The Friday 7-31-12 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - September 1, 2012 - 11:00am

Talk about bias, O'Reilly has the far-right propagandist Laura Ingraham host his show to spin for the right during the RNC convention week.

The far-right hack (Laura Ingraham) filled in for O'Reilly and her ridiculous TPM was called: The state of the presidential race post-RNC. Crazy Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: The speeches at the Republican National Convention successfully drove home three points. One, Mitt Romney has the experience and demeanor required to get this country moving again. Two, Mitt Romney is a caring person who possesses a great empathy for those in need. Three, Barack Obama's policies have failed miserably.

Some say Mitt Romney's speech didn't possess the soaring rhetoric of a Reagan or a Kennedy, but it seemed right for the moment. More swing voters should now see him in a warmer and more reassuring light. His personal and professional narrative is admirable in an era when many are celebrated more for their bad behavior and 'edginess' than real merit and achievement.

But maybe Romney's clean and exemplary life remains off-putting to some people who are either ashamed of their own choices or jealous of someone who chose better. One poll shows that Romney got a bounce from this convention, but Obama still maintains a lead in the electoral college.

In the final 65 days of this race, Romney needs to convince voters of two important things: First, he must make the case that our lives can and will get better under his leadership; second, his team must hammer away at the facts of President Obama's failure with powerful ads and strong speeches on the trail.
Then Ingraham had Democratic pollster Margie Omero and former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen on to evaluate the convention and Mitt Romney's presentation.

Omero said this: "I think Mitt Romney did a good job, and people will have a positive reaction. But it's important to remember that he's had a net unfavorable rating since January and it will take more than a speech to turn that around."

Thiessen claimed Romney achieved his primary goals over the prior week, saying this: "A convention speech is not supposed to be a litany of policy proposals, it's supposed to introduce a human being to the American people and I think Romney did a very effective job of introducing himself. He needed to connect with Americans in a way that he hadn't been able to before. No one is going to be able to say he is aloof and uncaring after this."

What a joke, a speech will not change a whole lot, it's what you did in life, not what you say, that people judge you on, and Romney will still be seen as an uncaring rich guy who only wants to help the rich and the corporations.

Then Geraldo was on to assess Clint Eastwood's rather odd presentation at the RNC, saying this: "It absolutely obscured Mitt Romney's speech. I thought it was buffoonery and really badly done. If you're going to do standup comedy, you have to have good writing, but he went on for twelve minutes and should have been cut down to a couple of minutes. With the hair and the suit, it looked like he stumbled out of Joe's Bar and did this, he took it way too casually. This was an 82-year-old man who lost his way."

And of course the far-right idiot Laura Ingraham disagreed, saying this: "I loved Clint Eastwood from beginning to end because it had everyone on edge and it was an unscripted moment in a buttoned-up convention. It drove the left absolutely bonkers."

Then Ingraham said the Republican convention featured a host of female speakers and Mitt Romney went out of his way to speak about women. So Ingraham Laura invited reaction from Republican strategist Loretta Lepore and her Democratic counterpart Zerlina Maxwell.

Maxwell said this: "It's wonderful that they're highlighting women that he's worked with, but what's concerning to me are Republican policies that don't necessarily help those women. Mitt Romney is talking about the repeal of Obamacare and that will hurt women if he is elected."

And as I said before, you can say whatever you want, if your policies hurt women or discriminate against them, or you tell them what to do with their own body (as in have an abortion or not) or try to tell them how to run their life you are not for women. I say judge Romney and the Republican Party on what they have done, not what they say.

And of course the right-wing stooge Lepore claimed that her party hit a home run in Tampa, saying this: "Governor Romney was highly effective and the campaign was effective in showcasing women who have achieved great things. He has put them front and center, both in private business and while he was Governor of Massachusetts. Single women tend to gravitate toward Democrats and more government, married women tend to be more conservative."

Take note of this, almost every Republican in Congress voted against the Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act for women, that alone tells you all you need to know, that the Republican Party does not care about giving equal rights to women. And if I was a woman I would never vote for a Republican running for anything, ever.

Then the Political observer Larry Sabato was on, who suggested that the Democratic 'blame Bush' strategy is losing its effectiveness.

Sabato said this: "It will only work partly, because George W. Bush has done a smart thing that most presidents are unable to do when they leave office, and that's to actually step off the stage. He's been amazingly quiet and when you're quiet, even if you have high negatives, you find that those negatives start dropping. So you're just not as big a target. You can really overdo the blame game and I think the Democrats have to be careful about that at their convention in Charlotte."

Sabato also said he thought that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was a big loser at the Republican convention, saying this: "His speech was more about him and he did not do what the conventioneers wanted to see, which was to throw some red meat. That's what Chris Christie is known for."

Then Ingraham asked Professor Chris Metzler and immigration attorney Francisco Hernandez about the Republican convention and its roster of minority speakers.

Hernandez said this: "The problem here is that Governor Romney had to go out on such a limb to win the primary, and they're now trying to come back and appease Hispanics and minorities. It comes across as patronizing, you can't just come out and speak Spanish and make things okay. If Governor Romney made Governor Perry look soft on immigration, he's not going to fix that just by putting on a show."

So then the far-right loon Metzler slammed Hernandez for characterizing Romney as patronizing, saying this: "Mitt Romney talked about entrepreneurship and for you to suggest that is patronizing is, quite frankly, patronizing! This is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. If there had not been such a display of diversity at the convention, you guys would have been asking, 'Where is the diversity?'"

Earth to Republican idiot, you can not just have a minority speaker or two and speak some Spanish, while you do everything you can to hurt minorities and Hispanics with your policies, then expect them to vote for you, jerk!

And in the last segment Ingraham played a re-run interview from April, when Congressman Paul Ryan talked to O'Reilly after President Obama called Ryan's budget proposal "social Darwinism." Which I will not report on because it's right-wing propaganda, and it was a re-run interview.

Federal Court Strikes Down Ohio Law Restricting Early Voting
By: Steve - August 31, 2012 - 11:30am

Last month, President Obama's reelection campaign filed a lawsuit claiming that a recently enacted Ohio law eliminating early voting in the three days before an election, except for members of the military, violates the Constitution's guarantee that all voters enjoy equal access to the franchise.

The campaign's lawsuit called for the right of all voters to cast an early ballot be restored in Ohio -- it explicitly stated that expanding the franchise, not taking early voting away from military personnel as well, was the appropriate outcome.

In an opinion by Judge Peter Economus, a federal court agreed with the Obama campaign on Friday that the Ohio anti-voter law must be suspended:
"A citizen has a constitutionally protected right to participate in elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction."

In Ohio, that right to participate equally has been abridged by Ohio Revised Code 3509.03 and the Ohio Secretary of State's further interpretation of that statute with regard to in-person early voting. In 2005, Ohio expanded participation in absentee balloting and in-person early voting to include all registered Ohio voters. Now, in-person early voting has been redefined by the Ohio legislature to limit Plaintiffs access to the polls.

This Court must determine whether preliminary injunctive relief should be granted to Plaintiffs on their claim that Ohio's restriction of in-person early voting deprives them of their fundamental right to vote. Following Supreme Court precedent, this Court concludes that Plaintiffs have stated a constitutional claim that is likely to succeed on the merits.

As a result-and as explained below-this Court grants Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction.
What's really funny is that the court's opinion relies on the Supreme Court's infamous decision in Bush v. Gore to reach this holding, citing Bush's statement that "having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another."

Judge Economus decision will be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, a Republican-leaning court with a history of legally-challenged partisan decisions benefiting the Republican Party. So it remains to be seen whether Economus decision will have staying power.

The Romney campaign, opposed the Obama campaign's position in this lawsuit. Had the Romney position prevailed, as many as 900,000 military veterans could have had their right to vote impeded.

The Thursday 8-30-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 31, 2012 - 11:00am

There was not much to the show because of the RNC convention, O'Reilly started with the news that 82-year-old Clint Eastwood would speak on the final night of the Republican National Convention.

Little did he know that Eastwood would speak with no written words and do that strange empty chair nonsense. Which the media called stupid, even some of the Republicans were saying it was a mistake to have Eastwood do that.

Karl Rove was on, and he talked about Eastwood being one of Hollywood's rare conservatives, saying this: "He sometimes comes to the meetings of 'Friends of Abe,' a group of conservatives and libertarians in Hollywood. He has moderate social views on marriage and other issues, but he's an iconic figure and a man of few words, so when he speaks he gets heard."

O'Reilly pointed out that Clint Eastwood is no right-wing bomb thrower, saying this: "He's not a hard-core Republican and it will be interesting to see how the media covers this."

What will be really interesting is to see how O'Reilly and his gang of right-wing stooges report on the crazy stunt Eastwood pulled on the Friday night Factor show. Let me guess, O'Reilly and his right-wing friends will spin and defend Eastwood, and attack the media for what they said about it.

Rove also analyzed the Thursday night speech by Jeb Bush, who endorsed greater choice in public education, saying this: "He could be Secretary of Education, but Jeb is big enough to handle one of the big three tasks - Secretary of State, Defense, or Treasury. He made Florida a big export state, a state that does a lot of business with Central and South America. He's also an advocate of democracy and freedom. Jeb Bush is a smart guy."

Rove also spoke about the GOP's obvious attempt to reach out to Hispanic Americans, saying this: "We need to get better than last time, and I thought Craig Romney's speech was particularly effective in that regard. Here was a member of the Romney family speaking in Spanish and telling the story of how his grandfather came from Mexico. He established a connection and spoke about family and faith and community, which are strong words in the Latino community."

Which is just laughable, having a Romney speak in Spanish and talk about his grandfather who came from Mexico, is not going to get Latino voters to vote for Romney when his policies will hurt them.

Then James Rosen and John Roberts were on, who reported on some of Thursday night's scheduled speakers. Rosen said this: "These are people from Massachusetts, who are just ordinary citizens and were primarily affiliated with Mitt Romney through the Mormon Church. One of them will talk about how Mitt Romney literally swept the church floors and drove meals to people."

Roberts outlined the underlying political strategy, saying this: "This is an attempt to humanize him and show he was great at community service. It's also meant to dispel any myths people might hold about his Mormonism and his function as a bishop. This shows the depth he went to to serve his community."

Roberts also analyzed Clint Eastwood's unconventional politics, saying this: "He's pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-environment, and his politics have meandered a bit. He describes himself as a libertarian and he's obviously here to reach out to moderates."

Then O'Reilly speculated why Eastwood decided to speak at the convention and endorse Mitt Romney, saying this: "He's here because he's a self-made man, he was a pool digger. I think that Barack Obama's contention that the government contributes mightily to personal success offended Mr. Eastwood."

And finally O'Reilly talked about spending time at the convention with Senator John McCain, who spoke about his nomination four years ago and the ensuing campaign.

McCain said this: "The most difficult thing was the pace, and even when you're trying to go to sleep you're thinking about things. The thing you have to guard against is that every mistake I've ever made is when you're tired. But most of it was exhilaration!"

McCain also explained why, unlike Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, he was almost always on time, saying this: "I admire and respect Bill Clinton and President Obama, but the rudest thing you can do is keep people waiting. They're there to see you and sometimes they have to get there way early because of the Secret Service. I do not respect politicians who keep people waiting."

The McCain interview, will run in its entirety on Monday's O'Reilly Factor.

Author Of South Carolina Voter ID Law Admits To Racist E-Mails
By: Steve - August 31, 2012 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly never said a word about it, because he does not want you to know racism is involved, not to mention the fact that they can not show us one case of actual in-person voter fraud, proving the laws are not needed.

O'Reilly ignores it because he supports the biased and racist voter ID laws, and he is a Republican that also wants to keep the poor and minorities from voting so his right-wing friends can win more elections and give him more tax cuts he does not need or deserve.

During Tuesday night's Republican Convention, Gov. Nikki Haley (R-SC) complained that the hardest part of her job is "this president" opposing South Carolina's voter ID law, which would require a photo identification as a prerequisite for voting.

But just hours before Haley took the stage, opponents of the measure uncovered new emails revealing that the legislation was racially motivated.

South Carolina is suing the Justice Department in an effort to reinstate the law (which the administration struck down for violating the Voting Rights Act) even though state officials could not show any examples of actual in-person voter impersonation fraud and have conceded that requiring a photo identification to vote would not actually prevent a determined voter impersonator from voting as someone else.

During Tuesday's trial, critics who charge that voter ID is designed to disenfranchise minority voters appeared to have scored an important victory when they presented the law's author state Rep. Alan Clemmons (R), with racist emails he received while drafting the legislation:
Garrard Beeney, who represented the civil rights groups, presented emails sent to and from Clemmons personal account between 2009 and 2011, when he was working on the law.

One, from a man named Ed Koziol, used racially charged rhetoric to denounce the idea that poor, black voters might lack transportation or other resources necessary to obtain photo ID. If the legislature offered a reward for identification cards, "it would be like a swarm of bees going after a watermelon," Koziol wrote.

Beeney asked Clemmons how he had replied to this email. Clemmons hesitated a moment before answering with this: "It was a poorly considered response when I said, 'Amen, Ed, thank you for your support.'"
Clemmons also claimed he did not a remember giving out packets of peanuts with cards that said "Stop Obama's nutty agenda and support voter ID," but Beeney showed that Clemmons had testified in June that he did it.

Saying you want to stop Obama by passing voter ID laws is virtually admitting they are biased and racist laws that will help Romney and other Republicans win elections, and hurt Obama. But you never hear a word about it from O'Reilly, because he does not want you to know the truth about voter ID laws, and he wants to help Romney beat Obama by ignoring all this garbage the Republicans are doing.

Miners Forced To Go To Romney Campaign Event
By: Steve - August 31, 2012 - 9:00am

And not only that, the Company CFO said they were not forced to go, but he did say it was mandatory. Huh? Mandatory is the same as being forced to go, jerk!

Now of course you will never hear this report by O'Reilly, or anyone else at Fox News. Here are the details.

When Mitt Romney campaigned at an Ohio coal mine earlier this month, he did not tell you the miners were forced to be there (without pay) by the owner, Murray Energy.

That's according to accounts from multiple coal miners, who sent anonymous letters to a local radio station criticizing Murray Energy for allegedly requiring all workers to take the day off, without pay, and attend the Romney campaign event.

"Just for the record, if we did not go, we knew what would happen," wrote one miner.

In an interview with a talk radio show host, Murray Energy CFO Rob Moore denied allegations that workers were forced, choosing instead to use the word mandatory.

"Our managers communicated to our workforce that the attendance at the Romney event was mandatory, but no one was forced to attend," Moore said. He confirmed that pay was docked for all the workers.

Earth to dumbass, if it's mandatory then they were forced to go.

In another email read on air, a miner expressed frustration with being forced to attend the event, characterizing a culture of intimidation within Murray:
No one likes to be forced to do anything, let alone without pay. I recall hearing a caller claiming that his $100,000 plus Murray salary was grounds for crapping if Murray says crap, or eating broccoli if Murray says to eat it. I say to that man: Many of us, though well educated or hard workers ourselves, do not make half, a third, or sometimes even a quarter of that pay.

Had the event not been mandated, most of us probably would have still attended. We are grateful to have the chance to listen to our leaders or potential leaders first hand and to be a part of political history in the making. We do not appreciate being intimidated into exchanging our time for nothing.
Romney campaigned with Bob Murray, CEO of the company, back in May.

Murray Energy is perhaps best known for operating the Crandall Canyon mine in Utah that collapsed in 2007, killing six miners and two rescue personnel. After that tragedy, reporters uncovered thousands of violations resulting in millions of dollars in fines at various mines owned by the company.

The Wednesday 8-29-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 30, 2012 - 11:00am

There was no TPM because the biased right-wing fool (Bill O'Reilly) spent the entire show spinning and lying for the Republican party and their garbage convention.

O'Reilly started the show talking about John McCain's speech at the Republican National Convention, during which he slammed President Obama's foreign policy. Even though the Obama foreign policy has been great, and McCain did not list one thing Obama has done wrong.

So O'Reilly has the biased hack Dick Morris on to give his analysis of the convention so far.

Morris said this: "Ann Romney's speech was the most important thing so far. Obama's entire campaign for five months has been to personally discredit Mitt Romney and throw barbs at his integrity, his compassion, and his humanity. Ann Romney rebutted that by explaining who he is in very clear terms and she offered vivid testimonials of the hard times they've been through together. She's better than any candidate's wife who has ever spoken at a convention, it was absolutely incredible."

Morris was less charitable when it came to Governor Chris Christie, saying this: "He just talked about himself and New Jersey, very little about Mitt Romney or Obama."

Finally, Morris said that the GOP's biggest weakness so far has been the failure to mention Mitt Romney's business success, saying this: "The words 'Bain Capital' have never been mentioned. C'mon, Obama's whole campaign is based on Bain Capital, so they need a video about people whose jobs were saved by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital."

Then O'Dummy advised everyone to watch a very special interview Thursday night, saying this: "We have a knockout interview with John McCain tomorrow night, it is a knockout and people will be very surprised."

Then James Rosen was on, who provided a preview of Paul Ryan's speech, saying this: "This is his debut on the national stage, and by and large he's going to try and magically transport everyone to his hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin and conjure those Midwest values, which helps him defang the 'mediscare' tactics that he expects. Then he's going to launch a real attack on the Obama legacy and record and he'll repeat the charge about Obama raiding Medicare to pay for Obamacare."

John Roberts reported that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was told to soften his speech, saying this: "The Romney people worked with Christie to tone it down. I was speaking with a former high ranking party official who told me they misused Chris Christie. Christie is the hammer, the guy who is full of bombast and larger than life, and this former official said he would have unleashed Chris Christie on the Obama campaign."

Rosen then speculated why the convention has so far (In O'Reilly's opinion) took it easy on President Obama.

Rosen said this: "Romney and Ryan must give a face-saving 'out' to people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and don't want to feel badly about having made that choice. The argument they'll make is that you can't afford Barack Obama any longer."

O'Dummy then speculated that next week's Democratic National Convention will have a far different tone, saying this: "In Charlotte next week, I think the Democrats will really go after Romney and Ryan as the worst guys in the world."

And btw folks, O'Reilly has a no speculation rule in the so-called no spin zone. But he let Rosen speculate about the RNC convention, and then O'Reilly himself had some big time speculation about what the tone of the DNC convention will be next week.

Now think about this, O'Reilly has been 100% positive about the RNC convention, saying nothing but good things about all the speakers and what they said. Jump forward to the DNC convention, it will be the exact opposite, and O'Reilly will have nothing positive to say about any of the speakers or what they say.

Then Jesse Watters was on to talk about the RNC convention, Billy said that while most of the Republican National Convention is filled with good cheer and unanimity, Watters located a few disenchanted people, including some Ron Paul supporters.

Here are some of their comments: "Our government doesn't have 'we the people' in their minds, they have the wealthy in their minds" ... "The system's corrupt, that's what we're here for" ... "Get the federal government out of our lives and let the free market operate, I think that creates jobs" ... "We need to consider putting a stop to a lot of these entitlements" ... "I'll give my money to my grandma but I'm not going to pay for everybody else's grandma" ... "Why do we need so many laws on the books?"

Then O'Reilly ended the show with another example of his right-wing bias, He had some timely advice for parents, saying this: "I'm making my kids watch some of this convention, it's very important for the kids to get involved. This is history and kids need to get involved with their country."

So he made his kids watch the RNC convention, where a bunch of far-right stooges lie to the American people to try and get elected. And he claimed it was very important, but who wants to bet me he does not make his kids watch the DNC convention, saying that is very important, anyone?

In closing, think about this. In 2 nights of RNC convention coverage O'Reilly has had a grand total of 1 Democratic guest on his show to give their analysis, yes I said 1 Democratic guest.

And that 1 Democratic guest was Alan Colmes who works for Fox News, and who was on with a Republican, so he had to share his time with 2 Republicans, O'Reilly and Monica Crowley. He was not even on alone for a segment, so he barely got a word in. Other than Colmes, not 1 Democratic guest has been on in 2 days.

Now watch what O'Reilly does for the DNC convention, he will have 99% Republican guests on to spin and lie about everything they said. Proving again what a biased right-wing jerk he is.

O'Reilly Slams Obama With Dishonest Tip Of The Day
By: Steve - August 30, 2012 - 10:00am

Here is a great example of how O'Reilly slams Obama by using his lame tip of the day, he is now using the tip of the day for partisan political cheap shots from biased Obama hating writers who spin out un-checked lies.

O'Reilly said this on Monday:
O'REILLY: Monday's Tip: If you want a surprising take on President Obama from a Harvard history professor, Niall Ferguson's article in Newsweek is well-documented and illuminating
And it's all partisan lies, notice how O'Reilly adds the part about him being a Harvard Professor, as if that shows he is a valid and non-partisan writer, when in fact Ferguson is a partisan Obama hater who has nothing good to say about Obama, ever. But O'Reilly does not disclose that, he let's you think he is an objective writer.

Here is what O'Reilly did not tell you. At the Huffington Post Paul Krugman Bashed Niall Ferguson's Newsweek Cover Story As 'Unethical'

Another noted economist, Brad DeLong, economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley, blasted Ferguson for his cover story, this time going further than Krugman by calling for Ferguson to get fired.

Dylan Byers, a media reporter at Politico said this: Newsweek did not fact-check Ferguson's cover story. Byers wrote on Twitter that a Newsweek spokesman said the magazine does not have a fact-checking department, and that "we, like other news organisations today, rely on our writers to submit factually accurate material."

Matt O'Brien, associate business editor at The Atlantic, wrote a stinging blog post fact-checking Ferguson's cover story, writing that "we got an exercise in Ferguson's specialty -- counterfactual history."

James Fallows is a national correspondent for The Atlantic. He wrote this:

As a Harvard Alum, I Apologize

Yes, I know, you could imagine many sentences that would follow that headline. But here is what I have in mind right now: A tenured professor of history at my undergraduate alma mater has written a cover story for Newsweek that is so careless and unconvincing that I wonder how he will presume to sit in judgment of the next set of student papers he has to grade.

O'Reilly never mentioned any of this, not a word. What he did was imply Ferguson is an honest non-partisan Harvard Professor who wrote an un-biased truthful article about President Obama. When that is in fact a lie, and O'Reilly knows it. Here are some of the things Ferguson got wrong.

Matthew O'Brien is an associate editor at The Atlantic covering business and economics. He wrote this:

A Full Fact-Check of Niall Ferguson's Very Bad Argument Against Obama

A counterfactual history of the past four years.

Celebrity historian Niall Ferguson doesn't like President Obama, and doesn't think you should either.

That's perfectly fine. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to disapprove of the president.

But rather than make this straightforward case against the current administration, Ferguson delves into a fantasy world of incorrect and tendentious facts. He simply gets things wrong, again and again and again.

Here is a few of the more factually challenged sections of Ferguson's piece.

FERGUSON: "Certainly, the stock market is well up (by 74 percent) relative to the close on Inauguration Day 2009. But the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak." Did you catch that little switcheroo? Ferguson concedes that stocks have done very well since January 2009, but then says that private sector payrolls have not since January 2008. Notice now?

Ferguson blames Obama for job losses that happened a full year before he took office. The private sector has actually added jobs since Obama was sworn in -- 427,000 of them, to be exact. For context, remember that the private sector lost 170,000 jobs during George W. Bush's eight years.

Of course, it's not really fair to blame Obama -- or Bush -- for jobs lost in their first few months before their policies took effect. If we more sensibly look at private sector payrolls after their first six months in office, then Obama has created 3.1 million jobs and Bush created 967,000 jobs.

FERGUSON: "Welcome to Obama's America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return--almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50-50 nation--half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits."

It is true that 46 percent of households did not pay federal income tax in 2011. It is not true that they pay no taxes. Federal income taxes account barely account for half of federal taxes, and much less of total taxes, if you count the state and local level. Many of those other taxes can be regressive. If you take all taxes into account, our system is barely progressive at all.

