The Friday 9-30-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 1, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: American-born Al Qaeda leader killed in Yemen. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Anwar al-Awlaki has left the building. The 40-year-old American-born al Qaeda propaganda chief was killed in Yemen by a hellfire missile shot from a predator drone.

After 9/11, al-Awlaki showed up on a number of Internet sites praising Allah for allowing innocent Americans to be killed. He was a vicious terrorist who got what he deserved.

There is no question that Barack Obama has done the right thing in the war on terror and that is surprising some people who thought he would be soft. Under Mr. Obama, there have been more drone missile attacks than under President Bush and these strikes have been very effective.

I only wish the President had selected his economic advisors as astutely as his terror warriors. But that's another story for another time. Today, America rightfully celebrates another victory over vile terrorists who kill innocent human beings.
And while O'Reilly was saying that other people at Fox were actually saying Obama is soft on terrorism, but O'Reilly never said a word about any of that insanity. He just ignores it because he knows it shows what a right-wing bias Fox has.

Then Geraldo was on to discuss it, he explained how predator drones have now become our most effective antidote to terror. "They take out the bad guys and reduce collateral damage." Then Billy said the era of nation building is over - "there's not enough money or international commitment for it; thus, precision weapons like drones are likely the future of warfare."

Addressing the few crazy opponents of killing an American-born terrorist like al-Awlaki, Geraldo said "the guy was fair game because he was an enemy combatant who was an operational leader behind countless attempted terror attacks."

And I agree, anyone who has a problem with killing al-Awlaki is a fool, on the left or the right. We should be killing these known terrorists, as long as we have proof they are terrorists. And that is the opinion of a big time liberal, me.

Then O'Reilly had Karl Rove on to talk more about the Solyndra scandal, Billy said the story has not yet reached critical mass even though the federal government invested more than $500 million, with big support from both President Obama and Vice President Biden, in a solar panel company that went bankrupt. The media, with the exception of ABC News, have been extremely subdued on this story.

And that is just ridiculous, because the Solyndra scandal has been one of the most reported stories in the country, so O'Reilly is just a flat out liar. And once again he refuses to report that many Republicans supported those loans to green energy companies. O'Reilly is trying to pin all the blame on Obama, which is just not the case.

Mr. Rove was asked if he thought the Solyndra situation would have an effect on the presidential election. Rove said this: "Yes, because of potential criminality as well as the underlying policies of the Obama administration. In defense, the Energy Department says quote 'we do not pick winners and losers, markets do.' In other words, we just throw the money out and we really are not judging whether these companies can make it or not."

Bingo, they only give the loans to companies that they think are a good investment. They can not see into the future and know that China would make the solar panels for half the cost and bankrupt Solyndra. So this whole scandal is just garbage promoted by the right to try and make Obama look bad.

Then the insane O'Reilly wondered why the media went wild with the Valerie Plame story but has gone radio silent on the Solyndra scandal. Are you kidding me? Really O'Reilly, are you that stupid. There is no comparison, none, in one case you had an administration leaking a CIA agents name for political revenge, and the other was a loan to an energy company. How the hell is there any comparison, and only a far-right loon would even try to make such a ridiculous comparison. Not to mention, the media has not gone silent, it's been reported everywhere, too much in fact.

Then O'Reilly had the idiot Jesse Watters on to trash the wall street protesters. About 100 people have been arrested in demonstrations in New York City over the past couple of weeks. Jesse Watters paid the protesters a visit to find out what they're trying to accomplish. Watters said this: "The demolition of capitalism, shining a light on government corruption, income redistribution, marijuana legalization, and taking Wall Street and corporations down."

Which is a load of bull, they do not want to end capitalism or take corporations down, they just want the crooks on wall street to stop robbing people to get rich. They want them to be honest and play by the rules. So Watters was totally wrong in saying what they want.

Jesse also said most of the protesters seemed to be unemployed and unorganized: "I think if you put every left-wing cause into a blender, this is the sludge you'd get."

Hey jerk, look in the mirror, because the only sludge is you and O'Reilly.

Then O'Reilly had Jonathan Morris & Jay Sekulow on. Iran is threatening to execute a Christian pastor and father in that country because he will not forswear his belief in Jesus. He has been convicted of apostasy because he was born a Muslim and left that religion. Under Sharia law, the man was given three chances to recant, but since he refused, he is sentenced to death.

Sekulow accused Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of putting out a tepid statement on this issue today and not applying enough pressure on the Iranian government to set this pastor free.

O'Reilly voiced his surprise that Iran has yet to hear from the Pope on this matter. Father Morris said this: "What most people don't know is that the Vatican has very close diplomatic ties on the ground with these countries that other countries don't have."

Then Lou Dobbs was on, Bily asked him which GOP contender is best-suited to fix our economy. Dobbs said this:

-- On Mitt Romney, Dobbs declared the former Massachusetts governor could run the economy with knowledge and perspective.

-- Rick Perry has a good economic record in Texas, but Dobbs contended that the Governor may have inherited much of the financial good fortune in his state.

-- Rep. Michele Bachmann - Dobbs said she's not ready to run the country or fix the economy.

-- On Herman Cain: "He came up with the best statement of the debates when he said this country has to learn how to recapture our sense of humor. He had me with that line."

-- Dobbs defended the long-shot candidate Newt Gingrich by saying he's a serious policy guy and very smart, and therefore, should not be underestimated.

-- While Rep. Ron Paul is an original thinker, he has marginalized himself.

And finally dumbest things of the week with Arthel Neville & Greg Gutfeld. As her "dumbest" pick, Arthel selected a teacher in Vacaville, California who told his students not to say "God bless you" when a fellow student sneezes. Gutfeld also weighed in with this: "He's a sad, weird, strange man who has no friends and should not be teaching."

Gutfeld chose a controversy covered in British newspapers where an early years consultant there claimed that you can prevent people from becoming racist by keeping them from using white paper when they're younger.

And Billy picked actress Susan Sarandon who spoke out in support of the Wall Street protesters by saying this: "We can't let our Arab brothers and sisters get way ahead of us in terms of how they're changing things. Hopefully, the toolkit exists here for nonviolent change."

O'Reilly said her statement must have been an attempt to update the Rocky Horror Picture Show.

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

The Thursday 9-29-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 30, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: What the 2012 election will REALLY be about. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The presidential vote will be a decision on whether America should be a traditional country or a progressive nation.

As Talking Points has been reporting, the Obama administration uses social justice and income equality as a spear-point to stimulate the economy...Progressives want yet more spending and higher taxes on the affluent to fund things like Solyndra, where more than a half billion dollars was lost on a green energy company that declared bankruptcy.

President Obama believes that the federal government 'must make the economy work for all Americans.' The problem is - that is impossible. Capitalism cannot deliver successful economic outcomes for everybody."

The Factor then played clips of O'Reilly's appearance on Jon Stewart's show from the night before where they battled over the Obama administration's 'tax the rich' strategy.

Talking Points continued: "Stewart and other progressives remain unconvinced that the federal government has a responsibility to operate efficiently and honestly before demanding more taxes...Progressives insist the wealthy are not paying their fair share...I am determined to convince the left that class warfare is damaging America.

I do not believe wealth redistribution is fair or even constitutional. Therefore, the progressive vision is deeply flawed. While I respect all good intentions, this country needs leaders who will improve things for all of us - and that's what next year's election will really be about.
Wow, where do I start on all that right-wing spin. To begin with the Solyndra loan was approved by Republicans who worked for Bush, and other Republicans supported the loans too, but of course O'Reilly never reports any of that. He makes it an Obama scandal when Republicans are also to blame. And it's not wealth redistribution, it's called a progressive tax code. It's not only constitutional, it's the right thing to do.

And btw, the fact that O'Reilly thinks the current tax system is unconstitutional proves beyond a doubt that he is a right-wing loon. If O'Dummy thinks Republicans will improve things for all of us, just look back at what Bush did in 8 years. All he did was improve things for the wealthy and the corporations, while almost crashing our entire economy.

Then O'Reilly had Laura Ingraham A new Fox News poll puts Rick Perry at 19%, down ten percent in less than a month, and four percentage points behind former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. The Factor asked Laura Ingraham on to talk about why Gov. Perry has refused to appear on his show. Laura said she thinks it's only a matter of time, but that his campaign is in hunker-down mode now trying to get him better prepared for his next debate. Laura also said that he has to give the performance of his life in the October debates if he wants to turn the polls around.

Then Billy talked about his good buddy Herman Cain, O'Reilly said this: "Herman Cain is the kind of guy I like. However, it is my job not to root for anybody and to tell the people the truth. Herman Cain's not going to get the Republican nomination."

Laura said that while that may be true, the recent surge for Cain is very interesting and proves that Americans are looking for a straight-shooter.

Then Jehmu Greene was on to tell O'Reilly that blacks are not brainwashed to vote for the Democrats.

Appearing on CNN, Republican Herman Cain explained why he thinks black Americans vote Democratic, saying this: "Many African-Americans have been brain-washed into not being open-minded and not even considering a conservative point of view. I have received...vitriol simply because I am running for the Republican nomination as a conservative."

Greene admitted she has never voted for a Republican, but said she believes it's important for there to be a diversity of opinion among African-American leaders at the national level. She was insulted, however, by Herman Cain's assertion that African-Americans can't think for themselves.

Billy said that black Americans overwhelmingly vote Democratic because they support entitlement spending, a point Ms. Greene rejected. He also put forth that Democratic policies haven't really worked for Americans and maybe Herman Cain just wants them to look at the philosophy of self-reliance as a viable means to their collective success. Ms. Greene insisted Democratic policies have indeed worked for black Americans.

Hey O'Dummy, look back to when Bill Clinton was the President, Democratic policies worked fine back then, and even led to a surplus, an economic boom, and 23 million new jobs. Which is something you keep ignoring, because it destroys your right-wing spin that Democratic policies do not work.

Then O'Reilly had culture warriors Margaret Hoover & Gretchen Carlson on to answer his question as to why the AARP is running a commercial to scare seniors.

Billy said The AARP has drifted left over the years, as demonstrated by a new ad campaign decrying cuts to Medicare and Social Security benefits.

Gretchen Carlson called the ad disingenuous for suggesting that current seniors may see cuts to their benefits, as they've been grandfathered in. Margaret Hoover pointed out that the AARP has a vested financial interest in making sure there are no entitlement cuts for seniors. And O'Dummy urged the culture warriors to lead the charge for honesty in the public arena and challenged the president of the AARP to explain himself in the no spin zone.

Are you kidding me, honesty? You lying hacks want honesty, try looking in the mirror fools, you can not even spell honesty. And why dont you call for honesty in all the dishonest GOP ads. Not to mention, O'Reilly endorsed scare tactics by the right, saying they GOP should use them against Obama. But somehow in O'Reillyworld scare tactics are wrong when the left uses them. And the ad is not really dishonest, because the right wants to get rid of social security and medicare, it just will not happen because the left will not let the right do it.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about a Federal judge (Sharon Blackburn, a Bush appointee) who has blocked some parts of the tough Alabama illegal immigration law saying they might be unconstitutional.

The law makes it a crime for illegal immigrants already in the country to seek work. Megyn defended the judge's decision to throw that provision out: "The whole thing comes down to does this Alabama law conflict with the federal law on immigration. Where the answer is yes, Alabama law has to go. Where the answer is no, Alabama law stands."

Kelly claimed the ruling was an overall victory for the state of Alabama because the judge upheld most of the law, the strictest in the nation.

On the terrorism front, a 26-year-old Massachusetts man was charged in a plot to fly 6-foot toy planes into the White House and Pentagon. The Factor applauded the FBI for getting this guy, who will likely spend the rest of his life in prison.

Except he never had any explosives to do it, so the terrorist act would have never happened.

And finally the massive waste of time Factor news quiz with Martha MacCallum & Steve Doocy, which I do not report on because it's nonsense and not news.

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

O'Reilly Ignores Unconstitutional Church Or Jail Plan Story
By: Steve - September 30, 2011 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly claims to be Mr. Constitution, he quotes the Constitution all the time, even though he is sometimes wrong about it, he still refers to it often. But when an Alabama town said they would give minor offenders a choice of church or jail - that is unconstitutional - O'Reilly said nothing. The great constitutional journalist Bill O'Reilly ignored the entire story.

The Alabama town of Bay Minette will implement a bizarre and unconstitutional way of keeping minor offenders in check - go to church or go to jail:
Operation Restore Our Community or ROC begins next week. The city judge will either let misdemenor offenders work off their sentences in jail and pay a fine or go to church every Sunday for a year.

If offenders elect church, they're allowed to pick the place of worship, but must check in weekly with the pastor and the police department. If the one-year church attendance program is completed successfully, the offender's case will be dismissed.
This program is not just unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional even under conservative Justice Antonin Scalia's vision of the Constitution's Establishment Clause. In his dissenting opinion in Lee v. Weisman, Scalia wrote that "the state may not us the threat of penalty to coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise."

Telling someone - even someone convicted of a crime - that they must participate in a religious service or go to jail clearly fails Justice Scalia's test.

And as a conservative law Professor Eugene Volokh points out, religiously compelled church attendance is so clearly and obviously unconstitutional, that the Mississippi Supreme Court held that a "judge's decision to order people to attend church as a condition of bail is not just unconstitutional, but merits a 30-day suspension from the bench." But this was in Mississippi.

Just across the border in Alabama, one town apparently thinks that the Constitution no longer applies.

This is a clear violation of the constitution, but in O'Reillyworld it is not news. Most likely because he is a religious pro-life loon and he likes the idea. But a real journalist, especially one with a weekly legal segment, would report this story.

Economists Support The Obama Jobs Plan
By: Steve - September 30, 2011 - 9:00am

Here is more news on the Obama jobs plan that O'Reilly has totally ignored, because it shows that the economists support it. But if they opposed it, O'Reilly would report it every night for a week, if not a month.

Ever since President Obama released his jobs plan earlier this month, O'Reilly and the Republicans have been claiming that it will not the help the economy.

"What the president's proposed so far is not serious. And it's not a jobs plan," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

"I just don't think that is really going to help our economy the way it should," added Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH). Many Republicans also slammed the plan as a second stimulus, ignoring the success of the first one.

But according to the economists surveyed by Bloomberg News, the jobs plan that President Obama introduced would help prevent a double-dip recession by boosting economic growth and bringing down unemployment 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 point in 2012, economists said.
And btw folks, Bloomberg is a Republican, so he does not run some liberal news service.

The economists also said that the plan "prevents a serious drag on the economy next year."

And you will never hear a word about any of this from O'Reilly, because he does not want you to know the truth. He wants you to believe his right-wing propaganda that almost nobody supports the Obama jobs plan, when in fact the majority or the American people and the economic experts do support it.

The Wednesday 9-28-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 29, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Class warfare backlash? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It's now clear that President Obama's reelection strategy hinges on convincing working Americans that he's looking out for them and that the Republicans don't care about regular folks.

But the strategy is already teeing off some Americans, even folks who supported President Obama in the past.

The only way the President can get reelected is to put together a 'coalition of the willing' - special interest groups that will support President Obama because he promises them rewards.

Everyone expects the campaign of 2012 to be one of the dirtiest in the nation's history. When you pit one American against another - rich against poor, union against taxpayer - you're going to get nasty stuff and there will be malice in the air.

America is already a divided nation between secular-progressives and traditionalists; now our incomes are going to separate us even further. Not a good scenario in the land of the free.
What a load of right-wing garbage. Earth to O'Reilly, Obama can also get re-elected if the economy improves and jobs start coming back, idiot. Name the people it is teeing off, who are they, where are they, name one. And what's this union against taxpayer nonsense, union members also pay taxes moron. Try reporting the polls that show the American people disagree with you, oh yeah that's right, you will not do that because you are a dishonest biased fraud of a pretend journalist.

Then O'Reilly had two wealthy men on who are calling for higher taxes on the rich, the former investment banker Eric Schoenberg and attorney Dave Mejias. And of course O'Reilly disagreed with both of them. Billy asked Mejias why he doesn't just cut a larger check to the government, which is a stupid question, so Mejias said this: "I want everyone to pay higher taxes, and my check to the government is not going to pay for the jobs bill, it's not going to pay down the deficit."

Schoenberg argued for a steeper tax on investment income, saying this: "The single biggest difference between what wealthy Americans pay versus the average working American is the difference between tax rates on regular labor income and people who earn their income from capital gains."

Billy questioned the wisdom of that idea, saying this: "If you raise taxes on capital gains to the income tax level, people are not going to invest as much. And if you raise capital gains tax in the middle of a recession, the stock market is going to go down 3,000 points!"

Now both things O'Reilly said are lies, because the wealthy will invest as much and the market will not go down 3,000 points. O'Reilly just made that up, it was all speculation, the same speculation he said he never does.

Then O'Reilly had another waste of time segment on Chris Christie. Billy asked reporters Steve Adubato and Bob Ingle whether Christie could still change his mind. Abubato said this: "Today he's not running, but in two weeks that could change. He said he wasn't ready to be president, but no one is ready to be president. I think Christie is saying to himself, 'these people aren't ready either, I look better than them and I would be a better president than Barack Obama.'"

Ingle predicted that Christie will definitely keep his current job, saying this: "He said he isn't going to run, so why don't we believe him? He thinks he doesn't have enough experience and he should know. I think he's not going to run."

Then Billy said that Christie would be derelict if he quits the New Jersey State House, saying this: "He promised the citizens of New Jersey that he would clean up the state. He owes it to New Jerseyites to stay in there and clean up the highest-tax state in the union. He made a commitment and he should hold to it."

Now that's funny, because when Sarah Palin quit half way through her term, O'Reilly defended her and said she does not own anything to the citizens of Alaska. O'Reilly is a joke, and he makes judgements based on who it is, if Palin does it that's ok, but if Christie wants to do the same thing he is derelict, what a two faced hypocrite.

Then O'Reilly had the total right-wing ass kissing fool Dick Morris on to talk about Chris Christie and Bill Clinton. Morris said this: "I don't think he's going to run, and I'm sick and tired of his teasing the United States. I think he should either put up or shut up and he should stop waltzing around the issue. This entire nominating race has been overshadowed by people who self-indulgently floated their names, basked in the adulation, and then said 'no thanks.'"

Morris also said this: "I believe Bill Clinton believes there is some chance that President Obama won't run. A top Democratic strategist told me that if we get to January and there is still high unemployment, it's possible that President Obama will give a Lyndon Johnson speech and not run. Bill Clinton is laying the groundwork for Hillary to run if Obama pulls out."

Wow, is that ever insane. Morris is an idiot, because Obama will never do that. Why anyone believes a word this fool says is beyond me. It's a ridiculous rumor that will never happen. And Hillary will not run until 2016, so deal with that Morris you idiot.

Then O'Reilly had the ridiculous body language bimbo Tonya Reiman on for her body language mumbo jumbo garbage. Which I do not report on because it's nonsense, and a total waste of time on a so-called hard news show.

Then O'Reilly had Dennis Miller on for his weekly garbage segment, which I do not report on because Miller is only on to make jokes about liberals, with no liberal to make jokes about conservatives for balance. Not to mention, it's not news. But I will say this, Miller endorsed Herman Cain, lol. Which is just laughable, and even O'Reilly said it was a bad pick because Cain has never held elective office, so he has no experience.

Cain is a joke, and I wonder if Miller knows that Cain is only running to get on tv and get famous, because he has no chance to win, none, zero. And only a fool would endorse him, let alone a comedian that nobody cares about.

And finally O'Reilly had Juliet Huddy on for another waste of time segment called did you see that. She talked about documentarian Michael Moore, who showed up at a protest against Wall Street.

Huddy accused Moore of rank hypocrisy, saying this: "Michael Moore makes films, and people decide to pay the price the theater is charging them. That is capitalism and Moore makes money off of these films. His films have grossed $350-million and he actually made about $20-million from 'Fahrenheit 9/11 but felt he was owed more."

And that proves that Juliet Huddy is a total idiot, because Moore is not protesting making money from films you dumb blonde. He is protesting the wall street system that ripped off all of America and almost crashed the entire world financial system. It's not about making money off films, it's about the rigged system on wall street, you giant idiot.

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

More Proof O'Reilly Is A Dishonest Right-Wing Hack
By: Steve - September 29, 2011 - 10:00am

On the Tuesday night Factor show O'Reilly said this to Charles Krauthammer:
O'REILLY: "President Obama's leftward tilt seems to be a losing strategy in the face of all the polls that show Americans don't want more left-wing stuff."
O'Reilly said Americans do not want more left-wing stuff, which is a 100% lie, and the polls prove it.

Here are the facts:

Social Security - Pew: "What is more important: taking steps to reduce the budget deficit, or keeping Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are?"

Reduce The Deficit - 32%
Keep Benefits As They Are - 60%

Earth to O'Reilly, that is a left-wing position.

Economy - McClatchy-Marist: "Do you think the current economic conditions are mostly something President Obama inherited or are they mostly a result of his own policies?"

Inherited - 60%
His Policies - 34%

Earth to O'Reilly, that is a left-wing position.

"Who do you trust more to create jobs: President Obama or the Republicans in Congress?"

Obama - 45%
Republicans - 41%

Earth to O'Reilly, that is a left-wing position.

"In order to try to create jobs, do you think it is probably a good idea or a bad idea to spend money on the nation's infrastructure, such as bridges, airports, and schools?"

Good Idea - 80%
Bad Idea - 16%

Earth to O'Reilly, that is a left-wing position.

"Do you think any plan to reduce the federal budget deficit should include only tax increases, or only spending cuts, or a combination of both tax increases and spending cuts?"

Only Tax Increases - 3%
Only Spending Cuts - 21%
Combination - 71%

Earth to O'Reilly, that is a left-wing position. And among Democrats 82% support a combination, 70% of Independents.

"In order to lower the nation's budget deficit, do you think taxes should be increased on households earning $250,000 a year or more, or should the government address the budget deficit without increasing taxes on those households?"

Increase Taxes - 56%
Don't Increase Taxes - 37%

Earth to O'Reilly, that is a left-wing position. Among Democrats it's 70%, 55% of Independents.

Abortion - Kaiser poll: "In general, do you support or oppose the new federal requirement that private health insurance plans cover the full cost of birth control and other preventive services for their female patients?"

Support - 66%
Oppose - 24%

Earth to O'Reilly, that is a left-wing position.

ABC News/Washington Post Poll: "Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?"

Legal in all or most cases - 54%
Illegal in all or most cases - 45%

Earth to O'Reilly, that is a left-wing position.

Environment - USA Today/Gallup: "Would you favor or oppose Congress passing new legislation this year that would do the following? How about regulate energy output from private companies in an attempt to reduce global warming?"

Favor - 56%
Oppose - 40%

Earth to O'Reilly, that is a left-wing position.

Medicare - Pew Poll: "What is more important: taking steps to reduce the budget deficit, or keeping Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are?"

Reduce The Budget - 32%
Keep Benefits As They Are - 60%

Earth to O'Reilly, that is a left-wing position.

I could literally go on like this forever, on almost every issue the majority of Americans support the liberal position on it. In fact it's hard to find an issue the majority of Americans agree with O'Reilly and the right on, except for taxes.

For O'Reilly to say Americans do not want more left-wing stuff, just shows how much of a right-wing fool he is, because the FACTS show he is wrong, and that the majority of America agrees with Obama and the left on almost every issue.

O'Reilly Book Promotion & NPR Hypocrisy
By: Steve - September 29, 2011 - 9:00am

Last October, after NPR fired Juan Williams, O'Reilly said NPR "is not a news organization" and "is basically a left-wing outfit" that "throws out propaganda in violation of the First Amendment."

He called for "the immediate suspension of every taxpayer dollar going into the National Public Radio outfit" and compared the network to terrorists, saying this: "Terrorists want to create terror. Well what does NPR want to create? They're intimidating, too." On top of all that, he called NPR "boring," "dishonest," and a "snake pit."

This past March, still mad over the incident, O'Reilly invented a new term, "TL" -- short for "totalitarian liberal" -- and christened NPR the "TL Vatican." O'Reilly said this: "That is totalitarian. You cannot say certain things at NPR, and Juan did, and that's what happened there." And he once again called for NPR to be stripped of all public funding.

So it was odd to tune into NPR's Morning Edition earlier today and hear Bill O'Reilly talking with Steve Inskeep about the Fox News host's new book about Lincoln. They even had a quick discussion about his role as a media figure:
O'REILLY: I'm in the media, I've been doing it for 35 years. I know the media as well as anybody in the world knows it. And there are always going to be people who try to make money by slamming other people and by, you know, creating all kinds of stuff that doesn't really get us anywhere.

INSKEEP: Do you think you add to that sometimes?

O'REILLY: You know, I try not to do it personally. I think that we bring a robust debate to the nation every night. I think we try to stay away from the personal stuff. We try to back up our opinions with facts. So yeah, I mean, you can accuse me of anything you want, but, you know, I'm trying to do the right thing.
So O'Reilly thinks NPR is a totalitarian snake-pit of terrorists that should not get taxpayer money to promote its dishonest left-wing ideological agenda. But using taxpayer money to help sell his books, is fine with him.

And O'Reilly also does the same thing with the NY Times, he hates them and slams them almost every day for their liberal bias. Then he cites the fact that he is a bestseller on the NY Times book listings in his new Lincoln book promotion ads. So they are evil, but he will use them anyway to sell more book to make him more money. He also does it with the VIEW and the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, he slams them for their bias, then he goes on their shows to sell his books.

What a massive phony hypocrite. Hey O'Reilly if NPR is what you say it is, why are you using them to promote your book. If they are as bad as you say, you should not get within 100 miles of their shows. What a biased hack of a hypocritical jerk.

And btw, if they are terrorists then you are hanging around with terrorists pal.

The Tuesday 9-27-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 28, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Obama's reelection coalition: blacks, latinos, liberals and union members. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Political campaigns are like football games - you have to find the opposing team's weakness and exploit it. Barack Obama understands that his economic plan has not worked and that most Americans are unhappy with the state of the union.

So the President must do two things - retain his base and demonize his opposition. Mr. Obama is directly appealing to that base, which is comprised of minority voters, union workers and devoted liberals. If President Obama's base turns out in great numbers, he has a chance; if they do not, the Republicans will win big.

Talking Points has said that the 2012 election will largely be a referendum on the President. The class warfare strategy of promoting tax cuts for working Americans and tax increases for the affluent has some potential for President Obama, but only if the Republicans fail to make a good economic case.

One vivid example: I would accept an income tax rate of 5% more, but only if Mr. Obama and Congress drastically cut spending first and stop wasting taxpayer dollars on foolish ventures. President Obama has his coalition and the Republicans have one too, but it is the folks in the middle who will make the final call.
Three things, notice O'Reilly calls it class warfare for Obama to raise taxes on the wealthy to help lower the deficit, when a lot of the wealthy support a tax increase, and they do not consider it class warfare. The class warfare garbage is another GOP talking point, and O'Reilly is using it after he said he never uses any GOP talking points. Then O'Reilly says he would "accept" an income tax rate of 5% more, but only if Obama and Congress cut spending first and stop wasting taxpayer dollars on foolish ventures, as if he has a choice. Earth to Billy, if Congress passes it you will accept if whether you like it or not, fool.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to talk about the President's so-called pandering. Colmes said this: "I object to the word 'pandering.' He's firming up his base by talking to blacks, union members, Hispanics and liberals, which is a wide swath of the American public. That's looking out for the folks."

And think about this folks, when a Republican did the same thing, as Bush did during his two terms, O'Reilly never once called it pandering. Somehow in O'Reillyworld it's pandering, but only when a Democrat does it. And O'Reilly ignored a big group of Obama supporters, white people like me, because a hell of a lot of white people also voted for Obama.

Crowley said this: "The President is giving a lot of speeches on college campuses. He mobilized the kids big time in 2008 and they came out in droves. It really indicates the depth of desperation of the Obama campaign that they're spending all this time and money on that base. An incumbent President should not have to be focused on locking up the base."

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to discuss the Obama administration's decision to skip an appeal process, ensuring that state challenges to health care reform will be heard by the Supreme Court.

Wiehl said this: "This was a bold move by the administration, and I think they did it because they thought they would lose in the circuit court. So they punted it to the Supreme Court."

She predicted that Obamacare will be declared unconstitutional and Guilfoyle agreed, saying this: "They will rule that the individual mandate, which requires every individual have health insurance, is unconstitutional. This is forcing Americans to buy something without being able to opt out."

And of course Billy agreed saying that the law's constitutionality will finally be decided by a 5 - 4 decision, with Justice Anthony Kennedy as the deciding vote.

What a shocker, not. The three Factor right-wing stooges think it will be ruled unconstitutional. Even though many legal experts say it will not, including some Republican legal experts. And remember this, these are the same three stooges who said Casey Anthony would be found guilty, and they were all wrong.

Then Guilfoyle and Wiehl returned to analyze the trial of Dr. Conrad Murray, who stands accused of inadvertently killing his patient Michael Jackson. "The allegation is that he wasn't there and he overprescribed," Wiehl reported, "but the defense will be that it was Jackson who was overdosing himself and this doctor had nothing to do with it. He may have gone to other doctors."

Guilfoyle declared that Murray will be convicted and sent to jail. "Part of the defense is that Michael Jackson self-ingested propofol, which is what they give you when they put you under for surgery. But this was being given in a private residence and wasn't being properly monitored. This is involuntary manslaughter and he is guilty!"

Then John Stossel was on for his waste of time weekly segment. Billy said that according to a report on, former Democratic Party boss Howard Dean was paid by an Iranian group to improve its image. Stossel picked up the story from there, saying this: "This group has been labeled a terrorist group, but Rudy Giuliani has also spoken for them, and so have Wesley Clark and Ed Rendell. In the '70's they killed Americans and they had some nasty fringe members, but that was 40 years ago."

Stossel also slammed the Energy Department, which was extremely eager to hand out loans to companies like the now-bankrupt Solyndra, saying this: "Energy Secretary Stephen Chu said they had to get the money out there. They're all villains, and so is anybody who says it's the government's job to find the next energy technology and give them money."

And as usual neither Stossel or O'Reilly said a word about all the Republicans who approved and were involved in the loans. They spin it as a liberal scandal, when as many Republicans were involved as liberals.

Then Bernie Goldberg the biased right-wing hack was on. Billy asked him about a couple new polls. One shows that most Americans have little confidence in the mainstream media; the other indicates that Fox News is the leading news outlet in the nation.

Goldberg said this: "These polls don't speak well for the American media, and I think the reason the trust level is so low is because of the media's relationship with Barack Obama. They fell in love with him and moved from old-fashioned media bias to media activism. The media decided it's okay to take sides without apology."

Goldberg then said this: "America is a center-right country and Fox tilts to the right. 99% of the people watching us now used to watch the evening news at CBS, NBC or ABC, but they came over to Fox." O'Reilly added that FNC has emerged as the go-to news network, saying this: "When there's a breaking news story with no political component at all, we still win."

And that is all a giant load of right-wing spin. Those polls are meaningless. What happened is most people do not trust the media, so they vote them down in polls, but the right-wingers love Fox so they get high marks from them, and that skews the poll results. If you remove Republican votes from the polls Fox comes in dead last with the rest of America, including Independents.

Fox comes in #1 because all the Republicans love them, and vote them as the best. It's just laughable, and more proof O'Reilly and Goldberg are right-wing spin doctors. And America is not a center-right country, it is center-left. Just look at the way the people feel about the big issues like social security, medicare, etc. On every major issue in the country the majority lean left. The right only wins on taxes and the military.

And finally O'Reilly had the far-right stooge Charles Krauthammer on, who has written that President Obama is now showing his true colors.

Krauthammer said this: "We've returned to the original Obama, the Obama of the first two years before the shellacking in the mid-term elections. He came into office and added a trillion-dollar entitlement with health care, he tried to get federal control of energy with cap-and-trade, he spent a trillion dollars on a stimulus that achieved practically nothing. He then spent a year pretending to be a centrist, but now with the election coming around he has decided to go back to what he's comfortable with. His base just loves this."

O'Reilly said that President Obama's leftward tilt "seems to be a losing strategy in the face of all the polls that show Americans don't want more left-wing stuff."

Wow, that is the biggest lie O'Reilly has told in a long time. Because all the polls show that the majority of Americans support most liberal positions on the issues, especially the big issues. So O'Reilly is flat out lying when he spews that garbage out.

