loan scandal. When in fact, there is no scandal, and the company will most likely not default on their loan.

Remember that O'Reilly said he never speculates, and that he only reports proven facts. Then he broke his own rules, by speculating that they might go bankrupt and default on their $1.2 billion dollar loan.

In an attempt to create a new "solar power scandal" that will be even bigger than Solyndra, Fox News is claiming that SunPower, which recently received a federal loan guarantee, is a failing company that is creating jobs "not in America, but in Mexico."

But in fact, industry experts see SunPower as "a success story" and the loan guarantee supports the construction of a power plant in California, not Mexico.

On 10-12-11 Megyn Kelly said SunPower was another failing company:
KELLY: Well, if you thought the Solyndra loan scandal was bad, listen to this one. New questions being raised today as we learn that another failing company, SunPower, was given a government loan guarantee for $1.2 billion, which is of course more than twice the amount given to Solyndra, which is now bankrupt. And right now that company too, not looking good.
Then the very same day O'Reilly slammed them on his show:
O'REILLY: They didn't go bankrupt yet, right?

ELIZABETH MacDONALD, FOX BUSINESS: That's correct.

O'REILLY: But they may.

MacDONALD: They could, this whole project that SunPower is helping to operate could really go under.
So O'Reilly is reporting that it is a scandal because they MIGHT go bankrupt and default on their Government loan. Even though it has not happened, and the experts say it is a good company that will not go bankrupt.

The New York Times reported that although China has benefitted from solar bankruptcies in the U.S., other American companies such as SunPower remain strongly placed:
Analysts say that two American companies remain strongly placed. One is First Solar, the largest American manufacturer, which uses a different technology but has its biggest factory in Malaysia.

The other, SunPower, is much smaller but is an industry leader in the efficiency with which its panels convert sunlight into electricity, so that they sell at a premium to Chinese panels.
Shayle Kann, a solar power market expert at GTM Research said this: "I would place the odds of SunPower defaulting on the loan guarantee at almost zero."

Kann also added this: "They've already got financing in place and a guaranteed purchaser for the power."

Kann called SunPower a pretty big success story and said that if the project were completed today, "it would be the largest solar generating facility in the world, which is part of why they needed the loan guarantee -- private financing would have been more difficult to attain otherwise."

The San Jose Mercury News reported that analysts cite SunPower as an example of a Safe Bet.

Michael Horwitz, a cleantech analyst at Baird Research said this: "SunPower -- which in April won a $1.2 billion loan guarantee -- has years of good sales in the marketplace, billions of dollars sold and a product that's arguably the best in the world."

Part of his confidence stems from the fact that French oil giant Total S.A. bought 60 percent of the company earlier this year.

Energy analyst Peter Asmus of Pike Research echoed Horwitz's assessment, saying this: "Of all the solar companies, I'm the most bullish on them," said Asmus.

On 4-30-11 The conservative Wall Street Journal even said this about SunPower: "SunPower is one of a handful of solar-panel companies based in the U.S. and Europe that has been competing successfully for market against rapidly growing Chinese panel makers."

On 9-14-11 The Washington Post's Brad Plumer wrote this:
The Energy Department's loan-guarantee program, enacted in 2005 with bipartisan support, has backed nearly $38 billion in loans for 40 projects around the country.

Solyndra represents just 1.3 percent of that portfolio -- and, as yet, it's the only loan that has soured. Other solar beneficiaries, such as SunPower and First Solar, are still going strong.
And finally, Reuters reported this in June:
SunPower, the most popular solar panel company in California, which is the clear solar leader in the U.S., was recently awarded the Guinness Book of World Records Award for providing "the most efficient commercially available photovoltaic modules on the market."
And O'Reilly never reported any of that information, he ignored it all. While speculating that they MIGHT go bankrupt. He tried to make a scandal out of nothing, and of all the green energy loans only ONE has defaulted. Not to mention the loans were voted on with bipartisan support, something else O'Reilly never reports.

O'Reilly Flat Out LIED About The Debt Obama Added
By: Steve - October 16, 2011 - 10:00am

O'Reilly claims President Obama has added $4.2 trillion to the debt since he took office, and that is a bold faced lie.

Here is a fact: The Obama policies since he took office have only added $1.4 trillion to the debt. The other $2.8 trillion in debt was added by Bush, his policies, and other government debt that would have been added no matter who the President is.

OBAMA HAS ONLY SUBMITTED TWO BUDGETS! THE 2010 and 2011 BUDGET. BUSH SUBMITTED THE 2009 BUDGET of $3.1 Trillion.

O'Reilly is adding all the spending while Obama was in office from January of 2009, even though most of it was from the Bush budget.

Obama and Congress did have some stimulus add ons to the 2009 budget that added $185 billion to the 2009 fiscal year but it was ultimately drafted by the Bush administration.

That's how it works, the budget is always submitted the year prior to that fiscal year by the President which in this case was Bush in 2008 who submitted the 2009 budget.

So all the debt, deficit and spending numbers being used to calculate Obama's "increases" start with his 2010 budget, not Bush's 2009 budget. O'Reilly is starting with the 2009 Bush budget, and adding it to the Obama debt numbers.

The 2010 Budget was Obama's first budget. And of course with the small amount of spending increases by Obama, you have to account for the fact that he actually put the Iraq war ($130 Billion) on the budget (overseas military contingencies) which Bush did not (supplemental appropriations), Not to mention the fact that the wars are still not over and we are still paying for them. And then of course all the interest on the Bush debt.

And of course the decrease in revenue due to the Bush economy (-$420 Billion in 09). So not all of the increases in the 2010 budget were actual "Obama spending", like the $209 Billion, or 6% of our 2010 budget which is going towards interest on past debt, a lot of which is Bush's debt.

Here are the facts:

-- Ending in fiscal year 2001, the US had a surplus of $127 Billion

-- The DEFICIT for Bush's 2009 budget was $1.42 Trillion

-- Obama's 2010 Budget saw a deficit of $1.45 trillion. A 2% increase from Bush's 09 budget Obama increased our national debt by 13.8% in 2010

-- Bush increased the national debt 18.8% in 2009 and had increased the debt 11.2% in 2008

The national debt at the end of 2000 before Bush's first budget was submitted was $5.6 Trillion, for the last Bush budget in 2009 the debt had increased to $11.9 Trillion, a 110% increase.

Over 60% of our budget is dedicated to the following:

Defense Spending (20%) - (Everything included, it's actually much higher than that)
Social Security (20%)
Medicare (13%)
Medicade (7%)

Obama didn't invent any of these debts, nor was he responsible for the wars, which requires so much revenue for defense nor was he the one who has been borrowing from social security, nor did he have anything to do with the 2000 tax cuts ($2.2 Trillion) nor did he have anything to do with the HMO's that allowed medical costs to skyrocket and thus make medicare and medicade as expensive as they are.

2009 also saw a 17% decrease in federal receipts (from the bad economy) from 2008 for instance. Also something Obama had nothing to do with.

When you add up everything Obama added to the debt, it comes up to $1.4 trillion, not the $4.2 trillion O'Reilly claims. O'Reilly is a dishonest right-wing hack who hates Obama and wants to make him look bad. So he lies about the debt to smear him, and I have just proven it with actual numbers and facts.

O'Reilly TPM Mirrors RNC Talking Points On Obama
By: Steve - October 16, 2011 - 9:00am

O'Reilly says he never uses any Republican party talking points, then he does, and he does often. Now he has been caught using them again, this time on the 1,000 days in office for Obama.

Here is what O'Reilly said Friday night:
O'REILLY: Monday marks 1,000 days of the Obama presidency, so let's do a no spin assessment of his tenure so far.

Since the President has been in office, the national debt has increased by $4.2 trillion. 2.2 million jobs have been lost on President Obama's watch, 3 million more Americans live in poverty and there have been 4 million bankruptcies.

The President's strategy is to stimulate the economy by spending even more on infrastructure jobs, and he will try to convince you that things could be a heck of a lot worse. He continues to raise an astounding amount of money, even though his job approval ratings continue to fall.

So, after 1,000 days on the job, the President is much weaker than when he started, but he still has a fighting chance to be reelected. The Republican challenger will have a lot of economic ammunition, but he or she should be ready for political war.
And now here are some key talking points from an RNC research document, published October 11, 2011:

-- "$4.2 Trillion added to the National Debt since Obama took office.

This is RNC propaganda, because while the debt has went up by $4 trillion since Obama took office, most of it was debt that happened under Bush, but it is showing up in the books now, so they blame Obama for it, when it was added by Bush.

Here is where a lot of that debt comes from:

-- "two wars we didn't pay for"
-- "a prescription drug program for seniors...we didn't pay for."
-- "tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that were not paid for."

Obama did not do any of that, Bush did, and yet O'Reilly and the RNC added it to the Obama debt, which is dishonest.

More from the RNC talking points document:

"2.2 Million jobs lost since Obama took office.

This is also a lie put out by O'Reilly and the RNC, because jobs have actually been created under Obama. They are counting jobs lost in the first 6 months of the Obama administration, that should be counted against Bush. Obama actually got the economy from negative monthly job losses, to job gains.

Basically O'Reilly takes this right-wing spin from the RNC, and uses it to smear Obama. When most of that is linked to Bush, and Obama had almost nothing to do with it. They are being dishonest, it's like if a guy lived in a house for 2 years and did not pay the property taxes, then he sells it and the new owner is on the hook for the taxes, and you then blame the new owner for not paying the taxes.

And the most dishonest part is that they do not tell you that a lot of that debt was caused by Bush and the Republicans in Congress. Obama did not crash the economy, Bush did. Obama did not start two wars and not pay for them, Bush did. And Obama did not pass trillions in tax cuts and not pay for them, Bush did.

More Tax Facts O'Reilly Fails To Ever Report
By: Steve - October 16, 2011 - 8:00am

To see what a biased right-wing hack O'Reilly is, do not just look at what he reports on, look at what he does not report on, as in tax facts like this.

President Obama's Buffett Rule is aimed at ensuring that wealthy Americans pay their fair share in taxes. As it stands today, a wealthy individual can take advantage of preferential tax treatment of investment income and various tax loopholes to drastically lower his or her tax rate and effectively pay lower taxes than most middle-class families.

To prove the point, billionaire Warren Buffett revealed to Republicans yesterday that he made more than $62 million last year while only paying a 17 percent tax rate.

It is not surprising that Republicans like GOP candidate Mitt Romney who slam the Buffett Rule as class warfare benefit from the same sort of preferential treatment. In fact, a new report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service finds that 25 percent of the nation's millionaires have a lower tax rate than 10.4 million middle-class Americans:
About 25 percent of millionaires in the U.S. pay federal taxes at lower effective rates than a significant portion of middle-income taxpayers, according to a legislative analysis.

Preferential treatment of investment income and the reduced impact of payroll taxes on high earners lets about 94,500 millionaires pay taxes at a lower rate than 10.4 million "moderate-income taxpayers," representing about 10 percent of those making less than $100,000 a year, according to the report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service from Oct. 7, 2011.
And of course this is in direct conflict with a favorite O'Reilly talking point, the report also found that very few business owners are millionaires and "played down the impact of higher tax rates on job creation."

"The small share of taxpayers with small-business income in the millionaire category suggests that tax reform policies designed to ensure adherence to the Buffett Rule will affect few small businesses."

This bolsters the claims from economists and business owners alike that higher tax rates on the rich make zero difference in hiring.

And O'Reilly also ignores the fact that numerous polls contine to show that the vast majority of Americans support raising the tax rate on millionaires. Note that O'Reilly also says we should go by the will of the people, but when they disagree with him suddenly he does not want to go by the will of the people.

But rather than raise the rates on those who should pay their fair share, O'Reilly and his Republican friends respond with even more tax increases on the middle class. Then they cry class warfare when Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, while never saying a word when Republicans call for raising taxes on the lower and middle class, as the Cain 9-9-9 plan does.

So get this, in O'Reillyworld it's class warfare to call for increased taxes on the wealthy, but it's not class warfare to call for tax increases on the lower and middle class. When Cain revealed his 9-9-9 plan, that raises taxes on the lower and middle class, while lowering taxes on the wealthy, not once did O'Reilly slam it as class warfare.

In fact, he supports it, because it would lower his taxes big time, and in reality he could care less about the poor, the middle class, or the working men and women in America. All he cares about is putting out right-wing spin and getting his taxes lowered.

The Friday 10-14-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 15, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Pres. Obama's first 1,000 days. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Monday marks 1,000 days of the Obama presidency, so let's do a no spin assessment of his tenure so far. The two most important issues are the economy and fighting terrorism. On the latter the President has done well - bin Laden and other Al Qaeda big shots are dead and bad guys all over the world are on the run.

Gitmo remains open and a number of terror plots have been foiled. But on the economic side things remain dismal. Since the President has been in office, the national debt has increased by $4.2 trillion. 2.2 million jobs have been lost on President Obama's watch, 3 million more Americans live in poverty and there have been 4 million bankruptcies.

The President's strategy is to stimulate the economy by spending even more on infrastructure jobs, and he will try to convince you that things could be a heck of a lot worse. He continues to raise an astounding amount of money, even though his job approval ratings continue to fall.

So, after 1,000 days on the job, the President is much weaker than when he started, but he still has a fighting chance to be reelected. The Republican challenger will have a lot of economic ammunition, but he or she should be ready for political war.
To begin with, O'Reilly is a biased right-wing spin doctor, so it is impossible for him to do a no spin assessment of President Obama. The economic reporting is mostly true, but O'Reilly fails to mention that most of that debt is from policies Bush put in place, like the tax cuts and the wars. Obama has only added about $2 trillion to the debt, the other $2 trillion was added by Bush, but O'Reilly blames it on Obama because he is biased. And not once did O'Dummy mention the TIME poll that has Obama beating Romney or Perry.

Then O'Reilly had Mike Huckabee on to cry about the media attacking Perry for his faith. Rick Perry's wife Anita complained that her husband is being brutalized by his Republican rivals and the media because of his Christian faith. Huckabee said this: "Rick Perry's numbers are down, because his debate performances have been less than spectacular, and any time you're part of a candidate's family it hurts when you see things not going well. Rick Perry started at the top and he's plummeted since then. I've been in Texas and the buzz there is not about their governor, it's about Herman Cain."

Huckabee also tried to explain Herman Cain's recent surge, saying this: "He talks the language of people who understand that he's talking to them. He's a great communicator, he's winsome, and he's likeable."

Then Bilyly criticized Rick Perry for continually spurning invitations to be interviewed, saying this: "He should be sitting here tonight. I don't understand it, he can handle it."

Earth to O'Reilly, Perry is a dope, an empty suit, just like George W. Bush. So did you ever think that maybe he can not handle it. And he is being attacked for his religious statements, which he should be, as most of them are crazy. And O'Reilly does not even report it, like when Perry said he would let God fix everything.

Then crazy O'Reilly had Glenn Beck on for some unknown reason, Beck warned that Occupy Wall Street protesters are a harbinger of more unrest.

Beck said this: "I have talked about the coming insurrection for a long time, and this is the beginning. I don't know if this particular protest will hang on through the cold months or how it will mutate, but take these people seriously - they are calling for revolution and talking about how they are going to collapse the system. This involves the SEIU, the AFL-CIO and all kinds of groups that were paying people to come protest against Wall Street and the banks. The leaders of this movement have said they are not out to reform the system, they want to collapse it. There will be violence and chaos in the streets."

Wow, Beck is nuts and anyone who belives that insanity is as crazy as he is.

Then Geraldo was on, who spent part of the week with the Occupy Wall Street protesters. Geraldo said this: "Glenn Beck's statements were harsh at best, and paranoid or delusional at worst. He is totally blowing this out of proportion - I don't think anyone is in charge of this, it is totally organic. Having seen the protesters up close and personal, I can report that the vast majority of them are white guys in their early 20's who live in their mother's basement. You have to recognize that there is real frustration out there, real fear that they're not going to get a job. College kids are graduating into the most bleak job market in decades."

Then O'Reilly had the biased Tim Graham of the conservative Media Research Center on to cry about the media coverage of the protests. Which is just laughable, because this clown Graham is a biased hack from MRC, the most biased dishonest right-wing media watchdog group in America. And O'Reilly gives this fool a platfor to spin out his bogus garbage, with no Democratic guest to counter his spin.

Graham said this: "In the first eleven days of these protests, there were 33 stories on the morning and evening network shows. When you look at the Tea Party back in 2009, we counted 13 stories in the entire year! It's absolutely ideological - the media is trying to inject some energy on the left by saying we have a growing protest movement and anything negative has been whitewashed right out."

Then Billy talked about what he says is the continuing decline of American journalism: "I've come to the conclusion that there will never be media fairness in the country again. It's done!"

Yeah it's called Fox News, they are not fair at all, so look in the mirror pal.

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing Lou Dobbs on to cry some more about AARP's new TV ad warning about Medicare and Social Security cuts. Especially when AARP is right, if the people elect enough Republicans they will try to end social security and medicare. They have said they want to, so O'Reilly and Dobbs are lying when they say the AARP ads are dishonest.

Dobbs said this: "AARP is spending all of this money, while they could be doing responsible work and talking about sustainable benefits and entitlements. This is a tremendously wealthy organization that sustains itself on health insurance and life insurance - they've got hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. And the AARP magazine always features left-wingers."

Dobbs turned to former Obama aide Rahm Emanuel, who staunchly defended the federal government's loans to alternative energy companies. "Those loans and guarantees to 'green' companies, are all directed to Obama's contributors and donors."