But why do almost half of all households pay no federal income tax? Because they don't have much money to tax. Here's the breakdown. Half of these households are simply too poor -- they make under $20,000 -- to have any liability. Another quarter are retirees on tax-exempt Social Security benefits. The remaining households have no liability because of tax expenditures like the earned-income tax credit or the child credit.

In other words, the poor, the old, and children. Not exactly the "50-50 nation" of makers and takers -- or "lucky duckies" -- that Ferguson imagines.

FERGUSON: "The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012-22 period."

Maybe Ferguson doesn't understand the meaning of the word "deficit"? The only other explanation is that he is deliberately misleading his readers. The CBO is quite clear about Obamacare's budgetary implications. It reduces the deficit.

And btw, that's not all, there were about 7 more factual errors I did not list here, and then O'Brien closed with this.

"In the world as Ferguson describes it, Obama is a big-spending, weak-kneed liberal who can't get the economy turned around. Think Jimmy Carter on steroids. But the world is not as Ferguson describes it. A fact-checked version of the world Ferguson describes reveals a completely different narrative -- a muddy picture of the past four years, where Obama has sometimes cast himself as a stimulator, a deficit hawk, a health care liberal and conservative reformer all at once. And it's a world where the economy is getting better, albeit slowly.

It would have been worthwhile for Ferguson to explain why Obama doesn't deserve re-election in the real world we actually live in. Instead, we got an exercise in Ferguson's specialty -- counterfactual history."

The Tuesday 8-28-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 29, 2012 - 11:00am

There was no TPM because O'Reilly had a special RNC convention show. The Top Story was about the RNC and the latest on Hurricane Isaac. O'Reilly had Fox News meteorologist Rick Reichmuth on to talk about Hurricane Isaac.

Reichmuth said this: "The center of the hurricane is going to go just to the west of New Orleans, which is not good news. You don't want to be on the right side of it and that looks like that is exactly what is going to happen. A big band of rain is about to hit New Orleans with winds of about 60 miles an hour. On Wednesday there will be incredibly heavy rain and very strong winds for a 12 to 24 hour period and there will be a world of hurt in flooding all across southeastern Louisiana."

Turning to the Republican National Convention, Billy asked Charles Krauthammer for a preview and a prediction. Krauthammer said this: "I think Romney will get a lift out of this. This election is completely deadlocked and there's no reason Obama should be within ten points of any opponent given the state of the economy and his record over four years."

Krauthammer also said this: "The only thing that's keeping him neck-and-neck with Romney is that all these personal attacks have had an effect. Obama's problem is that he can't change the economy or anything else before the election, whereas Romney can change the perception of him. Romney only needs to be seen as an acceptable alternative to a failed incumbent."

Now remember this, Krauthammer is a biased right-winghack who is not just giving his opinion, he is saying what he wants to happen, and he said the same things about John McCain, who lost. Not to mention, in the electoral college race Obama is way ahead, and unless something really bad happens over the next 2 months, will most likely get re-elected.

O'Reilly reminded Krauthammer that the mainstream media will do its best to counter the Republican message, saying this: "The national media will try to help President Obama by propping up the narrative that Romney's a plutocrat who doesn't care about people and has money stashed everywhere."

Which is just laughable, because a PEW study of the media showed that Romney got more positive coverage than Obama, which is a study O'Reilly is ignoring, because it ruins his spin that the media is in the tank for Obama.

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to talk about the crazy Republicans in Tampa, who have been ridiculing President Obama's "you didn't build that" remark.

Alan Colmes took issue with the GOP's interpretation, saying this: "It would have been better if he had never said the words 'you didn't build that,' but the Republicans are taking it out of context and editing it to ignore what he actually said. Mitt Romney would not have been successful at Bain Capital, Paul Ryan's family got government help, and that's the point Obama was trying to make, that government has helped these people become multi-millionaires."

And of course the right-wing Monica Crowley agreed with O'Reilly and argued that President Obama's comment was actually very revealing, ssying this: "It has become the defining statement of this entire campaign for both sides because it really was definitive of President Obama's philosophy, his ideology, and the way he's governed over the past three-and-a-half years. That was unscripted and off-prompter and it's what he really believes. He believes in wealth redistribution and class warfare and really big government."

Then James Rosen and Carl Cameron were on to say whether there is any simmering discontent at the Republican convention.

Cameron said this: "Like all conventions there's a hidden layer of dissent beneath the surface, and we saw a little bit of that today at the roll call when some of Ron Paul's supporters were ticked off because they didn't get all of their delegates seated. There was some booing and catcalls, but apart from that this is a very typical ramp up to the big speeches. This election is going to be decided in the middle so they want to court moderate and independent voters."

And I would say this to Cameron and O'Reilly, how many Independents do you think are going to vote for Romney with Paul Ryan on the ticket, answer: none.

Then James Rosen laid out the Republican Party's goals in Tampa, saying this: "The central point of this entire production is to redefine Mitt Romney, energize the base, and give him a new footing for the remainder of the campaign. The other goal is to win Florida and its 29 electoral votes. A Republican consultant told me that Mitt Romney will win Florida by three points based on internal Republican polling."

Actually James, their central point is to lie to the American people and hope they fool them into voting for them.

And finally O'Reilly had Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley back for a 2nd segment. They specifically addressed the fact that the United States is getting deeper and deeper in debt.

Colmes said this: "To believe that this started with Obama is just not true. It's a systemic problem. The annual deficit was $1.3 billion when he came into office and it's now $1.2 billion, so the yearly deficit has actually gone down. The money had to be spent because he was losing 750,000 jobs a month when he came into office."

Crowley, of course, disagreed saying this: "The Obama-Pelosi-Reid spending blowout has been unprecedented." The Factor concluded, "It is disturbing that this country has to borrow $3-billion a day."

Notice that Colmes told the truth, and both Crowley and O'Reilly just ignored him to spin out right-wing propaganda.

O'Reilly Lied Like Crazy About NY Stop & Frisk
By: Steve - August 29, 2012 - 10:00am

On the Monday O'Reilly Factor show, Bill O'Reilly claimed that Stop and Frisk saves 3000 lives a year in the minority communities. WHich is just laughable, and O'Reilly knows it.

It is true that New York City has recently seen significantly fewer murders than in the 80s, when there were about 2,000 deaths a year. O'Reilly, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, and others believe this drop is largely due to stop and frisks taking guns off the street. The link, however, between increased stop and frisks and lower murder rates could be a tenuous one.

From The New York Times:
In 2002, when Mr. Kelly last took office, officers stopped 97,296 New Yorkers and the city reported 587 homicides. Last year, those numbers were 685,724 and 532.
Which makes the O'Reilly claim a total lie: The true figure in the city as a whole is 55 fewer murders than before Kelly took office. How many of those murders were in the 'minority communities' isn't clear, but it is not going to be all of them.

Even if it were 50, that would be less than two percent of the figure O'Reilly claimed on his show. So he is exaggerating by a factor of 50 at least.

Here are 15 shocking facts about NYPD stop and frisks:

1) In Brownsville, Brooklyn In 2009, 93 Out Of Every 100 Residents Were Stopped By The NYPD.

2) The NYPD Can Stop And Frisk You In Your Own Building.

3) A Hugely Disproportional Number Of Blacks And Latinos Are Stopped And Frisked By The NYPD.

4) Since 2003, after Mayor Bloomberg took office, NYPD stop and frisks have increased 600 percent. In 2011, a record 684, 330 stops were conducted by New York City police officers. In the first three months of 2012, the NYPD stopped and frisked people 203,500 times. In the same three months last year, the NYPD stopped people 183,326 times.

5) More Young Black Men Were Stopped By The NYPD In 2011 Than There Are Young Black Men in New York City.

6) The Taxi/Livery Inspection Program, was designed to prevent livery cab drivers from being robbed. Livery cabs who engaged in the program had placards that allowed the NYPD to pull over the car and search the vehicle. NYPD officers would often frisk the passengers inside. After a lawsuit filed by the NYCLU last year, however, Ray Kelly has ordered cops to stop enforcing the program.

7) The NYPD Uses Force Against Black And Latinos More Than Whites.

8) With Huge Increase In Stop And Frisks, Only Minor Increase In Guns Found.

9) The NYPD, Bill O'Reilly, and local politicians have repeatedly defended the racial disparity in stops by saying minorities are disproportionately involved in violent crime. In 2011, however, in only 10.5 percent of stops did cops record "violent criminal activity" as justification for the stop.

10) NYPD Will Stop You For 'Inappropriate Attire Off Season'

Also, for visible bulges in your pocket. And, in 51.3 percent of the stops in 2011, cops cited "furtive movements" as justification for the stops.

On a side note, how is a randowm stop for a bulge or the clothing you wear, and the frisk constitutional, answer that one O'Reilly, defend that jerk!

11) Many Stops Are Unconstitutional

When the Supreme Court deemed stop and frisk a legal practice, they set up a standard of "reasonable suspicion" under which cops "must be able to point to specific and articulable facts."

To rely on inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or a hunch is not permitted. In almost one out of three stops, according to The Center For Constitutional Rights, the NYPD fails to meet this standard.

12) The Vast Majority Of Those Stopped Are Innocent. Nine out of 10 of those stopped in 2011 were neither arrested nor given summonses.

13) The NYPD, Bill O'Reilly, and some politicians have repeatedly justified the racial disparity in stop and frisks saying that they cops essentially go where the guns are, i.e. minority neighborhoods.

Yet, only 1.9 percent of frisks in 2011 turned up weapons and according to the NYCLU, "a weapon was found in only 1.8 percent of blacks and Latinos frisked, as compared to a weapon being found in 3.8 percent of whites frisked."

14) In the month of January alone, more than three dozen lawsuits alleging improper stop-and-frisks were filed, based on a Voice reading of the complaints. Extrapolated, that means that the city could be sued more than 400 times this year alone just on improper stops.

If each case settles for a minimum of $10,000, that's at least $4 million in cost to taxpayers, not including the cost to the police department in work hours assembling the documents and removing cops from the street to be deposed, and the cost to the corporation counsel in paying lawyers to defend those cases.

On a side note: O'Reilly says nothing about any of these facts, let alone the cost of the lawsuits and the time wasted defending them.

15) Last week, the NYPD said stop-and-frisk was used more than 200,000 times in the first quarter of this year – a 10 percent jump from the same period last year. The data covers the period from January to March. So far this year homicides are down by 19 percent over last year.

But of the 13 precincts where homicides were up, stop and frisks increased in six over the same reporting period last year. And in the remaining seven, stop and frisks were down.

"There is no evidence that stop and frisk is lowering or suppressing the murder rate in New York City," said Chris Dunn, spokesman for the NYCLU, in a statement. "Murders have dropped steadily since 1990."

The Monday 8-27-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 28, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: A breakdown of the GOP and Democratic conventions. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: We will give you a lot of inside stuff this week, and we begin tonight with what is really happening at the conventions. The GOP will say President Obama is screwing up the economy, gasoline prices are through the roof, and your economic future is shaky. On the Democratic side, they want you to believe the Romney/Ryan ticket is extreme, that those guys want to hurt you by making the rich richer and ignoring the plight of the working man.

The most powerful speaker will be Bill Clinton, who will try to persuade voters that his successful economic strategy has been embraced by President Obama. The rest of the Democratic prime-time lineup is composed of zealots like Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown Law School student who believes the Constitution mandates that the American people pay for her birth control.

Then there's the president of NARAL and the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. These women are abortion extremists, are they not?

Actress Eva Longoria will be on the dais primarily because she is a Latina. Also speaking are Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, a lesbian running for the Senate in Wisconsin, and Massachusetts Senatorial candidate Elizabeth Warren. You can not get more liberal than this crew, it's impossible.

On the Republican side, Governor Romney has pretty much neutralized the far right. Most of the GOP speakers are conservative, but not far right. John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and John Kasich are all fairly flexible in their political thinking.

So I think it's fair to say that the Democratic Party is out there ideologically while the Republican Party is trying to be a bit more moderate. Of course, the national media will never report that because they are actively helping President Obama shape his message that the Romney/Ryan ticket is extreme.

There's no question that America is in trouble economically, that high gas prices are hurting working folks, that the $16-trillion national debt is a threat to our security. But those questions are not being addressed by the President.

Instead, Mr. Obama is trying to put together a 'coalition of the willing' - women who think Republicans want to hurt them, Hispanics who believe Republicans want to deport them, African Americans who believe Republicans are biased against them, younger voters who are being told the GOP does not want to lend them educational money, and older Americans who are being told that Republicans will destroy their Medicare.

We have fear tactics all over the place. Mitt Romney has a very good chance to defeat Barack Obama, but the road will be very bumpy and the rhetoric will be very nasty on both sides. Americans should consider one question above all: Who is best suited to solve the complex problems that are vexing this country?
WOW! That is some of the most ridiculous right-wing lies I have ever heard, almost none of what O'Reilly said is true. O'Reilly said this: "These women are abortion extremists, are they not?" Ummm, no they are not, you and your right-wing pro-life (no matter what) are the abortion extremists, you idiot.

The Romney ticket is extreme, he picked Paul Ryan, wow are you a liar, he is extreme as it gets, and he is trying to get rid of medicare. The RNC is far-right, they even signed up to ban all abortions as their platform, even in the case of rape or incest, now that is extreme. Not to mention, 7 birthers will be speaking, including the birther Mitt Romney who wants Obama to prove he was born here.

Then the biased hack Brit Hume was on from Tampa to evaluate the Talking Points Memo, and even Brit Hume disagreed with O'Reilly, saying this: "I'm not sure I agree that the Republicans are moderating their conservatism. The selection of Paul Ryan was certainly not a move to the center, he's a pretty true-blue conservative. This is a pretty conservative party and this is going to be a pretty conservative convention."

But even after Hume gave him a reality check O'Reilly still put his spin on it, saying that Mitt Romney is avoiding the extreme elements of his party: "Romney would love the Tea Party support but he's simply not going to identify himself with that wing of the party."

So the fact that he picked Paul Ryan and supports all the far-right positions cancels it all out because he is not embracing the Tea Party, wow is that ridiculous and just crazy talk from O'Reilly.

Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to discuss it. Williams said this about Sandra Fluke speaking: "I think it's a terrific idea, and I'm surprised you would call her an 'extremist.' This woman was a college student who said we should be able to get birth control, and I'd rather pay for that than for someone who has unwanted pregnancies."

Not to mention this, it's the RNC convention, and yet O'Reilly slams the Democrats and Sandra Fluke when it is not happening yet, he can not just talk about the RNC convention, without slamming the DNC while he's at it.

Ham claimed that President Obama is engaging in a strategy of divide and frighten, saying this: "Barack Obama has definitively decided that he can not have an argument about the economy and the debt, so he's dividing the electorate into all these little pieces. He needs big numbers from white suburban women voters and he wants to do that by scaring them, using someone like Sandra Fluke to allege that people want to take away their contraception."

That's a lie, Obama is just telling the truth about the Republicans, but Ham and O'Reilly do not want to admit it, so they claim fear tactics to distract you from the truth. And think about this, when Republicans used fear tactics O'Reilly praised it, he even called on them to use more fear tactics then they are. But somehow when Democrats do it O'Reilly has a problem with it.

Then Mark Potok from the SPLC was on to talk about gay activist Floyd Lee Corkins, who walked into the conservative Family Research Council in Washington and opened fire, wounding a security guard. O'Reilly said SOM PEOPLE have blamed the Southern Poverty Law Center, which labeled the FRC a "hate group."

What he does not tell you is that the "SOME PEOPLE" are Republicans. And he ignores the fact that when he was linked to the Dr. Tiller shooting (in a church) he said he is not to blame at all for what he said about Dr. Tiller. But now he wants to link the SPLC to the FRC shooting for what they said, which is hypocrisy and a double standard by O'Reilly the fool.

Potok said this: "We have listed the FRC as a 'hate group' because it regularly spreads demonizing and false propaganda about the LGBT community. The FRC describes gay people as perverted, incestuous, evil, and dangerous to the nation. It describes pedophilia as a homosexual problem and that is simply false. They also say gay people are 'fundamentally incapable of being good parents,' which is also false."

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about what else, The New York Times bias, and how their ombudsman admits that a "cultural progressivism virtually bleeds through the fabric of the Times." While ignoring all other bias at every other conservative media source in America, especially FOX and Goldberg, not to mention O'Reilly's own right-wing bias.

Goldberg said this: "This is not exactly a bulletin, but I'm glad he did it. When I wrote the book 'Bias,' I was called a traitor because I said there was a liberal bias. Now you have the ombudsman for the New York Times saying there's bias, you have Jake Tapper of ABC News saying the media went easy on Barack Obama four years ago, you have Mark Halperin of Time saying the media tends to cover the stories the Obama campaign wants them to cover, and you have Kirsten Powers saying reporters treat Democrats better than Republicans."

Goldberg also said this: "The bad news is that nothing is going to change! The New York Times is still a liberal institution, the networks are still liberal institutions, and they don't care what the renegades say."

And Fox is still a right-wing biased joke of a news network, O'Reilly, Hannity, and all the rest of them are partisan right-wing hacks who spin and lie to the people every night. But you will never hear that from Goldberg or O'Reilly. The worst part is that they claim to be non-partisan, fair and balanced, and tell you to watch them for the no spin truth. When nothing could be further from the truth.

And finally in the last segment we had the Factor Reality Check, that I do not report on because it's biased garbage. It's nothing but O'Reilly (all alone) putting his right-wing spin on something someone else said, and calling it a reality check, when it has almost no reality, and very little checks.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the tip of the day, Billy said this: "Monday's Tip: If you want a surprising take on President Obama from a Harvard history professor, Niall Ferguson's article in Newsweek is well-documented and illuminating."

And now here is something O'Reilly did not tell you, The Ferguson Newsweek story is why President Obama does not deserve reelection. Ferguson does not like Obama, so he has a bias against him. And not only that, other journalists and economists have said it is full of errors.

They say it is a partisan article full or errors and demand corrections. Brad DeLong, the economics professor at the University of California even called for Ferguson to be fired for lying on purpose to smear Obama.

O'Reilly also never told you this: Newsweek did not fact-check Ferguson's story, according to Dylan Byers, a media reporter at Politico. Byers wrote on Twitter that a Newsweek spokesman said the magazine does not have a fact-checking department, and that "we, like other news organisations today, rely on our writers to submit factually accurate material."

And that's not all O'Reilly left out: Matt O'Brien, associate business editor at The Atlantic, wrote a stinging blog post fact-checking Ferguson's cover story, writing that "we got an exercise in Ferguson's specialty -- counterfactual history." Head over to theatlantic.com/business for the full fact-check.

Basically it's full of lies to make Obama look bad, and of course the partisan right-wing hack O'Reilly loved it, because it slams Obama with lies, the same lies O'Reilly and his right-wing friends put out.

Mitt Romney Invested In Company That Sends Jobs To China
By: Steve - August 28, 2012 - 10:00am

Workers at Sensata Technologies, a business based in Freeport, Illinois, have been protesting Mitt Romney's campaign stops across the country all summer because the company, which is owned by Bain Capital, is laying off workers in order to hire employees in China.

Bain took control of Sensata in 2006; last year, it took over the Freeport plant and announced that it would layoff 165 workers and close it.

Some of the workers have even been forced to train their Chinese replacements, adding insult to the injury.

Documents detailing Romney's finances obtained and published last week, show his connection to Sensata.

Romney held a direct investment in Sensata through one fund titled "Bain Capital Fund IX, L.P.," dated December 31, 2009, meaning he has financially benefited from Bain's ownership of the company in the past, and will benefit from the plant's closure and the outsourcing of the jobs to China.

According to his 2011 personal financial disclosure, Romney still holds the Bain Capital fund that contains the Sensata investment.

Romney has a history of outsourcing jobs as the chief executive of Bain Capital. The Washington Post reported in June that under Romney's leadership Bain invested in a series of firms that specialized in relocating jobs done by American workers to new facilities in low-wage countries like China and India.

Now think about that, Romney is directly helping foreign companies steal jobs from American workers, and on top of that, making them train the foreign workers who will take their jobs. And yet, he has the nerve to slam Obama for not creating enough jobs in America to get the economy going, what a jerk.

And that's not all, other companies in which the Bain invested sent jobs to Mexico and other low-wage countries around the world.

While that history might be politically toxic, Romney's proposals wouldn't stop the outsourcing of American jobs. In fact, his plan to reform the corporate tax code by instituting a territorial tax system would make it easier for American companies to outsource jobs, while at the same time encouraging them to store even more money in offshore tax havens.

Sensata workers, meanwhile, are planning to protest Romney and Bain's involvement in Sensata at the Republican National Convention.

And if you watch Fox or the O'Reilly Factor to get the news, you would not know about any of this stuff. Because they cover for Romney by not reporting it, as they slam the rest of the media for Anti-Romney bias, while they are involved in nothing but 100% Pro-Romney bias.

Republican Congressman Slams Romney Over Wind Policy
By: Steve - August 27, 2012 - 10:00am

FORT GARLAND, Colorado -- Rep. Scott Tipton (R-CO) is the latest Republican to come out against Mitt Romney's plan to end the production tax credit for the wind industry.

And of course neither O'Reilly or his right-wing fill-in stooges ever say a word about it. Because they do not want you to know how many people in his own party disagree with the Romney/Ryan far-right positions. And because Republicans are in the back pocket of big oil so they basically bribe him to oppose wind, solar, etc.

Tipton rejected Romney's pledge to end the wind tax credit, saying that the industry needs at least two years before it can be self-sustainable.

"Do you want to cut it off when they're on the cusp of being where we want them to be and to be able to create jobs and to be able to part of the energy solution?" Tipton asked, before answering his own question: "No, I don't think we do."

Not to mention this: Romney's push to end the wind energy production tax credit would put 37,000 jobs at risk, particularly in midwestern states. Not only is he at odds with wind supporters in his party, but also western voters, where two-thirds of voters agree wind and solar will create new jobs in their states. Colorado was home to nearly 5,000 wind jobs in 2011.

Tipton joins a growing list of Republicans from states like Iowa who are pushing back hard against Romney's proposal. Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA) attacked his own party's presidential candidate, saying this: "Romney lack of full understanding of how important the wind energy tax credit is for Iowa and our nation."

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) went even farther, calling Romney's plan "A knife in my back."

Mitt Romney Joins Far-Right Loons In The Birther Club
By: Steve - August 26, 2012 - 11:00am

Mitt Romney joked about the insane right-wing conspiracy theory claiming that President Obama was born in Kenya, during a rally in Commerce, Michigan on Thursday afternoon.

Romney said this: "No one's ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that we were born and raised,' Romney declared to loud cheers.



Rush Limbaugh played the comments during his radio show and noted, “Right on, right on, right on.” And most of the idiots at Fox News defended the ridiculous statement from Romney. O'Reilly (who has called the birthers nuts) was silent, and his stooge fill in hosts also defended Romney, claiming it was just a joke that everyone should ignore.

The Obama campaign responded with this:
Throughout this campaign, Governor Romney has embraced the most strident voices in his party instead of standing up to them. It's one thing to give the stage in Tampa to Donald Trump, Sheriff Arpaio, and Kris Kobach.

But Governor Romney's decision to directly enlist himself in the birther movement should give pause to any rational voter across America.

And they are right, anyone who votes for Romney is voting for a far-right stooge who will do the same thing George W. Bush did, almost bankrupt the country and ruin the economy, while making the richer get richer.

More Proof Republicans Do Not Want Minorities To Vote
By: Steve - August 26, 2012 - 10:00am

Here is more proof the Republicans are racist idiots that do not want blacks and other minorities to vote. And of course O'Reilly and his far-right fill in hosts have ignored it, because they agree with the Republicans and support these ridiculous voter ID laws.