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

O'Reilly Ignoring NY Liberal Protester Legal Case
By: Steve - September 28, 2011 - 10:00am

Even though O'Reilly does a once a week legal segment with his two legal experts, not once has he reported on the NY City liberal protester case. A NY Policeman was charged with pepper spraying peaceful protesters and the case is going to trial.

An NYPD officer who has been made infamous over pepper spraying demonstrators occupying Wall Street is facing possible legal action for abuses allegedly committed during 2004 protests against the Republican National Convention, The Guardian reports. The lawyer for a protester who alleges abuse in 2004 expects the case to be heard next year.

A senior New York police officer accused of pepper-spraying young women on the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations is the subject of a pending legal action over his conduct at another protest in the city.

The Guardian has learned that the officer, named by activists as deputy inspector Anthony Bologna, stands accused of false arrest and civil rights violations in a claim brought by a protester involved in the 2004 demonstrations at the Republican national convention.

Then, 1,800 people were arrested during protests against the Iraq war and the policies of president George W Bush.

Alan Levine, a civil rights lawyer representing Post A Posr, a protester at the 2004 event, told the Guardian that he filed an action against Bologna and another officer, Tulio Camejo, in 2007. The case, filed at the New York Southern District Court, is expected to be heard next year.

Levine said that when he heard about the pepper spray incident "a bunch of us were wondering if any of the same guys were involved".

The lawyer said Posr was arrested on 31 August 2004, after he approached the driver of a Volkswagen festooned with anti-abortion slogans.

Levine said that, in a departure from normal police procedure, his client was held in a special detention facility, at Pier 57, where he and others arrested were held until the protests were over.

The Guardian asked the NYPD to respond to the naming of the officer and the allegation that he was previously the subject of a civil rights complaint, but a spokesman said the department had not yet decided whether to comment.

Bologna's name appeared on Twitter and on activists' websites after the incident on Saturday. YouTube footage appears to show a white-shirted NYPD officer firing the spray into the eyes of the protesters, who are penned in by other officers with orange netting. As the officer walks away, two of the women crumple to the ground, screaming in pain.

And what makes it worse that O'Reilly has ignored the story is that it happened in NY City, where O'Reilly does his show, and where he lives.

But you can bet the farm that if the protester was a conservative O'Reilly would be all over the case, with weekly and monthly updates. Since it invloves a liberal, he could care less, even though it involves constitutional issues of violating a persons right to protest peacefully.

Hume Lied About Senate Doing Noting On Disaster Bill
By: Steve - September 28, 2011 - 9:00am

Last week, after continually claiming that they would not hold disaster aid hostage for budget cuts, the House GOP did just that, voting down a continuing resolution that included the aid, and only approving it after $100 million more in cuts were added to the package.

House Republicans then turned around and blamed Senate Democrats for holding disaster aid hostage, with a spokesman for Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) saying "any political games from Senate Dems will only delay FEMA money that disaster victims desperately need." The the dishonest and biased Brit Hume picked up on this propaganda on Fox News Sunday:
HUME: Letís just take look at this latest skirmish. You need a continuing resolution to keep the government open and thereís a need for some relief funding because itís almost been exhausted.

So the Republicans pass a bill that has the disaster relief funding in it, to the tune of several billion dollars and they pay for it with cuts in green jobs funding.

They sent it to the Senate. What does the Senate do? The Senate blocks it and then does, so far, nothing.

Now, it may be that with the media coverage and the political statements that will be made about this, that if the government shuts down the Republicans will get the blame. But I ask you in this: who's being responsible? And who's playing politics?
Earth to Brit Hume, who's playing politics? The Republicans are you right-wing fraud of a journalist.

The big problem with this fantasy storyline developed by the GOP and its friends at Fox News? On September 15, the Senate passed a bill containing $7 billion in disaster aid. The bipartisan 62-37 vote took place days before the House ever got around to advancing its own package.

So the Senate already approved it, but the so-called journalist Brit Hume is saying they did nothing.

The government's funding runs out on Friday, so the prospect of another government shutdown is looming. But at the moment, the right seems more interested in trying to pretend that the Senate has not passed something that it already has.

The Monday 9-26-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 27, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Is there a leadership deficit in America? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Most Americans understand the United States is not in good shape. The economy is shaky, millions of Americans can't find jobs, and the national debt puts every one of us in jeopardy. What the country needs is dramatic leadership.

Enter Abraham Lincoln. My new book 'Killing Lincoln' is a day-by-day look at what America's greatest president went through during the last two weeks of his life. Simply put, we need another Lincoln right now. Like America in the mid-19th century, we are a divided nation. On one side are Americans who believe we need radical change, that we are not a noble nation, that our economic system has to be torn down, and that our traditions are useless.

That movement is led by secular progressives. On the other side are folks who believe capitalism and traditional Judeo-Christian tenets should be retained because they have made the USA the strongest country on Earth. No matter who is elected president in 2012, that person must rise above partisan politics and do what's best for the country.

Abraham Lincoln was a hated man with enemies everywhere, but he did what was necessary to preserve the union, strike down slavery, and reunite the country. It was a brilliant achievement and only Lincoln's strength of character made it happen. Today in America, only strong leadership will bring this country back. Abraham Lincoln's example should lead the way.
Really? Are you kidding me. To begin with not once during the Bush administration (while Bush was destroying the economy) did O'Reilly say there a leadership deficit in America. In fact, the Democrats were saying it and O'Reilly slammed them for being un-American while defending Bush. Making Billy a massive two-faced hypocrite. And the rest of that TPM was O'Dummy promoting his lame book about Lincoln.

Really O'Reilly? A book about Lincoln, who fricking cares. Get a clue man, nobody cares anymore about Lincoln, especially when a hundred other books about Lincoln have already been written.

Then O'Dummy had Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham on to assess President Obama's leadership ability. Williams said this: "President Lincoln had a vision, and a willingness to sacrifice in order to achieve it. When you look at President Obama, that leadership is not there and that's what people are complaining about. When he gets into the fighting mode he does better, but right now people just don't see him as being able to stop the GOP from controlling the narrative and bulldozing him."

Ham said that President Obama has come up far short in the leadership arena, saying this: "I think Obama at times has thought of himself as Lincolnesque. He is a good speaker and there are flashes of inspiration, but he sold himself as the guy who would solve all the problems and make the government run well. He has not delivered."

Then biased Republican Brit Hume was on to talk about Obama's leadership and Rick Perry. Hume said this: "President Obama has proven to be a far less effective leader than anyone imagined. He made grandiose promises in lyrical terms and flowery language, then he turned out to be a remarkably disengaged President."

Haha, yeah according to Brit Hume the right-wing spin doctor who hates everything Obama has ever done, and ever will do, what a joke. Obama has been a good president, considering the mess he was left with by the Republican Bush. The same Bush Hume and O'Reilly seem to have forgot about, because they want the people to blame Obama and forget what Bush did.

Then Hume said this about Rick Perry: "He had an exceedingly weak performance in the debate on a night when he needed to raise his game. It's hard to tell much about his leadership, but he has shown an unwillingness or an inability to sharpen his performance on the national stage. If he's going to survive as a candidate, he has to step it up. Mitt Romney has stepped up his game since Rick Perry got in the race - he's been able to attack Perry and do it in a reasonably genial way, which is a very hard thing to pull off."

And of course not one Democratic guest was on to discuss any of it. It was all Republican spin, all the time.

Then O'Dummy had Michele Bachmann on. After finishing dead last in the Florida straw poll, Bachmann said she can make a comeback, saying this: "Sure we can turn things around. I won the Iowa straw poll, then Governor Perry came into the race and there was an assumption that he was going to walk away with the nomination. Now there's another look at that and people are looking again for their champion. I am the constitutional conservative in this race and I am running to be the people's choice in the White House. We're doing exactly what we need to be doing."

And now for an Reality Check: Bachmann you are a far-right loon, and even most Republicans will not vote for you. So save your time and money and get out, moron.

Billy even told Bachmann that she is now in 6th place in some reputable polls, saying this: "I know what you're saying, that you present a viable alternative. But the poll numbers show that your campaign didn't get traction after the last debate."

So then O'Dummy had a biased segment about Obama saying Obama is engaging in racial politics. Speaking at a dinner sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus, President Obama commanded the audience to "stop complainin' ... stop grumblin' and stop cryin."

Then Maxine Waters said that the President wouldn't speak that way to Jewish or gay organizations. So Billy asked Professor Mark Sawyer to evaluate the President's language and southern preacher-like style. Sawyer said this: "The President was talking to his friends, and telling them to get off their butts and work for this jobs bill because that's what this community needs. He has a history of challenging the African American community because he's a part of it."

But O'Reilly said the speech was more admonishment than encouragement, saying this: "There is a lot of discontent in some African American precincts, where people are saying he hasn't done enough. He was scolding them for complaining."

Wow, so now O'Reilly can read minds. How the hell does he know what Obama meant, it was his opinion of what Obama said, and Sawyer had a different opinion. But of course in O'Reillyworld his opinion is always right, and only his opinion means anything. Now to mention it's all speculation, that O'Reilly says he never does.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about a controversy involving OnStar, the service that enables drivers to call for help in an emergency. Kelly said this: "You want them tracking you, if you pay up and say 'please track me.' But even if you end the relationship, OnStar still knows how fast you drive and where you are and then they sell that information to marketers. They say it's all for our own good and that they give people the option to opt out, but politicians want an explanation of how this information is going to be used and why OnStar feels it has the right to do this."

Kelly also spoke about co-hosting last week's GOP debate in Orlando, saying this: "I had my baby with me and I was taking care of her, and I was going to all these pre-debate meetings and rehearsals. There was no interaction with the candidates, just a little glad-handing, that sort of thing."

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had his ridiculous reality check nonsense, that I do not report on. Because it's O'Reilly all alone putting his right-wing spin on something a Democrat said. That's not a reality check, it's just the opinion of what a person said, from a biased right-winger.

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

Senator Exposes Republican Hypocrisy On Green Energy Loans
By: Steve - September 27, 2011 - 10:00am

And you can bet the farm O'Reilly will never report this, because he wants you to think that only Obama and the Democrats supported those green energy company Government loans.

House Oversight Committee chair Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-CA) investigation of clean energy loan programs was undercut this week by a revelation, first reported by Bloomberg, that he had also requested money from the same program for companies in his district.

A follow-up story by ThinkProgress found that an investor to the firm Issa had asked to subsidize had donated several times to Issa, including a check just shortly before Issa sent his letter to Secretary Chu.

Today on the Senate floor, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) mocked Issa's hypocrisy. She carried with her copies of the letters signed by Issa, as well as other letters by Republicans asking for money for the clean energy program they had just voted to cut, and read them into the Congressional Record:
LANDRIEU: He's a member from California, he's a very powerful member of the House. I'm going to read his whole letter.

And the press even writes, 'Darrell Issa, the Republican leader, is promoting manufacturing in California.' Because this is what he says in his district. And this is the letter he sends to the Secretary.

But when he's on the floor of the House last night, he voted to gut this program. That's what this debate is about!
Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) House Oversight Committee chair Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-CA) investigation of clean energy loan programs was undercut this week by a revelation, first reported by Bloomberg, that he had also requested money from the same program for companies in his district. A follow-up story found that an investor to the firm Issa had asked to subsidize had donated several times to Issa, including a check just shortly before Issa sent his letter to Secretary Chu.

Today on the Senate floor, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) mocked Issa's hypocrisy. She carried with her copies of the letters signed by Issa, as well as other letters by Republicans asking for money for the clean energy program they had just voted to cut, and read them into the Congressional Record:
LANDRIEU: He's a member from California, he's a very powerful member of the House. I'm going to read his whole letter. And maybe the press even writes, 'Darrell Issa, the Republican leader, is promoting manufacturing in California.' Because this is what he says in his district. And this is the letter he sends to the Secretary. But when he's on the floor of the House last night, he voted to gut this program. That's what this debate is about!
Earlier this week, Republicans tried to make hay out of the Solyndra controversy by taking an axe to clean energy programs. Landrieu made short work out of the GOP's shameful gimmick.

Landrieu continued tearing into the Republicans for their hypocrisy. She noted that the cuts were purely political because the supposed offsets for FEMA only required $175 million, not $1 billion. She then continued to read Republican letters asking for clean energy loan cash, including yet another one signed by Issa (asking for money for battery-maker Quallion LLC):
LANDRIEU: I'm going to do this all week, so I hope the press gets ready to ask these Republican leaders how could you possibly have the gall to hold press opportunities in your district promising people that you're helping them to create jobs and then come back to Washington and cut the rug out from under their feet with a bogus excuse that you have to come up with a billion dollars, when the real need for FEMA in 2011 is $175 million.

But under the guise of having to provide a billion dollars, they want to gut this program that's creating jobs and they themselves have asked for these loans to be made in their district.

Several members, and I am going to submit their names to the record, In addition - this is the killer, this is the killer - in addition Quallion thinks that this funding will create more than two thousand three hundred new and long-term jobs nationwide.

And this is the program that Representative Cantor decided to use as an offset so he could fool the American people.
Notice that O'Reilly also slammed Obama for the loans, so he was once again caught using dishonest Republican talking points. The same Republican talking points he said he never uses. Hell O'Reilly might as well get his paycheck from the RNC, because he makes a living using their talking points.

Another Abortion Poll O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - September 27, 2011 - 9:00am

A new CNN poll finds that an overwhelming majority of Americans still believe in a woman's right to choose, with 78 percent of respondents saying that they want abortion to remain legal under any circumstances or under certain circumstances.

Just 21 percent said they would support outlawing abortion under all circumstances. That put's O'Reilly in the 21 percent minority, because he is a pro-life wacko who wants all abortions stopped.

The numbers are almost unchanged from a year ago - despite the concerted efforts of conservatives to severely restrict access to abortion on the state level. Seventy-seven percent of Americans identified themselves as pro-choice in in 2009 and support has remained consistent over the last five years.

Now think about this, O'Reilly says over and over that we MUST go by the will of the people. So the will of the people say keep abortion legal, but O'Reilly disagrees anyway.

And that also shows that O'Reilly only wants to go by the will of the people when the majority of the people agree with him on an issue. Making him a joke, a hypocrite, and a right-wing fool with double standards.

O'Reilly Calls For 1960's Tax Reform Measures
By: Steve - September 26, 2011 - 10:00am

O'Reilly is urging President Obama to follow in President John F. Kennedy's footsteps and propose lowering taxes for the rich to spur economic growth. Which is just ridiculous, because in 1962 the top tax rate was a whopping 91 percent. And the rate today is a historically low 35 percent.

O'Dummy said this on the Thursday Factor show:
O'REILLY: Now, I do seem to remember Floyd The Barber and Goober grousing about a 90-percent income tax rate, but it is a myth. The top tax rate in the 1950s peaked at 92 percent. But nobody actually paid anything close to that. In fact, in 1951, the handful of Americans -- we're talking maybe 200 making more than a million dollars a year -- paid about 62 percent. Onerous, to be sure.

But in 1962, President Kennedy proposed a big tax cut for the rich in order to stimulate the economy and encourage investment. And the rates have been moderating ever since.
What the hell does he mean ever since the top rates have been moderating, they have went down, big time. Earth to O'Reilly, a drop from 92 percent to 35 percent is not moderating, it's a massive drop.

And O'Reilly was wrong, it was not 92 percent, it was 91 percent. In 1964, the top marginal income tax rate was lowered from 91 percent to 77 percent. In 1965, it came down to 70 percent.

The top marginal income tax rate has been 35 percent since 2003. And Federal taxes are at historically low levels. So if JFK were President today there is no way in hell he would call for the top rates to be made even lower.

Bruce Bartlett, the former adviser to President Reagan and Treasury Department economist under George H.W. Bush, even wrote in a May 31 post that lowering the top rate further will not do anything to raise growth or reduce unemployment. And of course O'Reilly never reports that, or has Mr. Bartlett of the Factor to discuss it.

Bartlett said this:
Federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The CBO estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year.

The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan's administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.

In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010.

The truth of the matter is that federal taxes in the United States are very low. There is no reason to believe that reducing them further will do anything to raise growth or reduce unemployment.
The Kennedy Nephew said this: The U.S. Economy Was Very Different When President Kennedy Proposed Lowering Taxes. In September 2010, the AP reported that Edward M. Kennedy Jr., a nephew of the late president, wrote to Linda McMahon asking her to pull a campaign ad in which she used a video excerpt of a 1963 speech by Kennedy to advocate for tax cuts.

In the letter, Kennedy wrote that McMahon "distorts the legacy of President Kennedy in order to mislead voters into thinking" he would have supported her position on tax policy.

He said this: "In 1963, there was virtually no deficit and the top tax rate was 91 percent for income over $400,000. Today, the annual U.S. deficit is nearly $1.5 trillion and the top tax rate is 35 percent for income over $372,500."

Which makes O'Reilly a total idiot for trying to use JFK to make his point on lower taxes for the rich.

Republicans Are Lying About Taxes & Jobs
By: Steve - September 26, 2011 - 9:00am

And what's really funny is that O'Reilly said if Obama raises his taxes he may pack it in and retire. Even though his taxes are lower now then when he started the show, and even if Obama did raise his taxes 3 percent they would still be lower than they were when O'Reilly started his show.

And btw folks, O'Reilly will never pack it in, his ego is too big. He will never quit, they will have to drag him kicking and screaming out of his office to get rid of him.

So President Obama offered a deficit reduction plan that aims to save $3 trillion over the next 10 years. Half of those funds will be revenue raised from a return to the Clinton administration's tax rate on those in the top two income tax brackets, as well as the new Buffett rule -- a minimum tax on those making over $1 million.

Heading off the GOP's new talking point, Obama noted that this tax policy "is not class warfare. It's math."

The release of this plan immediately spurred the natural Republican tax apoplexy, with the GOP presidential candidates decrying tax increases as a surefire way to destroy jobs:

-- MITT ROMNEY: President Obama's plan to raise taxes will have a crushing impact on economic growth. Higher taxes mean fewer jobs Ė it's that simple.

-- RICK PERRY: President Obama's plan fails to provide the certainty employers need to create jobs.

-- MICHELE BACHMANN: Mr. President Ė you don't create jobs by increasing taxes on job creators.

-- RON PAUL:When the President starts targeting the so-called rich, he's really targeting small business owners, so ultimately heís threatening the little guy. The President's plan, then, will result in a fatal broadside to the national economy from Main Street on down.

-- JON HUNTSMAN: President Obama continues to demonstrate that he has no new ideas on how to create American jobs.

-- HERMAN CAIN: Here's what I can tell Obama about math: raising taxes on anyone, no matter their income level, will do nothing to stimulate our economy, create jobs or balance our federal budget.

-- NEWT GINGRICH: In the midst of the worst economy since the Great Depression, job creation must be job one for our political leaders. Instead, the president has chosen a path of political gamesmanship and class warfare with a plan that would kill jobs with higher taxes on small businesses and private capital.

A quick review of the math, pretty much kills what's left of that GOP talking point. Michael Linden noted that "in the past 60 years, job growth has actually been greater in years when the top income tax rate was much higher than it is now."

He points out that while the top five years of job growth "boast marginal tax rates at 70 percent or higher," the two worst years were 2008 and 2009 "when the top marginal tax rate was 35 percent."

In fact, "in the 13 years that the top marginal tax rate has been at its current level or lower, only one year even cracks the top 20 in overall job creation."

If math is not the Republicans strong suit, maybe they will do better with history. The big difference in tax rates between the Clinton and Bush administrations mirrors the difference in job creation.

After creating 23.1 million jobs, Clinton pushed unemployment rate down to a 30-year low. Job growth under Bush, however, "was the worst in any cycle in more than 60 years." And the Bush policies led to only 2.6 million jobs created.

These are facts, something the Republicans ignore and do not care to report on. They just spin out right-wing talking points and hope someone believes it. And notice that O'Reilly goes right along with them, while not once informing you of the facts about taxes on the wealthy and job creation.

O'Reilly Was Dishonest With The $16 Muffin Story
By: Steve - September 25, 2011 - 10:00am

After a government audit claimed that the Justice Department once spent $16 each for muffins at a conference, Fox News made a huge deal out of it, with Bill O'Reilly and Stuart Varney using it as an excuse to bash the federal government as excessively wasteful and to criticize President Obama as wanting "more tax money to buy more muffins."

On that O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said that this story is "about a federal government that doesn't give a hoot about how much money it spends" and that "President Obama wants more tax money to buy more muffins."

But the facts in the story have come to light, and of course O'Reilly did not report it, or do a correction. Which makes him not only a dishonest journalist, it shows his bias by not correcting the record to make Obama look bad.

O'Reilly made his point again later in the show, claiming that Obama is "not interested in reforming the muffin problem."

While at the same time the AP was reporting ALL the facts in the story. They wrote this:
Hilton Worldwide, which manages and franchises hotels including the Capital Hilton where the conference took place, says the price included not only breakfast baked goods but also fresh fruit, coffee, tea, soft drinks, tax and tips. It says the report misinterpreted its invoices, which often use shorthand and don't reflect the full menu and service provided.

The IG says that the total cost per person at the reception was $14.74 -- 2 cents over the allowable Justice Department limit. Totaling up the items in the IG's report, the 534 attendees over five days were given 1,150 pastries, 1,350 pieces of candy and fruit, 1,250 cups of coffee and tea and 250 soft drinks.

"Dining receipts are often abbreviated and do not reflect the full pre-contracted menu and service provided, as is the case with recent media reports of breakfast items approved for some government meetings," Hilton Worldwide's statement added.
Now think about that, not only was O'Reilly wrong about the $16 muffins, not once did he mention that the amount spent was for 534 people over a 5 day period. Talk about dishonest journalism, that is about as dishonest as it gets. Especially since he did not make a correction after AP reported the truth about the muffins. In fact, nobody at Fox reported the truth or made a correction.

And the worst part is that O'Reilly claims to be a truth teller, who said if you want the truth you have to watch his show, while almost nothing he reports is the actual truth and it all has his right-wing spin on it.

Republican Audience Boos Gay Soldier At GOP Debate
By: Steve - September 25, 2011 - 9:00am

Thursday night, Stephen Hill, who is serving in the Army in Iraq, had the courage to come out as gay to a national audience and ask the Republican presidential candidates about how they would handle troops like him. The audience responded to his question with boos, and Rick Santorum said he'd reinstate Don't Ask, Don't Tell (a promise he doubled down on later in the evening).

The big question now is this, even among some conservatives: Why did none of the candidates stand up for the soldier? Here are some of the reactions to the offensive moment:
-- Former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer: "Booing a soldier serving our nation is uncalled for. If I were on stage, I would make that point."

-- The Hill's Ballot Box: "None of the Republican candidates responded to the audience's reaction."

-- CBS News: "Some audience members audibly booed the soldier - a moment the GOP candidates on stage chose to ignore."

-- The New Yorker: "His reply was breathtakingly bad: he talked about dangerous social experiments and what a mistake the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell had been; he didn't even thank Hill, for his service. But none of the candidates did, and any one of them could have."

-- Christian Post: "Santorum, who has never served in the armed forces, did not address the boos, but explained his position by saying 'sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military.'"

-- National Review: "Whatever you think of Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or homosexuality, Hill is risking his life on behalf of his country. It is troubling, and revealing, that Santorum's answer entirely defined Hill as a gay man first and as a soldier second, if at all."

-- GOProud: "Tonight, Rick Santorum disrespected our brave men and women in uniform, and he owes Stephen Hill, the gay soldier who asked him the question about Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal, an immediate apology.

That brave gay soldier is doing something Rick Santorum has never done - put his life on the line to defend our freedoms and our way of life. It is telling that Rick Santorum is so blinded by his anti-gay bigotry that he couldn't even bring himself to thank that gay soldier for his service."

-- Log Cabin Republicans: "Unfortunately, for many Americans the take-away from last night's debate was not that Republicans have the solutions our country needs, but that too many in our party are clinging so strongly to a failed and discriminatory law that they are willing to disrespect a man in uniform.

As a current Army Reserve officer and an Iraq combat veteran, I found it appalling that a soldier serving down range would be disrespected in such a fashion."
And btw, a petition is already underway on calling on Rick Santorum to apologize to gay soldiers. If Republicans are going to tolerate the shunning of gay troops, they will cause the very problems of unit cohesion they claimed would be the result of DADT repeal.

O'Reilly & Watters Get The Constitution Wrong
By: Steve - September 25, 2011 - 8:00am

And the worst part is that they made fun of Ron Paul for being wrong about the constitution, when they were wrong, not Ron Paul.

An e-mail alerted me to the situation, here is what he wrote to me:
Following Jesse Waters ambush interview of Ron Paul on 17 September, Bill O'reilly said that Ron Paul misquoted the constitution when he said that only gold and silver were mentioned as legal currency.

Mr. O'reilly and Mr. Watters laughed as they said Mr. Paul 'must have been referring to Article 1 section 10 of the Constitution which says that only states may use gold and silver.

Mr. O'reilly said 'I think I know the Constitution'. Well, obviously he does not. The first federal mint was not established until 1792, and prior to that citizen relied mostly on state banks for coinage as there was no federal means for producing them.

I have written twice to Mr. O'reilly asking politely for a retraction and of course have received no answer and no retraction.
And for the record here is what it actually says:

Section 10

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

The Friday 9-23-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 24, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Why is America in decline? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: In analyzing the Republican debate last night, you have to start with the decline of America. There is no question that the USA is in trouble; economically, we are simply in chaos. Looking back, America's decline began on September 11, 2001.

The Al Qaeda attack forced the Bush administration to take drastic action - trillions of dollars were spent, two wars initiated, and what we did to protect ourselves alienated many throughout the world. We did defeat Al Qaeda, but it came at a tremendous cost. After being hopeful for two years, Americans have now lost confidence in the Obama administration.

High unemployment and craziness in financial markets, combined with the huge government takeover of the health care system, are scaring many Americans. The feds are making things worse, not better. So the theme for the Republican challenger in next year's race is likely to be 'I'll restore America.'

Last night nine Republican contenders took the stage in Florida and there were some interesting expositions. Front-runner Rick Perry seized upon education, accusing Mitt Romney of supporting President Obama's 'Race to the Top' initiative. On the subject of illegal immigration, Governor Perry has some problems because he opposes a border fence and supports subsidized college tuition for illegal immigrant students.

Most Republicans are uneasy with taxpayer money supporting illegal aliens, but the Governor does remain a force because of his economic policy, which is working in Texas. Talking Points believes the United States is in desperate need of strong and fair leadership. We need politicians who are not wedded to an ideology, but are willing to do difficult things for the good of all Americans.

The economy's got to get fixed, the debt has got to go down, and the federal government has to recede. Above all, Americans have to regain hope that the USA is indeed a place of opportunity, fairness and sanity.
Look at the name of the O'Reilly TPM, Why is America in decline? What's funny is when Bush was in office and ruining the country, Democrats were saying the country is in decline. And O'Reilly said bull, then called them un-American for saying such a thing. He said America is great and that will will come back to be stronger than ever. Now that Obama is in office he says what the Democrats were saying under Bush when he said it was un-American to say that.

Not to mention O'Reilly is a liar when he says Bush had to start two wars after 9-11-11, because Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, it was a war we did not need to have. Notice he also blames Obama and his liberal policies for the debt, when in fact 80% of it is from Bush, the wars, and his stupid tax cuts.

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to discuss the debate and the TPM. Krauthammer said this: "What is taking us into decline, is an administration that sees America's future in the European model of social democracy. Therefore, nearly anyone who espouses the opposite ideology - smaller government, less taxation, less debt, and less regulation - would restore the economic power of capitalism. However, if you are going to do it you have to reach the presidency. So it isn't just ideas and policies, it's who can be elected. You have to invoke the rule of William F. Buckley, who said he would vote for the most conservative candidate who can win. Governor Perry is now rather doubtful because he had a bad debate."

And that is a load of bull, because Clinton had liberal policies and the country did great for 8 years, Krauthammer and O'Reilly ignore that and refuse to even mention it. As they blame Obama for all the problems Bush created.

Krauthammer also said that Mitt Romney seems to be the most electable Republican in the field. "All you have to do is ask a Democrat who is the toughest opponent for Obama to debate and beat, and I think they will say Romney."

And that might just be the only thing Krauthammer said that is true. I predicted Romney would win the GOP nomination 6 months ago, and I stand by my prediction.

Then O'Dummy had Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison on, who disputed the O'Reilly claim that America is in decline. Ellison said this: "America's best days are ahead of her, and all you have to do is look at all the people who want to come here. The folks who live here ought to be a little bit more appreciative of the great country we have. Tough times make great leaders and I believe Barack Obama has the stuff to lead our country to a greater place."

Then Billy pointed to a lie he has been spinning out, saying this: "We have a government that has spent $5.3 trillion to stimulate the economy and it didn't work. The Republican Party is going to basically say we are a country in decline, and I think it will be hard for President Obama to counter that. Most Americans have lost confidence in the Obama administration."

That is a lie, because Obama only spent $787 billion to stimulate the economy. O'Reilly just pulled that $5.3 trillion number out of his butt. Not to mention, polls show that most Americans still blame Bush and the Republicans for the economy, so O'Reilly is off his rocker with that right-wing garbage he is spewing out.

Then O'Jerkoff had Geraldo on to talk more about the Solyndra loan story, which I will not report on anymore because it's a right-wing spin story to try and make Obama look bad. They even ignore the fact that Republicans were involved, and that they asked for the same loans for other green energy companies. O'Reilly also ignored the fact that the same people who worked for Bush approved the loan, but when Obama was in office. Billy somehow failed to report that, I guess he just forgot, yeah right!

Then O'Reilly had the biased Lou Dobbs on to talk about the stock market drop. Dobbs said this: "It dropped because people are losing confidence, and not only in this country. Among the things that lit the fuse this month was when Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke referred to 'significant' downside risks in the economy. That scared the hell out of people and the fact is that everybody understands that we are having difficult times, we are not creating jobs."

So then Dobbs advised regular investors to stay the course, saying this: "I am basically saying don't do anything. If you are in the market and you believe you have invested in solid stocks for the long haul, this is the only place to be. But there is no safe haven from irresponsible leadership."

And finally the last segment was dumbest things of the week with Greg Gutfeld and Arthel Neville. Neville went with the Justice Department conference that featured the infamous $16 muffins. "Everybody's talking about this story, and you can't waste taxpayers' money. The Obama administration has ordered agencies to determine how they are spending money."

Wrong, only Republicans are talking about it, and it's not even true, there were no $16 muffins, it is a lie.

Gutfeld singled out Republican presidential hopeful Gary Johnson, who brought down the house in Thursday's debate with a joke about dogs and shovel-ready jobs. "It wasn't his joke, it was originally Rush Limbaugh's joke. The lesson is - if you're going to steal, go obscure and steal from me."

The real dumbest thing of the week is that segment, it's worthless, stupid, and not news.

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

Insanity Alert: O'Reilly 2nd Most Powerful Man In America
By: Steve - September 24, 2011 - 10:00am

If anyone wanted proof O'Reilly has lost his mind, here it is. In a Newsweek interview Billy said he is the 2nd most powerful man in America, only behind the President.

O'Reilly told interviewer Peter Boyer that he was almost as powerful as the holder of the White House.

O'Reilly said this:
"I have more power than anybody other than the president, in the sense that I can get things changed, quickly. I don't have to go through the legislative process; I don't have to do any of that. I can just bring it to the people, and say, look, this has gotta be dealt with."
Not only is that a crazy statement, it's a step back from a statement O'Reilly made in 2010, where he said that he had "more power doing what I'm doing" than he would as president.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, you host a lame cable news show on a biased and fake news network. On a good night you get 3 million viewers, which is about 1 percent of the American people. Most Americans do not even know who you are, so how can you be so powerful.

Here is my advice to O'Reilly, up your medications pal.

Keith Olbermann Begs O'Reilly To Quit Over Taxes
By: Steve - September 24, 2011 - 9:00am

Keith Olbermann begged Bill O'Reilly to carry out his threat to quit his show if his taxes are raised.

Olbermann used his Wednesday "Worst Persons" segment to highlight what he called a "festival" of outsized O'Reilly behavior this week. First, there was O'Reilly's statement that he has "more power than anyone other than the president."

Olbermann said O'Reilly had broken the "megalomaniac's oath by revealing just how nuts he is," and noted that when O'Reilly boycotted France during the Iraq war, "the nation's business activity with France increased."

