The Real Reason For The Fiscal Cliff Crisis
By: Steve - December 30, 2012 - 11:00am

And O'Reilly sure as hell did not tell you this, because he does not want you to know the truth. The economic crisis of the moment (the fiscal cliff) is not a real "economic crisis" at all, except that it could inflict serious economic hardship on many Americans and could drive the economy back into recession.

The "fiscal cliff" is a politically manufactured crisis. It was original created by the Republican Senate Leader, Mitch McConnell as a way to get past the last crisis manufactured by the Republicans, the 2011 standoff over increasing the Federal Debt Ceiling.

Theoretically, "the so-called cliff" - composed of increased taxes and huge, indiscriminant cuts in Federal programs - would be so frightening to policy makers that no one would ever consider allowing the nation to jump.

Now, America is on the brink of diving off the cliff for one and only one reason: many House Republicans are terrified of primary challenges from the Tea Party.

That's right folks, if your taxes go up $2,200 a year, or you're one of the millions who would stop receiving unemployment benefits, the cause of your economic pain is not some a natural disaster, or a major structural flaw in the economy. The cause is Republican fear of being beaten in a primary by people like Sarah Palin, Sharon Angel or Richard Mourdock, who are funded by far Right Wing oligarchs like Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers.

It's that simple, and the so-called journalist who claims to be looking out for the folks, Bill O'Reilly, has not said one word about it.

Most Americans will have very little patience with Republicans as they begin to realize that GOP Members of Congress are willing to risk throwing the country back into a recession because they are worried about being beaten in low turn out primaries by people who do a better job than they do appealing to the extreme right fringe of the American electorate.

One of the other major factors feeding the GOP fear of primaries is that, because of the Citizens United decision, far right plutocrats can now inject virtually unlimited amounts of money into primary races. Unlimited independent expenditures have so far been much more successful in unseating incumbent Republican Members of Congress than it has been winning General Elections.

In the end, of course the relatively more diluted presence of Republicans in Republican districts - and the country's changing demographics -- may allow Democrats to win many currently Republican seats. What's more, Republican near term concern about primary challenges - and the stridency it breeds -- may alienate increasing numbers of moderate Republican leading independents.

We've already seen this effect in the Presidential and Senate races and it would not be surprising that by 2014 many of the primary obsessed Republican incumbents are hoisted on their own petard in the General Election.

Just ask Tea Party Members of Congress who were defeated in 2012, like Alan West and Joe Walsh. But in the near term, at least, there is also no question that many occupants of Republican seats appear far more concerned with primary challenges than they are with general elections.

So there you have it, Republicans are driving us off the fiscal cliff to save their seats in Congress. They do not give a damn about the people or the country, all they care about is voting the way the far-right Tea Party wants them to vote, so they will not face a primary challenge from a far-right stooge backed by big money.

And O'Reilly ignores it all, because he does not want you to know what they are doing, if he told you it would make his right-wing friends look bad.

The Friday 12-28-12 O'Reilly/Gutfeld Factor Review
By: Steve - December 29, 2012 - 11:00am

The far-right un-funny Greg Gutfeld filled in for O'Reilly on Friday and he started with his top story called: The Fiscal Cliff. Gutfeld started the show talking about the rapidly approaching "fiscal cliff" with the partisan Republican Senator John Thune, and no Democratic guest for balance.

Thune said this: "I'm glad the President is finally engaged, because you can't do big things here in Washington without presidential leadership, which is what we haven't had. At least he's now presenting something that will give us a chance to avert what everyone agrees would be a major financial disaster. But obviously there's a long way to go and it will be a tough needle to thread in order to get this done."

And that is just ridiculous, because President Obama has been engaged on this since the election, it's the Republicans who are blocking everything because the far-right of the Tea Party will not even go along with the rest of the party, they had a deal and the Tea Party killed it, so if anyone is not engaged it's the Tea Party idiots.

Greg theorized that taking no action and going off the "cliff" would please many Democrats, saying this: "This is a Democratic agenda with cuts to defense and higher taxes. What's not to love if you're a Democrat? Not to psychoanalyze the President, but he seems so obsessed with the top 2% that he's disengaged himself from the bigger problem, which is that we're headed toward being Greece."

And that is even more ridiculous, because Democrats do not want to go over the so-called fiscal cliff, they want a deal. Not to mention, we can never be anything like Greece, because we can print our own money and Greece can not. Plus we have the number of people to raise taxes to cover the debt if we need to, Greece does not.

Then Juan Williams and Republican strategist Alice Stewart were on with their views on the budget impasse. Williams said this: "I don't want to go over the cliff, because I have investments and it would be absolutely traumatic for the American economy and the global economy. If President Obama starts a second term with consumer confidence sinking, that's not good news for Democrats."

Earth to Juan Williams, even if we did go over the bogus fiscal cliff it would only be a small market loss, a deal would get done very quickly, and the markets would go back up, so either way your investments are going to go up, fool.

And of course the insane Stewart agreed with Gutfled's theory that many Democrats would welcome the end of negotiations, saying this: "President Obama and the Democrats are in the convertible Thunderbird, ready to put the pedal to the medal and go over the cliff so they can raise taxes, cut military spending, and blame the GOP. If we give the President every tax increase he wants, we're still looking at a trillion-dollar deficit."

Then Gutfeld said that according to some reports last week, four State Department officials were dismissed for their roles in the Benghazi consulate attack. But it now turns out that the workers were merely shuffled to other positions, so Gutfeld discussed it Fox News analyst Col. Ralph Peters, and no Democratic guest for balance. And btw folks, this Col. Peters is a total right-wing fool that hates President Obama, so his comments are very biased.

Peters said this: "This is an only-in-Washington program for federal bureaucrats, where the bigger your screw-up, the more chance you'll be protected and promoted. So it didn't surprise me to learn that they're still on the job because it's very hard to get rid of a Washington bureaucrat. This Benghazi thing is still simmering and the administration does not want someone to go rogue and tell the truth."

Peters also predicted that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will likely testify about Benghazi in January, saying this: "A group of Senators, determined to get to the truth, are going to try to hold up Senator Kerry's confirmation as Secretary of State until Hillary Clinton comes to Capitol Hill and testifies under oath. She doesn't want to testify because she doesn't want anything staining her record for 2016."

Gutfeld suggested that the Obama administration has time on its side, saying this: "They're waiting for this story to die down and the media is helping it to die down."

Because it's a non-story with everyone but the right, who only want to use the story to damage Obama and Hillary politically.

Then Gutfeld talked about the Gun Control Debate. Senator Diane Feinstein and other Democrats want to reinstate the "assault weapons" ban that was in effect until 2004. Gutfeld was joined by gun rights advocate Larry Pratt, who is not a big fan of the proposed law.

Pratt said this: "Even though we've had a declining murder rate in the United States, and even though Connecticut has the very kinds of law that Feinstein wants, somehow we're to believe this would work. These same kind of guns were used by Korean merchants when the police weren't able to protect them during the Los Angeles riots, and these same kinds of guns protected people after Hurricane Katrina."

Alexis McGill Johnson, head of a liberal organization, argued that an assault weapons ban would indeed lead to greater safety, saying this: "We know that 40% of guns in this country are being sold by unlicensed dealers, so we're not getting universal background checks and the kinds of things that would help us reduce crimes. 'Assault weapons' are a very small percentage of guns, so banning them is not going make a huge difference for people who use weapons and support the Second Amendment."

Earth to Larry Pratt, the founding fathers did not intend for people to have semi-auto assault weapons with 50 round clip when they added the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. When it was added the best weapon you could get was a cap and ball musket that fired one shot at a time and took 3 minutes to load, think about that you fool.

Gutfeld ended the week with conservative columnist Michelle Fields and liberal editor Cathy Areu, who debated the future of the Tea Party movement.

Fields said this: "Obama's election was not a loss for the Tea Party, it was a loss for the Republican establishment. The Tea Party was never on board with Mitt Romney and he never embraced the Tea Party, so it wasn't a loss for the Tea Party. They still have tremendous influence; just look at John Boehner's proposals for the 'fiscal cliff,' which were rejected by conservatives on Capitol Hill because they didn't meet the Tea Party's philosophy of lower taxes and smaller government."

But Areu dismissed the Tea Partiers as a dying breed, saying this: "They've lost appeal, they've lost many of their supporters, and they actually hurt the Republicans when it came to trying to win the Senate. They are losing their influence."

Gutfeld speculated why some Tea Party members are no longer quite as active, saying this: "They have jobs and they moved on. They work for a living, unlike Occupy Wall Street."

O'Reilly Ignores More Racism Against President Obama
By: Steve - December 29, 2012 - 10:00am

Once again we have more racism against President Obama from Republican jerks, and O'Reilly of course ignored it, as he claims there is no racism on the right against Obama, that he can find anyway. And I say he can not find it because he does not look, he ignores it because it's coming from Republicans and he is a Republican himself.

Danny Hafley of Casey County, Ky. said this week that people are reading the mannequin in his front yard depicting President Barack Obama eating a watermelon completely wrong.

"The way I look at it, it's freedom of speech," Hafley said in a recent interview, going on to state that he had included the watermelon not in attempt to play to any racist stereotypes, but because the statue "might get hungry standing out here."

According to Hafley, the display is "popular" and a frequent draw for people passing by to stop and take pictures.

Watermelon imagery has been utilized in anti-Obama efforts in the past, usually by those claiming there is no racist sentiment behind the choice.

In 2009, a mayor of Los Alamitos, Calif. resigned his post after sending an e-mail showing watermelons in front of the White House, alongside the text "No Easter egg hunt this year." He maintained that he wasn't aware of the racial stereotype that African Americans like watermelon.

And earlier this year, a resident of Santa Clara, Calif. included a watermelon in his anti-Obama display that also featured an empty chair -- a reference to Hollywood star Clint Eastwood's bizarre Republican National Convention speech -- a noose, and a sign telling the president to "go back to Kenya you idiot."

The owner of that setup declined to comment at the time. I could also point to 10 other examples of racism by the right against President Obama, from the Obama bucks money with watermelon, chicken, and ribs on it, to the Obama monkey dolls, and on and on.

Which O'Reilly also ignored, he has not reported on any of it. Then as a guest on his show says there is racism against Obama by the right O'Reilly actually denies it and says he can not find any of it. He also says his crack staff has looked and can not find it.

And I would say if his staff can not find it they must be smoking crack, because anyone with a computer can do a simple google search on racism against Obama and find example after example of racism. Proving once again that O'Reilly is a biased hack of a pretend journalist, who ignores the racism because it makes his friends on the right look bad.

The Thursday 12-27-12 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - December 28, 2012 - 11:00am

The far-right stooge Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly and she opened the show with her top story called: Contraception Mandate. The biased and dishonest Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has denied an appeal to temporarily delay the Obamacare contraception mandate, which requires workers' health benefit plans to cover the 'morning after' pill and other emergency contraception.

A company named Hobby Lobby had sued the government, claiming that the HHS mandate violated the religious rights of the company's owners, who are evangelical Christians. Although Sotomayor didn't rule on the merits of the case, her refusal to grant a temporary stay is onerous.

Starting next week, the company will either have to pay a daily fine of $1.3 million, stop offering their employees health care, or abide by the rule and violate their religious conscience. It turns out that the President's 'religious exemption' to the contraception mandate is so narrow as to be meaningless.

Unless you employ and serve only those of your same religious faith, you don't receive an exemption. The Little Sisters of the Poor, a saintly order of nuns who give beautiful care and housing to indigent seniors, has already warned that, due to this Obamacare mandate, it may have to shutter homes all across the United States.

This is unconscionable and unconstitutional; the President must step in to stop this madness.
Then Stephen Moore and Julie Roginsky were on. Moore said this: "It's been 13-hundred days since Harry Reid has passed a budget out of the Senate, so we don't even know what Senators stand for. But earlier this year the House actually passed a bill to extend all the Bush-era tax cuts for another year. Republicans have put revenues on the table, they've agreed to close loopholes, but the President has still not put a single major spending item on the table."

The Democrat Roginsky blamed the GOP-led House, saying this: "The Senate did pass legislation to insure that taxes would not go up on anyone making under $250,000 and sent it over to the House, but the House didn't take it up, so you can't say the Senate hasn't led. The problem is that President Obama doesn't know who to negotiate with, John Boehner is being held hostage by members of his own Republican caucus."

Then two Republicans Chip Saltsman and Anthony Holm were on to talk about Speaker John Boehner. Some conservative Republican House members are unhappy with Speaker John Boehner for agreeing in principle to tax hikes on the wealthy.

Holm said this: "It's disingenuous to spend eight months telling Americans that tax increases hurt the economy, and then turn around and offer to surrender on taxes under the guise of helping the economy. We kept the House and we have the constitutional authority to create the budget."

But Chip Saltsman insisted that Boehner isn't going anywhere, saying this: "I consider this to be a 'three-beer rumor,' meaning that after the third beer people say, 'We should replace Boehner.' I talk to members and there is no true conversation to replace John Boehner as Speaker right now."

Ingraham said she thinks that Speaker Boehner has little choice other than to go along with some tax hikes, saying this: "In a perfect world there would be no tax increases, but it's going to happen one way or another."

Then Jay Sekulow and Chip Merlin were on to talk more about Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who has sided with the administration in a case involving the Obamacare contraceptive mandate.

Sekulow said this: "The tragedy in this, is that Justice Sotomayor could have just held things in abeyance, which would have protected the religious freedom rights of this company's owners. She missed an opportunity to put this on hold pending a full disposition of the case."

Merlin countered that every profit-making company must provide the benefits mandated by Obamacare, saying this: "Religious liberties are very important, but this particular case involves a for-profit corporation. That corporation wants the fruits and benefits of making money, but they don't want to have the obligations. Corporations do not have freedom of religion; corporations are not going to go to Heaven or Hell, they have no soul. The owners absolutely have such rights, but not the corporations."

Then Larry Walters and Mike Gallagher were on to discuss the outrage after a suburban New York newspaper published the names and address of local citizens who hold handgun permits. In response, a blogger published the names and addresses of the paper's editors and writers.

Conservative radio host Mike Gallagher thinks the blogger's retaliation went too far, saying this: "I think it's a real ugly business to start publishing people's personal addresses. The blogger is right in pointing out the hypocrisy of what these anti-gun zealots are trying to do, but I don't think it's a good idea for our side, the pro-Second Amendment side, to crawl in the gutter with those guys. Surely there's a way to argue this issue on the merits."

Attorney Lawrence Walters agreed that both sides were out of bounds, saying this: "The First Amendment clearly protects the rights to publish information on both sides, but there's the ethical issue and the question of whether it was responsible. Journalistic ethics should have come into play and cooler heads should have prevailed."

Then Ingraham talked about how the federal government has released more than 8,000 criminal illegal aliens because their countries refused to take them back.

Investigative reporter Maria Sacchetti was on, who said this: "Immigration officials say they need the cooperation of another country to deport someone, while the Supreme Court has said that you can only hold immigrants for so long before they have to be let go. What we found is that immigration officials don't inform the public about the people they release back to the streets and don't inform the vast majority of crime victims, which is a very serious issue."

Ingraham demanded that immigration authorities notify the public when criminals are being set free, asking this: "Who are these people, where are they, could they be living near us?"

And finally, in the last segment Ingraham reported on Russian lawmakers who recently passed a law banning American families from adopting Russian babies. Which is a story I do not care about and pretty much nobody I know of cares about, so I have decided not to report on it.

How Bad Was Dick Morris in 2012? This Bad
By: Steve - December 28, 2012 - 10:00am

After you read just how bad of a political analyst Dick Morris was, think about this, O'Reilly put him on his show every single week as a political expert, even though he was almost never right about anything. Which is more proof O'Reilly does not care about reporting the truth, all he cares about is giving a voice to right-wing spin doctors because he mostly agrees with them.

In May, Bill O'Reilly told Fox News political analyst Dick Morris that because he was "so far out on the limb" predicting a Romney win in the presidential election, if Obama were to be re-elected Morris would be "through" and "selling refrigerators in Topeka."

Seven months later, following Obama's comfortable re-election, Morris isn't selling appliances in Kansas, he's the laughingstock of the political pundit class and has temporarily been benched at Fox News.

Like most other years of Morris media career, 2012 was marked by terribly inaccurate election predictions, habitual dishonesty, and questionable ethical conflicts. Unlike most other years, however, Morris appears to actually be facing consequences and backlash for his role as America's Worst Political Pundit.

After Morris made more than fifteen appearances on the O'Reilly Factor, Hannity, and On the Record in October and early November, he's been absent from the network's primetime lineup since November 12 following reports that producers now have to get special permission to book him (or Karl Rove) on their shows.

He has also been publicly criticized by numerous media ethicists from prominent newspapers and universities, countless political writers and reporters in the U.S. (and abroad), donors to his shady super PAC, and his colleagues at The Hill newspaper.

Appearing on Fox & Friends the day before the election to discuss his prediction of a "landslide" Romney victory, Morris said of the various people predicting an Obama win, "either I'm gonna have to go through a big reckoning, or they are. And you know what? They are."

And as usual, he was wrong about that too. For months, Morris used all of his various media platforms -- his frequent Fox News appearances, weekly Hill column, daily "Lunch Alert" videos, and a steady stream of fundraising emails for his shady super PAC -- to assure his audience that Mitt Romney was well on his way to a "landslide" victory over Barack Obama.

Even though it was clear the Morris predictions were based on little more than wishful thinking and shoddy "skewed polls" analysis, Fox News still trotted him out regularly before the election because he was pushing the myth they wanted to sell to their viewers.

In various Fox appearances throughout the year, Morris exuded confidence in his prognostications, going so far as to tell a skeptical Sean Hannity that there was "no chance that Obama will get re-elected.... zilch, none, zip, nada."

Morris now-infamous final electoral projection, which contradicted most available polling data, predicted Romney taking 325 electoral votes with wins in Florida, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Romney lost every single one of those states.

Morris did no better during the Republican primaries. In August 2011, he told Sean Hannity that Michele Bachmann would "probably" win January's Iowa caucuses. Just a month before the caucuses, Morris said Bachmann would end up with a "strong second place finish." Instead, Bachmann came in sixth, winning support from only 5 percent of Iowans. She ended her presidential campaign the next morning.

Morris also repeatedly defended former GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain amid allegations of sexual harassment during his business career. During a November 30, 2011, appearance on Fox & Friends, Morris told the hosts, "I don't think he's going any place very quickly." Cain suspended his presidential campaign less than a week later.

Morris failed predictions about the presidential election got the most attention, but he was equally inept at calling state-level races. Morris repeatedly predicted that Republicans would not only take over control of the Senate, but do so by a comfortable margin.

"We are also, by the way, going to win ten seats in the Senate," he told Sean Hannity in February. The GOP ended up losing two seats. At various points, Morris predicted that Republicans Connie Mack (Florida), Pete Hoekstra (Michigan), Duane Sand (North Dakota), Josh Mandel (Ohio), Tom Smith (Pennsylvania), and George Allen (Virginia) would win election to the Senate.

They all lost, every one of them.

On top of his mostly wrong electoral projections, Morris spent much of 2012 cultivating a vast array of ethical conflicts.

Super PAC for America, where Morris serves as chief strategist, paid conservative news outlet Newsmax Media roughly $1.7 million in October and November. A portion of that money went to renting Morris own email list, which is managed by Newsmax. Morris sent at least 21 emails to his list featuring fundraising pitches "paid for by Super PAC for America."

And btw, Super PAC for America paid more money to Newsmax Media than it spent on all other independent expenditures combined.

The emails from Morris and Super PAC for America regularly hyped Morris insane predictions of Romney's impending victory, as well as promises that the money Super PAC for America had invested in political ads was "paying off."

A representative fundraising pitch from Morris declared that his group's "powerful" ads had "made a huge difference in key swing states like Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and Virginia."

But after Romney lost all of those states, Morris explained in a post-election column that political ads are actually no longer effective because people fast forward through them.

So once he got all the suckers money he told the truth about the political ads he was running, what a guy.

In March, Morris was even "reprimanded" by Fox News for auctioning off a tour of Fox News at a Republican fundraiser, prompting harsh criticism from Zurawik and other media experts. But O'Reilly ignored it and used him on the Factor every week anyway, as he complained about corruption at all the mainstream media outlets in media analysis segments with the right-wing hack Bernie Goldberg.

Morris also treated a group of GOP donors to a tour of Fox News and a taping of Hannity in late 2011. Baltimore Sun television and media critic David Zurawik labeled Morris a "sleazy operative" over this arrangement, and asked this: "Is there anybody in the media you can think of who has less of an ethical compass?"

2012 also saw Morris continue his long-running tradition of using his media platforms to discuss (without disclosure) political races in which he has a financial interest. Which O'Reilly also ignored, as he continued to put Morris on the Factor every week.

In the run-up to the Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election, Morris routinely went on Fox News to praise Republican incumbent Scott Walker. According to Morris, Walker's actions limiting union rights in the state were "pivotal,"and Fox viewers should "do everything they can to support Scott Walker."

What Morris did not report is the fact that the Walker campaign had rented Morris email list at least three times and paid for a blog post featuring a video of Morris urging people to donate to Walker.

In a February column for The Hill, Morris attacked "RINO Sen. Richard Lugar" during his senatorial primary against Richard Mourdock. The Mourdock campaign had previously rented the Morris email list and featured him as a speaker at a 2011 fundraiser.

On the upside for Morris, 2013 should prove to be a much better year for him than 2012. After all, there are only a handful of off-year elections for him to be wrong about.

The Wednesday 12-26-12 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - December 27, 2012 - 11:00am

The far-right spin doctor Laura Ingraham was in for O'Reilly and her TPM was called: The Fiscal Cliff. The biased and partisan Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: Yesterday the Obama administration announced that the President would cut short his Hawaiian holiday to make one more attempt to cut a deal to avert the 'fiscal cliff.' In unison, his pals in the media repeated this White House talking point.

So we should believe that the President is making some big sacrifice for the country? I have never understood how any of these politicians would even think about leaving town with so much riding on this cliffhanger. Shouldn't they get their work done before they leave for a break?

They're supposed to work to make our lives better, the operative word being 'work.' But so much doesn't seem to be working inside the beltway, where posturing and puffery replace policy and principle. No wonder so many people are tuning out politics all together these days, because it always seems to be the taxpayers left holding the bag.

They're the ones forced to turn over more of their hard-earned money to a system that seems utterly incapable of proper management. So thanks, Mr. President, for coming back to Washington. Let's hope it's for real work and not just for the show of it.
Notice she does not say a word about why Obama has to come back to Washington, because the dishonest Republicans will not work out a budget deal. Notice she also does not say a word about the fact that the Republicans in the House are saying they will not come back before the January 1st deadline. Proving that Ingraham is a joke of a biased idiot who can not be trusted to report the truth.

Ingraham also slammed Obama for the money spent on his family vacation in his home state of Hawaii, which is just ridiculous, because when Republican Presidents vacation in their home state Ingraham never says a word about it, unless it's to defend them for doing it.

Until we pass a law saying all Presidents must pay for their own vacations Ingraham should shut the hell up about it, because it's bias, and it's ridiculous.

Then the Democratic strategist Zerlina Maxwell and conservative editor Guy Benson were on to discuss it.

Maxwell said this: "I certainly think that the 'fiscal cliff' language is a manufactured media narrative, which makes Americans believe that on January 1st we'll all be standing in bread lines. This is all because Congress kicked the can down the road after the debt ceiling, which was a real crisis. By not completely resolving that issue, we are now here at this 'fiscal slope,' as I like to call it."

And of course the Republican Guy Benson blamed the fiscal mess squarely on Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats, even though it's the Republicans (who refuse to raise taxes on anyone) who are to blame for the situation.

Benson said this: "The only reason we keep having these cliffs and crises is because Democrats, particularly in the Senate, have completely abandoned the legally mandated budgeting process. We have not had a budget in this country in three years. If we just passed budgets the way we're supposed to, we wouldn't be having any of these problems."

And of course when George W. Bush failed to pass a budget Benson never said a word, because it was ok then, but now suddenly it's not ok because Democrats are doing it.

Then Ingraham asked where Hillary Clinton is, Democratic strategist Margie Omero was on, who firmly dismissed any suggestion that the injury is being used as an excuse for Mrs. Clinton to avoid testifying about the consulate attack in Libya. And I would add that she fainted and hit her head, so she is having medical problems, and it's the holidays moron, so she is most likely also spending time with her family, jerk.

Omero said this: "I don't think this is convenient timing. I take it at her word and I don't doubt for a second that she's been ill. If there is anyone who would not be afraid to testify before Congress, it's Hillary Clinton, and I think she'll testify in the New Year."

Ingraham then had some phony praise for her work ethic and urged her to testify, saying this: "I agree that she's incredibly tough and I have a lot of respect for her, but how could a fall flatten Hillary Clinton? If her health is badly compromised, I hope she's getting medical attention."

Then Anahita Sedaghatfar and Steve Greenberg were on to talk about the widespread outrage after a suburban New York newspaper published the names and address of local citizens who hold handgun permits.

Greenberg said this: "This is irresponsible, and there's no real reason for it other than to put these people on some kind of map. I understand their outrage, these people are now going to be subject to thieves coming into their houses and taking their guns."

Sedaghatfar said this: "I support the Freedom of Information Act, which is the basis on which the newspapers got the names and addresses, but that should not trump common sense. This is a danger to society and there should be legal recourse."