The Republican attorneys general of Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court arguing that a key provision of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional.

The brief points to the fact that the Voting Rights Act impedes laws intended to make it more difficult for racial minorities to cast a ballot as a reason why the Court should cast a skeptical gaze on the landmark voting rights law responsible for breaking the back of Jim Crow:
South Carolina and Texas, both Covered Jurisdictions, have not yet been permitted to enforce their voter-identification requirements, despite the fact that these laws are similar to the Indiana law upheld in Crawford.

The DOJ denied preclearance for South Carolina's voter-identification law. South Carolina has filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking reconsideration of DOJ's preclearance denial. The Trial begins on August 27, 2012.

Texas, like South Carolina, requested the DOJ's preclearance. Despite the Texas response to the DOJ's repeated requests for more information, the DOJ has still not provided a preclearance decision six months after the State's initial submission. By then, DOJ had rejected South Carolina's similar law and, facing a likely similar rejection, Texas opted to file a declaratory judgment seeking preclearance.

The DOJ eventually rejected the Texas request for administrative preclearance nearly seven months after the initial submission. Trial was held from July 10 through 13, 2012, and Texas is awaiting a preclearance decision from the district court – more than a year after its legislature enacted the voter identification law.
Republican supporters of these voter ID laws, which require voters to present ID at the polls, claim they are necessary to prevent an epidemic of voter fraud at the polls. But that is a lie. In reality, a person is more likely to be struck by lightning than to commit in-person voter fraud. One study of Wisconsin voters found that a very small 0.00023 percent of votes are the product of such fraud.

What voter ID laws will do, and Republicans know it, is disenfranchise thousands of American citizens who want to do nothing more than lawfully exercise their right to choose their own leaders.

Although estimates vary on how many voters will be disenfranchised by these laws, conservative estimates suggest that these laws will prevent 2 to 3 percent of registered voters from casting a ballot. And when you are talking about 100 million people voting that's a lot of voters who will not be able to cast a vote.

And the voters disenfranchised by voter ID laws are disproportionately likely to be racial minorities, low-income voters or students — all of who tend to favor Democrats over Republicans.

Which explains why six Republican officials are so eager to ensure that these laws take effect.

The Thursday 8-23-12 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - August 25, 2012 - 11:00am

Well O'Reilly had anorther far-right spin doctor fill in for him Friday night, Monica Crowley filled in for O'Reilly so there was no show review, because it's the same old right-wing propaganda that is a waste of time to even report on.

What is really stunning is that O'Reilly claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone, then he has the partisan hack Monica Crowley (who is worse than Laura Ingraham) host his show and spin her ass off for the Republicans.

Where are the Independent non-partisan fill-in hosts O'Reilly, and why are you giving your show to far-right hacks 2 months before a Presidential election. Do you not understand that is bias and dishonest, because they do nothing but spin and lie for Romney and Ryan, as they spin and lie about Obama and Biden.

Paul Ryan Slams Military Spending Sequester He Voted For
By: Steve - August 25, 2012 - 10:00am

And not only did Ryan personally vote for it, 174 other Republicans also voted for it.

At a round table discussion in North Carolina Thursday, vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan tried to pin the blame for the budget sequester squarely on the shoulders of President Obama, despite the fact that Ryan himself voted in favor of the sequester.

The bill triggers automatic spending cuts to a variety of government programs including military spending if Congress cannot pass a budget by January first.

Ryan has tried to distance himself from those military spending cuts, and thursday claimed that he and other Republicans disagreed with the sequester then, and we disagree with it now.

But in fact, 174 Republicans voted in favor of the sequester, including Paul Ryan. So once again he is lying to you to try and make himself look better, and make President Obama look like only him and the Democrats voted for it.

The Thursday 8-23-12 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - August 24, 2012 - 11:00am

Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly again so there was no show review, because it's the same old right-wing propaganda that is a waste of time to even report on.

What is really stunning is that O'Reilly claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone, then he has the partisan hack Laura Ingraham host his show and spin her ass off for the Republicans.

More Far-Right Republican Insanity Over Abortions
By: Steve - August 24, 2012 - 10:00am

A Republican running for county sheriff in New Hampshire is facing calls to leave the race after he suggested it is acceptable to use deadly force to stop a doctor from performing an abortion. He has since apologized for his comments, calling them unacceptable, but has made no indication that he will drop out.

In a local television interview, Hillsborough County sheriff candidate Frank Szabo said that he values the life of an unborn fetus so much that, when it came to elective and late-term abortions, he'd be willing to kill for it:
Szabo inflamed the issue when asked if he would use deadly force to prevent an abortion.

"I would respond specifically by saying that if someone is under threat, a full-grown human being, if they're under threat, what should the sheriff do? Everything in their power to prevent them from being harmed."

When pressed about what he would do if he learned that a doctor was about to perform an elective abortion, Szabo replied he would do whatever it took to prevent that from happening.

"Well, I would hope that it wouldn't come to that, as with any situation where someone is in danger, but again, specifically talking about elective abortions and late-term abortions, that is an act that needs to be stopped."
Toward the end of the interview, Szabo went on to compare abortion to slavery, saying that, "In the case of abortion, much like slavery, There is a difference between legal and lawful."

Sentiments like Szabo's set a dangerous precedent. He is not alone in thinking that doctors should be blocked from providing legal abortion services (Republicans have proposed several bills that would create penalties for abortion providers) but his statements appear to a violent anger.

Doctors have actually been killed, hurt, and stalked by anti-abortion advocates. Most famously, Dr. George Tiller, a late-term abortion provider from Kansas, was shot and killed while attending church services.

And among those calling on Szabo to step down is New Hampshire's Republican House Speaker Bill O'Brien. In a press release, O'Brien wrote this: "It is our hope that Mr. Szabo will withdraw from this race and think long and hard about grounding himself in constitutional law and principles before considering political office in the future."

Now here is my question, what happened to freedom, the freedom Republicans claim to support. And who will pay for raising the kids that are born if the mother is disabled or unemployed, the Government, and yet Republicans are crazy about banning abortion.

When it's none of their business, and it's up to each woman to decide if she wants an abortion or not, because it's LEGAL, and nobody's business but her's and the man who had sex with her.

Earth to crazy Republicans, shut up and mind your own business. Who made you God, and when was it decided you idiots can decide for a woman if she should have an abortion or not. Support freedom as you claim, and leave the abortion issue alone.

The Wednesday 8-22-12 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - August 23, 2012 - 11:00am

Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly again so there was no show review, because it's the same old right-wing propaganda that is a waste of time to even report on.

What is really stunning is that O'Reilly claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone, then he has the partisan hack Laura Ingraham host his show and spin her ass off for the Republicans.

Republicans Approve Most Conservative Platform Ever
By: Steve - August 23, 2012 - 10:00am

At the 2012 Republican National Convention, Republican committee members spent Tuesday articulating and affirming the principles they stand for in a draft of the official party platform. Led by Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA) and featuring other Tea Party stars like Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN).

The committee approved a draft of the platform McDonnell said will reflect the heart and soul of the Republican Party. Here are some of what they approved:

1) No abortion in the cases of rape or incest: The proposal for a human life amendment passed without any exceptions for rape or incest. They also adopted language that would ban drugs that end pregnancy after conception, which could potentially include Plan B, the morning after pill.

2) They praised some states informed consent laws that force women to undergo unnecessary procedures, require waiting periods and endure other measures meant to discourage them from getting an abortion.

One such law receiving a salute was crafted by committee head Bob McDonnell, who passed a notorious mandatory ultrasound requirement after he signed an unsuccessful bill to require an even more invasive transvaginal probe ultrasound during an abortion consultation.

3) The committee embraced extreme anti-gay language, rejecting a proposal to endorse civil unions for gay couples after vehement objections from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Romney adviser Jim Bopp, who called it a counterfeit marriage.

The rejection of civil unions, along with the refusal to include a line affirming the legal equality of same-sex couples prompted the organization GOProud to say this: "Those who have engaged in this public platform fight have provided distraction from important issues and damaged Mitt Romney's campaign."

4) They called for more anti-immigrant laws like the one in Arizona, even though parts of it were ruled unconstitutional.

Kris Kobach, who wrote the now mostly invalidated immigration laws in Arizona and Alabama, pushed for language calling for a border fence, a national E-Verify system to make it harder for undocumented workers to find employment, the end of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants and an end to sanctuary cities.

The committee overwhelmingly approved the proposals, as well as a line chastising the Department of Justice to halt the lawsuits against the anti-immigration laws in Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina and Utah.

5) They want to audit the Federal Reserve: The pet project of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) to audit the Federal Reserve has now been embraced as an official Republican goal. For the first time, the platform calls for an annual audit of the Federal Reserve.

6) They said no more women in combat: The platform condemns social experimentation in the military, which covers everything from the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell to allowing officers to wear their uniforms in gay pride events, to letting women serve on the front lines.

7) Tony Perkins, who recently blamed President Obama and the Southern Poverty Law Center for the shooting at FRC's Washington headquarters, requested and received a section specifically urging the DC Council to expand gun rights. The same section also opposes DC statehood, which would allow the District to govern itself and put an end to Congressional attempts to impose abortion bans on DC.

8) They also said they do not want any new taxes unless it's going to pay for a war or a national emergency: The platform calls for a Constitutional amendment requiring a super-majority to approve any tax increase, "with exceptions for only war and national emergencies."

It would also deliberately hobble future Congresses through a cap limiting all government spending to historical average percentage of GDP, so that future Congresses cannot balance the budget by raising taxes.

Folks, this is the 2012 Republican party. It's ridiculous, and if you vote for Romney that is what you will get.

The Tuesday 8-21-12 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - August 22, 2012 - 11:30am

Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly again so there was no show review, because it's the same old right-wing propaganda that is a waste of time to even report on.

What is really stunning is that O'Reilly claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone, then he has the partisan hack Laura Ingraham host his show and spin her ass off.

GOP Will Advocate Abortion Ban Without Rape Exception
By: Steve - August 22, 2012 - 11:00am

Some Republican politicians have been falling over themselves to condemn Republican Congressman Todd Akin, the Senate candidate in Missouri, who said Sunday that women who have experienced legitimate rape don't get pregnant because the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

The Romney-Ryan campaign called Akin's comments "insulting, inexcusable and frankly wrong," in spite of Ryan's close working relationship with Akin on a number of radical anti-abortion and contraception bills.

A few Republicans in the Romnay camp say they support a rape exception in the case of an abortion, but that would put the campaign at odds with the Republican Party's longstanding platform, the newest iteration of which will be officially unveiled at the Republican National Convention in Tampa. And I would bet they change their mind if Romney wins and decide to not support an abortion exception.

In spite of the public outcry from the right over Akin's comments, the official GOP platform committee drafted a provision Monday supporting a human life amendment that would outlaw abortion without specifying exemptions for rape or incest. The platform reads like this:
Faithful to the self-evident truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.

We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children.
Heading the committee is Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA), best known for his mandatory ultrasound law requiring any woman getting an abortion to undergo an unnecessary ultrasound. McDonnell also revealed his regressive position on women's rights in his college thesis, which slandered working women, contraception, and fornicators.

It's no surprise then that under his guidance, the Republican Party will reaffirm its support for a constitutional amendment that would outlaw abortion and likely many forms of contraception.

In saying they would not oppose a rape exception, Romney and Ryan are both changing their tune. Romney said in 2007 he would be delighted to sign a bill banning all abortions, and Ryan has been staunchly anti-abortion in all cases, even attempting to restrict abortion access to victims of forcible rape only.

The human life amendment has been a tenet of the Republican Party platform since the dawn of the Reagan era in 1980. It has survived for 32 years and nine presidential elections, even after former presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) pushed hard in 2000 for an explicit exception for rape and incest. McCain ceded the language to party officials during his own run in 2008.

And now today we have breaking news: "The Republican National Convention Platform approved the human life amendment, which would ban abortion without exception for rape or incest."




A Few Republicans Are Calling On Akin To Resign
By: Steve - August 22, 2012 - 10:00am

You know you screwed up when the far-right stooges Sean Hannity and Karl Rove call on you to resign. Because they normally spin and lie for anything any Republican ever says or does, except this.

And btw, O'Reilly and his right-wing stooge fill-in host Laura Ingraham have totally ignored the story.

A Few Fox News contributors and hosts have called on Congressman Todd Akin (R-MO) to drop out of his U.S. Senate race in light of the firestorm surrounding his claim that it is "really rare" for women subjected to "legitimate rape" to become pregnant.

In slamming Akin's really stupid comments, Fox News figures cried that Akin's ridiculous statement could be "harmful" to Republican efforts to win the U.S. Senate and even the White House.

In other words, they really do not care he said it, they only care that what he said might cause him to lose to the Democrat, and possibly lead to the Republicans losing the entire state in the Obama re-election run. When criticism over Akin's remarks began intensifying Monday morning, Fox News largely ignored the controversy and attempted to dismiss its significance. Fox & Friends skipped the story, and America's Newsroom helped provide cover by treating it as a media analysis story, and not airing the actual remarks.

As the controversy continued, Republican candidates, organizations, and other groups started to distance themselves from Akin, several hosts and commentators at Fox started calling on Akin to withdraw from the race, including Sean Hannity and Karl Rove.

While interviewing Akin on his Radio show, Hannity repeatedly pushed Akin to drop out of the U.S. Senate race because it could hurt the Republican Party's chances to defeat Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and President Barack Obama.

Hannity said this: "I am very concerned, and I know many other conservatives are as well because they have all written me today, that if you stay in this race, that this could then put the entire state of Missouri, this Senate seat, and even the top of the ticket, in jeopardy in Missouri."

On The Five, Dana Perino said this: "Akin should get out. He should have gotten out within the first news cycle, because what he said was wrong, but also he could have at least allowed at least some shot for the Republican, another Republican to come in."

Co-host Andrea Tantaros, said this: "Akin needs to stop talking immediately," later adding this: "It plays right into the hand of Democrats that want to have a debate on social issues, and want to have a debate on this type of thing, so they're jumping up and down, and that's an important Senate seat."

The other Five co-hosts, Juan Williams, Kimberly Guilfoyle, and Greg Gutfeld, also criticized the remarks.

It was also reported Monday that the Karl rove group American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS are pulling advertising in Missouri against Sen. McCaskill. Crossroads spokesman Nate Hodson said of the news: "The act speaks for itself."

Fox News contributor Karl Rove is a co-founder and adviser to both groups. He appeared on the Fox News program America's Newsroom Monday to discuss Akin, where he said this: "The Akin story will be important inside Missouri."

During his Radio program, Republican Fox stooge Brian Kilmeade said Akin made a "moronic series of statements" and is "damaged goods. He's done. He's a dead man walking as a candidate."

Fox News contributor Michael Goodwin said that Akin appeared "like a doofus" and that the remarks are "possibly fatal" for his campaign and could have repercussions on other races.

Kilmeade later made clear he was upset at Akin because his remarks might allow Sen. Claire McCaskill -- "who he called an embarrassment" -- to get re-elected.

Fox News contributor Dick Morris posted an online petition calling on Akin to withdraw.

Lou Dobbs wrote this: "Senator John Cornyn has it right, telling Akin to exit Senate race and it's very simple: Akin goes now."

On Twitter, Fox News contributor Tammy Bruce agreed that Akin should be replaced and wrote that Akin "exposed a bizarre way of thinking that is unacceptable to the nation as a whole."

But O'Reilly has not said anything about it, because he can not defend it, so he ignores the story because it makes Republicans look like the far-right idiots he says (every night) they are not. As he complains the rest of the media ignores news that makes Democrats look bad, he does the very same thing when it involves someone on the right.

The Monday 8-20-12 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - August 21, 2012 - 11:00am

Laura Ingraham hosted so there will be no Factor review, I will just say that she pulled her usual right-wing propaganda and spin nonsense. And I will also say this, she never said a word about the Akin Rape comments scandal, not a word.

And most likely she was told by O'Reilly to ignore the story, even though it was the biggest story in America for the last 3 days. Proving once again that O'Reilly is a Republican who ignores news that make Republicans look bad, as he complains the rest of the media ignore news that make liberals look bad.

Ingraham did not have time to talk about the Akin scandal, but she did have time to waste an entire segment asking if nudity in primetime TV is on the rise.

Hypocrite Paul Ryan Supported Economic Stimulus Under Bush
By: Steve - August 21, 2012 - 10:00am

Here is another example of right-wing hypocrisy, under Obama Paul Ryan has been opposed to any stimulus, but under Bush he voted for the very same thing. And of course you never hear a word about this from O'Reilly, or anyone at Fox News, because they are biased Republicans who want Romney and Ryan to beat Obama in November.

Ryan spent all of last week trying to explain why he signed multiple letters seeking $20 million in stimulus funds for an energy company in his district. Ryan is a staunch opponent of President Obama's stimulus program, which those funds came from, claiming that stimulus is a wasteful spending spree.

As it turns out, Ryan's stimulus hypocrisy goes back 10 years. In 2002, Republican President George W. Bush proposed a similar stimulus plan to the one President Obama signed in 2009. Like Obama, Bush wanted to provide a temporary boost to the economy through an influx of public sector cash.

His stimulus plan included an extension of unemployment benefits and a plan to mail checks directly to millions of Americans. Ryan took to the House floor to defend this plan, accurately noting that additional government spending would help move the economy out of a recession:
RYAN: We have a lot of laid off workers, and more layoffs are occurring. And we know, as a historical fact, that even if our economy begins to slowly recover, unemployment is going to linger on and on well after that recovery takes place. What we have been trying to do starting in October and into December and now is to try and get people back to work.

The things we're trying to pass in this bill are the time-tested, proven, bipartisan solutions to get businesses to stop laying off people, to hire people back, and to help those people who have lost their jobs.

We've got to get the engine of economic growth growing again because we now know, because of recession, we don't have the revenues that we wanted to, we don't have the revenues we need, to fix Medicare, to fix Social Security, to fix these issues.

We've got to get Americans back to work. Then the surpluses come back, then the jobs come back. That is the constructive answer we're trying to accomplish here on, yes, a bipartisan basis.
And that's not all, in a 2002 interview with the Journal Times, Ryan even more explicitly adopted the same economic theory behind President Obama's 2009 stimulus plan, saying this: "You have to spend a little to grow a little. What we're trying to do is stimulate that part of the economy that’s on its back."

And Ryan was right, despite his recent propaganda claims that it was a failure, the stimulus package Obama signed worked.

Of course, Ryan abandoned this understanding of basic economics the minute a Democrat moved into the White House, and this is hardly the only example of Ryan suddenly changing his views once Barack Obama became president.

Under President Bush, Ryan voted to add $6.8 trillion to the federal deficit, mostly from increased defense spending and tax cuts for the rich.

Under Obama, however, Ryan suddenly became very, very concerned about the deficit, claiming that America needs to phase out Medicare, slash education spending, raise taxes on the middle class, and take a giant bite out of Medicaid in order to prevent a coming so-called disaster.

There is one thing Ryan has been consistent on. No matter what, budget surpluses or budget deficits, Ryan always supports tax cuts for the very wealthy.

What this shows is that Republicans are dishonest and biased for opposing the Obama stimulus and lying that it did not work, because they supported the exact same bill under a Republican President. They even used the same arguments Obama made to get his stimulus passed, but as soon as Obama took office suddenly his stimulus was wrong.

And not once will you ever see O'Reilly report this kind of information, because he agrees with the Republicans and he is helping to cover for them by ignoring news like this.

GOP Senate Candidate Wants Voting Rights Act Overturned
By: Steve - August 20, 2012 - 11:00am

Congressman Todd Akin, the GOP's candidate for U.S. Senate in Missouri, suggested in an interview that it was time to look at or overturn the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Asked directly if federal civil rights legislation that prohibits discriminatory voting proceedures needed to be modified or scrapped, Akin said that states (not the federal government) should set voting rules.

According to Akin, elections "have historically always been a state thing and that's a good principle."

Now think about that for a minute, he is basically saying he only wants white people to vote and have the right to vote. So what did the great so-called non-partisan Independent journalist Bill O'Reilly say about it, nothing of course, because he has ignored the story so he does not make Republicans look like the racist jerks they are.

For the record, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits "States from implementing voting procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color or membership in a language minority group."

The law was built on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which "prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance."

In other words he is being a Republican who told the truth for once, that most of the Republican party want to let States decide if they should let blacks and other people of color vote. And if a State decides to ban blacks and people of color from voting, he is ok with it.

Now this is an outrage that in 2012 a person still thinks that way, it's racist and a violation of a persons rights. And you never hear any other Republican slamming the guy, because they agree with him. And you never see O'Reilly report this garbage, because he is a Republican who claims they are not racist.

If that's not racism, I'm Bill Gates!

Ryan Claims He Did Not Know About Stimulus Money
By: Steve - August 20, 2012 - 10:00am

And of course the partisan right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly ignored the story and never said one word about it. Even though it's impossible for Ryan to not know about sending letters he signed.

Here are the details: During an interview with Fox News Carl Cameron Saturday, Paul Ryan tried to explain why he denied requesting stimulus funds for a local energy company in 2009 after voting against and slamming the Obama stimulus bill.

Ryan said this: "My office sends tens of thousands of letters to various federal agencies. This went through what we call my case work system, where it was treated as a case work request for a constituent." Ryan also said this: "It wasn't my intention to send letters supporting the stimulus."

But the letters (at least five in total) are all signed by Ryan in different ways, suggesting that he hand-signed the documents. And btw, Recovery Act is also prominently written in the very first line so it would be impossible to miss it.

let's get real, Ryan is lying. That is a fact, he just will not admit it.

Dick Morris Hypocrisy & Double Standards
By: Steve - August 19, 2012 - 11:00am

O'Reilly has Dick Morris on his show all the time to do political analysis, and he claims he is an honest political analyst. But the facts show a different story, the truth is that Morris is a dishonest and biased partisan hack.

Morris says one thing one day, and another the next, he says whatever Republicans want to hear so he will be invited back on the show. He does not give an honest non-partisan analysis of anything, and almost all his predictions are wrong.

And yet, O'Reilly continues to have him on, even though he knows he is a biased hack who just goes with whatever way the wind is blowing. Here are just a couple examples of his bias and dishonesty.

Dick Morris has praised Mitt Romney's VP selection of Paul Ryan as "hitting the jackpot, inspired and terrific."

Yet Morris previously said that "I hope that Romney does not select Ryan because his Medicare plan would give Obama a really big issue to beat Romney with."

Morris flip-flop echoes his dishonesty on Mitt Romney. Morris previously said that "I do not like Romney" because "I can't trust him" to repeal Obamacare. Morris then told a conservative radio program that he stopped criticizing Romney because "I don't want to make my own task [of defeating Obama] harder."

And now suddenly Morris is now one of Romney's biggest cheerleaders and claims the former Massachusetts governor will repeal health care reform.

Here is what Morris said Before the VP Selection: "I Hope That Romney Does Not Select Paul Ryan."

On the August 2nd edition of Fox & Friends, while discussing possible running mates, Morris warned viewers, saying this: "Ryan is brilliant and exciting. But the problem is he comes with some baggage because of his earlier plan to basically replace Medicare with a voucher system."

Later that day, Morris expanded on why Ryan would be a bad pick. When asked by Greta Van Susteren about Ryan and Jeb Bush, Morris said this: "I think neither of them would be good, Paul Ryan is brilliant. I think he's wonderful. But he proposed replacing Medicare with a voucher system. He's since backed off that and said, I'll keep Medicare as an option. But in doing that, he would attract so much fire over that."

Morris posted a video on his website on August 8 in which he said that "even though I love Paul Ryan, I hope that Romney does not select him" because of Ryan's support for a Medicare voucher system:
MORRIS: The problem is that he came out in the first Ryan budget for replacing Medicare with a voucher system. And he's since backed off that. He said, No, no, you don't need to do that.