Then, Olbermann turned to O'Reilly's Tuesday comments, in which the Fox News host said that, if his taxes are raised above 50 percent, "I don't know how much longer I'm going to do this."

"Quit the show?" Olbermann said. "Quit teasing us like that! Jump! Jump!" He added, "at least we finally understand the president's tax strategy: get Bill-O to quit."

More Proof Bill O'Reilly Is The Moron!
By: Steve - September 24, 2011 - 8:00am

Here is a follow up to my other blog that shows O'Reilly is the moron for suggesting that anyone who thinks Republicans are to blame for the economy are morons.

Thursday night, Bill O'Reilly mocked a liberal guest who suggested voters blame Republicans for the faltering economy. Saying this: "Only a moron would do that."

The truth is, despite his right-wing spin on Bush's behalf, a plurality of voters do blame Republicans for the current state of the economy.
When asked who's to blame for the current economic circumstances, 48 percent point the finger at the GOP and 40 percent blame Obama. Centrists hold Republicans more responsible than the president by a 2-to-1 margin (56 percent compared to 28 percent)
And here:
A new Quinnipiac poll finds American voters trust the president more than congressional Republicans by 45% to 38%.

Most interesting: By 54% to 27% they blame former President George W. Bush for the economy more than President Obama.
And here:
Buried in the latest McClatchy/Marist poll was an interesting nugget. Although Americans are upset about the economy, 61% of those polled still think that Obama inherited the recession.
And here:
When asked whether the policies of President Obama and the Democrats or Bush and the Republicans are more responsible for the country's current economic problems, 57 percent said Bush and the Republicans are more responsible, according to the CNN/ORC poll, while just 29 percent said Obama and the Democrats are more responsible.
And now you have the facts, not the right-wing garbage from O'Reilly. I guess he thinks if he says it enough it will make it true, wrong, MORON!

The Thursday 9-22-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 23, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Shockingly high unemployment numbers endure. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Some new polls indicate that President Obama's support among African Americans is dropping dramatically. The problem for African Americans is the 16.7% unemployment rate, compared to the overall number of 9.1%. To be fair to Mr. Obama, black unemployment is not his fault - it's an educational thing that's been going on forever.

There is little President Obama can do about the public education system in America; the government is funding it at record levels but the system, especially in poor precincts, is on the decline. That's because the family unit is on the decline, and nowhere is that situation worse than in the African American community, where 70% of babies are born out of wedlock.

In another poll, 57% of Florida voters disapprove of the job President Obama is doing, while another poll shows that 45% of Americans say they 'definitely' will not vote for the President.

Summing up, every single poll tells the same story - Barack Obama is losing support everywhere except at NBC News. The situation for the President has now reached critical mass.
Boy O'Reilly sure loves to report on polls, except the polls that show the American people disagree with him. Like the most recent Gallup poll that says 70% of Americans agree with the Obama jobs plan, even a majority of Republicans. But O'Reilly ignores that poll, because it shows he is wrong, and that he is a far-right stooge.

Then Laura Ingraham was on to say what she was looking for at Thursday night's GOP debate. Ingraham said this: "The first thing I want to see is a blueprint. America is in a desperate state of decline and inexorable deterioration. We need these candidates to give us specifics as to how America can once again be in a period of dominance. And we need to talk about Russia and China, which is moving on all fronts and aggressively seeking our technology. Our country is on the brink and we need serious people with serious answers."

Then O'Dummy suggested that serious answers may have to wait until a few candidates drop out: "There are too many people on the stage and every single candidate has an agenda. I suspect we're going to see more strategizing."

Then O'Dummy had Leslie Marshall and Kirsten Powers on to discuss it. Powers said this: "Romney has been a strong debater, but he's got to do something to break out because Rick Perry has taken his place as the leader. Romney has to find a way to attack Perry without sounding like a Democrat."

Marshall agreed with Laura Ingraham's assertion that America is in deep trouble, but disputed the idea that President Obama is the cause, saying this: "Some of America is on the decline, but I don't blame the President or any one party for that. I blame politicizing on both sides, and more so on the Republican side."

The Factor reminded Marshall that "the Democratic House ran up a $5 trillion debt in four years, so what moron would blame Republicans for the current problems we have in economic regions?"

Which just goes to show what a right-wing idiot O'Reilly is, because most of the problems we have were caused by Bush and the Republicans. Look for my other blog on this to go into more details as to why O'Reilly is the moron.

So then the cry baby O'Reilly devoted an entire segment to trashing Jon Stewart, for when Stewart made O'Reilly look like a fool for saying the rich will take their ball and go home if they get taxed more.

What happened is Jon Stewart got some laughs by mocking Billy's argument that America's most productive citizens may become less productive if they are taxed excessively. So O'Dummy said this: I'm standing up for Americans with common sense, people who understand that under a Democratic Congress the nation racked up more than $5 trillion in debt in just four years, even as the economy tanked. So I and many others have come to the conclusion that the liberal tenet of taxing the rich and spending like Arab sheiks may not be the solution to fixing a moribund economy. Raising capital gains taxes and the income tax would most likely blunt consumer spending and investment, leading to more economic hardship." And as Jon Stewart put it, you are a moron.

Then the crazy O'Reilly had a segment asking the culture warriors why the GOP does not want Sarah Palin to run. And I have no idea what this has to do with the culture, but I can answer the question for you. Because Palin is a far-right rock-head that would get killed in the general election. Nobody likes her but far-right loons, and on top of that she is as dumb as a rock.

O'Reilly asked Culture Warriors Gretchen Carlson and Dagen McDowell to analyze why more than 70% of Republican primary voters want Sarah Palin to stay out of the race. Carlson said this: "Republicans know how much she got beat up in the press the first time around. They're probably thinking she will not be able to beat President Obama, so let's not even get her into the race at all."

McDowell agreed that a Palin candidacy would create a circus atmosphere, saying this: "Republican voters see the tabloid fodder out there that the left would sling. Look no farther than the ridiculous Joe McGinnis book or the Levi Johnston book."

Then Megyn Kelly was on from Orlando just prior to co-hosting Thursday night's Republican debate. Kelly said this: "This is going to be like herding cats. I'm expecting bedlam and chaos and general meltdowns left and right, and it's going to make for some great TV."

Kelly then explained how the questions were selected, saying this: "There's a whole editorial team with our political unit and people from the D.C. bureau. We all sit down and decide what are the issues we're going to talk to the candidates about, what do people care about? It's going to be very interesting and it's going to be even tougher for the candidates to respond directly to viewers. Every candidate will have more than a fair chance to offer their positions."

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had George Stephanopoulos from ABC News on, he talked about whether President Obama can make a comeback. Stephanopoulos said this: "It couldn't be tougher right now. "Maybe even more important than the unemployment numbers, income has been going down for the past three years and more Americans think we're on the wrong track. Those all spell a defeat in 2012 unless things turn around. But the President's personal favorability is still relatively high."

So Billy said that President Obama's window of opportunity is closing fast, saying this: "My hypothesis is this: Once non-ideological Americans lose confidence in their leadership, it's very hard to get it back. In thirteen months I don't know whether any human being could turn around the perception of economic failure."

Which is just insane right-wing garbage from O'Dummy, because if the economy does improve and more jobs are created Obama will increase his approval ratings and it is very possible.

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

O'Reilly Ignored Gallup/Obama Job Plan Poll
By: Steve - September 23, 2011 - 10:00am

This is classic O'Reilly, when Gallup polls agree with him he reports them, when they dont he ignores them. Instead he rants on and on like a right-wing propagandist about taxing the rich, while the majority of the people agree with Obama and disagree with O'Reilly, including the majority of Republicans.

A new Gallup survey found that Americans "favor almost all the proposals" in Obama's economic plans -- including a majority of Republicans.

The poll shows that a high majority of Republicans favor Obama's plan to provide tax cuts for small businesses, provide additional funds to hire teachers and firefighters, and giving tax breaks to companies that hire the long-term unemployed.

And while all of the GOP candidates have embraced corporate tax cuts as the key to job creation, it turns out that a majority of the Republican voters want to increase corporate taxes by eliminating tax deductions.

Altogether, 70 percent of the public supports eliminating these tax loopholes and 66 percent support increasing tax rates on individuals earning $200,000 or more. As Gallup notes, this is the second survey that shows "the American public broadly support Obama's jobs plan."

But you will never know that if you watch the Factor, because O'Reilly is not reporting it. Instead he spews out the far-right talking points that say a tax increase on the wealthy is bad and wrong. While most of the American people say the exact opposite.

And remember this, O'Reilly is the man who claims to be looking out for the little guy. While doing nothing but looking out for the rich and the corporations.

O'Reilly Calls Majority Of Americans Morons
By: Steve - September 23, 2011 - 9:00am

During the Thursday Factor show, O'Reilly said that anyone who blames Republicans for the economic mess is a moron. Proving one again that he is nothing but a right-wing stooge. Because every poll out there show the majority of people blame Bush and the Republicans for the economic mess more than Obama or the Democrats.

Crazy O'Reilly said this:

Hey O'Reilly, what moron would blame Republicans for the economic mess we have?

Any moron who knows a Republican was President from 2001 to 2009 and can do math. O'Reilly ignores the fact that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected $1.2 trillion in deficit before Obama took office -- based entirely on Bush's actions and economic conditions -- and that wars, policies, and the economic downturn that all began under Bush continue to inflate the debt.

In an October 2010 post on his Reuters blog, Justin Fox, editorial director of the Harvard Business Review Group, analyzed the deficit and concluded that it was "mainly the result of the collapse in tax receipts brought on by the recession." The recession that started under Bush, and went into the Obama years.

In 2001, President George W. Bush inherited a surplus, with projections by the Congressional Budget Office for ever-increasing surpluses, assuming continuation of the good economy and President Bill Clinton's policies. But every year starting in 2002, the budget fell into deficit.

In January 2009, just before President Obama took office, the budget office projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009 and deficits in subsequent years, based on continuing Mr. Bush's policies and the effects of recession.

Mr. Obama's policies in 2009 and 2010, including the stimulus package, added to the deficits in those years but are largely temporary.

The kicker here is that all the polls show the majority of the American people blame Bush and the Republicans for the economic mess more than Obama and the Democrats.

Here is one poll, from August 25th, which is about 2 weeks ago.

A new Poll released by The Asso≠ci≠ated Press/GFK found Amer≠i≠cans placed the blame for the bad econ≠omy squarely on the backs of George Bush and the con≠gres≠sional Repub≠li≠cans.

Under his watch, America went from a surplus to a deficit, mainly because of his trillion dollars in tax cuts, and engaging in two wars.

This is how the numbers from the poll break down:
-- 51% say it's Bush's fault.

-- 44% say Congressional Republicans are to be blame.

-- 36% say it's Congressional Democrats fault.

-- 31% say it's President Obama's fault.
There you go O'Reilly you dumbass, the polls show that almost everyone knows Bush and the Republicans are mostly to blame. And the only moron is you, because the facts are exactly the opposite of what you claim. You are a moron to say only a moron would blame the Republicans.

The Wednesday 9-21-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 22, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The feds and wasteful spending. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: An audit by the Justice Department shows that the federal government was guilty of extravagant and wasteful spending at a number of law enforcement conferences.

At a training conference in 2009, $4,200 was spent on 250 muffins, which adds up to $16 per muffin. I'm sure they were delicious, but the $16 muffin now becomes a symbol of how wasteful the feds are with our tax dollars.

In 2008, two coffee breaks cost the American taxpayer $15,600, which worked out to $52 per person. I have stayed in some of the swankiest hotels on Earth, but I have never seen a $16 muffin. I want to see that muffin and I want to taste that muffin, because I bought the muffin and so did you!

Why should I or you work hard every day so some guy in a suit can have a $16 muffin? I'd like President Obama to address that. America is in desperate financial trouble and I want to help. I'm not taking any Social Security even though I've paid into the fund.

I love my country and I'm not going to let it go bankrupt, but I'm not going to endorse a huge tax increase on anybody until the spending madness stops. Until the feds and the states demand efficiency and cut the crap, I will oppose targeted tax increases.
My God what a cry baby, please shut up O'Reilly and report some real news. You claim to have a hard news show, so prove it. Shut up about the tax increase, you deserve it and you should pay it. In fact, people like you should pay extra taxes, especially you.

Then Ellis Henican was on, who endorsed the President's plan, saying this: "I am happy to join your anti-muffin jihad, but we can not allow that to paralyze us as we try to solve some of the broader problems, one of which is that some people at the very top are not paying their fair share. I refuse to throw up my hands and not resolve some of the larger and more pressing issues. Let's have a debate about how we can make the system fairer."

O'Jerkoff argued that many Democrats are more interested in class warfare than in genuine reform, saying this: "President Obama has never called for a debate to reform the tax code, he wants to gin up revenue so he can buy more muffins. You can not ask hard-working people who make a lot of money to pay more until the feds clean up their act."

Which is ridiculous, it is not class warfare to ask millionaires to pay their fair share of taxes, especially when most of those millionaires agree they are not paying enough. We are in debt and we need to reduce that debt, so the millionaires who have made out like bandits over the last 10 years should help pay down that debt, because the poor sure can not afford to do it. And O'Reilly should shut up about taxes, just pay them fool. If they even pass, which they might not.

Then Dick Morris was on to analyze the GOP contenders, beginning with front-runner Rick Perry. Morris said this: "I expect Perry's lead will shrink after this debate. The big headline will be immigration and you have Perry opposing the border fence and opposing the Arizona immigration law. He's surviving with a conservative Southern base and immigration kills that."

Morris then predicted that Michele Bachmann will remain a force to be reckoned with. Morris also questioned the wisdom of President Obama's "tax the rich" campaign, saying this: "What is so stupid is that he lost whatever momentum he had from his jobs speech. Now nobody thinks he's pushing jobs, they think he just wants to tax the rich. It's not an issue that's going to overcome the jobs issue."

Wow is Morris an idiot, earth to Dick Morris polls show that 74% of the people support raising txes on the rich, and some polls even say 80% support it, so how can Obama be making a mistake promoting something 80% of the people support. My God Morris is a fool.

Then O'Reilly had Chris Wallace on to talk more about the Thursday GOP debate. Wallace said this: "Mitt Romney has been sending out questions to reporters, particularly on Perry's suggestion that you could make the Social Security system a state program. Romney is going to go after him on that and Rick Santorum will go after Perry on Israel."

Wallace also thinks that Michele Bachmann will try hard to distinguish herself, saying this: "She certainly has to become part of the conversation and I think she's going to once again try to find some way to get back to the front tier."

O'Dummy suggested that Mitt Romney may also be a prime target of the other candidates, saying this: "Polls show that Governor Romney is creeping up on Governor Perry, so it might be his turn in the barrel."

Then John Stossel was on to talk about Government jobs, Stossel is skeptical that the Government can create jobs. Proving that he is a far-right loon.

Stossel said this: "Government has no money of its own, it has to take money from the private sector, and we don't know what might have been done with that money. And none of these government jobs are real jobs in the sense that they perpetuate themselves and create other jobs. Only the private sector can do that. In countries that have relatively small governments, you get more job growth - Singapore and Hong Kong have tiny governments and leaving people alone allowed them to move from third world to first world in fifty years."

Then Dennis Miller was on for his weekly segment, that I do not report on because it is not news. It's garbage, and O'Reilly only has him on to make jokes about liberals.

And finally Martha MacCallum was on for did you see that. She screened footage of Bill Clinton saying tax hikes won't solve any problems. MacCallum said this: "He's a pragmatist, and when what he was doing during his presidency wasn't working, he tacked. That's what President Obama is not doing, he has made a decision not to tack."

What she failed to mention is that Clinton does think it is a good idea to raise taxes on the rich, funny how she ignored that, not.

MacCallum also talked about Tony Bennett's accusation that American policies were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, saying this: "He's 85 years old and a World War II veteran, so you want to cut him so slack. He later came out and said he loves America and I think he realizes he went too far. Maybe he had a little bit of a 'senior moment.'"

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

O'Reilly Appearance At Kentucky Center Canceled
By: Steve - September 22, 2011 - 10:00am

Here is some news you will never get from O'Reilly.

LOUISVILLE, KY. (WDRB) -- Bill O'Reilly will not be coming to Louisville next weekend. The Kentucky Center has canceled the talk show host's upcoming appearance originally scheduled for Saturday, October 1st.

A center representative said "sluggish" ticket sales are to blame.

Staff members from the ticket center's box office will call those who have already purchased tickets to arrange refunds.

Now that's funny, the great O'Reilly had to cancel a speaking event because nobody wants to hear his right-wing garbage, and of course he never said a word about it on his lame Fox cable news show.

O'Donnell Slams O'Reilly Over Obama Tax Increase TPM
By: Steve - September 22, 2011 - 9:00am

On the 9-20-11 Lawrence O'Donnell show, the host Lawrence laid into O'Reilly for his dishonest TPM about Obama possible raising his taxes. Here is the transcript:

O'DONNELL: Time for tonight's Rewrite. Bill O'Reilly may have figured out a way to get rid of Bill O'Reilly.

Here's what O'Reilly said last night on his program: "if Barack Obama begins taxing me more than 50 percent, which is very possible, I don't know how much longer I'm going to do this."

OK. First of all, Barack Obama doesn't tax anyone. The power to tax resides exclusively with the Congress. So O'Reilly is lying, of course, when he says that tax rates are up to Barack Obama.

Now, it's true that the president would like to see O'Reilly pay more taxes. The president would like the top tax bracket, the O'Reilly bracket, increased from 35 to 39.6 percent. So what O'Reilly should have said is if the Congress, including the Republican House of Representatives, decides to raise my tax bracket to 39.6 percent, I don't know how much longer I'm going to do this.

But O'Reilly has to lie about everything in that statement in order to make it credible to his audience, whose gullibility he has precisely calculated in the lies he's loaded into that sentence. He knows -- O'Reilly knows his audience doesn't know that tax rates are not up to the president. And he knows his audience doesn't know that no one is proposing an income tax rate of 50 percent.

And he knows his audience doesn't know that Bill O'Reilly very happily started doing "the O`Reilly Factor" and became a multimillionaire when the top tax bracket was 39.6 percent, the bracket he is so fearful of now.

So O'Reilly has actually already proven what he would do if the top tax bracket goes back up to where it was under President Clinton, 39.6 percent. O'Reilly would do "The O'Reilly Factor" every night and get richer and richer and richer.

Beleaguered taxpayer Bill O'Reilly now makes at least 10 million dollars a year from Fox News. He makes millions more in book royalties, speaking fees and selling mugs on his website. So O'Reilly's accountants are probably trying to keep track of much, much more than 10 million a year. I don't know, 20 million a year, 30 million. I don't know. It's huge.

O`Reilly's claim that the "Factor" could be taxed out of existence is based on the Republican article of faith that O'Reilly annunciated this way.


BILL O'REILLY: If you tax achievement, some of the achievers are going to pack it in.


O'DONNELL: This is, of course, not true and has never been true. When our top tax rate was over 90 percent, the rich got richer and none of the achievers packed it in. And in the Clinton years, when the top tax bracket was 4.5 percentage points higher than it is now, the rich got much richer, including Bill O'Reilly.

And none of the achievers, including Bill O'Reilly, packed it in. What O'Reilly was trying to tell his audience last night was that if the federal government allows him to take home only 6.1 million dollars from his Fox News paycheck, instead of 6.5 million dollars from his Fox News paycheck, he might just walk and hand the "Factor" over to Bernie Goldberg or Dick Morris.

He's telling his audience that six million in take home pay might not be enough for him to go to work. Now, in fact, O'Reilly doesn't actually pay 35 percent of his income in federal taxes. No one does. Everyone in that bracket, the top tax bracket, has deductions that bring their effective rates to something lower than 35 percent.

So the numbers I'm using here to estimate O'Reilly's take home pay are very, very conservative. Remember, I'm only talking about his Fox News income, which might be only half of his income. Bill O'Reilly is the highest paid player in cable news.

And no matter how much he complains about how unbearable his life would be if his Fox News take home pay ever dropped closer to the unthinkably low six million, I'm afraid you're never going to get rid of Bill O'Reilly with a tax increase.

O'Reilly Ignores Republicans On Most Corrupt List
By: Steve - September 22, 2011 - 8:00am

On the Tuesday Factor show O'Reilly had his stooge producer ambush Congresswoman Maxine Watters because as he put it she is one of the most corrupt members of Congress.

But as you will see, most of the people on that list are Republicans, including the top 5 worst. And of course O'Reilly has never sent his producer to ambush any of the Republicans on the list.

O'Reilly said that the far left Congresswoman Maxine Waters has turned down repeated requests to appear on the program, so he had the Factor producer Jesse Watters track her down in the corridors of Congress.

Waters kept smiling, but also kept silent as Watters peppered her with questions. Jesse entered the No Spin Zone with some news about the tight-lipped Congresswoman, saying this: "She was named one of the most corrupt members of Congress, by a non-partisan watchdog group. She allegedly orchestrated the Treasury Department's bailout of banks that her husband owned stock in."

What they did not report is that non-partisan watchdog group is called CREW. They named the 19 most corrupt members of Congress, and what O'Reilly also failed to report is that most of them are Republicans. And that only one Senator made the list, who is also a Republican, David Vitter.

Here is the list:
1) Charles Bass R-NH
2) Vern Buchanan - R-FL
3) Stephen Fincher - R-TN
4) Michael Grimm - R-NY
5) Frank Guinta - R-NH
6) Gregory Meeks - D-NY
7) Nich Rahall - D-WV
8) Laura Richardson - D-CA
9) David Rivera - R-FL
10) Hal Rogers - R-KY
11) Jean Schmidt - R-OH
12) David Vitter - R-LA (Senator)
13) Joe Walsh - R-IL
14) Maxine Waters - D-CA
15) Joe Barton - R-TX
16) Shelley Berkley - D-NV
17) Sanford Bishop - D-GA
18) Jeff Denham - R-CA
19) Bernice Johnson - D-TX
As you can see 12 of the 19 worst are Republicans, including the top 5 worst, and yet O'Reilly never sends his producer to ambush any of them.

Not to mention 10 of the top 13 worst are all Republicans, Maxine waters came in at #14, and yet O'Reilly ignored the other 10 Republicans who are all worse than she is. Talk about an example of media bias, this is it.

Hey O'Reilly, when are you going to ambush the Republicans on that list. Try doing your job for once, like that's ever going to happen.

The Tuesday 9-20-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 21, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Why Pres. Obama does not want to solve the economic dilemma. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Reports today say that Greece is about to default on its obligations. Why? Because the government spent so much money it can't possibly pay its debts.

Here in America our government is also spending so much money we can't pay our debts. You would think President Obama's first priority would be to drastically cut spending.

But the President wants a 'balanced' approach to getting the debt under control - revenue 'enhancements' along with a few cuts. President Obama wants us to believe that by taxing the rich he can begin solving our enormous economic problems.

But the government is already taxing the rich - the very few households making more than $1 million per year pay an average of 29% in federal income tax.

And even if Mr. Obama is successful in raising the tax rate on the wealthy, it's not going to get much money. There are only about 230,000 homes bringing in $1 million a year, so this is a class warfare illusion.

What will make a difference is reforming the entire tax code to collect more money, modifying the Medicare and Medicaid systems, and a 10% cut across the board on all government expenditures.

If that would happen, America's economy would soar. If the feds do not cut spending, pass the baklava. Greece is the word, with apologies to Frankie Valli.
Wow, O'Reilly spins so much it is hard to keep track of it all. To begin with he says very few households make more than $1 million per year, then 2 seconds later he admits that 230,000 homes bring in more than $1 million a year. In my world 230,000 is not a few, but in O'Reillyworld it is.

Then he says we are going to turn into Greece, which is not only ridiculous, it's impossible. Because we can print money, Greece can not. O'Reilly is just a joke with his insane 10% across the board cuts nonsense, it will never happen. In fact, the whole talking points memo is a right-wing dream.

Then O'Reilly had Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley on. Crazy Crowley said this: "Here is the flaw in the strategy. The United States is an aspirational society, so even if you are working in a minimum wage job you aspire to the next step. We aspire to be the rich, so the assault on the rich is fundamentally anti-American. But the Democratic Party and this President are committed wealth redistributionists."

Colmes said President Obama has come up with a winning strategy, saying this: "He is not playing class warfare, he's fighting against class warfare on the other side. Republicans are protecting the wealthy and hurting the poor, and polls show that President Obama's ideas are appealing to independents. We should have more spending, more investment, more stimulus."

The Crowley argument does not even make sense, her point is that if you are at a low paying job, one day you might be rich so you should oppose the tax increase for the rich. That is just insane, because the odds of a person making $7.00 an hour at Burger King getting rich some day are probably a million to one. And what does that have to do with taxing the rich more now to help get the deficit under control, nothing.

Then the Republican Ed Rollins was on to talk about Michele Bachmann's campaign crashing. O'Reilly even admitted that her campaign is imploding. Rollins (who works for Bachmann) said this: "The bottom line, is that she's the best candidate in this field. She's very strong on the stump and great at retail politics. This is not over yet - our strategy was always for her to win the Iowa caucuses and my sense is that she'll be very competitive in Iowa. If she wins Iowa, she's still in this race."

Hey folks, look back into my blog archives and you will see that I predicted she would never win the GOP nomination, even though O'Reilly and the so-called experts on his show said she had a chance. I gave her two chances, slim and none. So I was right, and O'Reilly and his stooges were wrong.

Then O'Reilly talked about the Democratic Congressman Mike Quigley of Illinois, who apologized to Muslim Americans "on behalf of this country for discrimination you face." Quigley refused an invitation to justify his apology, so Billy had Ahmed Rehab of the Council on American-Islamic Relations on.

Rehab said this: "There is an uptick of Islamophobic remarks from people in power. One example is pretty much everything that comes out of the mouth of Congressman Allen West, who said Muslims are the enemy. There are people in government and in Congress who make statements that make them anti-Muslim."

What Rehab did not say is that it all comes from Republicans, including O'Reilly. Then O'Reilly tried to say Quigley was wrong, by citing some FBI stat about hate crimes, that has nothing to do with right-wing Congressman and Senators spewing out hate speech against Muslims, it's an apples to oranges comparison and it just made O'Reilly look foolish.

Then the right-wing Mark Steyn was on to talk about what O'Reilly says is the Democratic Party's resistance to cutting government spending, even though Obama has cut spending, and would cut it more along with tax increases.

Steyn said this: "We have basically looted the future to bribe the present, and we are doing it on such a scale that we're unlikely to have a future. Democrats genuinely think that rich guys like you and me and Warren Buffett are somehow keeping all this money in a barn somewhere. But if you're spending $4 trillion every year and only taking in $2 trillion, you can't close that gap - you can tax Buffett and you and me, but you can't close that gap."

Steyn also claims that the United States is even more profligate than Greece, saying this: "In a sense Greece has to be more disciplined than us because Greece doesn't print its own currency, so it can't do 'quantitative easing.' Right now 70% of treasury debt is being bought by the Federal Reserve. In other words, America's left hand is issuing debt to its right hand."

Then is it legal with Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle, they talked about a case involving pharmacist Jeremy Hoven, who was fired by Walgreens after defending himself against two armed robbers. Guilfoyle said this: "There were two gunmen, and one shot at him. So Hoven pulled out his lawful concealed weapon and shot back. But having a gun is against Walgreens policy."

Wiehl contended that Walgreens was within its legal rights to fire the gun-wielding druggist, saying this: "Jeremy Hoven disobeyed the rules. But in my many conversations with Walgreens this week, I kept asking whether they could make a very narrowly tailored exception for this one guy, and they say 'no,' they are not going to do that."

O'Reilly said that Walgreens "should have only suspended him."

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly used his lame producer to attack another Democrat. Congresswoman Maxine Waters has turned down repeated requests to appear on the Factor, so Factor producer Jesse Watters tracked her down in the corridors of Congress. Waters kept smiling, but also kept silent as Watters peppered her with questions. Watters said this: "She was named one of the most corrupt members of Congress, by a non-partisan watchdog group. She allegedly orchestrated the Treasury Department's bailout of banks that her husband owned stock in."

And a Republican is #1 on that list, Charles Bass, but you never see O'Reilly send his producer to attack him. The top 5 are all Republicans, and 80% of the list are Republicans, but O'Reilly never reports that. In fact, O'Reilly never sends his ambush producer to attack any Republicans, ever.

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

O'Reilly Is Spinning The Solyndra Loan Story
By: Steve - September 21, 2011 - 10:00am

O'Reilly wants you to believe that the Solyndra loan scandal is all on Obama, and only Obama. But that is not true, and as expected O'Reilly is only reporting the stuff he wants you to know, not all the facts.

In the rush to cover the bankruptcy of Solyndra, a solar panel manufacturer that received a loan guarantee from the federal government, many news media outlets have misrepresented or omitted key facts. Including O'Reilly, who said the Bush administration shut it down, when no such thing ever happened.

On 9-16-11 O'Reilly said this: "The Bush administration shut it down. And then as soon as the president, the current president, Obama took office they started it up again."

Wrong a-hole. FACT: The same panel of career officials who were with the Government under Obama and Bush approved the loan guarantee. And not only that, in fact it was the Bush administration that selected Solyndra to get the loan.

The Bush Administration Advanced 16 Projects, Including Solyndra, Out Of 143 Submissions.

The Department of Energy's Loan Guarantee Program was created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and expanded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. At a congressional hearing, Jonathan Silver, the Executive Director of Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office, testified that the Bush administration's Department of Energy selected Solyndra from 143 submissions to move forward in the process:
SILVER: The 2006 solicitation resulted in 143 submissions.

The loan program staff and others at the department reviewed those for eligibility, which is a thinner review than the full due diligence, and recommended 16 applications to file a full application.

A dozen did so. Solyndra was one of those. And the department conducted due diligence on all of those 11.
During the final days of the Bush administration, the Department of Energy's loan guarantee credit committee, consisting of career officials, said that although the Solyndra project "appears to have merit," the committee needed more information in several areas before it could recommend approval of a conditional commitment.

The committee "remanded" the loan "without prejudice" for "further development of information."

In March of 2009, "The same credit committee (consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise) approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE's credit review board - political appointees within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee."

In his testimony, DOE's Silver stated that the credit committee that remanded the project during the Bush administration "is also the exact same credit committee that then approved the transaction several months later."

He added that the loan guarantee "didn't close until September and so additional due diligence takes place from the conditional commitment through the close of the loan."

So basically under the Bush administration Solyndra was picked to get the loan, and it was simply approved under Obama after Bush left office. By the same fricking group of people that were working for Bush, so O'Reilly was spinning his ass off when he reported that Obama approved the loan, as if he did something that Bush would not have done.

Not to mention, Obama did not approve the loan, and he had nothing to do with it. The same credit committee that was working for Bush approved it, they simply approved it after Bush left office. Then O'Reilly dishonestly said it was approved by a bunch of Obama liberals, which is just not true.

O'Reilly also wants you to believe it's a big liberal scam with Obama linked to it, when in fact, many Republicans are involved, including Republican investors.

Although Solyndra's biggest private investor was a venture capital fund affiliated with Kaiser, its second largest investor was a fund linked to the Walton family, of Wal-Mart, a major donor to Republicans.

In fact, Solyndra's top brass, its board and its paid lobbyists bring close ties to both political parties.

President and CEO Brian Harrison is a registered Republican. And another venture capital firm, Madrone Capital Partners, which is tied to the GOP-leaning Walton family, was one of 10 firms that helped Solyndra raise about $144 million in November 2008.

In Washington, Victoria Sanville, one of the company's two in-house lobbyists, had previously worked for four House Republicans: Sam Graves of Missouri, Peter Roskam of Illinois, John Sweeney of New York and George Gekas of Pennsylvania.

O'Reilly also never reported why Solyndra went into bankruptcy. A Bloomberg News report noted that Solyndra had "advantages that were more important in 2009 when it received a $535 million U.S. loan guarantee to build a factory" than they are now, noting that the price of the silicon-based panels with which Solyndra was competing "has fallen 46 percent since then."

The article also quoted Julian Hawking of Abound Solar Inc., who stated: "When Solyndra started up it was a completely different time for the industry. Nobody expected the huge drop in polysilicon prices."

And O'Reilly also failed to report that at the time of the loan approval every financial expert said Solyndra was a good company.