And that's a lie, because Solyndra is run by a Republican, and Dobbs is just a flat out liar.

And finally dumbest things of the week with Arthel Neville and Greg Gutfeld, and of course Billy made them evaluate his Thursday night guest shot on David Letterman's show. Because his ego is off the charts, and he thinks somebody cares.

Neville said this: "Your appearance was funny and entertaining, but you were bagging on the mayor of New York City. You'd better give his favorite charity a lot of money so he doesn't kick you out of town."

Gutfeld also talked about the fact that both Bill and Dave joked about how short Mayor Bloomberg is, saying this: "Here were two individuals of different political stripes uniting together to bash little people. As a little person, I have to speak up. I buy my pants at babyGap."

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

Another Presidential Race Poll O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - October 15, 2011 - 10:00am

If you watch the Factor at all you know that Bill O'Reilly loves to report on polls, except polls that disagree with him, or polls that show Obama beating any Republican he would run against. Even with low job creation and a slow economy, a new poll still has Obama beating every Republican they have.

Thursday night O'Reilly reported a poll that said more Independents would vote for Romney then they would for Obama. Then O'Reilly implied that means Obama would lose to Romney. While ignoring the new TIME poll that says Obama would beat them all in a head to head race.

From time.com 10-13-11:

Despite sweeping pessimism about the nation's fortunes and his own sliding approval ratings, President Obama leads potential Republican rivals Mitt Romney and Rick Perry in hypothetical general-election matchups, according to a new TIME poll.

Obama leads Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who sits atop the GOP presidential field, 46% to 43% among likely voters. The President has opened a double-digit lead over Perry, 50% to 38%, highlighting concerns percolating through the GOP that the Texas governor would face a steep uphill climb should he capture the nomination.

Obama also boasts a 49%-to-37% edge over businessman Herman Cain, whose strong Tea Party support has propelled him toward the top of Republican ranks in recent weeks.

In each case, the President was buoyed by his performance among female voters. Women prefer Obama over Romney by 8 percentage points (49% to 41%), over Perry by 17 points (53% to 36%) and over Cain by 21 points (53% to 32%).

The President's positive personal qualities have cushioned voters frustration with the sagging U.S. economy, the exodus of capital to overseas markets and the declining value of the dollar. Most voters see Obama as tough enough to shepherd the U.S. through this rough patch (50% to 44%) and empathetic (59% to 37%) to the concerns of Americans like themselves.

By a 48%-to-37% margin, respondents consider him a better President than his predecessor, George W. Bush, who won a hard-fought battle for a second term amid falling approval ratings and an opposition galvanized by the war in Iraq.

For Democrats, the silver lining in a gloomy series of electoral rebukes and legislative setbacks is that voters remain partial to their chief economic principles, at least compared with the alternatives. Forty-two percent of respondents say they place greater trust in the Democratic Party to deal with the nation's problems, compared with the 31% who side with Republicans.

In particular, some two-thirds of those surveyed say they prefer the Democrats blueprint for trimming the federal deficit - a mix of spending cuts and tax hikes - to the GOP prescription, which would solely slash spending. At the same time, more voters think reducing spending is a better way to juice the moribund economy than an additional round of stimulus, the approach advocated by liberal economists.

The survey also revealed that respondents have a better impression of the left-leaning protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street than they do of the Tea Party movement. Fifty-four percent of respondents harbor a positive view of the burgeoning protest movement, well above the 23% with a negative opinion.

By contrast, just 27% of those surveyed have favorable views of the Tea Party, while 65% say its impact on U.S. politics since its inception in 2009 has been negative or negligible.

Those results reflect a strain of economic populism common to the new movement’s backers. Among those respondents familiar with Occupy Wall Street, nearly 80% argue that the wealth disparity in the U.S. has grown too large, and 68% say the rich should pay more taxes.

Even so, this cohort is aware of the challenges facing the movement. Fifty-six percent predict that Occupy Wall Street will have little impact on American politics, and another 9% say its effect will be negative.

And you have never seen any of this reported by O'Reilly, because then you would have the truth, not his right-wing spin and propaganda. If he reported this it would also kill his right-wing talking points, which he would never do.

The Thursday 10-13-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 14, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Does Herman Cain actually have a chance? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Herman Cain is surging in the polls - a Rasmussen poll has him tied with Mitt Romney among likely Republican voters, and a Wall Street Journal poll actually has Cain leading Romney. Herman Cain's support is rock solid among conservative Republicans, who love him.

He speaks their language - lower taxes, more self-reliance, no-nonsense social positions. But the truth is that President Obama would love to run against Herman Cain because independent voters are far less likely to vote for him than Mitt Romney. Cain is providing a valuable service to the country - conservative principles deserve to be spotlighted, especially because liberal economic strategies have failed so dismally.

But Mr. Cain lacks legislative experience and knows little about foreign affairs. The next president must know how to deal with China, Putin and the powerful Iranian threat. There is no room for on-the-job training. But Talking Points says three cheers for Herman Cain, who has made the primary season very interesting.
And the answer is no, Cain has no chance, because he is too far right and his 9-9-9 plan is laughable. Not to mention, while O'Reilly was telling his right-wing viewers that Cain has a chance, he was on Letterman saying Romney will win it. O'Reilly said he loves Cain, but that he has no chance to beat Romney.

Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about Rick Perry. Ingraham said this: "It's been a tough month for him, and she's probably hurting for him. But when you get in this race the media and other conservatives are going to be really hard on you - they're going to scrutinize your record and you're going to have to match a standard of excellence that makes people feel reassured. I don't think it has anything to do with his faith, it has everything to do with the comfort level people want to have with Rick Perry."

O'Reilly said this: "Anybody of faith is going to get raked over by the secular press because there is an anti-Christian bias in the mainstream media. But what's hurt Rick Perry far more than religion is his stance on illegal immigration."

Then Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham provided their analysis of the election. Williams said this: "In political circles in Washington, Romney is seen as the inevitable nominee. He has more than $30-million in the bank, Chris Christie has endorsed him, and more big money is flowing to Romney. That's the way the political landscape looks."

Ham said this: "He is not inevitable, but he is perhaps more probable that he has been in the past. The entire race has been about the search for the 'non-Romney,' but no one else has caught on. Herman Cain has some weaknesses - he has to be able to answer questions in depth about his '9-9-9' plan and he's going to get a lot of fire because he's in the lead. Cain has a chance, but I would not say it's a giant chance."

Then O'Reilly had Christopher Hahn on to talk about President Clinton saying on Letterman that taxes should not be raised on the rich right now.

Hahn said this: "What President Clinton said is basically right in line with President Obama, who wants his tax increase to go into effect in 2013. But I disagree with both of them, I think we should be increasing taxes right now on the wealthiest 1% of Americans."

Then Billy said this: "I would be willing to pay 5% more in income tax, but not until there are no more Solyndras and no more $16 muffins! The philosophy of the Democratic Party is to take the money and throw it out the window."

Which is just laughable, because Bush and the Republicans caused most of the debt. O'Reilly is insane, and he lies to smear the Democrats. And there were no $16 muffins, it was made up, but O'Reilly is still lying about it. Not to mention, Solyndra was approved by Bush and the Repubicans too, but O'Reilly fails to mention that.

Then O'Reilly had Gretchen Carlson & Margaret Hoover on to trash the wall street protests. Hoover said this: "I live right around the corner, and you can smell the marijuana. There have also been reports of heroin use as well - it is a counter-culture collective down there."

Earth to Hoover, maybe someone in your building is smoking the weed, do you have proof it's from the protesters, and even if they are, so what, why does that have anything to do with the reason they are protesting.

Carlson said this: "A poll shows that only 39% of these people voted in the last mid-term elections, while 55% did not. The only way this group is going to be effective is by voting, so if they want to organize like the Tea Party and select people to go to Congress, then that's the next step."

So Billy predicted that "Occupy Wall Street" and its spinoffs will soon diminish in strength, saying this: "These guys were organized by the George Soros-funded MoveOn operation. But the Democratic Party is going to move away from this because they can't be aligned with this."

Then Megyn Kelly was on to discuss if it be legal for the United States to initiate drone attacks on Iranian leaders to retaliate for the foiled terror plot in Washington?

Kelly said this: "This is a political question for President Obama, but it's not really much of a legal question. Legally, he can do it if he wants to do it. President Obama can start a military action against Iran tomorrow if he wants."

Kelly then turned to Thursday's subpoena demanding documents from the Justice Department, saying this: "Darrell Issa, who heads the House Oversight Committee, wants all communications that Eric Holder and others have had about 'Operation Fast and Furious.' The problem for Eric Holder is that the Department of Justice has been withholding the full story on this from the beginning."

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Steve Doocy & Martha MacCallum on for the stupid waste of time Factor News Quiz. And btw folks, they work for a news network and yet they still get half or more of the quiz questions wrong.

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

O'Reilly Ignoring All The Stock Market Increases
By: Steve - October 14, 2011 - 10:30am

As we all know, the stock market goes up and it goes down. One day it can go up 300 points, and the next day it could go down 300 points. It's called market fluctuation, and it happens all the time, it's a normal function of the market.

Now a real and honest journalist who reports on the stock market will report on it when it goes up, and when it goes down. What the dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly does is only report on the market when it is going down. While never reporting the days when it goes up.

This is done to make President Obama look bad, it's a cheap political trick, and only partisan Republican jerks do it. That means you O'Reilly, back a few weeks ago when the stock market was having some down days O'Reilly reported it every night, and he blamed it on Obama.

But since then the market has had many many up days, and it has gained back almost everything it lost. But O'Reilly has not reported any of it, he ignores it. Folks, this is done on purpose, because he does not want you to notice the market is back up, and he sure as hell does not give Obama any credit for it.

What O'Reilly does is blame Obama when it drops, but when it goes up he does not give him credit for it, or even mention it. This is dishonest partisan journalism at it's worst. And remember this, O'Reilly claims to be a non-partisan Independent.

The DOW is currently at 11.500, and over the last month it is actually UP 557 points, or 5.10 percent.

But O'Reilly has not said a word, nothing, he has ignored it all. The DOW is only down 1 percent, year to date. And yet, O'Reilly acts like it had dropped 50 percent, everyone has lost all their money, and it's all Obama's fault. When in reality we have had a 1 percent drop.

Now get this, in the last year the DOW is actually up, the 1 year change is a 3.57 percent increase. So while O'Reilly says the sky is falling on the stock market it has actually went up in the last year.

Not to mention this: OVER THE LAST 3 YEARS THE DOW IS UP 29.46 PERCENT.

Yes you heard me right, the DOW is up 29.46 percent over the last 3 years. But you never hear any of this information from O'Reilly, he ignores it and keeps it from you. So he can dishonestly smear Obama with cherry picked daily market fluctuations, instead of reporting the month to month averages and the year to year numbers.

This is proof beyond a doubt O'Reilly is a dishonest Obama hating right-wing hack. Because if he were an honest non-partisan Independent journalist (as he claims) he would report the days the market goes up, and the days it goes down, then also report the monthly numbers, and the year to year numbers, etc.

O'Reilly does not do any of that, he only reports on the market on days when it drops, then he ignores all the following days when it goes back up, sometimes more than the days it went down.

Making O'Reilly a sad, pathetic, right-wing jerk.

SC Justice Admits Bush v Gore Appeal Was Frivolous
By: Steve - October 14, 2011 - 10:00am

Now here is a story you will never ever hear on the O'Reilly Factor or Fox News. Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens writes in his new memoir, Five Chiefs, that the George W. Bush campaign 2000 appeal to the United States Supreme Court over the Florida recount was "frivolous" and never should have been granted.

He recalls bumping into Justice Stephen Breyer at a Christmas party and the two having a brief conversation about the Bush application to halt the recount by issuing a stay.

"We agreed that the application was frivolous," he writes. "To secure a stay, a litigant must show that one is necessary to prevent a legally cognizable irreparable injury. Bush's attorneys had failed to make any such showing."

By a five-to-four vote, the court granted the stay.

"What I still regard as a frivolous stay application kept the court extremely busy for four days," he writes. He adds that no justice has ever cited the opinions that provided the basis for their ruling.

The court - unusually - limited its decision "to the present circumstances," meaning that it did not want it to become a precedent.

Which means they knew it was the wrong ruling to make, but the conservatives on the high court wanted to make sure Bush won, because they feared Gore would win Florida in a recount, and be the President.

It will go down in history as the worst ruling the U.S. Supreme Court ever made, and the five judges who voted yes will be forever known as corrupt.

Report Shows Bush Corporate Tax Holiday A Failure
By: Steve - October 14, 2011 - 9:00am

And of course you never heard a word about this from O'Reilly, or his right-wing stooge fill in Laura Ingraham.

A new report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found that the 2004 repatriation tax holiday was a "failed tax policy" that cost the U.S. $3.3 billion over 10 years and "led to U.S. companies directing even more funds offshore."

As conservatives want another repatriation tax holiday, committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) concluded "there is no evidence that such holidays put Americans to work."

The 15 companies that benefited the most from a 2004 tax break for the return of their overseas profits cut more than 20,000 net jobs and decreased the pace of their research spending, according to report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released Monday.

The report also warned against repeating the tax break, calling the 2004 effort "a failed tax policy" that cost the U.S. Treasury $3.3 billion in estimated lost revenues over 10 years and led to U.S. companies directing more funds offshore. U.S. based multinationals often defer bringing back profits earned abroad.

And now we have proof it was a failed policy, but the insane Republicans still want to do it again, while opposing the Obama jobs plan and other economic stimulus measures that actually work. Which just goes to show you they are more interested in hurting Obama politically, than creating jobs or getting the economy back on track.

O'Reilly ignores all this because it makes his friends the Republicans look bad, and if Democrats were doing this while we had a Republican President O'Reilly would report it and call them un-American traitors. But when Republicans do it he says nothing to help them cover it up.

The Wednesday 10-12-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 13, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Romney may be unbeatable. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There are at least 13 more Republican debates scheduled - 13 more times the candidates will recite their viewpoints, 13 times moderators will struggle to keep people awake. Fortunately, I'm here to watch these things if you don't want to. The real GOP headline yesterday was not the debate in New Hampshire, it was New Jersey Governor Chris Christie endorsing Mitt Romney.

Christie's support sends a signal to conservatives that it's okay to like Romney, who is suspect in many right-wing circles. Christie endorsed Romney because the Republican Party knows independent voters are much more likely to vote for Romney than for Herman Cain. According to a new poll, independents now favor Romney over President Obama, 54 - 41.

The Republican Party desperately wants to not only win the White House but the Senate as well. If that happens, say goodbye to Obamacare, which will be repealed. Also, taxes will be lowered, federal spending will be cut, and Nancy Pelosi will be distraught and confused. That's the scenario the Republican establishment wants and they believe Romney is their best hope for attaining it.
Wow, O'Reilly is in dreamland. Because the economy will most likely get better, and jobs will be created, then Obama will win re-election, and the Democrats will hold the Senate. So none of the O'Reilly fantasy will come true. At worst Romney wins and then beats Obama, but the Republicans will also lose seats in the House and never get enough to get a majority in the Senate back.

Then O'Reilly had the far right Charles Krauthammer on to assess the Talking Points Memo. And of course no liberals were on to discuss it. Krauthammer said this: "I would make two points about this 'establishment' support for Romney. Number one, it wasn't as if the establishment wasn't lusting for others - it went after Mitch Daniels and Paul Ryan, who are examples of far more orthodox candidates. And the second point is that Chris Christie is not exactly establishment, but he is a heartthrob for the Tea Party. He's a guy who straddles the middle and the right so his endorsement was very important."

Then Billy said Romney's most valuable attribute is his electability: "Republican power brokers know that Herman Cain, as charismatic and interesting as he is, is not going to beat President Obama. But Romney is beating Obama among independents, which is why the Republican establishment wants him."

And as I predicted a year ago, Romney will win the GOP nomination, especially now that Christie has endorsed him.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to discuss Tuesday night's Republican debate and the performance of moderator Charlie Rose. And of course no liberals were on to discuss it. Just the biased Goldberg to give his right-wing spin on it.

Goldberg said this: "I don't think one person tunes in to watch the moderator, and unless the moderator does something really dumb it doesn't matter. But I also don't think the answers the candidates give to complicated policy questions matter all that much either unless there's a major gaffe. The reason the debates are important is because they convey an impression to voters, which is why Rick Perry is finished. He conveys the impression of somebody who needs a gallon of Geritol and who would rather be any place than on the stage, while Mitt Romney conveys an impression of someone who is smart and competent."

Goldberg also talked about Tuesday night's appearance by Tavis Smiley and Cornel West, saying this: "That they were saying poor people are victims of a system that is stacked against them, but they didn't talk about how dysfunctional behavior is a much greater cause of poverty. 70% of black kids are born out of wedlock, which is the greatest single cause of poverty."

Then the Fox News Liz MacDonald was on to talk about the SunPower company, which received a $1.2 billion loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, and could follow Solyndra into bankruptcy. McDonald said this: "They're in California and they make solar panels. The whole problem with this venture being run by the Department of Energy is that they think they can cherry-pick companies and know which projects will make money. These solar companies are coming to the U.S. taxpayers with tin cup in hand, it is an abuse of the public purse."

O'Dummy said the story left him feeling bewitched, bothered and truly bewildered, Billy said this: "I am just amazed at what is happening in Washington. The Obama administration, in its quest to develop alternative energy, wants to throw taxpayer money at these companies."

What an idiot, hey O'Reilly, sometimes companies go bankrupt when you are developing new technology. It happens, and that is just the way it is. So get over it and stop crying about it.

Then O'Reilly had Tonya Reiman the body language loser on, which I do not report on because it's not news, it's nonsense.

Then Dennis Miller was on for his weekly unfunny segment, which I also do not report on, but I will say this. O'Reilly said the reason Herman Cain is doing so good is because Dennis Miller endorsed him. Which may be the funniest joke O'Reilly has ever told, because that is just ridiculous. Most people do not even know who Dennis Miller is, let alone care who he has endorsed for President.

And finally Juliet Huddy was on for did you see that, she watched footage of Vice President Joe Biden trying to explain the administration's possible actions against Iran. Huddy said this: "I'm not quite sure what he said, but I do hope that his wishy-washy response is not an indicator of how the Obama administration will handle this situation. But Speaker Boehner also talked about this and he gave a wishy-washy response too."

Huddy then viewed tape of an 'Occupy Los Angeles' protester endorsing a bloody revolution in America, saying this: "He had a lot of people clapping and cheering for him when he said 'revolution!' But I think three-quarters of the crowd probably had no idea what he was talking about."

Which is funny because when Glenn Beck called for revolution you nimrods supported it, so when Republicans call for it you like it, when Democrats call for it you oppose it. Good job proving what right-wing hacks you are.

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

O'Reilly Caught Doctoring Florida Mans E-Mail
By: Steve - October 13, 2011 - 10:00am

And he did not just remove part of the e-mail for time reasons as they claim, they removed words to make it seem like Kopchak said something he never said. In other words, they cherry picked his e-mail to make it say something he never actually said or meant.

Proving that I am right when at the end of my Factor blog reviews I say the Factor mail is highly edited. Not to mention this, O'Reilly said nothing on his show is ever edited, but now we have proof he has his staff edit the e-mail to sometimes mean things the writer did not say or imply.

Here is the story: A St. Petersburg man says he sent an email to Bill O'Reilly, and it ended up being displayed on his show, the O'Reilly Factor. Well, that man says part of his email ended up on the show, along with new words and concepts that ended up in front of O'Reilly's television audience.

Jeremy Kopchak says he was watching Bill O'Reilly interview noted atheist Richard Dawkins last week when he became "frustrated by Bill's usual demeaning of Dawkins" and sent an email to the Factor.

What Kopchak sent to O'Reilly, he says, wasn't exactly what O'Reilly displayed to the nation.

Here's the text of the email Kopchak claims he sent to O'Reilly:
Bill, have you read Richard Dawkin's book 'The God Delusion'? You should have the guts to investigate both sides before being so pompous in your faith while completely discounting the critical thinking of atheists. The truth will stand up to any scrutiny.

Jeremy Kopchak
St. Petersburg, Florida
Now here is what O'Reilly read on the show:
"Bill, You should have the guts to investigate both sides before being so pompous in your faith that you would attack Dawkins."
Notice what was left out of what O'Reilly read on the air: (while completely discounting the critical thinking of atheists. The truth will stand up to any scrutiny).

Then notice that the Factor edited it, they added this: (that you would attack Dawkins) when Kopchak never said that.

Somewhere between Kopchak's computer and the editors at the Factor, he says the phrase "while completely discounting the critical thinking of atheists" turned into "that you would attack Dawkins."

As evidenced, O'Reilly's talking point turned into Kopchak's claim that O'Reilly attacked Dawkins -- a claim Kopchak never actually made, according to the email.

That leads to the question -- if the aforementioned premises are true, could Kopchak make a case for libel?

It's possible, according to Joseph Russomanno, a PhD, author, and professor of media law at Arizona State University's Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication:
Jeremy would seem to have two possible claims -- libel if he feels his reputation was damaged, or false light if his reputation was not damaged. Some states don't recognize false light, so that would be important to know.

With libel, because O'Reilly is a public figure, Jeremy would have to prove O'Reilly made the false information public with actual malice -- knowing the information was false or showing reckless disregard for the truth.
Then Amy Sohnen, executive producer of the O'Reilly Factor, told the Pulp that the length of the email was the only alteration made to the email. She said this: "We trimmed the letter for time but did not change the meaning," she says.

Which is a 100% lie, because we have the original e-mail and we have what they read on the show, nd the two do not match up. They did change the meaning of the e-mail, they removed words he wrote, and they added words he did not write.

So even when they are busted red-handed for lying about editing an e-mail, they still deny it. And then they want respect as honest journalists, wow, give me a break. If you want respect as honest journalists quit doctoring e-mails, and then after getting caught admit it and say you will never do it again.

This is a prime example of how dishonest O'Reilly and his staff are, and yet they want you to believe what they report is accurate and true, when we know for a fact they are biased and dishonest right-wing hacks. In fact, I bet they read more doctored e-mails tonight, and every night. Noting will change, even after getting caught edited an e-mail.

And btw folks, this is not the first time this has happened, so do not think it was a one time deal. Because I have seen this 3 or 4 other times, people have e-mailed me copies of their e-mail to O'Reilly, then showed me what he read on the air, and they did not match up.

In every case O'Reilly (or his staff) removed words they wrote and added other words they did not write, or he changed the meaning of their e-mail by removing the negative comments about O'Reilly and only leaving the positive comments.

For example, a man wrote me and said he wrote this: Dear Bill, I like your show because it is not boring, but you are clearly a partisan conservative.

O'Reilly edited that to say this: Dear Bill, I like your show because it is not boring.

Then O'Reilly thanked him for his kind words, when they guy was slamming O'Reilly for lying about being a non-partisan Independent. Believe me folks, O'Reilly and his staff do this all the time, which is about as dishonest as you can get for a so-called journalist.

More On The O'Reilly/West/Smiley Interview
By: Steve - October 13, 2011 - 9:00am

Here is some more info on the interview O'Reilly had with Cornel West and Tavis Smiley.

From the Huffington Post:

O'Reilly brought them on to discuss the Occupy Wall Street movement and poverty in America. He set up the conversation by saying that the two were overlooking key statistics in their battle against poverty that showed the problem to be as much one of "personal responsibility" as economic injustice. Then, he turned to West.

"Where am I going wrong?" he asked. West said that his "lens" was wrong, and that he was overlooking the widening economic inequality in America. "The oligarchs and plutocrats that you tend to want to promote rather intensely [are] not only doing well but been too greedy!" he said. "I don't think I'm promoting anybody who's doing untoward things," O'Reilly said. "We're talking about chronic excess!"

West responded, causing O'Reilly to try to shut him up. "No filibustering here," O'Reilly snapped.

He said that what Smiley and West seemed to want was for the government to "forcibly seize" money from the rich and give it to the poor. "That's socialism and that's not going to work here," he concluded.

"It wasn't socialism when we bailed out the banks in the first place?" Smiley said. He started to say that O'Reilly had been "right" in a recent attack on Stanley O'Neal, the former head of Merril Lynch. O'Reilly misheard him.

"Lied about it?!" he thundered. "What do you mean i lied about it?!"

"I said you were right!" Smiley said. "R-i-g-h-t!" O'Reilly apologized, and assured his guests he was "calm."

Things got a lot less calm right afterwards, though. Smiley asked why O'Reilly was focusing on O'Neal, one of the few black CEOs of a major firm, causing O'Reilly to shout, "we treat everybody the same here!" Smiley disagreed, and wondered why, when Occupy Wall Street protesters were being arrested, no "bankster" had gone to jail "to pay for his crimes."

"They didn't violate any laws!" O'Reilly said, prompting Smiley and West to essentially lose it. "OOOOOHHHHHHHH!" they both said together. "How do you know?!" West yelled. "There's been no investigations! Why would you say something like that?!"

"All right, knock it off!" O'Reilly fired back. "...You don't have any evidence!" West countered that, with no investigation, no criminality could be proven. "You take your law school at Princeton, you develop an illegality and I will put it on the air," O'Reilly said.

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

From businessinsider.com:

The conversation essentially revolved around O'Reilly's belief (similar to Herman Cain's) that poverty is the result of people not working hard enough. And that there is no merit to the complaints of the Occupy Wall St. protesters.

But things really got hot when O'Reilly suggested that no bankers had been put in jail back in 2008 because they didn't technically break any laws.

In a moment that is sure to land in this weekend's SNL, Smiley and West threw up their hands in disbelief. "Why would you say something like that, brother." Said West.

Knock it off!...Back it up, professor! What law did they break?" Countered O'Reilly. West admitted he only had a hunch.

"You take your law school at Princeton, you develop an illegality and I will put it on the air," said O'Reilly.

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

From Newshounds:

O'Reilly attempted to defend Herman Cain's comments about the Occupy Wall Street protesters, "If you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself!" by suggesting that most poverty is due to substance abuse.

He also went on to complain about uncivil and disrespectful attacks on Cain - shortly before calling Cain critic Harry Belafonte "a zombie." Unfortunately for O'Reilly, but fortunately for the rest of us, he chose as debate partners Cornel West and Tavis Smiley.

O'Reilly began by citing figures that 15% of Americans are poor but 9% have some kind of substance depenence. "So let's do the math," O'Reilly said. "15% poor, 9% addicted. Maybe poverty is not exclusively an economic problem."

Of course, there are plenty of addicts who are not poor: Whitney Houston, Amy Winehouse, John Belushi, Judy Garland, Robert Downey Jr., Johnny Cash and Betty Ford are just some names that come to mind.

West and Smiley saw right through what O'Reilly was really getting at - that the poor are a bunch of shiftless winos or crack heads who have mostly themselves to blame for the fix they're in - and they good-naturedly but firmly refused to allow O'Reilly to go there unchallenged.

They pointed out the oligarchic behavior of American corporations, refuted accusations of socialism and contested the suggestion that people are looking for handouts.

O'Reilly was obviously feeling vulnerable and defensive, perhaps because he knew he had been bested. When Smiley agreed with O'Reilly on a point and said, "You're right," O'Reilly almost jumped out of his seat with anger. "What do you mean I lied about it! Wait a minute, Tavis. Don't call me a liar. What did I lie about?"

Smiley explained what he actually said and O'Reilly's feathers were unruffled. But Smiley did not get a chance to finish his answer.

Later, in Part 2, O'Reilly discussed African American criticism toward Herman Cain. O'Reilly obviously hoped to paint Smiley and West as some kind of racial ideologues - the way he tried to do with Jehmu Greene recently - but he flubbed it with his own hypocrisy.

"Here's what I don't get," O'Reilly began. "If you disagree with Herman Cain, why do you have to personally attack him? Why can't you disagree respectfully?" O'Reilly would probably have been on stronger footing if he hadn't tried to attack Cain's African American critics by referring to them as, "Harry Belafonte and the other zombies."

West interrupted, "Belafonte is not a zombie, brother."

O’Reilly, rather than admit a misstep, doubled down. "He's an intellectual zombie and you know it!"

Smiley jumped in. "Bill, one minute you're calling for civility, then the next minute you're engaging in name calling."

"I'm describing his mindset," O'Reilly insisted.

Then Smiley really nailed it. He asked O'Reilly if he's so concerned with civility and respect, "Did you check Herman Cain" when he "insulted black folk and said they were brainwashed, when he said to poor people, if you're not rich and you don't have a job, blame yourself, did you check Herman Cain the way you want to check Belafonte now?"

I can answer that question and the answer is no.

O'Reilly got mad, probably because he knew Smiley had him. "Hold it! I disagree with Herman Cain on a lot of things but on this one, I'm giving him a pass." Referring to Cain's "brainwashed African Americans" statement, O'Reilly said, "That is a point worth discussing. I'm not running the man down for that!"

In other words, O'Reilly was now suggesting it was worth discussing whether African Americans are mindless sheep about their voting decisions. But it was also interesting that O'Reilly suggested he'd be "running down" Cain if he disagreed.

What I loved about this discussion was that Smiley and West knew exactly what O'Reilly was up to, they didn't cede one centimeter to O'Reilly's agenda and yet they remained friendly and affable about their differences.

In fact, at the end, Smiley said, "We love you anyway." West waved his arms up and down as if he were at church and said, "We're praying for you."

O'Reilly may not have seen it that way. He said, "I'm glad you love me and you're praying for me because I'd hate to see if you hated me."

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

Now let me make a comment here, notice that O'Reilly is mad that Herman Cain (a Republican) was personally attacked for his statement that blacks are brainwashed to vote Democrat, and for when he said to poor people, if you're not rich and you don't have a job, blame yourself.

But he called Harry Belafonte (a Democrat) a zombie, which is a personal attack. Note the massive hypocrisy, in the span of 2 minutes O'Reilly made a fool out of himself. And he also proved that he is a biased right-wing jerk, by saying it's wrong to personally attack Cain, 2 minutes after he personally attacked Belafonte.

Earth to O'Reilly, calling someone a zombie is a personal attack, no matter how you put it into context. Wise up idiot, and stop having these double standards for Republicans and Democrats.

The Tuesday 10-11-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 12, 2011 - 11:00am

O'Reilly started the show with the Top Story about Iran, Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to discuss it. They talked about the foiled terror plot in which Iranian agents allegedly planned to blow up two embassies in Washington.

Crowley said this: "The case is difficult because the plot was not carried out, and the suspect had no explosives in his possession. But this looks like an act of war against the United States and we should go forward with ramped-up and serious sanctions. We should do it unilaterally without waiting for the U.N. or Europe."

Typical right-wing idiot, she wants to start a war with Iran without permission from the U.N. or help from Europe. Now imagine what she would say if a foreign country wanted to do the same to us, she would be outraged. And we do not need another war, we can not even afford the wars we have now, idiot. What we should do is secretly bomb something valuable they have and punish them for trying to attack us, then deny we did it, we should not start a war with them.

Colmes said this: "We can freeze Iranian assets and we can work with the European Union, which also has Iranian assets. We have to work with the international community." Then Billy said this: "We have to punish Iran somehow, and it has to be in a public way so the world sees it."

The TPM was called: Poverty and inequality in America. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: This morning about 100 people were arrested here in Boston, members of the 'Occupy Wall Street' group. These anti-capitalist people are getting a lot of attention and a question: 'What do they want?' The Factor has found out.

Number one, the group wants 'income equality,' the feds taking money from the affluent and corporations and giving that money to the poor and working class in the form of tax breaks and entitlements. Number two, the left well understands that President Obama is in big trouble because of the faltering economy, so MoveOn and big labor are using the protesters to demonize the wealthy.

The strategy is to link rich Americans with the Republican Party. Now, the no spin truth: There are some bad people in finance, but the problem we have now is that President Obama's bet that almost a trillion dollars in stimulus could turn the economy around failed. So what you see on the streets of New York, Boston and other cities is not what you get. There are heavy politics involved.
And as usual O'Reilly lied about what they want, but he did have two liberals on to explain it to him. Cornel West & Tavis Smiley were on. West said this: "One percent of the population owns 40% of the wealth. Those brothers and sisters in New York are not calling for entitlements - they want jobs with a living wage and they know that one out of four corporations do not pay taxes. The oligarchs and plutocrats have been much too greedy."

Smiley then defended the protesters who have flocked to New York and other cities, saying this: "We're talking about fairness, justice and not protecting Wall Street. They've been arresting protesters left and right but not one banker has gone to jail to pay for his crimes. Wall Street raped and pillaged the national treasury."

But of course O'Reilly defended the wall street crooks, saying this: "Many of these protesters want the government to forcibly seize the assets of the 'oligarchs' and distribute it to other people. That's socialism and it's not going to work here."

Then West and Smiley returned for a second segment to discuss the attacks on Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain. Smiley said this: "Let's be clear about this. Herman Cain struck the first blow when he told black folk that they're 'brainwashed' and when he told the poor that if you're not rich, blame yourself. When you start making those kinds of comments you should expect to have Americans push back on you. I respect his entrepreneurial genius, but you don't pick up votes by insulting people."

West argued that Cain has minimized the impact of racism in America, saying this: "When he says racism is not holding anybody back he is trivializing the suffering that is out there. He has a right to be wrong, but do you believe that racism doesn't exist?"

Then Dr. West and Travis Smiley both accused O'Dummy of disrespecting President Obama by interrupting him during the Super Bowl interview, but he reminded them that he interrupted President Bush in the same way. Which is a flat out lie, and he knows it.

Then Billy played a few what he called memorable clips from the show's first fifteen years. Boring! Next segment.

Then Lis Wiehl & Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to talk legal cases. Billy said that some Republicans have accused Attorney General Eric Holder of lying to Congress about his knowledge of Operation Fast and Furious. O'Reilly asked if Holder will eventually be forced to resign. Wiehl said this: "Yes, because he either withheld information that he knew about or he didn't know about something that was absolutely critical to his job. It's either incompetence or corruption."

Guilfoyle agreed that Holder will have no choice but to step down. Then they talked about the impending trial of 'underwear bomber' Umar Abdulmutallab, who attempted to blow up a jetliner last Christmas. Guilfoyle said this: "There will be swift justice, because this is a very strong and compelling case. The prosecutors have Abdulmutallab on tape admitting that he was doing this on behalf of Al Qaeda." Wiehl and O'Reilly agreed.

And then O'Reilly had the dumbest segment he has ever done, he had a Factor Producer Dan Bank walk around and ask the people of Boston which Irish guy they like more Obama or O'Reilly. To begin with, Obama is not Irish, and second, who cares. Not to mention, you know it was edited. O'Reilly never said how many people liked him or Obama, he just reported a few of the answers. I bet it was 10 to 1 for Obama, but O'Reilly made it look like they liked him more.

Then the lame and ridiculous pinheads and patriots nonsense.

9-11 Families Slam Boortz For Obama Comparison
By: Steve - October 12, 2011 - 10:00am

Now think about this, Hank Williams Jr. was fired by ESPN for comparing Obama to Hitler and saying he was the enemy. But the right-wing idiot Neal Boortz can say Obama in the White House is worse than the 9-11 disaster, and he is not fired from his radio show. Not to mention, he is allowed on the Hannity show on Fox to say it again.

Some 9-11 families have even spoke out against it. Radio Host Neal Boortz's attempt to compare President Obama's presidency to the tragedy of September 11 drew harsh criticism from several relatives of people who died on that day.

Boortz, appearing on Fox News' Hannity program, said this: "Barack Obama is a bigger disaster to this country than 9-11."

For some of those who lost loved ones that day, the comparison is an insult.

"One of the most unsettling aspects of the aftermath of 9-11 has been the politicization of it," said Donald Goodrich, whose son, Peter, died in the attacks.

"It is a sad commentary on our democracy that the loss of nearly 3,000 innocent civilians of every political persuasion and religious conviction is used to demonize a president of this great country."

Timothy Sumner, whose brother-in-law was a firefighter killed on September 11, said he is no fan of Obama. But he criticized Boortz's comparison.

"I think it's a ridiculous comment, it is so far off the topic, how can you emote from that?" Sumner said. "It is not even related to 9/11.

"I have issues with Barack Obama. But when you make comments like that, it is so over the top and out of context it is hard to do anything but laugh at the comment, it seems idiotic."

For Nancy Aronson, whose sister-in-law, Myra, was killed on September 11, the response was shock.

"Oh my God!" she said. "That's just ridiculous. It's politicizing an international tragedy. People from 53 countries died on September 11. Even linking Obama with that, it's just a non sequitur."

Herb Ouida's son, Todd, was killed in the North Tower on September 11. Ouida said the comparison to and criticism of Obama are both wrong.

"I could not disagree more with that," he said after hearing Boortz's views. "First of all, I think that the president is on track with the jobs that he saved in the auto industry, the fact that he saved the banks from going down the tubes.

"Number two, using September 11 is becoming almost a joke and a farce for some people. If you want to talk about an issue, September 11 is its own tragedy, it is a special tragedy. It doesn't need to be brought up to make a point that is not relevant to September 11.

"I just wish that people would understand that there is a lot of pain involved in bringing up September 11 for purposes that really have no relevance to September 11. I wish the lessons of September 11 could be peace. "

Timothy Barr is on the Board of Directors of FamiliesofSeptember11.org and also disagreed with the Boortz comparison.

"For anybody to compare the leader of the free world to the type of devastating tragedy that happened on 9/11 is way out of bounds from my thinking," said Barr, whose wife was in the World Trade Center when the planes hit, but survived. "Based on that comment, I can't see where any rational person could equate and believe those two things to be congruent."

Lou Dobbs Caught Lying About The Obama Jobs Bill
By: Steve - October 12, 2011 - 9:00am

Once again Lou Dobbs has been caught lying, this time about what economists say about the Obama jobs bill. Dobbs said this: "Every major economist considers the jobs act nonsense."

Fox Business host Lou Dobbs falsely claimed that "every major economist" thinks Obama's American Jobs Act is a continuation of the "nonsense that is excess confidence in government power to do something over the economy."

On Fox News America Live, Dobbs claimed Obama is trying to compound his "excess confidence in government power to do something" on the economy with the American Jobs Act. Dobbs further claimed "every economist, every major economist, points out that the Jobs Act is a continuation of this nonsense."
DOBBS: This chart points out a number of things. One is the underestimation of the depth of the crisis that we faced going into 2009. It also is a tribute to a monumental excess confidence in government power to do something over the economy.

This is an absurdity that is trying, that this administration is trying to compound now with the jobs act. Every economist points out, every major economist points out that the jobs act is just a continuation of this nonsense.

And it's really, it is really just amazing, it's mind-numbing to think that this president continues to perpetuate the idea that government has some sort of magic power over the direction of the economy.
In fact, many economists agree that the American Jobs Act would boost employment and "help avoid a return to recession."

Economists surveyed by Bloomberg News concluded that the jobs plan "would help avoid a return to recession by maintaining growth and pushing down the unemployment rate next year."
President Barack Obama's $447 billion jobs plan would help avoid a return to recession by maintaining growth and pushing down the unemployment rate next year, according to economists surveyed by Bloomberg News.

The legislation, submitted to Congress this month, would increase gross domestic product by 0.6 percent next year and add or keep 275,000 workers on payrolls, the median estimates in the survey of 34 economists showed.

The program would also lower the jobless rate by 0.2 percentage points in 2012, economists said.
And btw folks, Bloomberg is a Republican, so his news service is not a liberal operation.

Another major economist (Moody's Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi) supports the Obama jobs plan. Zandi said the Obama jobs plan will add 1.9 million jobs and grow the economy by 2 percent.
ZANDI: President Barack Obama's $447 billion job-creation plan would likely add 1.9 million payroll jobs and grow the U.S. economy 2 percent.

The plan, which Obama outlined before a joint session of Congress, would likely cut the unemployment rate by a percentage point, Moody's Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi said as Obama prepared to tout the plan at Virginia's University of Richmond.
From the blog of Macroeconomic Advisers LLC:
We estimate that the American Jobs Act (AJA), if enacted, would give a significant boost to GDP and employment over the near-term.

The various tax cuts aimed at raising workers after-tax income and encouraging hiring and investing, combined with the spending increases aimed at maintaining state & local employment and funding infrastructure modernization, would:

-- Boost the level of GDP by 1.3% by the end of 2012, and by 0.2% by the end of 2013.

-- Raise nonfarm establishment employment by 1.3 million by the end of 2012 and 0.8 million by the end of 2013, relative to the baseline.

-- The program works directly to raise employment through tax incentives and support to state & local governments for increasing hiring; it works indirectly through the positive boost to aggregate demand (and hence hiring) stimulated by the direct spending and the increase in household income resulting from lower employee payroll taxes and increased employment.
On the Economic Policy Institute blog, EPI research and policy director John Irons provided a "preliminary breakdown of the package and a first pass look at the job impact" of Obama's jobs plan:
The new initiatives would boost employment by about 2.6 million jobs, while the continuation of the two temporary provisions (EUI and the payroll tax holiday) would prevent a backslide of over 1.6 million jobs.

There's still a big hole left to fill, but every step matters.
So it's pretty clear that Lou Dobbs is nothing but a right-wing liar, who wants you to believe what he says, not the actual truth. In other words, he is the standard right-wing hack who Fox has on the payroll to lie to the American people.

Casinos Offer Special Bonuses for Online Slots Players
By: Steve - October 11, 2011 - 11:00am

You may tend to think that bonuses offered at online casinos are geared towards a general kind of player, who tries out all the casino games and then gets some credits in his account. However, if you dig a little further, you’ll see that many casinos offer unique bonuses that are geared towards online slots players only.

A quick look at the promotions page of your favorite online casino will show that online slots players get to enjoy bonuses and promotions for playing slots only. The bonus could be limited to a specific game, to celebrate the launch of a new online slots game for example, or it could be to promote a series of progressive games. These bonuses have a double advantage. Not only do you enjoy extra credits thanks to the casino, but you also put yourself in line to win multi million dollar payouts if you hit the jackpot!

Why would an online casino create special bonuses for slots players only? Naturally, one of the reasons would be to reward online slots fans with their own special bonuses. Another would be to promote specific games, especially new ones that are released into the market and the casino is keen to get its players to try out.

Some online casinos offer online slots freeroll tournaments, which means that players can enter into a multi player competition for free and possibly win the top prize if they are lucky enough. These freerolls are also considered unique slot promotions, since they allow players to win prizes for no outlay, as well as participate in exciting online slots action.

Check out the tournament schedule at top online casinos for more details about freeroll and low stake online slots tournaments.

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

Laura (the far-right loon) Ingraham was on to fill in for O'Reilly, her TPM was called: Do Wall Street protesters have a valid point? Crazy Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: Over the weekend the dinosaur media, still in the bag for President Obama, ran with two stories. One, the tired old fixation with Mitt Romney's Mormonism; the other, the endless reportage on the 'Occupy Wall Street' group and their spinoffs.

Let's take the theological distraction first. A pastor named Robert Jeffress, who introduced Rick Perry at a meeting of conservatives, later said Mormonism is 'a cult.' The media are continuing to fan the flames of this non-issue because this sideshow helps the Obama campaign.

As long as Republicans are arguing about theology, the President doesn't have to answer for his abysmal economic record. As for the media's other favorite obsession, the protesters, presidential candidate Herman Cain offered the correct response when he said, 'The unions and certain union-related organizations have been behind these protests.'

Even veteran Democratic insiders are seeing a potential downside to the growing nuisance of these permanent protests. Voters made it clear in the last election what matters most to them, and no amount of media-generated religious controversies or union-supported mobs are going to distract them from the real centerpiece of the campaign - the Obama record.
Then Ingraham had Erica Payne and Amilya Antonetti on to discuss it. Payne said this: "The Tea Party started in reaction to the bailout of Wall Street, and if you sat down with a group of 'Occupy Wall Street' protesters and a group from the Tea Party, you would see there's a lot of agreement. They're saying Wall Street and its corrupt relationship with government has put our country's economy at risk. So I think the protesters should stay."

But the conservative Amilya Antonetti criticized the protesters and their inchoate message, saying this: "They can't really explain why they are there or what they are looking for. They say they want jobs but they don't want to start at the bottom. Other people are carrying signs without even knowing what the sign says because they were paid to be there. The Tea Party was self-generated, but a lot of this is just a political campaign. It's going to get ugly and get way out of hand very fast."

Then Brit Hume was on with his perspective of the protests and their possible impact on Democratic politicians. Hume said this: "It's a little early to say this is just a bunch of mobs, but it does not seem to be a very good parallel to the Tea Party movement. Democrats have been really envious of the Tea Party, which benefitted the Republican Party. But that movement was organized, focused and disciplined - so far this group is proudly unorganized and the discipline is lacking, which you can see in skirmishes with the police. If I were a Democratic politician I'd be awfully wary of associating myself too closely with this."

Then Karl Rove was on to discuss Perry and Romney. Pastor Robert Jeffress, a supporter of Rick Perry, has slammed Mormonism as a "theological cult" divorced from Christianity. So Ingraham asked Karl Rove about the potential political fallout for Governor Perry and Mitt Romney, a devout Mormon.

Rove said this: "This is not where a pastor ought to be going. Should Christians not vote for Jews? What about Baptists and Catholics, who have different views on the papacy. This is the kind of thing that doesn't belong in politics. I wish Perry was a little stronger in denouncing this, but my problem is with the pastor."

Rove added that many media outlets would like to provoke a religious dispute among Republican candidates, saying this: "We have Time magazine and a couple of other major publications dissecting the Mormon faith - a lot of this has to be laid at the feet of the press."

Then the crazy Ingraham had Ann Coulter on to discuss Rick Perry's TV spot denouncing Mitt Romney for his Massachusetts health care plan. Coulter said this: "This is probably Romney's biggest problem, and this is a very strong ad. The country has spoken and they do not want national health care, and Romney himself has said that on his first day in office he will offer Obamacare waivers to every state. So we don't need to worry about him making that mistake again, but this ad reminds Republicans that Romney is not a pure free marketeer."

Coulter also hinted that Mitt Romney is her choice among the current front-runners, saying this: "We have to run a governor, so we're down to Romney or Perry, and Perry's position on illegal immigration is a much bigger problem than Romney's problem with Romneycare."

Then Ingraham had the Republican pollster Scott Rasmussen on to say the people still blame Bush for the economy more than they blame Obama. Killing the spin O'Reilly has put out that the people blame Obama for the economy.

According to a new Rasmussen poll, 51% of voters blame President Bush for the current economic woes, while just 43% put the onus on President Obama. Rasmussen said this: "Voters are unhappy with both parties. They know the economy stinks and they think there is plenty of blame to go around. Voters right now are just looking at Washington as completely out of touch, and 3 out of 4 people don't think anything will get done on the pressing issues before the 2012 election."

Wow, that is some kind of right-wing spin from Rasmussen, proving that he is a die-hard right-wing stooge. The polls shows that a slight majority still blame Bush for the economic mess we have, and he spins that into the voters are unhappy with both parties. Good job Rasmussen, NOT!

Rasmussen also pointed out that President Obama's recent aggressive posture has not helped him in the polls, saying this: "He has a 42% job approval rating right now, which is at the low end of his entire term, and his offensive is not firing up the Democratic support groups. One other part of the poll is very important in terms of the election - 59% say President Obama is 'more liberal' than they are."

And finally in the last segment Ingraham had the Fox stooge William La Jeunesse on to discuss the so-called fast and furious scandal and the AG Eric Holder.

La Jeunesse said this: "Because they generally don't believe that he didn't know until early this year about this program. Documents show that everyone around Holder did know about it. I am led to believe that a subpoena coming out this week will specifically look at communication between the Justice Department and the White House, and also between Justice and Mexico. Remember, we didn't tell our own agents in Mexico that the guns were coming down there."

Then the lame as hell pinheads and patriots nonsense.

Pelosi Calls Out Republican Protester Hypocrisy
By: Steve - October 11, 2011 - 9:00am

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called out Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) for calling the 99 percent movement a "growing mob" after having supported the Tea Party movement.

Pelosi said this: "I didn't hear him say anything when the tea party was out demonstrating, actually spitting on members of Congress right here in the Capitol," Pelosi said on ABC's This Week on Sunday.

Pelosi also said this about Cantor: "And he and his colleagues were putting signs in the windows encouraging them."

She never mentioned it but O'Reilly and everyone at Fox News are also hypocrites. Because they not only supported the Tea Party protests, they promoted them with Tea Party days, and Hannity even tried to do a fundraiser for them, but the network stopped it.

Now when liberal protest wall street the right and Fox call them bizarre freaks, and sludge. Making them massive hypocrites with double standards who are clearly biased to the right.

It also proves that O'Reilly and Fox were lying when they denied the Tea Party is a right-wing group. Because now we know they are, and at the time O'Reilly denied it, saying they are not partisan to the right. So they support right-wing protests, and oppose left-wing protests.

Making them dishonest lying hacks, because if they were real journalists they would support all protests, not just the protests by the right-wing groups. And O'Reilly is just as bad as any of them, even though he claims to be a non-partisan Independent.

Wallace Slams Media Coverage Of 99% Movement
By: Steve - October 11, 2011 - 8:00am

Now think about this, Chris Wallace is billed as a straight news journalist at Fox. But as you can see he is anything but a straight news journalist, he is as biased as anyone, including O'Reilly or Hannity.

Almost from its inception as a fringe anti-tax movement, Fox News nurtured the Tea Party into a political force -- posting the dates and times of Tea Party rallies on its website, promoting events during their regular programming and even allowing one of its hosts (Glenn Beck) to hold a political rally for Tea Party supporters.

Now that a similar movement is emerging that represents the 99 percent of Americans who do not benefit from far-right economic policy, Wallace and Fox are singing a different tune.

During the Fox News Sunday news show, host Chris Wallace suggested that the 99 Percent Movement is getting more coverage "than it deserves." Wallace said the mainstream media is giving them more coverage than it deserves. And yet, when Fox was promoting the Tea Party protests 24/7 he never once said they were giving them more coverage then they deserve.

Making Chris Wallace a biased right-wing hack, who is also a hypocrite with double standards. Even though he does a so-called straight news show, and he is sold as a straight news non-partisan journalist.

It's actually sad to see this kind of stuff, because all protests should be reported equally by the members of the media, no matter what political party they support. They should not support them, or oppose them, they should just report on the protests with no opinion.

It's called journalism you right-wing hacks, do it right or get out of the business. You are journalists, and you should start acting like it. Leave the opinions to the opinion shows and the bloggers.

O'Reilly Ignored The Voter ID Scandal Story
By: Steve - October 10, 2011 - 10:00am

Last week, the state of Tennessee denied Dorothy Cooper, a 96 year-old African-American woman, the voter ID she is now required to produce in order to vote at her polling place -- citing her inability to produce her marriage certificate.

In an interview Friday with MSNBC's Al Sharpton, Cooper explained that Tennessee's new voter suppression law did more to keep her from voting than anything she experienced during Jim Crow:
SHARPTON: Even during Jim Crow days you didn't have any problems voting in Tennessee?

COOPER: No, I haven't had any problems at all until this time. This is the only time that I've had problems.

SHARPTON: Do you feel that this kind of law is something that you and others that have lived through the Jim Crow Era and other eras-do you feel that this is something that you never thought at this stage in your voting life that you'd have to face?

COOPER: No, I never thought it would be like this, ever.
Earlier this year, former President Bill Clinton described the recent round of state anti-voter laws by the Republican Party as the most determined disenfranchisement effort since Jim Crow. For Cooper, though, they've turned out to be even more restrictive.

And of course O'Reilly ignored the entire story, because he is a Republican, and he is glad the Republicans are violating the rights of Democratic voters to vote. In fact, he supports it, because he has not done any stories about it, which if you go by his arguments that means he supports it.

O'Reilly has said many times in the past that (as a journalist) if you ignore an injustice and you do not speak out against it, then you support it. And you can bet the farm if Democrats were passing voting laws that blocked Republican voters from voting, he would make it the top story, debate it, and call for it to be stopped.

CNBC Calls Wall Street Protesters Bizarre Un-American Freaks
By: Steve - October 10, 2011 - 9:00am

The Occupy Wall Street protest that began in New York City more than three weeks ago has sparked an entire movement, based on the principle that the economy should work for everyone, not simply the richest one percent.

And at a time when income inequality and corporate profits are running sky high, right alongside joblessness and foreclosures, a movement like this captures the very real pain felt by the other 99 percent.

But the financial anchors on CNBC -- including Larry Kudlow, Jim Cramer, and Joe Kernan -- have found nothing but hate for the protestors, slamming them as bizarre, freaks, and law-breaking un-American anarchists who are aligned with Lenin.

And of course it is no real surprise that the same pundits who slammed subprime lending victims as suckers, vigorously defended the righteousness of bailed-out banks paying million dollar bonuses, believe tax havens prevent tyranny, and cited Glenn Beck as a new economic indicator would find the Wall Street protests off-putting.

But their comments highlight how out-of-touch they are with the average everyday working American, as they worship all day, and every day to the Wall Street crowd.

Let's also remember that these are the same people who sat by and let you lose your money in the big stock market crash, while telling you to hold and not to sell. As all the fat cats got out before they lost much, because they knew what was happening. The CNBC stooges said nothing to you, so the rich could get out before the big crash, and leave all the little guys to lose all their money.

Colmes Finally Calls Fox Out For Protest Double Standards
By: Steve - October 9, 2011 - 10:00am

Alan Colmes was on a Fox Saturday, and he finally called them out for their "Double Standards" and "Hypocrisy" on the Tea Party and Wall Street Protests.



Too bad he is the only one at Fox who is pointing it out, so nothing will happen. And you know O'Reilly will never say anything, because he also has a double standard on the protests, and he is also a hypocrite on it.

O'Reilly Calls AARP Far-Left Based On Magazine Covers
By: Steve - October 9, 2011 - 9:00am

Now this is funny, while denying that he is a partisan ideologue, Bill O'Reilly pointed to several pictures of celebrities on the cover of AARP's magazine as evidence that they are a "far-left organization."



One of the covers O'Reilly pointed to as evidence of AARP's leftist tilt was Michael Douglas. In his AARP profile, Douglas discussed such "far-left" topics as "getting his own fresh start as a husband, father, and son," his regrets about "absences" while juggling fatherhood early in his career, his son's incarceration related to drugs, staying fit at 65, and maintaining his career.

On reprising his iconic role as Wall Street titan Gordan Gekko, Douglas discussed his own market losses during the financial crisis and opined that "capitalism is part of our system ... but it's not for the faint of heart."

Another cover O'Reilly pointed to was Richard Gere, who in his AARP profile spoke of the realization that he had "so many years left, maybe, to accomplish something of value," which he credited with his decision to launch a charity dedicated to social and cultural challenges -- including HIV/AIDS awareness -- and the struggle of balancing family, career, and charitable work.

Then again, it's likely Bill O'Reilly made up his mind about AARP supposedly being a "far-left organization" far before looking at the pictures on any magazine. Back in November of 2009, O'Reilly said that "there's no doubt" AARP is a "left-wing organization."

The Friday 10-7-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 8, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Happy Birthday to Fox News! Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It's worth pointing out that the Fox News Channel has succeeded against all odds. When we launched in 1996 we were not on most cable systems because powerful companies like CNN and NBC didn't want us on. But we persevered and now FNC crushes CNN, MSNBC and CNBC.

The reason is twofold: First, Fox News is the only news network that gives equal credibility to the conservative point of view. That appeals to millions of conservatives who want their opinion respected, not sneered at by arrogant elitists. The second reason is that our reporters are better and our producers are sharper, framing stories to get the truth.

One vivid example - most of the media despise the Tea Party, branding it racist and idiotic. But all the Tea Party wants is less government, less spending and more local control, which is certainly a legitimate point of view. On the other side of the spectrum, the liberal media likes the Occupy Wall Street protesters, even though some of them are breaking the law.

These folks want to blow up the entire capitalist system to achieve so-called income equality. Trust me that few in the national media would give up their comfortable existence to give other people their stuff. So many of us here at FNC are skeptical of the far left demonstrators and their media sympathizers.

We don't make a moral equivalency between the anti-capitalist people and the Tea Party, which is peaceful and wants to work within the system. We bring a perspective that is lacking in most media outlets, and thank God most of you respect that. That's why Fox News dominates after 15 years on the air.
Wow, O'Reilly is a brainwashed right-wing fool. To begin with, Fox gets such good ratings because they have a right-wing bias and ALL the Republicans in America watch them. Where the rest of America is split between CNN and MSNBC, ALL the Republicans only watch Fox, because of their bias and they say what they want to hear. And it's clear that Fox has a bias in the way they reported the Tea Party protests, and the wall street protests.

Then O'Reilly had Geraldo on to slam the Obama administration some more. Billy reported that Jonathan Silver, who ran the Energy Department's program that gave loans to companies like the bankrupt Solyndra, has announced his resignation; some Arizona sheriffs, enraged by the botched Fast and Furious gun-running fiasco, are calling for Attorney General Eric Holder's resignation; and President Obama's poll numbers continue to sink.

Geraldo said this: "Fast and Furious is a huge story and a catastrophe for Eric Holder. If Holder lied it may be the end of his career. And I think Solyndra is the end of government intervention in 'green energy' and it might also torpedo the President's jobs bill."

Rivera also took a moment to express his gratitude to Fox News, saying this: "It's been an honor working with you the past decade, all the time I spent in Afghanistan and Iraq with our nation's troops. They wouldn't let me do that at NBC."

And that my friends is 100% proof that Geraldo is a right-wing stooge, because no liberal in their right mind would say it's an honor to work with the dishonest and biased right-wing jerk Bill O'Reilly for 10 years.

Then Mike Huckabee was on to talk about the right-wing loon Herman Cain, who has surged to the top tier of Republican hopefuls. Billy asked former Republican candidate Mike Huckabee if Cain can win. Huckabee said this: "He's got a shot, and I would give him a 40% chance of winning the nomination. He's lacking money and organization, the two key things you have to have in states like Iowa and South Carolina and Florida, but he's connecting with people and making his case. Connecting with people is ultimately what carries the day."

Yeah right, you mean he's connecting with the loons on the far right, and that is about all. If he does win, which he wont, Obama will beat him because he is a far right nut who has said a lot of crazy things, but of course neither O'Reilly or Huckabee every report any of that, because they do not want to make him look bad.

Then O'Reilly had The AARP president Lee Hammond on. Billy claims they have moved far-left so he was on to discuss it. Hammond said this: "Our membership is as diverse as the country, and we work for our members. They are the people who tell us what to do."

Hammond also defended AARP's TV ad that claims politicians are trying to take away Medicare and Social Security from seniors, saying this: "There is no bill yet, but there are number of people in Congress suggesting it and there has been a lot of conversation around that. There are lots of things in play."

O'Reilly accused Hammond and the AARP of trying to scare seniors, saying this: "There is no politician that I know of who has threatened to introduce legislation that would cut any entitlement for present seniors. I want the AARP to lobby for senior citizens, but you're not really doing it for all senior citizens - your organization has become left-wing and I'd like to see you move back to the center."

And what O'Reilly will not admit or report is that Republicans would get rid of social security and medicare if they had the chance. They have said so, but O'Reilly ignores that to claim the AARP is just scaring seniors, when they are telling the truth, they are saying if you vote Republican and enough of them get elected you might have your social security and medicare taken away from you. Not to mention, O'Reilly supports scare tactics when Republicans use them, he has even said they should use them against Obama. But when liberals use them suddenly he is against it.

Then O'Reilly had a segment on polygamy with the polygamist Joe Darger and two of his three wives, why, I have no idea, and I sure as hell am not going to waste my time writing about it here.

Then Lou Dobbs was on to trash the Occupy Wall Street protesters, Dobbs said this: "I think Herman Cain said it best, when he said 'if you're upset about not being rich, blame yourself.' That's where it starts in this country, and I can't for the life of me figure out what this protest is about. It doesn't address any of the issues or public policy - this is an aggregation of left-wing groups who have found some inspiration. This nonsense has nothing to do with the future, it looks like a political ploy for the President's reelection."

Without endorsing the protesters or their tactics, O'Reilly sympathized with young college grads, saying, "It's harder for kids today than it was when you and I graduated."

And finally in the last segment it was dumbest things of the week with Greg Gutfeld and Arthel Neville. Neville picked Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, who joked about a female rival's physical appearance. Neville said this: "I'm offended, and Scott Brown should know that his comment would come across as sexist."

Gutfeld went with the public service announcement in which various celebrities mouth the "f" word, which in this case stands for "famine." Gutfeld said this: "The premise is a bit flawed, because they say they want to make famine as rare as swearing, but celebrities swear all the time."

Billy picked a liberal of course, Nancy Pelosi, who said this about the Wall Street protesters: "God bless them for their spontaneity."

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

Kilmeade Lies That Tea Party Protests Were Organic
By: Steve - October 8, 2011 - 10:00am

On the Wednesday morning On Fox & Friends, Brian Kilmeade claimed, unlike the Wall Street protests, the tea party's origins were "organic."

But in fact, the protests were launched by GOP consultants and PACs and were heavily promoted and participated in by the Fox News Channel.

On the October 5 broadcast of Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade claimed the tea party protests were "an organic movement that started across this country." From the show:
KILMEADE: The big question is "Occupy Wall Street" and the tea party. They're actually equating the two? One was an, was an, organic movement that started across this country without any one definitive leader, that just talked about getting spending in order.

STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Right.

KILMEADE: "Occupy Wall Street," you can't get a definition of what they stand for.

DOOCY: And this Van Jones is somehow tangled up in "Occupy Wall Street." There's a big difference between "Occupy Wall Street," "Occupy Washington," "Occupy Boston" than the tea party. For instance, when was the last time 700 people got arrested at a tea party rally?
Now that sounds good, but it's all a lie. Because The Tea Party Movement was Launched and Funded by GOP Consultants and PACS.

-- AP: Tea Party Express Run By Republican PAC. In an October 2008 article, the Associated Press reported that Our Country Deserves Better PAC, which launched and still pays for the Tea Party Express "was formed in August 2008 by California political consultant Sal Russo and former California Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian."

-- An April 2009 post on The Huffington Post quoted a letter authored by former Republican House Majority Leader and FreedomWorks chairman, Dick Armey in March 2009 in which he claimed "Freedomworks has been organizing many of these 'tea parties.'"

-- New Yorker: Koch Brother's funded Americans For Prosperity Helped Train Tea Party Activists. An August, 2010 New Yorker article quoted portions of an interview with Peggy Venable, "a longtime political operative who draws a salary from Americans for Prosperity, and who has worked for Koch-funded political groups since 1994."

She explained that the role of Americans for Prosperity was to help "educate" Tea Party activists on policy details, and to give them "next-step training" after their rallies, so that their political energy could be channelled "more effectively." And she noted that Americans for Prosperity had provided Tea Party activists with lists of elected officials to target.

-- Fox News Hopped Aboard The Tea Party Express With Rampant Promotions and Live Coverage. On August 28, 2009, Fox News devoted live coverage and publicity to the kickoff of the Tea Party Express. Fox News coverage followed numerous promotions of the tour on Fox News, Fox Business, Fox Nation, and FoxNews.com.

-- Fox News Embedded The Reporter Griff Jenkins Who Touted The Tea Party Express. Despite his claim to be "simply reporting" on 2009 Tea Party Express rallies, Fox News correspondent Griff Jenkins, who traveled with the cross-country bus tour, repeatedly expressed support for the protesters, whom he referred to as "the America that Washington forgot."

-- During the October 25, 2009, edition of Fox News Fox & Friends Sunday, co-host Dave Briggs hosted then-Tea Party Express co-chairman Mark Williams and tea party activist Lloyd Marcus, introducing them by stating: "Well, the bus tour that took the country by storm is back by popular demand."

-- Fox Nation promoted the Tea Party Express II, asking readers, "Will You Join the Tea Party Express II?" Fox Nation also advertised the tour's start date and planned stops.

-- Fox News provided all-day coverage of the March 27, 2010, kickoff rally for the Tea Party Express III bus tour, with the network's hosts and on-site reporter Casey Stegall frequently praising the rally's participants. At one point, Fox aired a graphic of the bus over the text, "Conservative Woodstock?" Fox also provided live coverage of the event's keynote address -- given by Sarah Palin.

-- Fox Relentlessly Promoted October 2010 Tea Party Express Tour IV. Despite News Corp. chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch's statement that he doesn't think Fox "should be supporting the Tea Party," Fox News and Fox Business relentlessly promoted the Tea Party Express, devoting numerous segments to the launch of its October 2010 tour -- the fourth such tour -- as well as hosting its chairman for softball interviews.

And now you have the facts, not the right-wing lies Kilmeade was spewing out.

Fox Straight News Parrots GOP Talking Points Again
By: Steve - October 8, 2011 - 9:00am

Now think about this, not only does every one of the so-called straight news anchors at Fox parrot the GOP talking points early and often, they never once parrot any DNC talking points. Which not only proves their bias, it proves they only have a right-wing bias.

Here is the latest example: On 9-21-11 the so-called "straight news" Fox anchor Bret Baier and Fox News correspondent William La Jeunesse attacked the Department of Justice's inspector general for releasing audio tapes related to the ATF's failed Fast and Furious program. Which is exactly what the GOP said about it.

While at no point did Baier or La Jeunesse note that the inspector general's office says the tapes were released in order to comply with the constitutional rights of the targets of a criminal investigation.

During the September 21 edition of Fox News Special Report, Baier and La Jeunesse uncritically reported the accusations of Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) that the Department of Justice's inspector general "undermined and obstructed" their investigation into the failed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Fast and Furious program.

The inspector general's office has been conducting its own investigation into Fast and Furious.

And now the facts, that the so-called straight news anchors at Fox never reported. The Inspector General's Office Released The Audio Tapes To Comply With "Legal Disclosure Obligations" In Criminal Cases.

From a CBS News report:
A spokesman from the Office of the Inspector General said, "The OIG officially provided the United States Attorney's Office with a copy of the recordings in question so that the USAO could consider them in connection with the government's disclosure obligations in the pending criminal prosecutions of the gun traffickers.

Prior to receiving the tapes, the OIG made clear that we would have to provide a copy of the recordings to the United States Attorney's Office because they would need to review them to satisfy any legal disclosure obligations."
The Constitution Requires Prosecutors To Turn Over "Evidence Favorable To An Accused." In the landmark 1963 case of Brady v. Maryland, the Supreme Court decided that the Due Process Clause of the Constitution requires the prosecution to turn over "evidence favorable to an accused upon request."

And btw, La Jeunesse Himself Has Admitted That The Inspector General's Office Said "It Is Required To Turn The Tapes Over." But he only admitted it in an online article on foxnews.com, where almost nobody sees it. When he was on tv to talk about it neither La Jeunesse or Baier said a word about it.

The Thursday 10-6-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 7, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: President Obama On The Attack. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama held a press conference today basically to put the Republican Party on the defensive about job creation. The problem for Mr. Obama is spending another half-trillion dollars in order to create more jobs as the national debt approaches $15 trillion.

The Obama administration has added more debt in less than three years than every president from George Washington to Bush the elder. Republicans believe tax cuts on consumers and business, combined with deregulation in some industries, would stimulate the economy without more spending.

So that's the impasse. Talking Points has said many times that the feds have to tighten up their crazy spending before raising taxes on anybody. The government has spent billions with very little to show for it; nevertheless, President Obama is not changing course. He says the stimulus 'has helped create jobs.' But not enough jobs, Mr. President, for the money spent.
And that is what you call right-wing spin, because most of the debt that has happened under Obama is from Bush and the Republicans, it's just now showing up on the books and O'Reilly is blaming it all on Obama. Most of the debt is from the Bush tax cuts, the two wars, the housing crisis, the financial crisis, and the economic downturn caused by Bush. But O'Reilly ignores all that to blame Obama for the debt caused by Bush.

Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about President Obama's major push to promote his economic stimulus plan. Ingraham said this: "The President wants to use this as a campaign weapon. He's been doing this razzle-dazzle offensive for a month and his numbers have not moved. The problem is not about the politics, it's about his policies, which don't work. He doesn't want to run on his record."

Ingraham added that this entire issue seems like deja vu all over again, saying this: "We're having the same debates we've had since the 1980's. The left thinks that if we have more regulation and higher taxes and permanent entitlement programs, then we'll have a thriving economy and it will be more fair. Europe tried that and Europe is crumbling!"

And what O'Reilly and Ingraham still refuse to admit (or talk about) is the booming economy and the 23 million new jobs that were created under Bill Clinton the Democrat. He had liberal policies and the country did great, but O'Dummy and Nasal Nose Voice refuse to discuss it because it kills their spin that liberal policies do not work.

Then O'Reilly had the CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson on to talk about the 'Fast and Furious' gun-running fiasco. She reported that White House communications apparatchik Eric Shultz actually cursed her out when she pursued the story, saying this: "We had a conversation, and in the course of covering these kinds of stories you get into difficult moments with people you talk to."

Attkisson said that additional revelations about the scandal may be coming. "There are very sensitive documents and allegations going around. Many of them we haven't reported yet because we need to get more confirmation, but what you see on the surface is really only a part of what may be going on."

Then Billy suggested that Attorney General Holder is either dissembling or outright lying, saying this: "It looks to me like Holder did know about this 'Fast and Furious' operation that led to the death of a Border Patrol agent long before he told Congress he knew about it. It looks like he is not telling the truth."

Then O'Reilly had the Culture Warriors Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover on to ask them if young people are spoiled. Billy said hundreds of mostly young people have been protesting in various U.S. cities, which have led to numerous arrests.

Which is a lie, because it's thousands not hundreds. O'Reilly is lying about the numbers.

Hoover said this: "Some of the people I talked with said they used to be hippies, and another guy said he's a communist. This is a patchwork of far-left special interest groups and there is no coherent political ideology."

Carlson saw the protests as a symbol of America's stark divide, saying this: "This could become more organized and bigger because the unions are allegedly joining in. To me it's emblematic of the division in this country, the class warfare that some on Capitol Hill have been talking about. We're going to see more of this if that discussion continues on Capitol Hill."

Billy said that the protesters seem to be rebels without a cause, saying this: "My hypothesis is that this doesn't have much to do about economics. This is about 'we don't like America,' we're far-left loons and we're going to take to the streets. It's just like 1968."

Wow, O'Reilly is an idiot. Earth to O'Reilly, they like America you right-wing jerk, they just do not like the crooks on wall street ripping people off.

Then John Ratzenberger was on, who is known for playing Cliff Clavin on Cheers, and is now involved in a program that encourages young people to obtain job skills.

Ratzenberger said this: "There are thousands of jobs out there, but there is nobody to fill skilled worker jobs like welders, carpenters, bricklayers and lathe operators. That used to be taught, but we bought into the philosophy that everyone has to go to college. But it's not true - someone has to build the college. By 2020 there will be 10-million unfilled jobs in the skilled trades, but kids graduate from high school without the ability to read a ruler."

Ratzenberger advised people to visit the website CenterForAmerica.org, which offers advice to ordinary citizens who want to promote more skilled jobs training in U.S. schools.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about a rumor that there is a secret group of White House advisors empowered to put American-born terrorists like Anwar al-Awlaki on a "kill list."

O'Dummy asked Kelly to assess the legality of U.S. forces targeting other Americans. Kelly said this: "It's murky. You have to prove that the person is an imminent threat, and the White House said al-Awlaki was an imminent threat because he participated in past terrorist attacks and he was planning other attacks. Federal courts have said it is not up to the courts to tell an American president when it's okay to go after a citizen."

O'Reilly added this: "The Obama administration has been more aggressive using the drone and missile strikes than the Bush administration was, they're blowing people up in Pakistan every day."

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

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

Fox Producer Embarrassed By Wall Street Protester
By: Steve - October 7, 2011 - 10:00am

And the worst part is that the Fox Producer (Griff Jenkins) told the man he could get any message out he wanted, he basically told the man that Fox would air whatever he said. Then after they got the video of what he said, Fox refused to air it.

Here is the story:

A Fox News producer and a protester with the Occupy Wall Street Movement had a testy exchange in an interview that didn't make it onto the air.

A member of the movement's media team sent the New York Observer footage of Jesse LaGreca, the protester, politely but pointedly criticizing Fox News, as well as Griff Jenkins, the producer asking him questions.

The video shows Jenkins asking LaGreca if the movement took any cues from the protests in Greece and Europe. "I'd say that we didn't take our cue leading off of anybody really," LaGreca says. "It became a more spontaneous movement." He then turns his sights on Jenkins, and on Fox News itself.

"It's fun to talk to the propaganda machine and the media, especially conservative media networks such as yourself, because we find that we can't get conversations for the Department of Justice's ongoing investigation of News Corporation, for which you are an employee," he says.

"We're here giving you an opportunity on the record, to put any message you want out there, to give you fair coverage," Jenkins responds. "You wouldn't be able to get your message out there without us."

"Take for instance when Glenn Beck was doing his protest and he called the President a person who hates white people and white culture," LaGreca says.

"That was a low moment in Americans' history and you guys kinda had a big part in it. So, I'm glad to see you coming around and kind of paying attention to what the other 99 percent of Americans are paying attention to."

Now think about this, Fox did air all the negative interviews they did with protesters that made the protesters look bad. But when they do an interview with a smart and well spoken protester who slammed them for being biased, they refuse to air that. Even after telling the guy whatever he says will get on the air.

If that is not a perfect example of right-wing bias from Fox, nothing is.

O'Reilly Dishonestly Calls Foul On Nazi Comparisons
By: Steve - October 7, 2011 - 9:00am

Discussing the recent uproar over Hank Williams Jr. invoking Adolf Hitler while criticizing President Obama, Bill O'Reilly said to Dennic Miller that it is "always bad to use Nazis in analogies." But O'Reilly himself has a long history of using Nazi analogies.

Billy said this:
O'REILLY: He was trying to make an analogy, and [it's] always bad to use Nazis in analogies -- you don't do this. And he basically said, look, if you get guys together like President Obama and Speaker [John] Boehner:

WILLIAMS: [video clip] It'd be like Hitler playing golf with [Benjamin] Netanyahu.

O'REILLY: I'm of two minds. It's dumb to bring Hitler up, you're absolutely right. Can't do that in this PC society. But what he said, it isn't -- he isn't comparing Obama to Hitler. He's comparing the situation, the strange bedfellows. He's not saying Obama's Hitler. Williams isn't saying that. I mean, I'm just trying to be fair here, OK. But it doesn't matter, I guess.
Notice how after saying it was wrong, O'Reilly put a spin on it to defend Hank Williams saying he did not actually compare Obama to Hitler. Not to mention, O'Reilly cherry picked the Williams video, he left out the part where Williams said Obama and Biden are the enemy.

And O'Reilly also did not do a full segment on the topic with any liberal guests on to comment on it. He just mentioned it in passing during the lame so-called comedy segment with Dennis Miller.

On top of all that O'Reilly has compared people to Nazis and Hitler many many times, making him a massive hypocrite. And he always compares liberals to Hitler or Nazis, proving once again that he is a biased right-wing jerk.

Here are some examples of O'Reilly making Nazi comparisons:

On his show, O'Reilly said that liberals who support gun control are "today's totalitarians." He added that in the past, people like "Hitler and Mussolini" held such positions in favor of "state control." [The O'Reilly Factor, 3/2/10]

In a July 16, 2009, syndicated column, O'Reilly wrote this:
O'REILLY: The far left is trying to create a huge federal apparatus that will promote income redistribution and "social justice." Also, the left sees a major opportunity to knock out Judeo-Christian traditions, replacing them with a secular philosophy.

In order to accomplish this, the left-wing media is marginalizing people like Sarah Palin who oppose the strategy. 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. [BillOReilly.com, 7/16/09]
On March 5, 2008, O'Reilly said this: "I said that the 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." [The O'Reilly Factor, 3/10/08]

On February 27, 2008, O'Reilly said this: "I don't see any difference between [Arianna] Huffington and the Nazis. I don't see any difference." [The O'Reilly Factor, 2/27/08]

On July 16, 2007, O'Reilly said this: "The Daily Kos is "like the Ku Klux Klan. It's like the Nazi party. There's no difference here." [The O'Reilly Factor, 7/16/07]

I guess he just forgot he has used all the Nazi/Hitler comparisons in the past himself, yeah right, and I'm Bill Gates too. And what's really funny is O'Dummy slamming other people for using propaganda, when he is the king of propaganda, and he makes a living spewing out right-wing propaganda.

In fact, O'Reilly uses so much right-wing propaganda he should get paid by the RNC instead of Fox. Almost every word out of his mouth is either right-wing spin, or right-wing lies, or right-wing talking points, or right-wing propaganda. And that's a fact, I have spent almost 11 years now documenting it.

Obama Kills Class Warfare Spin With Reagan Quote
By: Steve - October 7, 2011 - 8:00am

O'Dummy and all his right-wing friends keep saying Obama is using class warfare when he calls for the Buffett rule, that would raise taxes on millionaires and end tax loopholes. Except it's not class warfare, and none other than Ronald Reagan said the loopholes were crazy.

ThinkProgress posted a video of conservative icon Ronald Reagan saying that it's crazy that tax loopholes would allow a millionaire to pay lower taxes than a bus driver, using the same sort of language that President Obama has employed when describing the Buffett rule (which would ensure that millionaires can't pay lower taxes than middle-class families).

During a speech Tuesday in Texas, President Obama used Reagan's quote to slam Republicans (And O'Reilly) who have been deriding the Buffett rule as class warfare. "Last time I checked, Republicans all thought Reagan made some sense," Obama said:
OBAMA: Now, when I point this out, some of the Republicans in Congress say, 'oh you're engaging in class warfare.' Let me tell you something. Years ago, one great American had a different view.

I'm going to get the quote, just so you know I'm not making this up. A great American said that he thought it was 'crazy' that certain tax loopholes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary.

Alright. You know who this guy was? It wasn't a Democrat. It wasn't some crazy socialist. It was Ronald Reagan. It was Ronald Reagan. Last time I checked, Republicans all thought Reagan made some sense.

So next time you hear one of those Republicans in Congress accusing you of class warfare, you just tell them I'm with Ronald Reagan. I agree with Ronald Reagan that it's crazy that a bus driver pays a higher tax rate than some millionaire because of a loophole in the tax code.

And by the way, I don't mind being called a warrior for the working class. You guys need someone working for you.
And you can bet the farm you will never see any of this reported by O'Reilly, because it kills his right-wing spin that what Obama is calling for is class warfare. Because they sure as hell would never accuse Reagan of using class warfare for saying the same thing Obama did.

ESPN Dumps Far-Right Idiot Hank Williams Jr.
By: Steve - October 6, 2011 - 11:30am

From ESPN.com:

Hank Williams Jr. and his iconic theme song will not return to ESPN's "Monday Night Football," the network announced Thursday.

In the wake of Williams using an analogy involving Adolf Hitler and President Barack Obama to make a political point on the Fox News Channel, Williams' "All My Rowdy Friends" will no longer be part of the MNF opening.

"We have decided to part ways with Hank Williams, Jr," ESPN said in a statement. "We appreciate his contributions over the past years. The success of Monday Night Football has always been about the games and that will continue."

On his own website, Williams said he was the one who made the decision.

"After reading hundreds of e-mails, I have made MY decision," he wrote. "By pulling my opening Oct 3rd, You (ESPN) stepped on the Toes of The First Amendment Freedom of Speech, so therefore Me, My Song, and All My Rowdy Friends are OUT OF HERE. It's been a great run."

In an interview Monday on Fox News' "Fox & Friends," Williams, unprompted, said of Obama's outing on the links with House Speaker John Boehner: "It'd be like Hitler playing golf with (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu."

Asked to clarify, Williams said, "They're the enemy," adding that by "they" he meant Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.

ESPN pulled Williams' opening to Monday night's Indianapolis-Tampa Bay game and issued a statement saying: "While Hank Williams, Jr. is not an ESPN employee, we recognize that he is closely linked to our company through the open to Monday Night Football. We are extremely disappointed with his comments, and as a result we have decided to pull the open from tonight's telecast."

Williams, through his publicist, said on Monday: "Some of us have strong opinions and are often misunderstood. My analogy was extreme -- but it was to make a point. I was simply trying to explain how stupid it seemed to me -- how ludicrous that pairing was. They're polar opposites and it made no sense. They don't see eye-to-eye and never will. I have always respected the office of the president."

Tuesday, he issued another statement."The thought of the leaders of both parties jukin and high fiven on a golf course, while so many families are struggling to get by simply made me boil over and make a dumb statement," Williams wrote on Facebook and his website. "I am very sorry if it offended anyone."

Williams' song has been part of "Monday Night Football" since 1991 on both ESPN and ABC.

The Wednesday 10-5-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 6, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Who's really behind the Occupy Wall Street protests? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Today in New York there was another far-left demonstration as a bunch of people marched on Wall Street. Why? We aren't exactly sure, but we do know these are zealots organized by some very interesting people. Does the name MoveOn.org mean anything to you? How about George Soros? MoveOn, funded in part by Soros, has openly allied itself with the protesters.

There are also some unions in the mix. What do they want? The common thread seems to be 'income equality.' Many of the groups are basically socialistic outfits that want the government to take money from the affluent and give it to them. The protesters issued a statement saying 'the American way is to help one another succeed.'

But these people are not asking for voluntary help; they want to take stuff by force if necessary. The far left is disappointed with President Obama because he has not been radical enough; he rightly knows the vast majority of Americans do not want socialism and he would be politically doomed if he threw in with these hard-core radicals.

In the end, the protesters don't mean very much. They remind me of the late 1960's when the 'power to the people' movement was at its apex. Eventually many of those Woodstock era protesters turned into ardent capitalists. Just ask anybody on Wall Street.
Now think about this, liberals support the wall street protests, conservatives oppose them and call them names like loons and sludge. So it is clear that O'Reilly is opposed to the protests because he just said so in his TPM, and he called them loons. Which makes him a conservative, while claiming to be a non-partisan Independent. Not to mention the hypocrisy, when the Tea Party protested O'Reilly loved it and called them great Americans. Now when the wall street protests happen he calls them far-left loons.

Then O'Reilly had Joe Trippi and Lanny Davis on to talk more about the Mexican gun scandal. Billy reported that CBS News uncovered documents showing Attorney General Eric Holder may have misled Congress when he testified about his awareness of Operation Fast and Furious, the botched gun-running operation.

Davis said this: "Eric Holder had no reason to lie, and I think there was just a mixup on the words he chose. The program was a screwed-up mistake, but Eric Holder is an honest man and he had no reason to lie."

Trippi urged the White House to immediately come clean about the entire fiasco, saying this: "The real damage here is to Obama's claim that he would do something different and change Washington. It looks like they're hiding something and they should show transparency and put out all the facts now."

Then O'Reilly questioned his competence, saying this: "On his watch this operation went terribly wrong and has led to the deaths of some American citizens."

Proving once again how much right-wing bias O'Reilly has. Because during the Bush years O'Reilly would never say anyone lied without proof, and he defended John Ashcroft on every charge made against him. So when Republicans are in power O'Reilly supports and defends everything they do, but when Democrats are in power he says they lied with no proof, and never defends anything they do.

Then the biased right-wing stooge Karl Rove was on to discuss it, Rove said this: "If Attorney General Holder lied that's a huge story, but let's assume he didn't lie. That doesn't let him off the hook - he's surrounded by a bunch of nincompoops who didn't properly brief him. Nobody in the Department of Justice thought there was anything to worry about when they got a memo saying they were selling dangerous weapons to known drug dealers and gun runners. How stupid was that! The White House thinks it can simply skate and people will stop paying attention, but this is not going to go away."

Then Dick Morris was on to talk about a new poll that has Cain and Romney tied. According to a new CBS poll, Herman Cain is now tied with Mitt Romney for the lead among Republican candidates.

Morris said this: "These polls have less than 400 interviews each. You can basically understand from these polls that Perry is down, Cain is up and Romney is kind of the same, but that's all you can draw from these. The Cain candidacy is a hurricane and we'll see how long it blows."

So O'Reilly predicted that 'Hurricane Herman' will eventually lose steam, saying this: "Conservatives who once liked Rick Perry are now bailing and going over to Cain. Cain has waged a very strong campaign, but he is not going to win the nomination."

And for once I agree with O'Reilly, Cain will fade out and as I predicted over a year ago, Romney will win it.

Then Billy had the atheist Richard Dawkins on, who has a new book expressly for children. Dawkins said this: "This is a book about science, and everything about the natural world can be explained by science. The Judeo-Christian myth is thrown in occasionally as one of many myths that come from around the world. There is a logical connection between believing in God and sometimes doing evil things."

O'Reilly then slammed Dawkins for promoting atheism to youngsters, saying this: "You want children to reject God and religion and you're trying to get to the kids and say you're an idiot if you believe in God. The Judeo-Christian philosophy isn't a myth, it's a reality."

Then the lame Dennis Miller was on for his regular weekly segment, which I do not report on because Miller is just a has-been barely funny comedian who decided to turn Republican and make money spinning out right-wing lies and telling unfunny jokes about liberals. I also ignore this segment because O'Reilly does not have a liberal comedian on for balance.

And finally in the last segment Juliet Huddy was on for did you see that. Huddy interviewed Perry over the weekend, saying this: "I like Rick Perry. I think he's a good man and a good governor and could be a good president, but he needs to crack that shell. He seems to be a little too stiff."

Haha, really? Of course you like Rick Perry, because he is a far-right loon and so are you, now tell us something we dont know.

Huddy also commented on former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's confrontational interview on Al Jazeera, saying this: "The interviewer basically was saying we are not being given the accurate number of Iraqi citizens who have been killed. What really set Rumsfeld off is that the interviewer was so biased and anti-American, but that's Al Jazeera for you. The interviewer was totally disrespectful."

Maybe the interviewer was just telling the truth and Rumsfeld did not like that so he got mad and lost his cool. Did you ever think of that Juliet, of course you never thought of that, because you are a biased right-wing hack of a pretend journalist, just like your hero Billy O'Reilly.

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

O'Reilly Ignores Republicans Who Asked For Green Loans
By: Steve - October 6, 2011 - 10:00am

O'Reilly is spinning the Solyndra loan story as all on Obama, and even claims it will hurt his re-election chances. But he is ignoring the fact that 62 Republicans also requested clean energy-related loan guarantees, grants, and other assistance for their districts.

And the fact that Solyndra is the only loan to go bad so far, or the fact that the Government had set aside $2 billion dollars to cover any loan defaults from the program.

A new ThinkProgress special report shows that 62 Republicans from the House and Senate were once proponents of clean energy investments, sending letters asking for various clean energy-related loan guarantees, grants, and other assistance for their districts.

Yet during the recent Solyndra controversy, many members of Congress have seized the opportunity to go on a witch-hunt against other clean energy programs authorized by the Department of Energy, from voting to defund the loan guarantee program and projects that would help employ veterans, and voting to slash funds for the clean car program that has created tens of thousands of jobs, to denouncing all clean energy grants as fraudulent, to denouncing all clean energy grants as fraudulent, and labeling green jobs as so-called phony jobs.

These very same Republicans were once supportive of these government-funded green jobs in their districts.

And O'Reilly does not report any of this, instead he dishonestly labels it an Obama/Democratic Party scandal. Even though it was only one loan, and the same people under Bush who suggested the loan also approved it. And at the time Solyndra was a good company, as even the right-wing media had reported.

Instead of narrowly scrutinizing the loan that subsidized Solyndra, a company that utilized a Republican-created program and had initially gained approval from the Bush administration, Republicans are on a war path to defund all clean energy programs -- despite the fact that these Republicans previously were proponents of the program when it helped clean energy companies in their districts.

As Stephen Lacey has reported, Republicans are now expanding their inquisition to include killing a program that employs veterans to install solar panels.

As Lacey and others have reported extensively, Republicans have exploited Department of Energy clean energy programs for years without complaint. Some senators and representatives who voted to slash funds for ATVM (Alternative Technology Vehicle Manufacturing) loans previously urged the Department of Energy to speed up its approval process.

So now because one loan went bad, O'Reilly and his right-wing friends are using it to try and hurt Obama politically. When those loans were requested and approved by many Republicans.

Stupid Sarah Is Not Running For President
By: Steve - October 6, 2011 - 9:00am

It's official, Stupid Sarah Palin will not be running for President. She even sent out a letter with some BS about why she is not running. Here is a copy:
After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States. As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order.

My decision is based upon a review of what common sense Conservatives and Independents have accomplished, especially over the last year. I believe that at this time I can be more effective in a decisive role to help elect other true public servants to office – from the nation's governors to Congressional seats and the Presidency. We need to continue to actively and aggressively help those who will stop the "fundamental transformation" of our nation and instead seek the restoration of our greatness, our goodness and our constitutional republic based on the rule of law.

From the bottom of my heart I thank those who have supported me and defended my record throughout the years, and encouraged me to run for President. Know that by working together we can bring this country back – and as I've always said, one doesn't need a title to help do it.

I will continue driving the discussion for freedom and free markets, including in the race for President where our candidates must embrace immediate action toward energy independence through domestic resource developments of conventional energy sources, along with renewables. We must reduce tax burdens and onerous regulations that kill American industry, and our candidates must always push to minimize government to strengthen the economy and allow the private sector to create jobs.

Those will be our priorities so Americans can be confident that a smaller, smarter government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people can better serve this most exceptional nation.

In the coming weeks I will help coordinate strategies to assist in replacing the President, re-taking the Senate, and maintaining the House.

Thank you again for all your support. Let's unite to restore this country!

God bless America.

- Sarah Palin
Yeah right, what a load of garbage. Now here are the real reasons she is not running.

1) She is too stupid, and the polls have her getting killed by 20 or more points if she ran against Obama.

2) She is too far right and way out of the mainstream, that means almost no Independents would vote for her.

3) The money men in the Republican party have told her they will not give her the big money she would need, because they know she would lose to Obama.

Those are the real reasons she is not running, not the spin she put out in that letter.

The Tuesday 10-4-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 5, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Lots of political intrigue. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As expected, Gov. Chris Christie announced he's not running for president...Christie's decision was very good news for the rest of the GOP field, as he would have been a formidable opponent. Americans are looking for straight talk and no nonsense, which Gov. Christie provides in large doses.

On the Democratic side, things just keep getting worse because the economy keeps getting worse. It's hard to see how President Obama can make a comeback unless jobs are magically created and the stock market goes up a thousand points.

Independent-minded Americans are left with the feeling that bad decisions (like the massive taxpayer investment in Solyndra) are being made in the White House and all of us are paying for it.

The feds simply do not have enough money to pay the bills and then speculate with billions of taxpayer dollars on green energy projects. Somehow Mr. Obama does not get that. The presidential election will be held in about 13 months. If it were held tomorrow, Mitt Romney would probably be elected president.
What a spin job, hey O'Reilly polls 13 months before an election, and before the debates are WORTHLESS, as in WORTHLESS. Not to mention, if gas prices keep going down, the economy improves, and jobs start coming back Obama will easily be re-elected. So stop dreaming about Mitt Romney winning, I know you want him to, but it's 13 months until the election, and that is a long time for things to change.

Then O'Reilly had Monica Crowley & Alan Colmes on to discuss it. Alan Colmes argued that if the election were held tomorrow, without a campaign and head-to-head debates, Romney would probably win. But he said he also believes the President will rise up during the campaign because there really aren't any GOP candidates about which anyone is excited.

Crowley said she was hopeful the ABC News/Wash Post poll will translate at voting booths next November, but cautioned that in politics, a year is an eternity and the entire landscape could change within that time.

O'Reilly said he thinks the scandals erupting around the Obama administration, including Solyndra and the "Fast & Furious" gun debacle, both of which illustrate our leadership's inability to deal with the American people honestly, will be a problem for Obama.

Except nobody cares about those so-called scandals but Republicans, nobody else talks about them, and most people probably do not know about them.

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to talk more about the GOP field and Chris Christie, which was so boring I am not even going to report on it. This stuff is just tired, it's 13 months before the election and we do not need to hear the same thing every night.

Then John Stossel was on to talk about Ron Paul, really, why? Who cares about Ron Paul, nobody, the Republicans do not even care about him so why waste time on this fool. He is a far far right loon and he will never win the GOP nomination, so what good does it do to even discuss his positions on anything.

Then the crazy O'Reilly had the Republican actress Janine Turner on to tell us that most of Hollywood are liberals. Wow, now tell us something we dont know.

Turner defined herself as a reasonable conservative who cares more about country than party. Recalling her days in Hollywood, the former starlet said she didn't speak her political mind because she saw that the liberals she was surrounded with didn't have tolerance for opposing points of view.

And the conservatives do not have a tolerance for opposing points of view either, so what, we already know all that. How the hell is this news O'Reilly? Why report this conservative actress nonsense, while ignoring the Hank Williams Jr. scandal that was real news, and the #3 ranked story Tuesday on Google News.

Then Lis Wiehl & Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to talk more about the so-called Fast & Furious scandal. Billy said that Some Congresspeople are calling for a special counsel to investigate Attorney General Eric Holder in the "Fast & Furious" gun scandal.

But what he does not tell you is that the "some Congresspeople" are all Republicans. No Democrats or Independents are calling for a special counsel. And what's really funny is that when Bush was President O'Reilly and the right said no special counsel should even be used, now suddenly they support it, what a joke.

Wiehl said a special prosecutor is needed in this case, saying Holder was either mistaken, incompetent or lying. Kimberly concurred that the Attorney General is in very big trouble here.

Then they wasted more time talking about Amanda Knox, which I will not report on anymore. Mostly because it's tabloid garbage and not real news. They also talked about Michael Jackson's doctor's trial, the two so-called legal experts agreed Dr. Conrad Murray will likely get convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as hell pinheads and patriots nonsense. The biggest story in the country Monday night and Tuesday was the Hanl Williams Jr. Obama/Hitler scandal, and the so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly never said a word about any of it. Because Williams is a Republican, and he does not want to make him or the Republicans look bad.

Even the Fox & Friends idiots were shocked at what Williams said, but O'Reilly said nothing. And this Hank Williams is an idiot, watching him say that was painful, he is so stupid it's sad to think someone that dumb even lives in America. He called the President and the Vice President the enemy, are you kidding me, what a massive jerk.

Imagine what O'Reilly would say if a liberal called Bush and Cheney the enemy, he would go nuts and report it every night for a week. But when a Republican says it he does not even report it.

O'Reilly Ignored Hank Williams Jr. Obama/Hitler Smear
By: Steve - October 5, 2011 - 10:00am

Now get this, on Monday ESPN pulled the 20 year old Hank Williams Jr. Monday night football theme song. Because the crazy far-right idiot Hank Williams compared President Obama to Hitler, and of course he did it on a Fox News Network show, Fox & Friends. Who thought it was funny, and had no problem with what he said.

What happened is Obama and John Boehner played side by side that day against Vice President Joe Biden and Republican Ohio Governor John Kasich at the height of the congressional budget debate.

Asked what he did not like about the friendly bipartisan golf match, Williams said this:
WILLIAMS: "Come on! It'd be like Hitler playing golf with Netanyahu."

"They're the enemy! Obama! And Biden!
The song has opened "Monday Night Football" on both ABC and ESPN since 1991. ESPN said this about it:
"While Hank Williams Jr. is not an ESPN employee, we recognize that he is closely linked to our company through the open to 'Monday Night Football.

We are extremely disappointed with his comments and as a result we have decided to pull the open from tonight's telecast.
Now think about this, O'Reilly never said a word about it, even though it was the most talked about story on the internet Tuesday, and the #3 highest ranked story on the Google News ranking page.

O'Reilly ignored the entire story like it never happened. Because Hank Williams is a Republican and he said it on Fox, but when Bush was President and a liberal compared Bush to Hitler, O'Reilly reported it every time and said it was wrong to compare the President to Hitler.

Proving once again how much right-wing bias O'Reilly has, not just in the news he reports on, but in the news he does not report on. He ignores all the Republican scandals that make Republicans look bad, even when it's one of the top 3 news stories in all of America.

Tea Party Nation & Imus Defend Hank Williams Jr.
By: Steve - October 5, 2011 - 9:00am

ESPN dropped Hank Williams Jr.'s well-known Are You Ready for Some Football opening song for Monday Night Football after the country singer compared President Obama to Hitler earlier in the day on Fox & Friends and called the president and vice president the enemy.

Shortly after Williams made the comments, ESPN said in a statement, "We are extremely disappointed with his comments, and as a result have decided to pull the open from tonight’s telecast."

Williams, a staunch conservative who is reportedly considering a GOP Senate run in Tennessee, said his comments were misunderstood, even though he seemed to stand by them, saying this:
WILLIAMS: Some of us have strong opinions and are often misunderstood. My analogy was extreme - but it was to make a point.

Every time the media brings up the tea party it's painted as racist and extremists - but there's never a backlash - no outrage to those comparisons.
That's because the Tea Party is racist and extreme, and it's nothing like comparing the President to Hitler. Especially when it's true, 99% of the Tea Party is extreme, and a hell of a lot of them are racists.

How does comparing Obama to Hitler compare to the media calling the Tea Party racist and extreme, answer, it dont, idiot.

But not everyone was offended by the Williams comparison. Tea Party Nation founder Judson Philips tweeted this morning: "I stand with Hank," and suggested he will boycott the sports network of the incident, saying this: "If ESPN will not have Hank Williams because of his political beliefs I will not watch ESPN. No Hank, no football!"

There's also a petition circulating on a conservative activist website calling on conservatives to "boycott ESPN and their sponsors just like the liberals did to Glenn Beck."

And he is not the only right-wing idiot defending Williams Jr. Fox Business host Don Imus also defended Williams, saying Tuesday that Williams did not actually compare Obama to Hitler and is getting a "bum rap."

Imus, who has his own history of getting kicked of air for saying inappropriate things, said Fox & Friends, "threw Williams under the bus."

But then even Imus agreed that bringing up Hitler at all was idiotic.

The Monday 10-3-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 4, 2011 - 11:00am

O'Reilly started the show with Judge Andrew Napolitano to talk about the Amanda Knox story. An Italian appeals court overturned the murder conviction of 24-year-old American Amanda Knox, who served three years in Perugia on charges she killed her roommate while studying abroad.

Asked what the most damning piece of evidence against Ms. Knox was at the first trial, the Judge told the Factor it had actually been her own words. After 56 hours of interrogation without an attorney and denying any involvement, the police asked her to provide a hypothetical whereby she would have been involved and she obliged.

According to the judge, Ms. Knox was probably at the crime scene and probably knows what happened, but since the prosecution couldn't prove it, he felt it was better a guilty woman go free than be convicted on pure emotion.

Billy agreed that Knox likely knows what happened on the night British student Meredith Kercher was murdered; therefore, we shouldn't really be happy with this outcome since a terrible crime is unsolved.

The TPM was called: Rick Perry attacked for alleged racial slur. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As we all know, the economy's bad and getting worse. Not a good thing for President Obama as he approaches three years in office...The private marketplace has lost confidence in the Obama administration's economic policies. It's as simple as that. Therefore, the Democrats have a huge problem. How can they re-elect Mr. Obama if the economy is so terrible?

A clip of Gov. Martin O'Malley (D-MA), an uber-liberal, laid out the Democrats' plan: Mr. Obama will continue to demonize former President Bush while putting forth that more federal spending will create jobs and the evil Republicans are blocking that effort.

Talking Points doesn't believe the Democrats are in a strong position because the debt is too much and blaming Mr. Bush is just too old. But we have become a nation of excuse-makers...Our culture has shifted from personal responsibility to it's somebody else's fault if I don't do well. Admitting mistakes is hard but it's necessary if you want to solve problems. So far the Obama administration has not admitted to many mistakes.

On the Rick Perry controversy: The Washington Post reports that a hunting camp the Texas Governor and his father leased in the 1980s had a racial slur painted on a rock outside the front gate. The slur has now been painted over.
Wow, where to start. To begin with the majority of Americans still blame Bush and the Republicans for the economic mess we are in, killing that spin from O'Reilly. Then O'Reilly says Perry was attacked for alleged racial slur. But 4 minutes later he admits it was there and that it was painted over. Which is just laughable, how can it be an alleged racial slur, when they had photos and witnesses who saw it for years.

Then O'Reilly claimed it was only a liberal attack, when the Republican Joe Scarborough reported it and a few Republicans have spoke about it calling it wrong.

So O'Reilly had Brit Hume on to spin the story, Hume said that it was based on a bunch of anonymous sources, and that it isn't as big a deal as The Washington Post made it out to be since the property was leased by Mr. Perry and not owned.

Which is just laughable, because Perry leased it for 20 years so it was the same as owning it, not to mention the hunting camp was named Niggerhead when he leased it, and yet he never painted over the sign until the media reported it. O'Reilly never even reported the name of the camp, he just called it an alleged racial slur. So much for honest journalism.

Then Hume admitted it won't be good for Perry because he's being forced to talk about this instead of issues concerning American voters. And O'Reilly wondered if The Washington Post wasn't hunting, pun intended, for a Rick Perry controversy.

No Billy, they were just doing their job, journalism, something you know nothing about. They found out Perry is a racist, because only a racist would lease a hunting camp called Niggerhead and not change the name until the media reported it. So he must have liked the name, or he would have had it painted over years ago.

Then Hume said that it may have been a mistake for fellow Republican contender Herman Cain to bring this up as an issue because many conservatives who aren't racist won't think Gov. Perry deserves heat for this. And of course Billy strongly agreed.

What a right-wing spin job by O'Reilly and Hume. Perry is a racist who got caught with a racist name on his hunting camp, plain and simple. Try reporting the facts, instead of defending the racist jerk.

Then Juan Williams was on, he said President Obama and the Democrats see an advantage to dividing Americans along money lines. A new Washington Post poll asked who is helping the haves over the have-nots: 47% of respondents said the Republicans, 15% said the Obama administration.

Then Billy said that independents don't like this class warfare stuff. But Juan strongly disagreed, insisting the majority of Americans, when polled by Fox News, said the Obama administration's class warfare strategy is hopeful rather than divisive.

For once Juan stood up to O'Reilly and did not let him spin the truth, good job Juan. For once you acted like a man instead of a mouse. O'Reilly said the Independents do not like what Obama is doing, when all the polls say they do. Proving that O'Reilly is nothing but a right-wing spin doctor. And even the ass kissing Juan Williams had to admit it.

On the Rick Perry race controversy, Juan asserted Herman Cain was right to make this an issue because Gov. Perry should not have allowed himself to be surrounded by something with that racial slur on it. He should have demanded the rock be covered or painted over immediately. And of course O'Reilly defended Gov. Perry, saying he may deserve the benefit of the doubt on this murky story.

Really O'Reilly? Are you kidding me, what is murky about it. What a joke, it's not murky and Perry is a racist idiot.

Then Alexis McGill Johnson & Tobin Smith were on to talk about the wall street protests. Large protests continue in New York City. And Johnson called the protests a legitimate form of civil disobedience for people who are enraged with the current economic situation, but denied that their end-goal was to tear down capitalism.

But of course O'Dummy rejected that argument, saying this: "They want a quasi-socialistic system like Europe or a real socialist system like Cuba."

The far-right Tobin Smith called the protests "organized mayhem" by some unemployed bohemians who have nothing better to do.

Which is the ultimate hypocrisy, because when the Tea Party protests happened O'Reilly and Tobin not only promoted and supported them, they called them great Americans. Fox even sponsored and promoted Tea Party events, but when liberals protest they trash them and call them loons and sludge. Hey O'Reilly, where is the fairness and the balance, all protesters should be praised, even if you disagree with them, jerk.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about Andy Rooney, a CBS icon, who signed off of "60 Minutes" after decades of commentary. And of course Goldberg, who used to work at CBS, acknowledged Mr. Rooney may be beloved by millions, but his memories of Rooney are not fond ones. Then Goldberg trashed Rooney, but even O'Reilly disagreed, saying he had respect for Andy Rooney, calling him an honest guy.

And finally O'Reilly had his total waste of time bogus reality check segment, that I do not report on because it's Billy all alone putting his spin on something someone else said, with nobody to counter his spin.

But I will say this about check #3: It was fricking ridiculous, Billy reported that singer Ray Stevens has a new song out skewering President Obama's handling of the economy. Then he gave out the website name and told people to go check it out. He said this "You can check it out on www.xxxxxxxxxxx.com."

Which he would never do for songs about Bush, or any Republican for that matter. So he actually promoted the song and the website, what a jerk.

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

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Solyndra Media Coverage
By: Steve - October 4, 2011 - 10:00am

On the Friday Factor show crazy O'Reilly had Karl Rove on to talk about the Solyndra loan story, and during the segment O'Reilly said most of the media has ignored the story, Billy said this:
O'REILLY: The media, with the exception of ABC News, have been extremely subdued on this story.
O'Reilly also wondered why the media went wild with the Valerie Plame story but has gone radio silent on the Solyndra scandal.

Which is just insane, because the two stories are very different. One involves the Vice President (Dick Cheney) outing a CIA agent for political revenge against Joe Wilson for telling the truth about their lies in the yellow cake uranium. And the other story is just about a loan to a company that went bankrupt because China starting making solar panels for half the price of Solyndra.

Only a fool would even make that comparison. And now about the lack of media reporting O'Reilly is crying about, it's ridiculous, and here are the facts.

The coverage surrounding Solyndra, the solar panel manufacturer that declared bankruptcy after receiving a $535 million federal loan guarantee, has been remarkably abundant.

Between August 31, when Solyndra suspended operations, and September 23, six major print outlets discussed the story in 89 items (news and opinion). Broadcast and cable TV networks discussed Solyndra more than 190 times, totaling over 10 hours of coverage -- 8 hours of which occurred on the Fox News Channel.

To put the volume of Solyndra coverage into context, Media Matters examined how much attention major print and TV news outlets gave to 1) an obvious case of government corruption exposed in 2008 at the Minerals Management Service (MMS), and 2) a report exposing much greater loss of taxpayer dollars through military contracting waste and fraud.

On September 10, 2008, the inspector general of the Interior Department delivered three reports documenting wide scale ethics abuses at the Minerals Management Service, the agency tasked with oversight of offshore drilling. The reports found that MMS employees had accepted valuable gifts from oil representatives and had rigged the contracting process to favor friends.

The reports also described a "culture of substance abuse and promiscuity" within the MMS and uncovered illegal behavior by employees "wholly lacking in acceptance of or adherence to government ethical standards."

In the month after the story broke, it was discussed in 20 items in the major print outlets, and TV outlets spent a total of 28 minutes covering the investigation. This amounts to less than one fourth of Solyndra's print coverage, and less than one fifth the television coverage, when excluding Fox News, which significantly skews the average.

The numbers are equally striking when comparing the onslaught of coverage surrounding the Solyndra controversy to coverage of the revelation that $31-60 billion has been lost to waste and fraud through contracts related to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

That loss represents 15 to 30 percent of total U.S. contract spending. The congressionally-mandated report by the Commission on Wartime Contracting concluded that the government is "still unable to provide effective management and oversight of contract spending that will have exceeded $206 billion by the end of September."

The report, which was released the same day Solyndra shut down operations, prompted 11 news articles and less than an hour of television coverage between August 28 and September 23, despite costing the taxpayers as least 56 times more than Solyndra.

And btw, here is something O'Reilly has never told you. Congress set aside $2.4 billion for the cost of defaults across the Department of Energy's loan guarantee portfolio and Solyndra is the only project to fail. The only one, and O'Reilly has never said a word about it.

Every major news outlet devoted more coverage to Solyndra than to the report of war contract waste and the MMS scandal combined.

But some disparities prove more glaring than others. Fox News stands out for its incessant coverage of the Solyndra saga, which amounts to more than 8 hours of airtime -- almost three times that of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS combined.

Fox has devoted 140 times more airtime to Solyndra than it spent on the MMS scandal, and around 29 times more than it spent on the wartime contracting commission's report.

So when O'Reilly says the media has mostly ignored the Solyndra story, he is a liar, a dishonest right-wing hack of a liar. What he did was compare how much Fox has covered it to other media outlets, and then declared they barely covered it because they did not report it as much as Fox did.

Which is just ridiculous, because Fox is over-reporting it in an attempt to do political damage to President Obama. Even though many Republicans supported the loan, and asked for loans to other green energy companies.

Fox Lying That Obama Wants To Raise Taxes On Everyone
By: Steve - October 4, 2011 - 9:00am

Here we go again, Fox is once again lying that Obama wants to raise taxes on everyone, incluidng small businesses. While desperately trying to paint President Obama as having done nothing but raise taxes during his presidency, Fox News falsely claimed Friday that Obama wants to "raise everybody's taxes" as well as "taxes on small businesses."

Except both claims are not only lies, they are actually the reverse of reality: the president's recently released American Jobs Act calls for tax cuts for the vast majority of working, middle-class Americans, as well as tax cuts for businesses, and more tax cuts for businesses that hire the long-term unemployed.

Fox & Friends ignored reality, and hosted Fox Business Charles Gasparino to claim that Obama "wants to raise everybody's taxes. He wants to raise taxes on small business." From the show:
GASPARINO: Jobs are created because you create economic conditions that the free enterprise system works. I mean, it's people owning businesses and hiring people, because they have the right incentives. I will say this, whether you're -- you know, if you like the president or not, the incentives are not there right now.

And it's not just the general economy -- it's the tax structure. He wants to raise everybody's taxes. He wants to raise taxes on small businesses. Why would any small business want to hire when you expect higher taxes from Obamacare or you're even -- forget about the millionaire's tax, people -- families making 250 are going to have their taxes increased in two years if Obama gets re-elected.

That's the bottom line. By the way, that hits small businesses. So the incentives aren't there, and when the incentives aren't there -- listen, the government can spend all it wants, you know, 200,000, a million, 3 million whatever -- it's not going to create lasting job growth.
Despite Gasparino's claims, more than half of the cost of the president's recently proposed jobs plan consists of tax cuts for employees and employers.

As a Washington Post article noted, $175 billion of the plan would be an extension of the employee payroll tax cut Obama already passed, along with a 50 percent increase in that tax cut.

The plan would also cut payroll taxes for employers to the tune of $65 billion. A recent post on You're the Boss, the New York Times small business blog, broke down the tax cuts and credits for small businesses that the plan proposes: tax credits for hiring the long-term unemployed, a payroll tax cut for all employers, and a full payroll tax holiday on any payroll growth -- that is, on any new employees hired or hours extended for current employees.

Obama has also suggested that the Bush tax cuts be repealed for those making over $250,000 a year -- but it turns out only 2 percent of U.S. households earn that much money.

But somehow, this right-wing loon Gasparino says $175 billion in tax cuts, with a possible tax increase on 2 percent of Americans, is Obama's desire to "raise everybody's taxes."

Earth to Charles Gasparino, a tax increase on 2% of the people is not everyone, and it's not even close. Because it would mean a tax cut for the 98% of the people you dishonest moron.

Crazy O'Reilly Wrong About Investors And Taxes
By: Steve - October 3, 2011 - 10:00am

O'Reilly is saying that if the Buffett rule is passed and millionaires have to pay more in taxes they will invest less than they do now. Where is the proof of that, he has none, it's just his opinion, even though he said everything he reports is based on facts.

Not only did O'Reilly just make it up, he is wrong, because a Bloomberg poll of global investors shows that 63% of them support the Buffett Rule.

From bloomberg.com/news:

Global investors overwhelmingly support President Barack Obama's proposed tax increase for those earning annual incomes of $1 million or more in an effort to reduce the deficit.

By a margin of 63 percent to 32 percent, respondents in a Bloomberg Global Poll approved of the president's proposal, known as the "Buffett rule" in a nod to Warren Buffett, the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., who has said it is wrong that he pays a smaller share of his income in taxes than does his secretary.

Obama said Sept. 19 that making sure that the wealthy pay at least the same tax rate as the middle class was "just the right thing to do." House Speaker John Boehner accused the president of practicing "class warfare," saying any new tax would hurt job creation and Buffett's situation was not typical.

The call for the rich to pay more, however, found backing among financial professionals in the quarterly Global Poll of 1,031 investors, analysts and traders who are Bloomberg subscribers.

"Higher tax payments could help to avoid or delay potential social disturbances and in addition create some kind of a general solidarity," says Henry Littig, chief executive officer of Henry Littig Global Investments AG in Cologne, Germany, a poll respondent.

And you can bet the farm you will never see this story reported by O'Reilly, because it shows that he is nothing but a right-wing liar.

Right-Wing Loons At Fox Say Obama Is Weak On Terrorism
By: Steve - October 3, 2011 - 9:00am

If you want conclusive proof the right-wing idiots at Fox & Friends are nothing but insane partisan hacks, here it is. Despite the fact that the Obama administration succeeded in killing two of the most dangerous and wanted men on the planet, conservatives have been reluctant to give him credit.

Fox and Friends host Gretchen Carlson used the moment to both suggest that the president is too soft on terror and to make an implicit plug for the Bush administration's use of torture:
CARLSON: Let me ask you this, would you be in the camp of having rather captured him, to try to get more information?

But then I brought up the fact that under this administration it seems that we don't prosecute or ask the same questions that we might have under the Bush administration, so would we get anything out of him anyway if we captured him?
You have to wonder if Fox would treat the killing of a high level terrorist with as much skepticism if it had occurred under a Republican president, and the answer is of course not. If this had happened under Bush they would call him a hero and the greatest terrorist fighter in the history of the world.

As Jake Tapper wrote: "The list of senior terrorists killed during the Obama presidency is fairly extensive." He goes on to detail nearly two dozen names, including, of course Bin Laden. But as NBC notes, "no president in over 20 years has had more foreign-policy successes happen under his watch than President Obama." Yet, he's getting almost no credit for it from conservatives and Fox News.

The refusal to credit Obama after Awlaki is a replay of what happened after the U.S. killed Osama Bin Laden -- regardless of the facts, conservatives refuse to admit Obama is keeping America safe.

O'Reilly & Watters Slam Wall Street Protests
By: Steve - October 2, 2011 - 10:00am

This is the ultimate hypocrisy from O'Reilly and Watters, because they love, support, and even promote Tea Party protests, and other protests from Republicans, but when mostly liberals protest they call them sludge and loons.

O'Reilly called them loons, and Watters said they were the sludge of every left-wing cause.



And on top of the right-wing hypocrisy from O'Reilly and Watters, Billy has still not said a word about the NY Policeman who used pepper spray on the peaceful women protester story from the RNC convention. Which is going to trial btw.

Delusional O'Reilly Claims He Schooled Jon Stewart
By: Steve - October 2, 2011 - 9:00am

Now this is classic O'Reilly, he goes on the Jon Stewart show and gets his ass handed to him, then goes back to his show and plays edited clips of the Stewart segment and claims he schooled Jon Stewart. It was laughable, because Stewart schooled him.

Back on his show Billy said this: "It's Like A Football Game. I Go To Stewart's Home Stadium And I School Him."

And now here is what really happened. Stewart told O'Reilly that he wasn't going talk about the book he had come on to promote. Instead, he launched into O'Reilly's much-vaunted threat to leave his show if his taxes rose above 50 percent (something Stewart already lampooned him for).

"What part of that threat is empty?" he asked. "All of it," O'Reilly joked, before adding that the tax burden could become too "onerous" on him. Stewart said that the idea that O'Reilly and he would walk away if they took home $3 million instead of $3.5 million was "crazy talk."

"What is this whole business with the poor, poor rich in this country?" Stewart asked. "Are you ever going to wise up, ever?" O'Reilly responded.

His basic point was that he would be fine with higher taxes if the government cut spending and spent the rest of its money more wisely. He brought up the infamous $16 muffins at the Justice Department, a story he was delightfully surprised Stewart had not heard about.

O'Reilly then said he wanted cocaine dealers to pay their fair share in taxes. ("So in your mind the debt crisis is caused by renegade cocaine dealers who are avoiding their social responsibilities?!" Stewart said.)

As O'Reilly started saying again how oppressive taxes have become, Stewart grew increasingly pissed off. "Stop it, stop it," he kept saying. He pointed out that income tax for the wealthy has gone down. "Every other tax has gone up!" O'Reilly said. "Stop it!" And Stewart responded. "You're not living in reality!"

Then Stewart read a long list of statistics about the rising inequality in America. O'Reilly said does that mean you want to "shoot" the rich. "I'm not saying we should shoot them!" Stewart said. "But we shouldn't act like returning to the tax rate of the 90s is class warfare on par with Lenin and Marx!"

O'Reilly then said he wanted a ten percent spending cut "across the board," which made Stewart laugh like crazy. "What kind of idiot -- across the board?!" he said. "You're not even going to look?"

Does that look like O'Reilly schooled Stewart, not to me. It looks like O'Reilly just spewed out the same old tired right-wing talking points about how the rich are taxed too much.

And the worst part is that O'Reilly whined about the $16.00 muffins again, even though that is a lie and it was debunked a week ago by the hotel they stayed at and the AP news service. The muffins did not cost $16.00, they were included in a package meal that had other things, like breakfast. And the budget for the people there only went 2 cents per person over.

So O'Reilly knows the $16.00 muffin story is bogus, and yet he was still spinning it out on Wednesday, after the AP debunked it on Monday. Proving O'Reilly is a dishonest right-wing hack because a simple google search on it will show you the truth.

The O'Reilly Ego Factor Strikes Again
By: Steve - October 2, 2011 - 8:00am

Back when Al Gore ran for President he did not do the O'Reilly Factor, so Billy said Gore lost because he did not do his show. When in fact, Gore won, he got more votes than Bush, and if not for the corrupt Florida vote rigging by Jeb Bush and the ridiculous ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to stop counting the votes, Gore would have been the President.

Now O'Reilly is at it again, this time he is saying if Rick Perry does not do his show he will lose the GOP nomination.

O'Reilly said this: "The More You Stay Away At This Juncture" From The Factor, "The Harder It's Gonna Be To Climb Back."



And now here is a reality check for Billy, Rick Perry has shown in the debates that he is nothing but a right-wing empty suit, just like George W. Bush. That is why he has dropped 10 points in a week in the polls. So he will not win the GOP nomination, whether he does the lame O'Reilly Factor or not.

O'Reilly Agrees With Cain That Blacks Are Brainwashed
By: Steve - October 1, 2011 - 10:00am

What a shocker O'Reilly agrees with a Republican, not. The crazy Herman Cain said all the blacks are brainwashed to vote Democrat, and the insane O'Reilly agreed.



When the black liberal Jehmu Greene disagreed and told O'Reilly he was wrong, and that blacks vote for Democrats because of the policies they support. O'Reilly disagreed again, and said she sounds brainwashed too.

Hey O'Reilly, name one Republican policy that any black person would support. You cant, because all their policies are for the wealthy, the corporations, and the far-right special interest groups. In fact, a black person would be crazy to vote Republican.

That's not being brainwashed, it's being smart. And it's an insult to a black persons intelligence to say they only vote Democratic because they are brainwashed. And notice that O'Reilly never says all the rich white guys who always vote Republican are brainwashed. He only says it about the blacks, and then agrees with a crazy Republican, as he claims to be non-partisan. What a joke!

Big Banks Layoff Workers While Increasing Bonuses
By: Steve - October 1, 2011 - 9:00am

Here is another big news story O'Reilly has totally ignored, because it goes against his right-wing spin that spending cuts and layoffs are needed. While banks are increasing the bonus money paid out to the fat cats.

Goldman Sachs is saying that it plans to cut $1.2 billion in costs by laying off 1,000 people, roughly 3 percent of its workforce. The mega-bank is also going after small savings by downsizing its drinking cups.

Even plants aren't safe from the bank's tightened budget. The London office removed potted plants, reportedly causing disquiet among employees and led to a stand-off between the plant pickers and staff. Morgan Stanley has also cut back on office foliage, while Bank of America skipped an annual field day.

But the real measure of whether Wall Street is serious about cutting costs will be if bonuses go down during lean times. And so far, the chances do not look good. The New York Times Dealbook reports that banks, including Goldman, have set aside $65.69 billion for bonuses at the end year, an 8 percent increase over last year:
During the first six months of the year Citigroup, JPMorgan, Goldman, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America set aside $65.69 billion to cover compensation and benefits, up 8 percent from a year ago, according to data provided by Nomura.
A group of shareholders even challenged the Goldman board of directors for showing scant regard for their interests, having handed out billions in bonuses the same year it received federal aid. Goldman won a dismissal of the case yesterday.

The bonuses may have been a part of "God's work," which Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein claimed to be doing in 2009, but if Goldman practiced the same austerity toward bonuses that it did toward office plants, it could afford to keep both its employees and its 12 ounce cups.

So let me get this straight, they are going to lay off 1000 workers to save $1.2 billion dollars. While handing out $66 billion in bonuses to rich people that do not even need the money. And they are ging to do it in a down economy, which will hurt the economy even more, while make the fat cats even fatter.

In my world that is not only wrong, it's un-American. The workers should get to keep their jobs, and the bonus money should be reduced, not the other way around. And Mr. "I pretend to look out for the little guy" Bill O'Reilly never says a word about it.

He should be reporting this and calling on them to stop the layoffs, instead all he does is cry about his historically low 35% federal tax rate every night. So much for looking out for the little guy. O'Reilly only looks out for the Republicans, the Corporations, and the Wealthy.


To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page:
www.oreilly-sucks.com