But you can keep your current Medicare or go to the voucher system and we'll make the voucher system so attractive that most people will make that shift.

But Obama's not going to let him get away with that and it would give Obama a really big issue to beat Romney with. So even though I love Paul Ryan, I hope that Romney does not select him.
Morris gushed over Ryan's selection in an August 13th video on his website. Morris began the video by saying that "Romney hit the jackpot with Paul Ryan." While acknowledging that Ryan is a "risky" political choice, Morris spent most of the video claiming to be excited about how Ryan would help the ticket.

For example, Morris said Ryan's convention speech could be a "seminal moment" in American political history:
MORRIS: He will destroy Biden in the debates. And I am so looking forward to his having a primetime Wednesday night speech at the convention.

That speech could be as much of a turning point, not just in the election, but in American political history, as Sarah Palin's speech was at the 2008 convention because finally he'll have a large, national audience, where he can really articulate and lay out what his thinking is in terms of the budget, and the disaster that we face if we're not careful.

It could be one of those seminal moments that changes how people think about an issue."
"So I think it's an inspired choice," Morris concluded. "I think it clearly sets to rest any conservative's doubt about the intentions of Mitt Romney and clear the decks, we've got a fight on our hands."

Morris was then interviewed by Fox & Friends on August 11th and said that "this is just an inspired pick. I think he'll destroy Joe Biden in the debate. I think that he'll energize the base. I think it ends the speculation of is Romney is really a conservative or not. And I think it's terrific."

Then during a later Fox & Friends segment, Morris said he was concerned that Ryan's plan "continues the $500 billion Medicare cut that was in Obamacare. Romney has that issue, that $500 billion cut to defend against the charge that he's going to cripple Medicare and make it a voucher system. Ryan needs to come to Romney on that, rather than move Romney to Ryan."

Basically Morris is a con-man, he is running a con on O'Reilly and the Republicans who are dumb enough to believe anything he says. All he does is say what they want to hear that day, to get in good with them and to keep getting on shows like the Factor so he can promote his books and his website, so he can continue to get wealthy spinning and lying to right-wing fools.

More Information On Paul Ryan O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - August 19, 2012 - 10:00am

O'Reilly wants you to believe Paul Ryan is some kind of Republican deficit hawk who (if elected) will make these big cuts that will reduce the massive deficit. The problem with that is it's a lie, because Ryan has voted to increase the deficit by almost $7 Trillion. And of course Bill O'Reilly does not tell you about any of this.

Here are the facts: Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan has gained an undeserved reputation as a fiscal hawk, touting his Path to Prosperity budget as a responsible plan to rein in what he describes as a path to debt and decline.

But Ryan's own votes in Congress show that he is as guilty as anyone of running up the nation's debt.

A Center for American Progress Action Fund analysis shows that Ryan voted to add a grand total of $6.8 trillion to the federal debt during his time in Congress, voting for at least 65 bills that either reduced revenue or increased spending.

From 2001 to 2008, Congress passed legislation that increased the national deficit by a total of $4 trillion -- the number grows to $6 trillion if you add in the how much those policies have cost through 2011. Ryan voted for 90 percent of these deficit increasing bills.

What did Ryan vote to spend on? Here is a break-down of his votes:
Beginning with the Bush tax cuts, since 2001 Ryan has voted to add $2.5 trillion worth of tax cuts to the deficit.

In the last 11 years, Paul Ryan voted for every bill that called for an increase in defense spending. In total, this has added $1.9 trillion to the deficit.

Paul Ryan also voted to increase non-defense discretionary spending - the very thing he is pushing to cut now.

He voted to spend $270 billion on Medicare Part D (all of which was unpaid for).

He also added $80 billion to the deficit by voting for an agriculture bill in 2002, and he added another $20 billion in 2003 when he voted for changes to military retirement.

He also voted for increased borrowing authority for flood insurance, adding yet another $17 billion to the deficit.
In 2009 Paul Ryan also voted yes for a Republican version of the $787 Billion Obama stimulus bill that was $715 Billion. The two bills were virtually identical. Then Ryan claimed the Obama stimulus bill was insane, and even asked for some of the stimulus money, then denied he asked for it, then admitted he asked for it and said he did not know he signed 5 different letters asking for stimulus money.

Not to mention, Ryan's budget plan does not even balance the budget. The Tax Policy Center calculates that under Ryan's budget plan, the federal government would only raise revenue totaling 15.8 percent of GDP. This would still make the deficit 4 percent of GDP by 2022.

And you never hear a word about any of this from O'Reilly, that's because he is too busy spinning and defending Ryan because he wants Romney and Ryan to beat Obama so he can get more tax breaks that he does not need or deserve.

Then on top of all that the Ryan budget takes all the money from the poor and middle class, while helping all the corporations and the wealthy. Which is the exact opposite of what the economy needs right now to increase jobs and lower the unemployment rate.

The Friday 8-17-12 O'Reilly/Williams Factor Review
By: Steve - August 18, 2012 - 11:00am

Their was no TPM because the pretend Democrat Juan Williams filled in for O'Reilly, and he went right to his Top Story about the presidential election.

Williams had Ben LaBolt, press secretary for the Obama team on to talk about reports that the President was considering replacing Joe Biden on the ticket.

LaBolt said this: "The Vice President has been absolutely essential as a governing partner for the President. He can lay out the stakes for the middle class like few others and he's essential for our ticket."

LaBolt also denounced the Romney campaign and its tactics, saying this: "Governor Romney has run an almost entirely negative campaign over the past year, tearing down his opponents and then telling them to stop whining. If you spend a day on the campaign trail with the President, you'll hear him lay out the stakes in this election."

So Juan Williams did just as O'Reilly would and said he wants to remind LaBolt that the Obama campaign has also used questionable tactics, saying this: "I've heard you say Governor Romney is 'unhinged,' and I've also seen an ad that basically accuses Romney of being involved in a woman's death. And on top of that, we have the constant badgering of Mitt Romney to release taxes, as if he's a criminal."

Which sounds just like something O'Reilly would say, not to mention the Obama campaign did not do the ad that accuses Romney of causing the woman's death, and yet Juan (the pretend Democrat) dishonesty linked them to it just as all the other Republicans are doing.

Then Juan had the Republican Congressman and Romney supporter Jason Chaffetz on to spin for Romney and Ryan while slamming Obama.

Chaffetz said this: "While the President is out there doing 'hardball' interviews with People magazine and Entertainment Tonight, Governor Romney and Paul Ryan are out there doing 60 Minutes and talking about jobs and the economy. The Obama campaign is engaged in the politics of personal destruction, it comes out of the Chicago playbook, and the American people shouldn't stand for it."

Chaffetz also accused the Obama campaign of desperately trying to change the subject, saying this: "44 out of 50 states had unemployment go up this year, and do you think Democrats want to talk about that? Absolutely not. Instead, they want to try to distract. The President has played 120 rounds of golf but he's only had two Cabinet meetings this year!"

Then after that right-wing propaganda Juan had Janine Turner and Leslie Marshall on, who assessed the report that President Obama recently considered replacing Vice President Joe Biden with Hillary Clinton. Even though the White House says it will never happen, Juan and his right-wing friends just keep wasting our time talking about it.

Marshall said this: "We can wish it and we can dream it, but this is not realistic. Secretary Clinton is going to be leaving her position and Vice President Biden will be on the ticket. I don't believe all these rumors we're hearing."

Juan then asked Turner to comment on remarks by an MSNBC contributor named Toure, who accused Mitt Romney of trying to portray President Obama as "the scary black man we've been trained to fear."

Turner said this: "I think this is disgraceful, and in this country we don't need to be talking like that. He's deflecting from the real issues because they can't talk about those, they want to keep it on this racial divide. It's shameful." Juan then accused Toure of engaging in "the politics of hate."

Even though it's true, and the Republicans are trying to make people think Obama is the scary black man that is not a real American like you and me. Proving that Juan Williams is as much of a Republican as O'Reilly or anyone on the right.

Then Juan said President Obama hasn't held a White House press conference in nearly two months, but he has spoken with People magazine, Entertainment Tonight, and a local radio station that asked the President to name his favorite Mexican dish.

So Juan had Geraldo Rivera (another pretend Democrat) on to criticize the President's evasiveness, saying this: "He's going to give an interview to the dog food channel before he gives an interview to me, I ask every single day and I get the same answer, which is no answer at all, so I understand the frustration of the White House press corps. But the White House press corps is kind of whiny, they tend to think they are entitled."

Rivera also weighed in on Vice President Biden's "they're gonna put y'all back in chains" comment, saying this: "I hope it was a gaffe and unintentional, I hope they weren't blatantly playing the race card. This was only surpassed by the ad where Romney is essentially accused of killing a woman."

So let me get this straight, Juan Williams and O'Reilly claim Geraldo is a Democrat, and yet, he works for Fox News and he is put on the show to do nothing but slam Obama, if that's being a Democrat, I'm a Karl Rove lover.

Then the fake Democrat Juan Williams showed a re-run of Bill's recent interview with Paul Kengor, whose new book documents Barack Obama's early friendship with radical communist Frank Marshall Davis. Really? How is that news, to re-run an interview with a biased and dishonest Obama hater.

Then Williams cried (just as O'Reilly was) about the so-called lack of media coverage of the shooting at the far-right FRC. That was reported on by everyone from the NY Times to everyone else.

Juan bitched about the lack of coverage with the biased Rich Noyes of the conservative Media Research Center. Noyes said this: "If a conservative had walked into a liberal organization like Planned Parenthood and opened fire, that would have been a major news story. But in this case only ABC News followed up on Thursday night, NBC and CBS were done with the story, they didn't see anything there."

Juan (the dishonest fake Democrat) was troubled by the media's unofficial blackout, saying this: "I don't care if you're a liberal or a conservative, the idea of people walking in with guns to attack people they have political differences with is outrageous! I can't believe that the networks won't pay attention to this story, but it's got to be that they don't like the conservative direction of the Family Research Council."

Now it's getting ridiculous, because the media covered the story a lot, and there are over 700 million search results on the story if you google it. But to O'Reilly, Williams, and Noyes, that is not enough and a lack of media coverage, which is just insane.

And finally in the last segment Juan had anout biased one sided joke of a segment about a partisan group of special operations veterans who has produced a video about the successful raid against Osama bin Laden, criticizing President Obama for taking too much credit and divulging too much classified information.

Juan welcomed former Navy SEAL Scott Taylor, head of the organization. Who is a birther, making him a biased right-wing fool and a jerk. And guess what else, Juan Williams did not tell you the guy is an Obama birther.

Taylor said this: "We have folks from both sides of the aisle, and in fact most of them are probably apolitical. It's a broad coalition of SEALs, Special Forces, Delta Force, and Marines. We're serious individuals, highly motivated, highly organized, and we really believe in what we're saying. I am a Republican but I am an American first."

And the Juan Williams Factor show was over, proving that he is as biased and as much of a right-wing hack as O'Reilly is, because he did the show just as a Republican host like Laura Ingraham or O'Reilly would. The only thing different was that O'Reilly was gone and Juan was there.

Election Information O'Reilly & Fox Are Not Telling You
By: Steve - August 18, 2012 - 10:00am

Talk about not reporting the news in a biased way, here is some information from one of the best election guys in the country, Nate Silver. And of course O'Reilly has ignored it all, because it kills his spin that Romney can and will beat Obama in November.

This is from the August 16th election blog of Nate Silver called FiveThirtyEight.

Since the average vice-presidential announcement has produced a four-point bounce in the polls, subtract four points from any poll conducted in between the naming of the running mate and the party convention. In other words, we'd subtract four points from Mr. Romney's numbers in any poll conducted since he named Mr. Ryan on Saturday.

If I do that and run the model again, it has a rather pessimistic forecast for Mr. Romney - giving him just a 24 percent chance of winning the Electoral College, rather than 31.3 percent as in the official version.

The intuition behind this is simply that, under this theory, it's a bad sign for Mr. Romney that Mr. Ryan has produced a below-average bounce so far. Among the polls that allow for a direct comparison, Mr. Romney has gained an average of about one percentage point since his selection of Mr. Ryan.

Nate Silver has Obama getting 298.6 electoral votes on election day November 6th. He has Romney getting 239.4, which is not even close to the 270 needed to be the next President.

Nate has Obama with a 68.7% chance to win. Romney has a 31.3% chance, which he recently lowered to 24% after the Ryan pick.

Nate also has Obama getting 50.7% of the popular vote. Romney is getting 48.3% of the popular vote.

And those are his predictions for election day, not now, so he has Obama winning as of election day.

The Thursday 8-16-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 17, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: A bad week for the Obama reelection effort. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The bad news began with a pro-Obama group putting out an ad saying that Mitt Romney was partially responsible for a woman dying of cancer. Then the left-wing media began calling Congressman Paul Ryan an 'extremist' because he wants to cut government spending and reform Medicare.

Then Vice President Biden told a group that Mitt Romney and the GOP want to enslave them. All the chaos is showing up in the polls. A group called Purple Strategies, co-founded by a Republican and a Democrat, sampled 600 likely voters in four crucial swing states. In Ohio, the poll has Romney up by two points; in Virginia he is ahead by three; in Florida Romney is up by one point; and in Colorado President Obama leads by three.

The entry of Paul Ryan into the race seems to be a plus for Romney, at least in the polls so far. The economy continues to scare many Americans and finances will dominate the vote. Mitt Romney is holding his own despite sharp and incessant attacks from the liberal media. If the election were held tomorrow, I believe Romney would win. When a challenger is as close as the Governor is in the polling, he usually sweeps to victory.
Calling it a bad week is a matter of opinion, the Democrats think he had a good week and the Republicans think he had a bad week. And of course O'Reilly sided with the Republicans because he is one. Notice he still does not mention the electoral college numbers that have Obama winning re-election with almost 300 electoral votes, and Romney stuck around 230 electoral votes.

Then O'Reilly had Democratic strategist Margie Omero on to find faults with the Talking Points Memo. Omero said this: "Everyone expected this race to be close, so I'm not surprised that it's close in this poll. I think it's important to look at the differences between how people view the President and Mitt Romney on Medicare. One of the things that had the largest difference in the poll was President Obama's advantage on Medicare."

Republican pollster Kristen Soltis said this: "When you're picking up ground and leading among independents by double digits in swing states, that's enormous. Many independent voters are the ones who will make up their minds at the end and they're waiting to see who has a plan to create jobs and grow the economy. That's the one question in the poll I think Romney should be a little nervous about because when you ask who has a better plan to fix the economy, he only has a three-point advantage."

Then of course O'Reilly had Tony Perkins on to talk about the shooting at the FRC, while never reporting on vandalism, terrorism, or anything at abortion clinics.

Earlier this week gay activist Floyd Corkins walked into the conservative Family Research Council and shot a guard before being subdued.

Perkins said this: "The FBI is investigating this as an act of terrorism, and there was clearly a motive. The gunman pulled the trigger and he is responsible, but I believe the Southern Poverty Law Center is responsible for creating the environment that led to this. Because they disagree with us on marriage and other positions, the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled us a 'hate group.' That gives license to lunatics like this to come in with a gun and shoot innocent people."

That's because you are a hate group, you hate gays moron. That makes you a hate group. Now get this, when liberals blamed guys like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc. for causing right-wingers to attack the left you conservatives said you can not link them to the crime. Now that liberals did it, you blame the SPLC, which is just laughable.

O'Reilly reported that the mainstream media did its best to ignore the story, saying this: "The media coverage on this was scant, I hardly saw anything about it."

Which is a lie, because it was all over the media. And it's funny that O'Reilly does the very same thing when it's a story about a right-winger doing something, he ignores it.

I did a quick google search on "Family Research Council Shooting" and I got 174 million results, yes 174 million, everyone from CNN to the Washington Post, to everyone else reported on it. As usual, O'Reilly is lying to you, because it was reported by every media outlet in America.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who was charged with sex crimes in Sweden, and has been granted political asylum by the Ecuadorian embassy in England. And I will not report on this nonsense because it is not really an American news story that anyone here cares about right now.

Then O'Reilly had Kelsey Grammer, one of Hollywood's few out-of-the-closet conservatives on to basically help him promote his new show that I will not even name. O'Reilly loves him because he is a conservative, so he had him on the Factor to promote his new tv show, that I will never watch, and most liberals will not watch either.

What's really funny is how O'Reilly tells us to ignore the hollywood pinheads and do not listen to what they say. But then he has a parade of hollywood conservatives on his show, proving once again how much of a biased right-wing stooge he is. Basically he breaks his own rules, and says ignore the left in hollywood, but listen to the right in hollywood. While saying one thing he does another, proving what a hack he is.

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing stooge Lou Dobbs on to slam Democratic Congressman Barney Frank, who denounced Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan as villainous Ayn Rand characters who object to "feeding poor children, cleaning up the atmosphere, and putting out fires."

And of course Dobbs and O'Reilly slammed Frank and said he is a demagogue. Dobbs said this: "Where does he think all of the money that has fed poor children has come from? Does he truly believe it's the government? He has no idea in the world what he's talking about. The philosophy that guides our country can be found in the Bible and John Locke and Thomas Paine, so what is his deal with Ayn Rand?"

The crazy O'Reilly once again sided with the right and urged Republicans to fight the smears, saying this: "Romney and Ryan are going to have to find a way to look the Barney Franks of the world in the eye and say, 'You're lying, we don't want to hurt children and we don't want fires raging out of control' They're going to have to call them on this kind of rhetoric."

Even when it's true, so basically Dobbs and O'Reilly are saying the Republicans need to do a better job of putting out right-wing propaganda to fool the people.

And finally Martha MacCallum and Steve Doocy were on for the total waste of tv time Factor News Quiz, that I do not report on, and will never report on. Because it's nonsense, and not news.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the tip of the day, Billy said this: "Thursday's Tip: Three classic summer movies that may be worth watching this month are "American Graffiti," "Meatballs," and "Lifeguard."

And I must say this, the tip of the day has been ok, but almost every day it gets worse, and it is now almost as lame as the stupid pinheads and patriots he used to do.

Reagan Budget Adviser Called Ryan Budget A Fairy Tale
By: Steve - August 17, 2012 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly ignored the story and never had Stockman on the Factor to discuss it. Because then it would ruin his right-wing propaganda that only liberals and biased members of the media are saying the Ryan budget is bad for the country.

Paul Ryan's budget -- which gives massive tax breaks to corporations and the wealthiest Americans, drastically slashes funding for social programs, decimates state budgets, and still ends up ultimately raising the deficit -- has garnered critics ranging from Catholic bishops to top economists. So Monday, former President Reagan's budget adviser, David Stockman, added his voice to the dissent.

Stockman, who was the director of the Office of Management and Budget during the Reagan administration, blasted Ryan's budget as an empty conservative sermon and fairy tale in an op-ed published in the New York Times:
The Ryan Plan boils down to a fetish for cutting the top marginal income-tax rate for "job creators" - i.e. the superwealthy - to 25 percent and paying for it with an as-yet-undisclosed plan to broaden the tax base.

Of the $1 trillion in so-called tax expenditures that the plan would attack, the vast majority would come from slashing popular tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest, 401(k) accounts, state and local taxes, charitable giving and the like, not to mention low rates on capital gains and dividends.

In short, Mr. Ryan's plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices. And it couldn't pass even if Republicans were to take the presidency and both houses of Congress.

Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation's fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity - just empty sermons.
Stockman's scathing critique of the Ryan budget also notes that it preserves an unnecessarily large national security budget that currently "saddles our bankrupt nation" and continues to eschew regulations for dangerous Wall Street banks.

Stockman isn't the first Republican to oppose Ryan's extreme budget plan. Reps. Denny Rehberg (R-MT) and David McKinley (R-WV) have refused to support Ryan's budget because they recognize its draconian cuts to Medicare and Medicaid will negatively impact residents in their states.

Donald Trump has referred to Ryan's plan as a big mistake and a dangerous plan for Mitt Romney to support.

The Wednesday 8-15-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 16, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The impact of extreme politics. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The political world is aflutter over the Obama campaign's negative posture, and many Republicans are aghast that Vice President Biden said 'they gonna put y'all back in chains.' Talking Points is not outraged because Biden is Biden and he says provocative stuff all the time. Does the Vice President really think Republicans want to enslave black Americans? No he does not.

To his credit, Mitt Romney is playing the assaults on him and Paul Ryan very well. Obama supporters have accused Romney of contributing to the cancer death of a woman, of failing to pay income taxes, and of abusing poor people by proposing to take their money and give it to folks like Donald Trump.

Romney said this today: 'The President's campaign is all about division and attack and hatred; my campaign is about getting America back to work and creating greater unity.'

The question now becomes, will the Obama campaign's over-the-top attack rhetoric actually hurt the President in the upcoming vote? There will be consequences, but we just don't yet know what they will be.
O'Reilly is a joke, he is so biased for Romney it's laughable. He ignores all the dishonest attack ads the Romney campaign has run, and the ads the Rove super pac's have run, then he cries about ads that the Obama campaign did not even put out, while saying they will hurt Obama, but never once saying the Romney ads will hurt Romney.

In fact, O'Reilly ignores the Romney ads, because he is a Republican who wants Romney to win. He also ignores the Rove pac ads because Rove is his friend and a regular political analyst on his very own show. Hey O'Reilly, why dont you just quit your job as a so-called journalist and go work for the RNC, then at least someone might respect you for that.

So then the biased hack (Bill O'Reilly) has the fool Dick Morris on to discuss the impact of accusations and negative ads. Which is ridiculous, because Morris is a joke of a right-wing idiot, who is never right about anything, he just says what O'Reilly and his Republican friends want to hear.

And of course Morris slammed Obama, while not saying a word about the negative Romney ads, Morris said this: "I think it is hurting the President a great deal. President Obama's personal favorability has dropped by about 20 points in the last four months. He used to have a favorability rating much higher than his job approval, but now his favorability is lower."

Morris also said that President Obama's campaign strategists have taken the wrong path, saying this: "Obama made a fundamental strategic error when he assumed that the best way to get people out to vote is hate and fear, but in fact the best way to get them out is love and hope. You will never generate a large turnout based on hate and fear if your opponent is Mitt Romney, who is too bland and too nice."

Then Marjorie Clifton, a former aide to the Obama campaign was on. Clifton said this: "We see both the Republicans and Democrats doing this in spades, and it obviously shows up somewhere in the polls because it keeps happening on both sides."

Clifton also downplayed the significance of Joe Biden's gaffe earlier this week, saying this: "Vice Presidents are traditionally the attack dogs, but I don't think the majority of thinking Americans see this 'chains' comment as something that really has merit. Joe Biden is famous for his personality, and I think it's a likeable personality that connects with the middle class."

And of course the right-wing spin doctor O'Reilly disagreed and said that Joe Biden's comment could be damaging, even though the people will forget it in a week, and Obama will not be blamed for something the crazy Joe Biden said.

O'Reilly said this: "The Vice President is trying to help the President get reelected, and his credibility among fair-minded people is dissolving when he says these things. The perception of the Vice President is that he is somewhat of a clown."

Then O'Reilly had a right-wing small business owner on to slam Obama, Amilya Antonetti was on to lay out the difficulties facing small businesses.

Antonetti said this: "The biggest problem is misuse of our time. We're spending too much time, energy, and effort on things that have nothing to do with our businesses, things like trying to figure out compliance issues, meaning is my business going to meet the rules and regulations that enable me to stay in business? I also have to figure out how to get capital. It used to be that I had a long-standing relationship with my bank, but the decisions are no longer being made at the local level."

Antonetti even offered some advice to President Obama, saying this: "He has to free up cash specifically for small businesses. An application for a loan should not be so big that it takes a small business owner six hours, when they could spend that time building their business. And make taxes simpler, please."