On 9-15-11 Time magazine noted that "in addition to government loan guarantees, Solyndra also scored over $1 billion in private capital--including from GOP-friendly investors like the Walton family of Wal-Mart."

In 2010, the Wall Street Journal ranked Solyndra the top clean-tech company with the "capital, executive experience and investor know-how to succeed in an increasingly crowded field." The research firm VentureSource (owned by NewsCorp, which also owns Fox News) calculated the rankings, applying a set of financial criteria to some 350 U.S.-based venture-backed businesses in clean technology.

In February of 2010 MIT's technology review board chose Solyndra as one of the world's 50 most innovative companies. They evaluated companies based on their "business models, strategies for deploying and scaling up its technologies, and the likelihood of success."

And the great journalist (haha, not) Bill O'Reilly never reported any of this, none of it, not a word. In O'Reillyworld it was all Obama's fault, and the big bad liberal cost us $500 million dollars. When in fact the company was selected to get the loan under Bush and approved by the same people that were there when Bush was the President.

Not to mention, the Government will most likely get all the money back, or almost all of it, with interest.

Millionaire Republican Complains About Making 400K A Year
By: Steve - September 21, 2011 - 9:00am

Yes you heard me right, this millionaire Republican Congressman (John Fleming) is crying that after all his expenses and taxes are paid he ONLY has $400,000 dollars left over.

Wow, ONLY $400,000 left over, I wish I had that problem. My Father is lucky to have $4.00 left over after he pays all his monthly expenses.

Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) appeared on MSNBC with Chris Jansing Monday morning to attack President Obama's new deficit reduction plan, which includes some tax increases on the wealthy. Taking up the typical GOP talking point, Fleming said raising taxes on wealthy job creators is a terrible idea that kills jobs because many of these people are small business owners who pay taxes through personal income rates.

Fleming is a businesses owner, so Jansing asked this: "If you have to pay more in taxes, you would get rid of some of those employees?"

Fleming responded by saying that while his businesses made $6.3 million last year, after you "pay 500 employees, you pay rent, you pay equipment, and food," his profits are "a mere fraction of that" -- "by the time I feed my family, I have maybe $400,000 left over."

Jansing pointed out that complaining about tax increases while making $400,000 a year for owing a business that he barely works on is not exactly a sympathetic position.

So Fleming could only respond by saying that "class warfare has never created a job" and that his success is a virtue. But he never answered Jansing's question about whether he would actually be forced to lay off workers if his taxes went up.

Considering that he has $400,000 left over, it seems that Fleming could actually afford to hire more workers and still bring home a respectable pay. The average household income in the U.S. in 2010 was just under $50,000 -- down 2.3 percent from 2009 and lower than it was in 1997.

So how hard does the congressman work to make the equivalent of eight household incomes? Fleming told the Wall Street Journal that he spends very little time on day-to-day management, though he weighs in on broad strategy decisions.

"I monitor the reports. I'm certainly in communication with the managers," he told the paper.

In other words, he does almost nothing, and still clears 400k a year from the business. And that does not even include his salary of almost $175,000 a year for being a Congressman.

And btw folks, in the most recent poll 74% of the people support a tax increase (along with some spending cuts) on the wealthy. Some polls even have it at 80% in support of it. So the vast majority of Americans support raising taxes on the wealthy.

The Monday 9-19-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 20, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Obama's new tax plan: Soak the rich. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It was more of the same from President Obama today - demanding a tax increase on wealthy Americans and corporations to cut the enormous federal debt. Mr. Obama asked why 'somebody who is making $50 million a year' pays a lower rate than someone making $50,000.

Well, Mr. President, I have an answer. You equate the 15% capital gains tax with the federal income tax and that is not fair. The capital gains tax is levied on profits from invested money that has already been taxed. With all due respect, the 'tax the rich' deal is bogus.

And one more thing, Mr. President: In August 2009, you said 'the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in a recession.' The economy is still awful, unemployment is even higher. So why have you changed your mind about a tax increase on the affluent and businesses? If you tax achievement, some of the achievers are going to pack it in.

My corporations employ scores of people, but if Barack Obama begins taxing me more than 50%, I don't know how much longer I'm going to do this. There comes a point when taxation becomes oppressive.

Finally, this 'fair share' garbage has to stop! Taxpayers with incomes above $1 million represent just 0.2% of all tax returns, but pay 21% of all the federal income tax. Fair share, Mr. President? You make the call.
What a joke, to begin with increasing taxes by 3 percent on millionaires would not be soaking them, it would be making them pay their fair share for a change. Second, it is fair to equate pays a cap gains tax to paying a federal income tax, because it'a all a tax, and nobody but O'Reilly is even trying to say it is not a fair comparison.

A tax is a tax, so shut up O'Reilly. And finally, O'Reilly will not pack anything in if Obama gives him a tax increase, he will just make 3 percent less profit, so his talk of packing it in is ridiculous.

Hey O'Reilly, when are you going to explain how the economy boomed after Bill Clinton put a 3 percent tax on millionaires back in 1992, I'll be waiting, jerk.

Then O'Dummy had Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham on to discuss it. Williams said this: "Most Americans agree with President Obama, that the rich should pay their 'fair share.' Under Clinton and others the tax rate was higher, but now you're saying that somehow people who are rich are not going to invest their money in the United States? That's not true!"

And for once Juan was right, and O'Reilly had no answer for what he said.

But of course the right-wing loon Mary K. Ham disagreed and said that Warren Buffett, with his call for higher taxes, is being disingenuous. Ham said this: "Buffett is welcome to pay himself a salary on which he would pay a higher percentage, but he doesn't do that. He takes it in capital gains because he likes the 15% rate. And he can cut a check to the government whenever he likes."

Then another right-wing loon was on, Brit Hume recommended revamping the entire tax code, which will never happen. Hume said this: "Our tax rates could be much lower, at no cost to the federal government if all these exclusions and loopholes were eliminated. We could have lower rates across the board, which would contribute to people wanting to work harder and longer. That would be a huge achievement for the President and Republicans like the idea, but that's not where the President seems to be going. He wants to raise taxes!"

Hume is in fantasyland, just like O'Reilly and Ham. Obama tried to eliminate the loopholes and the right blocked it, idiot.

Then once again O'Dummy slammed those on the far left, saying they are engaging in class warfare: "Among some in the Democratic Party, the prevailing wisdom is that you take from people who have. They believe that's moral and right."

No moron, it's called getting the wealthy to pay their fair share to help the country and to lower the debt. It's not class warfare, you fool.

Then O'Reilly asked Professor Marc Lamont Hill to assess how President Obama has served black Americans. Hill said this: "One central criticism, is that the President hasn't addressed the 'black agenda' in a way that other presidents would have to. If you look at any measure of social prosperity in America we are at the bottom, and if you measure social misery we are at the top. There should be jobs bills that specifically address unemployment in the African American community, and we need to expand early childhood education and mentoring programs."

So then O'Dummy hammered Dr. Hill for offering vague and stale talking points, saying this: "You could not, in the five minutes allotted to you, tell me exactly what the African American community needs to be more prosperous."

What a shocker, O'Reilly does not like anything Obama is doing, or anything the liberal Dr. Hill is saying, shocking, not. Because O'Reilly is a right-wing loon that hates Obama and every liberal in America. While claiming to be a non-partisan Independent, haha, if O'Reilly is a non-partisan Independent I am a far-right Republican.

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing loon Dr. Keith Ablow on, who has come under fire for saying Chaz Bono, the transgendered son of Sonny and Cher, should not have been invited to participate in Dancing With The Stars. Everyone from the APA to Megyn Kelly at Fox News is slamming him for it.

Ablow said this: "Mr. Bono is doing more than dancing, he is on a campaign to mainstream transgenderism. I care about America's kids and we know that people model their behavior after one another. We wouldn't invite people with anorexia to go on fashion shows and talk about how wonderful they feel now that they're thinner. This is an exact parallel and this can kindle people who are having trouble with their identities. This is ill-advised behavior, celebrating it is a mistake and people shouldn't watch."

So then O'Reilly said he was playing devil's advocate, and suggested that families could benefit from watching Chaz perform, saying this: "If Chaz Bono is happy with what he's done, what's wrong? This could be a positive for parents, to discuss this with their children."

And btw Ablow is lying, Chaz is not on a campaign to mainstream transgenderism, he is just trying to get everyone to accept people that do what he did, and that is a good thing. Ablow is a jerk who is lying about it.

Then the right-wing fool O'Reilly had his right-wing loon friend Bernie Goldberg on to cry about a website Obama put on the internet. The Obama reelection campaign's "Attack Watch" website invites folks to report attacks on the President.

And of course Goldberg hated the idea, saying this: "If you ever tried something like this, they'd have to change the name of the show to the 'O'Weenie Factor.' This doesn't exude confidence, it exudes weakness. And it's a charade - you can click a button on the website and make a donation. This is about money."

Goldberg turned to CNN's Fareed Zakaria, who conducted a softball interview with GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt, saying this: "We know Immelt is a presidential adviser, but so is Fareed Zakaria. He advises the President face-to-face on foreign policy matters. So you have two people who are pals of Barack Obama sitting down talking to one another. That's not an interview!"

But of course Goldberg has no problem with the hundred softball interviews Fox News does every day with Republicans, he only has a problem with CNN doing softball interviews.

And finally the last segment was the totally ridiculous Factor Reality Check. That I do not report on, because it has no reality, and almost no checks. It's just O'Reilly by himself giving his biased opinion about something a liberal said. The whole segment is a biased one sided joke.

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

Fox News Refused To Let Gay Republican In Debate
By: Steve - September 20, 2011 - 10:00am

Hey Cavuto, what do you have to say about this jerk.

Longtime Republican consultant Fred Karger, an openly gay contender for the GOP presidential nomination, was denied an opportunity to appear in the Fox News debate last month despite the fact he met their standard for qualification. And it does not look like Fox will include him in its next presidential debate, but Karger said he won't be pushed to the side without a fight.

As ThinkProgress reported, Fox News host Neil Cavuto went on a rant two weeks ago, claiming that one of the biggest scandals of the year has been the so-called mainstream media excluding serious candidates from major debates.

Cavuto's rant, aimed at CNN, contradicted his employer's conduct of denying candidates like former Gov. Buddy Roemer (R-LA) and Karger a spot in its own debate programs.

Last weekend at the California Republican Party convention, Karger said that he was aware of Cavuto's statement, and that he will be releasing a letter that he sent to the Fox parent company News Corp to demand inclusion in the Fox News/Google debate hosted later this week:
KARGER: Well I'm sending a letter out on Monday to Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes. I filed a complaint against Fox News, the executives, because they excluded me from their debate even though I qualified for it.

So, I'm asking again, I have two new polls that are out showing me at 1 percent, which is their threshold they've been using in their other two debates. So I hope to get in and Neil Cavuto is great. I'm hoping other courageous cable broadcasters will speak out against this. There are four of us.

I'm calling us the four musketeers: Thaddeus McCotter, sitting member of Congress, two former governors, Buddy Roemer of Louisiana, Gary Johnson of New Mexico, and myself.

We're all very close in the polls to Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and others who are included in the debate. I'm saying open it up, have all 12 of us in. You'll have diverse opinions, which is what you want to have in a debate.
So as usual Cavuto is caught complaining about something his very own network did, exclude candidates from the debate. But what Fox did is even worse than what CNN or MSNBC did, because Fox violated it's own rules to get into the debate, that you must be polling 1%, which they were, and Fox still denied them from the debate.

Republican Gov. Wants To Rig Electoral Vote
By: Steve - September 20, 2011 - 9:00am

Yes you heard me right, the Republican Gov. of Pennsylvania Tom Corbett wants to rig the states electoral vote so that the Republican wins his state no matter what. This is not only shocking, it's shameful.

President Obama won Pennsylvania by more than 10 percentage points in 2008, and Democrats have won the state in every single presidential election for the last two decades. And in a close election, it is virtually impossible to draw an electoral map that sends a Democrat to the White House without that Democrat winning all of Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes.

So the state's Republican Gov. Tom Corbett has a simple plan -- just give almost half of the state's electoral vote to the Republican presidential candidate:
Gov. Tom Corbett and state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi are proposing that the state divide up its Electoral College votes according to which candidates carried each Congressional district, plus two votes for the statewide winner.

Had this proposed system been in place in 2008, when Obama won the state by a ten-point margin, he in fact would have only taken 11 out of the state's 21 electoral votes at the time -- due to a combination of past Republican-led redistricting efforts to maximize their district strength, and Obama's votes being especially concentrated within urban areas.
Now let me be clear, I think the Electoral College is a bad system. It has, on three occasions, allowed the loser of the popular vote to enter the White House. It forces presidential candidates to pander to swing states and ignore the needs of the vast majority of the nation. And without the Electoral College, Al Gore would have succeeded Bill Clinton.

If the entire nation were to adopt Corbett's plan of doling out electoral votes by congressional district, it would eliminate many of the problems caused by our current system.

But when a major blue state's Republican leadership adopts this kind of reform piecemeal, it is nothing less than an attempt to rig the election. One hundred percent of Texas electoral votes will still go to the Republican, but that same Republican will be guaranteed a share of Pennsylvania's historically blue electors under Corbett's plan.

This would be very wrong, and if the electoral college system is ever killed, which I hope will be, it should be done on a uniform basis covering all 50 states the same way, not just the states Republicans want to use to win the election.

Corbett's electoral giveaway to the GOP is basically part of a plan of a nationwide GOP strategy to steal democracy away from the American people.

For example: Numerous GOP state legislatures rammed through voter ID laws, which disenfranchise thousands of elderly, disabled, and low-income voters. Other states have erected new barriers to voter registration or reduced early voting opportunities -- both of which make it more difficult for working class Americans to vote.

At a time when we should be making it easier to vote, not harder, Republicans are trying to make it so that only Republicans win elections. And this is no accident, it's a national plan. Here is another example.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) gutted his state's public financing system for candidates to pay for a voter disenfranchisement law. A 5-4 Supreme Court decision just declared laws enabling publicly financed candidates to defend themselves against unlimited corporate attack ads unconstitutional.

Because in Republican America, We the People can elect anyone we want, as long as they are a Republican.

And of course if you watch the Factor for your news you would not know about any of this, because O'Reilly ignores it all. Mostly because he likes what the Republicans are doing and he does not want to bring any attention to the issue.

O'Reilly is helping them keep it as secret as possible because he is a Republican himself, and he wants Republicans to win all the elections, no matter how they do it, because in his mind Republicans are better for the country.

House Republicans Reject Obama Jobs Bill
By: Steve - September 19, 2011 - 10:00am

What a shocker, not. House Republicans rejected President Obama's week-old jobs plan, including about $240 billion in payroll tax cuts. In a memo to their caucus, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), and other leaders dismissed the bill's largest spending and tax cutting portions, leaving little of the bill intact.

In the memo, the Republican leaders explained their concerns on the tax:
There may be significant unforeseen downsides to large temporary tax cuts immediately followed by large tax increases.

Compounding this negative effect is the scheduled increase in all individual tax rates, capital gain and dividend rates, and the elimination/reduction of various individual credits and deductions.

In short, we are creating significant new uncertainty in an already uncertain economy.
Which is just a bunch of bull, the real reason they rejected it is because it would stimulate the economy and create jobs, which would make Obama look good, and the Republicans are opposed to that because it might get him re-elected in 2012.

Republicans finally found a tax cut they didn't like in the payroll tax holiday. What's unusual about the payroll tax, which funds Social Security, is that cutting it almost entirely affects middle and working class people.

Because the tax only applies to the first roughly $100,000 a person earns, so someone who makes $200,000 or $300,000 gets the same tax cut as someone making $100,000.

It's clear that Republicans are witholding the tax cut as a bargaining chip, as "Boehner said he is willing to negotiate on extending payroll tax cuts."

While a payroll tax holiday is one of the few types of tax cuts that do actually stimulate the economy, precisely because they mostly affect working and middle class people, who actually need the money and will spend it right away.

As Travis Waldron from ThinkProgress points out, the rejection of the infrastructure portion of the plan flies in the face of support GOP leaders have offered for new construction.

Real Doctors Says Fox's Ablow Is A Partisan Quack
By: Steve - September 19, 2011 - 9:00am

Before I show you how the so-called Fox News medical expert Dr. Keith Ablow is a biased and partisan hack of a fool, think about this, Fox News hired this jerk, and they continue to employ him even after he has said some crazy unproven garbage.

That alone tells you what Fox News is all about, reporting biased and dishonest partisan propaganda, not the facts as a real news network would put out. And the fact that they have not fired this Quack, says a lot about them and how they operate.

The Fox News so-called "Medical A-Team" expert Dr. Keith Ablow has repeatedly used his Fox platform to launch unscientific and prejudicial attacks on Chaz Bono and his appearance on Dancing With the Stars.

But the president of the American Psychiatric Association and one of its specialists in gender identity have rebutted Ablow's attacks, calling them "opinions, scare tactics, and inflammatory language." Even the Republican Fox anchor Megyn Kelly said Ablow was wrong, and she slammed him for it.

The so-called doctor wrote a column on September 2nd, headlined "Don't Let Your Kids Watch Chaz Bono On 'Dancing With the Stars.'"

In that column Ablow said this:
It is a toxic and unnecessary byproduct of the tragic celebration of transgender surgery that millions of young people who do watch "Dancing with the Stars" will have to ponder this question:

Maybe my problems really stem from the fact that I'm a girl inside a boy's body (or a boy inside a girls body). Maybe I'm not a tomboy; I'm just a boy! Maybe I'm not just being bullied because I'm a sensitive, reflective young man interested in flowers, not football.

Maybe I'm not just uncertain about my sexuality. Maybe I'm a girl! Maybe all this angst and suffering I'm feeling as I emerge into puberty and pass through it isn't just because I'm changing, but because I should change completely -- and have my breasts removed or my penis amputated!

By broadcasting, applauding and mainstreaming the journey of a very disordered person who endured, and likely will continue to endure, real suffering based on extraordinarily deep psychological problems, we suggest that that journey is a smart -- even heroic -- one to take.
On a Fox News show with David Asman the lunatic Ablow even Compared Bono's Participation In Dancing With The Stars to The Participation of a Person Who Intentionally Cut Off His Legs.
ABLOW: Human beings have their behavior kindled. They model their behavior on others. And listen, if we had somebody who couldn't walk on Dancing With the Stars, I'd applaud, unless you told me, "Hey, by the way, do you know he cut off his own legs?" Then I'm not applauding.
Which is just crazy, this guy needs to be locked up in a padded room not giving expert medical advice on a so-called news network.

And now some reality: Real medical experts have said Keith Ablow is factually wrong. From a post by Dr. Jack Drescher, who is a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association and a member of the DSM-5 Workgroup on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders," responding to Ablow's September 2 column:
Dr. Ablow apparently believes that watching a transman dance with a woman might cause somebody's confused child to become trans. I suppose some people still believe watching "Will and Grace" made kids gay.

Although this "monkey see, monkey do" warning might come across as common sense advice, this is another instance where "common sense" does not square with science.

While science has yet to explain what causes gender dysphoria, as my colleague, APA President, Dr. John Oldham affirms, "There is no evidence that viewing a television game show with a transgender contestant would induce Gender Identity Disorder in young people."

Yet without much scientific evidence, Dr. Ablow asserts, "By broadcasting, applauding and mainstreaming the journey of a very disordered person who endured, and likely will continue to endure, real suffering based on extraordinarily deep psychological problems, we suggest that that journey is a smart -- even heroic -- one to take."

Wouldn't it be more helpful to offer scientific data rather than sensationalized, detailed descriptions of sex reassignment surgery or metaphors about double amputees to support the views Dr. Ablow "believes to be true?"

Dr. Ablow is within his rights to express personal opinions about transgender people. However, as a psychiatrist speaking in a public forum, his audience is entitled to accurate scientific knowledge of a complex subject rather than opinions, scare tactics and inflammatory language.

Dr. Ablow, seeing Chaz Bono's life as a tragedy, wants others to agree and his "prescription" is scaring people away from tuning in and seeing for themselves. Yet parents should not be afraid to learn something new. Tuning out uncomfortable information and maintaining silence only makes children (who cannot be shielded from this information in the modern age) more anxious. Children sensing parental anxiety become anxious as well.
John M. Oldham, M.D. -- The President of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) said this:
Chaz Bono dancing the Cha Cha on TV ... in front of your kids ... will NOT make them want to have a sex change -- at least according to the American Psychiatric Association.

In a recent article, psychiatrist and former talk show host Dr. Keith Ablow suggested kids could develop Gender Identity Disorder (GID) just from watching Chaz on "Dancing With the Stars."

Oldham acknowledges GID is a psychiatric disorder ... but also told TMZ, "There is no evidence that viewing a television game show with a transgender contestant would induce Gender Identity Disorder in young people."
In closing, the so-called Dr. Ablow is a fool and a quack, and if you believe anything this moron says you are just as dumb and misinformed as he is.

O'Reilly & Dobbs Called Gore A Liar With No Evidence
By: Steve - September 18, 2011 - 10:00am

If you watch the Factor as much as I do (every night for 12 years now) you know that O'Reilly has said a million times that he never reports anything he can not prove. And you should also know that O'Reilly is a liar when he says that, because he reports speculation with no evidence to back up his claims all the time. But only when it involves a Democrat.

And last week he did it again with his good right-wing buddy Lou Dobbs. O'Reilly had on Lou Dobbs on to accuse former Vice President Al Gore of lying when he says he does not personally profit from investments in green ventures.

But Dobbs offered no evidence to support the claim, and this is just the latest example of Fox's effort to smear Al Gore over his renewable energy and climate change advocacy.

During a recent segment on The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly misrepresented congressional testimony given by Gore to suggest that he had lied when he said he did not profit from his climate-related ventures.

As I pointed out at the time, when asked about profiting from his investments through the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins related to renewable energy and climate change mitigation during an April 24, 2009, congressional testimony, Gore stated that "every penny that I have made, I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge."

He later added that "every penny from the movie, from the book, from any investments in renewable energy has gone to the non-profit."

That's pretty clear to me, and yet O'Reilly, Kelly, and Dobbs, not to mention all of Fox News, keep saying Gore is a liar, with no proof or evidence to back up their claims.

That smear by O'Reilly and Kelly came just days after Laura Ingraham, while guest hosting the Factor, aired a dishonestly edited version of Gore's testimony that cropped out his statements that he donated the money he made from his investments.

Fox News even promoted the segment on "Gore's green money," asking: "Is Al making tons of cash off global warming fears?"

Then last week, O'Reilly returned to the same old dishonest claims, although they still have no evidence that Gore is lying. Not to mention, who cares if he is making money from it, that is what America is all about right? At least that is what O'Reilly says, but somehow he has a problem if Gore makes money from a valid business.

While discussing Gore's firm last week, Generation Investment Management, O'Reilly said this: "Now Gore won't say how much money -- and some people say it's a hundred million dollars that he's made off these green investments -- he won't say it, but he does say that every profit -- all the profit -- he reinvests into green energy. That's what he says."

He then asked Dobbs: "Do you believe him?"

Dobbs replied with this: "No, but then again I'm a little skeptical of any of those kinds of claims because one thing we do know, the man's family estate came from dirty nasty fossil fuel -- much of it. We do know that this vice president has not actually been examined closely by the national liberal press for some reason. His personal finances remain untouched."

Maybe because he is a private citizen and it's none of our business Lou, did you ever think of that jerk.

Dobbs then provided no evidence to back up his claim that Gore isn't telling the truth. It appears just to be just a gut feeling from Dobbs. And this is all from O'Reilly and his buddy, who claim to only report the facts. Then they speculate their ass of that Gore is a liar, with no evidence at all, none, nada, zip, zilch.

Issa Will Not Investigate News Corp Over Hacking Charges
By: Steve - September 18, 2011 - 9:00am

Last week, Oversight Committee Ranking Member Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) along with other members of his panel called on Oversight chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) to probe News Corporation over allegations that the company broke the Foreign Corrupt Practices Law and may have even hacked the phones of victims of the 9/11 tragedy.

Then Tuesday on Fox News, Issa responded to those calls by claiming that the Justice Department is investigating the matter so he doesnít need to, that it is not his responsibility to look into an issue that occurred in another country, and that the most inappropriate course of action would be picking on the media.

Yes he really said that, he is saying he will not investigate News Corp because he does not want to be seen as picking on the media. Which is just laughable, because these guys call for investigations of the media all the time, when it's the NY Times, or MSNBC, now all the sudden they don't want to pick on the media, haha, give me a break.

Issa even told Bret Baier that he never goes after the media, which is a flat out lie. He said this on Fox:
ISSA: Well, thank you for being fair and balanced. This is being looked at by the Justice Department. This is being looked at by the Senate, and we're keeping and eye on it.

But at the same time, this is a story about a unit in another country, and we want to make sure we don't enter the ground that is most inappropriate for us, which is we don't start picking on media whether they're the left or the right just because we can.
Issa's claims are laughable for several reasons. First, just because the Justice Department is already probing an issue never precludes the House Oversight Committee, charged with investigating matters in the interest of the American people, from conducting its own inquiry.

Second, the 9/11 victims allegedly hacked by News Corp employees was not a foreign matter, as Issa said on Fox News. According to reports, the victims were living in the United States -- making the concern all the more important for the Oversight Committee. And the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which News Corp allegedly broke by bribing British police, makes the matter a concern of American authorities.

News Corp is also embroiled in another hacking scandal, one involving its American marketing division and its domestic competitors.

Finally, Issa says he would not want to investigate the many criminal accusations against News Corp because the company consists of media outlets, and Congress should never be picking on the media.

Now the reality, Issa used his taxpayer-funded media team to harass the New York Times with largely empty charges of inaccuracy. News Corp has aided in the campaign, airing segments attacking the Times for criticizing Issa. So he has picked on the media, many many times.

The view that media outlets are above the law led to a crime spree in the UK. Politicians, under pressure from News Corp and threats of smear campaigns by its many newspapers, refused to take on the company as News Corp's tabloids continued to recklessly hack celebrities, dead children, and political adversaries alike.

Given News Corpís growing control over American media, scrutiny over serious accusations of hacking is all the more important. And just last year during an interview concerning a separate News Corp issue, Issa suggested that he trusts News Corp because he personally knows Rupert Murdoch.

The Friday 9-16-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 17, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Economic fear could doom Obama's reelection. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Jimmy Carter believes President Obama will win reelection next year, even though he seems to understand that Mr. Obama is in big trouble and says Republicans are 'reluctant to give him any support.' That's true - there are some Republicans who simply are not going to cooperate with President Obama because they want him out of the White House.

But what Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama do not understand is that it's no longer about Congress or pundits or the media; the presidential election of 2012 is about the folks. Many Americans feel insecure and an insecure nation is not going to reelect its leadership. Americans have a legitimate fear that government is simply out of control, spending the nation into bankruptcy and failing to fix economic problems.

That fear is real and it's a present danger. If the Republican challenger presents economic solutions to the nation, it's hard to see how Mr. Obama can succeed because of his economic track record. American voters are angry, frustrated and scared. Jimmy Carter faced that back in 1980, and you can look up what happened to him.
And I agree with Jimmy Cater, mostly because I think the people will remember what Bush did to the country when he was the President, so they will vote for Obama and give him 4 more years to fix the economy, the economy Bush screwed up btw. I also think Obama will be re-elected because the polls show that the people still blame Bush and the Republicans for the mess we are in, more than they do Obama and the Democrats. Unlike O'Reilly and the right who want you to forget what Bush and the Republicans did, the people still remember.

Then O'Reilly had Karl Rove on to talk about Obama, and of course Rove predicted defeat, saying this: "At this exact point in 1995, Bill Clinton had a 47% approval rating on the economy, and at the same point in 2003, Bush had a 45% approval on the economy. President Obama has a 33% approval rating on the economy and no president has ever been reelected with numbers this low. These are dismal numbers because the economy is dismal, and the numbers are not going to improve until the economy improves."

Rove also claimed that President Obama could wind up paying a political price for his administration's extension of loan guarantees to the now-bankrupt solar energy company Solyndra, saying this: "It will haunt him if the White House put its thumb on the scale of this thing. This is not a policy question, it's a question of rewarding a company whose major benefactor is a bundler for President Obama."

And I think that by the time the election is here the Solyndra situation will be a distant memory and nobody will even care. It's all about the economy and jobs, if the economy is improving and we are adding a good amount of jobs every month Obama will be re-elected.

Then O'Reilly had Tom Friedman on to discuss the economy. Friedman said this: "My argument has been that we can't stimulate our way out of this, the only thing we can do is invent our way out of this. We need startups, not bailouts, and my focus is on how we get more people starting companies - that's where jobs come from. We need to cut spending, we need to raise revenue, and we need to invest in the traditional pillars of our success."

O'Reilly disagreed with one of Friedman's prescriptions, that we increase education funding, saying this: "We spend an average of $10,300 on every public school student each year, an enormous amount of money. You say we need more, but I say we don't need more - the problem is bad parenting. These students are falling behind because their parents are lazy and derelict."

Then O'Reilly had Linda Chavez on to talk about what she calls reverse racism at a college. Chavez said this: "We believe in color-blind equal opportunity, and that you shouldn't be discriminated on the basis of your skin color. But we found that at the University of Wisconsin race plays a huge role in deciding who gets in. Blacks and Hispanics are favored, whites and Asians are un-favored. If you are black, you are 576 times more likely to be admitted than a white or Asian with the same grades and scores."

Chavez described the scene when her group held a press conference to announce its findings, saying this: "More than 100 students forced their way in, knocked employees to the ground and stopped the proceedings from taking place."

The Factor challenged UW administrators to debate the issue, saying this: "We've contacted these University of Wisconsin people, but they'll run and hide. It's the same con game - we're going to do what we want and admit who we want, and if you don't like it we're going to shout you down."

Then Geraldo was on to talk about a General and his testimony to Congress. Geraldo said this: "A company called LightSquared, got expedited approval to build a brand new nationwide 4G phone network because the company is owned by a Democratic fundraiser. General Shelton, who was extremely critical of the plan for technological reasons, was attempted to be silenced by the White House. Shelton says that if this system is put into place it will drown out GPS systems and the military won't be able to pinpoint targets."

Then O'Reilly had Lou Dobbs on for another segment (the 4th one of the week) on the solar energy company Solyndra, which went belly-up despite receiving more than $500 billion in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy. Dobbs said this: "One of the top officials in the Obama administration, tried to blame the Bush administration, even though the record is absolutely clear that the Bush administration tried to forestall any action at all with Solyndra. The investigation is underway and $525 million is up in smoke."

What a joke, this is partisan politics all the way, yes it is somewhat of a scandal, but O'Reilly is blowing it way out of proportion. No way does it deserve to be talked about every single night. And if this happened under Bush O'Reilly would not have reported it at all. But since it happened under Obama he has done segments on it 4 fricking nights in a row, which he has never ever done with a Republican scandal.

And finally the dumbest things of the week with Arthel Neville and Greg Gutfeld. Neville cited the two Los Angeles women who put a serious beat down on a guy dressed in a SpongeBob costume. "That was a real fight. The women got annoyed because the guy in the SpongeBob costume was taunting them." Really? Who cares, and what's really the dumbest thing of the week is this entire segment.

Gutfeld went with actor Ashton Kutcher, who bared all on the season premiere of Ellen DeGeneres' talk show. "When all else fails take off your clothes. But this is refreshing because I'd rather have Ashton Kutcher be naked than spout political beliefs."

O'Reilly picked the New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, who advised fans to "start drinking early" this weekend, but then O'Dummy changed his mind and said this: "He's just making a joke. Brady's a good guy and he's not irresponsible."

So it was a joke, and O'Reilly picks Brady for dumbest thing of the week, even though he knew he was joking, then he says Brady is a good guy and that he knew it was a joke. Wow, O'Reilly is a fricking idiot.

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

Crazy O'Reilly Claims Taxes Are Strangling The Economy
By: Steve - September 17, 2011 - 10:00am

Folks, this is how crazy O'Reilly is, he claims taxes are strangling the economy, at a time when tax rates are at historic lows. Which proves two things, that O'Reilly is a liar, and that he is a right-wing nut.

O'Reilly claimed that rampant taxation is "strangling the U.S. economy." But the total U.S. tax burden is "at the lowest level since 1958," and the economy and employment grew at high levels under the Clinton administration, when federal income taxes were higher.