Laura thinks that the paper's editors and owners have a not-so-hidden purpose, saying this: "This newspaper has an anti-gun agenda. We can't find any record of this newspaper publishing the names of sex offenders, people who have actually committed crimes."

Then Deroy Murdock and Matt Schlapp were on to dicsuss how some Republicans, who are still smarting after losing the Hispanic vote in November, want President George W. Bush to speak more often about the value of immigrants to America.

Former Bush adviser Matt Schlapp said this: "We didn't even get all the conservative Hispanic voters. A lot of them tend to be pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, but even folks who agree with the Republican Party on those issues did not all vote for Mitt Romney. So it's not just an issue of immigration, it's an issue of whether we are connecting them to our conservative policies."

Conservative Deroy Murdock warned Republicans to keep their distance from former President Bush, saying this: "I embrace the idea of reaching out to Hispanic voters, but we have to remember that the majority of voters blame George W. Bush more than President Obama for the country's economic situation. So it's not an answer to re-embrace Bush or perhaps have Jeb Bush run in 2016."

Then Jesse Watters was on, who recently paid a visit to Hawaii, where the First Family is currently vacationing. Here's what a few of the locals told Jesse: "I was lucky enough to be one of his classmates from 5th grade on" ... "My mother-in-law remembers him scooping Baskin Robbins ice cream with a big afro in high school" ... "African Americans were not widely populating our schools, they were mostly in the military families" ... "We need Obama!"

And finally, Ingraham had Raymond Arroyo and Fox News contributor Father Edward Beck on, who scrutinized a new poll showing that a growing number of Americans are turning away from organized religion.

Arroyo said this: "People are not identifying with a faith, but that doesn't mean they're not religious. You still have 90% of people who have a belief in God and religious faith hasn't changed much. We just have more people who don't identify with the mainline churches."

Beck contended that his own Catholic Church and other religions can do more to reach younger Americans, saying this: "The younger generation is not as attuned to organized religion and to tradition in general, so they're finding other ways to get fed spiritually. Also, in our culture there is a widespread suspicion of institutions that filters into religion."

Republican Pollster Admits The NRA Is Out Of Touch
By: Steve - December 27, 2012 - 10:00am

During an appearance on CBS's This Morning on Wednesday, GOP pollster Frank Luntz admitted that the National Rifle Association's widely-panned proposal to put armed guards in public schools in the wake of the tragic shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School is out of touch with public sentiment and the American people.

Luntz (who conducted a poll this past spring finding that most Americans and even NRA members back common sense gun control measures) asserted that while Americans support the Second Amendment, they are not prepared to see schools turned into police state security checkpoints:
The public wants guns out of the schools, not in the schools.

And they are not asking for a security official or someone else. I don't think the NRA is listening. I don't think they understand most Americans would protect the Second Amendment rights and yet agree with the idea that not every human being should own a gun, not every gun should be available at anytime, anywhere, for anyone.

At gun shows, you should not be able to buy something there without any kind of check whatsoever.

What they are looking for is a common sense approach saying those who law-abiding should continue to have the right to own a weapon, but don't believe the right should be extended to everyone at every time for every type of weapon.
Gun control advocates, public school officials, and a variety commentators have slammed the NRA's tone-deaf press conference calling for guns in schools and blaming shootings such as the rampage in Newtown on everything but guns.

Some have been quick to point out that armed guards did little to prevent earlier massacres at Virginia Tech University and Columbine High School.

A growing number of pro-gun Democratic and Republican lawmakers - including Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) - have admitted that gun control laws should be revisited in the wake of the tragedy that left 20 children and six adults dead.

Others, such as Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), have not signed onto more stringent gun control measures, but have dismissed the NRA's proposition for armed guards in every American school as Orwellian.

Super8 Motel Scrooged My WWII Veteran Father
By: Steve - December 26, 2012 - 11:30am

Let me tell you a story about what a Super8 motel in Peoria Illinois did to me and my 89 year old WWII Veteran father last Thursday and Friday when our power was out. And think about this, they did it 3 days before Christmas.

To begin with, I am Steve Senti and my Father is Florian Senti. He is a decorated WWII Veteran who was a 3rd Division infantryman that actually fought and killed Germans in WWII, he has numerous medals, including a bronze star.

I live with him in his home, and I take care of him 24/7 because he has Alzheimers, Dementia, no memory, and is on medication. He is really sensitive to cold and even when I have the heat set to 74 he tells me he is still cold, when it is not cold in the house at all. So I have him sit in his chair with a blanket on, and an electric heater blowing on him.

He lives on a small pension from International Paper and his monthly social security check. This is not very much income and after he pays the bills he has about $500.00 a month to live on, for food, gas, medication, paper towels, etc.

Last Thursday about 3:00pm the power went out, we had very cold weather and high winds of up to 50mph. I called the power company and they said it would be out until 2:00am, so I though we might be able to make it until then.

But around 8:00pm my Father started saying he was freezing, it was down to about 60 in the house, and I found out the power would not be back on until 2:00am. So I decided it would be best to pack up some stuff and take him out in the freezing cold and go to a motel. I called the local Super8 and they said they had a room, so we checked in about 9:00pm Thursday night, the room was $67.53.

Check in time was 4:00pm and check out time is 11:00am, which I will discuss later in this posting.

We stayed the night and I called the power company the next morning (Friday) at 10:00am, the power was still out and they said it would be out until 2:00pm in the afternoon. So I called the front desk and asked them if we could stay in the room until 2:00pm with no charge, when the power would be back on, and they said no, they told us we had to be out by 11:30am at the latest or they would charge us another $67.53.

To me this was an outrage, because I had told them we were only there because it was an emergency and I had to get my Father somewhere warm. They knew he was handicapped, they also gave us a handicapped room, for the same price as the regular rooms.

So I had to take him out in the freezing cold again, we checked out by 11:30am and drove home, when we got there the power was still out and the driveway was a sheet of ice. I went in the house and it was down to 40 degrees, so there was no way I could take my Father back in that cold house.

I got back in the truck and told my Father we can not go in the house, and I sat there for 10 minutes trying to think of what to do. Since my brother was also without power, and all my friends were at work, we had nowhere to go.

So we had to go back to Super8 and pay another $67.53 to get another room. Now it's about 12:30pm, so I took my Father back into the room. Then about 2:00pm my brother calls me and says the power is back on.

We check out and go back home about 3:00pm Friday afternoon, $135.00 lighter, after paying for 2 days at the Super8 motel. And btw, before we checked in we had about $250.00 to live on for the rest of the month, from the 20th to the 31st of December.

Which left us with about $85.00 to live on for the rest of the month, after putting $15.00 in gas in the truck and getting a foot long sandwich from Subway for lunch.

When I got things around the house together I sent an e-mail to the corporate website for Super8 motels. The next day I got a reply from a Chris at Super8, and he told me I could count on him to get a resolution to my situation.

I told him that since we did not check in until 9:00pm Thursday night I feel they should have let us stay an extra 3 hours in the room with no charge, which they refused to do, and that I wanted a refund of $67.53 for the 2nd day that we only stayed 2.5 hours.

He said he spoke with the Peoria manager and that she would contact me by 1-2-13. So on 12-24-12 (Christmas eve) the Peoria manager called me. To make a long story short, no matter what I told her about my Father or that it was an emergency, she just told me they do not give refunds, in fact, she said it about 5 times.

Finally, I said why did you even call me if you were not going to offer me anything, and I said how about $50.00 back for only staying 2.5 hours, and once again she said "we do not give refunds." So I got mad and told her if that is all she has take her motel and shove it, she said ok and hung up on me.

To me this is an outrage, and a hell of a way to treat a decorated WWII Veteran, and if it was me I would have given us the room for half price (or maybe free) and then let us stay until the power was on. Especially when there were not busy at all the next day, the parking lot was empty and nobody was there needing a room.

In closing, nobody at Super8 gave us any of our money back, not anyone at the local Super8, or anyone at the corporate headquarters.

And finally, I would say to everyone, do not stay at any Super8 motels unless you have to. Because they should not treat a WWII veteran that way in an emergency situation, and btw, the rooms were a joke.

The walls were paper thin, we could hear people talking at the front desk from in the room with the door closed, the heaters barely worked, the toilet seat was almost falling off the stool in one room, and in one handicapped room the heat was not even on, and would not blow hot air, so they had to move us to a different handicapped room, where the heat barely worked.

And btw, they told me they never rent those handicapped rooms to anyone, and yet they still charged us the full $67.53 anyway, for 1 partial night and 2.5 hours past checkout time the next day.

If anyone would like to make a donation to help us get (all or some of) our $135.00 back I would appreciate it, here is my paypal donation page:

Click Here To Donate

U.N. To Reconsider Arms Treaty Blocked By NRA & Republicans
By: Steve - December 26, 2012 - 11:00am

The United Nations voted late Christmas Eve to once again take up a global arms trade treaty in March. The treaty would regulate global weapons exports and have no effect on domestic gun laws. Still, the US failed to ratify it in July, mainly due to conspiracy theories advanced by conservatives, former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and the National Rifle Association that suggested the U.N. would revoke American gun rights.

Member states will try to negotiate an agreement at a conference from March 18-28. But American resistance to the treaty has little basis in fact. NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre claimed in July that the U.N. was infringing on Americans right to bear arms and refused to support any treaty involving civilian gun ownership.

Far from touching Second Amendment rights, the treaty seeks to control the $60 billion illicit weapons trade that has helped along some of the worst human rights violations in history, and continues to kill hundreds of thousands of people every year.

From the Associated Press:
Many countries, including the United States, control arms exports but there has never been an international treaty regulating the estimated $60 billion global arms trade.

For more than a decade, activists and some governments have been pushing for international rules to try to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime.
The treaty also specifically acknowledges that domestic constitutional protections for arms owners would be unchanged.

Shortly after the arms trade treaty failed, Congress also refused to ratify a U.N. treaty affirming equal rights for people with disabilities. That treaty was blocked because some Republicans falsely claimed that it would revoke parental rights over children with disabilities.

Some Republicans Are Still Dumb & Dishonest Fools
By: Steve - December 26, 2012 - 10:00am

The Republican Dean Chambers, who founded, a Republican alternate universe that claimed all the polls were wrong about the election. predicted Romney would win 275 electoral votes. So after the election, Chambers admitted he was wrong and started another website accusing Obama of winning with voter fraud.

No Dean, he just got more votes because the people supported his policies more than the Republican policies, and they hated the lying flip-flopping Mitt Romney.

Chambers is just like Jack Welch, Donald Trump, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Karl Rove, Dick Morris, Bill O'Reilly, and on and on. They are part of the Republican lie machine, they tell you what they want you to believe, their spin and lies, not the truth.

After a significant drop in unemployment, conservatives on Twitter, led by former General Electrics CEO Jack Welch, who claimed the numbers were fabricated by the Obama administration.

Trump still wants Obama to show him his papers and prove he is an American, 5 years into his Presidential term, which is beyond ridiculous. Limbaugh, Rove, Morris, O'Reilly, Coulter, etc. are all still spinning out their lies and propaganda, even though everything they say is wrong and dishonest.

And the Republican fools that watch and listen to them just continue to believe their lies, even though it is proven to be wrong. Proving once again that there is not only a sucker born every minute, there are suckers on the right born every second.

Democrats Have A Million Vote Lead Over Republicans
By: Steve - December 25, 2012 - 10:00am

Now here is some news you will never ever see O'Reilly report, or anyone at Fox News for that matter. The day after the election last month, ThinkProgress took a preliminary tally of the total number of votes cast for candidates for the House of Representatives.

They found that, despite the fact that Republicans won a majority of the seats, the American people cast more than a million more votes for Democrats.

Now more than a month after the election, the Democrats popular vote lead expanded significantly. Based on current tallies, Democrats now lead Republicans 59,343,447 to 58,178,393 in total votes cast for their House candidates -- which means that the American people preferred Democrats over Republicans by nearly a full percentage point of the total vote.

And yet, despite clearly losing the popular vote, Republicans will control close to 54 percent of the seats in the House in the 113th Congress.

And this disparity between the will of the American people and the actual outcome of the election did not happen by accident -- it is the product of massive gerrymandering by Republican state officials.

Here are a few examples: President Obama won Pennsylvania by more than 5 points, but Democrats carried only 5 of the state's 18 congressional seats.

Obama won Virginia, and Democrats took 3 of 11 House seats.

Obama won Ohio, but Democrats carried only 4 of 16 seats in Ohio's House delegation.

In state after state after state, Republicans used their unconstitutional ability to gerrymander Democratic votes into meaninglessness -- and they were able to do so because the conservatives on the Supreme Court refuse to do anything about it.

In just a few weeks, a misguided package of spending cuts and middle class tax hikes threatens to drag America back into recession. Just over a month after that, America risks defaulting on its debt -- potentially plunging us into depression. And even if these immediate threats are averted, it could come at a very high price. In an attempt to strike a deal with recalcitrant Republicans, President Obama recently offered to take future Social Security benefits away from seniors.

Meanwhile, Speaker Boehner can't even manage the right flank of his caucus enough to hold a purely cosmetic vote intended to counter the -- now entirely justified -- view that Republicans care primarily about protecting millionaires from paying taxes.

Because of the Republican Party's inability to negotiate in good faith in order to avert catastrophe, America now faces the very real possibility of an economic collapse once the debt ceiling comes due early next year.

All of these risks would evaporate completely if the divided 113th Congress bore any resemblance to the unified government the American people voted for.

Teachers, Mayors & Police Chiefs All Reject NRA Security Plan
By: Steve - December 24, 2012 - 11:00am

Teachers, school superintendents, mayors and police chiefs in Connecticut are rejecting the National Rifle Association's (NRA) response to the shooting in Newtown, describing the gun lobby's proposal to equip schools with armed guards and more guns as too simplistic, shameful, and opportunistic.

One Connecticut school superintendent dismissed the NRA's suggestion as "an ill-conceived reaction from an organization that does not have any credibility or expertise with respect to addressing school violence" and said that the idea "is an excuse for not addressing the need to enact meaningful safe gun legislation in conjunction with an investment in mental health services."

The Putnam Police Chief Rick Hayes even called the proposal scary, noting that teachers can't possibly have the kind of training necessary to safely handle large weapons, let alone fight off someone who does have large weapons.

In fact, newspaper headlines across the state flatly rejected militarizing Connecticut schools.

The growing outrage against the organization extends beyond school officials -- even state Republican politicians are weary of eliminating school gun-free zones. Senate Minority Leader John McKinney (R), whose district includes Sandy Hook Elementary School, called the proposal ill-timed.

McKinney said this: "I don't think his idea of undoing or repealing gun-free school zones is a good idea at all. I've always understood, and believe, that our Second Amendment is an integral part of our Constitution, and people should have the right to bear arms, but I think we should have a fair conversation in this country about what the limits to those rights are."

Schools across the state are enacting greater security measures, but more guns aren't on the agenda. Instead, districts are focusing on adding interior classroom door locks, expanding swipe-card access and requiring staff to wear photo identification.

Tom Moore, assistant superintendent for administration for West Hartford schools, told the Hartford Courant that his district won't be taking advice on how to keep kids safe from the president of the NRA.

Moore said this: "I come from a family of hunters; I have four brothers who are hunters and members of the NRA. All I'll be asking for Christmas, after hearing Wayne LaPierre essentially blame school officials for the shootings, is for my brothers to resign from the NRA."

And of course you do not hear a word about any of this from O'Reilly, because most of his viewers are in the NRA, and he does not want to make them mad. If O'Reilly was a real journalist he would report this stuff and call the NRA idea crazy, but he is not a real journalist, he is a biased right-wing hack, so he just ignores it.

Mosque Arsonist Said Conservative Media Caused Him To Do It
By: Steve - December 24, 2012 - 10:00am

And here is another story you will never ever see reported by O'Reilly, because if he did report it he would have to admit that Fox News is a danger to innocent people in America.

An Indiana man convicted of setting fire to a mosque in Ohio told a judge on Wednesday that he committed the crimes because Fox News and conservative talk radio had convinced him that "most Muslims are terrorists."

Randolph Linn, 52, accepted a plea deal in which he pled guilty to all charges in connection to setting a fire in the prayer room at the Islamic Center of Greater Toledo on September 30. Under the deal, Linn is expected to serve 20 years in prison instead of 40.

Linn explained to the court that he had gotten "riled up" after watching Fox News.

"And I was more sad when Judge Jack Zouhary asked him that, 'Do you know any Muslims or do you know what Islam is?'" one mosque member who attended the hearing recalled to WNWO. "And he said, 'No, I only know what I hear on Fox News and what I hear on radio.'"

"Muslims are killing Americans and trying to blow stuff up," Linn also reportedly told the judge. "Most Muslims are terrorists and don't believe in Jesus Christ."

Linn claimed that he had consumed 45 beers in the 6 hours before leaving his Indiana home to set fire to the mosque, which he had discovered while working as a truck driver.

After his arrest on Oct. 2, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ava Dusten said that Linn had told officers, "F--k those Muslims....They would kill us if they got the chance."

Linn is due back in court on April 16, 2013 for a formal sentencing.

And btw, a survey released by Fairleigh Dickinson University earlier this year determined that Fox News viewers were actually less informed than Americans who watched no news at all.

In fact, at least seven studies in recent years have confirmed that Fox News viewers are more likely to be misinformed than any other Americans.

The Truth About Video Games And Gun Violence
By: Steve - December 23, 2012 - 11:00am

Here is a perfect example of how dishonest and wrong O'Reilly is about video games and gun violence. Billy has guest after guest on the Factor who say there is a link to violent video games and gun crimes, and O'Dummy himself has also implied there is a link.

Which is the same thing NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said at his question free news conference. LaPierre spoke at length about violent video games at the expense of discussing gun policy, claiming that members of the media have been "complicit co-conspirators" in violent culture as they work to "conceal" the existence of violent video games.

Except that is a lie, here is what he said:
LAPIERRE: And here's another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal. There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and stows violence against its own people. Through vicious, violent video games with names like "Bullet Storm," "Grand Theft Auto," "Mortal Combat," and "Splatterhouse."

A child growing up in America today witnesses 16,000 murders, and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18. And, throughout it all, too many in the national media, their corporate owners, and their stockholders act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators.
O'Reilly on 12-14-12: He pointed out that children grow up in a sea of violent images, saying this: "There is casual violence and explicit violence on display more than ever before, thanks to the Internet."

On the 12-19-12 Factor show O'Reilly had Professor Brad Bushman on to talk about how Adam Lanza spent many hours playing video games, which O'Reilly and the Professor said could have affected his behavior.

Professor Bushman, who has spent 25 years studying video games, said this: "The studies show that violent video games increase aggressive thoughts, they increase angry feelings, and they increase physiological arousal such as heart rate and blood pressure. They also decrease helping behavior and feelings of empathy for others."

But what they did not tell you is that the studies have shown there is no correlation between video game consumption and gun-related killings.

The Washington Post's Max Fisher wrote this about it, that of course O'Reilly ignored, Fisher said this: "Looking at the world's 10 largest video game markets yields no evident, statistical correlation between video game consumption and gun-related killings."

In fact, Fisher found if anything a correlation exists between higher consumption of video games and lower rates of gun homicide. A ten-country comparison suggests there's no link between video games and gun murders

Now it is true that Americans spend billions of dollars on video games every year and that the United States has the highest firearm murder rate in the developed world. But other countries where video games are popular have much lower firearm-related murder rates.

In fact, countries where video game consumption is the highest tend to be some of the safest countries in the world, likely a product of the fact that developed or rich countries, where consumers can afford expensive games, have on average much less violent crime.

Now, if there were in fact a close correlation between video game consumption and gun violence, then we would expect the data to trend upward. That is, we would expect that the countries that spend the most on video games per person would also be the most violent, by virtue of the effects of the games.

But, the data does not show this trend. The data actually suggests a slight downward shift in violence as video game consumption increases.

Now think about this folks, all this information can be found on the internet with a simple Google search, and yet the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly decided to not tell you about any of it. Instead he himself and guest after guest he put on for a week, imply video games lead to more gun violence, when the facts show the opposite.

Here is what we actually learned from the video game gun crime study: "That video game consumption does not correlate at all with an increase in gun violence.

That countries where video games are popular also tend to be some of the world's safest.

And we also learned, once again, that America's rate of firearm-related homicides is extremely high for the developed world.

There is, however, a provable link between firearm availability and homicide. According to the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, "states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide."

And I would add this, every single day millions and millions of kids play violent video games, and 99.9% of them do not go get a real gun and kill someone with it.

But if you watch O'Reilly you would think there is a link between violent video games and gun crimes, where there is none, and neither O'Dummy or his insane right-wing guests can point to one study that proves there is a link.

The Friday 12-21-12 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - December 22, 2012 - 11:00am

The far-right propagandist Laura Ingraham was in for O'Reilly and she did not have a TPM, instead she went right to her Top Story called: Marine Jon Hammar to be released from Mexican jail.

Ingraham reported that Corporal Jon Hammar, a former Marine who has been locked up in a Mexican prison on a trumped-up charge since August, is being set free. After demanding Hammar's release and pressing the story over the past week, O'Reilly phoned in with his reaction.

Billy said this: "This shows the power of the Fox News Channel. A lot of us here thought this story had to be front and center, we all basically said that this could not stand! So I'm very proud of the network and I want everybody to understand that this is what we're in business to do. We are going to look out for individual Americans and when bad things happen, we're going to try to correct them."

And that is just ridiculous for O'Reilly to take all the credit, because many other people worked to get him released. Congressman and Senators sent letters to the Mexican Government, there were petitions, etc.

An aide to a legal representative of the Mexican attorney general's office told U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson's staff about the pending release after the Florida Democrat's office got word from Hammar's mother. So the Senator was working on the release, and long before O'Reilly reported on it. Hammar also had an attorney working for him, and yet, O'Reilly never gave him any credit at all.

The senator was among a handful of elected officials who urged the State Department to help get Hammar out of Mexico. U.S. immigration and State Department officials were also involved in the release.

So O'Reilly reports on it and Hammar is released then he takes all the credit, which is just laughable.

Col. Hammar's mother Olivia joined the conversation and explained how she heard the news. "We got a call late Thursday night from a lawyer who said it was pretty much a done deal on how they were going to rule. We can't even imagine what it will be like to have him home."

Billy praised Mrs. Hammar for her fortitude and patience, saying this: "Mr. and Mrs. Hammar were very courageous and they helped their own cause immeasurably. I thought the turning point in the case was when you came on The Factor. We're happy we could help and we wish you and your husband and son the merriest Christmas."

U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., said in a statement. "I am overcome with joy knowing that Jon will be spending Christmas with his parents, family and friends."

The attorney, Varon Levy, said the path for Hammar's return was cleared when Mexican officials decided not to appeal the judge's ruling. So it had almost nothing to do with O'Reilly reporting on it, and yet he took ALL the credit anyway. Not one person in Mexico (or anywhere) said he was released because O'Reilly reported on it.

With automatic spending cuts and tax increases looming, Republicans in the House are in disarray. So Ingraham tried to sort out the confusion with Republican strategists Chris Begala and Dee Dee Benkie.

Begala said this: "It doesn't make sense to raise anybody's taxes right now, but elections matter and President Obama won. And we need to also get meaningful spending cuts. Unless we're talking about hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts, this discussion about tax increases is just folly, it is absolutely ridiculous."

Benkie suggested that Speaker of the House John Boehner should consider stepping down, saying this: "We need to look at new leadership. John Boehner has done a fine job, but we have to have changes, we need new faces and different language. It's gridlock in Washington so we have to change something. John Boehner's leadership is not working, let's look at someone else."

For a view from the other side of the aisle, Ingraham had Democrat Dick Harpootlian on, saying this: "The President is facing a dysfunctional House of Representatives, and he's frustrated by the fact that he's dealing with a guy who can't deliver on any promises. But I think the President is working very hard behind the scenes to try and make something happen."

Ingraham said she thinks that the Democratic-led Senate also deserves plenty of blame, saying this: "Why is anyone going home or taking much of a break until this thing is decided and agreed upon? Both sides have dug their heels in. Harry Reid said yesterday that the Senate won't take up anything that isn't being worked on by the House. That is one of the more immature things I have heard in recent days."

In his first public comment since the Connecticut school slaughter, National Rifle Association boss Wayne LaPierre came out swinging and called for armed guards in all schools.

LaPierre said this: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun!" So Ingraham analyzed the NRA's position with gun control advocate Josh Horwitz.

Horwitz said this: "It's great that we're having this discussion, but I thought the NRA was a little too late in addressing this issue. And talking about school security guards is something that should be done at the local level, this is something the NRA doesn't need to be involved in. We need to talk about how we can get rid of assault weapons on the streets. The last three mass shootings have all had the same type of weapon."

Ingraham reminded Horwitz that so-called assault weapons are rarely used in crimes, saying this: "Most murders in the United States are not committed with an 'assault style' weapon. They look scary and do a lot of damage, but in fact most killers do not use assault weapons. And we're a safer country than we've been in decades, violent crime is way down."

And I would remind Ingraham that when the founder put the 2nd amendment onto the Constitution the most powerful weapon in the world was a cap and ball single shot musket. Nobody needs an assault rifle, or a 30 shot clip. I support the 2nd amendment 100%, but it does not say assault weapons can not be made illegal, or that 30 shot clips can be banned.

Then Ingraham talked about the Drug Policy Alliance, an organization funded in part by left-wing billionaire George Soros, is a leading voice in the call for marijuana legalization. The group's director Ethan Nadelmann entered the No Spin Zone to lay out his position.

Nadelmann said this: "The people who voted to legalize marijuana in Colorado and Washington were not 'pro-pot' votes, but they want police to focus on real crimes. They don't want the criminals making the money, they want to see the tax revenue coming from this stuff. That's why half of all Americans say it's time to legally regulate marijuana."

So Ingrahm interrogated Nadelmann about heroin, cocaine and other hard drugs, which has nothing to do with pot being made legal.

Nadelmann said this: "Some of our members are libertarians, who think we should legalize everything, but most do not go that far. So my organization says we should reduce the role of the criminal justice system and try to take the business out of the hands of criminals. But we're not saying heroin and cocaine should be treated like alcohol and tobacco."

Then Ingraham played a portion of O'Reilly's Thursday appearance on FNC's "The Five," during which he got into a heated discussion with Bob Beckel about Cpl. Jon Hammar, who was then still languishing in a Mexican jail. An excerpt:
O'REILLY: "Have we seen Hillary Clinton say anything publicly? Have we seen the President say anything publicly? No!
BECKEL: "So you think saying something publicly is what matters?"
O'REILLY: "Correct, that's leadership."
BECKEL: "That's not leadership."
O'REILLY: "So leadership is not saying anything while an individual rots in prison. That's Bob Beckel's leadership!"
Earth to O'Reilly, leadership is about doing something to solve a problem, which Obama and Hillary (among others did) doing it or speaking about it publicly is not leadership, moron.

And finally, Ingrahm ended Friday's program with a Christmas message, saying this: "When we look back on our lives we probably won't spend a lot of time thinking about the 'fiscal cliff' or the 2012 election. But we will remember the moments we shared with our families and our friends during the holidays. Those memories, and the chance to create new ones, make this time of year different from any other. More than 2,000 years ago a child was born in a lowly manger who saved a people and changed the world. May you see miracles, big and small, next week and in the new year."

O'Reilly Covers Real Wars Less Than The War On Christmas
By: Steve - December 22, 2012 - 10:00am

So much for being a real journalist. For the second straight year, Bill O'Reilly has devoted more than three times as much airtime to the bogus "War on Christmas" than to real wars.

O'Reilly Again Covered The "War On Christmas" More Than Three Times As Much As Actual Conflicts In Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, And Gaza.

From December 1 through 18, The O'Reilly Factor spent more than 55 minutes on the so-called "War on Christmas" but only about 17 minutes covering military conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and Gaza.

In 2011, O'Reilly Covered The so-called "War On Christmas" More Than Three Times As Much As The Actual Wars In Iraq And Afghanistan. From December 1, 2011, through December 21, 2011.

The O'Reilly Factor devoted nearly 42 minutes to covering the "War on Christmas," compared to approximately 13 and a half minutes covering the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And it's not just O'Reilly. The Fox Nation Website Has Posted At Least 20 "War On Christmas" Stories In The Past Month. Headlines include "Seniors Outraged Over Christmas Tree Ban," "Militant Secularists Lose Battle to Oust Nativity Scene," and "Festivus Pole Added to Nativity Scene."

O'Reilly does it every year even though some of the Fox stooges slam him for it. During a December appearance on The O'Reilly Factor, Fox host John Stossel told O'Reilly that with all of the "real problems" in the country, "I can't believe you're wasting time" covering the War on Christmas.

During a December interview with Fox Business host Stuart Varney, Imus in the Morning host Don Imus dismissed the idea of a "War on Christmas" as "absurd."

O'Reilly even says only liberals doubt there is a war on Christmas, when the Republicans John Stossel and Don Imus both said they do not believe it either.

The Thursday 12-20-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - December 21, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: POWER. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: If you are fortunate enough to acquire money in this life, you will also get power. Money can buy you protection, education, and all kinds of entertainment options. It can also buy you good doctors, accountants, and lawyers. If you don't have much money, life is much harder because you can't protect yourself as well as a wealthy person.

That is why what is happening in America affects every single person. President Obama and the Democrats want to take power from the people and give it to the federal government. Of course taxes are needed, but what's happening now is a bunch of other stuff.

For example, government control of the health care industry makes you weaker and the feds stronger; higher taxes on achievers make them weaker, the feds stronger; regulation of guns makes citizens more dependent on police, thus the government goes stronger. Some folks want to trade freedom for security, but America was supposed to be different, which is why the Founding Fathers built in protections for us.

They encouraged a free press to keep government power in check, but now the press is working in concert with the Obama administration. The President's liberal ideology is compatible with the belief system of many media bosses, and so we are seeing a tremendous power grab in Washington that's not being challenged by many in the media.

Talking Points submits that very few Americans understand what's going on, but just remember: Every time a new law is passed, even a good one, the state grows more powerful and the individual grows weaker.
And if that is not 100% right-wing propaganda and lies, I don't know what is. What O'Reilly just said sounded as if was spoken by Mitt Romney, not a so-called Independent journalist with a so-called no spin zone.

It's the right-wing view of life, and that's a fact. But O'Reilly still refuses to admit he is a Republican, making him a dishonest person that you should never trust. And the worst part is that he claims to be looking out for you, then he promotes and supports every Republican policy they have, that mostly helps the wealthy and the corporations.

Then two Democrats Kirsten Powers and Leslie Marshall were on to discuss it.

Powers said this: "The idea that just raising some taxes by four percentage points is somehow a major infringement on freedom is absurd. Even if you put all taxes together, there is no major infringement happening here."

Marshall said this: "I give you a C-minus because I agree that the wealthy can buy all of those things and the other 99% of Americans don't have those options and it's unfair. But I agree with the President that we need to level the playing field, but we're strengthening America by doing that. With health care, we are going to be a healthier and thus a stronger nation."

Billy then said this: "The health care decision making is not in the hands of the individual any longer, it's in the hands of the feds and that weakens you."

Which makes no sense, because social security and medicare are also in the hands of the feds, and it does not weaken anyone, it makes then stronger, by giving them money to buy food and benefits to get health care. But O'Reilly will never admit that, because he is a right-wing loon that believes nothing the feds do ever helped anyone.

Then the far-right idiot Laura Ingraham was on to claim Hillary Clinton avoided the Benghazi hearings. Even though she is sick, she fainted and hit her head, and fainting spells can lead to serious medical problems. But the crazy Ingraham ignored all that to slam her anyway.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was scheduled to testify about the deadly Libya consulate incident, but she is reportedly ill and begged off.

Ingraham said this: "I'm very worried, and we're now calling this the 'immaculate concussion.' Did she really have a concussion? Maybe she did. She should have come in with her head all wrapped up like in the Revolutionary War."

Yeah that's real funny, making fun of a woman who is hurt, Not.

Ingraham also demanded more answers in the Benghazi affair, saying this: "We don't even know how far along they are in actually apprehending the people who killed Americans, we don't have anyone in custody who is at the center of all this."

Then the far-right stooge Kristina Arriaga was on to talk about an organization called "The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty" that hands out its Ebenezer Scrooge Awards, bestowed upon folks who have done the most to trash traditional Christmas celebrations.

Arriaga said this: "The first runner-up, is the city of Santa Monica. After having a nativity scene on display for 60 years, there was a complaint and they put the scene on mothballs. And the winner is Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee, who was so afraid there would be Christmas caroling in city hall that he announced the display thirty minutes beforehand."

Arriaga also said this nonsense: "Right now religion is being treated like smoke and religious displays like second-hand smoke. No one can get close because it's 'bad for you.' My parents left Cuba and came to this country because the government here is not supposed to be able to take away what's in your head and heart."

Then the two right-wing culture warriors Gretchen Carlson and Jeanine Pirro were on to discuss a new survey that says most American teens feel the occasional use of marijuana is harmless.

And of course the two right-wingers hated that, Carlson said this: "The media has glorified this, and you also have big-time celebrities like Brad Pitt and Russell Simmons who are on board. And then you add to it that Colorado and Washington just made marijuana legal."

Pirro said this: "Think about the fact that you have to smoke marijuana and hold the smoke in longer. It has far more carcinogens than cigarettes, so the respiratory and bronchial problems are exacerbated. Yet we have a society now where 69% of kids think it's dangerous to smoke a cigarette but only 34% think it's dangerous to smoke weed. That is a function of our culture."

And the right-wing O'Reilly joined them, warning that permissive attitudes can have pernicious consequences: "Any child who gets involved with intoxicants becomes a whole different person, their childhood vanishes, yet there are a lot of adults who are enabling this attitude."

When Connecticut authorities tried to pass tough mental health legislation, the ACLU vigorously fought the bill and it was defeated. So Billy had another right-wing stooge on, Megyn Kelly said this: "The bill would have allowed a conservator to oversee a person's medication, but the ACLU thought that was too invasive. But that law, which was defeated in February, was less stringent than laws we have in 44 other states."

Kelly also thinks that committing an obviously mentally ill person has become far too difficult, saying this: "You basically have to prove that the person is a danger, they have to have done something. It used to be that we would commit folks a little too quickly and now we've gone the opposite way."

Earth to Megyn Kelly (the so-called attorney) what happened to innocent until proven guilty, jerk.

Then the right-wing loser Jesse Watters was on, he paid a visit to Hawaii, where the First Family will soon be vacationing.

So here's what a few of the locals told Jesse: "I was lucky enough to be one of his classmates from 5th grade on" ... "My mother-in-law remembers him scooping Baskin Robbins ice cream with a big afro in high school."

Watters returned to the studio to recap his tropical adventure and Hawaii's ultra-liberal culture, saying this: "The economy in Hawaii is such that you don't have a big middle class. You have extreme wealth and extreme poverty, the sun makes you lazy and you have very loose pot laws."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "This will be my last appearance of the year, I'll be hunkering down on Long Island for Christmas. 2012 has been a tough year and some of you are very disappointed about the general direction of the country. I share some of that disappointment, but I'm optimistic things will get better."

"Next year we'll be watching your backs and we'll aggressively challenge the powers that might harm you. I'm stepping up my watchdog capacity and we're not going to fool around. This country is not in a good place and we want to get it back to a good place. On a personal note, I wish you all a great Christmas. Our audience is the best in the world and I appreciate you guys very much."

McCain Debunks Fox Lies That Torture Helped Catch Osama Bin Laden
By: Steve - December 21, 2012 - 10:00am

And the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly ignored every word of it, because O'Reilly defended and supported the torture that was used under Bush and Cheney. So he ignores the truth, because it makes him and all the other right-wingers who defended it, and lied about it, look bad.

Here is the video:

And what's really sad is that O'Reilly and Bernie Goldberg complain about liberal bias in the mainstream media in stories they ignore, then he does the very same thing by ignoring what John McCain is saying about torture. Earth to Billy O'Reilly, how come you are scared to have McCain on to discuss torture, and the Senate torture report? Coward.

The Wednesday 12-19-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - December 20, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Will President Obama help get former Marine Jon Hammar released from Mexican prison? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: In the middle of the Civil War President Lincoln still took time to right wrongs that were brought to his attention. Now we have a situation where a former Marine, 27-year-old Jon Hammar, has been in a Mexican prison since last August for absolutely nothing. As we have reported, Cpl. Hammar secured permission from U.S. Customs to carry an antique rifle across the border.

He then checked in with Mexican officials, who arrested Hammar, threw him in prison, and chained him to his bunk. That's where Hammar remains, in a filthy and corrupt Mexican jail. Cpl. Hammar served combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq and when he returned home he suffered from post traumatic stress disorder.

He was treated for nine months and simply wanted to take a vacation after his ordeal. You would think Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama would be directly involved in trying to secure the release of an American combat veteran, but they are not. This is a failure of leadership.

This year the USA is sending more than $300 million to Mexico and they have the gall to imprison an American combat veteran for nothing! And where is Mexican President Nieto, who has the power to release Cpl. Hammar immediately? This is a disgusting situation and we call for President Obama to get Hammar out of that filthy prison this week. The buck stops with you, Mr. President.
Then the Democratic Florida Senator Bill Nelson, who has been trying to win Jon Hammar's release was on.

Nelson said this: "We all want to get him out by Christmas, and the White House and State Department are involved. When we found out about him being in the general prison population last August, we asked to get him out of there because of the obvious threat to his life. They moved him to an administrative facility where he was cuffed to the bed. That has since been removed, but it's still unacceptable."

O'Reilly once again urged the Obama administration to step up, saying this: "You've been doing excellent work, Senator, but don't you think President Obama could come out and say we're trying to get Hammar released?"

Earth to O'Reilly, I am sure President Obama is trying to get him released, but he does not have to go public with it just to make your crazy ass happy.

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to talk about Vice President Joe Biden, who will lead a commission tasked with finding solutions to gun violence in America.

Crowley said this: "The main reason Joe Biden was chosen to head up this task force, is because he wrote the 1994 crime bill that contained the original assault weapons ban. So this is what we are going to end up getting. But we have enough gun control laws that aren't enforced and you can't prevent every crime by every evil person."

Which is ridiculous, because if the Republicans had not let the assault weapons ban expire, it is possible the kid may not have had the rifle he used to kill all those kids.

Colmes recommended one immediate step, saying this: "There should be background checks on everybody who buys a gun and a national registry. Right now only half the people who buy guns ever get background checks."

And of course O'Reilly questioned whether Joe Biden is the right person to lead the task force, because he is a Republican who hates Biden. Billy said this: "There's going to have to be a consensus for any kind of gun legislation, but Joe Biden is a very anti-gun guy. When you put him in charge of shaping this, you alienate almost everyone who opposes gun control."

Who cares what you think, Biden should say ban the assault weapons and make it illegal to have a clip that holds more than 10 bullets. And maybe make it harder to buy the bullets too.

Then Brad Bushman was on to talk about how Adam Lanza spent many hours playing video games, which could have affected his behavior. Professor Bushman, who has spent 25 years studying video games, said this: "The studies show that violent video games increase aggressive thoughts, they increase angry feelings, and they increase physiological arousal such as heart rate and blood pressure. They also decrease helping behavior and feelings of empathy for others."

Bushman also said this: "Violent and aggressive behavior is affected by many factors, but exposure to violent media is a factor that's relatively easy to change."

Then James Rosen and Carl Cameron were on with their so-called non-partisan behind-the-scenes analysis of the gun control debate in Washington. Even though they are both biased right-wingers.

Cameron said this: "There's a lot of consternation in both parties. Vice President Biden's panel will probably propose to restore the assault weapons ban, but this is tough for Democrats. The last time the assault weapons ban was passed a lot of Democrats lost their seats and that's a big concern."

Rosen pointed out that the powerful National Rifle Association has been conspicuously silent in recent days, saying this: "Gun industry sources told me that the NRA was allowing for a period of mourning after the Newtown tragedy, while the gun control lobby went straight out of the gates to press their case in the media. But that's going to change, the NRA is soon going to push back. You're going to see the full weight of this organization and its four-million members."

Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on because he is nothing but an un-funny has-been right-wing comedian who is only on to make jokes about liberals, which O'Reilly loves. With no liberal comedian on for balance, or to make jokes about conservatives, which O'Reilly hates because he is one.

Then Juliet Huddy was on to talk about how some radio stations have stopped playing "Die Young," a song by rapper/singer Kesha that includes violent imagery.

Huddy elaborated on the song and the singer, saying this: "She's a very popular artist, and she happens to be pretty edgy. Some people say this song is not about actually dying young, that it's more a message of living life to its fullest, but then you see the video that is filled with violence. I have some friends in the record industry and they said the song was already going down and had hit its peak."

O'Reilly said he was worried that the radio ban could be counterproductive, saying this: "This will probably make it more popular, when they do this people go to the Internet to watch it."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "Town officials in Great Barrington, Massachusetts have consistently discouraged businesses there from putting out Christmas displays, so it's a good place to avoid if you're a fan of traditional Christmas."

And if you are like the rest of the people that don't care, go ahead and visit the town if you feel like it.

Gun Lobbyist Ready To Use His Guns Against The Government
By: Steve - December 20, 2012 - 10:00am

While the NRA has remained silent about Friday's tragic shooting in Newtown, CT, Larry Pratt, executive director of the Gun Owners of America, is arguing that Americans should bear arms to protect themselves against an ever-expanding government and elected officials.

Appearing on Hardball Monday, Pratt -- who immediately after the massacre accused gun safety advocates of having blood on their hands -- claimed that had teachers at Sandy Hook elementary school had firearms, the shooting could have been prevented. He added that all Americans should have guns so they can control the government:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: So you're like Sharron Angle, out in Nevada, who said we need our Second Amendment rights to control when our politicians get out of hand.

PRATT: That's our Second Amendment rights, she's not making that up.

MATTHEWS: So how would you use your Second Amendment rights if you didn't like the way your congressman or senator is representing you?

PRATT: By being prepared.

MATTHEWS: So Larry, it's not just the right to use guns to protect your homes, it's the right to take on your government?

PRATT: The government has been overboard.
Pratt even suggested that gun owners should use their weapons when the government steals elections or "after a long trail of abuses."

He also said he supports radical fundamentalist groups like the Branch Davidian.

And of course, O'Reilly never says a word about any of this, because Pratt is a Republican just like O'Reilly. But if a liberal gun group called for the people to use their guns against the Government, O'Reilly would be all over that story like stink on you know what, and he would call for the Feds to investigate them.

The Tuesday 12-18-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - December 19, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The truth about guns, murder and children in the USA. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Emotion is running high after 20 children were murdered in Newtown, Connecticut. The President, Congress and we the people all want to do something constructive to make sure this horror doesn't happen again.

Before acting, let's take a look at the facts. Mass shootings in the United States are actually on the decline and murders of school age children have declined 42% in the past 15 years.

That's not to diminish the horrible crimes we have seen in Connecticut and other places recently. We do have a 'gun culture,' no question about it, and if the feds can tighten up gun laws without violating constitutional rights they should do so.

To build a better and safer country, we don't need knee-jerk reactions after heinous crimes, we need smart solutions. It's interesting to see the far left calling for a ban on all handguns, which is clearly unconstitutional.

The truth is that they don't like the Constitution, they want the federal government to have far more power, and they use appalling crimes like Newtown to push that agenda. In the months to come, Talking Points will take a very hard look at how the Obama administration handles the public safety issue vis-a-vis guns. As always, our analysis will be based on facts.
Now that is a joke, because as always your analysis will be biased, with you and Charles Krauthammer, two Republicans, and zero Democrats.

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to say how the powers in Washington should respond to the Newtown massacre, with no liberal guests on for balance.

Krauthammer said this: "There are people who want to use this for partisan advantage, or to scapegoat the NRA. One way to get around that is to do what Joe Lieberman suggested, which is to appoint a commission, which would be far better than passing weapons laws that would be completely useless.

The commission should not just look at guns, but also the commitment laws for the dangerously mentally ill, which are extremely lax, and the culture, the violence in the movies and video games. Children are desensitized to violence, which is glorified or trivialized to a point that is truly shocking."

Then the Republican hack Lou Dobbs was on to talk about the budget deal, with no Democratic guest for balance.

Dobbs said this: "We're nowhere, Speaker Boehner has relented and says he's willing to raise taxes on people making a million dollars a year or more, while the President says he wants to raise taxes on those making $400,000 or more. On the spending side, the President says there will be a trillion dollars in cuts over ten years, but we have no idea what will be cut. This is political theater."

On a different financial topic, O'Reilly provided a concrete example of why California is going bankrupt, saying this: "Jeff Talbott, the head of a Highway Patrol division in California collected about a half-million dollars in his last year on the job and he retired on a $175,000 a year pension. We're sorry to pick on Jeff, but this is the crux of the matter everywhere - the folks don't have enough money to pay these pensions."

While not saying a word about states run by Republicans that are also going bankrupt, proving that O'Reilly is nothing but a biased right-wing hack. Just about every state in the country is in debt after the 8 years of George W. Bush, especially Alaska, which O'Reilly never says a word about.

Less than a year after then-Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) quit the government to pursue other projects, Alaska leads the way in its debt-to-GDP ratio when its unfunded pension obligations are taken into account, followed by Rhode Island, New Mexico, Ohio and Mississippi. But O'Reilly never reports on that, he only reports on California, because they are a mostly liberal state, and he hates them. In fact, Ohio is run by his Republican friend, John Kasich, who is $77 billion dollars in debt, and O'Reilly never says a word about their debt problems.

Then O'Reilly had Olivia and Jon Hammar on to talk about their son, former Marine Jon Hammar, who was arrested in Mexico when he took an antique shotgun across the border to hunt, and who has been in a prison for four months.

Hammar Sr. said this: "Jon met with a judge in Mexico today, and they promise that they will have a decision by the end of the week that should lead to his release."

Olivia Hammar described her son as a model Marine, saying this: "He went through two combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq and after getting out he was in a nine-month inpatient treatment program. It's an exhausting program and when he got out he wanted to go to Costa Rica to hunt and tried to drive through Mexico."

The Hammars added that they have not heard from Secretary of State Clinton or President Obama, while O'Reilly pledged to keep the pressure on Mexico, saying this: "If the Mexican government doesn't do the right thing, there will be hell to pay. We'll get your son out of there, one way or the other."

Then the crazy O'Reilly had the insane far-right loon John Stossel on to talk about guns, why, only he knows, because nobody else cares what Stossel thinks about guns, or anything else for that matter.

Stossel said this: "I hate these politicians making promises and saying they can fix it. They can't fix this and promising that a law can do it is just wrong! We should have simple laws that make it hard for mentally ill people and dangerous felons to buy guns. The Centers for Disease Control looked at 51 studies of gun control and they couldn't find any pattern."

O'Reilly reiterated that gun crime in America is intolerable, saying this: "I agree with you that law-abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves, but there has to be some middle ground. I think there should be a federal law that any criminal using a gun should go into the federal system with mandatory sentences."

Then the two Republicans Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on. They talked about ehy Adam Lanza's mother Nancy had numerous firearms, including the AR-15 rifle her son used in the Newtown slaughter.

Wiehl said this: "The AR-15 is legal in Connecticut, unless you add a grenade launcher or a detachable magazine. But Connecticut's gun laws are relatively tough."

Guilfoyle illustrated how gun laws are so often confusing and ineffectual, saying this: "Even under the previous 'assault gun' ban, this AR-15 would not have been illegal. And in California, where the laws are even tougher and more stringent, this particular type of weapon would not have been banned."

O'Reilly then added a personal perspective, saying this: "I have a lot of threats on my life and I have taken absolute steps to protect myself. If someone breaks into my house, I have a right to kill them and I will. But I don't feel like I need an AR-15 with little kids around."

Then Chuck Williams, Ph.D. was on, they talked about Director Quentin Tarantino, who is known for ultra-violent movies, and who claims his films have no effect on human behavior.

Williams said this: "After what happened Friday, everyone has to look at what part they had to play in creating this culture of violence. Quentin Tarantino's movies are very violent with bloodshed, maiming, and decapitation. It's stylized violence and when violence looks good we forget that it's violence. The research shows that children model violent and aggressive behavior."

O'Reilly decried the undeniable increase in movie violence, saying this: "In the 1960's the movie 'A Clockwork Orange' was controversial because it was very violent, but now that movie would be tame!"

And both of them are still ignoring the fact that millions and millions of kids watch violent movies, and play violent video games every day, and 99.9% of them do not go get a gun and kill someone for real.

And finally the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "If you're in the mood for some timeless Christmas music, consider albums by Johnny Mathis, the Neville Brothers, and Nat King Cole."

News Outlets Battle Romney Campaign Over Expenses
By: Steve - December 19, 2012 - 10:00am

$812 for one meal? Media organizations are telling their credit card companies not to pay until they see a price breakdown.

It is standard procedure for presidential campaigns to arrange and prepay for meals, bus travel, and charter flights, then bill the news outlets afterward for their share of the cost. In order to travel with the candidate, reporters and their editors must agree upfront to pay for the cost of the trips, as determined by the campaign.

But many of the bills from the Romney campaign - which have continued to trickle in since Election Day - are much higher than during other campaigns.

For example, on Oct. 11, each reporter was charged $812 for a meal and a rented "holding" space, where the press waited before moving to the next event.

On Oct. 18, the bill for a similar set of expenses was $461. And on the night of the vice presidential debate, the campaign planned a "viewing party" for the reporters with Romney, complete with a large rented room with a patio, massage tables, fresh cut flowers, and lots of food and booze.

One campaign aide told BuzzFeed that campaign officials' orders were to "go big" - a nice gesture, perhaps, but one that wasn't discussed with every media outlet.

The tab for the party: $745 per reporter.

Editors at the outlets who plan to contest the charges declined to discuss the charges on the record until the letter was finalized and sent to campaign officials. But BuzzFeed, which plans to join the other news organizations in their complaint, regularly traveled with the campaign and has received many of the same bills.

Former campaign officials did not respond to BuzzFeed's queries, and the few junior staffers dealing with the bills have been instructed not to respond at length to news organizations' complaints.

One campaign aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the bills were not artificially inflated, but rather the product of a generally mismanaged campaign. The aide said the advance team - which was tasked with arranging meals and accommodations for the press - failed to communicate with other elements of the campaign and consistently spent more money than necessary.

Indeed, reporters on the trail grew accustomed to having five or six catered meals offered to them every day, with long tables full of food awaiting them at each campaign stop. The meals often went untouched and were sometimes consumed by campaign staff. It remains unclear whether those aides shouldered some of the costs of the meals.

In another case of apparent overspending, the campaign rented four "mini-busses," seating 20 to 30 people apiece, to transport the press after a campaign event in Pennsylvania. According to an aide, the total cost was around $5,000 - divided among just 23 reporters.

An aide said they raised concerns about the costs early on - once media outlets began complaining about the outsize bills - but senior campaign officials dismissed them.

News outlets are planning to ask the campaign to explain the specifics of each charge over $200, reporters told BuzzFeed. Some are also informing their credit card companies that they're contesting the charges.

The Monday 12-17-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - December 18, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: What do we do about violent evil? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Having done extensive research on Lee Harvey Oswald for my book 'Killing Kennedy,' I know something about violent evil. I also saw it first hand in El Salvador and the Middle East. So when I first heard that Adam Lanza had murdered 27 people, including 20 little children, I pretty much knew a few things about him.

Number one, he was deeply angry; number two, he was alienated from most other human beings; number three, he was most likely deeply involved with the Internet. There has been speculation that he had Asperger's syndrome, but it is deeply unfair to Americans who do have that personality disorder to diagnose Lanza without conclusive proof.

What can be done about people like him? Very little. Our freedoms dictate that we cannot warehouse people who are 'strange' - they must commit a crime or do something very destructive to themselves before they can be taken into custody. Apparently Adam Lanza did not do those things until the day he committed mass murder, and so the attention turns to the guns he took from his mother.

There is no question that America does have a gun culture, and children ages 5 to 14 are thirteen times as likely to be murdered with guns here as children in other industrialized nations. But before Congress takes any action, it should study the situations in Eastern Europe and Russia, where most guns are banned.

Those countries have a higher murder rate than the USA. Talking Points wants a sane country with smart public safety measures. Do we need semi-automatic rifles to be easily available? That's a worthy debate and there are strong points on both sides. But clearly, we the people have to take a tough look at our violent society and find some effective solutions without violating constitutional rights.
O'Reilly is wrong about one thing, he says nothing can be done about strange people like Adam Lanza. When we can do something, like get people like him mental help and monitor them, not to mention keep guns away from them. This can be done, if we are willing to spend the money, which the Republicans are not willing to do. That is why a lot of mental institutions have closed, including one here in Peoria, lack of funding.

Then Alan Gottlieb was on, founder of an organization opposed to most gun control measures.

Gottlieb said this: "If you look at the data, we banned 'assault weapons' in 1994, but it had no impact at all on homicide rates or mass murders. So we already know it doesn't work. And if everybody calls for banning these guns, we're going to see record sales of these firearms, which is not what the anti-gun people want."

And that's ridiculous, because the point of banning assault weapons is to make the murder and the killing less likely to kill so many people so quick, due to the type of weapon they use and the size of the clip.

Gottlieb insisted that high-powered rifles can serve a useful purpose, saying this: "We saw Korean merchants using these types of weapons during the Los Angeles riots so that their places of businesses weren't looted and burned down, and we saw people using these firearms during Hurricane Andrew to stop looting."

O'Reilly said this: "In Australia they banned semi-automatic weapons and the crime rate plummeted there, so wouldn't it make sense just to tighten things up a little bit?"

Yes it would, but not to the right-wing gun nuts.

Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to continue the discussion about guns and violence in America.

Williams said this: "I would do some things right away. I think the states should be free to share information about background checks and background checks should include a full family check. And we as a country have to have an assault weapon ban and we have to stop selling large magazines."

Ham thinks that legislation is likely to be ineffective, saying this: "Nobody has pointed out the law that would have prevented this incident. Connecticut has some of the stricter gun laws and there is an 'assault weapons' ban in Connecticut. We're a reactive society not because we aren't caring, it's because we have these freedoms that we prize very highly. But I think some discussion about the intersection of mental health and owning guns could be helpful."

This is real simple folks, with the 2nd amendment (that I support 100 percent) in place the only thing we can do is ban assault weapons for everyone but the police and the military, and pass a law that limits clip size. We can also put more money into mental health and monitoring the so-called strange people everyone seems to know about.

Then Bill Hemmer was on, who has been stationed in Newtown, Billy asked about the town and the young man who went on a killing spree.

Hemmer said this: "What I am told, is that Adam Lanza was well known here. He was the kind of person who did not fit in. People told me he would stop on the sidewalk and stare at you and stare at you more until you passed by, and in social settings he barely talked. But he had no criminal record, none."

Hemmer added that he has spoken with many Newtown residents who are overwhelmed by grief. "This is a town in absolute mourning, a town in tears, and there will be two more funerals tomorrow."

Then Jeremy Khinoo was on to talk about 27-year-old former Marine Jon Hammar, who has been in a Mexican prison since being arrested on a flimsy gun possession charge four months ago. Khinoo, who spent three years in a Mexican jail after being caught with steroids, described what Hammar is likely facing.

Khinoo said this: "It was hell and it was barely livable. The prison was built for 400 people but there were 1,200 people there. They don't give you a blanket, clothes, toothbrush, nothing. You're just in there like an animal and there were fights on a daily basis. I saw a couple of murders and I was stabbed two times."

Then the biased right-wing hack Bernie Goldberg was on to cry about how the so-called liberal media is covering the mass shooting in Newtown. While not having a liberal guest on for the balance O'Reilly claims to have.

Goldberg said this: "There should be a reasonable period of time when we simply mourn, and there should be no politics. But it took minutes for some on the left to start in with their gun agenda, and conservative media also used the tragedy to further their agenda. There was immediately talk about how we took God out of the classroom, so we shouldn't be surprised when there's carnage in the schools, and there was talk about how we have a million abortions a year, which cheapens life. As if an insane gunman cares about God in the classroom or abortion!"

O'Reilly said this: "We didn't do any political stuff Friday because it just wasn't appropriate. The folks wanted to know what happened, they didn't want the politics."

Then O'Reilly said America suffers from far more gun violence that other advanced nations, so he had Mary Ellen O'Toole and Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, a former West Point psychologist, who placed part of the blame on ultra-violent video games on to discuss it.

Grossman said this: "These video games, provide the same conditioning to children that we provide to military and law enforcement adults. These are 'murder simulators! There had never been a juvenile mass murder in a school in human history until the late 1970's and today juvenile mass murders are everywhere. We need to understand that the sickest games and the sickest movies are very sick indeed!"

Mary Ellen O'Toole, a former FBI profiler, affirmed that Americans are indeed more violent than citizens of other countries.

O'Toole said this: "There are people in the United States who have a propensity for violence and the quality of our violence is different, especially when it comes to mass homicide by adolescents and young adults. For a small group of people, that propensity for violence can be exacerbated by how you're raised and what you view on TV and video games."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "Be very skeptical when listening to the mainstream media these days, many of them are simply not in business to tell the truth."

Now that may be the dumbest tip of the day O'Reilly has ever put out, and the funniest. Because O'Reilly and Fox News lie to the American people more than any other news outlet in the country. O'Reilly is the king of lies, and almost nothing he says is true, it's almost all right-wing spin and nothing but his biased opinion, opinion that he calls the truth.

Fox Employees Ordered Not To Discuss Gun Control On Air
By: Steve - December 18, 2012 - 10:00am

According to sources, David Clark, the executive producer in charge of Fox's weekend coverage, gave producers instructions not to talk about gun-control policy on air. "This network is not going there," Clark wrote one producer on Saturday night, according to a source with knowledge of the exchange.

The directive created a rift inside the network. According to a source, one political panelist e-mailed Clark that Bloomberg was booked on Meet the Press to talk about gun control. Clark responded, "We haven't buried the children yet, we're not discussing it."

During the weekend, one frustrated producer went around Clark to lobby Michael Clemente, Fox's executive vice-president for news editorial, but Clemente upheld the mandate.

"We were expressly forbidden from discussing gun control," the source said. But Clark's edict wasn't universal: On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace talked with Democratic Senators Joe Lieberman and Dick Durbin about gun control, and later in the program, panelists Bill Kristol and Fortune editor Nina Easton weighed in on the issue.

Certainly Fox's decision to avoid widespread policy talk could be seen as an editorial impulse to keep the focus trained on the tragedy's human dimension. But Fox's coverage also highlights the growing chasm between Rupert Murdoch and Ailes.

Gun culture is alive and well at Fox News. Roger Ailes and Sean Hannity are reportedly licensed to carry concealed handguns in New York City. Fox personality Eric Bolling is a vocal Second Amendment proponent on air.

"Not only do they carry guns, they don't allow an honest debate on TV," a Fox News insider said. In the past, when Ailes has clashed with Murdoch on politics, Fox News's outsize profits have helped Ailes prevail. Earlier this fall, Ailes signed a new four-year contract, and he retains complete editorial control over the network.

A Fox News spokesperson declined to comment on Ailes's Second Amendment views.

While Ailes's network said it wasn't the right time to talk about legislation, Murdoch had no hesitation. Within hours of the attack, he took to Twitter to call for an automatic-weapons ban.

"Terrible news today. When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons? As in Oz after similar tragedy," he wrote, referring to Australia's move to ban assault weapons in 1996 after a man used two semiautomatic rifles to kill 35 people and wound 21.

That massacre came six weeks after the horrific mass school shooting in Dunblane, Scotland, in which sixteen children and one adult were murdered. (Despite Murdoch's plea, automatic weapons are already illegal in the United States; Adam Lanza used semiautomatics.)

Krauthammer Proves Fox Is Lying About Right To Work Wages
By: Steve - December 17, 2012 - 10:00am

In The Washington Post, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer admitted that right-to-work laws lead to lower wages for workers -- conflicting with the right-wing propaganda by Fox News that such laws increase wages.

In his column, Krauthammer claimed that recently passed right-to-work laws in Michigan were "inevitable" and that "the entire Rust Belt will eventually follow because the heyday of the sovereign private-sector union is gone."

Krauthammer wrote that such laws could possibly bring down unemployment, but he also admitted that President Obama's statement that right-to-work laws give workers "the right to work for less money" was correct:
KRAUTHAMMER: Principle and hypocrisy aside, however, the president's statement has some validity. Let's be honest: Right-to-work laws do weaken unions. And de-unionization can lead to lower wages.

Obama calls this a race to the bottom. No, it's a race to a new equilibrium that tries to maintain employment levels, albeit at the price of some modest wage decline. It is a choice not to be despised.

I have great admiration for the dignity and protections trade unionism has brought to American workers. I have no great desire to see the private-sector unions defenestrated.
Krauthammer is right about the wage effects of right-to-work laws. Studies have consistently found that right-to-work laws lead to lower wages and benefits for workers.

The Economic Policy Institute found that right-to-work laws "are associated with significantly lower wages and reduced chances of receiving employer-sponsored health insurance and pensions."

Krauthammer's admission conflicts with the narrative coming from his Fox News colleagues since the Michigan right-to-work legislation was passed.

-- Fox guest Matt McCall suggested right-to-work laws bolstered wages and reduced unemployment.

-- Fox News Ailsyn Camerota twice repeated a false claim about salaries in right-to-work states when she argued that workers in these states made an average of $7,000 a year more than in non-right-to-work states.

-- Fox Business Charles Payne disagreed with the president's characterization of right-to-work laws as "you the right to work for less money," commenting that right-to-work raises compensation because "if there is a lot of prosperity, more people will have the opportunity to make a whole lot of money."

It also lowers the middle class even more, which hurts the economy, because when the middle class have less money to spend, they spend less. And the middle class is the engine that drives the economy, meaning that in the future economic growth will be lower than in the past, because of the lower wages in these right to work states.

The Media Is Doing Terrible On The Budget Debate
By: Steve - December 16, 2012 - 10:00am

Here is how bad the media is in America, of all the discussions in the media about the budget and the fiscal cliff, only 22 out of 503 guests were actual economists. That is ridiculous, and it shows that the media is not very good at talking about important issues facing America today.

And of course Fox News was the worst, with only 3.1 percent of their guests being economists.

A Media Matters study found that economists have been strangely absent from discussions on budget negotiations, following a typical pattern of the media's inability to host experts to discuss complex issues. This lack of expert analysis has steered the debate toward politics and away from core economic concerns.

In a recently published study of news segments discussing current budget negotiations, Media Matters found that the presence of economists was sorely lacking - out of 503 total guests in the 337 segments analyzed, only 22 were economists.

In media discussions of the debt-ceiling debate in the summer of 2011, only 4.1 percent of guests on news programs were identified as economists. The findings of the most recent study reinforce the notion that the media have a tendency to ignore expert opinion when discussing complex issues, such as the economy and climate change.

Previous studies by Media Matters have noted that the lack of economists' input helps spread conservative misinformation, leaving a substantial impact on public opinion. The most recent study, however, shows that keeping economists out of the debate also eliminates any discussion of economic issues.

One such issue is the so-called "fiscal cliff," a combination of automatic tax hikes and spending cuts that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, could plunge the U.S. economy into recession in 2013.

But, of the 337 segments analyzed, 209 -- or 62 percent -- failed to address the macroeconomic implications of either tax increases or spending cuts. While some microeconomic issues were discussed (such as the potential impact on healthcare costs), most of the segments were focused on largely non-economic issues, such as political leverage in negotiations, the Grover Norquist no tax increase pledge, or concessions made by the two parties.

Of the 503 guest appearances during segments identified as primarily about budget negotiations, only 22 -- about 4.4 percent -- were made by economists. The lack of economist representation was similar across networks.

Economists accounted for 6.3 percent of guest appearances on CNN, 3.1 percent on Fox News, and 7.3 percent on MSNBC. No economists appeared on ABC, CBS, and NBC during the period analyzed.

Journalists made up 57 percent, the largest share of guests in segments discussing budget negotiations, with political figures making up the second largest share. Remaining guests, such as business executives, did not meet any of the three identified classifications.

Of the networks that offered alternative frames, MSNBC outperformed all other outlets. MSNBC aired 22 segments -- 32.4 percent of its coverage on budget negotiations -- that presented alternate framing to the phrase "fiscal cliff." Fox News, CNN, and all network news broadcasts provided little to no explanation that "fiscal cliff" may be a misleading term.

A recent International Monetary Fund study found that for every dollar decrease in government spending, the U.S. would experience as much as a $1.80 decrease in output.

Conversely, the Congressional Budget Office noted that if Bush-era tax rates expired for high-income earners, negative effects on economic output would be negligible.

Given the fact that cutting spending and raising taxes are both large components of the so-called "fiscal cliff," highlighting these findings when discussing budget negotiations would help inform viewers of the real economic stakes. Instead, the media have taken the economics out of a largely economic issue.

The Friday 12-14-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - December 15, 2012 - 11:00am

The Top Story was called: Tragedy in Connecticut: 20 kids killed at elementary school:
O'REILLY: There's little anyone can say when 20 schoolchildren are murdered; that kind of thing diminishes the entire country and deeply affects all good people. At about 9:40 this morning at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, 20-year-old Adam Lanza shot the principal dead and also shot the school psychologist.

Then Lanza entered two classrooms, killing the children and four other adults. Lanza's mother was a teacher at the school and he apparently murdered her earlier in the morning at the home they shared.

There is no known motive and Lanza committed suicide at the school. Three guns were found at the scene, two pistols and a rifle. Police say they were legally purchased and registered to Lanza's mother."
Then Geraldo was on with his reaction to the massacre, saying this: "I've been eye-to-eye with Charles Manson, and I've covered the worst atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq. But this is the worst thing ever and there's a scene I can't get out of my mind. You have these babies who had never seen evil, who are in the flower of innocence, and here's a grownup dressed in camouflage and he's killing the children and he's reloading." O'Reilly said he thinks that mass murder has grown far too common in America, saying this: "This is a good country but there is now a strain of insanity running through it. There is evil in the universe and you can't stop it."

Geraldo ended with this: "I want an armed cop at every school, we have to protect these children as if they were gold."

Then Rick Leventhal, who reported the latest from the scene of the crime was on, saying this: "I spoke with a seasoned investigator, one of the biggest and toughest guys I know, and he was shocked as he related the details of this crime. The fact that this kid would shoot his own mother and then drive to the school where she worked to slaughter children is almost too horrific to believe."

Leventhal added that Ryan Lanza, the killer's older brother, has been extremely cooperative, saying this: "He is telling federal authorities that he believes his brother had developmental problems and possibly autism."

Then O'Reilly talked with an eyewitness, Brenda Lebinski and her 8-year-old daughter Sofia, a third-grader at Sandy Hook Elementary.

Sofia said this: "We were at morning reading, and then we heard these knocking sounds. Our teacher closed the door and locked it and told us to go in the corner. We were shaking."

Her mom elaborated on how Sofia is handling the trauma, saying this: "I think she's still numb, the gravity of the situation hasn't hit her yet. And she wasn't really exposed to the bodies - they took her out the back door."

Then two Psychologists Brian Russell and Karen Ruskin were on to try and explain the Connecticut massacre from a mental health perspective.

Russell said this: "We should rethink our deinstitutionalization policy, whereby far too often we show more compassion for a dangerously troubled individual than for everybody in the society. Secondly, we can get back to being a culture where kids grow up getting lots of messages about being part of something larger than themselves. We've become coarsened and calloused to the point where a kid can grow up in our society and not necessarily internalize the kind of disgust that you and I feel for the disregard for human life we saw today."

Ruskin added that violent acts rarely have a single cause, saying this: "We can't ignore the fact that our environment absolutely affects us, whether it's television or parents being too busy to spend time with their kids. Everything affects everything and the violence that we're experiencing is systemic. We need to put a stop to it by everybody playing a role."

O'Reilly pointed out that children grow up in a sea of violent images, saying this: "There is casual violence and explicit violence on display more than ever before, thanks to the Internet."

And I would point out to O'Reilly that 99.9% of those kids do not go out and murder a bunch of 5 year olds, or anyone for that matter. So blaming violence on tv and the internet for the killings is just crazy.

Then the TPM was called: Will the U.S. government get Marine Jon Hammar from Mexico? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: 27-year-old former Marine Jon Hammar has languished in a Mexican prison since being charged with gun possession four months ago. Mexico is insulting every single American citizen, and the charge is totally bogus.

Last summer Col. Hammar registered an antique shotgun handed down to him from his great-grandfather with American customs officials in Texas. He was told by the American agents to take the paperwork across the border to Mexican officials and he would be fine to travel on to Costa Rica for a hunting trip.

But when Hammar did check in with the Mexicans, he was arrested. And so he sits in a filthy prison ten days before Christmas. That's totally unacceptable! Hammar did nothing wrong, so why doesn't Mexico just release him in the name of good will?

Talking Points has been telling you that Mexico does not act like a friend to the USA and this case proves it. Mexico's new president should release Hammar right now!"
Then Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen was on to discuss it, saying this: "We are outraged. It is so incomprehensible that when the mother came to us with the case we said, 'Something must be wrong here, this can not be happening.' But the more we investigated, the more we found that everything that she was saying was absolutely correct."

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen also said this: "The Mexican ambassador told me that Jon Hammar is chained to his bed because they fear he will escape. The President of Mexico has the authority to release Hammar, but I don't believe he has the guts to do it."

O'Reilly demanded Hammar's release and issued a threat, saying this: "If this guy is not out by Christmas, we'll call for an absolute boycott of travel to Mexico."

And I would support that boycott, but it is important to point out that when liberals call for boycotts O'Reilly says it is wrong and un-American. He also said he never calls for a boycott of anyone, an yet he called for a boycott of Pepsi because they used the rapper Ludacris in a commercial. A boycott of Mexico would be different, and I would support it. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy from O'Reilly over real boycotts of American companies when liberals do it and when he does it.

O'Reilly then ended the show with an update from Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer in Connecticut.

Hemmer said this: "We believe all the bodies are still inside that small elementary school down the hill from where we are, and they will not be moved tonight. Police are being very particular about making sure that they are careful with this evidence."

Hemmer also described Sandy Hook Elementary principal Dawn Hochsprung, who was shot dead, saying this: "She has two daughters, three step-daughters, and a husband who is also a teacher in this district. Based on the police accounts that we have, the gunman walked into the principal's office first, encountered at least four women, and shot them all dead."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "Before you open your wallet for a charitable cause, pay a visit to, which rates the various charities so you'll know your money is being used honestly."

Republicans Trying To Rig Elections To Win In The Future
By: Steve - December 15, 2012 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly has not said a word about any of this, because he likes the idea, and because it makes his Republican friends look bad. Here is their ridiculous plan.

Virginia State Senator Charles Carrico Sr.(R) has become the latest swing state-Republican to propose a scheme to rig presidential elections for future Republican candidates.

Blue Virginia reports his proposed SB 723 would award the state's electors based on which candidate gets the majority of votes in each gerrymandered Congressional district -- rather than based on who gets the most votes statewide.

The Carrico bill would award one of Virginia's 13 electoral votes to the presidential candidate who gets the most votes in each of the Commonwealth's 11 Congressional Districts.

The remaining two electors would go to the candidate who won the majority of Congressional Districts. With a Republican-controlled redistricting passed earlier this year, Virginia Democrats were heavily packed into three districts.

Under these maps, Obama won Virginia by almost a 4 point margin, yet he carried just four Virginia Congressional Districts. Were Carrico's dishonest plan in place, Mitt Romney would have received seven of Virginia's 11 electoral votes despite receiving just 47% of the vote statewide.

Carrico's proposal is part of a troubling national trend by Republican legislators in GOP-controlled states won by President Obama in the 2008 and 2012 elections. The Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader and Ohio Secretary of State have suggested similar schemes in those states.

While it is constitutional, the dishonest plan would make it far more likely that the popular choice for president would not be elected to that office. And btw, no such efforts have emerged in GOP-controlled states won by the Republican nominees.

If this plan to rig the Electoral College had been law in several key Republican-controlled states that President Obama won last month, America would now be looking at a very different future.

Had the Carrico plan been instituted for the 2012 elections in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin, Mitt Romney would be the president-elect right now, despite President Obama's 51-47 majority, and his landslide victory in the electoral college vote.

An Insane O'Reilly Lover Sends Me Mail
By: Steve - December 15, 2012 - 9:00am

This nut is not only insane for what he said, he's sick. These are the fans O'Reilly does not like to talk about.

Subject: I have 10,000 to donate
Friday, December 14, 2012 10:00 PM
From: Nathan McCutchan - [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]


Funny I was reading your website and would have to say you are disturbed and need help. After the tragic events today I have come to the conclusion that the far left like you are to blame for this ok maybe not blame but your views on treating the mentally ill like yourself seem to be let them do what they want , and i would classify you as having the mind frame of the killer . You are furious now I would guess and still can't believe how and why Fox News is number 1 . Now calm down and don't hurt yourself thinking on what to do or say. Truth hurts but you can get threw the pain thanks to Obama care

Not only is this fool insane, he is stupid too. And yes I will get (threw) or maybe through the pain thanks to Obamacare, even though I do not have Obamacare, and will never have it.

The Thursday 12-13-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - December 14, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Secular forces on the march. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As we have been reporting, some left-wing Americans have been emboldened by the reelection of President Obama. I saw it first-hand this week when I was in Washington; there is arrogance and condescension in many left-wing precincts.

Many secular progressives understand that now is their time in history and, above all, they want to change the economy. They want the government to run it and provide cradle-to-grave entitlements for those Americans who cannot or will not provide for themselves.

The left also wants to control profits in the private sector, taking as much money as possible away from the achievers and corporations.

They also want to obliterate some American traditions. Gay marriage is now about 'civil rights,' and if you oppose gay marriage you're a 'hater.' The left sees drug users as victims and believes no one has the right to stand between an American and intoxication. On that note, the New York Times ran a front page article yesterday lamenting tough mandatory prison sentences for drug dealers.

So if you're selling meth or heroin or cocaine, that's not an act that causes harm or pain to another person? Are you kidding me? People who sell drugs are the lowest rung, they are committing violence against other human beings. The Times does not tell you that violent crime has been cut in half since the tough mandatory prison sentences were instituted.

The country is much safer because hard-core criminals are doing hard time. Because I do commentary like this, I'm a big threat to progressives. Committed left-wing guy Harry Belafonte actually said those who oppose President Obama should be thrown in jail. Maybe the guy was just kidding, but believe me, anyone who challenges the secular progressive agenda is going to get hammered.

These people are on a mission, they want a completely different America. These secular people are more powerful than ever - their guy has been reelected and opposing forces are scattered. And that is what is going on in America.
Then Bob Beckel was on, and O'Reilly asked him to critique the Talking Points Memo.

Beckel said this: "You're not right on any of the things you listed. Harry Belafonte was joking, do you really think he wants to lock you up? And you keep saying the 'secular left,' which represents maybe 20% of the country. There's no culture war in America!"

Beckel also addressed the news that Susan Rice has asked to be withdrawn for consideration as Secretary of State, saying this: "I'm not surprised, the administration didn't want a big battle in the Senate when they have a lot of other things going on. She was unfairly treated by a number of Senators, but John Kerry is a good fallback and that will be where they go."

Then the far-right stooge Laura Ingraham was on, and O'Reilly asked her there is indeed an orchestrated assault on American traditions.

"Most people realize that after the election. Democrats feel cocky and feel the country has shifted so much that they can push all of these issues. But the problem in the end is that the cocky party almost always overreaches and Americans bristle. People will say, take it slow, let us live our lives, and don't try to push tradition out of all aspects of the American culture. The secular progressives don't like social conservatives, they don't much like fiscal conservatives, they think conservatives are more dangerous than Al Qaeda."

O'Reilly then added that overreaching is a natural consequence of the election, saying this: "If I were a secular progressive I would put the petal to the metal right now because the opposition is scattered."

Then the two right-wing culture warriors Gretchen Carlson and Jeanine Pirro were on, with no culture warrior from the left for balance.

They talked about the feminist scholar Camille Paglia, who has complained that pop singers Katy Perry and Taylor Swift are setting back the cause of feminism.

Pirro said this: "What Camille Paglia is saying, is that successful women like Taylor Swift and Katy Perry are 'insipid,' their music is bland, and they're monotonous. But she ignores the success of these women and she ignores the fact that people buy their records because they like their music. She apparently prefers women who show more body, more bosom, and more bootie. She wants the women to unbutton their buttons and 'trash up.'"

Carlson depicted Paglia as a shrew in need of taming, saying this: "I saw this as an amazingly angry female writing an article about other successful women who she's probably jealous of. This is such a senseless article to me, Taylor Swift and Katy Perry are good role models!"

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about the 27-year-old former Marine Jon Hammar who has been in a Mexican prison for four months after taking an antique shotgun across the border to hunt.

Kelly said this: "This is totally ridiculous. Why didn't they just turn him away at the border? This guy served our country honorably and he went just to have a surfing trip. He registered the shotgun with U.S. Customs, it's not like he was trying to pull a fast one. His parents are really upset that the U.S. Consulate hasn't done more, and this is Mexico, an ally of ours! We give them hundreds of millions of dollars a year."

O'Reilly slammed the Mexican government, saying this: "They disrespect us all the time. Hillary Clinton should be involved in this and President Obama should be involved, but we haven't seen any sign of that. We called the Mexican Embassy today and those people are chaotic, they don't know what's going on, and they don't care! Mrs. Clinton, you have to get involved!"

Wow, are you kidding me, Clinton should not get involved, because it was one man taking a gun over the border, who cares.

Then Jesse Watters was on, he hit the streets of Washington, D.C. to ask some folks about the so-called "fiscal cliff."

Some of their responses: "I absolutely have no idea what you're talking about" ... "I think it's related to the Mayan apocalypse" ... "It's some imaginary cliff in my mind that we're all going to jump off" ... "You mean the end of the world type of thing?" ... "I actually hope the fiscal cliff happens, let's do it!"

Watters summed up his capital trip, saying this: "I talked to about two dozen people and I'd say half of them were clueless on the 'cliff.' It's so boring and they do this 'man who cried wolf' all the time in Washington, so people are numb to this."

That's because nobody cares, and they know it's a bogus cliff that Republicans are trying to use to get what they want in the budget deal, even though they lost the election.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "On Friday the Sotheby's auction house is taking bids on a Wounded Warriors poster signed by all five living American presidents, with proceeds going to the Wounded Warriors Foundation. Visit for more details."

Fox News & The O'Reilly War On Christmas Hypocrisy
By: Steve - December 14, 2012 - 10:00am

Thursday night Bill O'Reilly delivered an eight-minute monologue about the threat that "secular forces" pose to America -- using the bogus "war on Christmas" as an example -- but Fox News ended the segment with an animation telling the audience "Happy Holidays" instead of Merry Christmas.

And this is after O'Reilly and almost everyone at Fox News have repeatedly attacked people and organizations who use the words "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," claiming that they are engaging in a "war on Christmas."

In November, O'Reilly and the Fox & Friends crew expressed outrage at the fact that Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee has used the term "holiday tree" rather than Christmas tree, only to air a segment minutes later about the show's "Holiday wish list."

Because Fox News revisits the "war on Christmas" every holiday season, there are plenty of examples of its hypocrisy on the subject.

Examiner Reports The Truth About Steven Crowder Assault
By: Steve - December 13, 2012 - 11:30am

Here is what the wrote about the Crowder (so-called) assault. Let's see if O'Reilly reports any of this, my guess is that he will ignore it all.

Steven Crowder 'Union Assault' video: What really happened in Michigan?

December 12, 2012 - By: Jordan Yerman

Steve Crowder Assault Video is Clearly Edited

Fox News is really making hay with Steven Crowder's latest stunt video. The video, titled "UNIONS ASSAULT ON CAMERA!!" (with all-caps and extra punctuation) Shows Steven Crowder basically doing his thing, which is getting in people's faces and pissing them off.

As this was in the middle of a showdown between Michigan union workers and Americans for Prosperity (i.e. the Koch brothers) faithful, that turned out to be a bad idea.

The video shows Crowder in a shouting match with a union worker at the State Capitol Building, then there's an edit, then we see Steven Crowder get punched in the face.

However, all is not as it seems: Steve Crowder is clearly being coached by the Jedi ghost of Andrew Breitbart, and Crowder's video is heavily edited.

The single most pertinent moment, in fact, is missing: the moment before Steven Crowder gets punched in the face. Don't you think it's weird that the union member punches Crowder, and not the guy who was swearing at him before the edit? Really, we have no idea how much time passed during the cut, or what took place.

However, we can safely presume that the missing footage deviates from the "union thugs want Steven Crowder's blood" narrative that you're being spoon-fed, or otherwise the footage would not have been cut.

Indeed, we're seeing the product intended from the beginning: a narrative that shows Crowder getting attacked for "asking the tough questions". Steven Crowder and his crew clearly worked hard to make that happen.

Meanwhile, Fox News is running hard with the "union thugs" angle, but you're clearly being lied to.

Note: I do not advocate political violence, but surely I'm not alone in pointing out that Steven Crowder getting punched in the face is one of those not-if-but-when things. It was bound to happen sooner or later.

Steven Crowder has challenged his assailant to a public fight with a misguided ultimatum. If Crowder presses charges after getting punched during a fight that he started, does he really think the assailant will go to jail?

The Steven Crowder assault video takes place against the following background: Michigan Governor Rick Snyder signed an anti-union bill behind closed doors on December 11, and union members were not happy about it.

While called a "right-to-work" law, this bill actually legislates a collective-action dilemma: workers can benefit from union gains without actually becoming union members.

Meanwhile, Steven Crowder should probably revisit his understanding of gonzo journalism. It isn't what he seems to think it is.

Gawker's Max Read said this to Crowder:

Steven, stop whining, take your licks, and accept that getting hit in the face is a hazard of inserting yourself in the middle of an argument between billionaire-funded know-nothing ideologues and people whose livelihoods and stability are being threatened by the insatiable greed of the super-rich and the blind extremism of their wooden-headed political allies.

In exchange, liberals will buy you a band-aid for the cut on your forehead and re-iterate that Punching Is Bad. Sound good?

What say you O'Reilly, now that the truth is out (as a so-called journalist) are you going to report it? Haha, I am not holding my breath.

The Wednesday 12-12-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - December 13, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Violence in Michigan. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Last night I opined that hate speech is a violent act because it incites people to harm the target of the speech. Now we're seeing speech leading to actual physical violence in Michigan. The issue is a new state law that allows workers to legally opt out of joining a union.

Yesterday the three network television evening news programs covered the intense situation, but they missed a big component of the story, perhaps intentionally. Steven Crowder, a comedian who sometimes contributes to Fox News, was at the demonstrations in Lansing when he was assaulted by a union thug.

Crowder emerged from the fracas with a chipped tooth and some minor cuts. Talking Points expects to see more violence like that as the country becomes even more divided. President Obama's reelection has emboldened the committed left and angered the committed right. Both sides are spoiling for a fight, but it is the left that is driving the division.

Right now liberal America is more powerful than conservative America and what happened in Michigan may be just the beginning. This is not a tranquil country.
And maybe the big 3 ignored the Crowder incident because they knew it was a bogus story created by a right-wing group (AFP) and Fox News to make union workers look bad. Maybe they ignored it because they are real journalists and they do not promote the fake news Fox puts out with edited video and provoked fights to make someone look bad.

Now think about this, not only did O'Reilly do a one sided hack of a job reporting this story, he acted as if the violence was everywhere. When that is just not the case, because out of the 10 to 15 thousand people there only 3 people were arrested. And one of the violent acts was most likely provoked by the Fox stooge, Steven Crowder.

Just look at the next 2 blog postings I have if you want to see what a biased right-wing hack O'Reilly really is, he ignored all the facts, to spin an edited video by a right-wing group, just to make the unions look bad.

Then O'Reilly had two Democrats, Kirsten Powers and Marjorie Clifton on to talk about the Michigan protests and the networks' decision to ignore the violence.

Powers (who sounded like a Republican) said this: "Whenever there was a Tea Party rally, if there was one sign out of 500 people that was racist, then they would use that to show that the entire movement was racist. So it seems odd, in this situation, that they would ignore a story that does not make the unions not look very good."

What seems odd to me is that Kirsten Powers still claims to be a Democrat, when most of the time she agrees with O'Reilly, and she falls for this bogus Crowder assualt story.

Marjorie Clifton (who is a real Democrat) disputed the notion that news outlets give unions favorable coverage, saying this: "If you look at the past rallies in Wisconsin when the teachers unions were rallying, that was widely covered for months. So I don't think the media is light on unions and this was reported in many major newspapers."

But O'Reilly accused the network news programs of deliberately ignoring the assault on Steven Crowder: "They intentionally left this out. They had it, they saw it, but they didn't put it into their packages at ABC, NBC, and CBS."

And they did that because they had all the facts, that point to the stooge at Fox causing the violence just to get a clip to edit to make the union members look bad. And btw folks, O'Reilly claims to support unions and says he is a union member himself. If that was true, why did he spin this story to make the unions look bad, when he knew it was a ginned up biased story put out by AFP and Fox to make union members look bad.

Then Karl Rove was let back on the air, he talked about former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has implied that Hillary Clinton could be almost unbeatable in 2016, adding to the widespread despondence among his fellow Republicans.

Rove took issue with Gingrich's assessment, saying this: "I accept the point that today the Republican Party couldn't win the election, but the election is four years off. After the Republicans lost in 1964 they couldn't win the election, but they did four years later. Four years is several geological ages in politics. This election was a complex thing - President Obama did a good job of getting out his voters and he did an excellent job of irradiating Mitt Romney in the minds of ordinary Americans who were up for grabs."

And of course Rove is going to say that, because if he admitted Hillary is unbeatable in 2016 he will not be able to get richer by running his SuperPAC con that the Republican can beat her if you right-wingers just give him $300 (or more) million dollars to do it.

Then the teo right-wing stooges from Fox Carl Cameron and James Rosen were on, they reported the latest on General David Petraeus and his biographer/lover Paula Broadwell.

Rosen said this: "General Petraeus has gone to ground. He is hanging out at his northern Virginia home, chiefly trying to repair his badly damaged marriage, which is said to be rough sledding at this point. He has hired lawyer Bob Barnett, which suggests that Petraeus thinks he may have some legal difficulties ahead of him. Less is known about Paula Broadwell's activities."

Cameron turned to Hillary Clinton, who says she will not run for President in 2016. Even though nobody believes that, including O'Reilly who said he does not believe it.

Cameron said this: "She has said over and over that she's not going to run, but few people believe her, particularly the folks around her. There's absolutely no rush to make her decision, she could actually join the race late because she has such name recognition. When she leaves her State Department post she'll keep a full-time paid staff and may write a memoir about her time there."

I am going to predict Hillary does run, and she will win. Because she has a chance to become the first woman President, so I highly doubt she will not run, especially when it would mean Bill could be the 1st man in the White House who was the President and then had a wife be the President too.

Then Barbara Walters was on to promote her stupid "most fascinating" list that nobody cares about or talks about, which includes Hillary Clinton, Ben Affleck, Governor Chris Christie, gymnast Gabby Douglas, and the ubiquitous Honey Boo Boo.

Walters said this: "Hillary Clinton said that right now she has no intention of running for president, and you'll learn much more about her. Chris Christie didn't like when I asked him about his weight, but we also asked him about his praising President Obama. He says he did more campaigning for Mitt Romney than anyone else, and I would be willing to bet you that Chris Christie will run for president in 2016."

O'Reilly praised what he called her knack for selecting people who are genuinely fascinating to most Americans, saying this: "You have a nice eclectic crew there and I think you'll get a good rating."

What he did not talk about is how Walters asked O'Reilly why she even does his show, and O'Reilly said he does not know. I do, to promote her stupid show, and nothing else. Because politically they disagree on everything.

Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on because he is simply a has-been unfunny comedian who is only on to make jokes about President Obama and other Democrats, and O'Reilly does not have a liberal comedian on (for balance) to make jokes about conservatives.

In the last segment the Fox news stooge Juliet Huddy was on for the ridiculous did you see that. She talked about some West Virginians, including Senator Joe Manchin, who are upset with MTV's reality show "Buckwild," which ridicules a group of young folks in the Mountain State.

Huddy said this: "Senator Manchin wrote to MTV, because he feels the show makes West Virginia look like a bunch of backward folks. But the fact is that MTV had a huge success with Jersey Shore, but do people around the country think that all people in New Jersey are like that? They do not."

But even O'Reilly didn't buy Huddy's argument, saying this: "If you say you're from New Jersey that has a pejorative label to it now."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "Perhaps the best Christmas album of all time, believe it or not, was recorded by The Carpenters and lead singer Karen Carpenter, so consider that as a present."

Are you for real O'Reilly? The who? The Carpenters? Earth to Bill O'Reilly, this is not 1970, and most (if not all) of the Carpenters are dead. Try coming back to 2012 buddy, you are old, and these tips are just stupid.

What O'Reilly Ignored About The Fox Michigan/Assault Story
By: Steve - December 13, 2012 - 10:30am

As usual O'Reilly only told you half the story when he reported on the Fox stooge getting punched at the Michigan union protest. O'Reilly did not tell you the video he ran was edited, and Fox has also not ran the un-edited video, in fact, they have refused to release the entire video, most likely because it would show Crowder provoking the union workers as a witness said he did.

Here is the story as it was reported by the HuffPost:

A Lansing man who joined the protests Tuesday against Michigan's controversial right-to-work legislation claims that Steven Crowder, the Fox News contributor who was punched by a protester, goaded pro-union activists prior to the apparent assault.

Ken Spitzley, a state agriculture department employee, told HuffPost that he walked to the protest at the state Capitol during a break from work and that he witnessed Crowder getting in some of the protesters faces.

"He was just after everybody," said the 56-year-old Spitzley, a procurement technician whose workplace is represented by the United Auto Workers. "There was no question he was there just to start a fight, to start some kind of trouble."

And of course O'Reilly never said a word about any of that, as he ran the edited version of the video that was recorded by Fox News. I would even bet he did it on purpose to get video of a union man punching him for Fox, so they can make the union men look bad.

And even if O'Reilly does not think Crowder provoked the union men, he should have at least reported that a witness said he did, and try to get that witness on the Factor, which he did not do.

In an interview, Crowder said he was provoking protesters merely with his presence as a conservative and his pointed questions on right-to-work legislation. He described the assault as "brutal" and completely undeserved. "I definitely provoked them," Crowder said. "I was asking them basic questions."

Sptizley offered one specific anecdote, he said Crowder had an exchange with two pro-union men wearing blue jeans, hard hats and Carhartt clothing. One of the men accused Crowder of working for Amway, the family company of Michigan businessman Dick DeVos. Crowder then joked that he sells soap.

"He said, 'I sell soap. I should sell you some,'" Spitzley said, quoting Crowder.

Crowder even admitted that was true, but he also said he never suggested the men needed soap or could use a bath. "That wasn't my intent," he said. He also said he was nonconfrontational throughout the exchange.

Spitzley said he did not witness the punching incident or the exchange leading up to it. But in Spitzley's estimation, Crowder "wasn't going to go home until he got punched."

Crowder, however, challenged that characterization. "I didn't expect to be assaulted," he said. Asked if he planned to press charges on the man who punched him, Crowder simply said to stay tuned.

An edited video that Crowder posted of the scuffle shows a man punching Crowder repeatedly and another man grabbing him from behind after he'd walked away. The video, which due to the editing does not show what immediately preceded the punches, has become perhaps the most prevalent image of the Lansing protest, with conservatives holding it up as evidence of union thuggery and many labor activists ruing the bad publicity.

Lt. Kevin Sweeney, a spokesman for the Michigan State Police, told HuffPost that a total of three arrests were made during Tuesday's protests, although he could not say whether anyone was arrested for punching Crowder. Sweeney said police were generally pleased with the relatively few number of incidents, given the "passions" surrounding the right-to-work issue.

So let me get this straight, there were almost no problems at the protest and only 3 people were arrested, and yet a Fox stooge was involved in one of them. Which tells me Crowder most likely provoked the men to get something good for his producers to run, and for O'Reilly.

On Tuesday, Michigan became the 24th state with a right-to-work law. Such laws bar contracts between companies and unions that require all workers to pay union dues for bargaining on their behalf. Unions argue the laws cripple them by allowing workers to opt out of supporting a union financially even as they reap the benefits of its collective bargaining.

And btw, Spitzley said he's hardly a diehard union man. He said he joined the protest not so much out of opposition to right-to-work laws as due to displeasure at how state Republican legislators and Gov. Rick Snyder fast-tracked the referendum-proof law during a lame-duck session.

More Details On The Michigan Assault Protest Story
By: Steve - December 13, 2012 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly never reported a word of this, because it would show he is a biased hack who was not out to get the truth, he just wanted to use an edited video taken by people who are biased against unions, to make union members look bad.


Fox News Steven Crowder & Americans for Prosperity use Breitbart-style film editing to show "union thug brutality"

Yesterday, I wrote about how Americans for Prosperity representatives (a right-wing anti-union group) helped knock down their own tent on the grounds of the Michigan State Capitol building during an anti-right to Work for Less rally there. Subsequent to posting that piece, I was alerted to comments on Reddit by user mtalna.

What is evident from the comments is that there is a lot of editing that has gone on with the videos Fox News is now running in nearly constant rotation making it look like all of the violence and hostility at the rally yesterday came from union members. As it turns out, significant portions of it were faked and creative Breitbart-style editing helped it along much more.

This morning I spoke with mtalana, who is Matt Allen from Fowlerville, MI. He's an 18-year college student and not a union member. He assisted me in putting this piece together and was present for the conversation that happens in the first minutes of the first video.

The video O'Reilly and Fox are using is actually a composite of things that happened over the course of the day, many of them hours apart. The initial conversation happened early in the morning. At about 0:16, it cuts to Crowder saying, "You've already destroyed one tent, leave this one alone."

That happened hours after the interview with the union workers that starts the segment. The guy he's talking to is standing quite a distance from the tent but Crowder insists that he's somehow tearing down the tent.

And not once did O'Reilly say the video was edited together from footage taken all day long, he also did not report that it was filmed by a biased right-wing group that hates unions and was there counter-protesting against the union members.

Selective editing at about the 0:39 mark shows what appears to be union guy attacking Crowder for no apparent reason. However, if you look closely, you'll see that the guy is getting up off the ground - that he was NOT the one that became aggressive first.

At about 1:13, as the tent is coming down, Crowder comes over to the cameraman and waves him off as if to say, "that's enough filming." The reason for this becomes clear if you watch the longer, less edited version of the video.

What they don't want you to see is union members using knives to cut the tent open to let people inside out. Rather, the message that is being sent by the conservative media and blogosphere is that the union members deliberately cut the tent to pieces in an act of malicious vandalism.

As Matt Allen points out in his comments, the union members actually ask, "Is everybody out?" and then proceed to make sure that they are.

At 1:49 in the longer video, one union members notes that an AFP guy has a gun and brags that he's "killed plenty of mother fer's with a gun" (i.e., he's killed people who were in possession of guns.) This is being played up as if a UNION MEMBER had a gun. Not true.

There is no question in my mind whatsoever that AFP and Fox employees set out to incite a huge crowd of very angry people. My wife Anne spoke to a number of union members yesterday who spoke about their fear of the future. They are barely making ends meet now and, with the passage of Right to Work for Less laws, they will now have even less of an opportunity to improve their situation.

They are afraid and they are angry and Americans for Prosperity sticking their thumb into their eye fans the flames. They had two HUGE tents taking up space in the middle of the Capitol grounds that were largely empty throughout most of the day.

Allen told me that Crowder uses a technique of intentionally invading your personal space to make you uncomfortable and then peppers you with questions to make you angry. It is an intentional act to incite an angry response.

American for Prosperity (AFP) themselves were responsible for at least one of the tents coming down. Tom Duckworth watched one of the folks that had been in the AFP tent go around and loosen the straps on the tent. According to Duckworth, "the stakes came down from the INSIDE."

The Capitol grounds were a tinderbox of angry folks and both AFP and Fox News tossed a lit match into it and then blamed the wood for catching fire.

mtalna wrote this on his blog:

First: It's not really a full video. Instead of stopping the camera when they don't want to record something, they cover the lens up with their hand, point the camera at the sky, etc.

Go to 1:47 and you can hear several different people screaming that the AFP guy has a gun that is visible. The guy with the gun retreats into the tent.

You can also see the AFP guy, Steven Crowder, hit the union guy. You see the motion blur of his hand coming down on the union guy. This happens at roughly 3:37. (Remember the video I'm talking about here is the video this entire thread is linked to.)

Video of that (You have to pay CLOSE attention. It all goes down fast because they chop it up and use tricky angles.)

The union guy gets hit to the ground and you can hear him say "OW!".

Then the union guy gets up and takes a swing at him.

All these videos are coming from Americans for Prosperity members who counter-protested the unions. They are splicing up clips together, and they used angles to their advantage while filming to effectively control how the story appears to someone who hasn't analyzed the video.

I analyzed the video because I was there and saw what was actually going on and knew that all these videos are b--s---.

Now think about this, Crowder said he was not going to press charges because if he did the entire un-edited footage shot that day would be shown in court. And think about this too, O'Reilly reported this story and look at all the information he left out, almost all of it.

And finally, let me say this. There are two sides to every story, and the Journalism rules of ethics say you should always report both sides and give all the details you can find. O'Reilly violated both of those ethics rules, because he only reported one side of the story, the right-wing side of course, and he did not report all the details of the story.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About Tax Rates Again
By: Steve - December 13, 2012 - 9:00am

Here we go again, O'Reilly was caught lying about what the tax rates for the rich will be under the Obama budget plan.

Monday night O'Reilly flat out lied that President Obama's proposal to let the Bush tax cuts expire could leave some wealthy Americans paying 40 percent of their incomes in federal taxes. But Obama has only proposed letting taxes on the top income bracket increase -- which means only income over $200,000 would be affected -- and very few Americans pay more than 35 percent in U.S. taxes.

Not to mention this, the wealthy do not pay anything close to the actual rate of 35% or 39% if it goes back to that. Because they have an army of people who figure out how to use loopholes and tax shelters to pay very little taxes, as low as 13 percent in some cases.

Mitt Romney is a perfect example, he made millions and millions of dollars in 2011 and yet he only paid a tax rate of 13 percent, and it could have been 9 percent if he had claimed all his charitable deductions. So he pays nowhere near 35 percent, making the O'Reilly claims laughable.

This tax discussion comes as the Obama administration and the Republican House try to reach a deal on the automatic tax hikes and spending cuts known as the fiscal cliff.

O'Reilly told guest Adam Corolla that "your state's up to about 14 percent state income tax. President Obama wants to raise it up to about 40 percent federal. That's 54 percent. If he knocks out the deduction for state income taxes, which he wants to do, you'd be paying 54 percent."

Except for one thing, it's a lie, and it is a complete misunderstanding of how income tax brackets in the United States work. President Obama has proposed letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire, which means the top income tax bracket would increase from its current 36 percent to 39.6 percent.

But those rates would only apply to income exceeding $200,000. A taxpayer filing as "single" would currently pay a series of increasing marginal rates on his or her income, beginning with a rate of 10 percent on the first $8700 of income and ending with a rate of 35 percent on income over $388,350.

And many of those wealthy taxpayers are able to take deductions and use tax loopholes, which limit their tax liability to well below the 35 percent.

The average wealthy taxpayer's effective rate almost always ends up much lower than 35 percent. According to the Tax Policy Center, in 2011, only 10,228 out of 142.5 million total tax filers paid more than a 35 percent effective tax rate.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly: That's only .0072 percent of all tax returns. Which means less than 1 percent of the wealthy paid the actual 35 percent top rate. And if it goes to 39.6 percent, less than 1 percent of them will pay that top rate.

As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has noted, "a taxpayer's marginal tax rate is the tax rate imposed on his or her last dollar of income."

CBPP added: "Taxpayers' average tax rates are lower -- usually much lower -- than their marginal rates. People who confuse the two can end up thinking that taxes are much higher than they actually are."

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

The TPM was called: Hate speech in America. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The Factor is now going to 'out' media people and others in the public arena who use hate speech, we're going to name names and challenge people who are using hateful discourse in this country. But we have to be careful because we do believe in freedom of speech and we do respect robust debate and satire.

Let me give you an example: On Saturday Night Live, actor Jamie Foxx was promoting his new movie and said, 'I kill all the white people in the movie, how great is that?' Some were upset by Foxx's monologue, but I did not see anything hateful in his commentary and I do not believe Jamie Foxx wants white people dead.

Hate speech is designed to marginalize and harm an ideological opponent, a business rival, or someone else the hater doesn't like. Also, if you can't win the debate, hate speech is a cheap way to retreat. Labeling someone a 'bigot' or a 'racist' or a 'homophobe' is a kind of violence; you want onlookers to join you in harming the person you are defaming.

That's why we are on this campaign, and we are going to let you know exactly who the offenders are in very vivid terms."
Earth to the idiot Bill O'Reilly, what Jamie Foxx said was not hate speech, it was a joke that was made on a comedy show. It may have been in bad taste, but it was not hate speech, he was kidding, it was a joke idiot.

And who wants to bet O'Reilly ignores 90% of the hate speech from the right-wing, at places like, and all the pro-life websites and groups like the Army of God, etc. Especially when he ignores it all now.

Then O'Reilly had Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley on to talk about the Talking Points and Jamie Foxx's Saturday Night Live monologue.

Crowley said this: "The part I found offensive, was when he said how he gets to kill white people in his movie. Let's say this was a white actor saying, 'In my new movie I get to kill all the black people.' There would be outrage, which points to the double standard."

Colmes interpreted Foxx's monologue as legitimate and amusing satire, saying this: "He's making fun of racial stereotypes and whites can do the same thing. I don't see it as different and I thought it was very funny."

Then O'Reilly had the Republican Governor Rick Snyder on to talk about the new anti-union law that was passed by Michigan's Republican-led legislature, enabling employees to work without being coerced to join a union.

Snyder said this: "This legislation is about freedom to choose for workers. This isn't about the relationship between employers and unions, this is not about collective bargaining, this is about the relationship between unions and workers. This is about freedom to choose - if workers see value to joining a union, they should be excited and they should join. This also means more and better jobs for Michigan. Companies would not come to Michigan because we were not a right-to-work state."

Which is just laughable, because the law is simply meant to hurt unions and lower the amount of money they can give to political campaigns, by making it optional to pay dues to a union. And they did it because they give most of their money to Democrats.

In the past O'Reilly has questioned why so many Christian leaders are passive when secular forces assault Christmas and other holidays. Baptist pastor Robert Jeffress was on with his explanation.

Jeffress said this: "A lot of Christian leaders have the wrong idea about Jesus. They see Jesus as this wimpy guy who walked around plucking daisies and saying nice things, but never doing anything controversial. The fact is that Jesus did confront his culture with truth and he wound up being crucified for it. Another reason is that pastors don't like controversy, they're afraid of losing church members and getting involved in lawsuits. Wimpy pastors produce wimpy Christians, which is why we're losing this culture war."

O'Reilly then once again urged religious leaders to join the fray, saying this: "School boards and other people who are under assault by the secularists know they aren't going to get any pressure from the Christian communities. For example, we haven't seen pastors in Rhode Island confront the Governor."

Haha, that's because nobody cares about the bogus war on Christmas except O'Reilly and his friends at Fox News.

Then the total right-wing fool John Stossel was on, to talk about an upcoming Fox Business special called "Science vs. God," and he revealed that he is a reluctant atheist.

Stossel said this: "I guess I am a heathen. I'd like to believe in God and I envy those of you who do, but I tried and I can't get there. Religious people are happier, they find more purpose in life, and I would love to be a believer. So I'm eager to hear some nuclear physicists who deeply believe in God explain how they get there, maybe I'll get convinced. We'll also have other scientists on the show who will challenge them."

Then O'Dummy conferred earthly absolution after Stossel's nationally televised confession, saying this: "If yours is a sincere belief, I don't think anybody on earth has the right to criticize you. Conscience is conscience."

Then the two Republican legal experts Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to talk about how Marijuana has been legalized in Washington and Colorado, but the latter state has not laid out exactly what constitutes driving under the influence of weed.

Wiehl said this: "The problem in Colorado, is that legislators did not pass a law saying what it means to be driving stoned. If you're swerving and cops have reasonable suspicion to pull you over, you can be prosecuted if a blood test reveals that you are under the influence of drugs. But there is no baseline for what is legal and what is illegal."

Guilfoyle reported that Colorado will likely specify exactly what constitutes driving while drugged, saying this: "They have to change the law and they'll reconsider it in January. They'll specify an amount and then it will become illegal after they vote on it."

O'Reilly urged Colorado lawmakers to rectify a dangerous situation, saying this: "Right now Willie Nelson can get into his van as high as a kite and do anything he wants. He can't be charged with drugged driving because there isn't any law."

Then O'Reilly had the far-right Charles Krauthammer on to talk about taxes on the rich, when he is rich, and O'Reilly knows he is opposed to higher taxes on the rich. With nobody from the Obama administration, or the left, to present the counter point. And of course neither one of them reported that the majority of Americans support higher taxes on the rich.

Krauthammer said this: "The whole question of what's a 'fair share' is a liberal's question. Taxation is not a moral issue, it's a question of necessity - how much is needed to pay for the roads, the bridges, and to raise the armies. In an ideal world, the 'fair share' of taxation is zero. The Founders had zero income tax, they taxed customs and transactions. They never had a conception of what's 'fair.' But when you ask, as liberals do, what is a fair share, the idea is that government has a moral claim on your earnings."

And Krauthammer is wrong, it is a moral issue, because the question is, do you want to have the wealthy pay a bigger share of the taxes that are needed to run the country, or have the middle class and the lower class pay more.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "Considering that your tax dollars built the monuments and museums, consider taking your family to Washington, D.C. for an educational and entertaining vacation."

Conservative Don Imus Said There Is No War On Christmas
By: Steve - December 12, 2012 - 10:00am

O'Reilly says that only liberals think there is no war on Christmas, except that's a lie, because even the conservative Don Imus (who has a show on the Fox Business Network) said there is no war on Christmas, and that it's absurd.

And btw, Don Imus is a friend of O'Reilly, who has said that he may be the only friend O'Reilly has at the Fox Network, and he still says the war on Christmas is absurd, which O'Reilly ignored. Because it's ruins his lie that only liberals say there is no war on Christmas.

The Monday 12-10-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - December 11, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Confronting Evil. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: We are living in a country that is rapidly changing; rules of civility are pretty much finished. There are elements on both the left and the right which are using disgraceful tactics to demean those with whom they disagree.

Some examples: Some of those who support expanding the definition of marriage are accusing those who oppose it of being human rights violators, bigots, and homophobes.

So if you hold a belief that traditional marriage should have a special place in society, you're a 'hater.' Likewise with criticizing President Obama. There are fanatical left-wingers who say those who disagree with Mr. Obama are doing so because he's black.

Let me give you a very vivid recent situation: Sportswriter Jason Whitlock injected race into the Kansas City Chiefs murder/suicide, saying that some forces in America want guns in the black communities so people of color could destroy one another.

We called Whitlock and invited him on The Factor, but he declined and referred to me as someone longing for the days when 'a white man felt entitled to summon whomever he wanted whenever he wanted to the big house.'

That is pure racism, nothing else! Whitlock is implying that I am some kind of slave overlord, which is way beyond disgraceful. There comes a point when all good people must say 'enough,' and that point has now been reached.

The Jason Whitlocks of the world deserve pity, but they also deserve to be exposed. They're using base emotion to try and injure people; they are liars and they are abusing freedom of speech.
Now that's funny, because O'Reilly is also a racist liar who is abusing freedom of speech with all his right-wing propaganda.

Then the two Fox News stooges Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to react to the Talking Points Memo.

Williams said this: "I would say you're understating the case. Jason Whitlock is a provocateur who got into trouble for racial comments he made about basketball player Jeremy Lin. When he talks about you in these terms, he's trying to marginalize what you have to say, trying to put a muzzle on you!"

And of course Ham agreed that Whitlock's slave-era references were contemptible, saying this: "Often the people who claim to be the most open-minded and tolerant can be the most hateful. This is an attempt to marginalize people who disagree with Jason Whitlock. Being invited on someone's show is clearly not some kind of order."

O'Reilly added that Whitlock has frequently fanned the flames of racial animosity, saying this: "This guy has a history of doing this, he does it all the time, he gets paid to do it. I'm calling out the Christmas haters, I'm calling out the racial hustlers, I'm calling them all out."

And I'm calling you out O'Reilly, have me on your show as a guest to expose your spin, lies, and right-wing propaganda, or you are a coward, and just as bad as the people you have on your show, and the people you call out. Then Brit Hume was on to talk about Sunday's Meet the Press, where New York Times reporter Helen Cooper said that the Obama White House is "so much cockier" than in the past. So O'Reilly had Brit Hume on to assess how that attitude is affecting the budget negotiations.

Hume said this: "The President is playing hardball with House Republicans. He feels Republicans can less afford to have a bad outcome and that he has leverage. A lot of conservatives and Republicans don't get this - if nothing happens before the end of this month, tax rates go up on everybody and there will be fairly draconian spending cuts falling on the Pentagon. So who has the most to lose if the 'fiscal cliff' is breached? The answer is self-evident, and the polling all shows that the public will blame the Republicans."

For once Hume is right, President Obama is playing hardball, and I say it's about time.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to cry about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. saying Fox News is partly responsible for the divided country, even though he is right, Goldberg and O'Reilly disagreed and slammed Kennedy for saying it.

Here is what Kennedy said. He said Friday that he believes conservative media outlets such as Fox News are damaging the country. Asked how he thought things have changed in the political landscape, Kennedy pointed to "big money" and "the right wing control of the American media, starting with Fox News" as hurtful to collaboration between differing political interests.

"Twenty-two percent of Americans say their primary news source is Fox News. It's divided our country in a way that we haven't been divided probably since the Civil War, and its empowered large corporations to get certain kinds of politicians and ideologues who are in the United State Congress elected -- the Tea Party ideologues who control the Republican Party."

And of course Goldberg scoffed at that notion, saying this: "The idea that right-wingers control the American media, is downright funny. Has Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ever read Time or Newsweek, has he ever read the New York Times, has he ever watched NPR or NBC or the other networks? Except for Fox and talk radio, we live in an overwhelmingly liberal media culture. Do he and the other liberals really want all of the media to reflect their views?"

O'Reilly then speculated that many folks on the left truly don't believe there is a liberal media bias, saying this: "RFK Jr. and people in his sect believe that NPR and NBC and CNN are 'mainstream,' they don't think it's left-wing."

Then the Republicans Col. David Hunt and Lt. Col. Ralph Peters were on to talk about the Navy SEAL Nicolas Checque, who was killed in Afghanistan while rescuing a physician who had been kidnapped by the Taliban.

Hunt said this: "The doctor's life was being threatened, so an order was given for Afghani special forces and SEAL Team Six to do a very dangerous raid, much more difficult than the Bin Laden raid because there was no rehearsal. The SEAL was killed but the doctor was rescued."

The crazy Col. Peters turned to the recent drone attack inside Pakistan that wiped out Al Qaeda heavyweight Abu Zaid al-Kuwaiti, saying this: "Some people believe he was being groomed to be the next leader of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda at the top level does not have a very deep bench and we keep killing the top guys. It's a very good thing for America and for civilization and we're going to have to keep killing terrorists with drones and other means for generations."

Then the Republican Adam Carolla was on to talk about living the high life in California, where a new state tax is aimed squarely at the wealthy.

"We should stop saying 'tax the rich,' and just say 'tax the successful.' I'm not rich, I'm successful. Rich is easy to tax, that's the guy who inherited daddy's money. But I'm successful and you're successful because we worked our tails off. It's harder to take money away from people who have worked very hard for it."

Carolla also demonstrated some newfound math skills, saying this: "The federal budget is $3.8 trillion, which means everyone needs to pay $12,076. I have two kids and a wife, so my nut would be $48,304, that would be my fair share. I'd be willing to round it up to $48,500 and be hailed as a hero!"

My God is Carolla an idiot, and O'Reilly is just as bad as he is for letting this fool on his show. None of what he said makes any sense, and of course O'Reilly loved it because he agrees with him and he is a Republican too.

Then O'Reilly had his ridiculous and biased Reality Check, which I do not report on because it has very little reality and almost no checks. It's just O'Reilly (on by himself) giving his biased opinion of something someone else said.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "If you're looking for a meaningful Christmas present that will never be forgotten, consider a photo album."

Are you for real O'Reilly, in my world that would be the worst Christmas present ever. Do people even do photo albums anymore, with digital and phone cameras, if they do it's very little.

Half The Donations To Morris PAC Went To His E-Mail List
By: Steve - December 11, 2012 - 10:00am

Maybe now you right-wingers will believe me when I say Dick Morris is a con-man who is running a con on you. I have said for years that Morris is running a con on the Republicans who listen to his political analysis, buy his stupid books, and donate money to his SuperPAC etc. And now we have even more proof, he took half the donations to his SuperPAC and used it to pay for rentals of his e-mail list.

Making him even more wealthy, while wasting your money to be the worst political analyst in America and be wrong about everything. Not to mention this: Before people donated to his SuperPAC Morris did not tell anyone that half that money would go into his wallet after using the money to rent his very own e-mail list.

Basically he used half the donated money to his PAC to secretly make his bank account bigger, and you suckers fell for it. Here is what he did, in detail.

Dick Morris, the Fox News contributor and columnist at The Hill aggressively fundraised for a superPAC, which then funneled money back to Morris through rentals of his email list.

According to FEC data released December 6, the Morris SuperPAC for America paid conservative news outlet Newsmax Media roughly $1.7 million for so-called "fundraising" in October and November. A significant portion of the superPAC's money went to renting Dick Morris's own email list, which is operated by Newsmax Media.

A journalist review found that in the month before the election, Morris sent at least 21 emails to his mailing list featuring fundraising pitches that were "paid for by SuperPAC for America." SuperPAC also "paid for" at least 25 emails to's main email list during the same period.

And btw, this is the second consecutive election cycle that SuperPAC for America has paid significant money to Newsmax. The group, which was formed prior to the 2010 midterm elections, paid Newsmax Media nearly $2 million in 2010 for advertising, fundraising, and "email list rental."

At the time, Morris also sent numerous fundraising solicitations to his email list that were "paid for by SuperPAC for America." Morris also regularly used his Fox News platform to promote the group.

In October and November of 2012, SuperPAC for America paid more money to Newsmax Media than it spent on all independent expenditures combined. The Newsmax payments represent 46 percent of the net contributions made to the super PAC during the 2012 election cycle.

And Morris, who serves as the group's chief strategist, isn't the only SuperPAC for America official tied to the media outlet. Michael Reagan, who serves as SuperPAC for America's chairman, is a Newsmax columnist.

In 2011, the New York Times reported that Newsmax's soaring profits were tied to their ability to leverage their "politically plugged-in" readership, with the outlet regularly renting out their mailing list to various groups for thousands of dollars.

The fundraising pitches from SuperPAC for America regularly featured Morris wrongly hyping Romney's chances in various swing states, while crediting SuperPAC for America for his non-existent polling surge.

For example, in a November 2nd email asking for "urgent" donations that was sent to both the Morris mailing list and the mailing list, Morris announced that Obama was in "DEEP trouble" and that "Mitt will win the popular vote significantly."

According to Morris, Romney was poised to win Wisconsin and was "on the precipice of victory in almost all the swing states" thanks to SuperPAC for America's "hard hitting national ad campaign," which has made a "huge difference."

Now get this, after the election, Morris conceded in a column that political ads are almost entirely ineffective. After he had robbed the right-wing suckers who he got money from had made him richer, as he lied to you that if you give him that money he will buy ads that work, and that it was helping Romney. When it was all lies, half the money went to his wallet, and the rest of it that bought ads did no good at all.

The Friday before the election, Newsmax also hosted a "critical election teleconference" (that for some reason cost $4.95 to "set up your own private line") with Morris and Reagan. While the call was billed to Newsmax subscribers as "the latest campaign information, how you can still impact the race, and how you can prepare for what is about to happen on Nov. 6," it was little more than an elaborate plug for SuperPAC for America.

Helping bolster the email list that he sells, Morris frequently plugs his website and various petitions he has launched during Fox News appearances, including the O'Reilly Factor.

In the past, Dick Morris has been repeatedly criticized for his lack of ethics. Earlier this year, after Morris was caught attempting to auction off a tour of Fox News studios to GOP donors, Baltimore Sun television critic David Zurawik told Media Matters, "Morris is a dirty political operative who is intensely partisan with a history of alliances that on a good day would be called sleazy."

Morris also sent emails to his mailing list that were "paid for by SuperPAC for America" on these dates: 10/10, 10/14, 10/15, 10/16, 10/18, 10/19, 10/23, 10/26, 10/27, 10/28, 10/29, 10/30, 10/31, 11/1 (two emails), 11/2 (four emails), 11/3, and 11/5. sent emails to their mailing list that were "paid for by SuperPAC for America" on these dates: 10/12, 10/13, 10/16, 10/17, 10/18, 10/22, 10/25, 10/26 (two emails), 10/27, 10/28, 10/29 (two emails), 10/30 (two emails), 10/31, 11/1 (two emails), 11/2 (two emails), 11/3, 11/4 (three emails), and 11/5.

Listen to me folks, it's all a scam to make Dick Morris and his right-wing friends more wealthy. Dick Morris is a flat out 100% liar, nothing he says is true, it's all a con to get your money. And anyone who buys his books, or donates money to him is a fool that deserves to lose their money and get nothing in return for it.

Good November Jobs Report Ignored By O'Reilly
By: Steve - December 10, 2012 - 11:00am

Here is more proof Bill O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack, the November jobs report is good news for President Obama, so of course O'Reilly ignored it, but in the past when it was bad job news O'Reilly always reported it that day.

O'Reilly does the same thing with the stock market, when it goes down O'Reilly reports it, but when it goes up he says nothing.

The November jobs report shows that the economy added 146,000 jobs, and unemployment was down to 7.7 percent - which will likely hand President Obama a little more momentum in the ongoing fiscal cliff negotiations.

The 146,000 jobs added beat expectations — predictions were that around 80,000 jobs would be created — and that, combined with the dip in the unemployment rate, affirm the fact that Obama has the upper hand as the fiscal cliff approaches on Dec. 31.

Viewed broadly, the November report keeps that momentum moving in the president's direction.

What the November jobs report makes clear is that the governing dynamic of the fiscal cliff negotiations - President Obama taking a hard line, congressional Republicans trying to find something around which to rally amid an increasingly fractious party - won't change.

And that's good news for President Obama, the American people, and the Democratic party.

Hill Reporters Speak Out On Laughingstock Dick Morris
By: Steve - December 9, 2012 - 11:00am

And what's really funny is that Morris was a weekly regular on the O'Reilly Factor, even though his predictions were never right, and everyone knew it. Megyn Kelly at Fox also used Morris on a regular basis, and even admitted that Morris is never right, but she liked him so much she had him on all the time anyway, on her so-called straight news show.

So O'Reilly and Kelly knew Morris was a right-wing idiot who was never right, but they put him on the air every week anyway, because they liked what he had to say, and their far-right viewers loved him. Proving their bias, because if he was never right, and a laughingstock, he should have been banned from doing any tv shows.

Reporters at The Hill newspaper are also slamming the publication's columnist Dick Morris following recent outlandish predictions that caused Fox News to restrict his time on the air.

"I think everyone at The Hill views him the way that people outside The Hill do," said one staffer. "He is a laughingstock, especially the way he acted in this last election."

"I don't think people take his column seriously," added another. "What did he predict, 300 electoral votes for Romney?"

New York magazine's Gabe Sherman reported on December 4th that segments involving Morris and fellow Fox News political analyst Karl Rove would now require approval from a top network executive. He said this about Morris:
Inside Fox News, Morris's Romney boosterism and reality-denying predictions became a punch line.

At a rehearsal on the Saturday before the election, according to a source, anchor Megyn Kelly chuckled when she relayed to colleagues what someone had told her: "I really like Dick Morris. He's always wrong but he makes me feel good."
Morris used his Fox platform to offer an array of outlandish predictions, including repeated claims that Mitt Romney would win the presidency by a "landslide," Republicans would pick up 10 Senate seats, and stating it was "very possible" President Obama would drop out of the race altogether.

The commentator's record at The Hill was not much better, using his widely-mocked final columns before Election Day to predict a Romney "landslide" of more than 5 points in the popular vote and several GOP Senate victories.

But while Fox News - famously lacking accountability - has decided to reduce Morris' appearances in response to his embarrassing commentary, The Hill appears to be taking no such steps. And that concerns some of the paper's reporters who worry that his work adversely affects their brand.

"If it was up to me, I would not have him as a columnist, but it's not up to me," said a third reporter. "His columns are wildly outlandish. I think that he, as evidenced by this interview, he probably brings more negative attention than positive to the paper."

Media Matters reached out to more than 30 Hill staffers seeking their views on Morris and his recent "benching" by Fox. While some staffers declined to comment, indicating they found Morris irrelevant or feared retaliation, none would support or defend him.

Those who chose to speak, requesting anonymity, said the columnist lacked credibility.

"I saw his piece about predicting a landslide and just kind of shrugged," said a fourth Hill reporter.

Then there was the Hill writer who simply said this: "He is what he is, I don't read his column, he is sort of a joke."

At one point, after Media Matters began seeking comment from Hill staffers, a "mass email" went out to the paper's reporters "specifically instructing us not to talk," according to one staffer who had agreed to speak, but indicated it would not be possible after receiving the email.

Managing Editor Bob Cusack then emailed Media Matters stating: "I am the best contact for any piece you are writing about The Hill. Thanks." He later requested questions via email rather than participate in a phone interview.

Media Matters emailed Cusack several questions asking about his view of Morris, the columnist's future at the newspaper, and what Cusack thought of staff members' concerns.

His email response: "We're not going to comment."

O'Reilly & McGuirk Blame Gays For The War On Christmas
By: Steve - December 9, 2012 - 10:00am

Talk about dumb and dumber, here they are. Despite Jon Stewart's great dismantling of the O'Reilly war on Christmas he is now implicating women and LGBT people in the process.

Last week, O'Dummy and Bernard McGuirk, executive producer of Imus in the Morning, revealed that they actually believe there's a war against Christianity that's being led by gay people:
MCGUIRK: The war on Christmas is very, very real, and if you ask me, in addition to some grouchy misanthropic heathen atheists it has to do (at the root of it with two things) abortion and the gay rights agenda, because Christianity is against those things. It's subtle but that's why it's so pronounced in recent years.

O'REILLY: Hundred percent agree. I absolutely agree 100 percent that the diminishment of Christianity is the target and Christmas is the vehicle because the secularists know the opposition to their agenda (legalized drugs is in that as well) comes primarily from the Judeo-Christian traditionalist people.
While the inclusion of these two important issues in this holiday charade is offensive enough, McGuirk's pronouncement that all of Christianity opposes a woman's right to an abortion or a gay couple's right to raise a family ignores the fact that many women and gay people are in fact Christians.

In terms of the so-called "gay rights agenda," many Christian denominations, including Presbyterians, Lutherans, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Methodists and others, wholeheartedly support the LGBT community and are partners in advocating for marriage equality.

If anything, it's Fox News who's waging a war on the millions of Christians who don't agree with the network's conservative positions.

Not to mention this: They are not opposed to Christmas, that is a myth put out by O'Reilly and the right. They simply do not want the Government or schools promoting one religion, which is always Christianity.

O'Reilly even claims Christianity is not a religion, which is just laughable, and that Christianity is not a part of Christmas, which is even more laughable. To begin with, Christianity is a religion, and if you have a brain at all you understand that.

Just look at the words, CHRIST is in the word Christianity, and CHRIST is in the word Christmas. So for anyone to claim they are not linked is beyond ridiculous.

Just look at the word christ·mas:

The annual Christian festival celebrating Christ's birth, held on December 25.

How can anyone deny it's linked to Christianity and religion. Honest people can't, only dishonest right-wing hacks say they are not linked and that Christianity is not a religion.

The Friday 12-7-12 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - December 8, 2012 - 11:00am

The far-right stooge Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly, and her TPM was called: The GOP and post-election blues. Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: Many Republicans believe the President has the upper hand in the 'fiscal cliff' negotiations; if we go over the cliff, Republicans believe they'll get most of the blame, yet if they give in to tax hikes, conservatives believe they will just infuriate their base.

Of course, libertarians and social conservatives will never agree on issues like abortion or gay marriage, but they must find a way to agree on other critical issues. For example, there is no conservative Republican consensus on globalization, immigration reform, the China threat, or on our Mideast policy.

The Republican Party will continue to be adrift unless conservatives have a clear sense of what they stand for and what policies will best serve their cause and the nation. So beyond the 'fiscal cliff' resolution, we need to find better messengers, better candidates who are tech-savvy.

Whatever our differences, we can all agree as conservatives on a philosophy grounded in limited government, the free market, and the Judeo-Christian tradition.

The most important thing is that we not despair; the problems we face today are no worse than the problems conservatives faced in the 1970's. They overcame those problems and changed the world for the better. We can do the same.
There are two problems with what Ingraham said, to begin with, the country deomgraphics have changed since the 70's, so her analysis is flawed. The demographics now favor the Democrats, and it is going to swing even more in favor of the Democrats in the future. And second, Republicans have not changed the world for the better, all they have done is made the rich more wealthy, with their pro-rich policies.

Then Ingraham debated the latest job numbers and the budget impasse with Austan Goolsbee, President Obama's former economic adviser.

Goolsbee said this: "I think it's going to be a bumpy sixty days ahead, and I think there's a high danger that we go off the fiscal cliff. But as low as our 2% growth is, the awful thing about the state of the world is that that's about the fastest growth rate of every advanced country on earth."

Goolsbee also said this: The President's plan is to grow from the middle out, invest in the work force, invest in rebuilding the infrastructure, and increase the competitiveness of U.S. industry. In 2013 I think we'll sit down and hammer out a grand bargain that will involve substantial spending cuts and revenue enhancement."

Ingraham said this: "The new normal seems to be that we have to get used to low economic growth and job growth that continues to be anemic at best."

Then Ingraham talked about Dick Cheney, who criticized the administration's foreign policy as weak and ineffectual. Former U.N Ambassador Nancy Soderberg, who took issue with Cheney's analysis was on to discuss it.

Soderberg said this: "He's just out of touch, and he should take a page out of President Bush's book and stay on the sidelines. President Obama has made the world safer and he's restored America's respect around the world. We're moving out of Afghanistan, democracy is moving forward in Tunisia, and Libya is certainly better off. President Obama has also done more to secure nuclear weapons than any other president."

Niles Gardiner of the conservative Heritage Foundation disagreed with Soderberg's worldview, saying this: "Dick Cheney is absolutely right, the world is more dangerous today and there's a lack of U.S. leadership. This has been an administration that has led from behind and has outsourced leadership on the world stage to countries like France and Turkey. We're seeing the Middle East going up in flames and there is no leadership from Washington."

After Australian radio hosts duped a nurse and convinced her to put a call through to Kate Middleton's hospital room, the nurse apparently killed herself. So Geraldo was on to report on it.

Geraldo said this: "At the very least, you have two radio deejays who invaded the privacy of a sick, pregnant woman and it's good news that the deejays have been suspended and may be fired. The call was not terribly malicious, but what they did would be illegal in the United States. Having said that, to pin the suicide on the deejays is really far-fetched. It may be that the call was the trigger, but there was something else going on in this woman's life."

Then Ingraham had the attorneys Steve Greenberg and Anahita Sedaghatfar on to analyze the Supreme Court's decision to hear two different cases relating to same-sex marriage.

Greenberg said this: "One case involves whether someone who has lived with a domestic partner for 45 years should have to pay estate taxes, where if they had been husband and wife she would not have to pay estate taxes. I expect the court will say gay marriage is legal just as they said you couldn't ban mixed racial marriage. 'Husband and wife' does not appear in the Constitution and legally I don't think they can ban it."

Sedaghatfar said this: "This is huge, the Supreme Court has decided to rule on one of the most divisive issues in our country. I think we are going to have five votes to allow gay marriage, it will be very difficult for the Court to not uphold gay marriage under equal protection."

Which will drive O'Reilly and the right nuts, and I love it, let's hope the court does the right thing and ends discrimination against gay people by making gay marriage legal once and for all.

Then Ingrham played a re-run interview with Billy and the atheist David Silverman, which I will not report on because it's a re-run. It's the interview where O'Reilly said he has nothing against Silverman or any other atheists and will do a respectful interview, then he called him and his group a merry band of fascists.

Then Ingraham cried about The American Academy of Pediatrics, who is encouraging doctors to give their teen patients prescriptions for the "morning after" contraceptive pill. She spoke with sex educator Laura Berman, who defended the academy's position.

Berman said this: "I agree that this is a personal issue and the parents should be the primary sex educators of their children, so if you don't like this idea it behooves you to talk with your pediatrician and find out where they stand on this. If you don't like the answer, find a different pediatrician. But we have the highest teen pregnancy rate of almost any industrialized nation, 46% of girls will be pregnant before they're 20."

And of course the pro-life Laura Ingraham denounced the idea that pediatricians should be giving prescriptions for the pill, saying this: "I think this is one of the more outrageous things I've seen. Think of a doctor telling a mother to leave the room so he can tell a young girl that she can use this morning after pill."

And finally, the O'Reilly ass kissing Ingraham ended the show with some clips from Bill's Thursday night appearance with Jay Leno. That I will not report on, because nobody cares that O'Reilly was on the Jay Leno show.

Idiot John Stossel Promotes Singapore Labor Laws
By: Steve - December 8, 2012 - 10:00am

Factor regular John Stossel proved once again what a total right-wing fool he is, by saying this: "The U.S. Should Emulate Singapore Where They Have No Minimum Wage And No Laws Against Discrimination"

Here is the video:

Now that is insanity, and O'Reilly is just as bad as Stossel for putting him on his show every week to spew out this garbage.

I have some advice for John Stossel, if you like the laws in Singapore so much, why don't you move there and get out of America. I am sure they would welcome you, and then you can leave the country that has all these laws you do not like.

In other words, get the hell out Stossel, you do not deserve to live in America, and you make all Americans look bad. And take O'Reilly with you.

Jon Stewart Slams The O'Reilly War On Christmas
By: Steve - December 8, 2012 - 9:00am

Jon Stewart addressed one of Bill O'Reilly's more impassioned "War on Christmas" moments during a Monday monologue about Fox News latest attempts to guard America from the horror of creeping secularism.

O'Reilly, who is the undisputed leader of "War on Christmas" coverage, had a heated conversation with an atheist on his show last week. Besides calling his guest a "fascist," he also claimed that Christianity is a philosophy, not a religion.

So of course Jon Stewart responded to his Fox News buddy, saying this: "Christianity is a religion," he said, somewhat obviously. To point out the difference between philosophy and religion, he contrasted Socrates and Jesus.

"Here's where we find the distinction between philosophy and religion," he said. "After their martyrdom, one of them got better."

Here is the video:

O'Reilly Lover Sends Me Mail
By: Steve - December 7, 2012 - 11:30am

Notice he does not point to one thing on the website that I say about O'Reilly that is a lie, it's the same old garbage, attack me for what I do, when O'Reilly is the bad guy for using his national tv news show to lie to the American people and spin out his right-wing bias, while claiming to be a non-partisan objective and impartial Independent with a no spin zone.

O'Reilly is the so-called journalist who lies to the American people on a tv news show, not me, all I do is expose the spin and lies from O'Reilly, and yet the e-mailer attacks me and defends O'Reilly, what a joke.

Here is the ridiculous e-mail:
Subject: Bias?
Date: Friday, December 7, 2012 8:04 AM
From: Tony Formby [email protected]
To: [email protected]

Hello Mr. Senti,

I just came across your website and it is a piece of work. I watch O'Reilly often and am conservative. Luckily I am intelligent and can think for myself. I know that he is not a 50-50 balance on guests or viewpoints but openly admits he is "traditional" in his views. Any intelligent person can see who is saying what and "decide for themselves." Yes his claim that he is "fair and balanced" is open to debate. But YOUR take on the events of his show are just comical. If you want to criticize somebody for being biased does it make sense that you are obviously biased yourself? To be taken seriously shouldn't you take a more neutral tone? Of course not. Not in this day and age of inflammatory bullshit spewed by so many on both sides.

At the end of the day guys like O'Reilly have the last laugh, like it or not. He makes $20 million a year and you are asking for as little as five dollars from people to keep your website up. And you throw in the unnecessary part about your disability. Charles Krauthammer lives in a wheelchair but I don't know that from his mouth. He has tough views but that differs from vitriol. No one should support a person who spews venom whether they are disabled or not. Try kindness. It will get you farther and likely give you far more peace of mind. You are obviously a very angry individual.

Notice how they always seem to have a problem with me making a few dollars from my website, but they have no problem with O'Reilly making millions (as a so-called journalist) by lying to the American people while claiming to be a non-partisan with a no spin zone.

And btw, if I made the money Krauthammer did I would not need to mention my disability, but I do not make that kind of money, so I need to mention I am disabled with a bad back that gives me PPD, DDD, and multiple other medical problems that are none of your business. so I can make a little money from donations.

Not to mention this, even with my medical problems, I live with my 89 year old WWII veteran Father and take care of him 24/7 because he has Alzheimers, Dementia, no memory, and can barely walk. I do this because I love my Father to death, and I will do anything to help him, even put my own health at risk, which I have done. I am in pain all the time and it hurts me to help him walk to the bathroom etc. but I suffer through the pain to help him live the rest of his life in his home instead of a terrible VA nursing home.

And I do this without any Government aid, except for the lousy $200.00 a month I get in food stamps. Which I only get because I do not want my Father to pay for my food. So what do you do say to that Tony?

The Thursday 12-6-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - December 7, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Wising up over government spending. The insane and biased right-wing loon Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: You may have heard about New York City police officer Lawrence DePrimo, who spent $100 of his own money to give a barefoot homeless man, Jeffrey Hillman, some boots. But here's the sad truth: Mr. Hillman is not homeless, he has an apartment paid for by you and me.

He's on government assistance and has enough resources to live his life in a dignified manner. Yet he prefers the street, and the boots have disappeared. I'm not judging Hillman; most cases like his involve substance abuse or mental illness. However, we are giving the guy tens of thousands of dollars a year and it is doing nothing.

There are millions of Americans like Hillman and we need to understand that some people simply will not save themselves. Right now an estimated 66 million Americans are receiving food stamps and/or Medicaid and there are 21 million folks working for the government. That means 87 million people are being subsidized by we the taxpayers, but there are only 109 million Americans working in the private sector!

Yet the Obama administration and the Democratic Party continue to put forth that higher taxation will bring the massive debt under control. Perhaps the only Democrat telling the truth is Howard Dean, who admitted that 'everybody needs to pay more taxes, not just the rich.'

He sympathizes with the socialist philosophy and that's where this country is headed - taking from those who are productive and giving to those who are struggling or working for the massive government apparatus. We should all emulate Officer DePrimo and try to help those in need, but that help may be futile.

President Obama needs to invite Jeffrey Hillman to the White House, he needs to talk with the man with no shoes, and he needs to see what is actually happening in this country.
In that insane TPM O'Reilly spewed out two lies. He said this: "Right now an estimated 66 million Americans are receiving food stamps and/or Medicaid and there are 21 million folks working for the government. That means 87 million people are being subsidized by we the taxpayers, but there are only 109 million Americans working in the private sector!"

That's insane, because the 21 million people who work for the Government are working a job, they are needed to run the Government, etc. And yet, O'Reilly lumps them in with people on food stamps and medicaid, which is just ridiculous.

Then he claims the 109 million workers can not take care of the 87 million non-workers. Which is not only stupid, it's wrong and bad math, because there are 130 million working Americans to 66 million on food stamps and medicare, not 109 to 87 as O'Reilly claims. Not to mention, a lot of those people on food stamps are working, and O'Reilly does not report that fact.

O'Reilly also claims that the Obama administration and the Democratic Party continue to put forth that higher taxation will bring the massive debt under control. Which is a lie, and not what they are saying. They are saying the rich need to pay their fair share, they are not saying it will bring the massive debt under control, O'Reilly just made that part up.

Not to mention, O'Reilly never reports that half of the debt is from the Bush tax cuts, that were supposed to create jobs and lower the debt, when it did the opposite, lose us jobs and add to the debt.

Then Lou Dobbs was on to talk about new stats that indicate that a single mother in Pennsylvania, because of entitlements, is better off taking a job that pays $29,000 a year than a job that pays $69,000 a year.

Dobbs said this: "If you have a family with one parent and two children in Pennsylvania, food stamps amount to a subsidy of $6,300 a year. Medicaid and child health insurance adds $16,500 a year and Section 8 subsidized rent is another $4,300. So there is more disposable income for that woman with her two children on public assistance, it's extraordinary!"

O'Reilly then criticized the perverse incentives that abound in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, saying this: "The system is set up to reward people who aren't making much money, and if you try to bring yourself up you're actually going to have a lower standard of living because you're going to lose some of those benefits."

Which is just ridiculous, do this O'Reilly and Dobbs, find me one person making $29,000 a year who would refuse a job making $69,000 a year, then get back to me, because there is no such person in America. The stats may show it's possible, but nobody is doing it, and you two jerks can not prove they are, if they are, find one.

Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about Bob Costas and his visit to the Factor to explain his stance on America's "gun culture."

Ingraham said this: "I've always been a big fan of his, but I think that sports is one of the last bastions of a politics-free environment, so I don't need to hear the politics. He didn't know as much as he thought he knew before he went into his commentary, he's against things that are already banned."

Ingraham also tackled a new study indicating that cell phones and text messaging are damaging social interactions, saying this: "For a lot of people it's a crutch because it's easier to send a text than to deal with a situation. In the end you miss life, whether it's a meal with your children or a beautiful landscape, because you're looking down."

Then Megyn Kelly was on to discuss a story in South Carolina, where a 3-year-old girl was taken away from her adoptive parents because her biological father is part American Indian.

Kelly said this: "The case could be decided by the Supreme Court. The father is 3% Native American and he was out of the picture halfway through the pregnancy. He didn't even ask about the baby, but when she was four months old this couple in South Carolina sent him the adoption papers. He said, 'You know what, I want her.' "

Kelly also said this: "In any other case the answer would have been 'no' because he abandoned her, but there is a law called the Indian Child Welfare Act that is meant to protect Indian families from being ripped apart. When the child was 27 months old, the biological father showed up and took her from the only home she had ever known. He drove away and has never again let her see the adoptive parents. This is crazy!"

Then the two right-wing Culture Warriors Gretchen Carlson and Jeanine Pirro were on to say if there is an actual "war on Christmas."

Pirro said this: "We've always had nativity scenes and creches and menorahs, but all of a sudden these things are being suppressed. Courts are saying that any identification of religion in any way is unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment."

Carlson complained about the tyranny of the minority, saying this: "We now listen to the 1% in society that feels this way. It's usually just one complaint that changes something for the majority of people who have enjoyed it for their lifetimes."

Then Jesse Watters took his crew to Rockefeller Center, to talk with folks about the holiday and what it means to them. Some responses: "Christmas means family" ... "being with loved ones" ... "being thankful for what you have." Most people were well aware that Jesus was a carpenter born in Bethlehem, but less well versed on the Three Wise Men and other Christmas lore.

Watters was then on the show with a recap of his adventure, saying this: "One person said the Three Wise Men were bringing Jesus a lamb. Why would he need a lamb?" Given a pop quiz by The lame O'Reilly, Watters correctly answered that the Wise Men hailed from Arabia, Persia, and India.

Really? Who would know that, and who would care? Nobody I know of. How does any of that create jobs or get the economy going?

Then the two right-wing Factor regulars Bernard McGuirk and Greg Gutfeld were on to talk about the Christmas wars.

Gutfeld said this: "I don't call it a war on Christmas. I call it a war on fun. The right wing was supposed to be the people who didn't like having fun, but now it's the left. But I don't think it's gone far enough - I hate presents, which are examples of capitalistic greed. We need to take all the presents to the White House and then redistribute them across the country."

McGuirk credited O'Reilly with firing one of the war's first shots, saying this: "It started in earnest this year with your debate with the Governor Lincoln Chafee, who is about as sharp as a bowling ball. When he got in the ring with you, Bill, it was like Justin Bieber getting in the ring with Mike Tyson. The war on Christmas is real and it has to do with two things, abortion and the gay rights agenda, because Christianity is against those things."

Finally the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "It's worth checking out a website called to see if you might be the owner of unclaimed money or property."

Note: O'Reilly has mentioned that website before, so his tip of the day is so lame he has to repeat some tips, because clearly he can not think of enough tips to keep them new. The tip of the day is a joke, and O'Reilly should just drop it to have time for more of the so-called real news he claims to report.

And btw folks, not one Democratic guest was on the entire show to provide any balance, O'Reilly had 8 Republican guests (and he makes 9 Republicans) to 0 Democratic guests, so it was nothing but right-wing spin for an hour, with nobody to question or dispute anything said by any of the 9 right-wingers on the show.

O'Reilly Exploits Formerly Homeless Veteran To Call For Spending Cuts
By: Steve - December 7, 2012 - 10:30am

This is how low O'Reilly has gone, and in my opinion this is about as low as O'Reilly can possibly get. He used a formerly homeless veteran to justify the massive spending cuts to social programs Republicans want, that benefit the poor and low class Americans. While saying nothing about cuts to defense spending, or corporate tax loophole cutting, etc.

And btw, O'Reilly did not report all the facts in the story, as usual he put his spin on it with some facts, but not all. Thursday night O'Reilly seized on the story of a shoeless man who was helped by a New York City police officer to call for cuts to government programs that help the poor.

O'Reilly opened his Thursday show by recounting an incident in November in which Officer Lawrence DePrimo bought a pair of boots for Jeffrey Hillman, a man in Times Square who had bare feet. A tourist took a picture of the DePrimo giving the boots to Hillman, and the image was widely circulated on the Internet.

While Hillman was initially said to be homeless, it has since been reported that he has an apartment. O'Reilly presented this fact as if it were a devastating revelation -- "here's the sad truth," he said before informing his viewers that Hillman has a home.

What O'Reilly did not tell his viewers is that Hillman was homeless prior to last year. Nor did O'Reilly mention that Hillman uses veterans benefits to pay for his apartment.

NBC New York reported this: "Hillman used to be homeless, but entered a shelter in 2009 before moving into an apartment secured by Veterans Affairs in 2011, city officials said. He pays his rent using a lifetime voucher for homeless veterans and his Social Security income."

O'Reilly also never reported that Hillman is a panhandler, and homeless experts speculate that in addition to the possibility of mental health issues or drug addiction, shoelessness might make for better panhandling.

And using one case of a man getting shoes to justify cutting spending for millions of people is ridiculous.

While O'Reilly claimed not to be "judging" Hillman because most "cases like his involve substance abuse or mental illness," he began the segment by saying that "all of us need to wise up, and fast," and went on to use his biased version of Hillman's story to demand cuts to entitlement programs.

O'Reilly also alleged that Americans who receive food stamps and Medicaid, along with those employed by the government, are being "subsidized" by people employed in the private sector and that this relationship is unsustainable.

Of course, O'Reilly's claim omits a basic fact about food stamps: Many beneficiaries of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program already have jobs. And most people that get food stamps only get them for a year or less then stop.

O'Reilly also issued a dire warning: "If the federal government doesn't wise up and impose some discipline on the incredible entitlement spending, America's economy will eventually collapse."

In presenting cuts to entitlement spending as the top priority, O'Reilly ignores the fact that federal revenue is at a historic low and that most economists agree that the best way to address the deficit through both higher taxes and reduced spending.

And not once has O'Reilly called for any business who frauds the Government out of millions and millions of dollars to never be given a Government contract again, or banned from getting one. O'Reilly does not lump them all in together because of the bad actions of a few, but he does in the case of one former homeless man who does not wear shoes to make more money panhandling.

In O'Reillyworld if one, just one, former homeless man is caught not wearing shoes to make more money, somehow that justifies cutting the spending for everyone who gets Government aid. Which is one of the most ridiculous arguments O'Reilly has ever made.

And btw folks, let me add this, O'Reilly had a big ratings drop after Obama was re-elected, from over 4 million viewers a night to less than 3 million viewers a night. Since then he has made a series of crazy statements that got him a lot of publicity in the media, and his ratings have went back up to over 3 million.

I think he is saying some of this crazy stuff for 2 reasons, mostly he believes it, but he is also doing it because he knows it will get him publicity and he knows it will get his ratings up. He is targeting the far-right who agree with and believe all this nonsense he is spewing out, for publicity and ratings, and it's working.

Rove & Morris Off The Air At Fox (O'Reilly Silent)
By: Steve - December 7, 2012 - 10:00am

Two Factor regulars Karl Rove and Dick Morris have been taken off the air by Fox News, and the so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly has not said a word about it, so much for fair and balanced.

A real journalist would have reported that to his viewers, especially after saying how great they were for years, but O'Reilly has not even mentioned it, proving once again he is not a real journalist.

"According to multiple Fox sources, Roger Ailes issued a new directive to his staff. He wants the faces associated with the election off the air – for now anyway. For Karl Rove and Dick Morris – a pair of pundits perhaps most closely aligned with Fox's anti-Obama campaign – Ailes's orders mean new rules."

Among the reported new rules is a mandate from Fox News programming chief Bill Shine that producers receive permission before booking Rove or Morris for an appearance.

Both pundits were on the air in the immediate aftermath of last month's election, "but their visibility on the network has dropped markedly," wrote Sherman.

He continued: "Inside Fox News, Morris's Romney boosterism and reality-denying predictions became a punch line. At a rehearsal on the Saturday before the election, according to a source, anchor Megyn Kelly chuckled when she relayed to colleagues what someone had told her: 'I really like Dick Morris. He's always wrong but he makes me feel good.'"

A spokesperson for the network confirmed that the new booking rules indeed exist, saying Shine's message was "the election's over."

Dick Morris had famously, and wrongly, predicted that Romney would win the election in a landslide, and Ailes was said to be less than thrilled when Rove disputed his own network's call that Obama won the state of Ohio, and thus, the presidential race.

Even before the election took place, there were some in the media calling for Rove's ouster from the Republican Party after he had joked that Missouri GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin be murdered after making a gaffe with the term "legitimate rape."

WND Editor Joseph Farah wrote in one column that "Karl Rove is a monster," and in another, "Nobody elected Rove. He is not a political genius. He is the 'architect' only of a big fat bank account, a hyper-inflated ego and a big mouth. It's long past time for him to go."

Joe Garofoli, a blogger for the San Francisco Chronicle, gave his take on the removal of Rove and Morris, saying this: "Apparently, their visual musk is such a powerful reminder of their Election Night failures that their airtime must be limited, or else it could induce nausea among viewers. Apparently."

The Wednesday 12-5-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - December 6, 2012 - 11:00am

There was no TPM because O'Reilly had Bob Costas on for the Top Story segment. Costas, who delivered a controversial message about guns during a game on Sunday said this: "Obviously Americans have a right to bear arms, and I'm not looking to repeal the Second Amendment. I didn't call for any specific prohibition on guns and never used the term 'gun control.' I quoted from a column by Jason Whitlock on the Fox News website in which he mentioned a 'gun culture' in this country. It's a mentality that almost always leads to tragedy and not safety."

Costas also said this: "I believe that there should be more comprehensive and effective controls on the sale of guns. Roughly 40% of the guns sold in this country do not require a background check. There ought to be training programs for people who purchase guns."

O'Reilly even called those suggestions reasonable, but he scolded Costas anyway for claiming a gun-toting civilian could not have saved lives during the Colorado movie theater shooting, saying this: "Would you rather have the choice of ducking down on the floor or having a handgun to pull out and defend yourself? You don't want a gun, but I want one! I want to be able to protect myself against that loon."

Then O'Reilly had Senator Marco Rubio, who is considered a rising star in the Republican Party, was on for his first post-election interview.

Rubio said this: "Let's start by admitting the obvious. The President ran a very good grass-roots operation, his campaign invested a lot of money in infrastructure and technology and we should learn from that. Our challenge is to take our principles and applying them to people's hopes and dreams. The way we'll move ahead is not by making rich people poorer, it's by making poor people richer!"

Rubio denounced President Obama's insistence that tax rates be raised for upper-income Americans, saying this: "If they do all the things the President is asking for we're all going to be worse off. If you raise those taxes the true millionaires and billionaires will figure it out, but the people who will get crushed are the small and medium sized businesses, who will have to raise prices and lay people off. We have to deal with the $16 trillion debt and the $1 trillion a year in deficit spending."

And that is all right-wing lies, because only about 3 percent of small businesses will have to pay the extra tax, and they were not crushed before Bush lowered their taxes, or during the Clinton years when they paid the higher tax rate. It's all right-wing propaganda from O'Reilly, Rubio, and the GOP.

Then Kirsten Powers and Kristen Soltis were on to talk about a conservative watchdog group that has concluded the network news outlets, while covering the budget debate, have devoted twice as much air time to tax increases as opposed to spending cuts.

Powers said this: "I'm not surprised, because that's been the bulk of the discussion. Pretty much the only thing that's been discussed between Democrats and Republicans has been the fact that President Obama wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthy."

Soltis claimed that networks are trying to sell a policy that won't work, saying this: "The unfortunate narrative that's been peddled, which is not true, is this idea that you can solve all of our problems by raising taxes on the wealthy. We have such a big spending problem."

And that's a lie, because it worked during the Clinton years. Not to mention, Obama is not saying it will fix our debt problems, he is saying it will help lower the debt, make the rich pay their fair share, and not make the lower and middle class working men and women pay as much, which I support 100 percent.

Then the Republican Author Brad Thor, who writes political thrillers and has been immersed in the shifting accounts of the attack in Libya, was on to slam Obama for the embassy killings.

Thor said this: "Next week it will be three months since the killing of Ambassador Stevens, and we don't know any more than we did three months ago. That's not good for our republic and there are too many holes in this story. It starts with this: Of all the days for an American to be traveling in an Islamic country, why was Chris Stevens in Benghazi, of all places, on 9/11. This is a very bright man, yet he chooses to go to Benghazi on 9/11, the same day he sends the State Department a cable complaining about the security that's lacking over there. It doesn't make sense!"

Thor also implied that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton quickly got out of town to evade responsibility. With no evidence of that, and even though O'Reilly has a no speculation rule, Thor speculated anyway and O'Reilly let him.

Thor also said this: "Hillary Clinton was there at Andrews Air Force Base on September 14th to receive the bodies along with the President, but then was gone and she couldn't do the Sunday talk show circuit. This was a political decision and this should haunt Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama."

And nobody really cares except Republicans who want to use the story to smear Obama and others in his administration. Polls show that most Americans do not care about it, but O'Reilly and the right cover it non-stop anyway.

Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on because he is just a has been comedian who is only on to make jokes about Obama and other Democrats, with no liberal comedian on for balance.

Then Mike Huckabee was on to cry with O'Reilly about an elementary school in Arkansas that was planning to take its kids to see a performance of Charlie Brown's Christmas at a local church, but the pastor canceled the visit after a local atheist group complained. And nobody cares but O'Reilly and a few morons at Fox News.

Huckabee said this: "This will be moved to a Saturday, and it will be a voluntary event. To its credit, the school was willing to go on with the plan, but the church pastor didn't want to put the school in a position where they would wind up getting sued. The nature of most Christians is not to get into a fight, but I think it's time we're going to have to cause some trouble for a lot of people."

And of course O'Reilly criticized Pastor Happy Caldwell, who canceled the event, even though he did the right thing, Billy said this: "Guys like this have to stand up and fight this secular progressivism that wants to diminish the Christmas holiday. We have to start to fight back against these people, the Judeo-Christian tradition in this country is under attack."

Earth to the fool O'Reilly, do it all you want, just do not make it a school field trip to a church on school time, Idiot.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "A tip for some one-percenters who want to see their money used for a good cause: On December 14th Sotheby's in New York City will auction off a Wounded Warriors poster signed by all five living American presidents, with all proceeds going to the Wounded Warriors Foundation."

Wow, for once O'Reilly actually had a good tip of the day.

O'Reilly Ignoress All The Bush Debt To Attack Obama
By: Steve - December 6, 2012 - 10:00am

Want more proof Bill O'Reilly is a dishonest lying right-wing hack, here it is:

Bill O'Reilly deleted almost the entire tenure of George W. Bush to falsely allege that President Obama has borrowed more money than all past presidents combined.

During his Fox News program, O'Reilly criticized Obama over the size of the national debt and claimed, "It is hard to believe, but in the last four years, the Obama administration has borrowed more money than every other president combined."

Yet O'Reilly then described that time frame as being "from George Washington through the first five months of Bush the younger's administration."

Notice that O'Reilly also never mentioned why Obama has had to borrow so much money, because Bush crashed the economy, all the jobs disappeared, he also crashed the housing market, and the stock market. So Obama had to borrow a lot of money to fix the problems Bush created, but O'Reilly never mentions any of that.

O'Reilly chose to exclude the majority of Bush's presidency to avoid acknowledging that the national debt nearly doubled during Bush's two terms. According to the Treasury Department's daily debt calculator, when Bush took office on January 20, 2001, total debt stood at $5.728 trillion. The national debt on January 20, 2009, Bush's last day in office, was $10.627 trillion.

O'Reilly claims Obama borrowed more money than every other president combined, if this were true, Obama would have added $11 trillion to the debt during his tenure. But as of this publishing, the Treasury Department calculator states the debt is $16.338 trillion -- which means it increased less than six trillion dollars under Obama.

So basically, Obama has only added about the same as Bush did to the debt, and Bush did not have to save the country from a depression that almost happened because of Bush. Not to mention, the $787 billion dollar stimulus should not be counted against Obama, because that had to be spent to fix the mess Bush created. Which means Obama has really only added about $5 trillion to the debt.

O'Reilly also aired an exchange with Fox contributor Charles Krauthammer that distorted how federal money is being spent. Krauthammer claimed that the government is spending money, in part, on "giving Sandra Fluke free contraceptives that she can't afford."

He also said this: "The fact that Obama's own HHS is trying to loosen the rules, the work rules for welfare, so we go back to the old system of people living forever on the dole -- that's where they want to spend the money."

Krauthammer's claims are lies. Women's health advocate Sandra Fluke did not ask the government to give women free contraceptives; the Affordable Care Act provision for which she advocated requires private health insurance policies, for which most women already pay a premium, to cover women's preventive health care services.

She simply wants the private health insurance she has to pay for contraceptives, just as they do for men in paying for viagra, etc. She does not want the Government to pay for it, she wants her own health insurance plan to cover it.

While Krauthammer lied that the administration wants people to "live forever on the dole," most food stamp recipients participate in the SNAP program for less than one year. And Health and Human Services did not loosen welfare work requirements, they granted states more flexibility in complying with existing rules. Which is what Republicans claim to want, more states rights.

The Tuesday 12-4-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - December 5, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: America and Personal Responsibility. The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Immediately after NFL player Jovan Belcher shot his girlfriend to death and then killed himself, the excuses started: guns, violence in the NFL, and other adjacent issues were trotted out by a variety of pundits.

But here's the fact: Belcher is solely responsible for the horrendous crime, he did it. He knew right from wrong and he chose to inflict lethal damage. There's no question Belcher was mentally unbalanced, but to blame society or guns or football is grossly irresponsible.

Kansas City sportswriter Jason Whitlock now says, 'I believe the NRA is the new KKK.' What a bunch of bull! We invited Mr. Whitlock onto the program tonight, but he's hiding under his desk.

Here's a bulletin: No society can protect people against a guy like Belcher. Violence is hardwired into some people and this deflection into guns or race is simply nonsense. We're living in a time of denial; our culture is cluttered with excuses for bad behavior, our schools and courts are filled with people in authority who allow excuses to mitigate awful behavior.

Jovan Belcher was a villain, a person who was given athletic talent. But instead of building a worthwhile life for himself and his baby, he destroyed lives. That's on him. Period!
Then O'Reilly had Keith Ablow, MD and Dale Archer, MD on to discuss it.

Ablow said this: "We know more about Jovan Belcher now, than we did just a day ago. This is somebody who attracted the attention of authorities back in 2006 when he busted up a window because he was reportedly enraged with a girl. And the next year authorities were called because he was yelling and screaming at another woman. This is shaping up as a guy who was a domestic villain, he's a batterer."

Archer said this: "The number one predictor of violence and suicide is drug abuse, so if we want to get to a reason as to why this happened, that has to be at the top of the list. NFL players are four times more likely than the general population to take narcotic painkillers, and he was drinking on top of that."

O'Reilly again complained that "the pundit class immediately started to make excuses rather than saying this was a disturbed individual."

What a bunch of right-wing idiots, maybe the guy had a drug problem from taking painkillers and if he was drinking too it could have drove him crazy, you three clowns don't know, because none of you were his doctor. So everything you morons just said was 100% speculation, which O'Reilly claims to not allow. And btw, how about a little respect for the dead and his family, could you at least wait until the funeral is over before you trash the man, jerks!

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to discuss it. Colmes said this: "What you said is accurate, in that it is personal responsibility, this rests with him. To equate the NRA with the KKK is nuts, you're bringing a racial element that doesn't exist. But some people believe there is a gun culture and why did this guy have a gun? There's less chance you would have a fatality without a gun."

Crowley slammed the pundits who placed the blame on firearms, saying this: "It's fascinating for me to watch these anti-gun activists. We have more moral outrage about the weapon used in this crime than about the murderer. This is what comes from the left, that you can legislate human behavior."

Proving that Monica Crowley is a total fool, because they are not blaming the firearm, what they are saying is that the gun laws need to be stricter, and that a man with a known history of abuse (and some possible mental problems) should not be allowed to legally buy a gun, and then maybe the murder-suicide would have never happened.

I am a gun lover, and a former NRA member. I am also a 100% 2nd amendment supporter, and you will have to pry my cold dead hands off my gun to get it. But I also think not everyone should be able to buy a gun, the gun ownership laws are too weak, because of the NRA who think everyone should be able to own a gun.

Then O'Reilly had the total loon John Stossel on, who theorized why universities are so dominated by men and women of the left. And I will tell you why, because Conservatives do not take teaching jobs, due to the low pay. It has nothing to do with the crazy idea that they are trying to stack the deck with liberal professors to brainwash kids to vote Democratic, as O'Reilly claims.

Stossel said this: "I hate it. At Princeton 155 faculty gave to Obama in the last election and two guys gave to Romney. One was a janitor, one was a visiting lecturer. The education I got was very one-sided, it's just the way it is, and all we can do is speak out. If we start to say we have to have our guys in there they'll scream 'McCarthyism.'"

So the brainiac Bill O'Reilly urged more activism, especially at state-funded schools, saying this: "We have a system that is now turning out left-wing academic agendas, which is dangerous and almost totalitarianism. I'm not going to accept this, I'm struggling for a way for the state to be fair to the taxpayers. How about affirmative action for conservative thought on campus?"

And that segment should have been called dumb and dumber cry about college professors being too liberal, but if they were mostly conservative they would have no problem with that. Not to mention, the country is split 51 percent for Obama to 48 percent for Romney, so if they are brainwashing kids it's not working.

Then the Olympian Gymnast Gabrielle Douglas was on, who wrote an autobiography called "Grace, Gold & Glory," describing her personal struggles as the child of a single mom.

Douglas said this: "I knew I had a dream, and if I wanted to accomplish it, then I had to sacrifice. I've always been exposed to Jesus and the Bible, my mom always exposed me and my siblings to that. I love reading the Bible and the stories, it plays a big role in my life. God has blessed me, He has kept me safe, and He has given me this talent. I may not have two parents, but I have two gold medals."

Then O'Reilly had the two Republicans Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl on to talk about 50-year-old Lynda Rusk, who posted a nude photo of her own teenage daughter on Facebook, and was then charged with possession of child pornography.

Wiehl said this: "The daughter apparently took a picture of herself nude on her cellphone. The mother confiscated that phone and put it up on Facebook and took the girl to a counseling session. This is some kind of discipline gone terribly wrong."

Guilfoyle added that authorities have been investigating the case for more than a year, saying this: "This was a form of punishment to say, don't take pictures of yourself. But there might be much more to this story, there could be prostitution or exploitation. This mother could get eleven years in prison and a $20,000 fine."

What a joke, so you are going to spend a fortune putting the mother on trial for simply being stupid and not punishing the girl in a proper way. Then put her in prison for 11 years, which punishes the child, and she will have to live without a mother. What a screwed up legal system we have, the mother should not do one day in jail, she should get some help and counseling, not prison.

Then O'Reilly had the totally biased right-wing stooge Charles Krauthammer on to talk about President Obama and his budget plan, with no liberal on for balance, of course.

Krauthammer said this: "Take the stimulus as an example. It was a trillion dollars that left not a trace, it went to entitlements and food stamps. The Obama administration is trying to loosen the work rules for welfare so we go back to the old system of people living forever on the dole. That's where they want to spend the money and they have to borrow it because we don't have it."

And that's a lie, the stimulus was $780 billion, not a trillion. Not to mention, it worked, it kept us out of a depression and it led to 2 straight years of positive economic and job growth. Not to mention, the stock market also doubled from 6,500 to 13,000. And btw, we had a 3 trillion dollar economic loss to the country because of Bush in 2009, and Obama pretty much got us out of trouble with a $780 billion dollar stimulus bill, which I would call a miracle.

Even O'Reilly sort of disagreed with Krauthammer, and he reminded him that borrow-and-spend has served the President well, saying this: "He sees the same stats that you and I see, he knows what he's doing. President Obama made no campaign promises that he would cut spending, but the American people said that's okay with us, you keep spending."

Because they know you have to spend to get us out of a recession, until the economy gets going better, then you can make some cuts later, morons!

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "The best gifts in life are free. If you're struggling with a gift idea for someone you care about, write a personal note to say how much they mean to you. Put the note in a creative wrapping and it will be remembered forever. "

Are you kidding me O'Reilly? The best gifts in life are not free, the best gifts in life are cash, gold, cars, motorcycles, tv's, video game systems, etc. Moron!

Fox Religion Expert Says War On Christmas Is Silly
By: Steve - December 5, 2012 - 10:00am

Every holiday season, Fox News launches an attack on the War on Christmas, documenting perceived offenses like the term holiday tree or nativity scenes removed from local state buildings.

So Fox and Friends invited Father Jonathan Morris, a Catholic priest and regular contributor, to discuss the so-called war.

Morris drew the line at the war on Christmas, calling it "silly" and pointing out that the number of people actually attempting to restrict expressions of faith is a very small percentage:
The reason I'm not angry is that, yes, I think it's silly, it's out of place for people to dedicate so much energy to try to get rid of Christmas scenes like this.

The good news is when Christianity has been persecuted, when it has been outlawed, when people have died for their faith, it hasn't gone away. Everybody has an opportunity to make sure their faith does not go away in this Christmas season to live that faith as a family, as a community.

If our Christmas is going to be all about getting a upset at people trying to take away Christmas, isn't that silly too?
Finally, he laughed: "You guys look so angry about this war on Christmas!"

The Monday 12-3-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - December 4, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Guns, football and murder. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Kansas City Chief football player Jovan Belcher murdered his girlfriend, the mother of his 3-month-old daughter, then drove to Arrowhead Stadium and committed suicide in front of his coaches.

Belcher used a handgun to commit his crimes. There are many different aspects to this case, but NBC sportscaster Bob Costas brought one of them into the arena last night when he quoted a Kansas City sportswriter named Jason Whitlock, who assigned some of the blame for the horrible crime on gun possession.

The Constitution gives Americans the right to protect themselves... In many parts of the country, people need handguns in order to feel secure against criminals who might harm them. Talking Points has long felt that criminals who use handguns should be punished more harshly.

In fact, all gun crimes in America should be federal crimes and that includes illegal possession... There should be mandatory federal prison time for any person convicted of having a gun illegally. And if you commit a crime with a gun, that mandatory should be 10 years.

It is quite understandable that people are reacting emotionally to this terrible crime in Kansas City. But the problem America has is not law-abiding citizens possessing weapons... Crimes committed with handguns and out-of-control people, that's what's hurting the USA.
Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to discuss it. Williams said he personally believes the Founding Fathers were worried about a militia when they wrote the 2nd Amendment, but he conceded that the Supreme Court disagrees. He also pointed out that studies show you're more likely to shoot yourself, a spouse, or a child with your weapon than anyone who intends to do you harm.

Billy added that the federal government needs to send a message that Americans can't abuse this privilege, saying this: "They won't restrict sale of handguns to people who are legally entitled, but you're going to jail if you commit a crime with a gun or you don't have proper paperwork."

Ham said she thinks that there's been very little desire by the NFL to put blame on the player for his heinous crime, obscuring an important discussion about domestic violence.

O'Dummy also said that it was irresponsible of Costas to bring this topic up without presenting solutions. Williams admitted that he doesn't have a solution either, but reminded viewers that other countries with stricter gun control have fewer deaths by guns.

Then Father Jonathan Morris was on to tell O'Reilly his war on Christmas is silly. Every year, the crazy O'Reilly has this war on the Christmas holiday and traditional America.

Father Morris called it silly for people to try to diminish Christmas and take away our traditions. While he thinks it's important to speak out, he cautioned against getting upset to the point where our Christmas becomes all about the so-called war on the holiday.

And of course O'Reilly defended his stance, saying this is about a larger assault on Christianity in America where you can now bash Christians in this country without consequence. He also warned that if Christians don't start stepping up more forcefully, they're going to lose their traditions in this country.

Then O'Reilly had Factor producer Jesse Watters on to cry about the stupid Ann Coulter changing their mind on having Coulter to speak at the school.

Students in the Republican Club at Fordham University invited conservative commentator Ann Coulter to speak on campus. Some students who object to her ideology protested, the president of the university sided with them, and the conservative students rescinded their invitation.

Watters sampled some students at Fordham and found that most of them agreed with the decision to ban her speaking engagement.

Asked by the Factor about the university's justification for allowing Singer to speak, Watters reported that because Singer is a faculty member at Princeton, while Coulter is just a pundit, the university stood by its decision.

Then O'Reilly had the lame Adam Carolla on to talk about the best and worst states in America, as if anyone cares but O'Reilly.

An Internet survey found that California is the worst run state and North Dakota is the best-run state.

Really? Did you know those internet surveys can be cheated on? So they are basically worthless, the real state quality of life ranking studies ranks California 35th, and Texas 45th, with New Hampshire at #1.

Carolla gave an example of why his state is last, saying this: while visiting Winnipeg, Canada, he discovered that actor Samuel L. Jackson, who lives in Beverly Hills, was in town shooting a movie. This is now par for the course, he said, as movie studios seek to avoid the unions and costly taxes that plague California.

Carolla also said this: "California is like a hot blonde high school chick, getting by on her looks. She never had to study or exercise or eat right...she was just dealt a beautiful, genetic hand. And now she's 45 and she's falling apart."

O'Reilly agreed that California has been given everything and has mucked it up. While not saying a word about Texas being ranked 45th in the quality of life survey, proving O'Reilly and Carolla are nothing but biased right-wing hacks who spin surveys to imply they are right.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to analyze the Bob Costas controversy, where the sportscaster spoke about gun control as it relates to the Kansas City Chief tragedy.

Goldberg had the opportunity to speak with Costas at length and relayed his views on the fallout from his rant, saying this: Costas told Bernie he wouldn't repeal the 2nd Amendment and that he has no problem with people having guns to protect themselves and to go hunting. Costas supports "reasonable gun control" and clarified that he wasn't talking about gun laws, but rather addressing a gun culture in America that creates attitudes where more bad things happen with guns than good things.

O'Reilly said the mistake Costas made was using an emotional situation to make a point about guns without putting forth a solution to the problem.

Earth to O'Reilly, he is a reporter who reported some news, something you know nothing about. It's not his job to come up with a solution, it's the job of the President and the Congress to find a solution.

O'Reilly also said he does not believe there's a correlation between football/head injuries and the type of madness that made Jovan Belcher snap, he inquired about Goldberg's opinion on the matter.

Goldberg, who has done extensive reporting on NFL head injuries for HBO's Real Sports, presented his view: "The science is unequivocal that repeated hits to the head often lead to depression and the early onset of dementia."

In the last segment O'Reilly had his ridiculous one sided and biased Reality Check segment. Which I do not report on, because it's simply O'Reilly (all by himself) giving his right-wing opinion about something someone else said.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "Take your calendar and every day of the Christmas season, write down a nice thing you're going to do."

Corporate Profits Hit Record High Under Obama
By: Steve - December 4, 2012 - 10:00am

And of course you never heard a word about this from O'Reilly and his Republican friends, because it destroys their right-wing spin that President Obama is bad for business.

A constant conservative charge against President Obama is that he is inherently anti-business. However, businesses keep defying that right-wing spin by making larger and larger profits, rebounding nicely out of the Great Bush Recession.

In the third quarter of this year, "corporate earnings were $1.75 trillion, up 18.6% from a year ago."

Corporations are currently making more as a percentage of the economy than they ever have since such records were kept. But at the same time, wages as a percentage of the economy are at an all-time low.

Corporations made a record $824 billion in profits last year as well, while the stock market has had one of its best performances since 1900 while Obama has been in office.

Meanwhile, workers are getting the short end of the stick. As CNN Money reported: "A separate government reading shows that total wages have now fallen to a record low of 43.5% of GDP. Until 1975, wages almost always accounted for at least half of GDP, and had been as high as 49% as recently as 2001."

This article alone proves Bill O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack, because a real journalist would report this and inform his viewers of the truth about President Obama and how corporations are doing while he is in office.

Three Lies Republicans Are Saying About The Fiscal Cliff
By: Steve - December 3, 2012 - 11:00am

After the American people rejected all the Republican economic proposals by not voting for Romney, the GOP tried to present the appearance of compromise with the president on averting the so-called fiscal cliff. But it was nothing but spin, since their plan only restates the Romney/Ryan tax plan that disproportionately benefits the wealthiest Americans, together with steep cuts to entitlement programs for the poor and middle class.

On Fox News Sunday, House Speaker John Boehner summarized the three major lies Republicans have used in the fiscal cliff debate:
Lie #1: Pretending to be shocked at the Obama economic proposals that voters endorsed: Boehner said the White House's initial outline to avert the so-called fiscal cliff was a complete surprise:

"I was flabbergasted. I said you can't be serious. I have never seen anything like it."

Except almost all of President Obama's current proposal appeared in his 20-page plan, released in October, a month before the election, which has explicit mentions of tax cuts for the middle class, small business tax breaks, and entitlement savings.

At the time, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) even talked about it and dismissed it as a glossy brochure, and "nothing but a rehash of the same failed ideas of the past four years."

Fact: Boehner and Hatch are pretending to find out about Obama's economic plan for the first time, when it has been on the table for a long time, and it is what voters wanted.

Lie #2: "We have laid it all out for them, a dozen ways to raise the revenue from the richest Americans." Boehner claimed that Republicans have detailed their revenue counterplan to Obama's proposal to allow Bush tax cuts to expire for the wealthiest 2 percent, while extending them for the middle class.

On Sunday, pressed to provide details on their proposal, Boehner refused to answer. Instead, rather than increase marginal tax rates on the richest Americans, Republicans back eliminating tax loopholes and entitlement cuts mirrored in Paul Ryan's budget.

The GOP plan is exactly like Mitt Romney’s plan, which attracted criticism for his lack of specificity on which loopholes could make up for lower tax rates for the wealthiest Americans. Not to mention, it was rejected by the voters when they re-elected President Obama.

Lie #3: Obama has "put $400 billion worth of unspecified cuts" on the table. Boehner claimed Obama's proposal lacks details on what entitlement savings he would put forward. But the details for Obama's proposal for $400 billion in savings in Medicare and other social programs have existed for quite some time, they were even in his FY 2013 budget released in February of 2012.

It includes $600 billion in "reforms and savings, to our health care and other government programs," without the dramatic restructuring that Republicans propose, as well as $1.6 trillion in revenue.

In closing, when the people re-elected President Obama they said they want his plan, not the Romney plan they rejected, which the GOP is not trying to put in place for Romney.

Hypocrite Krauthammer Attacks Left Spins For The Right
By: Steve - December 2, 2012 - 11:00am

With O'Reilly and the Republicans witch hunt against Ambassador Susan Rice showing no signs of slowing down as they try to derail her possible nomination as Secretary of State, let's look at some other news about the attacks and see how Charles Krauthammer has changed his view on the central issue.

This is from a Washington Post column he wrote in January 2005, expressing dismay that Democrats were raising doubts about Condoleezza Rice's qualifications to be Secretary of State, in the wake of her role in lying about the Iraq War:
Mark Dayton of Minnesota accused her of lying in order to persuade the American people to go to war -- a charge that is not just false but that most Americans don't believe. Rice was not a generator of intelligence. She was a consumer -- of a highly defective product.
Notice the specific point Krauthammer made as he tried to minimize Rice's central role in the unpopular invasion. He stressed that Rice did not generate the intelligence about Iraq, which turned out to be "highly defective," she merely consumed it.

Which is exactly what Susan Rice did, but instead of defending her, O'Reilly, Krauthammer, and everyone at Fox is attacking her.

And because she had merely consumed, and then marketed, bad intelligence about Iraq, Condoleezza Rice wasn't really culpable, which according to Krauthammer meant Democrats were misguided in their criticism of her.

Of course, that conservative spin now seems entirely disingenuous given the fact that a legion of right-wing pundits, including most of the Fox News on-air staff, are waging a war against Susan Rice not for being a "generator" of defective intelligence about the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, but for consuming it.

On November 14th, on Fox, Krauthammer expressed indignation over Rice's public comments about Benghazi:
KRAUTHAMMER: It was clearly defensive and it was also a stonewall. I mean, after all, what she said was absolutely and completely misleading. Either inadvertently, in which case it's complete incompetence, or on purpose, in which case it's deception.
Susan Rice's sin (in the eyes of O'Reilly, Krauthammer and Fox News) is that she relayed what the intelligence community told her about Benghazi. For that, she's guilty of incompetence or being misleading. But in 2005, Krauthammer stressed that Condoleezza Rice should not be held responsible for relaying what the intelligence community told her about Iraq because she didn't generate it.

So in Krauthammer world if a Republican does it they should not be held responsible for relaying what the intelligence community told her because she didn't generate it, but if a Democrat does the very same thing, they she should be held responsible, and be punished for it.

It goes without saying that the sprawling Iraq War was a far more important, costly and deadly event than the "small firefight" that engulfed the Benghazi consulate, as national security writer Tom Rick's described it. And it goes without saying that as national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice had a much more direct and influential role in initiaiting the Iraq War than United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice had responding to the terrorist attack in Libya.

Her only public role was being selected as an administration point person and asked to appear on Sunday morning talk shows to relay intelligence talking points, or what she said was "the best information we have at the time" about the cause of the attack.

Here are the facts: Conservatives are trying to make Rice a central player in the alleged Benghazi cover-up. But when Condoleezza Rice was named to be Secretary of State, Krauthammer portrayed her as a paid actor in the Iraq War production, simply mouthing the lines given to her.

For Krauthammer that wasn't a bad thing. It just meant she wasn't responsible for anything that went wrong with regards to the Iraq War, or the pervasive misinformation campaign that led up to the invasion.

As Rachel Maddow reported last week, almost nothing that Rice's critics are alleging regarding the Benghazi controversy makes sense, and virtually all of the questions they are "asking" have been answered.

When you add into the mix the jaw-dropping hypocrisy of conservatives who have literally inverted the standards they used for secretary of state nominee Condoleezza Rice in 2005, you begin to understand how hollow and tiresome this partisan witch hunt has become.

And O'Reilly is invloved in it too, he has also attacked Susan Rice multiple times, and he let's Krauthammer spin out his nonsense every week on the Factor. Not to mention, O'Reilly is opposed to witch hunts when it involves a Republican, but when it involves a Democrat O'Reilly is not only not opposed to witch hunts, he joins in on the partisan attacks, as he claims to be a non-partisan Independent, which is just laughable.