Then the idiotic Factor producer Jesse Watters was on the streets of New York City, asking foreign-born to evaluate President Obama. Here are a few sample responses: "I'm supporting because I think he's working for poor people" ... "He is trying to turn this into a socialist country" ... "I think he's a foreigner."

Then in the studio Watters reported that President Obama was favored by most of the people he talked to, saying this: "The consensus was 70 - 30 in favor of Obama. He has an emotional connection because of his ethnic background and he reaches out to poor people. But Romney's father was born in Mexico and I had a lot of Latin American immigrants tell me that. That's making an impression."

Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on because he is a comedian who is only on to make jokes about liberals, and the segment has no news value at all, plus O'Reilly never has a liberal comedian on to make jokes about conservatives for balance.

And finally in the last segment called did you see that, the right-wing Romney supporter Juliet Huddy was on to cry about the pro-Obama ad that shows a Paul Ryan look-alike tossing granny off a cliff. But notice that neither Huddy or O'Reilly ever cry about any of the anti-Obama ads put out by Romney or any pro-Romney groups. Even after they started the negative ads first, and have run far more negative ads than the Obama campaign has.

Huddy said this: "This is from a progressive group called The Agenda Project, which put this out in 2011 when Ryan released his budget plan. They've released it again and it will run in Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, and Arizona. The problem is that the Democrats are fighting the war of yesterday with the tools of yesterday. The Ryan budget has not been explained except by the Democrats, who have basically created lies."

And of course the Republican O'Reilly ridiculed the ad, saying this: "I don't know one human being who would respond to that in any other way than laughing at it."

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the tip of the day, Billy said this: "Wednesday's Tip: If you're planning a trip, the website kayak.com is a valuable place to check out airfare and hotel rates."

Republicans Secretly Worried About Romney Picking Ryan
By: Steve - August 16, 2012 - 10:00am

Here is some important news you will never hear about from O'Reilly, Morris, Rove, Ingraham, etc. Because they do not want you to know that the big shot Republicans in Washington think Romney might have cost himself the election with his far-right Paul Ryan pick, just as McCain did with his far-right Sarah Palin pick for Vice President.

Politico reported about it, and here are a few quotes from the story:

You've heard them on television, cheerful, defiant statements from Republican political professionals about Romney's bold masterstroke in tapping Paul Ryan as his running mate, and turning the 2012 presidential race into a serious, far-reaching debate about budgets and the nation's future. Don't buy it.

Away from the cameras, and with all the usual assurances that people aren't being quoted by name, there is an unmistakable consensus among Republican operatives in Washington: Romney has taken a risk with Ryan that has only a modest chance of going right -- and a huge chance of going horribly wrong.

In more than three dozen interviews with Republican strategists and campaign operatives -- old hands and rising next-generation conservatives alike -- the most common reactions to Ryan ranged from gnawing apprehension to hair-on-fire anger that Romney has practically ceded the election.

And the more pessimistic strategists don't even feign good cheer: They think the Ryan pick is a disaster for the GOP. Many of these people don't care that much about Romney -- they always felt he faced an improbable path to victory -- but are worried that Ryan's vocal views about overhauling Medicare will be a millstone for other GOP candidates in critical House and Senate races.

And that skepticism about Ryan among GOP strategists is striking.

They're worried about inviting Medicare -- usually death for Republicans -- into the campaign. They're worried it sidetracks the jobs issue. They're worried he'll expose the fact that Romney doesn't have a budget plan. Most of all, they're worried that Romney was on track to lose anyway -- and now that feels all but certain.

"I think it's a very bold choice. And an exciting and interesting pick. It's going to elevate the campaign into a debate over big ideas. It means Romney-Ryan can run on principles and provide some real direction and vision for the Republican Party. And probably lose. Maybe big," said former President George W. Bush senior adviser Mark McKinnon.

The most cutting criticism of Ryan, is that Ryan isn't ready to be president -- or doesn't come across as ready. A youthful man who looks even younger than his 42 years, Ryan could end up labeled as Sarah Palin with a PowerPoint presentation, several operatives said.

"He just doesn't seem like he can step into the job on Day One," said the strategist, who professed himself a Ryan fan.

And that's just what it does to the Romney-Ryan ticket. Forget how it plays in close House and Senate races.

"Very not helpful down ballot -- very," said one top Republican consultant.

"This is the day the music died," one Republican operative involved in 2012 races said after the rollout. The operative said that every House candidate now is racing to get ahead of this issue.

Another strategist emailed midway through Romney and Ryan's first joint event Saturday: "The good news is that this ticket now has a vision. The bad news is that vision is basically just a chart of numbers used to justify policies that are extremely unpopular."

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

Now compare all that to what you hear Republicans saying about Ryan on tv, it's night and day, and they are worried Romney pulled a McCain with his Ryan pick. Just as Palin hurt McCain Ryan hurts Romney.

But the Republicans do it every time, they feel they must pick a far-right VP to satisfy the base, and usually it cost them the election, which it will probably do again. And you never hear a word about any of this from O'Reilly, because he is a Republican that wants Romney to win, and he does not want you to hear about it.

The Tuesday 8-14-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 15, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Demonizing Paul Ryan. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Predictably, the American left is attacking Congressman Ryan. They say he's an extremist, insensitive to the poor, brutal to the elderly. While Mr. Ryan looks like a nice guy, liberals are painting him as a political Bernie Madoff. My favorite reaction so far comes from our pal Dan Rather, who is too frightened to come on this broadcast.

Rather claimed 'Ryan looks like he is toxic for the ticket.' As I said last night, I believe Mitt Romney made a smart selection. The Congressman well understands that America is in trouble, he's thought about solving the very complex economic problems that face us, and he's responsible and patriotic.

Honest Democrats like Erskine Bowles, President Clinton's Chief of Staff, know that. Bowles describe Ryan as 'sensible, straightforward, honest, serious.' Summing up, Paul Ryan must convince independent voters that he is not a demon; he has to keep it simple and avoid answering far left propaganda.
Here we go, it's started already. O'Reilly is defending Ryan and Romney as if he were working for the RNC, and you can bet the farm it will continue all the way until election day. Just as he did with John McCain and Sarah Palin, O'Reilly is showing he is a biased Republican. Instead of reporting on Paul Ryan O'Reilly is spending all his time spinning for him.

Most Republican political experts also believe Ryan is toxic to the ticket, but O'Reilly will not report that because he is too busy lying that only the liberals think he is.

Then O'Reilly had Charles Krauthammer on to help him spin and defend Ryan. Which is flat out dishonest and biased.

Krauthammer said this: "It's very true that Ryan is a risk, and that risk is obviously that the Democrats will succeed in defining him as some wild-eyed extremist who will abolish Medicare and toss Granny in the snow. That is so factually false because the Ryan and Romney plan do not affect anyone over the age of 55, and as long as you can drill in that one fact you can deflect that line of attack. The other way to deflect it is to bring out Paul Ryan, who is extremely affable, non-threatening, and very sensible. Romney has to unleash Ryan and let him go on every interview show."

Thn O'Reilly said this: "The majority of Americans don't know anything about Mitt Romney and they certainly don't know about Paul Ryan, so the Republican Party has to get them known."

O'Reilly acts like if the people just get to know them they will like them, which is just laughable, because the more they get to know them the more they will hate them and hate what they want to do to the country and the people.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to talk about former Speaker Newt Gingrich slamming CNN host Piers Morgan, accusing him and other liberal reporters of making excuses for President Obama's economic record.

Colmes said this: "I don't believe President Obama is getting a pass, and there are a whole bunch of headlines about how the President has done poorly."

But of course Crowley agreed with Gingrich and O'Reilly, saying this: "The opinion people are giving President Obama a pass because he's a Democrat and they are ideologically in tune with Obama. They refuse to connect the fact that the atrocious economy can be directly attributed to the President's policies because they believe in those policies."

O'Reilly said that most media folks are ignoring the woeful economic numbers, saying this: "It disturbs me that the national press corps will not acknowledge the present situation we have in America."

That's because the economy is doing ok, compared to what it was under Bush, jobs are coming back, GDP is up, the stock market is over 13,000, and things are getting better, it's not a disaster as O'Reilly and the right claim it is, and that is why the media does not say that. They are just doing honest reporting, unlike O'Reilly and his right-wing friends who want them to slam Obama for political reasons like he does.

Then O'Reilly talked about a high school in Louisiana that was administering pregnancy tests to students, but stopped after the ACLU and other organizations threatened to sue. Anahita Sedaghatfar was on to discuss it.

Sedaghatfar said this: "There were so many things wrong with that policy. It clearly violated Title IX, which prohibits schools from discriminating against students based on pregnancy, and it's unconstitutional."

Staying on the topic of school discipline, The Factor asked Sedaghatfar whether it's permissible for administrators to search lockers. Sedaghatfar said this: "I say it's okay to search lockers, but there has to be reasonable suspicion. School officials can't arbitrarily go ahead and search based on a hunch. Students have an expectation of privacy in their lockers."

And of course O'Reilly disagreed, saying this: "The school has an obligation because the locker is on public property, not private property."

Then Tonya Reiman was on for the ridiculous body language segment, that I do not report on because it's nonsense.

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Faith Jenkins were on to talk about the Republican-led House Oversight Committee who has sued Attorney General Eric Holder, accusing him of failing to turn over documents dealing with the "Fast and Furious" gun-running debacle.

Guilfoyle said this: "They're doing the right thing by bringing this lawsuit. They are entitled to the documents and this is outrageous. If Mitt Romney gets in, there will be a new Attorney General and the documents will be turned over."

Jenkins theorized that this case will be delayed in the court system regardless of who wins in November, saying this: "President Obama wins either way because there will be at least a couple of years of litigation, going all the way up to the Supreme Court. There won't be a resolution any time soon."

Then O'Reilly talked about Brit Hume landing the first one-one-one interview with Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan, and O'Reilly concluded Tuesday's program with an analysis of Ryan's performance.

O'Reilly said this: "The Congressman needs to define what will happen if Mr. Obama is reelected and his tax-and-spend policies continue. I believe many voters, perhaps most, don't understand how the $16-trillion debt affects them. Also, the Republicans have to convince independent voters that they will not hurt them economically. Some senior citizens fear Paul Ryan because he wants to reform Medicare. Mr. Ryan has to tell senior citizens exactly how their medical coverage will change because of Obamacare."

"Finally, the President is basing much of his campaign on the allegation that the Romney/Ryan ticket shills for corporations and wealthy individuals, but I believe the folks have had enough political rhetoric. The Republicans have an opening, but they must keep it simple and very specific if they want to win."

Wow! O'Reilly just just get his paycheck from the Romney campaign, because all he does is defend and spin for them as if he were working for their campaign. Guess how many times O'Reilly has said what Obama and Biden should do to beat Romney and Ryan, you guessed it, zero times!

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the tip of the day, Billy said this: "Tuesday's Tip If you really need a snack, a product called popchips has just 100 calories per bag. Also, sugar-free Eclipse gum can tamp down any sugar craving you may have."

Rodger Mitchell Schools O'Reilly On The Deficit & The Debt
By: Steve - August 15, 2012 - 10:00am

O'Reilly is falling all over himself trying to spin for Romney in the hopes that he will beat Obama, he spins the debt and their plans for the country. And here are a few quotes from the economic expert Rodger Mitchell.

Which is worse: No plan or a disastrous plan? With the Romney/Ryan team, you get both, and both have the same goal: To increase the income gap between the upper 1% and the lower 99% by starving the economy.

Mitt Romney (the indecisive) has become notorious for changing directions. He has stood firmly on both sides of nearly every important issue. Depending on his audience, he has been:

For and against raising the minimum wage
For and against stem cell research
For and against women's choice
For and against health care mandates
For and against Romneycare
For and against Ronald Reagan (really!)
For and against (and for, again) a pathway to citizenship for immigrants
For and against Bush's tax cuts
For and against a ban on assault rifles
A believer and non-believer in the dangers of global warming
A signer and non-signer of the Americans for Tax Reform pledge

In all cases where his decision would affect the economy, he has turned toward the 1% and against the 99%.

Now that we have a Presidential candidate with no plan, we have a vice presidential candidate with his disastrous "starve the economy to feed the government" plan, a frightening attempt to lift the 1% at the expense of the 99%.

Here is Paul Ryan, in his own words:
The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal, House Budget Committee – Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution.

RYAN: To pay for the public sector's growth, Washington must immediately tax the private sector or else borrow and impose taxes later to pay down the debt. Unfortunately, the President refuses to take responsibility for avoiding the debt-fueled crisis before us.
Translation: "I want you to believe the federal budget is like your personal budget, though the federal government is the creator of the dollar and you are the user of the dollar."

"I do not want you to understand that the misnamed federal 'deficit' actually is our economy's source of personal income, and without this income, there could be no dollars to spend or to lend. We would be a nation without money."

Ryan also said this about his budget:
RYAN: Medicare is facing an unprecedented fiscal challenge. Its failed reliance on bureaucratic price controls, combined with rising health care costs, is jeopardizing seniors access to critical care and threatening to bankrupt the system - and ultimately the nation.

The risk to Social Security, driven by demographic changes, is nearer at hand than most acknowledge. This budget heads off a crisis by calling on the President and both chambers of Congress to ensure the solvency of this critical program.
Translation: You don't know this, but Medicare and Social Security are federal agencies. Like all other federal agencies -- Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, the military et al –- Medicare and Social Security never can be insolvent unless the government wills it.

"Even if FICA taxes dropped to $0, and benefits tripled, Medicare and Social Security still could continue paying their bills, forever. But because Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefit the 99% more than the 1%, these plans need to be cut. How else can we increase the income gap?"

And finally, Ryan said this:
RYAN: This budget charts a sustainable path forward, ultimately erases the budget deficit completely, and begins paying down the national debt.
Translation: "We want taxes to be greater than spending, i.e to starve the economy to feed the government. As the supply of money declines, the 99% will starve, but the 1% will have far more of their wealth in non-money properties. I'm just hoping you'll vote to be slaves of the 1%."

Bottom line: Romney, being the Zelig of American politics, does not have the chops to be the President of the United States. But as a danger to America, he does not compare with Ryan, whose plan would destroy the lives of the middle and lower classes.

I believe the nation is in danger. If you are part of, or even care about, the lower 99% income group, you would suffer greatly under a Romney/Ryan authority.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

So where is the great so-called non-partisan Independent journalist Bill O'Reilly (who claims to be looking out for the folks) with this important information, nowhere to be found. Because he is a wealthy pro-life, liberal hating, Obama hating, Republican who supports Romney and loves the Ryan budget plan.

The Monday 8-14-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 14, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Paul Ryan for Vice President. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Conservatives like Congressman Paul Ryan, liberals don't, so it is independent voters he must persuade if he is going to help Mitt Romney become President.

Ryan is a good choice for Romney because it makes the election a simple decision: Do you want a free market driven economy and fiscal discipline by the federal government, or do you want the feds to exert even more control over the economy in order to provide 'social justice?'

The Romney/Ryan ticket's theme will be that the Obama administration has failed economically; the President will rebut by saying that the Republican economic vision will actually make things worse and that your security will be put in jeopardy by spending and tax cuts.

Mr. Obama is a passionate liberal who is willing to lose the election rather than moderate his big government, big spending policies. So the choice is clear, at least for those who pay attention. But most Americans are not paying attention and do not understand how the debt affects them, how the private market is under siege, and how the country is heading toward bankruptcy.

Therefore, many voters will cast their ballot on emotion, and it is my job to neutralize that emotion by presenting you the facts. In 2008 the McCain campaign avoided this program, which was a huge mistake.

We hope in this election cycle all the candidates will answer the tough questions, and that includes Vice President Biden, who has avoided The Factor for years. It is imperative that all candidates dodge the dodge.
And that is just ridiculous, because O'Reilly is clearly in favor of Romney and he shows it every night, as he slams Obama and praises Romney. If you want the truth, the last place you should go to is Bill O'Reilly, because he is a biased partisan, he just will not admit it.

Then O'Reilly had Karl Rove on to assess the Ryan pick. Rove said this: "This makes the election about big ideas, because Paul Ryan is focused on making changes in spending, entitlements, and deficits in order to grow the economy. He comes from the Republican school that says our foremost goal is to encourage prosperity for all of America. To do that he knows we have to put our fiscal house in order, control spending, and do something about these terrible entitlement promises that we will ultimately be not able to keep."

What a load of bull, Ryan does the same thing all Republicans do, say he is for the little guy, then behind their back he screws the little guy and helps the wealthy and the corporations.

Rove also praised Ryan as a politician who can win over independents, saying this: "His district was carried twice by Bill Clinton and won overwhelmingly by Barack Obama in 2008, yet he keeps winning reelection with two-thirds of the vote. He does it by taking complex ideas and explaining them in a way that people can understand."

And that is just laughable, because the only Independents who will vote for Ryan are Republicans who are pretending to be Independents, they are not real Independents.

Then Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich was on, and of course O'Reilly disagreed with everything he said, while agreeing with Rove. Not to mention, Kucinich sucks up to O'Reilly to get on his show, for some reason he does not slam O'Reilly like he should. He is a real Democrat, but he does have to take it easy on O'Reilly or he will never be invited back.

Kucinich said this: "This election's up for grabs, and there are a lot of issues that will determine the outcome. I'm glad Paul Ryan is in the race because it helps define the issues in a much clearer way than any other candidate that Romney could have picked."

Kucinich also said this: "I'm concerned about the fact that wealth is accelerating upwards and this is a debate we need to have. Do we want a society that cares for people, that takes care of people when they get older, a society where the health of people is important? We need to create jobs and have health care for all."

Then Juan Williams and Mary Katherine Ham were on, O'Reilly cried that as soon as Mitt Romney announced his VP pick, Democratic PACs launched attack ads portraying him as "extreme." When he is extreme, O'Reilly and Ham will just not admit it.

Williams said this: "If you want to win Florida and Ohio and if you want to appeal to independent women and seniors, Paul Ryan? Romney just put a big target on his back and I don't understand it! Seniors who don't even like Obamacare are going to go nuts when they find out that this guy wants to turn Medicare into some kind of private voucher plan."

Ham said this: "The Democrats are going to repeat the lie that this has anything to do with current seniors, when the plan he has suggested would not affect anybody over 55. Juan and Democrats need to be told that what he just said is not true."

And of course O'Reilly agreed with Ham and stressed that Ryan will have to make his case forcefully, saying this: "The Congressman is going to have to clarify his stance and vision on Medicare and Social Security in a way that the folks can understand."

So in other words, O'Reilly is saying Ryan should lie about what he really wants to do with Medicare etc. so it will help Romney win the election.

Then Sister Simone Campbell, whose organization wants greater government involvement in "social justice" programs was on to discuss it.

Campbell said this: "We've created what we call a 'faithful budget,' which calls for reasonable revenue to pay for responsible programs. What I want is money in the pockets of hard-working people who are living below the poverty level, and we have to deal with the debt by raising taxes. The Ryan budget shifts money to the top and it won't do anything to stimulate the economy."

And of course O'Reilly the Republican defended Romney and Ryan telling Sister Campbell that increased spending could have a terrible downside, Billy said this: "If the economy collapses under a $16-trillion debt load, the poor and everybody else will be decimated. All the government spending has made things worse!"

Then O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to cry about the media coverage Paul Ryan is getting, Goldberg spent his weekend watching how the media reacted to Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan. And he singled out NBC's Andrea Mitchell's assertion that "this is not a pick for women."

Goldberg said this: "This is almost funny. I think what she's really saying is that this is not a pick for liberal women who I, Andrea Mitchell, hang out with. Something has happened to Andrea Mitchell, I think the MSNBC culture has washed over her. She ought to spend more time in that part of the country between Manhattan and Malibu and meet some women like the ones she hangs out with. Reporters live in a bubble, and her bubble is in Georgetown."

And of course O'Reilly agreed with the right-wing loon's assessment of Andrea Mitchell, saying this: "She used to be a very hard news oriented journalist and is no longer that."

Which is just laughable, coming from one of the most biased so-called journalists in the business. Andrea Mitchell has a slight liberal bias once in a while, but most of the time she is an objective journalist. O'Reilly is biased to the right 95% of the time and he works for a network that is biased to the right 99% of the time.

And finally O'Reilly had the comedian Adam Carolla on, why, I have no idea, he is a hollywood clown and nobody cares what he says. But O'Reilly has him on all the time, while not having any liberal comedians on. Carolla said this: "No one knows who Paul Ryan is, but we have to pretend we know. Everyone on the left will say they don't like his politics, then run home and Wikipedia Paul Ryan."

Carolla also joked that Mitt Romney, with his vigor and good looks, exemplifies the benefits of abstemiousness, saying this: "Romney's a Mormon and he's brand new. He doesn't drink, he doesn't smoke, he won't drink tea, he's been loving the same woman for 50 years! Kids, if you're watching, this is why you shouldn't drink or smoke. Look at the guy!"

Hey O'Reilly, if you are not biased how come you never have any liberal comedians on to make jokes about conservatives. And I thought you told us to not listen to any of these hollywood pinheads, so why do you keep putting them on? Oh yeah, I forgot, you think we should listen to hollywood pinheads if they are conservatives.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the tip of the day, Billy said this: "Monday's Tip: There is a free app that will give you historical facts, figures, and photos about wherever you are at that particular moment. The download is available at http://www.history.com/interactives/history-here"

Republican Double Standards On Romney/Ryan Foreign Policy
By: Steve - August 14, 2012 - 10:00am

The same Republicans who criticized President Obama for his lack of foreign policy experience in 2008 are now defending the foreign policy record of the Romney-Ryan ticket.

Republicans Newt Gingrich and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty on Sunday argued that Romney and Ryan are actually better equipped to lead on foreign policy than Obama and Biden:
GINGRICH: I think it's an advantage that they're not part of the current mess. Mitt Romney has the same amount of foreign policy experience as Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet empire decisively in 8 years. I would rather have Romney and Ryan rethinking everything than have the current team continue.

PAWLENTY: Romney and Ryan have a terrific national security policy team around them, Governor Romney spent his entire career in global business arrangements, transactions and traveling and understanding different countries, cultures and geography.
But in 2008 both Gingrich and Pawlenty were more than happy to appear on the Sunday morning talk shows at do the opposite for Obama and Biden -- they attacked Obama and Biden for not having the foreign policy chops they deemed necessary.

In the fall of 2008, Gingrich asked Fox News host Greta Van Susteren, "Who do you trust more to deal with the dangerous world, somebody who has read about it and sort of vaguely thought about it but hasn't really collided head-on with it?"

Pawlenty echoed a similar line, saying this: "He basically graduated from law school, went on to be a community organizer and a law professor; went to the U.S. Senate and began running for president essentially the day he arrived."

Pawlenty also said this about Obama on Meet The Press in 2008: "So what is it in his background, Tom, that would give him that same type of requisite wisdom and judgment and insight on national security matters or foreign affairs matters or anything else?"

So Gingrich and Pawlenty say it's ok to not have any foreign policy experience when it's a Republican. But when a Democrat has no foreign policy experience they should not be in the White House.

The Top 5 Things You Need To Know About Paul Ryan
By: Steve - August 13, 2012 - 10:00am

1) Paul Ryan Wants Low And Middle Income Americans To "Bear The Entire Burden" Of His Fiscal Reforms

Tax Policy Center co-director William Gale, who served as a senior staff economist for the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush, wrote that Ryan's fiscal year 2013 budget plan is "essentially, an effort to have low- and middle-class households bear the entire burden of closing the fiscal gap and bear the costs of financing an additional tax cut for high income households."

2) The Paul Ryan Plan Would Drastically Hurt Medicare And Medicaid Recipients

Health care journalist Jonathan Cohn wrote that Ryan's plan would end Medicare as we know it by eliminating the program's guarantee of comprehensive medical benefits while raising the eligibility age and producing vouchers that will quickly prove inadequate to allow seniors to purchase the care they need.