On the September 14th O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly claimed that Americans "take-home pay is being gutted by the rampant taxation" and concluded, "That's what's strangling the U.S. economy. ... Punishing taxation is bleeding us." From the show:
O'REILLY: Now, the Obama administration says it will continue the payroll tax cut for working Americans, while it wants to increase the income tax rate on the affluent and corporations. But all Americans are being battered by a variety of hidden taxes.

Here is the grim news: in New York state, where I live, not only do we pay a federal income tax, but also a state income tax, and in places like New York City, a local income tax as well.

New York gasoline tax, 45 cents a gallon, the highest in the nation. Cigarette tax, $2.75 a pack. Sales tax collections average about $1,700 per New Yorker. That includes Baby Huey. $1,700 for every man, woman and child living in the state -- sales tax.

Property tax, close to $2,000 per person. Toll revenue, $86 a person. New driver's license cost you $80. Cell phone tax and fees, 23 percent of your bill every month.

The list goes on and on and on. I'm exhausted. I can't even list anymore.

So you can see if you're a working person in New York or California or New Jersey or Massachusetts or most other states, your take-home pay is being gutted by the rampant taxation. That's what's strangling the U.S. economy. Consumers can't buy stuff without incurring even more debt.

Punishing taxation is bleeding us. And these taxes continue to go up because the states and cities are bankrupt. Why are they bankrupt? Because of pensions, health care costs, corruption, and general irresponsibility with our tax dollars.
Now think about this folks, The Total Tax Burden is "At The Lowest Level Since 1958," And Federal Taxes are at Historically Low Levels.

In a May 5 article, USA Today reported this:
Americans are paying the smallest share of their income for taxes since 1958, a reflection of tax cuts and a weak economy, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

The total tax burden -- for all federal, state and local taxes -- dropped to 23.6% of income in the first quarter, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data.

By contrast, individuals spent roughly 27% of income on taxes in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s -- a rate that would mean $500 billion of extra taxes annually today, one-third of the estimated $1.5 trillion federal deficit this year.

USA TODAY examined the full range of taxes that individuals pay to all levels of government. That includes income taxes for Medicare, property taxes for schools and gas taxes for roads.

At the national average, a person with an income of $100,000 would pay $23,600 in taxes today vs. $28,700 in 2000 and $27,300 in 1990.
A report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) on April 15 found that "middle-income Americans are now paying federal taxes at or near historically low levels."

Bruce Bartlett, former adviser to President Reagan and Treasury Department economist under George H.W. Bush, wrote in a May 31 post on the New York Times blog Economix: "The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget."

The Associated Press reported on April 14, 2010, "You wouldn't know it by the Tax Day rhetoric, but Americans are paying lower taxes this year, even with increases passed by many states to balance their budgets."

In a July 6 post, PolitiFact fact-checked President Obama's claims about economic growth and taxes during the Clinton administration. While PolitiFact said that Obama went too far by "suggesting raising taxes created job growth," it also found that most economists agreed that higher tax rates under Clinton "did not appear to hinder job growth."

In a May 13 post on CBPP's blog Off the Charts, economist Chad Stone wrote this: "Speaker Boehner also repeats the Republican shibboleth that raising taxes is the enemy of growth. That's what they said in 1993 when President Clinton and a Democratic Congress -- with no Republican votes -- enacted a tax increase on top earners.

As the chart shows, job creation and economic growth were significantly stronger in the recovery following the Clinton tax increase than they were following the 2001 Bush tax cut. And the Clinton policies produced a balanced budget."

A March 26, 2009, CBPP report noted that "under the Clinton Administration, when the tax treatment of high-income families was very similar to what President Obama has proposed [ending Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000], small businesses generated jobs at twice the rate as under the Bush tax code."

And now you have the facts, notice what O'Reilly did not report. All the facts about what happened during the Clinton years. And he also ignored the fact that taz rates are at historic lows, especially for the wealthy. And yet, O'Reilly wants taxes lowered even more.

Proving that O'Reilly is nothing but a right-wing spin master, who is lying to you.

Anti-Abortion Loons Target Clinic Landlords Daughter
By: Steve - September 17, 2011 - 9:00am

Now get this, these right-wing loons not only protested the abortion clinic, they went after the guy and his daughter who own the land the clinic is on.

Anti-abortion activists who have been trying to shut down an abortion clinic in Maryland took on a new and unusual target at a protest this week: the sixth grade daughter of the man who simply owns the office park where the clinic is located.

On Monday, the first day of school, protesters stood at the entrance of Robert Frost Middle School with graphic posters of aborted fetuses.

Some also held banners with the landlord's picture, his full name, his phone number and the words "Please STOP the Child Killing."

The landlord was understandably furious, as his daughter shares his last name and could be connected with him through the posters:
Anti-abortion activists who have sought for months to shut down a Germantown clinic picketed its landlord outside a Montgomery County middle school where his daughter is a student, school and police officials said Monday.

A small group of protesters stood outside Robert Frost Middle School in Rockville on Thursday, holding signs and a banner, during back-to-school night, officials said.

The student's father, who did not want to be named to protect the safety of his daughter, a sixth-grader at the school, said he saw the five protesters when he went to the school event.
Yes they went to the school where the landlord's daughter goes to protest abortion, they targeted a 6th grader at her school, now that is ridiculous and pathetic.

The man owns the property where Dr. LeRoy Carhart is one of the few doctors in the country openly performing late-term abortions. He has been working in Maryland since Nebraska banned abortions after 20 weeks. Anti-abortion protesters have been demonstrating at the clinic since December.

On Monday, school security officials and local police worked together to try to keep protesters away from students. Nevertheless, two protesters holding anti-abortion posters stood for about an hour at the school's entrance.

The landlord said he had to explain the situation to his daughter and son, who is a freshman at a nearby high school. He has also been under assault from another anti-abortion group that launched a campaign last week trying to pressure him to cancel the clinic's lease.

And let me remind people that abortion is legal, so the man has every right to lease the property to the clinic.

"It's horribly outrageous that they're going out in front of a middle school," he said.

"It is way past crossing the line. I very much respect the right of the protesters to do so in front of the clinic, or the steps of Capitol Hill, or the courthouse. But in front of a middle school is really not an appropriate place."

Montgomery County schools spokeswoman Lesli Maxwell added, "The idea that a group of protesters would target a school because the child of someone they are targeting attends the school ... is fairly despicable."

Unfortunately, targeting people only slightly related to abortion clinics has become a new favorite tactic of activists determined to shut down operations. In California, anti-abortion protesters recently forced a Planned Parenthood clinic to move by bullying Enterprise-Rent-A-Car into reneging on its contract to provide the center with the parking spots it needs to satisfy local zoning regulations.

And of course the great so-called journalist O'Reilly never said a word about any of it, hell he probably supports what they did because he is a right-wing anti-abortion nut too.

The Thursday 9-15-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 16, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The 'green economy' boondoggle. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: America would be a stronger country if we had 'green' energy and if we get away from fossil fuels. The problem is that alternative energy doesn't yet exist on a mass level and the Obama administration has wasted billions of dollars trying to create 'green jobs.'

We've been reporting on the Solyndra scandal, whereby a solar panel company in California received $527 million in federal loans and has gone bankrupt. But here's something even worse: The Department of Energy reports that nearly $20 billion in loan guarantees have been extended to a variety of 'green' companies.

The total permanent job creation: 3,545 jobs, which averages out to more than $5 million for every new permanent job! The United States is broke; we don't have billions of dollars to speculate on iffy products. China doesn't have entitlements to pay and can pour all the money it wants into research and development.

The Obama administration has spent lavishly and has run up record debt. That has to stop, even if we have to live with fossil fuels for another decade. I love 'green energy,' but it is not ready for prime time. The President should wise up.
What an idiot, hey O'Reilly it's one company out of thousands. Notice that O'Reilly has reported on Solyndra three nights in a row. But when a Republican has a problem with something he ignores it and does not say a word about it. Yes it looks bad for Solyndra, but the money has to be spent because it has to start sometime. The Republicans sure will not spend it. So stop smearing all the green companies because ONE of them went bankrupt.

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing religious nut Ralph Reed and Kathy Areu on to talk more about Rick Perry. Areu said this: This week Perry talked about the "Christian values that this country was based upon." "Evangelicals and born-agains are the ones who come out to the primaries, so for the short term, pandering to this group is the way to go. But when you come to the bigger elections the independents are the ones who are going to count and you're not going to get them singing this tune."

Reed applauded Perry for speaking candidly about his faith, saying this: "It's a statement of genuine authenticity, he's clearly speaking from his heart and he isn't attacking anyone else's faith. This was a very positive and spiritual expression of his own faith journey."

Then the genius O'Reilly said that Perry is taking a political risk: "I think Mr. Perry is sincere, but by saying America should be run on 'Christian values' you're narrowing things down. People who aren't Christian will say the president is supposed to represent everybody."

Wow, tell us something we dont already know O'Reilly. And as usual O'Reilly has still not said a word about Perry saying he would let God fix the mess the country has. O'Reilly ignores that from Perry because he knows it would kill any chance he has to beat Obama if he win the GOP nomination.

Then O'Reilly had Laura Ingraham on, and of course she gave a ringing endorsement of Governor Rick Perry's public embrace of Christian values, saying this: "He is not known to the rest of the country, and he has to lay down his marker. He is saying this is who I am, this is what I believe."

Ingraham then analyzed a CNN poll indicating that Americans endorse President Obama's jobs bill by a margin of 43% to 35%, with the remainder undecided. Ingraham said this: "The 43% are his base, the people who will definitely vote for him. But when we look at the nitty-gritty of this plan, there could be $800 billion in new taxes, which is a lot more than we were hearing before. So the more we hear about that, the less popular it's going to get."

Then O'Dummy had Liz Cheney on. O'Dummy pressed her on the Iraq war and her father's pre-war prediction that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators. Cheney said this nonsense: "That actually did happen. We were greeted as liberators and then we saw a massive, bloody insurgency begin. It wasn't until 2006 and the surge that we were able to turn things around."

But even the Bush/Cheney ass kissing O'Reilly disagreed, saying this: "We weren't greeted as liberators, we were greeted in a tentative way. The statue of Saddam came down, but you know how many people were out there when it came down? A couple of hundred. And then the armories were looted, the terrorists went in and took all of Saddam Hussein's arms because our government wasn't expecting that."

Cheney vigorously defended the actions her father and President Bush took in Iraq, saying this: "We now have a democracy in the heart of the Middle East that is not supporting terrorists. It is not perfect, but it is a huge accomplishment of the Bush administration that we liberated all those people."

So Billy concluded with this: "I don't expect you and your father to agree with me, but the blood and treasure the United States spent in Iraq has now come back to our country in a very negative way."

Wow, for once O'Reilly told the truth, it's a miracle. Except he is a massive hypocrite about it because he supported the Iraq war 100%, and to this day still defends the torture Bush and Cheney approved.

Then the culture warriors Margaret Hoover & Gretchen Carlson were on to talk about Kansas abortionist George Tiller, who was murdered in 2009 by Scott Roeder, who is serving a life sentence. State authorities are now investigating Tiller's former associate Dr. Ann Kristin Neuhaus and may revoke her license.

Carlson said this: "In order to perform late term abortions, Tiller needed a second opinion and got it from Neuhaus. But she may have used 'mental health' as a diagnosis that maybe wasn't true. That's the allegation."

Hoover suggested that Neuhaus did not break any laws, saying this: "The law clearly stated that if two doctors concur that you have some sort of mental health issue, the abortion was legal. Everything she did was entirely legal and she did not rubber stamp every case."

But of course O'Dummy disagreed with Hoover, and said he predicts this: "Her license is going to be revoked because some of her diagnoses were questionable at best." And now remember this, O'Reilly is a pro-life wacko who hated Dr. Tiller and even repeatedly called him Tiller The Baby Killer. So he is hardly non-partisan on the issue.

Then O'Reilly had Megyn Kelly on to talk about her confrontation with the insane Dr. Keith Ablow. While "America Live" on Wednesday, Megyn Kelly got into a verbal shootout with psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow, who argues that transgendered Chaz Bono doesn't belong on "Dancing With The Stars."

Kelly outlined her objection to Ablow's stance, saying this: "He put out a warning to parents, that if they let their children watch Chaz Bono it could be dangerous because they might decide they're transgendered too. He called it toxic and unnecessary and tragic to celebrate Chaz Bono's transgendered status. There is no scientific evidence to back that up and experts in the field say Ablow is way off base."

And btw folks, this Dr. Ablow is a good friend of Glenn Beck and pretty much agrees with almost everything Beck says. That alone tells you all you need to know about Ablow, that he is a nut. And think about this, Fox News pays him to be one of their medical experts.

And finally the last segment had Dagen McDowell & Martha MacCallum on for the stupid Factor news quiz. That I do not report on because it's a total waste of tv time on a so-called hard news show.

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

Romney Hypocrisy On Obama Foreign Policy
By: Steve - September 16, 2011 - 10:00am

On the Tuesday night Factor show Republican candidate Mitt Romney slammed Obama on his foreign policy. On international issues, Romney said that Barack Obama's failures in that regard were more staggering than his domestic failures. O'Reilly then defended the President on the UBL killing, the drone program and keeping many of Bush's anti-terror policies in place, but Romney criticized the President for missing an opportunity to stop a nuclear Iran.

Which is kind of funny, because on the campaign trail Romney barely mentions foreign policy himself, and his website has nothing about Iraq or Afghanistan, zero, nada.

And exactly how should Obama have stopped Iran, go to war with them? How? Romney has no answers, just empty rhetoric. And O'Reilly did not ask Romney what he would do to stop Iran, even though Billy said Democrats who attacked Bush for things he had done must have a different plan before they can slam him for what he did.

In fact, none of the GOP candidates talk about Iraq. Ron Paul (R-TX) was the only candidate to mention the Iraq war in the last two debates. A Washington Post editorial said that the lack of discussion on these issues isn't limited to the debates.

"The Post writes, "the words Afghanistan and Iraq do not appear on the issue pages of the campaign Web sites of candidates Mitt Romney, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann. And that the apparent lack of concern for this topic of vital national interest is matched only by the incoherence in positions displayed when the candidates have been questioned on the subject."

So Romney is basically attacking Obama over someting he himself says nothing about, and has nothing on his website on it. Making him a massive hypocrite, not to mention O'Reilly never asked Romney what he would do different from what Obama has done.

Crazy Rand Paul Says POOR Are Getting Rich
By: Steve - September 16, 2011 - 9:00am

To begin with, it is impossible to be poor and also be getting rich at the same time, so the statement alone is insane.

Not to mention new Census data revealed Tuesday that a record 46.2 million Americans were living in poverty in 2010. But in an aptly-timed hearing entitled "Is Poverty A Death Sentence," Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) flat out rejected the idea that poverty in the U.S is worrisome.

As the Ranking Member of the Senate Health subcommittee, Paul offered a statement on how the correlation between poverty and death is only found in the Third World and to claim such a connection within the U.S. is nothing more than socialism and tyranny.

Stating that poor children today are healthier than middle-class adults a generation ago, he even blamed the poor for their own health problems, suggesting behavioral factors like a higher incidence of smoking, obesity, or weak family support structures as the only correlation between poverty and health.

Citing the deficit as a primary priority, Paul questioned whether federal low-income programs are creating unnecessary and unhealthy dependence on government. He unequivocally declared that poverty is not a state of permanence and that the rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting richer even faster:
PAUL: We also need to understand that poverty is not a state of permanence. When you look at people in the bottom 5th of the economic ladder -- those at the bottom -- only 5 percent are there after 16 years.

People move up, the American dream does exist. The rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting richer even faster.
First of all, then notion that the poor are getting richer faster than the rich requires an impressive level of ignorance. Currently, income inequality in the United States is greater than that of Pakistan and Ethiopia and higher than at any other time since the Great Depression. Thanks to low tax rates, the rich are getting richer, with the richest one percent earning nearly 25 percent of the total income in the country.

Nearly one in three middle-class Americans is slipping down the income ladder as an adult. And with stagnant wages and the purchasing power of the minimum wage at a 51-year low, it's hard to see how suddenly the poor are getting richer faster.

What's more, Paul's overwhelming deluge of pseudo-evidence to downplay the connection between poverty and poor health cannot shake incontrovertible facts. As the American Journal of Public Health found, deaths resulting from poverty, income inequality, and low social support each totaled more than homicide deaths in 2000.

Paul's claim that Americans now have a greater life expectancy still doesn't change the fact that low-income individuals can expect to live a shorter life due to poverty. In fact, a report released at the hearing noted that this is the first time in our history that children born in certain parts of the United States can expect to live shorter lives than their parents generation.

In closing, Rand Paul is a total right-wing idiot. And he wonders why the right get such a bad name, because of ridiculous statements like the POOR are getting richer.

The Wednesday 9-14-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 15, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called: Poverty and taxes in America. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A new report from the Census Bureau says 15% of American families now live below the poverty line...but that stat is misleading because most Americans are in debt.

While the median income is about $50,000 in the USA, the amount of money we owe can't be covered by salaries, especially because of the tax situation...Consumers can't buy stuff without incurring more debt.

Punishing taxation is bleeding us. And these taxes continue to go up because the states and cities are bankrupt. Why are they bankrupt? Because of pensions, health care costs, corruption and general irresponsibility with our tax dollars.

The politicians have built a society dependent on government and now our freedom is being eroded because of that."
Here we go again, O'Reilly the multi-millionaire is crying again about taxes. My God man, shut up already. Taxes on you and people like you are too low, which is one of the reasons we are so much in debt. If I were the President I would raise your taxes 20%, just to punish you for being such a cry baby about taxes.

And how in the hell is our freedom is being eroded by putting legal taxes on people to pay for Government services. That may be the dumbest thing O'Reilly has ever said, and that is saying a lot. Especially when those taxes are too fricking low.

Then O'Dummy had Dennis Kneale, and Nomi Prins on to discuss it. Prins argued the biggest problem with the economy is that not enough revenue is coming into the states because the housing market got crushed and corporations aren't paying their effective share of taxes. Then O'Dummy countered that going after corporations will only make the economy worse.

The Republican Dennis Kneale of course agreed with O'Dummy that Americans are being strangled by taxes. He said this: "Since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty, we've sunk almost $12 trillion into anti-poverty programs. A war is supposed to have a beginning and an end."

Then O'Reilly once again made the case for a 2% across-the-board consumption tax, but neither guest would support that idea, because it give the wealthy even more of a tax break they they get now. O'Reilly is just a right-wing idiot on this, and no matter how many people tell him it's a dumb idea he keeps talking about it. Shut up already, nobody likes it and it will never happen.

Then the moron Dick Morris was on to talk about a new poll that shows Rick Perry could be in trouble. O'Reilly said that while California is in bad economic shape, Obama will still carry the state in 2012. But Morris cautioned him not to underestimate how many people are abandoning Obama. As evidence, he pointed to the fact that the President only jumped one point in the polls after his major jobs address. "The country is tuning out."

Morris also said certain GOP candidates, without naming names, still have the ability to drive people back to the incumbent. He sees Rick Perry getting himself into deeper trouble with each passing debate, citing the notion that independents, old people, the Christian right and immigration people all may be turning against him.

Then O'Reilly had Brian Ross on to talk about the Solyndra investigation. Ross said this: "It goes right to the door of the White House. New emails that came out today at a Congressional hearing reveal the pressure put on people at the White House to move on the timing, the pushback from budget analysts saying we're getting rushed here. I was stunned to learn today that earlier this year the White House became aware that the company was about to go bankrupt."

Ross claimed the government then restructured the loan so private investors would receive any money left over from the bankruptcy before taxpayers.

O'Reilly asked where the buck stops, if it goes all the way up to the office of the President or whether his underlings are really responsible. Ross said this: "The loan was put on hold by the Bush administration on January 9, 2009, and then six days after the new administration took office, it was back on a fast track."

Okay, so they made a loan to a company that went bankrupt. How is that the fault of Obama, he was not running the company and he did not bankrupt it. This whole thing is political, and if a Republican President was in office O'Reilly would not even report on it.

Then Tonya Reiman was on for the ridiculous body language segment, which I do not report on because it is not news, it's just mumbo jumbo from a right-wing blonde bimbo that O'Reilly only has on to get ratings.

Then O'Reilly had Dennis Miller on for his weekly unfunny segment where he does bad jokes about liberals, which I do not report on. Except to say this, on the Factor website O'Reilly has this for the segment title with Miller:
Why does the left hate America?
Earth to Bill O'Jerkoff, the left does not hate America you lying piece of garbage. We love America, and that is a fact. You disagree with something someone on the left says so then you claim it shows EVERYONE on the left hates America. Which is just insane, and you are a total idiot.

What we hate are right-wing idiots like you and the right-wing policies you support that have bankrupted the country. What we also hate is rich people and the corporations paying too little in taxes so it leaves the working man to pay more, the little guy you claim to look out for. Which is also laughable, because you only look out for the Republicans, the wealthy, and the corporations, and that is a fact pal.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Juliet Huddy on for did you see that. She said it was high tension on "The View" when conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck faced off against liberal filmmaker Michael Moore, who claimed Usama bin Laden deserved to be tried in the USA. So then Juliet Huddy called Michael Moore a waste of time. She said his notion that we're a flawed country for taking out al Qaeda guys with drones and shooting UBL makes him completely irrational. "He drones on like the teacher in the Peanuts."

If he is a waste of time why do you right-wing idiots keep talking about everything he does. If he was a waste of time you jerks would not even mention his name. And btw, why dont you leave him alone and do some real reporting, instead of this waste of time did you see that garbage. Clean your own house up before you slam someone for the mess they have in their house.

Then they talked about the MTV program "Teen Mom." One of its stars, 19-year-old Jenelle Evans, got into a fight, which was caught on videotape. She was arrested and convicted on a misdemeanor affray charge. After explaining the story, Juliet complained that the show glamorizes pregnant teens whose lives are going to hell.

Okay, so why should we care. It's a tv show, if you do not like it do not watch it. I could care less what they do on a tv show, especially when it's not news. This is garbage, just like this segment. Stop the tabloid garbage O'Reilly, dump this segment and report some real news idiot.

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

O'Reilly: Social Security Close To Being A Ponzi Scheme
By: Steve - September 15, 2011 - 11:00am

On the Tuesday Factor show crazy O'Reilly said this about social security, which is direct from the GOP talking points btw, talking points he said he never uses:

And that my friends is nothing but right-wing lies from O'Reilly and all his Republican friends, not only is social security not a ponzi scheme, it's not even close.

In fact, experts agree that Social Security's "structure, logic, and mode of operation have nothing in common with Ponzi schemes."

The experts say that people who call social security a ponzi scheme are very wrong. From a January 2009 post by Social Security Administration historian Larry DeWitt:
In contrast to a Ponzi scheme, dependent upon an unsustainable progression, a common financial arrangement is the so-called "pay-as-you-go" system. Some private pension systems, as well as Social Security, have used this design.

A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end.

Social Security is and always has been either a "pay-as-you-go" system or one that was partially advance-funded. Its structure, logic, and mode of operation have nothing in common with Ponzi schemes or chain letters or pyramid schemes.
Former BusinessWeek Chief Economist: "On A Fundamental Level," People Who Call Social Security A Ponzi Scheme "Are Very Wrong."

From a CNNMoney piece headlined "Social Security a Ponzi Scheme? No way" by Boston University professor Mitchell Zuckoff, who wrote a book about ponzi schemes.
It's hard to knock down such a persistent and seemingly elegant analogy. But since it creates a false impression of Social Security, and since I for one consider real Ponzi schemes too important and interesting to obfuscate, it's worth rebutting this myth.

First, in the case of Social Security, no one is being misled. Social Security is exactly what it claims to be: A mandatory transfer payment system under which current workers are taxed on their incomes to pay benefits, with no promises of huge returns.
I could go on and on, but you get the picture. It's clear that social security in not a ponzi scheme, and that the only people who say it is are right-wing stooges, including O'Reilly, who claims to be a non-partisan Independent while spewing out every right-wing talking point the GOP puts out.

Coke, Pot, & Interracial One Night Stands For Palin
By: Steve - September 15, 2011 - 10:00am

I normally do not report this tabloid garbage, but since it is about the massive right-wing hypocrite Sarah Palin I will make an exception this time.

In a new book called "The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin" Joe McGinniss reports how Palin had a one night stand with a black NBA star, how she snorted coke off a 55-gallon oil drum, and how she smoked weed with her professor at Mat-Su College when she was an undergrad.

The book says Palin allegedly slept with future NBA star Rice when he was a University of Michigan student playing at the Great Alaska Shootout.

The one-night stand supposedly happened in Palin's sister Molly's dorm room at the University of Alaska. Palin was a TV sports reporter at the time. And married. "I remember Sarah feeling pretty good that she'd been with a black basketball star," a source told the National Enquirer, according to The Daily Mail.

The National Enquirer also reported that Glen Rice confirmed the affair to McGinniss.

The book also says that Palin snorted coke off a 55-gallon oil drum while she and Todd were on a snowmobiling trip with their friends. He also reports that Palin's husband Todd was a frequent cocaine user.

And The Daily Mail says Palin had an affair with Todd's snowmobile dealership business partner, Brad Hanson, for six months, according to the book. But both Palin and Hanson have denied the claim, as you would expect them to.

The Daily Beast's Andrew Sullivan says McGinniss sent advance copies of the book to three people: Garry Trudeau, Rosanne Cash, and Sullivan himself.

Trudeau is using the book as fodder for his cartoon, "Doonesbury." The first book-based strip says Gary Wheeler, who was head of Palin's personal security, complains that Palin didn't want her detail around because she didn't want people to know she spent a lot of time shopping.

"You know what she was? A housewife who happened to be governor. I'd fly cross-country with her many times and she'd spend the whole trip looking at People magazine."

And guess what, in a shocking turn of events Fox News has totally ignored this entire story, especially O'Reilly who loves him some Sarah Palin. They have not said a word because she is a Republican who works for Fox.

New Census Report Shows An Increase In Poverty
By: Steve - September 15, 2011 - 9:00am

So what does Fox News do, spin it to claim the poor are getting richer, and that the poor in America face little hardship because they own such great things like TV's and microwaves.

The conservative media (mostly Fox) are using the announcement that poverty increased to return to their allegation that the poor in America don't have it so bad because they own appliances. In fact, poverty affects Americans in profound ways, such as their health, education, and housing.

From a New York Times article on the new Census Bureau report:
Another 2.6 million people slipped into poverty in the United States last year, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday, and the number of Americans living below the official poverty line, 46.2 million people, was the highest number in the 52 years the bureau has been publishing figures on it.

And in new signs of distress among the middle class, median household incomes fell last year to levels last seen in 1997.

Economists pointed to a telling statistic: It was the first time since the Great Depression that median household income, adjusted for inflation, had not risen over such a long period, said Lawrence Katz, an economics professor at Harvard.
So the right-wing Heritage Foundation comes out with their own report to counter the Census report, and of course then Fox News used it to claim the poor in America have it made.

The Heritage Foundation paints a dramatically different portrait of poverty in America than the popular conception of stark deprivation -- hungry people wearing rags and living in cars or boxes.

Using the same Census Bureau data, Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield looked into the actual living conditions of America's official poor.

And here are some of the startling steretype-shattering things they discovered:
During the year 4% of the poor became temporarily homeless. Forty percent live in apartments, less than 10% in mobile homes or trailers and about 50% live in standard one-family homes. In fact, 42% own their own home.

Ninety two percent of poor households have a microwave.

One-third of poor households have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV, 70% have a VCR and two-thirds have satellite/cable TV, the same proportion as own at least one DVD player.

Half of the povery households have a personal computer and one-in-seven have two or more.
Now a serious person would follow this up with a discussion of relative prices. Over the past 50 years, televisions have gotten a lot cheaper and college has gotten a lot more expensive. Consequently, even a low income person can reliably obtain a level of television-based entertainment that would blow the mind of a millionaire from 1961.

At the same time, if you're looking to live in a safe neighborhood with good public schools in a metropolitan area with decent job opportunities you're going to find that this is quite expensive. Health care has become incredibly expensive.

In closing, it's ridiculous to say the poor are getting richer, or to say the poor have it good simply because they own a tv or a microwave. Especially when those products are fairly cheap now, could have been bought used real cheap, and if was bought new, they most likely got it on a monthly credit payment plan like a credit card.

O'Reilly Slams Paul Krugman Over 9-11 Op-Ed
By: Steve - September 14, 2011 - 11:30am

To begin with, O'Reilly did what he complains that other journalists do to him, take a partial quote out of context and use it to smear someone. In this case O'Reilly did the very same thing to Professor Paul Krugman. Not to mention Professor Krugman is an opinion journalist who writes for the opinion page at the NY Times. But O'Reilly attacked him anyway, while saying you should not attack the opinion journalists at Fox for giving their opinions. It's hypocrisy, and a double standard from O'Reilly.

Here is what O'Reilly wrote in his talking points memo:
O'REILLY: Back home some far-left pundits continue to blame America for the chaos in countries like Pakistan and Somalia. That's right, you pinheads. It's our fault that Pakistan is one of the poorest countries on Earth and their citizens continue to kill each other for absolutely no reason. Yeah, it's America's fault.

Also, some poisonous 9/11 rhetoric was on display. Far-left radical Paul Krugman, a columnist for The New York Times, wrote this on The Times blog:

"What happened after 9/11 ... was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it."

Mr. Krugman is truly a misguided individual, and I do not take anything he says seriously. He's angry because his liberal economic policies have failed dismally and the president he reveres is in deep trouble. So Krugman is acting out, insulting his country on the anniversary of 9/11. That is truly despicable.
Notice how O'Reilly used a partial quote, out of context, then misrepresented what Professor Krugman was saying. I did, and it's pathetic for O'Reilly to do that when he claims about other journalists that do it.

Now here is ALL of what Professor Krugman wrote, not just a partial quote:
KRUGMAN: The Years of Shame
Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?

Actually, I don't think it's me, and it's not really that odd.

What happened after 9/11 -- and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not -- was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits -- people who should have understood very well what was happening -- took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.
Professor Krugman is right, and what he is saying is that people on the right have used 9-11 for political reasons, and in the case of Bush, used it to go to war in Iraq. Now tell me what Professor Krugman is saying that is wrong, because I can not find it.

O'Reilly pulled his usual tricks, he used a partial quote to smear a liberal and cover for the right and Bush, when even he knows in his heart that Professor Krugman is correct. O'Reilly went ahead and did a smear job on Krugman because he dared to tell the truth about what some on the right and Bush were doing with 9-11.

This is a right-wing hit job on the liberal Professor Krugman, plain and simple, just because he dared to say the truth.

The Tuesday 9-13-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 14, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Perry under attack at the GOP debate. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: With the Texas Governor leading in the polls, his Republican competitors really let him have it at last night's debate...On the issue of Social Security, he's essentially correct. The federal government has taken funds earmarked for that program and spent them on other things, they've been doing it for decades.

The problem for Perry is that the program is still salvageable...On the issue of mandating Texas schoolgirls to be vaccinated against the HPV virus, which can cause cervical cancer, Mr. Perry admits he made a mistake. His executive order oversteps his authority...On the issue of illegal immigration, Mr. Perry does have problems.

Because there are millions of Hispanic voters in Texas, Mr. Perry doesn't want to alienate them, thus he opposed the border fence, which is absolutely necessary...Texas also offers in-state tuition for illegal alien students. That costs the state about $40 million a year. That's unfair to taxpayers.

In the end, you the folks will decide whether Gov. Perry is the strongest candidate against President Obama. He stood tall last night but took an awful lot of fire.
And as usual O'Reilly has still not said one word about all the crazy things Perry has said about social security and medicare being unconstitutional, or the fact that he once said he would let God fix the mess we have if he were elected President. O'Reilly ignores all that because it makes Perry look like a nut, and O'Reilly does not want to discuss it because he is a fellow Republican that hopes Perry beats Obama if he wins the GOP nomination in 2012.

And what's really funny is that O'Reilly complains about the media giving Obama the kid gloves treatment because they are mostly Democrats. While he does the very same thing to Perry, Romney, Bachmann, and all the other GOP candidates. O'Reilly is giving them all the kid gloves treatment because he is a Republican who wants to see one of them beat Obama in 2012. Which makes him a massive hypocrite, and a biased right-wing hack of a pretend journalist.

So then O'Reilly had Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley on, Colmes said that Mitt Romney won the debate because Gov. Perry had some trouble handling all the issues that came up. Crowley declined to feel sorry for Rick Perry, despite the gang-up, saying this: "I don't care if you're Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Rick Perry or Mitt Romney, you don't get into the game unless you have a very thick skin or you develop it really fast. And if you can't stand the heat of the campaign, you have no business being president."

Crowley also claimed that all the heat is great for Rick Perry because it's forcing him to work through his positions and become a better candidate. O'Reilly said he wants to change the rules of debates to narrow the field and make it less tedious for viewers: "On the first debate, you can't participate unless you're polling 10%; second debate, 12%; third debate, 15%."

Which would make Cavuto mad because he wants everone in the debate, no matter what they poll. Cavuto even claims the left-wing media is biased by not letting everyone in the debate, but even O'Reilly disagrees and says they should not let everyone in the debates.

Then John Stossel was on to talk about the Solyndra solar panel company that went bankrupt, despite the fact that more than $500 million taxpayer dollars and federal loan guarantees floated to the company from the Department of Energy.

Stossel discussed the FBI investigation into Solydra, which is headquartered in Fremont, California and called it "hubris" for the federal government to be deciding where to invest our money. But O'Reilly wondered if the federal government is in fact obligated to invest in energy independence, which will help the nation in the long run. Stossel disagreed, standing by free market principles.

Then O'Reilly said this: "I hope the FBI's going to get to the bottom of this. I think there is corruption in this. With $500 million floating around, it doesn't make any sense that a company would go out of business that fast with that kind of cash floating in."

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to discuss the Muslim man in Oklahoma who sued the state to stop its ban on Sharia law and other international law in deciding court cases. The case is now being heard by an appeals court in Denver.

Wiehl said it was a violation of religion to single out Sharia law. Guilfoyle countered with this: "Last time I checked this was the United States of America. We have our Constitution. Nowhere does it say that Sharia law or any other international law is binding or should have preference in a court."

Then O'Reilly talked about the ACLU opposition to the Obama administration's drone program. The ACLU lost a lawsuit where the civil liberties organization was asking the federal government for more information on the program. Both legal analysts concurred that the ACLU's true motives were simply to make the U.S. look bad on the international stage.

Then they discussed how Walgreen's fired a pharmacist in Michigan who defended himself during an armed robbery. He has a license to carry a gun and exchanged fire with the robber. The Factor and the legal team both asked Walgreen's to hire the man back since he only fired after the man fired on him.

Then O'Reilly had Kenneth Davis on to talk about a new book he has out, about the FBI, Hoover, Jackie O, JFK, etc.

Then Mitt Romney was on. Billy said a new Rasmussen poll pitting GOP contender Mitt Romney against President Obama shows the former Massachusetts governor with an edge: 43% to 40%.

Romney claimed the gang-up against Rick Perry was not pre-planned by the rest of the candidates, saying this: "Rick is new on the stage and gets a chance to explain his views and if he does that well, why he'll continue to have strong support, and if he doesn't, why he'll lose it."

O'Reilly asked if there was any bad blood between Romney and Perry over the Olympics planning committee back in the day. Gov. Romney denied the charge, saying this: "We're big guys. We understand that every now and then we're going to step on each other's toes. Look at us, we're all going after one another, but when this is over, we'll all come together and support whoever the nominee is."

On international issues, Mitt Romney said that Barack Obama's failures in that regard were more staggering than his domestic failures. O'Reilly defended the President on the Bin Laden killing, the drone program and keeping many of Bush's anti-terror policies in place, but Romney criticized the President for missing an opportunity to stop a nuclear Iran.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had the far-right Charles Krauthammer on. Krauthammer said this: "I found it interesting that Mitt Romney used his time to talk about foreign affairs. He could easily have gone for the hanging curve ball on the economy, unemployment, etc. That's his wheelhouse."

On health care, Krauthammer said Romney will be off the hook in terms of Romney-care criticism if Obama-care ends up getting overturned by the courts prior to the 2012 election.

On Rick Perry's debate performance Krauthammer said this: "He didn't do well. That was his second debate, if he doesn't improve, he's going to suffer a lot."

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

More Proof Fox Straight News Anchors Are Biased
By: Steve - September 14, 2011 - 10:00am

O'Reilly and all the other Fox News opinion shows predictably bashed President Obama's jobs plan after it was introduced during a joint session of Congress Thursday night.

But O'Reilly claims their straight news anchors do not have any bias, when they do, making a mockery of Fox's claim that there is a distinction between its news and opinion programming, Fox's so-called "straight news" shows picked up right where its opinion shows left off.

During an interview with Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) on Friday's edition of America's Newsroom, the so-called "straight news" anchor Martha MacCallum attacked Obama's jobs plan as unlikely to succeed claiming that the "original stimulus plan ... didn't work, as evidenced by the employment numbers and every other indication in the economy that we've seen."

Even though the claim that the stimulus failed is a right-wing talking point myth that economists have debunked, that still hasn't stopped Fox from pushing the bogus claim.

Then after America's Newsroom, Chris Wallace, the host of Fox News Sunday, repeated the myth that the stimulus failed, saying that the part of the plan calling for increased infrastructure spending "sounded like 'Son of Stimulus,' like we were back to the future in February of 2009, and it just hasn't worked."

He later added this: "You know, you look at the results of the stimulus from 2009 where they promised it would keep unemployment under 8 percent and we haven't been -- you know, we've been over 8 percent for the last 28 months."

Except the stimulus did work, it was meant to provide a temporary bump for the economy and keep us out of a depression, the only part of the stimulus that did not do what it was supposed to was keep unemployment under 8 percent.

And the only reason that did not come true is because the economy was worse than Obama thought, Bush did not tell him how bad it really was, once Obama took office he saw how bad it really was, but they had already made the 8 percent unemployment rate promise.

Shortly after Wallace made his remarks, MacCallum again bashed the plan, this time suggesting that what the economy really needs is renegotiation of union contracts.

MacCallum said this: "A lot of the union membership out there has been very supportive of a lot of more conservative ideas. The union leadership has fought tenaciously to hold onto its political position, even though the membership in this country is down to something like 7 percent of American workers that are in unions."

She later added this: "It is simple math in terms of many of these contracts that have been promised that simply cannot be fulfilled in so many cases for unions. So we need to go back to the drawing board in a lot of those cases."

If that is straight news reporting with no bias, I'm Elvis. It's the same old right-wing talking points, the stimulus failed and the unions must be busted. And it's coming from the so-called straight news anchors at Fox, not just the opinion show anchors.

It's a fact that Fox News routinely blurs the line between its so-called straight news and their opinion programs. Which is just one more example of the obvious efforts at Fox to make Obama look bad with right-wing lies and talking points.

Cap Gains Rates Simply Make The Rich Richer
By: Steve - September 14, 2011 - 9:00am

The Washington Post reports that low capital gains tax rates are fueling the gap between rich Americans and everyone else. Capital gains disproportionately benefit the ultra-wealth and are capped at 15 percent, which means "most of the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do." And some Democratic lawmakers are targeting those rates as a key way to reduce the deficit.

For the very richest Americans, low tax rates on capital gains are better than any Christmas gift. As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do. And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically.

The rates on capital gains -- which include profits from the sale of stocks, bonds and real estate -- should be a key point in negotiations over how to shrink the budget deficit, some lawmakers say.

"This is something that should be on the table," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), one of 12 members on the congressional supercommittee tasked with reducing the deficit. "There's no strong economic rationale for the huge gap that exists now between the rate for wages and the rate for capital gains."

Advocates for a low capital gains rate say it spurs more investment in the U.S. economy, benefiting all Americans. But most tax experts say the evidence for that theory is murky at best. What is clear is that the capital gains tax rate disproportionately benefits the ultra-wealthy.

Most Americans depend on wages and salaries for their income, which is subject to a graduated tax so the big earners pay higher percentages. The capital gains tax turns that idea on its head, capping the rate at 15 percent for long-term investments. As a result, anyone making more than $34,500 a year in wages and salary is taxed at a higher rate than a billionaire is taxed on untold millions in capital gains.

While it's true that many middle-class Americans own stocks or bonds, they tend to stash them in tax-sheltered retirement accounts, where the capital gains rate does not apply.

By contrast, the richest Americans reap huge benefits. Over the past 20 years, more than 80 percent of the capital gains income realized in the United States has gone to 5 percent of the people; about half of all the capital gains have gone to the wealthiest 0.1 percent.

"The way you get rich in this world is not by working hard," said Marty Sullivan, an economist and a contributing editor to Tax Analysts. "It's by owning large amounts of assets and having those things appreciate in value."

Republicans have led the way in pressing for low capital gains tax rates, but they have been able to rely on a significant bloc of Democratic allies to prevent an increase and to protect the preferential treatment of money earned through investments over money earned through labor.

Regardless of the economic political arguments, the steady cutting of the capital gains tax rate reflects the political power of the rich, who are more likely to contribute to politicians and benefit from the work of lobbyists. In other words, inequality of wealth can lead to inequality of representation.

"Capital gains taxes are actually pretty foreign to the experience of most voters," said Jacob Hacker, political science professor at Yale University and co-author of the book "Winner-Take-All Politics."

"These are things that are only a concern for those who itemize [their tax returns], which most Americans don't."

The 400 richest taxpayers in 2008 counted 60 percent of their income in the form of capital gains and 8 percent from salary and wages. The rest of the country reported 5 percent in capital gains and 72 percent in salary.

The result, Hacker says, is that the lobbying winds up being lopsided, too. "The amount of lobbying that takes place on tax policy from the deep-pocketed interests that have the most at stake is enormous," Hacker said. "There's very little representation on the other side."

"Don't forget," he added, "that members of Congress themselves, particularly senators, are well off and they're more likely to be sympathetic to the argument for low capital gains."

The Monday 9-12-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 13, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Controversy continues over 9/11. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Last week I didn't do much analysis on the ten-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks because it's a very emotional issue for me. Close friends lost family members and the neighborhood in which I live suffered scores of casualties. But now some radical Muslims and radical-left Americans are insulting the memory of those lost on 9/11.

In London a bunch of Muslim extremists protested and burned the American flag. We should not dismiss those crazy extremists even though they do not speak for the majority of Muslims around the world. Back home, some poisonous rhetoric was on display. Far-left radical Paul Krugman, a columnist for the New York Times, wrote this: 'The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame.'

Mr. Krugman is truly a misguided individual and I don't take anything he says seriously. He's angry because his liberal economic policies have failed dismally and the President he reveres is in deep trouble. And then there's former Times reporter Chris Hedges, who accused the U.S. of 'brutality and triumphalism.'

I'm pointing this out because some of their more moderate confederates don't condemn these statements. The Times actually pays Krugman to spout this stuff. Calling America a terrorist nation for aggressively defending itself is provocative in the extreme. All clear-thinking Americans should condemn it.
And that is what I like to call right-wing spin, O'Reilly hates Professor Krugman simply because he is a liberal so he takes any chance he can to slam him, even though Krugman is right.

Then O'Dummy had Leslie Marshall and Dick Harpootlian on to discuss it. Harpootlian said this: "What they said is wrong, and I think their perspective on this is almost bitter. But the voice of the Democratic Party is far more moderate than you give it credit for."

Marshall disagreed and was unwilling to denounce the so-called anti-American statements, saying this: "Although I don't believe we're a nation of terrorists, I do believe that 9/11 had both a uniting and a dividing effect. I don't agree with 100% of their opinions and some of what they said is misguided, but I don't condemn a person's right in the United States to be angry at their nation."

Then O'Reilly slammed Marshall, saying this: "I'm surprised that you're not condemning this rhetoric that puts Americans in the position of being terrorists. I'm not ashamed of our reaction after 9/11."

Then Brit Hume was on to talk about the Obama jobs bill. And of course no Democratic guest was on for the balance. Hume called the $400-billion-plus spending bill economically indefensible, saying this: "President Obama probably believes, that this burst of extra spending will get cash in the economy and produce some jobs. But has any economy ever been subjected to more peacetime 'stimulus' than this one has over the past couple of years?

There's been a trillion dollars of spending and an enormous injection of liquidity by the Federal Reserve, and it's almost universally regarded by the public as a failure. Now comes the President with another proposed stimulus and I don't think the Republicans face any political danger by not passing it."

Which is just insane, because most economists said the stimulus did work. Hume and his right-wing friends keep lying that it did not work to hurt Obama politically, in the hopes that someday someone will believe them.

Then Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham were on to talk about Rick Perry's surge in the Republican race, and the big drop of Michele Bachmann. Williams said this: "Perry has knocked her out of the box, and she's a non-factor. He is so confident in his positions that I think many in the Tea Party believe he will do a better job of fighting Barack Obama. They see him as capable of bringing the fire."

Ham said this: "His record in Texas is a boon to him. Conservatives see him and say, 'He's like me, he's a Tea Party guy,' and he's also got the executive experience and a track record of raising money. Republicans believe Perry is the more electable candidate."

Then for some crazy reason O'Reilly had Glenn Beck on, who has just launched his new Internet venture GBTV. Beck said this: "What I'm going to do, is inform you about what's coming next so you can call me crazy for six months, then when it happens you'll say, 'So who knew?' GBTV is for people who say, 'Now what, what do we do with this information?'"

Turning to politics, Beck expressed a general lack of enthusiasm for the Republican field, saying this: "I like Michele Bachmann and I like Rick Perry, but Mitt Romney doesn't understand what a Ponzi scheme is because clearly Social Security is a Ponzi scheme."

And clearly Glenn Beck is a far-right nut, because it is not a Ponzi scheme, and only crazy right-wing idiots believe that. In fact, O'Reilly was crazy just to have this loon on his show again. He probably just did it so Beck could promote his lame Internet scam he has going.

Then O'Reilly cried about The Today Show's Ann Curry, who presented viewers with a puff piece about Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his daily routine. Billy asked Bernie Goldberg to critique the segment.

Goldberg said this: "I'll give you two theories. One is that she gave him a Valentine story hoping to win over the regime and get a real interview. If that's the case, fine. The second possibility is that it's just crummy journalism. Here we have an American journalist portraying Ahmadinejad as 'Mr. Nice Guy,' and neither you nor I would want our name on a piece like that."

So then O'Dummy laid out Ahmadinejad's history of treachery, saying this: "People have to understand that Ahmadinejad and the Iranians have killed thousands of Americans - they've fostered terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world. This is a guy who will go down in history as one of the world's greatest villains."

Earth to O'Reilly and Goldberg, mind your own BUSINESS. Stop worrying about what other journalists are doing and do your job, idiots. Nobody cares what you or Goldberg think of the piece Ann Curry did, so get a clue and worry about what you are doing.

And finally the so-called Factor reality check, that I do not report on. But I will say this much, O'Reilly had a check last night, saying this: The Factor offered some pithy advice to anyone considering a new car purchase: "I always buy American and I'm driving a GM car right now. Check believes it's very important that Americans buy domestically-made vehicles. It obviously helps the economy and the service is better. So be smart and patriotic - buy American."

WHAT A MASSIVE HYPOCRITE: O'Reilly is a jerk, because 80% of the Factor Gear garbage he sells on his website is made in China, Vietnam, etc. What a giant hypocrite.

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

The Real Reason O'Reilly & Republicans Oppose Obama Job Plan
By: Steve - September 13, 2011 - 10:00am

Here is some news you will never hear reported on Fox, especially by O'Reilly, because he is in on it with the Republicans. The real reason the Republicans oppose the Obama jobs plan is because it will create jobs and make Obama look good, which in turn will improve the economy and most likely lead to his re-election in 2012.

It's all about politics, and the Republicans could care less about creating jobs, they just want to hurt Obama any way they can to hurt his re-election chances. And in my view, it is borderline treason, and clearly un-American.

If Democrats were doing this to a Republican President O'Reilly would be outraged, and call them un-American traitors. But when Republicans do it, not only does O'Reilly not call them out, he joins in with them in using the GOP talking points to oppose the Obama jobs plan.

Now read this, and you will see the truth. A senior House Republican aide who requested anonymity to discuss the matter freely said this about it:
"Obama is on the ropes; why do we appear ready to hand him a win?"
In a situation where the passage of major legislation counts as a win for President Obama, and anyone who wants to see President Obama go down to defeat, no major legislation can pass.

This is exactly the problem the White House has in trying to overcome GOP filibusters during the 111th Congress and the main problem they face in trying to reach bipartisan accords with the Republican-led House of Representatives. This is the fundamental reality of American politics today, but far too few people put it at the center of their accounts of what's happening.

Monday, Obama presented Congress with his jobs legislation. In his remarks, Obama said this: "There are some in Washington who'd rather settle our differences through politics and the elections than try to resolve them now. In fact, Joe Biden and I, as we were walking out here, we were looking at one of the Washington newspapers and it was quoting a Republican aide saying, 'I don't know why we'd want to cooperate with Obama right now. It's not good for our politics.' That was very explicit."

And one Republican Governor has even admitted he will reject any money to his state from the Obama jobs plan. Making him an un-American jerk in my book. Not to mention it's proof the Republicans are putting politics ahead of creating jobs and improving the economy.

Here are some details. Most of the economic analysts have weighed in with positive reviews of President Obama's recently unveiled jobs plan to spur job creation. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's, predicted Obama's "American Jobs Act" will add 1.9 million jobs and grow the economy by 2 percent.

The nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute reported that it would boost employment by around 4.3 million jobs, with 2.6 million jobs coming from new initiatives alone.

But the Republican Florida Gov. Rick Scott and other GOP legislators in the state are strongly indicating they will reject billions in federal aid that could be used to create jobs in Florida:
Gov. Rick Scott and top Florida Republicans are sending early signals they will reject the billions in federal aid that could flow to the state under President Barack Obama's jobs proposal.

Florida has a 10.7 percent unemployment rate that is higher than the national average. But Scott and GOP legislative leaders said the plan outlined by President Barack Obama was too similar to the nearly $800 billion stimulus package that was approved by Congress back in 2009.

"It sounds like President Obama still doesnít get it," House Speaker Dean Cannon said Friday. "The answer to the current economic problems is not spending more money."

A state-by-state breakdown of the president's plan shows that Florida could stand to receive more than $7.5 billion for schools, roads and other projects.

The White House estimates that the funds under the plan would support more than 60,000 jobs in Florida alone, including those held by teachers, cops and firefighters.
Scott's insistence on putting ideology over policies that would put Floridians back to work is especially disconcerting given how often he has insisted that his focus is job creation. His campaign mantras were "Let's get to work!" and "jobs, jobs, jobs."

However, the Orlando Sentinel reports that recently he's backed off his earlier lofty goals to create 700,000 jobs in addition to the 1 million jobs Florida is expected to generate as part of the state's growth.

Dodging his earlier pledge, Scott now says he deserves credit toward his total for all jobs created in Florida since he took office in January. Under Scott, 1,700 state workers have been laid off and at least 2,500 more layoffs are expected. Deep education cuts will cost many teachers and school employees their jobs. Scott also rejected $2.4 billion in federal money for a high-speed rail project that supporters say would have created 24,000 jobs.

Scott's refusal to accept federal money for job creation parallels his refusal to accept millions from the Affordable Care Act that would help seniors, children, and the disabled.

Scott has chronically low approval ratings since many Floridians are protesting that he has "not fulfilled campaign promises to create jobs since he rejected federal money for high speed rail and health care."

So as you can see the Republicans in America have a plan, stall job growth any way they can to hurt Obama politically so they will have a better chance to beat him in the 2012 Presidential election. Which is pathetic at best, and treason at worst.

Frank Luntz Proves He Is An Insane Republican
By: Steve - September 13, 2011 - 9:00am

Before you read this blog think about this, O'Reilly puts this guy Frank Luntz on the Factor as an Independent non-partisan pollster.

Then Luntz used the 9-11 Anniversary to say it "Allows us to appreciate George Bush and Dick Cheney for Keeping us safe."

Now think about this too, Bush and Cheney were in charge when the 9-11 attacks happened, and they had been for 7 full months. So the attacks happened under their watch, meaning they DID NOT keep us safe.

So not only is Frank Luntz a partisan right-wing stooge, he is a liar too, because Bush and Cheney did not keep us safe.

Corporations Do Not Need Any More Tax Cuts
By: Steve - September 12, 2011 - 10:00am

The 2012 GOP presidential candidates had a debate on MSNBC last Wednesday, which is scheduled to be the first debate involving Texas Gov. Rick Perry. The debate comes on the heels of a dismal jobs report, which showed that zero net jobs were created in August, and as the candidates have begun rolling out their job creation plans.

Each and every GOP candidate - from Mitt Romney and Perry to Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain - has called for a reduction in the corporate tax rate. Romney's economic plan, unveiled yesterday, calls for lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent (at a cost of $900 billion), while Bachmann has called for a cut down to 9 percent (which would cost more than $2 trillion).

The theory behind the GOP's insane call for lower corporate taxes is that more cash will free up companies to begin hiring again. But as I have pointed out a hundred times, corporations are already sitting on record high cash reserves.

Corporate after tax profits are currently the highest they've ever been since such data began being recorded in 1947. So it is certainly not a lack of funds that is holding companies back. As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities Jared Bernstein noted on ABC's This Week:
Right now, let me give you a number that I think is extremely compelling. The corporate profits as a share of the economy were higher in the last quarter, 2011 second quarter, than at any other quarter in the history of the data, after tax, after-tax profits, going back to 1947.

So if you're going to tell me that these corporations, who are profitable by not selling into this country, selling into other emerging economies, just need another tax break to get ahead, or that deregulation, which, you know, it's the deregulatory zeal that got us into this mess, is somehow going to get us out, it's - that's just wrong.
As former Labor Secretary Robert Reich put it, anyone calling for corporate tax cuts to spur job creation, even while corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars, is blind to reality.

GOP Wants To Raise Taxes On Seniors & Disabled
By: Steve - September 12, 2011 - 9:00am

And not only does the Missouri GOP want to raise taxes on seniors and the disabled, they want to do it so they can give corporations another tax break.

Wednesday, Missouri lawmakers began a special session during which Republicans will try to pay for a business tax cut by eliminating a tax credit that benefits more than 100,000 senior citizens and disabled people.

Missouri Republicans are just the latest in a long list of state legislatures that are funding more corporate tax breaks on the backs of low and middle-income residents. In this case, Republicans are targeting a property tax credit that helps offset higher rent for some of the state's most vulnerable citizens:
At stake is a tax credit that provides up to $750 for lower-income elderly and disabled people. Called the "Circuit Breaker," it is designed to be an offset for the property taxes included in the rent paid by people with incomes of $27,500 or less.

The tax credit costs $53 million annually. Repeal is part of a package that also would impose limits and sunset dates on credits targeted to developers. The Circuit Breaker tax credit is the only credit slated for repeal.

"The real issue is that many people with disabilities simply can't own their own homes because they live on a subsistence income," said Edward Duff of Joplin, a member of the Governor's Council on Disability.
So once again, Republicans have shown they are not against raising taxes, as long as they are on the poor.

The circuit-breaker tax credit is such an important aid for low-income residents that 29 other states offer property tax circuit-breakers or similar programs, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Killing the credit would raise taxes on groups including disabed vets and senior citizens by up to $750 a year.

The proposal has drawn criticism from a diverse range of groups, from conservative anti-tax crusaders to liberal groups. Opponents include the AARP, the Association of Retired Missouri State Employees, the liberal-leaning Missouri Budget Project and the conservative United for Missouri, as well as agencies that work with the disabled on the local level.

The Post-Dispatch reports that Republicans have faced such a backlash for trying to repeal the tax credit that the tax-credit package they crafted may be unraveling. The bill's sponsor, Sen. Chuck Purgason (R), has prepared an alternative plan aimed at spreading tax credit cutbacks more equally among low-income residents and developers.

"Republicans are always portrayed as taking from the poor and giving to the rich, and we didn't want to do that," Purgason said.

But it's still unclear if there is enough of a consensus to pass the alternative bill. So it may not pass, and the poor will be screwed again by the Republicans who only care about the rich who give them money to fund their elections and re-elections.

And it goes without saying that you never heard a word about any of this from O'Reilly, who claims to be looking out for the little guy.

More Proof Gretchen Carlson Is A Right-Wing Idiot
By: Steve - September 11, 2011 - 10:00am

Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson suggested cutting payroll taxes has no effect on employment, claiming that she had spoken to "tons" of economists on the subject. In fact, economists agree that cutting the payroll tax would improve the employment situation and benefit the economy.

During an interview with White House press secretary Jay Carney on the September 8 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson downplayed the employment impact of a payroll tax holiday, claiming that "we've already had that," and "I see dismal job numbers." From Fox & Friends:
CARLSON: We'll see if Congress does rally around the president based on what he says tonight. But let me ask you this. Why go before the joint session of Congress if you're going to say stuff that the American public has already heard time and time again in 10 to 12 speeches before? Why say I'm going to go on vacation for a month, and then I'm going to come back and give this grandiose speech --

CARNEY: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait -

CARLSON: -- if it's going to be the same exact thing that they've already heard?

CARNEY: Gretchen, I'm not sure what -- whose talking points you're reading here, Gretchen --

CARLSON: So please tell me what new thing is the American public going to hear today. What new thing will the American public hear tonight from your boss?

CARNEY: The American people will hear a lot of new ideas. I want to correct you. The folks who went on a month-long vacation weren't the president, it was the Congress. Secondly, the American people will hear a lot of new and innovative ideas that they haven't heard before. They will also hear very common-sense, sensible ideas like a payroll tax cut for every working American that has tradition --

CARLSON: We've already had that. That's not new.

CARNEY: Oh, and is that a bad thing?

CARLSON: No. Well, did it create jobs?

CARNEY: I'm sorry, is that a bad thing because it creates jobs? And it grows --

CARLSON: Did it create jobs?

CARNEY: Absolutely.

CARLSON: When I look at the June job report and the July job report and the August job report, I see dismal numbers.

CARNEY: Gretchen, I'm not sure if you've talked to any economists, but there is not an economist --


CARNEY: -- whose Ph.D. is worth the paper it's printed on who does not agree that when you cut the payroll tax, it has a direct impact on economic growth and job creation. If you're asking me if there were other headwinds that affected this economy, like the tsunami in Japan, like the Arab uprising that affected oil prices and the situation in Europe, that's absolutely the case. But cutting taxes, I used to think --

CARLSON: Yeah, Mr. Carney, with all due respect, we've heard all of those excuses before.
In Fact, Economists Agree With Carney That Cutting Payroll Tax Has A Positive Impact On Employment And The Economy. In a June 25 New York Times op-ed, Robert Frank, economics professor at Cornell University, wrote this:
In today's fractious political climate, many promising dual-purpose remedies -- like infrastructure investments that would generate large and rapid returns -- are called unthinkable, in the false belief that they would impoverish our grandchildren. Yet there are other ways to attack unemployment that could garner bipartisan support.

Perhaps the most promising is a payroll tax holiday. The payroll tax was originally meant to pay for Social Security, and in recent years, employees and employers have each contributed 6.2 percent of total salary -- with no additional levies on salaries beyond $106,800. Congress should both declare an immediate payroll tax holiday for employees and exempt employers from making contributions for newly hired workers -- and keep both provisions in effect until the end of next year.
In a July 17 op-ed in Delaware's News Journal, University of Delaware economics professor Laurence Seidman wrote this:
To boost private sector spending and jobs, any budget deal negotiated by the president and Congress should contain an immediate suspension of the entire employee payroll tax through 2012.

Why? Because leaving more money in people's paychecks will cause them to spend more, and in response to their spending, private sector employers will expand production and create private sector jobs. Without this stimulus to the private sector, the economy is likely to fall back into a deep recession.

According to the simulations, if the suspension begins promptly, then in the fourth quarter of 2012 the unemployment rate would be 1 percentage point lower than it would have been without the temporary employee payroll tax suspension.
I could go on and on and quote a hundred more economic experts who say the exact same thing. But you get the point, that Gretchen Carlson is a liar and a right-wing stooge. She cares more about spewing out right-wing talking points than the truth.

4th Circuit Votes To Uphold Obama Health Care Bill
By: Steve - September 11, 2011 - 9:00am

The Fourth Circuit just handed down two opinions ordering that Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's challenge to the Affordable Care Act, along with another challenge to brought by Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, must be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

However, Judge Davis dissented from the Liberty University opinion to say that he would reach the merits and uphold the law, and Judge Wynn wrote a separate opinion saying that the law should be upheld as a valid exercise of the Taxing Power.

Accordingly a majority of the court voted to uphold the law and Thursday's opinion should be read as a victory for the Affordable Care Act on the merits. This ruling was made on Thursday and I waited a couple days before posting this to see if O'Reilly would report it.

And of course, O'Reilly never said a word about it. But when a court agrees with him and says it is unconstitutional O'Reilly reports on that ruling. Proving once again that Bill O'Reilly is nothing but a partisan right-wing hack of a pretend journalist. Hell even Ron Paul said O'Reilly was not a journalist so he would not do his show, and he is a Republican.

The Friday 9-9-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 10, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Does Obama really want to create jobs? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There are some good things in President Obama's proposed American Jobs Act, but the problem is how to pay for it. Republicans are wary because it looks like an income tax increase will be part of the package. The Republican Party should be willing to negotiate because the public is watching.

There are some anti-Obama people who condemn everything he does, which actually helps him by making him a sympathetic figure in the eyes of some independents. But there is another very important element to the debate: Is President Obama sincere? He says he wants the 'made in America' label to be his brand, but watching his speech last night with the First Lady was GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt.

Mr. Immelt is shipping business to China and is also sitting on billions of dollars overseas that GE has paid no tax on. Talking Points believes Mr. Obama wants to create jobs, but he does not see the big picture.

I am certain the presence of Immelt didn't even occur to the President, he doesn't know what the big deal is. He also doesn't realize that his plan to have the government control a major part of the economy isn't working and will not work. All presidents make mistakes, but learning from the mistakes is the key to greatness.
Are you kidding me, to even ask if Obama really wants to create jobs is insane, and more proof O'Reilly is nothing but an Obama hating right-wing idiot. And talk about hypocrisy, O'Reilly slams GE for taking some business to China, when 80% of the Factor gear he sells is made in China, Vietnam, etc. What a joke, O'Reilly is a king of hypocrites. Not to mention, almost every corporation is moving business to China, Mexico, etc. And yet, O'Reilly only slams GE for it because they own NBC and MSNBC, it's bias, and it's pathetic.

Then O'Reilly had the far-right stooge Laura Ingraham on to slam NBC some more, for a simple statement made by Chuck Todd, who called it ridiculous.

Laura Ingraham grilled NBC's Chuck Todd about saying "our pollsters are concerned" about President Obama's declining numbers. Ingraham said this: "I gave him a chance to explain, and he said, 'come on, you guys see bias around every corner.' But aren't pollsters just supposed to report the numbers and the facts? To use the word 'concerned' is a little odd. A pollster is not supposed to be 'concerned' because the President is no longer considered a problem-solver."

So O'Dummy suggested that Chuck Todd is most likely a fan of President Obama, saying this: "He's a Democrat and his wife makes a living working for the Democratic Party. There is no doubt Chuck Todd is a liberal guy."

And there is no doubt O'Reilly is a conservative guy who hates NBC. It's ridiculous, and O'Reilly is a joke.

Then O'Jerk had the Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich on to talk about the proposed American Jobs Act. Kucinich said this: "I did some quick analysis of the bill, and about half of it would go towards continuing programs that we already have like the payroll tax break for workers. The other half of the bill will go towards dealing with unemployment. We should end the wars, which would save all kinds of money. And if worse comes to worse, let's take a page out of the Depression when FDR was putting money into circulation to get America back on its feet."

Kucinich also criticized President Obama for inviting GE's Jeffrey Immelt to watch Thursday night's speech, saying this: "Immelt has a lot of expertise in creating jobs, but unfortunately the jobs he's creating happen to be in China. There is no defense for this - under Mr. Immelt GE moved 20% of its jobs out of this country. That's a problem!"

Then Geraldo was on to talk about a so-called scandal over the 9-11 event Sunday, which is only a scandal with Republican religious idiots like O'Reilly. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is excluding religious leaders from the 9/11 10th anniversary ceremony. Geraldo said this: "The World Trade Center site, is the most overly-politicized and bitterly partisan piece of real estate on Earth. It was so blood-soaked and traumatic and everyone is hyper-sensitive about it. Everybody wants to be part of this, but Bloomberg has made the decision that the victims will be paramount. I really understand what Mayor Bloomberg is trying to do."