3) Paul Ryan Has A Dishonest Plan To Reduce The Deficit

Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman wrote this about the Ryan deficit plan: "The Ryan budget purports to reduce the deficit -- but the alleged deficit reduction depends on the completely unsupported assertion that trillions of dollars in revenue can be found by closing tax loopholes."

And this: "So the Ryan budget is a fraud; Mr. Ryan talks loudly about the evils of debt and deficits, but his plan would actually make the deficit bigger even as it inflicted huge pain in the name of deficit reduction. But is his budget really the most fraudulent in American history? Yes, it is."


4) Paul Ryan Has Repeatedly Supported Policies That Led To Massive Deficits

Ryan voted to support the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. He also praised the extension of the Bush tax cuts in 2010. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted, the Bush tax cuts did "lasting harm" to the federal deficit.

In 2003, Ryan voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill would increase deficits by $372.5 billion over a 10 year period. Washington Post writer Ezra Klein said this: "It is insane that the people who voted for the deficit-financed, $700 billion Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit are allowed to scream about fiscal rectitude this year."


5) Paul Ryan Has Repeatedly Proposed Partially Privatizing Social Security

In 2004, Paul Ryan Wanted To Privatize Social Security. Ryan Lizza reported that Paul Ryan, along with a few allies, persuaded former President George W. Bush to privatize Social Security, with people able to divert up to half of their contributions from the Social Security trust fund into private accounts.

Fox News Biased Stooges Claim Paul Ryan Is A Rock Star
By: Steve - August 12, 2012 - 10:00am

Boy does Fox News sure love the far-right conservative Paul Ryan, so much they suddenly claimed he is a rock star, among other things.

Fox News hosts and contributors are thrilled with Mitt Romney's selection of conservative Paul Ryan as his running mate. In the hours since the selection was made public, Fox stooges have praised Ryan, labeling him a "rock star" a pick who has "set the world on fire" and with Romney, formed a ticket similar to Ronald Reagan.

News Corp. chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch tweeted the news by saying "Thank God!" and calling Ryan an "almost perfect choice."

And that is coming from the man who runs Fox News, making the claim that they are fair and balanced laughable.

Peter Johnson Jr. said this on Fox & Friends: "This young, 43-year-old father of three, seven-term congressman who set the world on fire in terms of opposing Obamacare and coming up with a deficit reduction plan, it's a transformational move a lot of people are saying this morning."

Charles Krauthammer said this on Fox & Friends: "When you look at the two, there are two things different with Ryan's presence on the platform. The first is youth, I mean he's the future, he has this youthful look, if you like kind of Kennedy-esque, boyish energy and enthusiasm."

Are you kidding me, to compare Paul Ryan to JFK is a crime, and just ridiculous.

Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron (Who O'Reilly has called non-partisan, and should be non-partisan) said Ryan is an "Energizer Bunny" that has "rocketed to the top of Republican politics."

Monica Crowley (A regular on the O'Reilly Factor) praised Ryan on Twitter, saying he is "a visionary and the coolest."

Sean Hannity praised the selection of Ryan as an "outstanding choice."

On the August 11th America's Election HQ show, the Fox national security contributor KT MacFarland said this: "With a Romney-Ryan ticket, it's like Reagan again. It's like saying, "we've got big problems. We can solve big problems."

Michelle Malkin said this: "Paul Ryan is Fresh, Young, Energetic, Smart, Courageous, and Ready for Prime Time."

In an August 11th post to National Review Online's The Corner, Jonah Goldberg wrote this: "I am a huge, huge, Paul Ryan fan. So I am delighted by the news he will be Romney's running mate."

It goes on and on, and I could quote everyone at Fox with similar statements about Ryan. Even after almost everyone else on the planet has put out the truth about Ryan. As an example, here are a few quotes about him from Paul Krugman.

From an August 2010 article: One depressing aspect of American politics is the susceptibility of the political and media establishment to charlatans. You might have thought, given past experience, that D.C. insiders would be on their guard against conservatives with grandiose plans.

But no: as long as someone on the right claims to have bold new proposals, he's hailed as an innovative thinker. And nobody checks his arithmetic.

Which brings me to the innovative thinker du jour: Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

Mr. Ryan has become the Republican Party's poster child for new ideas thanks to his "Roadmap for America's Future," a plan for a major overhaul of federal spending and taxes.

News media coverage has been overwhelmingly favorable; on Monday, The Washington Post put a glowing profile of Mr. Ryan on its front page, portraying him as the G.O.P.'s fiscal conscience. He's often described with phrases like "intellectually audacious."

But it's the audacity of dopes. Mr. Ryan isn't offering fresh food for thought; he's serving up leftovers from the 1990s, drenched in flimflam sauce.

Mr. Ryan's plan calls for steep cuts in both spending and taxes. He'd have you believe that the combined effect would be much lower budget deficits, and, according to that Washington Post report, he speaks about deficits "in apocalyptic terms."

And The Post also tells us that his plan would, indeed, sharply reduce the flow of red ink: "The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Rep. Paul Ryan's plan would cut the budget deficit in half by 2020."

But the budget office has done no such thing. At Mr. Ryan's request, it produced an estimate of the budget effects of his proposed spending cuts -- period. It didn't address the revenue losses from his tax cuts.

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has, however, stepped into the breach. Its numbers indicate that the Ryan plan would reduce revenue by almost $4 trillion over the next decade. If you add these revenue losses to the numbers The Post cites, you get a much larger deficit in 2020, roughly $1.3 trillion.

And that's about the same as the budget office's estimate of the 2020 deficit under the Obama administration's plans. That is, Mr. Ryan may speak about the deficit in apocalyptic terms, but even if you believe that his proposed spending cuts are feasible -- which you shouldn't -- the Roadmap wouldn't reduce the deficit. All it would do is cut benefits for the middle class while slashing taxes on the rich.

And I do mean slash. The Tax Policy Center finds that the Ryan plan would cut taxes on the richest 1 percent of the population in half, giving them 117 percent of the plan's total tax cuts. That's not a misprint. Even as it slashed taxes at the top, the plan would raise taxes for 95 percent of the population.

So why have so many in Washington, especially in the news media, been taken in by this flimflam? It's not just inability to do the math, although that's part of it. There's also the unwillingness of self-styled centrists to face up to the realities of the modern Republican Party; they want to pretend, in the teeth of overwhelming evidence, that there are still people in the G.O.P. making sense.

And last but not least, there's deference to power -- the G.O.P. is a resurgent political force, so one mustn't point out that its intellectual heroes have no clothes.

But they don't. The Ryan plan is a fraud that makes no useful contribution to the debate over America's fiscal future.




The Friday 8-10-12 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - August 11, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: What Mitt Romney needs to do to turn his campaign around. The far-right biased hack Laura Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: If the election were held today, Mitt Romney would probably lose. With unemployment above 8% and two-thirds of the country thinking we're going in the wrong direction, how on earth is Obama still ahead? The first reason is negative ads and Romney brand management.

Just about every week this summer Democrats have launched a new attack against Romney, and they have stereotyped him as a tax-dodging, cancer-causing, outsourcing, 1950's aristocrat.

Romney has not launched the type of aggressive counter-offensive necessary to defeat the campaign of a Saul Alinsky acolyte. The Obama team throws a knife and Romney's team tosses a pillow. An effective rapid response team would have nailed Obama on the Super-PAC cancer ad.

I would have said something like this: 'We're all getting sick, sick of this poisonous style of campaigning and sick of politicians like Barack Obama who blame others for their broken promises and failed policies.' Romney's team should be going into the Republican National Convention seven points up, not down.

He must give voters a sober, brutally exacting description of how dire the situation is for America. Then he needs to hit the trail with a road show to explain how his policies will begin to turn things around. Both the country and his own campaign need the stellar crisis management skills that saved the 2002 Olympics.

The Romney team must expose the Obama record and elevate the campaign away from the Obama distractions.
So basically O'Reilly let Laura Ingraham use his show to tell Mitt Romney how to beat President Obama. Which pretty much kills his spin that he is a non-partisan Independent. Because no real Independent would let Ingraham even host his show, let alone let her pretty much act like she is working for the Romney campaign.

Notice that Ingraham calls Obama telling the truth about Romney, Obama distractions. While saying nothing about all the lies the Romney campaign has put out about Obama.

Then Romney supporter and former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu was on to slam Obama and spin for Romney.

Sununu said this: "The Rasmussen Poll has Mitt Romney up four with likely voters, and Gallup has him even with registered voters. Those polls do daily counting and they are the gold standards."

Which is just laughable, because Rasmussen is known as a biased joke of a polling service, and not even close to the gold standard. Even the biased Fox News has Obama ahead by 9 points, but Sununu says nothing about that.

Sununu also said this: "I disagree with you that the Romney campaign did not jump on the Obama ad. The Governor himself attacked it quite aggressively and the Romney campaign has put out its own ad questioning President Obama's character."

Sununu added this: "I guarantee you that this crowd that proved to be ruthless in the primaries is going to be equally ruthless with President Obama. Have faith, it will work!"

Then Ingraham talked about political ads. The Obama campaign has produced a TV ad implying that Mitt Romney has been a serial tax cheat, while Romney's team created an ad questioning the President's character.

Ingraham had newspaper editor Cathy Areu and conservative professor Christopher Metzler on to discuss it. Areu said this: "President Obama wanted to have the 'hope and change' message, but because the other side has gotten so dirty they have to fight back. They are simply stating facts, I don't think the Obama campaign has done anything wrong. It is possible that Harry Reid is right and Romney did not pay taxes."

And of course Metzler denounced the Obama team as issue-evading prevaricators, saying this: "This campaign can be described as lies, lies, and damned lies. Mr. 'hope and change' realizes that he has changed nothing, he has a dismal economic record, and his blaming of Bush is not working. He is 'hypocrite in chief' rather than commander in chief, these ads are absolutely ridiculous."

Which is insane, because the Obama ads are true, and Romney is the guy who has been caught telling lies in his ads.

Then Ingraham talked about the State of Massachusetts spending taxpayer money to register welfare recipients to vote, and cried that it involves the daughter of Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren.

Laura tried to get to the bottom of the story with Emily Tisch Sussman of Young Democrats of America. Sussman said this: "There was a lawsuit to enforce the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. One piece of that act is that people should have access to registration if they are recipients of state aid. Massachusetts was not properly enforcing that and this is definitely a lesson that states should be following the law."

Laura ignored that important information to say that registering welfare recipients will help Democrats, specifically Elizabeth Warren: "Republican Scott Brown won this Senate seat and now we have Warren's daughter chairing the group that is representing the plaintiffs in this case. Massachusetts has debt of $16.7 billion, but this is going to cost a couple of hundred thousand dollars."

With gas prices again going up, Ingraham discussed the political fallout with Democratic strategist Bernard Whitman and the right-wing liar Eric Bolling.

Bolling said this: "President Obama is really in a quandary right now. He really needs unemployment to go down, but if unemployment goes below 8%, gas prices are going to soar. In a swing state like Virginia, gasoline is up 30 cents a gallon in the past month. Bolling blamed rising prices on the President, saying, "Everything he's done has been anti-drilling and he's done everything in his power not to get prices down at the pump."

Except Bolling had no answer for when gas prices went down to $3.29 a gallon about a month ago, then he was suddenly silent about gas prices, and did not give Obama any credit for the drop in prices. He is your typical right-wing idiot who only blames Obama for gas prices when they are going up, even though he has nothing to do with it, and O'Reilly even admitted the wall street oil speculators are to blame.

Whitman contended that President Obama won't play a political price, saying this: "What's missing from this conversation and what's missing from Eric's analysis is that the President actually has an extraordinary energy policy. Domestic oil production has been up every year he's been in office, natural gas production is at an all-time high, and we have more oil rigs than any country in the world."

And despite the lies from Bolling and all of Fox News, the people know that the President has nothing to do with gas prices. R
Then Ingraham talked about how the prosecution in the George Zimmerman case mistakenly released confidential material to the media, including a photo of Trayvon Martin's dead body. Geraldo was on.

Geraldo said this: "If the photo was going to inflame the public and taint the jury pool, a conspiracy theorist might say they released the photo intentionally. But it wasn't a very good picture and I really don't think it was premeditated, I think this was just a dopey assistant in the prosecutor's office who released this xerox of the death photo. What is far more probative and significant is the fact that George Zimmerman lied, or his wife lied and he condoned it, during his bail hearing. That tarnished his credibility."

And finally Ingragam cried about The NY Times writing about U.S. Olympic hurdler Lolo Jones, who finished fourth at the London Games, who slammed the New York Times for implying that she is more interested in her glamorous image than her sprinting. When it was just one persons opinion at The NY Times, it was an opinion piece by an opinion writer, and not endorsed by the paper.

Fox Business reporter Sandra Smith, a former teammate of Jones at Louisiana State University was on to discuss it.

Smith said this: "Lolo's job was to run the fastest she could from the starting line to the finish line, and that's what she did every single race. For the New York Times to say that she hasn't gotten where she has based on her own merits is just false. She has been in two Olympics and she holds the indoor world record in her event. When I read the article, I felt it was written by someone who just didn't know what he was talking about."

More Racism & Right-Wing Hate O'Reilly Is Ignoring
By: Steve - August 11, 2012 - 10:00am

Here is another story about hate and racism from the right, and of course O'Reilly has ignored it and not said a word about it. Even after he said there is no racism in the Tea Party at any of their political rallies.

A Tea Party councilman is so far defying calls for his resignation after an old video resurfaced that shows him holding signs depicting President Obama's head on a pike, former Governor Jennifer Granholm with a noose around her neck and Nancy Pelosi with several bullet holes through her face.

Paul Smith, a city councilman in Sterling Heights, Michigan, is clearly seen in a 2009 video holding a sign with a photo of President Obama's dismembered head atop a pike and a caption reading shit on a stick.

Here is the video:



And btw folks, this video is on youtube where anyone with a computer can find it. And yet, O'Reilly and his so-called crack staff have not reported on it, as he says to Democrats that he can not find any evidence of hate or racism in the Tea Party.

And Smith's signs were too offensive for a few of his fellow protestors, some of them were even heard accusing Smith of being a set-up trying to make the rest of the crowd look bad.

The city council responded to the revelations by condemning "the personal viewpoints expressed by Mr. Smith on the signage displayed in the YouTube video and his attempted defense of the disturbing content."

Earlier this week, the other members of the city council voted 6-1 in favor of formally asking Smith to resign, though there is nothing to force Smith to quit. And on Thursday, two Secret Service agents visited Smith at his home after someone called the agency to flag Smith's remarks.

So they voted to ask him to resign and the Secret Service even talked to him, but O'Reilly still ignored the entire story, because it proves there is racism and hate in the Tea Party and on the right, and O'Reilly can not report it because he has denied it and said he can not find any evidence of it.

And on top of that O'Reilly slams the rest of the media for bias and dishonesty, while he is being as biased and dishonest as any of them.

The Thursday 8-9-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 10, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The American mindset is changing toward an entitlement culture. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
Under President Obama the USA has greatly increased social welfare programs. The President will tell you that's because of the bad recession, but we've gone through bad recessions before. More than 100-million Americans are now receiving some kind of federal welfare, and that does not count Social Security or Medicare.

In 2000, 34-million Americans were on Medicaid; now the number is 54-million. In 2000, 17-million of us received food stamps; today that number is an astronomical 45-million Americans. Some Americans need help, no question about it, but what President Obama does not want to articulate is that there is a shift in how many Americans see themselves.

It used to be that self-reliance ruled, but now many of us feel we are entitled to free stuff because it's not really our fault if we're not prospering. There is a tremendous sense of entitlement among some Americans who simply have not succeeded.

President Obama is encouraging that mindset by putting out a narrative that says wealthy Americans and business people are not paying their 'fair share,' even though all the stats show that affluent pay the vast majority of federal taxes.

In France, the new Socialist president wants to tax the affluent at a rate of 75% so he can dole the money out to French citizens who don't have very much, thereby ensuring their permanent support. Do you see a difference between the French Socialist strategy and what the Democratic Party wants in the USA? I don't.
And the fact that O'Reilly blames Obama for all the people on welfare, etc. is just more proof he is a right-wing idiot. Because Bush and the Republicans ruined the economy and bankrupted the country, which is what led to so many more people going on welfare, food stamps, etc. Obama was barely to blame at all, and yet O'Reilly puts it all on him, which is totally biased garbage.

Then O'Reilly had the two Democrats Kirsten Powers and Leslie Marshall on, and you think hey he is being fair and balanced. But then you look at all the other guests and it is 7 to 1 Republicans to Democrats and you see there is very little balance.

Powers said this: "We've been an entitlement state for a long time, and the question is whether you think that's a good thing, whether you think the government should be providing these services. Most of the people who are getting it are quite desperate. One thing I really disagree with you on is that Obama has anything to do with it."

Marshall agreed with the last point Powers made, saying this: "This is not the fault of the President and this is not something that happened overnight or even in the past three or four years."

So then the insane O'Reilly asked this rhetorical question: "When you have a third of the population receiving some kind of government assistance, do you think that makes a strong country. You guys are basically painting a picture of one-third of the country being destitute and having to be rescued by the federal government."

Then Lou Dobbs was on to discuss some new stats that show more than one-third of immigrant households receive some form of welfare.

Dobbs said this: "This is a big game being played. We have 15-million people in the country that we didn't invite and most of them don't have high school educations. We know these are people who will be dependent on welfare for many years to come. We also have a failing education system and this administration has not been able to create the same level of jobs as four years ago. Obama is not just the 'food stamp president,' he is the 'Social Security Disability president as well."

Then O'Reilly reported on a new Fox News poll that said this: "49% of registered voters are for Obama, 40% for Romney, a 9-point gap! Included in that 49% has to be almost everybody getting welfare payments."

Then O'Reilly had attorney Karl Rominger, who will argue Jerry Sandusky's appeal on. Rominger said this: "We weren't able to present everything we wanted to, and we weren't given enough time to prepare. Also, we believe we could have presented a psychologist who would have been able to explain certain aspects of the case, but couldn't because Pennsylvania law doesn't allow that, but will allow it in a few days."

So O'Reilly declared that Jerry Sandusky got exactly what he deserves, saying this: "There's so much testimony against your client and it looks to me like you're trying to use technicalities to get a guilty guy off."

Then Janine Turner and Jeanine Pirro were on to talk about a new survey that says a little over half of Americans would pull the lever for an atheist presidential candidate.

Pirro said this: "I wouldn't vote for an atheist, even though I have been trained as a lawyer to recognize the separation of church and state. But because our laws or based on the Judeo-Christian ethic, I believe that someone without that religious moral core is not like me."

Turner said this: "I would not vote for someone who is an atheist, primarily because anyone who doesn't believe in God tends to believe in big government. There's also a moral issue in the respect that the Founders believed our creator gave us our inalienable rights."

O'Reilly reminded the so-called Culture Warriors that many atheists like "Mark Twain, Ernest Hemingway, Bill Gates, and Thomas Edison, made great contributions to humanity."

Then Laura Ingraham was on to cry about more people on the right saying the President is resurrecting the Republican "war on women," warning a crowd in Colorado that Mitt Romney's policies are dangerous to women.

Ingraham said this: "Every week there will be a new 'smash and grab. It's smash this topic and hope to grab a few votes, then move on to the next target. Last week it was Harry Reid saying Mitt Romney never paid taxes, then they'll move on to how Romney doesn't like Latinos, then we'll move on to the accusation that Romney will try to stop you from taking birth control pills."

Ingraham also said this: "All of these are little controversies that mean President Obama doesn't have to talk about something inconvenient. To some extent this is working and he has Romney's likeability way down, so Romney has to go and lay out what we're facing, this is how I'm going to fix it, and this is what we must do."

And finally in the last segment two more Republicans Uma Pemmaraju and Steve Doocy were on for the lame Factor News Quiz, that I do not report on because it is not news and it's a total waste of tv time.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the tip of the day, Billy said this: " Thursday's Tip: Before you start a conversation with anyone, look them in the eye and say, "So how are you today?," which is respectful and establishes you as a real person in their eyes."

Right-Wing Media Dishonesty Over TPC Study Bias
By: Steve - August 10, 2012 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the right-wing media are accusing the Tax Policy Center of bias following its analysis that Mitt Romney's tax plan would cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans while raising them for lower and middle income Americans.

Even though conservatives in the media have previously praised TPC as nonpartisan and experts agree that TPC's work has no partisan bias.

In the video O'Reilly also claims he is not favoring Romney over Obama, even though he is by laughing at the study, and defending Romney. Hey O'Reilly, just because you say you are not favoring Romney does not make it true, especially when you are favoring Romney as you said it.



Here are the facts for O'Reilly and his right-wing friends: a recent study by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center determined that for Romney's tax plan to be revenue-neutral, as he claims it is, it would have to "provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle and/or lower income taxpayers:
Our major conclusion is that a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed - including reducing marginal tax rates substantially, eliminating the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) and maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment - would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers.

This is true even when we bias our assumptions about which and whose tax expenditures are reduced to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible.

For instance, even when we assume that tax breaks - like the charitable deduction, mortgage interest deduction, and the exclusion for health insurance - are completely eliminated for higher-income households first, and only then reduced as necessary for other households to achieve overall revenue-neutrality- the net effect of the plan would be a tax cut for high-income households coupled with a tax increase for middle-income households.
So then O'Reilly said the Tax Policy Center's study was "basically theoretical." And Monica Crowley stated that the study had "bias" built in:
O'REILLY: So the president is basing his projections of Governor Romney taking money from the poor and the working people and giving it to the fat cats on analysis by the Tax Policy Center, which is very complicated. It has to do with phasing out deductions, and all kinds of things that are basically theoretical; they're not real things.

But the president is taking this and his guys have taken this and run with it, saying that now Romney wants to take from the folks and give it to the rich people. Now, I'm laughing because, and I'm not favoring Romney over Obama or anything like that. It's so patently absurd, yet the president clearly believes what is he saying.

CROWLEY: First of all, the Tax Policy Center, one of the two authors of what we are talking about here happened to serve on Obama's Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010.

ALAN COLMES: The other served Bush.

O'REILLY: It doesn't matter whether they served. It's all conjecture.

CROWLEY: Right. And their bias is built into the conjecture.

O'REILLY: Right. It's all, it could, it might, they might have to do this. And he assigns it as fact.

CROWLEY: Correct. And that's very irresponsible on the part of the president.

O'REILLY: People should know this.
After Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod pointed to TPC's findings, the Fox News host Chris Wallace countered with an Ernst & Young report that he called nonpartisan and respected, suggesting TPC was neither of those things.

So the New Yorker's John Cassidy noted the absurdity in claiming the Tax Policy Center is biased, writing that TPC's analyses are conducted by acknowledged experts on the tax system:
As you might expect, the Romney camp has dismissed the study as a partisan attack, calling it "another biased study from a former Obama staffer that ignores critical parts of Governor Romney's tax reform program, which will help the middle class and promote faster economic growth."

The former Obama staffer is Adam Looney, who worked on tax issues at the Council of Economic Advisers, and who previously worked at the Federal Reserve Board. In addition to contributing to Tax Policy Center studies, he is currently the policy director for the Hamilton Project, a research institute established by Robert Rubin.

That marks him out as a fiscally conservative Democrat, I suppose, but it hardly invalidates the study. Another of its other authors, William Gale, once worked at the White House for a Republican President: George H. W. Bush. The third author, Samuel Brown, is another veteran of the Federal Reserve. All three are acknowledged experts on the tax system.

The Tax Policy Center report stands on its own merits, which are considerable. Perhaps the most notable thing about the criticisms from the Romney campaign is that they don't contain any refutations of any individual figures.

As I said earlier, the GOP hasn't contested any of these individual findings. Romney's real enemy isn't the Tax Policy Center, the work of which his campaign has praised in other contexts: it is the laws of arithmetic.
Notice that in the O'Reilly segment he said he is not favoring Romney, but then he slams the TPC study, and puts out the same ridiculous talking points propaganda that the far-right liar Monica Crowley and the Romney campaign are using.

And the conservative Wall Street Journal Called TPC, "The Nonpartisan Tax Policy Center," In A Report On The Newt Gingrich Economic Plan.

To analyze then-GOP candidate Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan, the conservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin also called the Tax Policy Center "nonpartisan," and called the TPC an "independent set of eyes."

And Chris Wallace himself even cited the Nonpartisan Tax Policy Center as an Authority on Pawlenty's Tax Plan. While interviewing then-GOP presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty, Fox News Sunday host Wallace cited an analysis of Pawlenty's economic plan from the Tax Policy Center:
WALLACE: Let's drill down first into the tax component of your proposal. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says if we follow your plan, that it would result in $11.6 trillion less revenue for the country over the next 10 years. Your own campaign says it would mean $2 trillion less in revenue.
So Wallace used a TPC tax analysis against the Republican Pawlenty, but somehow they are suddenly not a non-partisan group anymore when they do an analysis of the Romney tax plan, which is just ridiculous.

Chris Wallace also used Tax Policy Center studies to report the effects of then-candidate Senator Obama's and Senator McCain's tax policies during the 2008 election.

It's laughable, O'Reilly and the right use the TPC tax policy analysis, when they like it, but when they don't lie it, suddenly they are biased and not a non-partisan group. And they claim to be honest, now that's funny, when they are as dishonest as it gets.

And the pushover Alan Colmes never once mentioned the fact that O'Reilly and the right have not only said the TPC is a non-partisan group in the past, they have cited their studies, and he let O'Reilly spin and lie like a top.

The Wednesday 8-8-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 9, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Playing dirty in the presidential campaign. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama was elected last time around largely because he promised a new tone in Washington transparency. With all due respect, that's gone! The President is trying to hide the Fast and Furious scandal and is using political assassins to put out ads, one of which implies that Mitt Romney's cold, calculating capitalism caused a man's wife to die.

Does anybody think that's a fair ad? The guy in the ad lost his job in 2001 after Bain Capital took over his company. At the time his wife was working in a separate job and had health insurance. Five years later the woman fell ill and died from cancer. Clearly Bain Capital and Mitt Romney had nothing to do with that and the Obama people know that, but they put the ad out anyway.

What does this say about the President? White House spokesman Jay Carney says he hasn't seen the ad, but the truth is that Carney knew about the ad and he didn't watch it on purpose so he could do that ruse.

This signals a free-fire zone on the part of the Obama reelection campaign, which will do anything to gain votes, including accusing Governor Romney of contributing to an American's death. There is something very troubling about that, is there not?
To begin with, Obama was elected because Bush and the Republicans ran the country into the ground, so O'Reilly lied about that. And second, Obama had nothing to do with the ad, it was put out by a SuperPAC, and that is what you get when you allow unrestricted and unlimited money to be spent on elections. Which O'Reilly and the right supported. Funny how O'Reilly and the right only have a problem when liberal PAC's do it.

Then O'Reilly had Dick Morris on to tell Mitt Romney how he should respond to the new ad. Morris said this: "He should put out the facts as he's done, and he should circulate those facts to everybody. But the larger issue is how the Romney campaign responds to this whole line of attack on Bain Capital. I would urge them to tell the story of what Romney really did at Bain Capital. Obama is trying to move Romney from being a job creator to a deal-maker, from a businessman to a financier, and Romney has to resist that."

With polls consistently showing that college-age voters strongly favor President Obama, O'Reilly theorized that one reason is that many American colleges have very liberal faculties.

Occidental College professor Peter Dreier, a liberal who has slammed O'Reilly's right-wing buffoonery was on to discuss it.

Dreier said this: "Buffoonery is in the eye of the beholder, so if I were you I'd accept that as a compliment. I admire anyone, including yourself, who is willing to step out of the mainstream and be a dissident and challenge the status quo."

Despite that O'Reilly remained skeptical of Dreier's motives, saying this: "Guys like you go on the Huffington Post and perpetuate propaganda. You can't give me an example of 'right-wing buffoonery' that has been on this program, yet you put it in writing."

Are you serious O'Reilly, I can give you a thousand examples of right-wing buffoonery by you, in fact, I have an entire website of examples going back 12 years. You are a total right-wing buffoon, and I can prove it. But you will not have me on your show, because you know I will have specific examples of your bias.

Then O'Reilly had Bret Baier on to promote his special, it's a new special about cities that are either bankrupt or headed in that direction.

Baier said this: "We've gone over the stats about all these cities and counties that are declaring bankruptcy, but we haven't shown you the inside of those cities, the human drama and the characters involved. It's truly an amazing story and it's fair to say that in most cases pensions are the biggest issue. In Stockton, California the mayor had to cut back the police force and the murder rate has gone up."

Funny how he never mentions why the cities are doing it, because Bush and the Republicans cut federal spending and then bankrupted the country from 2000 until 2008 with all the tax cuts and right-wing policies. But you will never get those facts from Baier, O'Reilly, or anyone at Fox.

Then Jesse Watters was on who went into enemy territory, visiting another city where Fox News is considered a pox on humanity.

Some residents of Madison told him this: "It has a reputation for having no facts" ... "We're bred to hate Fox, just because" ... "It's phony, it has a bias" ... "O'Reilly's a phony!"

Watters said this: "They're very radicalized and there are a lot more conspiracy theorists than I encountered in any other city. One guy told me that Fox News reporters get paid by defense contractors to report pro-war propaganda."

Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on because it's nonsense, and not funny.

And finally in the last segment Juliet Huddy was on for did you see that. She talked about the 2008 campaign that featured the "Obama Girl," and now a left-wing organization has introduced the "Romney Girl," who mocks Romney as a tax evader.

Huddy the Republican of course gave the video two thumbs down, saying this: "This is such a stupid parody. This attacks Romney on Swiss bank accounts and taxes, but to be a clever parody you actually have to be clever. This makes Romney look like a partier, which is stupid."

Huddy also critiqued a video produced by the city of Houston which advises people what to do if they are threatened by a well-armed mass killer. Huddy said this: "This was initially distributed to emergency responders in Houston, but the city decided to release it to everyone because of what happened in Aurora, Colorado. They say you should 'run, hide, and fight,' and it seems to be a very successful video."

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the tip of the day, Billy said this: "Wednesday's Tip: Because garment manufacturers have become more stingy with the amount of material they use, it may be a good idea to buy clothing a size larger than you previously wore."

Crazy Alert: O'Reilly Said Fox Does Not Promote Romney
By: Steve - August 9, 2012 - 10:00am

Now this is funny, and 100% proof O'Reilly is a lying, spinning, right-wing hack. He actually said Fox News is not promoting Mitt Romney, which is so ridiculous it's laughable.



O'Reilly and Fox promote and defend Romney so much they should be getting paid by the Romney campaign. And O'Reilly should be laughed off tv for saying such a stupid thing. O'Reilly even promotes Romney and smears Obama as much as he can, to deny it is to deny reality.

The Tuesday 8-7-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 8, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: President Obama and the American media. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Last night Bernie Goldberg said 'journalists are Barack Obama's most loyal base,' and that is true. A 2004 study found that 52% of journalists supported John Kerry, while just 19% favored George W. Bush. Another survey said 32% of journalists describe themselves as liberal, while only 8% call themselves conservative.

The press in America clearly favors the more liberal candidate, but what does it mean in the upcoming election? First, it gives the Democrats a major advantage because their agenda will be covered far more extensively; second, stories that make the President look bad will be played down in the national press, while anything Mitt Romney does will be described as a gaffe, a mistake, or just plain dumb.

The cumulative effect will be to influence voters who do not pay attention. Talking Points estimates that will give the President about 3% or 4% of the popular vote. Why are most journalists liberal? Peer pressure is the main reason.

In order to prosper in their careers, many journalists believe they have to toe the liberal party line. And a lot of journalists are educated in liberal universities and brought up in liberal environments. There are not a lot of Levittown or Abilene guys in the national press. No spin!
What a joke, and O'Reilly is an idiot. To begin with, it does not matter if a journalist is liberal or conservative, what matters is that they do not put their political bias into their news reporting. George W. Bush won in 2000 and 2004 with the same journalists, and yet O'Reilly has no answer for that.

And the biggest thing that shows Goldberg and O'Reilly are right-wing idiots is the fact that a media study shows Obama has more negative coverage from the media than Romney, but O'Reilly ignores it to cry liberal bias. And btw, O'Reilly also told Larry Sabato that Fox News does not promote Mitt Romney, yeah right, and I'm Donald Trump too!

Then political scientist Larry Sabato and reporter Shira Toeplitz were on to discuss it.

Sabato said this: "There's no question there is a lot of bias in the media, and that key editors and reporters and producers vote for Democratic candidates. But I think you exaggerate the impact they have on undecided voters. I would argue that about 95% of the people who will actually show up in November have already decided, and tens of millions of Americans won't cast a ballot in November."

Toeplitz also questioned whether the media's leftward tilt has much of an effect, saying this: "Independent voters who are still undecided probably aren't listening to these news reports at all. When I talk with women in particular, they can't even name some of the people up for vice president. We can't underestimate how long these voters take to make a decision."

O'Reilly ignored all that and concluded this: "The media anointed Barack Obama the 'cool guy,' they made him, they gave him the image."

Which is ridiculous, and btw, only about 25 million people in America (out of 310 million) watch the big 3 news shows. While the top 13 cable news programs in total viewers were on Fox News in July. But somehow in O'Reillyworld that means the people are only biased by liberals in the media. Now explain to me how everyone in America is biased by the big 3 news networks when less than 30 million of them even watch them.

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to talk about the President saying Mitt Romney is "Romney Hood," and accusing his Republican opponent of wanting to take money from the middle class and give it to the wealthy.

Crowley said this: "This line of attack is particularly rich, coming from the king of wealth distribution. Barack Obama has been running around like a demented Robin Hood, aggressively redistributing wealth through Obamacare and massive restructurings of the energy sector and financial sector."

Colmes disputed the notion that President Obama's policies have damaged average Americans, saying this: "He has lowered taxes for 95% of working families, and a bunch of independent studies have shown that the only way to make Romney's numbers work is to cut benefits for middle-income people. He doesn't have any specifics."

Then John Stossel was on to discuss Monday's debate about the proper punishment for drug dealers, O'dummy Stossel about the drug wars.

Stossel said this: "You can't make the drug problems go away with tough laws. In my ideal libertarian world, the selling of drugs to adults is legal. Do you want to take another run at prohibition? Isn't alcohol poison? In my world, if my daughter dies, the drug dealer is no more responsible than the wine dealer is responsible when someone has a DUI."

O'Reilly argued that hard drugs and alcohol are, in effect, apples and oranges, saying this: "If you deal in substances like heroin, crack cocaine, or Oxycontin, the difference between the effects on your physiology compared to a glass of wine is enormous. If someone is selling you heroin, that's a violent act."

And as usual O'Reilly has no clue what he is talking about, what Stossel is saying is mostly true, and each person should have the choice to take drugs or not, just as they do with alcohol. Especially in what O'Reilly claims is a free country. If you are over 18 you should be able to take drugs, or not, it should be your choice, and the laws against drugs are worthless, all they do is cost us money and can not be enforced.

Then Jesse Watters was on, who visited Cambridge, Massachusetts, another town where Fox News is channel is not liked. Here's what some of the people there told him: "I feel like Fox News is factually inaccurate" And this: "I would rather live in a country that posited itself as neutral" And this: "Don't put that camera in my face!"

Watters also said this: "We got booted off the Harvard campus, we were not allowed to film there. The one professor I did find walked away in the middle of the interview. I asked how much the stimulus cost and he had no idea."

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to discuss Jared Loughner, who opened fire at a political rally in Arizona last year, and has pleaded guilty to murder and attempted assassination.

Wiehl said this: "What's unusual is that he sounded sane. He looked straight at the judge and said he knew exactly what he did and pleaded guilty to all the charges. That is such a different picture of the guy that we saw a year-and-a-half ago. He'll get life without parole."

Guilfoyle said this: "Both sides have agreed that this man is now competent. They wanted the judge to find that so he could enter the plea and avoid the death penalty at taxpayers' expense."

And for what it's worth O'Reilly agreed that the guilty plea is the best outcome, saying this: "We don't have to waste all this money and this guy will never be seen again."

And finally in the last segment Charles Krauthammer was on to defend his earlier comments about Mitt Romney.

Krauthammer said this: "He wasn't being interviewed as an Olympic expert, he was being interviewed as a presidential candidate about to head overseas on a trip to three places that were chosen precisely because President Obama had dissed each of these three allies. The point of the trip was to show solidarity, so when you're asked that question about the Olympics, you just say, 'I'm sure the Brits will have a wonderful Olympics.' This was a gaffe."

And of course O'Reilly defended Romney and took the other side, saying this: "I want people to answer a question the way they think it should be answered, I respect candor and he didn't say anything wrong."

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the tip of the day, Billy said this: "Tuesday's Tip: Every state has a list of people who own property and other assets without even knowing it, so pay a visit to Unclaimed.org to see if you have an unexpected bonanza awaiting. "

More Corporate Tax News O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - August 8, 2012 - 10:00am

Ask yourself this question, how come you never see important news like this reported by O'Reilly. And the simple answer is because O'Reilly is a Republican that does not want you to know this information.

O'Reilly and his right-wing friends argue that taxes are killing economic growth and job creation, except that argument falls flat when you look at the facts.

America's 10 most profitable corporations paid an average corporate income tax rate of just 9 percent in 2011, according to a study from financial site NerdWallet.

The 10 companies include Wall Street banks like Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase, oil companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron, and tech companies like Apple, IBM, and Microsoft.

The two companies with the lowest tax rates were both oil companies. ExxonMobil paid $1.5 billion in taxes on $73.3 billion in earnings, a tax rate of 2 percent. Chevron's tax rate was just 4 percent.

None of the companies paid anywhere near the 35 percent top corporate tax rate, providing more evidence to debunk claims that America's corporate tax rate is stunting economic growth and job creation.

-- Despite the high marginal rate, American corporations pay one of the lowest effective corporate tax rates in the world.

And btw, the study also calculated the overall amount the companies owed in both domestic and foreign taxes. This includes deferred taxes that will, theoretically, be paid in the future, once the companies bring foreign profits back to the United States. Apple, for instance, avoided $2.4 billion in American taxes last year by utilizing offshore tax havens.

But if Republicans have their way, those deferred taxes may never be paid. Switching to a territorial tax system, a policy leading Republicans have considered, would allow corporations to repatriate foreign profits back to the United States nearly free of taxation, costing the country billions of dollars and thousands of jobs.

The Monday 8-6-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 7, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Hidden agendas that hurt you. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Some conservative Americans believe President Obama intentionally wants to hurt the country, but Talking Points does not speculate about things can not be proven. However, there are hidden agendas on the left that can be proven. We all know about the 'medical marijuana' ruse, and now we have something that ups the drug ante.

The New York Times has editorialized that some hard-core drug dealers are actually victims who should not be put in prison. This is another ruse to try and get hard drugs decriminalized in the USA. About 30,000 Americans will die from drug overdoses this year, and another 23-million are drug involved.

If your daughter turns up dead from an overdose, do you think the person who sold her those drugs is a 'victim' who does not deserve to spend time in prison? Selling drugs is a violent act; they hurt people, enslave them, and cause people to commit heinous crimes. But far-left loons don't care about that, they want the drugs legalized.

Then there's Occupy Wall Street, which the liberal press praised all over the place. Now we find out that the city of Oakland has been just about destroyed by these punks, who last week even attacked President Obama's campaign office. According to the New York Times, the Occupy movement is awash in drugs and hard-core anarchy, but you won't hear that reported on the network news.

We are living in an age where the truth is hard to come by, where there are hidden agendas all over the place. It's my job to expose those agendas.
What a joke, and another hidden agenda is Bill O'Reilly, who constantly puts out right-wing propaganda while saying he is a non-partisan Independent.

Then Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham were on. Williams said this: "We've had three decades of this 'war on drugs,' and we have more people selling drugs and more people doing drugs. So why shouldn't we think about rehabilitation or doing something differently?"

Ham also questioned whether some offenders are being punished too harshly, saying this: "What makes you a 'drug trafficker' in Florida is to have seven pills of Oxycontin, so you're actually ensnaring people who are addicted and who are victims. When you have a mandatory sentence, sometimes you're catching a girl who's hooked on drugs, not the person who is selling it to her."

But O'Reilly still recommended a ten-year mandatory sentence for anyone guilty of selling drugs, saying this: "If you sell hard narcotics, whether you're addicted or not, the states have a right to say these are dangerous and if you sell them you are going to spend a lot of time in prison. I want aggressive prosecution of people who traffic in poison!"

Then O'Reilly had a right-wing stooge book author on to say President Obama had a communist mentor, Paul Kengor.

Kengor's new book documents Barack Obama's early friendship with radical communist Frank Marshall Davis. Kengor said this: "He was clearly Barack Obama's mentor, and Barack Obama refers to him repeatedly in his memoirs. During those formative adolescent and teen years, nobody qualified as a mentor as much as Frank Marshall Davis, who bashed Wall Street and called for universal health care and fundamental change. Davis is another of those radical influences on President Obama who help explain his development and how he became a man of the left."

So then O'Reilly said that while Davis was an avowed communist, President Obama can't be tarred with the same brush, saying this: "Davis gave him advice, but I don't see anything in your book or President Obama's book that says Davis tried to inculcate him with communist doctrine."

But he put this far-right jerk on the air anyway, to promote his book, and to imply Obama was a communist. An honest journalist would not have even put this nut on the air.

Then O'Reilly had Mary Anne Marsh and Margie Omero on to talk about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's claims that Mitt Romney avoided paying income taxes for ten years.

Marsh said this: "This is a no-win situation for Mitt Romney. When he responds to Reid he's keeping this tax issue in the news. On the other hand, Romney knows he has to respond because if he doesn't defend himself voters will say, 'If you're not sticking up for yourself, you're not going to fight for me.'"

Omero agreed that Romney is being damaged, saying this: "There is a sense that he feels uncomfortable being open and honest with the American people, and this reinforces what we know about his tax policies. He supports tax breaks for the top 5%."

But of course O'Reilly the Republican and Romney supporter claimed that Reid's allegations could actually backfire, saying this: "Independent voters are going to say, 'Okay, Harry, you made that accusation, now back it up.' Reid seems to be saying Mitt Romney is guilty until proven innocent."

Wrong again O'Reilly, Independent voters are wondering why Romney will not show them his tax returns, if he has nothing to hide why not release them and prove Reid wrong. Not to mention, Reid did not say it, he said he was told it was true, and he was just reporting what he was told.

Then Jesse Watters was on to discuss some cities whose residents are not big fans of Fox News. First stop, San Francisco, where Jesse got these comments: "It's because you're terrible" And this: "The news is slanted more toward the dark" And this: "Because they lie all the time" And this: "Why do you work for Fox, were they the first people who would hire you after your dad made a phone call?"

Back in the New York studio, Watters said this: "When I'm doing interviews on the street, people walk by and say, 'F--- Fox News and then run away."

And finally the Factor Reality Check, which I do not report on because it has no reality and almost no checks. It's just O'Reilly by himself putting his right-wing spin on something someone else said.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the tip of the day, Billy said this: "Monday's Tip: If you keep a large jar in your kitchen and have every family member dump all their change in it each evening, you'll soon accumulate enough money to help pay for a vacation."

Are you kidding me O'Reilly, that may be the dumbest thing I ever heard, maybe it will be enough for some gas in the car, but not a vacation.

Romney Advisers Said Bush Tax Cuts Would Create Jobs
By: Steve - August 7, 2012 - 10:00am

Mitt Romney and his economic advisers spent last week claiming Romney's economic plan will create 12 million jobs, as they attempt to change the subject away from a Tax Policy Center report showing that Romney's tax plan would mean a big tax increase for middle-class families.

A Center for American Progress Action Fund analysis shows that, far from creating 12 million jobs, Romney's economic plan would kill 360,000 jobs in 2013 alone.

But this discrepancy is perhaps less surprising considering that the same advisers who gave Romney his number -- including economists Greg Mankiw and Glenn Hubbard, who both worked for former President George W. Bush -- estimated that the Bush tax cuts would lead to massive job growth:
Back in 2001, as chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, Hubbard predicted that tax cuts slanted disproportionately to Americans in the topmost tier of income and wealth distribution would "quickly deliver a boost to move the economy back toward its long-run growth path," starting with adding 300,000 more jobs and half a percentage point to the 2002 growth rate.

Then in early 2003, as President Bush proposed another round of tax cuts, Hubbard predicted these would add another 1.4 million jobs to the U.S. economy, over and above the 3.1 million jobs the economy would create on its own from natural economic growth in that time.

Mankiw, who took over for Hubbard as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers later in 2003-- co-signed a letter with Hassett (then-economist at the American Enterprise Institute) to President Bush enthusiastically endorsing more tax cuts because it is fiscally responsible and it will create more employment and economic growth.
Unfortunately for American workers, those pie in the sky predictions did not happen. In fact, total employment in the U.S. economy created only 2.4 million new jobs by the end of 2004, or less than half of what Hubbard predicted. And by 2007 the economy was running nearly 8 million jobs short of what Hubbard predicted.
Br> Here are the facts, the facts you will never see reported by O'Reilly. The Bush tax cuts led to the weakest job growth of the post-war era. So not only does Romney's tax plan fail to add up, his job growth plan is going to fall far short of its goals.

More Proof Dick Morris Is A Dishonest Right-Wing Idiot
By: Steve - August 6, 2012 - 10:00am

Before I show you what a lying/spinning right-wing hack Dick Morris is, look at this information.

There is a website called Real Clear Politics, they are a non-partisan group that does the poll numbers, they are not biased and they give no opinions about anything. O'Reilly has even quoted their polls many times in the past.

What they do is take ALL the polls on the elections and average them, so Rasmussen, Gallup, Pew, Fox, etc. are all used to get their averages.

Right now as I type this on Sunday 8-5-12 The RCP poll has President Obama beating Romney by 3 points, 47.6 to 44.6. They are using 9 polls to get their average, in 7 of them Obama is winning, and Romney is winning in 2 of them.

And of course one of the polls that has Romney winning by 2 points is the known right-wing biased Rasmussen poll. If you do not use Rasmussen, Obama is winning 7 polls to 1 poll, and in the other poll from the CBS News/NY Times, Romney is only ahead by 1 point.

All of this polling information points to one clear conclusion, President Obama is ahead and will most likely beat Romney.

But not on the O'Reilly Factor, where Bill O'Reilly has said if Romney can win Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania he beats Obama. And last week O'Reilly had Dick Morris on to flat out say Romney will win.

O'Reilly reported on a recent poll from Gallup that had Obama winning by 2 points, Morris said it was a bad poll, while ignoring the fact that the RCP poll that averages 9 polls, including the right-wing Rasmussen and Fox polls, has Obama winning by 3 points.

Morris said this last Wednesday:
MORRIS: "It's a lousy poll. It includes 8% or 9% more Democrats than Republicans in Florida, where in fact they're about even, and this is the only poll that has Obama over 50% in those states. I think the Pennsylvania numbers might be right, but the others are just ridiculous."

Morris also said this: "I am quite confident that Romney will clearly carry Florida, I think he'll carry Ohio, and he has a good shot at carrying Pennsylvania."
The only thing Morris is even close on is Florida, where the RCP average only has Obama ahead by 1.4 points.

In Ohio it's not even close, the RCP average has Obama beating Romney by 4.8 points, and even Rasmussen has Obama 2 points ahead. The other polls used have Obama 6 to 8 points ahead in Ohio, and yet, Morris says Romney will win Ohio.

In Pennsylvania the RCP average has Obama beating Romney by 7 points, and even Rasmussen has Obama ahead by 4 points. The other polls used have Obama 6 to 11 points ahead in Pennsylvania, and yet, Morris says Romney will win Pennsylvania.

Now after looking at all those numbers how could anyone conclude Romney is going to win Florida and Ohio, and maybe even the very Democratic state of Pennsylvania. The answer, nobody in their right mind would.

Only a right-wing stooge like Dick Morris could come up with such partisan garbage, and O'Reilly sat there and let him spin out that ridiculous speculation.

In fact, if you do not use the Rasmussen polls in the RCP average, Obama is winning in 99% of all the other polls. Not to mention the big lead Obama has in the electoral college, which is what matters the most because that is how you get elected.

And Morris totally ignores the electoral college numbers that have Obama ahead 247 to 191, because it would kill his spin that Romney is winning. Now think about this, Romney has to win Florida and Ohio, just to have a chance, but if Obama wins just 1 of them it's over. And Romney has to win Florida and Ohio to have any chance at all, but Obama is ahead in both States. So for anyone to predict Romney will win Florida and Ohio is insane, which is just what Morris did.

Study Finds Right-Wing Radio Promotes Hate Speech
By: Steve - August 5, 2012 - 10:00am

On Wednesday, the National Hispanic Media Coalition and UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center released a study showing that guests and topics discussed during "The Rush Limbaugh Show," "The Sean Hannity Show," "The Glenn Beck Program," The Savage Nation" and "The John and Ken Show" overwhelmingly marginalized minority groups.

From the study:
The findings reveal that the hosts promoted an insular discourse that focused on, for example, anti-immigration, anti-Islam, and pro-Tea Party positions and that this discourse found repetition and amplification through social media.b>
blockquote> These viewpoints have far reaching consequences. NHMC President and CEO Alex Nogales told Fox News Latino that the social network surrounding conservative talk radio and Fox News has spread to social media websites resulting in "an echo-chamber of voices, both online and off, that promotes hatred against ethnic, racial and religious groups and the LGBT community on social media web sites."

Using hateful rhetoric, these hosts have cast immigrants as disease ridden, equated pro-immigrant organizations with neo-Nazis, called Islam an "evil religion," claimed the Obama administration is promoting "race riots" and made fun of the ethnicity of Asian-American politicians.

And of course not one person at Fox News reported on this study, not even the so-called non-partisan Independent journalist Bill O'Reilly, and they never will either.

The Friday 8-3-12 O'Reilly/Williams Factor Review
By: Steve - August 4, 2012 - 11:00am

There was no TPM because the pretend Democrat Juan Williams filled in for O'Reilly. Instead he went right to his Top Story, which was more right-wing BS about Chick-Fil-A.

Juan reported that Fox News host Mike Huckabee, initiated the hugely successful "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" on Wednesday.

Which is funny, because O'Reilly never once mentioned that fact. I wonder what he would think if a liberal host at MSNBC did something similar. Of course he would lose his mind and call for the Feds to investigate, but when a Fox host does it O'Reilly not only looks the other way, he ignores it and does not report it.

Huckabee said this: "It was a huge success, and it wasn't a success against anybody. This was not a protest, it was an affirmation that the owner of a business can speak his or her convictions. That's what America is all about, and when government officials say they're not going to welcome his business because of a personal view that he holds, that's what we expect in North Korea or Iran. I don't hear anyone, including these public officials, condemning the Muslims who have a far stronger anti-gay position than any Christian."

Which is ridiculous, because it was a protest, and it was targeted to the people who support gay rights and gay marriage.

And of course the fake Democrat Juan Williams endorsed Huckabee's point of view, saying this: "You and I have political differences, but I couldn't agree with you more. You don't punish people for speaking their minds, and I've felt the burn of that in my life."

Huckabee also spoke about the gay "kiss in" scheduled for Friday at some Chick-fil-A locations, saying this: "As long as they don't impede business or interfere with customers getting in and out of the store, they're perfectly within their rights. I am far more tolerant of people being able to disagree with me than they seem to be having me disagree with them."

Then Juan copied his right-wing friend O'Reilly by using the show to attack Harry Reid. Leslie Marshall and Janine Turner were on to discuss it. Reid went to the Senate floor and accused Mitt Romney of not paying taxes for a decade.

Turner said this: "This is disgraceful, because Harry Reid knows that under the Constitution he is protected from being sued or arrested for saying anything that is untrue. This is an abuse of the Constitution and a disgrace to the dignity of America. This is a diversion tactic and I have no doubt that Harry Reid is the man the Obama campaign threw out there to be the fall guy."

Which is just laughable, all he did was report that someone called him and told him Romney did not pay any taxes for 10 years, he did not even say it was true, he just reported what he was told, and said Romney could clear it all up by releasing his tax returns for 12 years.

Marshall said that Reid's strategy could wind up bearing fruit, saying this: "I don't think it's below the belt to say there's a rumor going around that Governor Romney hasn't paid taxes in ten years. When Romney says, 'put up or shut up,' he's the one that has to 'put up or shut up.' This ploy to have him release his tax returns could be working."

The new jobs report is out and it has some good news, and bad news. The economy added 165,000 jobs in July, but the unemployment rate went up to 8.3%. So Juan had Fox News Tobin Smith on with his take on the numbers.

Smith said this: "People on the right are trying to make the President look bad, but let's get above the fray for a moment. The bigger issue is the U-6 number, which adds the unemployed and the under-employed. We're at 15% to 16% overall, so we have a chronic unemployment issue. Is government going to build these jobs? No, it's got to come from the private sector."

But David Callahan of the left-leaning Demos think tank argued for more government spending, saying this: "There needs to be more stimulus, and the President had a plan to invest in our infrastructure, which would have put a lot of construction workers back to work. There is not consumer demand because consumers are tapped out, and one reason is because most of the money generated in our economy is going to that top 1%. The middle class is not sharing in the prosperity."

And he is right, not only should there be another stimulus, there should be a tax rebate that only goes to the lower and middle class, as in people who make less than $100,000 a year, because they are the people that spend all the money that drives the economy.

Then Juan had Geraldo on to discuss the case of 52-year-old William Dillon, who was wrongly imprisoned for 27 years in Florida and then got out, he publicly thanked Geraldo for taking up his cause.

Geraldo said this: "Just think of everything you've done in the last 27 years, and this guy was in prison for that long. He sat behind bars and he was raped when he was incarcerated as a young man. His whole life has been absolutely wasted, and this was not even a close case. A dog supposedly linked a tee shirt to Dillon and to the crime, but the dog's handler, John Preston, was a phony. My heart goes out to Dillon because I know how angry I would be. He is a person with great heart and great charisma and he languished in jail."

The murder rate in Chicago is up 31% from last year, and some black officials and journalists are urging President Obama to speak out about his home town. So Juan discussed it with Fox News contributors Santita Jackson and Deneen Borelli.

Jackson said this: "I think this is the breakdown of the American family. A study showed us that the gunshot deaths in urban America are roughly equal to the gunshot deaths in rural America. We have a violence epidemic that is rooted in joblessness and the breakdown of our social fabric, but I don't think you can isolate it to the black community."

Borelli disagreed and said that blacks are not disproportionately affected by the violence, saying this: "There is a breakdown in the black family because of the failure of progressive policies. Look at what welfare did to black families, and today we have individuals who are more dependent on the government instead of looking to themselves."

Borelli also said this: "The black establishment doesn't want to talk about the failures of progressive policies because that will expose the failures of their policies. What we need is a hostile takeover of the black establishment to hold them accountable for what they say and what they do."

Then in the last segment Juan had an Update on the Solyndra story, saying that a Congressional report concludes that the White House put political pressure on the Energy Department to bankroll Solyndra, the now-bankrupt solar energy company. But just as O'Reilly would do, Juan failed to mention the report was a partisan hack job done by the biased Republicans in the House.

Juan explored the issue with Republican strategist Dee Dee Benkie, who contended that the Solyndra debacle was not atypical, and Democrat John Hlinko.

Benkie said this: "All together we have spent $6.5 billion on 'green energy' projects, and twelve of the companies are in trouble. That's not good. Why don't we go with coal and drilling offshore and the Keystone Pipeline? These are things that would give us energy for sure, instead of going on Obama's excellent energy adventures."

Former Obama campaign consultant John Hlinko dismissed the Congressional investigation, saying this: "Now we know what the House has been doing for the past 18 months; instead of creating jobs, they've been finding emails. This is clearly a partisan witch hunt. Yeah, sometimes high-tech ventures fail, but we're spending money on the energy of the future."

Juan then admitted that the investigation was done by partisan Republicans with the intent to embarrass the White House, but also said this: "The money was wasted on political cronies."

Fox News Show Lied About Military Voting In Ohio
By: Steve - August 4, 2012 - 10:00am

Special Report guest host Shannon Bream falsely claimed that the Obama campaign is suing to prevent military voters in Ohio from having extra time to cast their ballots.

And now the facts: The lawsuit seeks to allow ALL voters in Ohio to cast their ballots during the window open to military personnel and their families. The lawsuit does not try to restrict voting by military families in any way.

Then Fox News Ed Henry followed that lie with a misleading report that included a clip of Mitt Romney saying that it would be a disservice to members of the military to try to impede them from voting. But Henry did not cite any evidence that the lawsuit is intended to impede military voting.

As The Cincinnati Enquirer reported in July, "Now, only uniformed military personnel, their spouses and their voting-age dependents [in Ohio] can vote through Monday, the day before the Nov. 6 election. Everyone else must vote by the Friday before Election Day. The Obama campaign says that means all Ohio voters are not being treated fairly and that's a violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause"

At the top of the show, Bream actually said that the Obama campaign is "suing to keep members of the military from having extra time to cast their ballots" in Ohio.

And that is a flat out 100% lie. Because the lawsuit is only asking to extend the amount of time ALL Ohio voters can cast their ballots -- not shorten the amount of time military families can vote.

Now of course O'Reilly does not say a word about the lie, because he is a Republican who wants you to think it's a true story. But if a Republican were accused of the same lie by someone at MSNBC or CNN, you can bet the farm O'Reilly would be all over that story.

The Thursday 8-2-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 3, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: A big victory for the traditional forces in America. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Thousands of folks lined up Wednesday at Chick-fil-A restaurants across the country because some liberal politicians want to keep Chick-fil-A out of their cities. The controversy began when Dan Cathy, the chain's boss, said God would punish America for embracing gay marriage; Mr. Cathy also donates money to protect traditional marriage, which has angered his ideological opponents.

The beliefs of both sides should be respected, so when politicians attack a business because they don't like the politics of its management, that's flat-out un-American. And the argument that anti-gay marriage people are violating somebody's rights is flat-out false; marriage is not a constitutional right. Also noteworthy is that liberal politicians are not attacking the many African-American pastors who are publicly against gay marriage.

You don't hear calls to boycott those churches, do you? The hallmark of totalitarian regimes is to shut down the opposition, which is what the mayors of Chicago, Boston and San Francisco want to do. Talking Points believes the vast majority of Americans condemn that stance.

There are good people on both sides, and it is not bigoted to believe American society is stronger when marriage is between a man and a woman. It is also not wrong for homosexual Americans to want to get as much parity as they can. Robust debate is a good thing; threats and intimidation are un-American.
Notice how O'Reilly called the anti-gay marriage people the traditional forces in America, no spin zone? That's funny, because they are right-wingers, and that is the no spin. Not to mention, O'Reilly the so-called Independent will not even admit they are right-wingers, proving he is also a right-winger who is spinning for them.

And on top of all that, just because a bunch of right-wingers decide to go to a Chick-Fil-A as a sign of support to the jerk owner, does not meant they won the war against gay marriage. Because very soon Gay Marriage will be legal in America, and Gay people will have the same rights as straight people. So they won a small battle, but eventually they will lose the war.

Then Kirsten Powers (the so-called Democrat, who agreed with O'Reilly and the Republican) Jeanine Pirro were on to discuss the issue.

Pirro said this: "This is not a marriage issue, this is about hypocrites using gay marriage as an excuse to come after the religious right. Chick-fil-A is an American business that has never had a problem with gays and openly employs gays, and they don't like it because the owner believes in traditional marriage. Are we going to destroy an American company because people don't like what this guy thinks?"

Powers said this: "They're not going after African American pastors who are not part of the religious right, but who have the exact same Christian views on these issues. And don't forget that until about a month ago Barack Obama would have been one of the people who didn't share 'Chicago's values,' according to Rahm Emanuel."

O'Reilly once again portrayed the episode as a clear victory for free speech and tradition, saying this: "Chick-fil-A had its biggest day in history and you haven't heard a word out of Mayors Menino, Emanuel, and Lee in three days. The traditional forces won!"

Then the far-right loon Laura Ingraham was on to slam Obama and predict a Romney victory in November.

Ingraham predicted Mitt Romney will probably win in November because so many Americans are eager for a change, saying this: "I believe Romney's strength is playing out in this Chick-fil-A controversy. He wasn't at Chick-fil-A, but what you're beginning to see is the silent majority coming forward and saying, 'This demonization of people has gotten out of hand.'"

She also said this: "I think that enthusiasm you saw has some political meaning, and I think you'll see that on Election Day with a huge enthusiastic turnout against this redefining of mainstream American institutions."

Now remember this, Ingraham also predicted John McCain and stupid Sarah Palin would beat Obama in 2008. Even though all the polls and electoral websites had Obama winning by a mile, and everyone with half a brain knew Obama would win, especially after McCain picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to discuss how President Obama issued an executive order giving black students greater access to a "complete and competitive education."

Kelly said this: "There's a crisis for African Americans in many of our schools, in terms of the discipline they face, the lack of graduation, and the fact that they're two years behind whites in the same grade. The President said he wants to create a commission that will look into this problem in our schools."

She also said this: "The most controversial part of this commission is that it wants to 'eliminate methods that lead to the disparate use of disciplinary tools.' It means they think black students are getting expelled and suspended more than white students."

So then Billy blamed the problem largely on the disintegrating family structure, saying this: "71% of black babies are born out of wedlock, so by the time they get to school they don't know anything. There's not a book in the house and there's no supervision."

Then O'Reilly had another segment on the Strangest moments in Factor history, which got me thinking. All the so-called strange moments are O'Reilly screaming at a liberal who did not agree with his right-wing spin on something, and that's what he calls strange, simply because they disagreed with his right-wing propaganda.

But when he does his best of the Factor re-run shows, all the guests are Republicans, proving once more that O'Reilly is nothing but a biased right-wing hack.

Then Lou Dobbs was on to spin the recent increase in gas prices. Billy asked Fox Dobbs to explain it and he said this: "Back in February we were talking about high prices, and the President was calling for a fraud investigation. Then the prices dropped and now they're moving up a little bit. We have the worst drought and corn ethanol, which is required to be 10% of gasoline, is much more expensive. There's also rising tension in the Middle East."

But even O'Reilly was not buying what Dobbs was trying to sell, saying this: "My theory is that the speculators drive the price up, they drive it down, they make money and it's all a big con."

And for once, O'Reilly is 100% right about something, it is all a big con and Congress does nothing about it.

And finally Uma Pemmaraju and Steve Doocy were on for the total waste of tv time Factor News Quiz, that I do not report on because it's not news.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the O'Reilly tip of the day, Billy said this: Thursday's Tip: For $30 a year you can subscribe to ConsumerReports.org and have access to all the magazine's prior research.

GOP Tax Plan Would Raise Taxes On 24 Million Americans
By: Steve - August 3, 2012 - 10:00am

And of course you never heard a word about it from O'Reilly, or anyone at Fox News. Because they do not want you to know the truth. Here are the facts.

Last week Senate Republicans proposed a plan that would raise taxes on more than 20 million Americans, while maintaining the high-end Bush tax cuts. While the Obama plan of letting those tax cuts on income in excess of only $250,000 expire would affect just two million wealthy taxpayers.

So the House Republicans have now adopted the same plan, and the effect is the same: roughly 24 million middle and lower class Americans will see their taxes raised so that roughly two million of the richest taxpayers can keep their tax cuts.

And what's worse is that under the Republican plan more than a third of families with children (a total of 18.6 million households, including 9.2 million single parents) would see a tax increase.

About 11 million families would lose some or all of the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which provides a tax break on college tuition payments, at an average cost of $1,100 each.

About 12 million would lose part or all of the Child Tax Credit, costing them an average of $800, and about 6 million would lose all or part of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which saves an average of $500.

Read this carefully folks, this is what the Republican Party is trying to do, raise taxes on the middle and lower class to pay for tax cuts for the super wealthy. And I am not just saying it, they are actually trying to do it. These are facts, and O'Reilly never says a word about any of it, as he complains that liberals want to raise taxes.

The Wednesday 8-1-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 2, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Playing chicken with gay marriage. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Chick-fil-A is a fast food chain headed up by a religious man named Dan Cathy, who believes marriage should be exclusively between a man and a woman. The mayors of Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco are saying they don't want Chick-fil-A restaurants in their cities.

In fact, San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee wrote that the closest Chick-fil-A is 40 miles away 'and I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.' That sounds like a threat, does it not? Obviously, the issue of gay marriage continues to divide Americans, and now the Democratic Party has made it part of their platform to call for legalized gay marriage nationwide.

No matter how you feel about the issue, respect should be brought to the debate. Mr. Cathy is entitled to his opinion and his company is entitled to donate money to promote keeping traditional marriage as the legal standard. The mayors are also entitled to state their pro-gay marriage opinions, but they do the country a disservice by trying to harm Mr. Cathy's business.

If the company wants to try and sell chicken in Boston, San Francisco, or Chicago, no pinheaded politician should be trying to hurt that business because they disagree with the politics of management.
Then O'Reilly had the conservative writer Michelle Fields and gay comedian Dave Rubin on to discuss the Chick-fil-A issue.

Rubin said this: "I believe Dan Cathy is welcome to say what he wants, and I believe the gay community is welcome to say what they want. If the mayors want to put their butts on the line and say they do not want Chick-fil-A here, I honor them for taking a stand. Don't you want politicians who say what they believe?"

Fields accused the mayors of actually doing harm to their communities, saying this: "Politicians don't get to decide which opinions are appropriate and then use the power of the state to enforce them. Economic coercion is no way to convince someone to believe in certain values. If these politicians had any common sense, they would be begging Chick-fil-A to be opening restaurants in their areas so their constituents could have jobs."

And of course O'Reilly agreed with the conservative, he concluded that the mayors are way out of line, saying this: "It's fascism for these guys to say, you can't come into my town if I disagree with your political views."

Which is hypocrisy, because when a politician has an opinion that O'Reilly agrees with and speaks out about it, O'Reilly has no problem with it, like being pro-life.

Then the biased hack Dick Morris was on to spin some new polling that indicates President Obama is leading Mitt Romney in the vital states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Morris said it was bad polling, which is just laughable, because when the very same polls say Romney is doing good Morris quotes them, when they don't, he says they are bad polls.

Morris said this: "It's a lousy poll. It includes 8% or 9% more Democrats than Republicans in Florida, where in fact they're about even, and this is the only poll that has Obama over 50% in those states. I think the Pennsylvania numbers might be right, but the others are just ridiculous. I am quite confident that Romney will clearly carry Florida, I think he'll carry Ohio, and he has a good shot at carrying Pennsylvania."

Morris also said that President Obama has spent $100 million on anti-Romney ads, "but they have not dented him."

Which is not only ridiculous, it's a lie, because the Romney numbers have went down in every State Obama has run the ads, proving once again that Dick Morris is a liar, and a bad one.

Then the Democratic Steve Sweeney was on, while criticizing New Jersey for its failure to enact a version of Jessica's Law, O'Reilly placed the blame on State Senate President Sweeney.

Sweeney said this: "I was ahead of the curve in 2004, because I actually proposed a bill to put GPS tracking sensors on sexual predators. I believe in this, I'm a sponsor of a bill, and as Senate President I'm going to get it passed. We're moving the bill forward and we're going to get it signed into law."

But that's still not enough for O'Reilly, so he slams the guy for not passing a Jessica's Law, because that's what Billy wants. Even though he is bound to do what the voters in his State want, not what Bill O'Reilly wants him to do.

O'Reilly urged Sweeney and his colleagues to speed up the process, saying this: "43 states now have Jessica's Law, but you guys don't. I don't know why it takes seven years to protect the kids!"

Then O'Reilly continued the week's special series by re-airing some strange segments from the show's history. That I will not report on because it's simply re-runs from past shows, and not current news.

Then O'Reilly had Juliet Huddy on for did you see that. She talked about Jon Lovitz, who has pointed out that left-leaning people get angry when he criticizes or jokes about President Obama. Just as right-leaning people get mad when liberals do jokes about Republicans, including O'Reilly the king of hypocrites, who cried almost every night for 8 years about comedians doing Bush jokes.

Huddy said this: "A lot of people are going after Lovitz, because a lot of people have a problem when the President is criticized. You may not like Barack Obama's political ideology, but he seems like a likeable guy, the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with."

Huddy also watched tape of O'Reilly refusing to join in "the wave" during a game at Yankee Stadium, after which a couple ESPN hosts said that the wave is old and tired. Huddy said this to Billy: "I agree that the wave is completely dorky, but you did act a little too cool for school. You're wonderful but you are so uncool!"

Then O'Reilly had Adam Carolla on, he asked him why so many of his fellow comics are reluctant to take shots at President Obama.

Carolla said this: "There is a double standard. Everyone out here leans to the left so you don't make fun of Democrats, but also he's black and it makes you a 'racist.' And most importantly he's not fat. So he's not nailing any interns, he's black, he's a Democrat, and he's skinny, so he's not a big target. Even when he says stupid things, they tend to agree with the stupid things he says."

O'Reilly brought up Jon Lovitz, who has been extremely critical of the President, saying this: "If you're a liberal and you turn, the left really hates that. I think there's something like that going on with Lovitz."

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the tip of the day, Billy said this: Wednesday's Tip: You can save some money by visiting the websites Groupon.com and LivingSocial.com, both of which list various bargains.

Koch-Funded Study Finds Global Warming Is Real
By: Steve - August 2, 2012 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly never said a word about it, because it makes all his right-wing friends (who deny global warming) look like fools. And this study was not done by some liberal Al Gore loving group, it was done by people who used to deny global warming was real, and the Republican Koch brothers funded it because they thought they would keep saying it is not real.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study (BEST) is poised to release its findings next week on the cause of recent global warming.

A NY Times op-ed by Richard Muller, BEST's Founder and Scientific Director, has been published called this: The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic.

Here is a quote:
CALL me a converted skeptic.

Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct.

I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
What makes this so stunning is that Muller has been a skeptic of climate science, and the single biggest funder of this study is the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000). And the Kochs are the leading funder of climate disinformation in the world.

And that's not all, read this from the study:
Our results show that the average temperature of the earth's land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years.

Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming.
So basically, a Koch-funded study has found that the IPCC consensus UNDERESTIMATED both the rate of surface warming and how much could be attributed to human emissions!

The Guardian also has a good story on it, called this: "Climate change study forces sceptical scientists to change minds: Earth's land shown to have warmed by 1.5C over past 250 years, with humans being almost entirely responsible."

Climatologist Ken Caldeira wrote this about it. "I am glad that Muller has taken a look at the data and has come to essentially the same conclusion that nearly everyone else had come to more than a decade ago."

Caldeira also wrote this: "The basic scientific results have been established for a long time now, so I do not see the results of Muller as being scientifically important. However, their result may be politically important. It shows that even people who suspect climate scientists of being charlatans, when they take a hard look at the data, see that the climate scientists have been right all along."

Now ask yourself this, if Bill O'Reilly is a global warming believer as he claims to be, would he not report on this very important study funded by the Republican Koch Brothers, and published in the NY Times, the very same NY Times that he reads every day. He should, but I doubt he will, because he is a biased right-wing hack.