But of course O'Reilly disagreed with Geraldo and Mayor Bloomberg, saying this: "The Mayor of New York City is showing disrespect to religion in America and disrespect to the firefighters and police officers who were the frontline responders."

Wrong idiot, he is doing the right thing by taking politics out of the event.

Then the anti-labor moron O'Reilly cried about a labor protest. Unionized longshoremen, embroiled in a labor dispute, stormed a port in Washington State, destroying property and holding security guards hostage. So Billy had the Republican Seattle talk radio host John Carlson on to discuss it, with nobody from the Union to give the counterpoint of course.

Carlson said this: "The guards were overpowered, and the police were taken completely by surprise. The longshoremen broke windows and cut the brake lines on trains - they have gone from civil disobedience to criminal disobedience to thuggery. No arrests have been made but police are investigating."

And of course Billy denounced the mainstream media for totally ignoring the story, saying this: "Can you imagine if the Tea Party barricaded guards and broke windows and wielded clubs? The national media would be all over it, but in this case we're the only ones reporting the story."

Now that's funny, I could cite 5 big news stories a day that O'Reilly ignores because they involve Republicans, so for him to cry about the media ignoring a story about a union protest is laughable. Not to mention, it's a local news story, not a national news story. So the media was right to mostly ignore it.

Then O'Dummy cried about a an organization in the Massachusetts town of Brookline that wants the Pledge of Allegiance banned from public schools. Culture Warriors Alicia Menendez and Margaret Hoover were on to talk about it. Hoover said this: "This is a liberal group, and Brookline is a very left-wing suburb of Boston. The far-left says reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is tantamount to 'McCarthyism.'"

Menendez ridiculed the anti-Pledge folks as whackos inhabiting the fringe, saying this: "I think this is bananas. The Pledge of Allegiance is one of the most American things you can do, it's a wonderful thing to teach to children, and it's an important part of being a citizen. These kids get to opt out, so I don't understand what the big deal is."

And of course O'Dummy concluded that "secular-progressives want children to reject religion and patriotism."

Wrong idiot, they just want to ban it because it has the word "God" in it and they do not thing it belongs in schools, and I actually agree with them. I say remove the word God, or ban it from all schools.

And finally Billy had Arthel Neville and Greg Gutfeld on for dumbest things of the week. Neville picked the Texas Congressional candidate whose video shows him talking to a herd of donkeys. "This is outright dumb, because you know what happens when you talk to donkeys? You make an ass out of yourself. This guy is playing on the conservative take that there are too many liberal programs."

Gutfeld went with the potheads who lined up to get into a medical marijuana expo in California. "I'm for decriminalization, but this is a scam. They said there were 10,000 people there, but there were only 5,000 - they were just seeing double. And I swear I saw you there with Bernie Goldberg."

O'Reilly singled out NBC's Brian Williams for asking Governor Rick Perry whether he can sleep at night knowing so many Texans have been executed under his watch.

How is that dumb, I think it's a good question since more people have been executed under Perry than any other Governor, and some of them were innocent.

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

O'Reilly Dishonestly Blamed Obama For Market Drop
By: Steve - September 10, 2011 - 10:00am

Last week O'Reilly slammed the Obama speech, saying it was charade and even blamed Obama for the market drop. Which is pretty funny because all the financial experts said the market dropped because of turmoil in European markets and uncertainty about the health of Greece's economy. And on top of that, the market goes up and down and it's almost never because of anything the President said.

O'Reilly is a biased joke, because the market is actually up since Obama took office, more than 3,000 points. What he does is only report on the market on days when it goes down, while ignoring the days when it goes up. Over the last 2.5 years when the market went up O'Reilly never said a word, and never once gave Obama any credit for it, but every time it drops, suddenly it's all Obama's fault in O'Reillyland. Which is just more proof O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack.

And it was not just O'Reilly saying that, most of Fox News also reported the lie. It was a talking point by the right to make Obama look bad, and the so-called non-partisan Independent O'Reilly used it just as Drudge, and the Fox Nation did.

Not to mention, both the articles Drudge and the Fox Nation link to said the market sell-off was due to turmoil in European markets and uncertainty about the health of Greece's economy.

But they never let facts get in the way when they are spinning out right-wing talking points to smear Obama. O'Reilly even claims he never uses any GOP talking points, then he gets caught using them by me about 2 or 3 times a week.

The O'Reilly Spin On Cap Gains Was Ridiculous
By: Steve - September 10, 2011 - 9:00am

During an interview with White House press secretary Jay Carney Thursday, Bill O'Reilly criticized President Obama for using investor Warren Buffett as an example of the unfairness in the tax code.

Obama, in his speech on jobs before a joint session of Congress, said that "Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary -- an outrage he has asked us to fix." O'Reilly took exception to that remark, suggesting that it was an "apples to oranges" comparison because Buffett pays mostly capital gains taxes while his secretary pays mostly income tax.

But as usual his criticism is ridiculous. Taxes on "capital gains" are taxes on income derived from capital, as opposed to income derived from labor. Both capital gains taxes and income taxes are taxes on income. So O'Reilly is wrong to suggest Buffett and the president are being misleading or unfair.
O'REILLY: You've got to stop with Warren, OK? Warren is 88 years old or something. He says his secretary pays more tax. It's not true. He's talking about two different things.

CARNEY: His secretary pays, what he's said is --

O'REILLY: No, he's talking about -- you know this too, Jay, don't try to fool me. Don't try to fool me.

CARNEY: I'm not.

O'REILLY: He's talking about capital gains, Warren Buffett. The secretary pays federal income taxes, it's two different taxes. But Warren and the president are trying to fool us. Stop it. Not good. We all got it.

O'REILLY: Jay, I know you know what I'm talking about. Warren Buffett pays taxes on capital gains, not income tax. All right? So the president basically told the nation tonight, he wants to raise capital gains tax in the middle of a terrible economy. That's insane. You can't do that.
Hey jerk, Buffett is not 88 years old, and what does it matter if he was, moron. What does his age have to do with anything, fool.

Later in the show, O'Reilly suggested that Obama and Buffett were making an "apples to oranges" comparison by comparing Buffett's tax burden to that of his secretary:
O'REILLY: Now, the other thing that tees me off is Buffett. Buffett -- this is such a con. It's all about cap gains, not income tax. Cap gains is 15 percent. That's what Mr. Buffett pays. His secretary pays income tax.

Probably to the tune of about 30 percent, because she probably makes a hundred grand, all right, being his secretary. And he's whining, "I pay more taxes than she does." Well, you pinhead, because you're doing it in a different way, comparing the so-called apples to oranges. Correct?

ANDREA TANTAROS (Fox News contributor): Yes. It was a very, very, very bad comparison, and he's done it over and over again.

O'REILLY: Over and over again.

TANTAROS: I don't know why he chose that.
Now let me point something out, O'Reilly said he never speculates and that he only reports the facts he can prove. Then he speculated what the secretary for Warren Buffett makes a year without having the facts, what a lying jerk.

Then O'Dummy talked about it with former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein and investor Wayne Rogers, suggesting that the comparison was "a con." But Stein disagreed with O'Reilly's criticism:
STEIN: Before we get into that, may I respectfully say, Warren Buffett is a friend of mine. He's the greatest chief executive in America. He delivers phenomenal returns for his shareholders, adds a lot of wealth, employs over 200,000 people.

He's not 88 years old -- it would be totally irrelevant if he were. He gets paid a piddling $100,000 a year, less than many teachers get paid, and I do not know why you keep attacking him.

O'REILLY: Well, I'll tell you why --

STEIN: He pays capital gains tax. Capital gains tax is tax. Capital gains tax is tax. You know that very very, well, he says he pays less tax --

O'REILLY: And they don't differentiate. They're not differentiating. You know a con when you see it, and the 88 thing was exaggerated.

STEIN: It's not a con.

O'REILLY: Sure it is. It is, you're comparing income tax to capital gains.
EARTH TO BILL O'REILLY- A TAX IS A TAX. It does not matter what kind of tax he pays, the point is that he pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary, and that shows that the tax code for millionaires and billionaires who use money to make money is unfair.

The issue is not about what kind of tax he pays compared to the kind of tax his secretary pays, the issue is what percentage of tax he pays on his income, you fricking idiot.

Now read this jerk:

According to the Supreme Court and the Congressional Budget Office, Obama, Buffett and Ben Stein are correct. In the 1926 decision in Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., the court found that:
Income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital.
And that's not all, in a policy brief titled "Capital Gains Taxes and Federal Revenues," the CBO wrote that a capital gain "is a form of income" and that when an asset is sold, that gain "is includable in the owner's taxable income." From the Congressional Budget Office report:
A capital gain is an increase in the value of an asset; a decrease in an asset's value is a capital loss.

When a gain accrues, it is a form of income for the holder of the asset. But a gain is not counted as income for income tax purposes until it is realized.

At that time, the difference between the sale price and the asset's "basis" -- the acquisition price minus depreciation and other adjustments -- is includable in the owner's taxable income.
And now you have the facts on the issue, not the right-wing spin from O'Reillyland.

The Thursday 9-8-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 9, 2011 - 11:30am

The TPM was called: Analysis of the GOP debate & Obama address. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: First, a couple of things about the GOP debate in California. The most entertaining moment came when Newt Gingrich told the moderators, 'I'm frankly not interested in your effort to get Republicans fighting each other.'

The debate was carried on MSNBC, and almost immediately after it ended pundits over there began calling all the Republican candidates morons. Why did the GOP and the Reagan Library agree to that environment? And now, President Obama's latest attempt to save the American economy.

It's called the American Jobs Act and it has some good points - continuing the payroll tax cut, tax credits for small businesses that hire people, and targeted public works employment.

The speech was designed to put pressure on Republicans to pass a tax increase or face accusations that they don't want to create jobs. It is becoming clear that the President and the Democratic Party are going to hold fast to their belief that the feds can get us out of the economic mess by spending.

But here's the no spin truth: If both parties really wanted to stimulate the economy, they'd reform the entire tax code. Lower corporate taxes, plug loopholes, a small consumption tax, and a flat income tax on workers that phases out deductions in return for lower rates. If that would happen, the economy would rocket.
And that my friends is what we call right-wing spin, and O'Reilly calls it the no spin truth, which is just laughable.

Then Billy had the right-wing Lou Dobbs on to agree with him to make him look like he is right on the issue.

Dobbs said this: "That tradeoff that you articulated is precisely on point. Trade in those deductions and get rid of the loopholes and bring down tax rates. But I disagree with you on the consumption tax. And Bill, you realize that you've already given more details on what you would do than the President did in his 34-minute address. But it was the best speech of his presidency."

O'Reilly said Obama's speech had some good points but lacked specifics, saying this: "This was a speech to rally the folks, this was a speech to say I'm still in charge and I still care. I didn't like that it put politics ahead of the working person."

Which is a joke, because O'Reilly could care less about the working man and even called the speech a charade. He is talking out of both sides of his mouth, and it's all spin.

Then O'Reilly had the White House spokesman Jay Carney on, who said this: "We believe that if we are going to address our serious economic problems, we need to do it in a balanced way. The President will submit a bill early next week, the American Jobs Act, that will specify how he proposes paying for the act. And the following week he will put forward his comprehensive proposal for significant deficit reduction and debt control. The President believes that everybody needs to bear the burden and share in the prosperity."

O'Reilly pointed out a glaring contradiction in the President's call for more manufacturing in America, saying this: "Sitting with the First Lady tonight was Jeffrey Immelt, General Electric's CEO, who moved his airline division and his medical technology to China. Jeffrey Immelt! It doesn't look good. You should have thrown him out!"

He also said Warren Buffet was lying when he said he pays a higher percentage in taxes than his secretary. O'Reilly argued that because he pays a cap gains tax it is a different story. Earth to O'Dummy, you are wrong idiot. It does not matter, the fact is Buffet only pays 17% in taxes, and the average working man pays 20% or more, that is a fact, no matter how O'Reilly spins it.

Then Carl Cameron and James Rosen were on to talk about Wednesday's Republican debate and its likely effect on the race. Cameron said this: "There's a consensus on the losers. Michele Bachmann, who has been slipping in the polls since Rick Perry got into the race, did not have a breakout moment to shift the momentum back in her favor. Jon Huntsman, who has been mired in the low single-digits, took shots at both Romney and Perry but it didn't resonate."

Rosen said that Mitt Romney was the most effective. "I think Romney demonstrated something that was in doubt, which is that he can go on the attack, and he handled his attacks on Perry in a classy way. And I think Rick Santorum perhaps advanced his fortunes."

Cameron also reported on a Texas-sized feud between two candidates. "There's a real blood fight going on between Ron Paul, the Congressman from Texas, and Rick Perry, the Governor of Texas. At one point during a break Perry walked over to Paul, grasped his wrist, and really got in his face."

Then O'Reilly had Andrea Tantaros and Kirsten Powers on, who also analyzed the President's speech. Tantaros said this: "This was purely political, and Republicans are not going to support this plan for two main reasons. One, because it is political and, two, it won't work. The payroll tax cut is the only area where they might compromise, but that's not big enough to do the job."

Powers defended President Obama's habit of repeatedly mentioning billionaire Warren Buffett, saying this: "The point that he's making is that there is major income inequality in this country and that the rich aren't carrying their fair share. Warren Buffett's effective tax rate is less than his secretary's, and that is the point."

Then O'Reilly had the biased right-wing hack Bernie Goldberg on and asked him to judge the question's fairness. Which is like asking Ann Coulter to judge their fairness, with no Democratic guest to give the counterpoint.

Goldberg said this: "I'm sure Brian Williams would say it was fair, so let's turn the tables. Let's say a conservative journalist was questioning liberal Democrats running for president and said, 'All of you have voted for abortion rights, do you struggle to sleep at night knowing that abortion ends a process that otherwise would result in a human being?' That question is clearly loaded and any journalist asking such a question would rightly get whacked. Well, Brian Williams did ask that question about a different controversial subject."

Earth to Goldberg, any question about what someone has said or done in the past is a fair question. Especially when they are running for President.

Goldberg also ridiculed MSNBC's post-debate panel of analysts, joking that "the panel consisted of five analysts that ranged from the far left to the far, far, far, far left." But when Fox does the very same thing that is fine with Goldberg and O'Reilly, and thery never says a word about it.

Then O'Reilly had more on the Obama speech, Billy has criticized Warren Buffett for claiming he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary, which O'Reilly called a lie with Jay Carney.

Republican economist Ben Stein was on, and he vigorously defended Buffett, saying this: "He is the greatest chief executive in America, and he delivers phenomenal returns for his shareholders. He employs over 200,000 people and I do not know why you keep attacking him."

So then O'Dummy said again that Buffett is being disingenuous: "He pays capital gains tax and you can't compare that to income tax. Raising capital gains taxes in a recessionary environment is insane!"

Earth to O'Reilly, a tax is a tax moron. It does not matter what kind of tax he pays, it's still a tax, and the main point is the percentage of tax he pays compared to what his secretary pays, not what kind of tax he pays. That ridiculous argument from O'Reilly is something you expect a 5 year old to make.

Investor Wayne Rogers pointed out that wealthy Americans already shoulder an inordinate amount of the tax burden, saying this: "The top 10% of earners pay more than 50% of the taxes and the top 3% pay for as much as the other 97% combined. So who is to say we should raise their taxes, who is making that decision as to what is fair?"

And that is total right-wing spin, proving that Wayne Rogers is as big of a spin doctor as O'Reilly.

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

O'Reilly Calls Obama Jobs Speech A Charade
By: Steve - September 9, 2011 - 10:30am

If you want more proof that Billy O'Reilly is a total right-wing fraud of a biased journalist, here it is. After the Obama speech, that I thought was great and right on target, O'Reilly simply repeated the GOP talking points that Obama's economic policies have failed, he called the speech a charade, and even blamed it for the stock market drop.

Now think about this, that biased garbage is coming from a guy who claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone who is looking out for the little guy.

When you look at it all you see is right-wing propaganda, and he is only looking out for the wealthy. Not to mention, when Bush left office the stock market was around 8,000, and as of today it's still over 11,000. In my world that means the market is still up over 3,000 points since Obama took office.

And btw, notice how O'Reilly only reports on market drops, while never saying a word about when the market goes up. That alone proves what a biased right-wing idiot he is, because a lot of the time the market goes back up a day or two later, and O'Jerkoff totally ignores that.

If you just watched the Factor on Thursday night after the Obama speech, you see exactly what O'Reilly is, a partisan, Republican, fraud of a hack journalist, and it's an insult to other journalists to even call O'Reilly a journalist.

Rick Perry Supports Radical Far-Right Abortion Bill
By: Steve - September 9, 2011 - 10:00am

An anti-abortion group has announced that Rick Perry supports Ohio's controversial heartbeat bill, one of the most radical and restrictive abortion measures in the country.

The bill, designed to establish a direct challenge to the 22 to 24 week viability standards in Roe v. Wade, outlaws abortions if a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which can be as early as six to seven weeks into pregnancy and offers no exception for cases of rape, incest, or mental health of the mother:
We're grateful to Governor Perry for his strong support of the Heartbeat Bill. I don't think there's a bill in America with more support, declares Faith2Action President Janet (Folger) Porter. She adds, Come to the Statehouse Atrium on September 20 and get a glimpse of the statewide support for the Heartbeat Bill!

At a meeting in Texas, Governor Perry announced his support before a group of 250 pro-life and pro-family leaders. His response of support to a question about the Heartbeat Bill received an extended standing ovation.
The radical bill is being pushed by the equally radical Faith2Nationís Jane Porter, a believer in dominion theology -- the idea that Christians are called to take complete control over every aspect of human life in order to bring about the return of Christ -- and the former co-chair of Mike Huckabee's Faith and Family Values Coalition when he first ran for president.

The Ohio House passed the heartbeat measure in June, during a bizarre session when Republican lawmakers compared opponents of the law to slave owners and argued that abortions make people more likely to smoke pot. The state Senate is expected to take-up the measure this month.

Last week, a federal judge blocked a Texas law signed by Perry that requires women seeking abortions to undergo sonograms and listen to the fetal heartbeat at least 24 hours before the procedure.

And this is just more proof that Rick Perry is too far right to be the President, because he supports radical bills like this, and far worse.

Wallace Proves Jon Stewart Right About Fox Bias
By: Steve - September 9, 2011 - 9:00am

On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace accused NBC of bias when Today cameras showed a demonstrator with a sign demanding Cheney be investigated for torture.

This line of questioning comes directly from the conservative Media Research Center.

From MRC: At the end of the contentious interview, Lauer declared: "Mr. Cheney, thanks for being with us this morning. I appreciate it." However, as the camera panned out of the studio, it zoomed in on a protest sign just outside from Amnesty International that read: "Torture is a Crime: Investigate Cheney."

But the MRC description of what happened isn't accurate. You can even see it in MRC's own video.

The NBC camera zooms out of the room with Cheney and Matt Lauer, and when the protestor places the sign in front of the camera, the shot continues to zoom out - the opposite of what MRC asserts. Then again, MRC doesn't have the best track record of accurately describing events.

During his interview with The Daily Show's Jon Stewart in June, Wallace rejected Stewart's assertion that Fox News was a "relentless agenda-driven, 24-hour news opinion propaganda delivery system" and asked him, "where do you come up with this stuff?"

In his critique of NBC Wallace echoes the (shoddy) work of an ideologically conservative organization in order to paint NBC (a competitor) as a tool of the political opposition.

In other words, Wallace's actions were fulfilling Fox's role as part of a "relentless agenda-driven, 24-hour news opinion propaganda delivery system" -- proving Jon Stewart was exactly right.

The Wednesday 9-7-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 8, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Obama speaks again... and again... and again. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Tomorrow night President Obama will try to convince us once again that he has a formula to create jobs in America. But unfortunately, we've seen the movie before and the ending is grim. It is possible that the President will come up with new stuff that might actually improve the economy, but it is not probable.

Advance word is that President Obama will propose job creation by the federal government and some targeted tax cuts in the private sector. Again, we've heard it all before, but the far left never tires of hearing it. Massive government spending has only increased unemployment - from 7.8% when Mr. Obama took office to 9.1% now.

Talking Points and most Americans understand that the feds can not run the economy; only private corporations and small businesspeople create jobs en masse. America is driven by the private sector - the free marketplace creates jobs and prosperity. President Obama doesn't seem to get that, and that is why he may very well lose the election of 2012.
Wow, just the name of the TPM was disrespectful to the President, and something O'Reilly would never do to a Republican President. And the rest of that garbage from O'Reilly is the usual right-wing spin. He says it does not work and never will, but he ignores the fact that it did work under Bill Clinton, and other Democratic Presidents.

What O'Reilly fails to report is that conservative policies bankrupted the country, along with Bush and his gang, they caused the problem, not the liberal policies.

Rick Perry is leading the Republican presidential race, but some GOP officials feel Mitt Romney is actually more electable.

O'Reilly has Brit Hume on who said this: "There's a concern among Republican operatives, that the only way they can lose this election is for the party to nominate someone who can be portrayed as an extremist of some kind. Governor Perry, by virtue of his past statements, has provided some paint for just such a portrayal. He has talked loosely in the past about secession from the union and about Social Security being unconstitutional, which will strike independent voters as being not what they're interested in hearing."

Hume also questioned President Obama's decision to announce his jobs plan with great fanfare, saying this: "Convening a joint session of Congress is relatively rare, in the past it's been a pretty big deal when a president does that. To announce a program that looks like 'stimulus 2' is politically risky and I don't see how the speech can measure up to the setting."

But of course if a Republican President was doing it Hume would say it was a great idea, and O'Reilly would love it too. Hume and O'Reilly are a joke, they are 2 old white conservative idiots who hate Obama and the Democrats, and will never say a good word about anything they do.

Then O'Reilly had another segment on Ron Paul, asking if the media is ignoring him, and I say of course the media is ignoring him, because he is a far right loon that nobody is taking serious. And yet, O'Reilly had the Factor producer Jesse Watters on to discuss it. O'Reilly wanted to know why Paul refused to do the Factor, Paul said this: "I probably had better things to do. O'Reilly isn't exactly a journalist, and if he were more journalistic I might have considered it."

Bang, Boom, Crash, haha. Ron Paul is right, O'Reilly is not a journalist. Which is what I have been saying for years, and finally one Republican is backing me up. I bet O'Reilly loved that from Paul, not.

Watters then entered the No Spin Zone with his summary of Ron Paul's hostility toward Bill, saying this: "I expected him to be a little nicer to you, but he was very curmudgeonly. He doesn't like you!"

Earth to O'Reilly and Watters, maybe he does not like Billy because he has called Ron Paul a loon and a nut, did you two morons ever think about that. Would you do a show for a guy who called you a loon and a nut, I doubt it.

Then Dick Morris analyzed the Republican presidential race, beginning with Michele Bachmann's recent drop-off in the polls, saying this: "These pre-debate polls don't mean anything, they are like preseason NFL games. If Bachmann has a great debate she could move up quickly, so you can not count Bachmann out of this yet."

Proving once again that Morris is an idiot, and as I have said, Bachmann has two chances to win the GOP nomination, slim and none.

So O'Reilly argued that Bachmann is perceived as more of ideologue than an economic problem-solver, Billy said this: "Most Americans don't watch the debates and they pick up stuff from secondary sources. Right now the perception is that the two heavyweights are Perry and Romney, and that perception is going to hold unless one of the two does something crazy. The voters are saying they want an economic guy in there, and the bona fides for economics are on the side of Romney and Perry."

Then O'Reilly lied about what James Hoffa said, taking it out of context and using a partial quote, which O'Reilly said he never does.

Teamster boss James Hoffa Jr., while introducing President Obama on Labor Day, implored the crowd to "take these son of a bitches out," apparently referring to the Tea Party. While not telling you the rest of the quote, right before that he clearly said vote them out.

Billy said this: "If President Obama wants civility, he must hold his allies to account, especially when he's there, and he obviously did not. As for Mr. Hoffa, what do you expect? Most labor leaders are furious that the Tea Party has brought public scrutiny on the very lucrative benefits some union workers receive, especially in the public sector. Mr. Hoffa is never going to be moderate on the issue, he will always attack. Jimmy Hoffa is a demagogue who is playing to his crowd. And you know what? He's losing!"

What a joke, how can Obama control what James Hoffa says, O'Reilly is just an idiot.

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle responded to the claim that illegal aliens are receiving more than $4 billion in federal income tax refunds each year. Wiehl said this: "If they have children, they get a child care credit for as many kids as they have. So if they have lots of kids and not a lot of income, they're not going to have to pay income tax and will get a refund of up to $1,000 per child."

Guilfoyle added that the IRS doesn't even try to determine whether a refund recipient is here legally, saying this: "This is a big loophole that should be addressed. This is better than the lottery - you're guaranteed the money, no one is checking it out, and the IRS is saying don't ask us to check citizenship."

And finally Juliet Huddy was on for did you see that, she looked at an Internet ad produced by Herman Cain in which he ridicules politicians who rely on image and teleprompters. Huddy said this: "The message is that Herman Cain can be a good leader, and you don't have to have somebody who is playing a role. It was entertaining and, look, we're playing it on The O'Reilly Factor."

Huddy also viewed footage of a massive pool party at Colorado State University that got way out of control, saying this: "I've thrown some epic parties in my life, but that completely outdid them. Everybody went there is because it was sent out on Facebook that there's a big party at this apartment complex. And actually it turned violent - a CSU football player pushed a security guard and there were four arrests. This went on for two hours before the cops got there."

Okay let me get this straight, they had a big party at a college and four people were arrested, and this is news how?

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

Romney Blames Obama For Jobs Lost Under Bush
By: Steve - September 8, 2011 - 10:00am

Folks, this is just how dishonest Mitt Romney is, he is blaming jobs lost over a 3 year period from 2007 until 2009 on Obama, even though for 2 of those years Bush was the President, and Obama was not put in office until January of 2009.

To accompany his jobs speech in Nevada Tuesday afternoon, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) released a packet that laid out his plans. On page 16 of the packet is a chart highlighting statistics from past economic recoveries and is presumably supposed to show how poor Obama's record compares to past presidents.

The chart, however, calls the period of time from 2007-2009 the "Obama recovery," blaming him for the poor job numbers over that three-year period.

As Romney clearly knows, George W. bush was serving as president in 2007 and 2008, and Obama did not take office until January of 2009.

And of course you never hear a word about this dishonesty from O'Reilly, or anyone at Fox for that matter.

Fox Caught Doctoring James Hoffa Statement
By: Steve - September 8, 2011 - 9:00am

Right-wing bloggers misled by dishonest Fox News video editing are attacking Teamsters President James Hoffa for supposedly urging violence against Tea Party activists during a Labor Day speech. Conservatives are also attacking President Obama, who appeared at the event, for "sanctioning violence against fellow Americans" by failing to denounce Hoffa. But when you look at the full context of what Hoffa said it's clear that he was not calling for violence but was actually urging the crowd to vote out Republican members of Congress.

During the segment that the bloggers have latched onto, Fox edited out the first line of Hoffa's comments:
HOFFA: Edited out - "Everybody here's got to vote. If we go back and keep the eye on the prize."

The rest of the quote - let's take these son of a bitches out and give America back to America where we belong! Thank you very much!
In the initial report on Hoffa's speech at 1 p.m. on Fox News, Ed Henry reported that Hoffa said this: "we'll remember in November who's with the working people" and "said of the Tea Party and of Republicans, 'let's take these sons of bitches out.'"

Henry made clear during that segment that Hoffa's comments were references to voting out Republican members of Congress, not to violence. And roughly 20 minutes later, he explained on Twitter that the "full quote" of the "take these son of a bitches out" comment is "Everybody here's got to vote. If we go back & keep the eye on the prize, let's take these sons of bitches out."

But in a second segment that ran at roughly the same time as Henry's tweet, Fox News dishonestly edited the speech in the manner seen above. Andrew Breitbart's Big sites, Real Clear Politics, The Daily Caller, the Media Research Center, and the Drudge Report have all highlighted that footage, using it to condemn "the violence emanating from union thug bosses" and demand that Obama "denounce" the comments.

In the Fox News segment that included the dishonestly cropped video, Republican consultant Brad Blakeman decried the comments as "thuggery at its best" and "the kind of remarks you'd expect out of Tony Soprano," and commented that "when a union president says 'let's take these sons of bitches out,' that usually means someone's legs are going to get broken, somebody's going to disappear."

Anchor Megyn Kelly also did not mention Henry's previous explanation that the comments were references to voting Republicans out of office.

UPDATE: Hours after Fox News aired the full context of the "take these son of a bitches out" comment, the network reverted to their usual biased tricks. In the first segment on The Five, Fox again aired the dishonestly edited version of Hoffa's remarks that cropped out his references to voting.

The Tuesday 9-6-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 7, 2011 - 11:00am

There was no TPM because the far right loon Laura Ingraham hosted for O'Reilly. Crazy Ingraham kicked off Tuesday's show by focusing on the recent so-called incivility on the left. She talked about union boss James Hoffa, while introducing President Obama on Labor Day, implored the crowd to "take these son of a bitches out."

Without showing the full quote, where he said as in vote them out. So as usual Ingraham was dishonest about the statement, as is most of Fox News.

Alan Colmes was on who said this: "I'm thrilled to hear Republicans finally call for civility, and maybe now we'll actually have some civility on the right. I'm talking about a Congressman who called the President a liar."

Crowley said this: "The Tea Party emerged to try and bring the nation's fiscal health back into order, calling for restraints on spending. For their efforts they have been routinely smeared as racists, sexists, and homophobes. When conservatives and regular Americans go out and exercise their First Amendment rights, they're suddenly a racist and unruly mob."

Then Ingraham talked about how some Democrats are urging President Obama to propose a massive new stimulus program to create jobs. Juan Williams said this: "There's a lot of pressure on the President to be bold, and to take some kind of action that can be seen as large, as opposed to smaller bites at the apple. So people are looking for big ideas, and we need government invention because the private sector is not hiring people."

Leslie Marshall said this: "I think that's wise because we have short attention spans, and the President is going to be smarter than he is bold. He has to ask, 'what can I do to turn this economy around and create jobs?' Government spending would work, but right now the American people don't want to hear that."

Then Karl Rove was on to handicap the GOP horse race. Rove said this: "Let's not say this is over because there's a long way to go. Rick Perry is now the front-runner, but here's the cautionary note: In 2008 at exactly this time the front-runners were Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. Perry has gotten a good bump, but the question is what is happening in the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina."

Then crazy Ingraham had the even crazier Ann Coulter on to talk about Sarah Palin, who continues to tour the country giving speeches and criticizing President Obama.

Coulter said this: "Gallup did a poll, showing that 65% of Americans say they would never, ever vote for Sarah Palin. It doesn't seem likely with those numbers that she would run, and it doesn't really matter whether those numbers are the media's fault. Conservatives like me used to love Sarah Palin because of her enemies; I'm starting to dislike her because of her fans."

Then Ingraham trashed GE based on a story in the right-wing Washington Times newspaper. According to a report in the Washington Times, the Pentagon is concerned that General Electric may be exchanging aviation technology with China. Ingraham had Bill Gertz, who has been investigating the situation on to discuss it.

Gertz said this: "The GE people insist this is purely commercial technology, but the Pentagon doesn't believe it. This technology could be used to build Chinese jet fighters. The Chinese are expanding their nuclear forces, they're building anti-satellite weapons and they're engaged in cyber warfare."

He added this: "There are a number of people on Capitol Hill, who are asking whether GE got favoritism because Immelt is the 'jobs czar' for the Obama administration."

And those number of people on Capital Hill are called Republicans, what a joke of a biased story by a bunch of right-wing Obama hating losers.

And finally Ingraham Laura showed a re-run of Billy's recent interview with Penn State researcher Seth Baum, co-author of a study examining whether extra-terrestrials may someday visit Earth. Baum said this: "The point of the paper, was to explore what would happen if we encounter extra-terrestrials. We think it's unlikely, but it could happen. This is worth at least a little bit of serious attention just in case it does happen."

Baum theorized that alien beings may worry that global warming will force Earthlings to search for cooler planets, saying this: "We could become a dominant force across the galaxy, which could be cause for concern to whatever civilizations might happen to exist. In all likelihood, any extra-terrestrial civilization out there is much more advanced than we are."

Billy joked that Baum's thesis wouldn't pass muster at some of this planet's elite universities, saying this: "If I had submitted this paper to my professors when I was at the Kennedy School at Harvard, they would have given me an 'F' because we couldn't do hypotheticals like you did."

And during the interview O'Reilly mocked him by playing clips of Mars Attacks and E.T. Showing no respect for the man, even if he is a little out there.

Then the lame as hell pinheads and patriots vote.

O'Reilly Mocks Doctoral Student's Paper During Interview
By: Steve - September 7, 2011 - 10:00am

On the 9-6-11 Factor show hosted by Laura Ingraham, she ran a re-run where O'Reilly aired clips from Mars Attacks and E.T. during an interview about a doctoral student's paper.

All I can say is what was Baum thinking when he agreed to let O'Reilly interview him. And I wonder if he knew O'Reilly was going to play those movie clips during the interview.

Note to Mr. Baum, if you read this or hear about it, e-mail me and let me know what you think about what O'Reilly did.

Lobbyist Admits Tea Party Formed To Elect Republicans
By: Steve - September 7, 2011 - 9:00am

For years O'Reilly and most of his right-wing friends have said the Tea Party is not partisan, that they are a grassroots group of people who are not only right-wingers, and they even deny it when someone says they are.

We all know that is BS from O'Reilly and the right, and nothing but right-wing spin, but now we have proof the Tea Party is almost all Republicans, and that it was started to elect Republicans.

Because Tuesday morning, blogger Brad Friedman, writing in Mother Jones and BradBlog, revealed a set of audio tapes from the last major donor meeting convened by the billionaire Koch brothers.

There are a number of startling revelations from the scoop, but the opening remarks from Kevin Gentry, a Koch Industries executive at the firm's DC lobbying office, blow the cover off the many Tea Party efforts underwritten by the billionaires in the Koch network of donors.

Gentry, who doubles as the official responsible for doling out Koch charitable grants, admits privately what I and others have noted for years: Americans for Prosperity, the front group founded by David Koch, orchestrates Tea Party events simply to elect more Republicans.

Gentry said he met with Fred Young, a Wisconsin owner of engine manufacturing plants, at an Americans for Prosperity (AFP) event designed to help in the Congressional races during one of their get out the vote tours:
KEVIN GENTRY: I'm going to turn it over to a dear friend, Fred Young, for the purposes of an introduction. Fred is a long-time fighter, freedom fighter, in this movement, from Racine, Wisconsin.

Former owner of Young Radiator. As part of our efforts last year, in 2010, I was on the road for TN in Wisconsin, here at one of Americans for Prosperity's last minute kind of get out the vote tours.

And I went to an event in Racine, Wisconsin, and met up with Fred. It was sort of a Tea Party AFP event designed to help in the Congressional races. And Fred was kind enough to lend me a sweatshirt because I wasn't actually prepared for Racine, Wisconsin in November. So Fred, let's take it away, please.
Many people in the media ignored the Koch network's transparently partisan agenda last year, especially O'Reilly and Fox. A few outlets, like the Washington Post, took the group to task for spending $45 million in attack ads against Democrats using an unaccountable, secret money wing of Americans for Prosperity.

But most of them failed to report on the millions more spent on four different bus tours designed to promote Republicans. These rallies, which required great resources in terms of staff and logistics, were never reported to the Federal Elections Committee as campaign spending, so they avoided the few watchdog groups and reporters interested in serious election coverage.

As ThinkProgress revealed last year, in documents outlining the June, 2010 donor meeting, billionaires like Paul Singer, Ken Griffin, Rich DeVos, and John Childs are regular attendees of these events, which solicit multi-million donations for an elaborate array of right-wing front groups, from Tea Party organizers like Americans for Prosperity to stealth advertising campaigns like Public Notice.

And unfortunately, most people in the media still report on Tea Party groups like Americans for Prosperity as a grassroots organization, which is a lie. Then they wonder why most Americans do not trust the media, it's because of dishonest reporting (or non-reporting) on stuff like this.

The Monday 9-5-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 6, 2011 - 9:00am

Their was no TPM because O'Reilly ran a best of the Factor re-run. The entire show was a best of Dennis Miller nonsense. Billy spent the entire hour showing re-run clips of Dennis Miller making jokes about liberals.

Proving once again that he is nothing but a biased right-wing hack of a pretend journalist.

Online vs Offline Casino Games
By: Steve - September 5, 2011 - 10:00am

Since the introduction of online gambling in the mid 1990's, gamblers have been able to find a vast range of their favorite casino games at top casino sites.

These games are a virtual version of casino games traditionally found at 'brick and mortar' casinos and provide just as much fun and entertainment Ė if not more. In recent years, many players actually prefer the online form of casino gaming, and will actively seek them out.

One main reason that online casino games are preferred is the fact that there are so many of them that can be accessed in such a short space of time. You can literally turn on your computer and within a few moments, you have a wide range of games right at your fingertips. The choice is truly endless.

From online table games such as blackjack, roulette and baccarat, to online gambling machine games such as slots and video poker and to random ticket games such as keno, bingo and scratch cards, there is definitely no lack of choice! The only difficulty is deciding which to try out first!

Another major advantage about playing online casino games is that you are able to test drive them for free, without having to risk you own bankroll in doing so. Many online casinos offer you the opportunity to try the games for free, through the play-for-fun mode at the site. This not only gives you a taste of the games and software, it also opens up a window into how the casino operates and what you can expect when you play for real money.

There are some players who still insist that offline casino games are more fun because of the personal touch and live action. However, when everything is weighed up, online casino games win hands down.

Cavuto Hypocrisy On So-Called Debate Scandal
By: Steve - September 5, 2011 - 9:00am

On Wednesday, Neil Cavuto hosted a segment on his Fox Business show slamming the NBC/Politico debate next week for refusing to include GOP presidential candidates like Rep. Thad McCotter (R-MI) and former Gov. Gary Johnson (R-NM).

Cavuto called the exclusion "the real scandal," and made a refreshing and legitimate observation: "How can groundbreaking ideas ever get through if we don't let the guys offering them break them?"

His demand that networks invite all candidates was joined by McCotter as a guest to the program:
CAVUTO: I think the real scandal is who won't be in that particular debate like last night's guest on this very show, Gary Johnson.

He's a guy with a real resume, two-term very successful governor of New Mexico. Real ideas, dramatic ideas, on how to fix this financial mess. The debate organizers are saying Johnson and others don't track well enough on polls to be included. They say eight is enough for the event and that young man is not going to be at the event.

So I'm calling this podium-gate. Why not just add more podiums for legit candidates?

Surely the TV networks can figure out how to shoot a slightly more crowded stage. How can groundbreaking ideas ever get through if we don't let the guys offering them break them?

My point is, invite all.
Cavuto and McCotter are right. The polling criteria used by most major networks to select debate participants is a catch-22 because polling generally reflects name identification, which depends largely on media coverage and debate inclusion.

But Cavuto is not without incredible hypocrisy. Earlier this year, Fox News hosted a Republican debate and used nearly the same criteria as Politico/NBC. Fox News refused to allow GOP presidential candidates former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer and former political consultant Fred Karger into their debate.

Many have alleged bias, especially since Roemer has unorthodox conservative ideas, and is running on a platform of cleaning up corruption and corporate influence in government, while Karger is a pro-gay rights Republican.

Later this month, Google and Fox News are teaming up to host a Republican debate on September 22. Few details have been released. Given Cavuto's demand for more inclusion, the question viewers should ask is, Will Fred Karger, Thad McCotter, Buddy Roemer, Gary Johnson and other candidates be included in the debate?

I doubt it, we will see later this month when/if it happens.

Fox News Still Lying That The Obama Stimulus Failed
By: Steve - September 5, 2011 - 8:00am

And it goes without saying that O'Reilly does not report this bias/lie from Fox, even though he has Bernie Goldberg on to do a so-called media bias segment every week. The funny thing is they never find any bias at Fox, in their world the only media bias in America is at every news outlet but Fox.

Fox News Stuart Varney is citing revisions to economic projections for 2012 to revive the myth that the 2009 stimulus failed. In fact, independent economists agree that the stimulus significantly raised employment and increased GDP, and experts say it is the winding down of stimulus spending that is causing a "fiscal drag" on the economy.

On the 9-2-11 Fox & Friends, Stuart Varney said this:
VARNEY: Look, there's a lot of pressure on the president to come up with something big, bold and new come next Thursday evening. And there's a lot of skepticism that he can do it.

Is he going to propose a brand new trillion dollar stimulus program? I mean, this forecast of nine percent unemployment is an admission that the first stimulus program did not work.
CBO: 85 Percent Of Stimulus Funds Spent By End Of June. In its latest report on the effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Congressional Budget Office reported that 85 percent of the stimulus had been spent by the end of June 2011.

Paul Krugman, a Nobel prize winning economist and New York Times columnist, wrote in December 2009 that stimulus spending was projected to peak in 2010:
And when the spending begins to tail off, the effect on growth turns negative.
According to a November 2010, Business Insider report, Deutsche Bank projected that "the real effect of lost stimulus will start to hit" in the first quarter of 2011.

Mark Zandi, Moody's chief economist, explained that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act "was never intended to be a source of long-term economic growth," and that the stimulus provided "a significant benefit to the economy's performance over the past more than two years."

And btw, Republicans keep saying it was a $1 trillion dollar stimulus, and that is also a lie. In its latest report on the stimulus, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Obama stimulus cost $825 billion.

Paul Krugman also wrote that the stimulus was $1.3 trillion short, and said it should have been $2.1 trillion instead of $825 billion:
Even the C.B.O. says, however, that "economic output over the next two years will average 6.8 percent below its potential."

This translates into $2.1 trillion of lost production. "Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity," declared Mr. Obama on Thursday. Well, he was actually understating things.

To close a gap of more than $2 trillion -- possibly a lot more, if the budget office projections turn out to be too optimistic -- Mr. Obama offers a $775 billion plan. And that's not enough. [The New York Times, 1/8/09]
An August 2011 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act "lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.8 percent and 2.5 percent and that the recovery bill "increased the number of people employed by between 1.0 million and 2.9 million" during the second quarter.

Private Analysts Estimate Stimulus Increased GDP By 1.8 To 2.7 Percent.

And all that well known information proves that Stuart Varney and anyone who says the Obama stimulus failed is a flat out liar, they are dishonest right-wing hacks. Notice that only Republicans are saying it failed, that alone proves that they are being dishonest.

Great Band You Should All Check Out
By: Steve - September 4, 2011 - 10:00am

Hey folks, I found this kick ass band you should check out. It's called 7's Fears, and they were 1 of 250 bands recently selected for their original song "Just a little bit of Love" to be in a song writing contest.

The winner of the contest gets to play SXSW in Austin, TX. To vote for them go to this link:

Click Here To Vote

Select the tab at the top that says "San Francisco" and vote for them, 7's Fears.

They are also on iTunes:

Let's get them a win in that contest.

Editor Resigns After Publishing Flawed Climate Study
By: Steve - September 4, 2011 - 9:00am

Last month the conservative media ran with a study by climatologist Roy Spencer which they claimed "throws the entire global warming theory into question," in the words of Lou Dobbs.

A Fox article also asked this: "Has a central tenant of global warming just collapsed?" and Fox News anchor Bret Baier asserted that the study "appears to be blowing a hole in global warming," echoing a Forbes column by James Taylor of the Heartland Institute.

In reality, their claims were wrong about the findings of the study, which itself was widely criticized by climate experts.

Even Spencer, who has said that part of his job is "to minimize the role of government," says the conservative media outlets "are overstating what the research found."

On his website, Spencer wrote that the Forbes column makes a key error: "Taylor's article makes it sound much more certain that we have shown that the models produce too much warming in the long term." It is important to note, however, that the UAH press release also overstates the findings and appears designed to attract this type of media attention.

Several climate scientists noticed the inability on the part of conservative media outlets to consider the study with an ounce of caution or nuance.

-- NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt said: "If you want to do a story then write one pointing to the ridiculousness of people jumping onto every random press release as if well-established science gets dismissed on a dime."

-- Kerry Emanuel of MIT said those seizing on the study are misstating Spencer's findings and that their reports have "no basis in reality."

-- Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, a frequent critic of the IPCC, wrote of the Forbes piece: "it may be appropriate to use the word 'alarmist' in some circumstances, but not as an adjective to describe a computer model. This does not help the Heartland Institute to be taken seriously in the climate debate, even by skeptics."

So then on Friday the editor of Remote Sensing, the journal that published the paper, resigned after concluding that it should "not have been published." The editor, Wolfgang Wagner, also criticized Forbes and Fox News for exaggerating the findings:
Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims.

Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.

After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and con arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.

With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper's conclusions in public statements, e.g., in a press release of The University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011, the main author's personal homepage, the story "New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism" published by Forbes, and the story "Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?" published by Fox News, to name just a few.
Now who wants to bet me Fox does not report he resigned, or any of the quotes from people who say Fox misrepresented the findings of the study. And btw, as of Sunday Fox has not said a word about the editor who resigned, or corrected the record.

So much for real journalism, Fox proves once again that they are a fraud of a News Network, that is totally biased to the right.

Proof Taxes And Regulations Are Not Slowing Economy
By: Steve - September 4, 2011 - 8:00am

Republicans reacted to Friday's dismal jobs number, that showed zero net jobs were created in August, by blaming the supposed avalanche of taxes and regulations put in place by the Obama administration.

The Republican House Speaker John Boehner said this: "Private-sector job growth continues to be undermined by the triple threat of higher taxes, more failed stimulus spending, and excessive federal regulations. Together, these Washington policies have created a fog of uncertainty that's left small businesses unable to hire and American families worried about the future."

Sounds good right, wrong! Because it's all a lie. McClatchy actually conducted a survey of small business and found that they don't blame taxes or regulations for their hesitancy to hire:
McClatchy reached out to owners of small businesses, many of them mom-and-pop operations, to find out whether they indeed were being choked by regulation, whether uncertainty over taxes affected their hiring plans and whether the health care overhaul was helping or hurting their business.

None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it. Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-09 and its grim aftermath.
Some small business pointed to the cost of health insurance as holding them back. Others cited a simple lack of customers (consistent with an economic slump caused by lack of demand).

"I think the business climate is so shaky that I would not want to undergo any expansion or outlay capital," said Andy Weingarten, who owns Almar Auto Repair in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Several respondents actually pointed to the 2009 Recovery Act (the Obama stimulus), which was almost unanimously opposed by Republicans, as helping to boost their businesses.

"It allowed those folks to spend and have money and pay for the essentials," said Rip Daniels, who owns four businesses.

Republicans, however, are still continuing to insist on massive budget cuts that are not causing the private sector to hire, but that have contributed to an absolute hemorrhaging of jobs in the public sector.

The Friday 9-2-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 3, 2011 - 11:00am

There was no review because O'Reilly took the night off and had a best of Factor re-run show. And as usual in his mind the best of his show are the Republicans, so every segment he showed had nothing but Republicans in it.

I guess that more of that fair and balanced garbage O'Reilly claims to do. When the reality shows he is as biased to the right as Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter. In fact, it's laughable for O'Reilly to claim to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone. And someone should sue him for fraud for even making such dishonest claims.

Republican Party Auctions Off Glock At Fundraiser
By: Steve - September 3, 2011 - 10:00am

So you are saying oh well there is nothing wrong with having a gun auction to raise money for the Republican party. And 99% of the time I would say you are right, because I am a gun guy and I believe in the 2nd amendment 100 percent.

But this time you and I would both be wrong, because this is just not any gun auction, it's a Glock pistol auction by the Pima County Republican party, which is in the same district where Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was shot early this year.

The Pima County Republican party is holding a raffle fundraiser, and the prize is a Glock handgun, the same weapon that was used to shoot Giffords.

It's a get out the vote promotion, are you kidding me, they could not have found something else to auction. The promotion headline says this:
Help PIMA GOP Get Out The Vote And Maybe Help Yourself To A New Glock .45
The tickets are $10.00, and they are for sale at the PIMA GOP headquarters, or at any PIMA GOP event. They are selling 125 tickets, and the gun will also come with a 12 round magazine, adjustable grips, and a case.

This is an outrage, to aution the same gun the guy used to shoot Congresswoman Giffords, and to do it in her very own district. There should be a law against this kind of stuff, and whoever decided this was a good idea should be thrown out of the party.

And of course, O'Reilly never said a word about it. Because he is a Republicans who covers for his friends by ignoring stories like this. But if the Democratic party had done this in a district where a Republican had been shot in the head, O'Reilly would lose his mind and report on it for a week, if not for months.

Krauthammer Caught Lying On The Factor Again
By: Steve - September 3, 2011 - 9:00am

On the Tuesday O'Reilly Factor Charles Krauthammer said that when President Obama doesn't succeed in Congress, he goes under the radar to enact harmful regulations.

Krauthammer supported this claim with the lie that the Obama administration has "essentially enacted the DREAM Act" and that new EPA regulations will "shut down about 10 percent of coal-generating electricity in the United States."
KRAUTHAMMER: Remember, last year he tried to pass the DREAM Act, which is a pretty significant change in immigration, in which if you were brought here by illegal parents as a child and you meet certain criteria, you're in college or the military, you get essentially amnesty.

Now, what's interesting is that the Congress, which at the time last year was entirely in the hands of Democrats, rejected the DREAM Act.

So, what does Obama do? His Department of Homeland Security issues regulations under the excuse of prosecutorial discretion which essentially enacts the DREAM Act through regulation.

Meaning, of the 300,000 cases out there of people waiting to be deported the instructions now are this: Anybody who essentially meets the criteria of the DREAM Act is to be let off and even given a work permit. Now, that's a pretty radical sort of in-your-face at the constitutional system.
But as usual Krauthammer is wrong, because the purpose of the new DHS directive is to prioritize deportation of criminals. Which is actually what O'Reilly himself has even called for Obama to do.

From the website:
Under the President's direction, for the first time ever the Department of Homeland Security has prioritized the removal of people who have been convicted of crimes in the United States.

And they have succeeded; in 2010 DHS removed 79,000 more people who had been convicted of a crime compared to 2008. Today, they announced that they are strengthening their ability to target criminals even further by making sure they are not focusing our resources on deporting people who are low priorities for deportation.

This includes individuals such as young people who were brought to this country as small children, and who know no other home. It also includes individuals such as military veterans and the spouses of active-duty military personnel.

It makes no sense to spend our enforcement resources on these low-priority cases when they could be used with more impact on others, including individuals who have been convicted of serious crimes.
And the DREAM act is not an amnesty as Krauthammer claims. The DREAM Act is not a giveaway to undocumented youth, even those who have lived here all of their lives. Rather, it creates a well-defined process to legalize only those who grew up here and who earn status by staying in school and maintaining good moral character.

To apply for relief under the DREAM Act, these young people would have to graduate from high school or earn a GED, have good moral character, have come to the U.S. when they were young and show that they have lived in the U.S. for at least five years.

Students would then be eligible to apply for conditional status. During the 6-year conditional status, students would have to either complete at least two years of higher education or two years of military service.

Krauthammer also Claims the EPA regulations will shut down about 10 percent of coal-generating electricity. Which is a total lie.

Krauthammer's talking point comes from an inaccurate WSJ editorial. A Wall Street Journal editorial stated that "Obama has the power to delay new rules that will shut down 8% of all U.S. power generation," referring to an informal estimate of the combined impact of numerous EPA rules, many of which have not even been proposed yet.

What happened is the WSJ misleadingly cropped the text of the Clean Air Act. Then the dishonest Krauthammer used it to lie about it on the Factor, and btw, not once did O'Reilly question anything he was saying, he just acted as if it were all facts, when in reality it was a lie and right-wing spin.

The WSJ editorial cropped the quote from the Clean Air Act. Section 112 of the Act states that the presidential exemption clause applies only to regulations under that section, such as the EPA's proposed Utility MACT/Air Toxics rule to limit power plant emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants.

Contrary to the claims made by The Journal and Fox News, this provision does not authorize the President to grant exemptions from other pending EPA rules. And this was from an op-ed, not reported in the hard news section of the paper.

Not to mention, the WSJ op-ed Is Calling For Exemptions From A Rule That Has not even been put in place yet, and might never be.

Krauthammer and the The Wall Street Journal also claimed that Obama could easily exempt power plants from the pollution limits. But the exemption is only an option if the technology is unavailable and National Security is at stake.

And btw, 20 States Already Have Mercury Limits, with Most Power Plants Already Meeting The Standards.

Making Krauthammer a liar, and O'Reilly just as bad for letting him spin out all those lies.

The Thursday 9-1-11 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - September 2, 2011 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Terrible news for President Obama. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A new poll shows that 62% of Americans disapprove of how President Obama is handling the economy. That is Armageddon for the White House, but Mr. Obama is not completely out of it because the same poll shows that 69% of Americans say they like the President as a person.

The poll also says 76% believe we are in a recession, but most Americans blame President Bush. As far as the Tea Party is concerned, 29% of Americans have a favorable view of the movement, while 42% have an unfavorable opinion. On to the presidential race - 46% of Americans think Mitt Romney would do a better job on the economy, while 42% say President Obama would do a better job.

Today's data demonstrates that Americans continue to be very frustrated with the economy and understand that the President's current policies aren't helping. Mr. Obama will address the country one week from tonight, but we don't expect that to have much impact. All that really matters is the economy getting better, not what anybody is saying about it.
Then O'Reilly talked about Indiana Representative Andre Carson, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, who accused Tea Party members of wanting to see black Americans "hanging on a tree." Allen West the Republican was on, who said this: "I don't think we need that type of incendiary talk. We have almost 17% unemployment in the black community, 40% unemployment among black teens and the high incarceration rate. Rather than go at the failures of the Obama administration, some are trying to attack the Tea Party as a scapegoat. This type of rhetoric has no place in the political discourse."

Then O'Dummy said that he thinks some politicians are using scare tactics to get out the vote, saying this: "When Carson and Maxine Waters talk in these terms, they're speaking to the choir, to people who are anti-Tea Party and who love Barack Obama. I believe the CBC and other pro-Obama people are very worried that African Americans are not going to turn out like they did in 2008."

Now that's funny, because a while back O'Reilly told the Republicans they should use scare tactics to beat Obama. But when a Democrat does it O'Reilly says it is wrong.

Then O'Reilly had Laura Ingraham to analyze the complaints by Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, both of whom claim they are unfairly maligned in Dick Cheney's new book. Ingraham said this: "Dick Cheney feels Condoleeza Rice was quite naÔve in her dealings with North Korea. Rice wanted to make progress on the denuclearization of North Korea, but Cheney says that was very naÔve thinking. Cheney is a very smart guy and, like a lot of smart people, he gets impatient with people who he thinks aren't as smart as he is."

O'Reilly complained that Cheney, who is making the TV rounds this week, has refused to enter the No Spin Zone, saying this: "We'd like to ask Mr. Cheney about the situation, but he's not making himself available. You may remember that Cheney would not give us an interview for eight years while he served the President - somehow I don't think he likes us."

In the next segment Freedom Works, which is affiliated with the Tea Party, is planning a protest against Mitt Romney. The group's president Matt Kibbe explained that Romney's health care legislation in Massachusetts is the major issue: "Romneycare really is the basis of a lot of frustration, as well as his inability to step away from what has proven to be a very bad government-run model for health care. President Obama will rightly be able to argue that Romneycare was the basis for what is now government-run health care at the federal level. But our protest is also about his support for Wall Street bailouts and ethanol subsidies and his unwillingness to support real entitlement reform."

Playing devil's advocate, O'Dummy reminded Kibbe that Romneycare has not been a total disaster, saying this: "In Massachusetts, 96% of working people have health insurance, while in Texas only 75% do. The problem is that if you're uninsured and you get injured, the taxpayer has to pick it up because you go to the emergency room."

Then O'Reilly talked about an Internet video showing 35-year-old Gary Johnson beating the tar out of a teenager in Florida. Culture Warriors Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover analyzed the situation. Carlson said this: "He's a horrible parent and a moron. This kid came to the house to have a staged fight with this guy's son, then the father decked the boy and continued to punch him while he was in a fetal position. I hope he goes to jail for a long time."

Hoover nominated Johnson as 'worst parent of the year.' "These boys were going to have their own fight, but after this guy's son lost he went after the kid who beat his son. This is a classic case of thuggery breeding thuggery."

So then O'Reilly placed part of the blame on cultural decline, saying this: "The narcissism that's pervading our society, where people don't care about anybody but themselves, has to influence parenting. To be a good parent you have to put the children before you, but we're losing that."

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about how California is about to pass a bill to provide college aid for some illegal aliens, similar to the "Dream Act" that was rejected by Congress. Kelly said this: "They're not circumventing anything," she said. "California is entitled to pass its own version of the 'Dream Act,' which looks almost nothing like the federal version. This just says that if you're in the state and go to high school for three years, you will qualify for financial aid. California is not doing anything wrong."

Kelly also reported on the Alaska mom who disciplined her son by forcing him to drink hot sauce and putting him in a cold shower, saying this: "She got 180 days in prison and a $2,500 fine, but both parts of that sentence were suspended. They are requiring her to get continuous therapy on parenting skills, and the boy is still with her. This sent other parents a message that this is not acceptable."

And finally the Factor news quiz with Martha MacCallum and Andy Levy. Which I do not report on because it is not news.

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

Young Turks Host Defends Ron Paul From Bill O'Reilly
By: Steve - September 2, 2011 - 10:00am

Progressive talk show host Cenk Uygur defended the Texas Congressman Ron Paul for not appearing on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News television show.

"Ron Paul's afraid of a debate? That's ridiculous, right? I have no idea why he's not going on Bill O'Reilly's program. But that's O'Reilly's favorite trick to get guests on. He'll call them out," Uygur said in an episode of The Young Turks.

Pointing out how much establishment Republicans don't like Ron Paul, he mocked the Fox News host for insulting Paul as being too timid. Uygur suggested that there could be many reasons for Paul's absence and pointed to the fact that Congressman Paul has appeared on the Young Turks to debate numerous times.

"Ron Paul has been on this show many times. We've had endless debates. fervent debates. He was never afraid of it. It's so comical. That's the one politician, agree or disagree with him, that is definitely not afraid of a debate."

By O'Reilly's own acknowledgement, he's called Paul insane, labeling him an isolationist naive to foreign threats. Along with conservative political analyst Dick Morris, he continued to repeatedly complain about Paul's absence on a recent show addressing the matter.

Hey O'Reilly here is a tip, if you want to get someone on your show do not call them insane.

O'Reilly said this about Ron Paul on an August 24th broadcast: "From the very beginning, and we've had Ron Paul on this program, I have said to Mr. Paul's face that some of his positions are insane. That you can't be an isolated nation the way he wants to be, that bad guys will come and get us unless we get them first. We all know this, except Ron Paul doesn't. But there is a strain of people that love him and that's what shows up in the 13% or 14% that he gets."

Stooping to a seemingly desperate attempt to discredit Paul's position, fellow Republican commentator Dick Morris jumped on the the O'Reilly bandwagon to threaten Paul's supporters with getting used to seeing President Obama if they continue in their ways.

Morris said this: "Those people that love him better love Obama because if he ever gets the nomination, they get him for four more years."

The childish tantrum thrown over Paul's declining Bill O'Reilly's invitation is a good example of how rational explanations can get lost through the filter of the drama-filled cable news environment.

In a statement provided to Politico last week, Paul's campaign chairman Jesse Benton stated the Congressman's New Hampshire campaign schedule didn't make it possible for an appearance on the Factor at that time. Benton also said the campaign would "be very happy to entertain offers in the future."

The whole incident is also another reminder of how a candidate like Ron Paul can ruffle the feathers of the political establishment, upsetting the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Dick Morris, who are in favor of the Republican status quo.

Republicans Want To Get Rid Of Social Security
By: Steve - September 2, 2011 - 9:00am

Listen up folks, if you are on Social Security or Medicare you should make sure you vote against every Republican who runs for any office, including President.

Because if you do, the Republicans are going to get rid of Social Security and Medicare, the two things Senior citizens need the most. And I can tell you this for a fact, without Social Security my Fathers total monthly income would be $385.00 a month, which would not even pay his house payment, let alone all his other bills and food etc.

Normally the Republicans deny they want to do it, but recently some Republicans have let it slip out that they oppose Social Security and Medicare. To appeal to their far-right base, hoping that by the time the general election is here the people will forget what they said.

Just look at what Rick Perry (the GOP frontrunner) has said. He is not only opposed to Social Security, he says it is unconstitutional. On Wednesday Rick Perry was asked about Social Security during a campaign stop in Ottumwa, Iowa, and he not only said that Social Security is unconstitutional, he said it was a ponzi scheme.

Perry used similar Ponzi scheme language to describe Social Security in the book he wrote last year. A campaign spokesman tried to soft-pedal that view in an interview with the Wall Street Journal this month, noting that the book was written before Perry decided to run for president, and saying it doesn't reflect the governor's current views.

But Perry himself made no such distinction at a weekend appearance in Des Moines, saying this: "I haven't backed off anything in my book. So read the book again and get it right."

And it's not just Perry, on the very same day Tucker Carlson was on the Fox Newsroom show and he also called Social Security "A Ponzi Scheme." This is not just a few random Republicans who think that, it's the vast majority of them.

Although most of them are still smart enough to not say it in public, for political reasons, behind closed doors almost every Republican in the country wants to get rid of Social Security and Medicare, even though millions and millions of seniors would be homeless without it.

Many Republicans are admitting they want to get rid of it, here are a few names:

1) Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) - A few months ago he praised the plan put forth by his Republican House counterpart, budget committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), which would privatize Social Security and Medicare.

2) Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) - Actually wrote the bill that would privatize Social Security and Medicare, in effect ending both programs as we know it.

3) House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) - Said Congress should embrace the direction of the Ryan plan in order to cut spending and reduce the national debt.

"It is clear from the Republican Party's selection of Paul Ryan to be the spokesman in the wake of the State of the Union address that they are getting behind his plan, and that makes clear that they are coming after Social Security and Medicare," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) Monday on a conference call with reporters.

"Paul Ryan has become the leader of the Republicans," added Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on the call. "He has developed their blueprint for the future."

And the Republicans want to do this even though the vast majority of the American people are opposed to it. All the polls she that the US public is overwhelmingly opposed to reducing the scope of Social Security or Medicare.

So what happened to representing the people that voted them into office. How can they be in favor of a plan the people oppose, and still keep their jobs. In fact, if you can vote you should not only not vote for any Republicans, in the next election you should vote out the Republicans that are there now.

More Facts About Corporations And Taxes
By: Steve - September 1, 2011 - 9:00am

O'Reilly and his right-wing friends go on and on about how Corporations pay too much in taxes, and that the Corporate tax rate needs to be lowered to create jobs. Even though we have done that 2 or 3 times and it did not create jobs, it just added to the profit the Corporations made so their stock price went higher, and their shareholders were the only people to benefit.

Now get this, did you know that Last year, as Americans across the country grappled with the widespread effects of the Great Recession, tax dodging by corporations and the wealthy cost the average U.S. taxpayer $434, even as corporate profits soared 81 percent.

In fact, according to a new report from the Institute for Policy Studies, corporate tax dodging has gone so out of control that 25 major U.S. corporations last year paid their CEO more than they paid in federal income taxes:
-- Of last year's 100 highest-paid corporate chief executives in the United States, 25 took home more in CEO pay than their company paid in 2010 federal income taxes.

-- These 25 CEOs averaged $16.7 million, well above last year's $10.8 million average for S&P 500 CEOs. Most of the companies they ran actually came out ahead at tax time, collecting tax refunds from the IRS that averaged $304 million.

-- CEOs in 22 of these 25 firms enjoyed pay increases in 2010. In 13 of these companies, CEO paychecks ratcheted up while the corporate income tax bill either declined or the size of the corporate tax refund expanded.
So not only did they pay one guy (their CEO) more than they paid in taxes, most of them actually got a tax refund, during a recession. Folks this is crazy, they should have paid taxes, and the CEOs should have stayed at the same pay rate, instead they got pay increases.

And they still cry about taxes, when most of them do not pay anything, and even get refunds. As they pay the CEO more than their actual taxes. While the average working man loses money, these guys are getting richer, and doing it during a downturn in the economy.

Now just imagine what they get in a good economy. Think about that for a minute. Ask O'Reilly to explain that, oh yeah, you can't because he did not report it and never will.

To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: