The Monday 1-30-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 31, 2012 - 11:30am

The TPM was called: The Mitt Romney surge in Florida. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Most polls have Mitt Romney well out in front in Florida, so what has happened since South Carolina? Romney has spent millions on TV ads raising questions about Speaker Gingrich's history. Gingrich has fought back to some extent, but he cannot match the Romney cash.

Also, Governor Romney did well in the last debate, slowing the Gingrich momentum. But the real reason Mitt Romney is surging in Florida has to do with the Republican voter in the Sunshine State.

Florida is less ideological than Iowa or South Carolina, and there are two kinds of Republican voters nationwide - committed conservatives who vote on values above all else, and practical Republicans who look at problem-solving and the ability to win.

In Florida the practical voters outnumber the ideologues, which is why Mitt Romney is ahead. We believe Mitt Romney will win in Florida tomorrow and it will be hard for Speaker Gingrich to find a pathway after that to derail the Romney campaign. At this point the long and winding road is facing Newt Gingrich.
In other words, Romney will win Florida and Gingrich is done. Which is what O'Reilly was trying to say without saying it, so he does not make his mostly conservative viewers mad for saying Gingrich is done.

Then for some insane reason O'Reilly had Rick Santorum on. Despite widespread predictions of a runaway Romney win in Florida, Santorum said he will keep fighting, saying this: "Money is coming in and things have gone very well since the last debate - we've separated ourselves from the pack and we've hit our stride. A lot of conservatives are not happy with Governor Romney or Speaker Gingrich."

But O'Reilly injected a dose of realism to Santorum, saying this: "Romney's the only guy who's got the bucks right now, so I don't know how you compete. It's not about you or your ideology, it's about the reality of money."

Then Brit Hume was on with his take on Florida and beyond. Hume said this: "A lot of us thought that after New Hampshire both Gingrich and Santorum were finished, and there's always a temptation to call these things over. But straight-line projections are very dangerous in politics. The next few weeks are not particularly busy but things can happen. Suppose something comes out about Mitt Romney's finances and suddenly there's a big kerfuffle about that? Anything can happen in politics and a lot will depend on how much money Gingrich's backers are willing to put up if he loses big in Florida."

O'Reilly reported the importance of finances, saying this: "If Romney wins big in Florida there will be more money for him and less money for Gingrich and Santorum."

Then O'Reilly had pollster David Paleologos on to project the Florida outcome. Paleologos said this: "We have a statewide poll, that shows Mitt Romney winning by 20 points. We also conducted polls in three bellwether counties in Florida and all three are pointing to a landslide win for Romney. In two of the counties Romney actually broke 50%."

Then Larry Sabato explained why Romney is perched in the proverbial catbird seat, saying this: "Gingrich won South Carolina by double digits and Romney is going to win Florida by double digits, but they are not equal states. There are 9 electoral votes in South Carolina, 29 in Florida, so this is a giant win for Romney and it really does set back the aspirations of Newt Gingrich. There is now an 80% to 90% probability that Romney is going to be the Republican nominee."

Then Mary Katharine Ham & Juan Williams were on to talk about the 400 Occupy protesters were arrested in Oakland over the weekend after vandalizing City Hall and clashing with police.

Williams said this: "What those people in Oakland are doing is terrible, but that should not be confused with the bigger idea. Two-thirds of the American people, left and right, think that the economic system and the tax system favor the wealthy. That's Occupy Wall Street!"

And the crazy Mary K. Ham suggested that the Occupy movement survives only because of media bias, saying this: "If the Occupy Wall Street movement has not been obliterated, it's partly because the media gives it half a pass. The brand has been hurt, these folks have really stepped all over their message."

O'Reilly said that Occupy's death knell has been sounded: "We predicted the demise of the Occupy movement last November because of the growing violence and crime. These people are done!"

Then two Republicans Ben Stein and Stuart Varney were on. Varney said this: "This is the weakest recovery from a recession since World War II. We have less than 2% growth, 2-million fewer jobs than before the recession, gas prices up, and house prices that are lower than since before the recession. But President Obama will say he saved two-million jobs and that the economy is going in the right direction."

Notice that Varney never once mentions the recession was caused by Bush, he just blames it all on Obama. It was total right-wing spin.

Stein said this: "There has never been a federal stimulus program that has brought this country out of any economic catastrophe in peacetime. This stimulus did provide jobs for teachers, police and firefighters, but it wound up costing several hundred thousand dollars per job. It would have been incomparably more efficient to just give it back to the people in tax cuts. At some point the U.S. is going to default on the national debt."

Let me add one thing to that segment, Ben Stein (the Republican) predicted Obama will win a 2nd term, and said he will beat Romney or Gingrich. Because the economy is improving, the stock market is doing well, jobs gains are up, and unemployment is going down.

And finally, the Factor Reality Check. Which I do not report on because it's total bias and right-wing propaganda. It's simply O'Reilly by himself (with no guest) putting his spin on something someone else said.

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

Newt Gingrich Wants Kids To Work As Janitors
By: Steve - January 31, 2012 - 11:00am

Which is funny, because when Newt himself was younger he refused to work a real job.

Gingrich made headlines on the campaign trail for proposing to make poor children work as janitors in their school, saying it would help them understand the value of work and money.

But apparently, even on child janitorial work, Gingrich is employing a double standard. As Karen Tumulty notes, in a 1995 Vanity Fair profile, Gingrich refused to get a job as a student. From the profile:
Newt, who avoided Vietnam with student and marriage deferments, resisted taking a job. During his college years, Newt called up his father and stepmother to ask for financial help. His stepmother, Marcella McPherson, can still hear his exact words:

"I do not want to go to work. I want all my time for my studies. Bob Gingrich told me he will not help me one bit. So I wondered, would you people help me?"

Big Newt began sending him monthly checks.

Dolores Adamson, Gingrich's district administrator from 1978 to 1983, remembers, "Gingrich's first wife (Jackie) put him all the way through school. All the way through the P.h.D. He didn't work."

Adds Adamson, "Personal funds have never meant anything to him. He's worse than a six-year-old trying to keep his bank balance. Jackie did that."
So Newt is a massive hypocrite, when it's a poor kid he says they should work as janitors, but when it's him he has different rules.

Crazy O'Reilly Tells The Muppets To Watch It
By: Steve - January 31, 2012 - 10:00am

Here is another example of how the O'Reilly Factor is not a hard news show. What it shows is that (as I say) the Factor is a cross between Inside Edition and a news show. O'Reilly makes a fool of himself with this tabloid garbage, proving he is not a serious journalist.

Here is the story: Last month on Fox News, Eric Bolling did a segment on his Business show warning his audience about the dangerous liberal messages allegedly embedded in the new Muppets movie. A graphic shown during the segment asked, "Are Liberals Trying To Brainwash Your Kids Against Capitalism?"

This resulted in widespread mockery of Fox. Bolling followed that insanity up with a series of embarrassing responses -- including challenging Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy to a debate.

So the Muppets were in London last week for the U.K. premiere of The Muppets movie. During a press conference, Kermit and Miss Piggy were asked for their reaction to the allegation that they were "pushing a dangerous liberal agenda and trying to brainwash children."

Kermit said, "No, you know, it's a funny thing. They were concerned about us having some prejudice against oil companies. And I can tell you that's categorically not true. And besides, if we had a problem with oil companies, why would we have spent the entire film driving around in a gas-guzzling Rolls Royce?"

Miss Piggy added this: "It's almost as laughable as accusing Fox News as, you know, being news."

So O'Reilly talked about it Monday night, he played the video of Miss Piggy saying Fox is not news. And then said he likes the Muppets, but they better watch it. Here is a video of O'Reilly:



And there you have it, crazy O'Reilly is now warning puppets to watch out. If that is not ridiculous non-news that has no place on a so-called hard news show, I'm Elvis.

Fox Proves Their Bias Again With Another Biased Chart
By: Steve - January 29, 2012 - 10:00am

Another day, another dishonest Fox News chart. This time Fox is twisting the data to support Newt Gingrich's claim that President Obama is the "food stamp president" because "more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history."

On Friday's Your World with Neil Cavuto, Mike Huckabee agreed, saying that "what Newt says remains factual: more people have gotten on food stamps under Barack Obama as he's president than ever before. So it's true."

Guest host Eric Bolling agreed, adding that "under Obama the program has increased by 45 percent in three years." During the segment, Fox showed this chart:



That chart adds to Fox News record of using misleading charts to deceive their viewers. It features mismatched data that does not answer the question of whether "more people have gotten on food stamps" under Obama than any under other president.

It's clear that Fox's intention was to select the year of each presidency with the highest participation. But the fact that the data is compiled by fiscal year seems to have caused their employees some confusion.

Because the chart does not compare those fiscal year averages to a comparable figure, the average number of beneficiaries in a fiscal year of the Obama presidency. Instead, the 46.2 million figure Fox labels Obama (2012) refers to the number of beneficiaries in October 2011, the first month of fiscal year 2012 and the most recent month in which data is available.

Fox's data also does not show how many people were added to the rolls under the tenures of the various presidents, which would indicate whether Gingrich, Huckabee, and Bolling are correct in stating that "more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history."

Instead, the data attempts to answer the question of whether more people are currently enrolled in food stamps than were enrolled under any other president.

And btw, FactCheck.org created a chart aimed at determining whether the "food stamp president" claim is accurate, based on month-to-month figures rather than the more confusing fiscal year data. Their chart shows that more recipients were added to the rolls under George W. Bush's tenure than under Obama's:



From factcheck.org: They show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.

Under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama's time in office than during Bush's.

CBS News noted that the increase in food stamps enrollment "hardly makes Obama the 'best food stamp president in American history,' " pointing out that the "percent increase in beneficiaries during George W. Bush's presidency was higher than it has been under Mr. Obama."

In addition to answering the wrong question, Fox selects data on an inconsistent and confusing basis. The figures selected show that the network either did not apply a consistent standard as to whether or not fiscal years that feature a change of president are counted for the outgoing president, or were not seeking to provide the year of each presidency featuring the highest number of food stamp beneficiaries.

In other words, Fox News lied to make it look like Gingrich was right. Then Bolling and Huckabeee talked about it and said Gingrich was right, using doctored up charts. Proving once again they are a joke of a News Network, and proving they have a right-wing bias.

And of course neither O'Reilly or his so-called media watchdog Bernie Goldberg ever said a word about the dishonest Gingrich claim, or the fact that Fox used a bogus chart to make it look like Gingrich was right.

The Friday 1-27-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 28, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Romney looking strong after feisty debate performance. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It looks like Mitt Romney made a comeback last night - the Governor was feisty and went after Newt Gingrich big time. Unlike the final South Carolina debate, Speaker Gingrich did not really launch last night; he was much more measured in his responses.

Talking Points expects Mitt Romney to win in Florida, with Newt Gingrich coming in second, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul a distant third and fourth. There really isn't much of a difference among Romney, Gingrich and Santorum on the issues, but it is a matter of style.

We well understand that Ron Paul supporters don't like us because we think Congressman Paul would never be able to govern the country because his belief system is so unorthodox. While the Congressman does have some good ideas, he also has frightening ideas and he will not be much of a factor from now on.

All in all, last night's debate helped Mitt Romney and the Governor has to feel better today.
Wow, for once I pretty much agree with O'Reilly in what he said in his TPM.

Then Dick Morris was on with his analysis of the debate and the Florida race. Morris said this: "Romney did very well in the debate, and he was already entering the debate with momentum. Gingrich is winning men by five points but losing women by 19 points. Why it's happening is anybody's guess, but one factor you can't ignore is Marianne Gingrich. Another possibility is that Romney has been focusing on the foreclosure crisis and labeling Newt Gingrich as one of the causes of it because of his involvement with Freddie Mac."

Morris also reported that "Gingrich is being outspent by about 5 - 1 by Romney on television ads and I think Gingrich is feeling beaten and battered."

Then Geraldo was on, who has been scrutinizing the GOP candidates on the immigration issue. Geraldo said this: "Newt Gingrich is moving for 'English-only' as the law of the land, and he is speaking specifically about Spanish-speaking people. And by the way, I also think immigrants should be required to speak English because it is the glue that binds a nation of immigrants. People should speak English in the United States to get ahead."

Rivera added that Romney has some advantages among Florida Hispanics, saying this: "Romney has been campaigning very heavily in the Cuban-American community in South Florida and he has secured the key endorsements. The overwhelming majority of Hispanic Republicans in Florida are Cuban-Americans, who are very conservative, but he will get trounced in Florida in the general election because Cuban-Americans no longer dominate in Florida."

then Bernie Goldberg was on, who predicted Gingrich's anti-media tirades would wear thin, noted that Gingrich went after CNN's Wolf Blitzer only once Thursday night.

Goldberg said this: "It's legitimate to go after a reporter or moderator, if he asks you an unreasonable question that shows his own biases. But Wolf Blitzer asked a fair and reasonable question. The audience booed Blitzer, but that's a reflexive reaction because the mainstream media has made a lot of enemies over the years and, as a result, the audience was reflexively rooting for Gingrich. Blitzer did absolutely nothing wrong."

And even O'Dummy agreed that Wolf Blitzer handled the questioning fairly, saying this: "Newt Gingrich's supporters booed, but I don't think the people at home were mad at Blitzer."

Then Janine Turner and Leslie Marshall were on to talk about the finger point. Marshall said this: "We weren't there with the Governor and the President, so we really don't know if he was condescending. But it's inappropriate for anyone to point, and his position as Commander-in-Chief trumps her position as Governor."

Turner said this: "He got off an airplane in a state that has terrible problems with drug dealers and kidnappers and he's concerned about how he's depicted in Governor Brewer's book. He's more concerned about his ego than about Arizona."

But O'Reilly also criticized Brewer for waving her finger in the President's face, saying this: "I don't think they like each other, but you have to respect the office of the President."

Newt Gingrich has tried to slam Romney for having investments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So Billy had the far-right Lou Dobbs on to discuss it.

Dobbs said this: "This is where we're seeing a real difference in these campaigns. Romney's campaign has in-depth research and Gingrich is flying by the seat of his pants. This also reveals another aspect of the Gingrich campaign - it is not only understaffed and underfunded, but it's desperate. People write about Gingrich as if he's smart, but then he puts forward a stupid connection between investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and somehow being being responsible for foreclosures."

And O'Dummy said this: "Newt Gingrich is not an anti-capitalist guy but he's coming across like that because he's trying to paint Romney as this vicious capitalistic vulture."

Finally in the last segment Greg Gutfeld and Arthel Neville were on with their picks as the dumbest people and events of the week.

Neville singled out Vice President Joe Biden, who put on a fake accent while making a point about foreign labor. "I think he was trying to imitate an Indian accent, but that is offensive because you're making fun of the way someone speaks."

Gutfeld ridiculed the high school where students voted for Cougars to be their nickname, but administrators refused. "Parents and some of the staff were uncomfortable, because 'cougar' is also a term for a woman who prefers younger men. The name they chose was Chargers, which is also a female stereotype - a woman with a credit card."

And O'Dummy went with NPR host Terry Gross, who is still complaining about her interview with Bill eight years ago. "It shocked me," Gross said on The Colbert Report, "that somebody who prides himself as being the toughest interviewer in America would feel so offended."

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

The Thursday 1-26-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 27, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The conservative establishment tries to take Gingrich down. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Earlier this week you heard Ann Coulter smash Newt Gingrich on this broadcast; she believes he is not committed to the conservative cause and would get hammered by President Obama in the general election.

Many prominent conservatives are siding with Coulter, but it is the independent vote that will win the election and it's hard to say whether Gingrich could win over independents who think President Obama is not up to the job.

They just want performance, particularly in the economy, and at this point it looks like America will improve economically in the next nine months. If the Republican candidate is a controversial person that might also help the President, and certainly Newt Gingrich is explosive.

However, there's no doubt that some conservative voters see Gingrich as an avenger, someone who will not take any guff from the President or the media. Right now that is the Speaker's main attraction, and I must say I am surprised by the right wing.

I've known the Speaker for about ten years and to me he's a bona fide conservative. He may wander off the reservation sometimes, but that simply shows he's not a zombie. If a year ago somebody told me that the committed right would be attacking Newt Gingrich on ideology, I would have laughed scornfully. But that is what is happening today.
O'Reilly said this: "it's hard to say whether Gingrich could win over independents." Which is just insane, and pure right-wing propaganda because no Independent is going to vote for Gingrich. And the reason they are trying to take Gingrich down is because they know he will never beat Obama because he is too far right.

Then Laura Ingraham was on to say why so many of her conservative friends are opposed to Newt Gingrich. Ingraham said this: "Gingrich obviously ruffled a lot of feathers when he was in Washington. He was a bogeyman of the left and a stalwart defender of free enterprise, but then he wandered off and supported things like tax credits for biofuels. Things like that make you wonder whether he'll start pushing through a cap-and-trade program if he gets into office. There are a lot of conservatives who rightly look at Gingrich and wonder whether he'll do all sorts of crazy stuff."

And don't forget Gingrich did a Global Warming ad with Nancy Pelosi and took money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

So then O'Dummy said that most anti-Gingrich sentiment is based solely on electability, saying this: "Ann Coulter and others in the Republican hierarchy really despise President Obama and they don't think that Newt Gingrich can beat Obama in the general election."

Then for some strange reason O'Reilly had the right-wing loon Michele Bachmann on to discuss it. Bachmann said this: "You do get the snot beaten out of you, and that's just the way the system works. But it's a good system and I defend the process - you have to be a very tough individual. I wish I could have been a part of every single debate, it's a wonderful process that helps explain why Barack Obama can't have a second term."

Bachmann also stressed her own neutrality in the current race, saying this: "I intend to play a unifying role and I want this party to come together. I want independents to be attracted to our candidate because this is the last exit ramp for the country - if we don't get it right this time, we might not be able to find our way back."

So O'Dummy had the crazy Bachmann on to answer the question "is the campaign getting too nasty," which she never answered. Good job O'Reilly, NOT!

Then Sandy Rios & Cathy Areu were on to talk about Pat Buchanan, formerly one of the few conservatives on MSNBC, who was fired because his new book is racist.

Areu said this: "A lot of people were suspicious that he was a white supremacist, and by writing this book it's now clear. If I didn't know he had written this, I would have thought that someone from the KKK had written it. He's an extremist and he absolutely should be fired."

And of course the far-right Rios portrayed Buchanan's dismissal as a form of censorship, saying this: "What's extreme here is the assault on First Amendment rights. Pat Buchanan is a great thinker and he is being shut off because MSNBC is afraid of what he has to say."

Wrong, he still has a right to say whatever he wants, he just can not do it on MSNBC anymore. Which is not a first amendment right, the first amendment does not say you have a right to say anything you want on a tv show, it says you have free speech rights that the GOVERNMENT can not take away from you. so Rios is a loon, and a stupid one.

And of course Billy ridiculed MSNBC for its blatant bias, saying this: "Buchanan isn't saying anything now that he hasn't said before in plenty of different forums. If the litmus test is that you fire extremists, MSNBC would have nobody on the air."

So in O'Reillyworld it's ok to be a racist on tv, as long as you are a known racist, huh? Does O'Reilly even think anymore before he defends right-wing racists with that ridiculous spin. He is so willing to defend conservatives, he is now spinning for a racist.

Then Gretchen Carlson & Margaret Hoover were on to talk about Jay Leno, who was joking about Mitt Romney's wealth, and showed an ornate gold temple then said that it is Romney's summer home. A California man sued because the temple is in fact the most sacred site in the Sikh religion.

Hoover said this: "I think some people overdo it, and I think that this is a case of over-litigiousness and oversensitivity. You get a lot of frivolous lawsuits in California where people are going after money."

Carlson also dismissed the suit as downright silly, saying this: "I think this lawsuit is to get attention because this is not a very well-known religion across America. If anyone should be suing, it should be Mitt Romney because it is not his real house."

Then O'Dummy urged people of all faiths to lighten up, saying this: "I respect religion but people have to have a little sense of humor about it. You're not getting any points with the deity unless you have a sense of humor."

Which is total hypocrisy, because if a liberal (like Bill Maher) makes a joke about the christian religion O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends go nuts and slam him for it.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about the Congressional Republicans who grilled the head of the National Parks Service about the agency's leniency toward Occupy protesters camping out on federal property.

Kelly said this: "The Occupy people are technically breaking the law, If it's just a protest that's one thing, but if it morphs into camping that's another thing. There's no question that the National Parks Service has the authority to take them out, but he says he wants to be careful not to kick out one group and not another. You have to be somewhat open-minded because protesting is at the heart of America."

And of course O'Reilly said he was worried that an unsettling precedent is being established, saying this: "The Parks Service is not upholding the letter of the law and this opens the door for every outfit to camp out in every park under the guise of protest. This is outrageous - there are rats, there are drugs and cops are under siege."

But I guarantee you if they were a pro-life group O'Reilly would defend them and say they should be allowed to camp there.

And finally Martha MacCallum & Steve Doocy were on for the ridiculous Factor News Quiz, which I do not report on because it's nonsense.

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

Ohio Republican Calls For Repeal Of Anti-Voter Law
By: Steve - January 27, 2012 - 10:00am

Earlier this year, Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) signed a radical elections law that shortens the state's early voting period, bans in-person early voting on Sundays, and prohibits boards of election from mailing absentee ballot requests to voters.

If this law had been in effect in 2008, over 200,000 voters in Columbus, Ohio alone would not have been able to cast their ballot in the way that they did.

Kasich's plan to make it harder to vote is now facing a surprising dissenter, a fellow Republican and Ohio's secretary of state:
Ohio's top election official says state lawmakers should repeal and replace a controversial new elections law rather than allowing voters to weigh in on it in November.

Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted told a gathering of election officials Wednesday that he believes Ohio should start over on the process after the 2012 presidential election. He made the call despite the legislation containing many of his own ideas.

The new election law shortened Ohio's early voting period, among other changes to the state's election procedures.
If the state legislature does not follow Husted's advice, it is fairly likely that the people of Ohio will.

Kasich's anti-voter law is currently suspended after hundreds of thousands of Ohio voters signed petitions seeking to have the law overturned by referendum. The law will go before the voters this November, where it could face the same fate as Kasich's anti-union law that was defeated in a similar referendum last year.

And O'Reilly never said a word about any of it, for 2 reasons. Because Kasich is a Republican, and because he is a former Fox employee and a friend of O'Reilly.

The Wednesday 1-25-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 26, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Responding to the State of the Union. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Nothing the President said last night surprised me; he is convinced the federal government can unleash economic justice that will bring prosperity to the USA. There's no question the President really believes that, but I don't.

Let's start with the capital gains deal. The President is making a big issue out of Warren Buffett's secretary paying at a higher tax rate than the billionaire, but he did not tell the folks the difference between income tax and the tax on capital gains. If the capital gains tax goes to 30%, or even 25%, I'm not going to buy stocks.

Remember, I've already paid taxes on the money I'm invested in stocks and bonds. And any cash I make on the stock sale, if I'm lucky enough to get a winner, gets taxed again. But if I lose in the market I can only deduct $3,000 a year. There's no question America needs money, but instead of reforming the tax code and entitlement spending and closing loopholes, the President wants to tax the wealthy as much as he can.

The other sound bite that caught my ear last night was when President Obama said 'America is back.' How can American power be back when you have massive debt, a chaotic government in Washington, and no entitlement reform?

Medicare spending stands at $566 billion this year alone. If you take Medicare off the table we might begin to get some control of the budget. How would you do that? You factor in wealth, raise the age a little bit, and then you add a 3% national sales tax. That would pay most Medicare expenditures.

That's the kind of creative thinking we need in the country - isolate the problem and come up with the solution. Class warfare is not a solution!
Now read what O'Reilly said carefully folks, because everything he said about Obama and taxes is right-wing spin. Notice that he wants to reform medicare, which goes to the poor, but he never says a word about any un-needed military programs or anything that goes to the rich.

O'Reilly says he is not a partisan, and that he is an Independent, but when you actually look at what he says it's the exact same thing the Republicans say, especially the bogus class warfare garbage. Making him not just a partisan hack, it makes him a dishonest partisan hack for lying about being an Independent, and for putting out right-wing propaganda.

Then O'Reilly had Karl Rove on to agree with him to put out the impression that he is right in his TPM. Rove said this: "Who in the Congress is in favor of doubling the capital gains tax? The people in Congress who would support that idiotic proposal are lunatics, and the President was just pandering for politics last night. Saying billionaires ought to pay at least as much as their secretaries is a great line, but the top 10% of wage earners pay 70% of federal income taxes. The President was being disingenuous and dishonest and he knows it!"

Then Dennis Kucinich was on with a view from the left, saying this: "We need to make sure that those who are making the most pay more. I think the President's proposal is right - I would vote for a proposal to raise the capital gains tax to 30%. The President also talked about helping American manufacturing, we've got to help people get back to work. My constituents are worried about jobs, health care, retirement security and making sure their children can go to decent schools."

And O'Reilly does not care about any of that, all he cares about is keeping his taxes as low as possible and to hell with everyone else or the economy. In fact, O'Reilly does not want jobs and the economy to recover because it helps Obama and would make sure he gets re-elected, which O'Reilly does not want.

O'Reilly also asked Kucinich how American manufacturers can compete with low wage nations. Kucinich said this: "We have to make sure that all our trade agreements, have workers rights, human rights and environmental quality principles. Our trade agreements are bogus, they're against the American worker. We have to start protecting the American economy and American-made products."

Then Dick Morris was on to talk about next week's vote in Florida. Morris said this: "In the debate on Monday night Romney really drew blood, and they've been killing each other with negative ads. Gingrich's negative ads say Romney is bad on health care, but I think he's effectively defended that. Romney's attack on Gingrich is about Freddie Mac, and I think Gingrich has to explain what he did for that money. Romney is moving up and Gingrich is moving down slightly, but a lot depends on what happens in the debate Thursday night."

Then Factor producer Jesse Watters, who is not content with scientific opinion polls, went to Washington and asked some (so-called) regular folks to grade the President's speech.

Here are a few of those comments: "My two biggest concerns are immigration and foreign policy, I'm going to give him an A-minus" ... "As of today I would give him a D, I think it overwhelmed him."

Then Watters said this: "I think it was a B-minus average. We were at a museum about the mainstream media in DC on a workday, so you're going to get a pro-Obama crowd. And I have a theory that a lot of young voters in college give Obama an A for effort. They don't care about his performance, they just like that he's trying hard and they like his personality and charisma and celebrity."

And if that was not a totally biased one sided segment with two right-wing stooges that hate Obama, I'm Donald Trump.

Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on because he is not a journalist, he is a has-been right-wing comedian who is only on to make jokes about Obama and the liberals. And the fact that O'Reilly does not have a liberal comedian on to make jokes about conservatives is just more proof he is a right-wing stooge.

And finally, Juliet Huddy was on for did you see that, she analyzed a pro-Gingrich ad that denounces Mitt Romney for his Massachusetts health care law, saying this: "Saying that Romney 'invented' government-run health care is not true. A sociology professor back in 1904 came up with this whole health care reform idea. And the claim that Romney 'helped write' Obamacare is not true."

Huddy then viewed a Romney ad that slams Gingrich for making big bucks as a consultant to Freddie Mac, saying this: "The ad says Gingrich resigned in disgrace, but that is absolutely not true. He went through ethics violations in 1997 but resigned two years later."

Which is more right-wing lies, because Gingrich did resigned in disgrace, O'Reilly and the right just refuse to admit it.

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

UN Says Gitmo Is A Violation Of International Law
By: Steve - January 26, 2012 - 10:00am

The United States continued operation of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba is a "clear breach of international law," United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay said Monday.

Only six trials have been completed in 10 years, while eight detainees have died at the prison.

"While fully recognizing the right and duty of states to protect their people and territory from terrorist acts, I remind all branches of the U.S. government of their obligation under international human rights law to ensure that individuals deprived of their liberty can have the lawfulness of their detention reviewed before a court," Pillay said.

"Where credible evidence exists against Guantanamo detainees, they should be charged and prosecuted. Otherwise, they must be released."

And think about this, O'Reilly and virtually every Republican in America support Gitmo, but none of them ever report on the violations there, or the deaths. O'Reilly ignored the 8 deaths, and never said a word about any of it.

The Tuesday 1-24-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 25, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The No Spin State of the Union. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama is about to deliver his third State of the Union address. We can expect the President to be in full campaign mode, painting an optimistic picture of America filled with forward-looking promises for middle class Americans.

From the beginning I have opined that President Obama is not a bad person; I believe he genuinely wants to do good for Americans. But policy is another matter, so let's look at the facts. When President Obama took office the national debt was $10.62 trillion; today it is $15.32 trillion, an increase of 43%. In January of '09 a gallon of gas cost $1.84; now it is $3.39, a whopping 84% increase.

Average family health insurance premiums have risen by 12.6% and unemployment has gone from 7.6% to 8.5%. We all know President Obama inherited a bad situation, but on paper he's made it worse. Tonight Mr. Obama is going to call for the federal government to do more to insure 'fairness for all.'

What he fails to understand is that it is impossible to be fair to all - life doesn't work that way, especially in a competitive capitalist system. So this pie in the sky stuff actually hurts the President, who continues to believe that his vision can be imposed on the country. It can't!
Now O'Reilly blames Obama for the price of gas, what a right-wing idiot. And most of the debt was caused by Bush and the Republicans from 2000 to 2009, and yet O'Reilly still counts it against Obama, which is just ridiculous. Not to mention, the stock market is almost up to 13,000 and yet O'Reilly never says a word about that, or the fact that jobs have increased every month for a year, and unemployment is going down.

O'Reilly also ignored the fact that if you take away the jobs lost in the 1st six months after Obama took office (because of Bush) there has been a positive job growth of 1.9 million jobs since then. O'Reilly ignores all that, proving he is a right-wing idiot.

Then Bob Beckel was on, who downplayed the national debt, saying this: "When you woke up today, what is it about the debt that affected your life? Whenever there's a sale of U.S. bonds there's a line out the door of people trying to buy them and the dollar is not going to collapse. Tonight President Obama is going to put forth his idea that the government does have some involvement in the future of this economy."

Beckel defended the President's stimulus, saying this: "From the time it went into effect we've created four-million jobs."

O'Reilly then laid out the basic difference between two competing philosophies, saying this: "You say continue to spend, continue to borrow, and so does the President. I say we can't do that because we're destroying the economy."

Then Monica Crowley & Alan Colmes were on to talk about how Newt Gingrich accuses President Obama of being unduly influenced by Saul Alinsky, the radical social activist who died in 1972.

Colmes said this: "We're talking about a guy who's been dead for 40 years, and trying to tie him to Obama. We played that game four years ago and it didn't seem to get Republicans elected. What Alinsky believed has nothing to do with what Obama does."

But of course the crazy Monica Crowley agreed with Newt that Alinsky's influence permeates the White House, saying this: "Saul Alinsky wrote 'Rules for Radicals' in 1971 and dedicated it to Satan. This is the godfather of the leftist movement, and Barack Obama actually taught Alinsky 101 at the University of Chicago. The tactics of Saul Alinsky and Barack Obama are geared toward wealth redistribution."

Then O'Reilly claimed that President Obama endorses at least one Alinsky idea, saying this: "The President believes the federal government has a tremendous role in ensuring an outcome for American workers, which is what Alinsky wanted."

Then Larry Sabato & Frank Newport were on to talk about the GOP primary. Sabato said this: "This entire campaign has been a roller coaster, and every time a candidate gets to the top of the hill he goes down because all the negatives come out. Who's at the top of the hill right now? Newt Gingrich. I think this will get a lot closer because Mitt Romney will inundate Gingrich with negative ads. There are also a lot of snowbirds from the Northeast in Florida and they're going to be pro-Romney."

Newport explained why demographics matter in Florida, saying this: "The percentage of Republicans who are conservative in Florida is almost the same as in South Carolina, but Republicans in Florida are the oldest Republicans of any state and that is one of Gingrich's strengths. At this point seven days is an eternity and none of us really has an idea what is going to happen."

Then O'Dummy talked about OxyContin, the prescription painkiller related to heroin, that is being abused by millions of Americans. So John Stossel was on to talk about his desire for drug legalization.

Stossel said this: "What do you want to do, lock everybody up? Making stuff illegal and increasing the penalties does not make things better. There's more destruction when drugs are illegal - more people get killed because you have gangs. Alcohol and tobacco are just as addictive!"

But O'Reilly warned that drug legalization will lead to chaos and human destruction, saying this: "OxyContin is the argument against legalization. It's addictive in the extreme and kids are getting it."

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to discuss the case of the former CIA officer John Kiriakou, who was arrested for leaking secrets to reporters.

Wiehl said this: "In 2007 he went on ABC, and said there was waterboarding of Al Qaeda. Then he gave classified information to reporters about a covert CIA agent, including the agent's phone number and email address."

Guilfoyle said the covert agent eventually became known to suspected terrorists, saying this: "This information got into the hands of high value detainees at Guantanamo Bay because it was provided by the journalists to defense attorneys. The journalists have been cleared and will not be charged."

Then crazy O'Reilly denounced the unnamed reporters who passed on the information, saying this: "If I find out who they are, everyone in the country will know."

And finally Charles Krauthammer was on. Romney is saying that Newt Gingrich "had to resign in disgrace" as Speaker of the House. So O'Reilly asked Krauthammer for a truth check.

Krauthammer said this: "That isn't exactly true. The 'disgrace' happened in 1997 when Gingrich was reprimanded by the House and had to pay a fine for ethics violations. But he resigned after the 1998 elections because of the defeat the Republicans suffered and because he lost the confidence of Republicans in the House. He resigned in defeat, but not in disgrace."

Krauthammer also suggested that Gingrich's greatest vulnerability is having worked for Freddie Mac, saying this: "He says he's the guy to go up against the elites in New York and Washington, but Freddie Mac is the illegitimate bastard son of those two elites. If you're going to run against the elites and you were on the payroll of the worst of those elites, it doesn't look good."

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

Crazy Republicans Want To Allow Guns In Elementary School
By: Steve - January 25, 2012 - 10:00am

Yes you read that right, the insane Republicans now want to allow people to carry guns into an elementary school, a middle school, or a high school.

Colorado Republicans have clarified their priorities for the new legislative session: Gun rights. Specifically, they are doing their best to ensure that citizens have the ability to carry guns anywhere, including into elementary, middle, and high schools:
Colorado Republicans are reloading previous attempts to expand gun rights, bringing back legislation that would allow concealed weapons in schools and let businesses use deadly force against intruders.

A proposal running simultaneously in the House and Senate would allow concealed weapons on school grounds and college campuses if a person has a permit and another bill would let business owners and employees use deadly force against intruders.
Conservatives have twisted the TWO school massacres at Columbine and Virginia Tech to argue that there need to be more guns in schools to fight back against armed attacks.

Last year more than a dozen state legislatures took up bills that would allow guns on college campuses - and some even considered lifting their gun bans at K-12 public schools.

Florida suspended discussion of their controversial bill after the emotional testimony of a father whose daughter was killed at Florida State University when another student accidentally discharged a rifle.

Gun control advocates say the presence of guns makes schools much more dangerous and creates a negative learning environment. The chances of tragic accidents and guns being stolen are also quite high in communal settings. Earlier this month a Texas middle school student was shot to death by police for carrying what turned out to be a pellet gun.

The Colorado legislature is also considering a proposal to eliminate background checks for firearm purchases - increasing the likelihood that guns will fall into the wrong hands.

A recent New York Times investigation revealed that ex-convicts are finding it increasingly easy to get their guns back after being released from prison.

Thanks to pro-gun lobbyists and Republican legislatures, even felons with histories of stalking and mental health problems have their gun rights restored without any review by judges - a trend that jeopardizes public safety and has already cost lives.

The Monday 1-23-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 24, 2012 - 11:30am

The TPM was called: Can Gingrich continue his rise? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Talking Points congratulates Newt Gingrich for his victory in South Carolina and we suggest that he send candy and flowers to ABC News and CNN. They tried to use the Speaker's former wife against him and, in a brilliant political move, Mr. Gingrich turned what could have been an embarrassing situation into a major victory.

Many conservative Americans believe the news media demeans them, which is why Fox News is now the dominant prime time news agency in America. We don't demean traditional Americans; we respect them. So when Gingrich went out at John King of CNN for opening last week's debate with a tabloid question, voters in South Carolina cheered.

Now Mr. Gingrich sees another ripe issue, what he calls 'the anti-religious bigotry of our elites.' The Speaker's line of attack presents a huge problem for Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney - they are much more contained, and conservative disenchantment with President Obama is so high that many voters are looking for an avenger who will take the fight to the President. If Newt Gingrich wins big in Florida, Mitt Romney will be in dire trouble.
And all I can say is go Newt go, because if he wins the GOP nomination Obama will crush his far-right dishonest ass like a bug. Not to mention the lie from O'Reilly that Fox News is the dominant prime time news agency in America. Because NBC, ABC, and CBS News, all get higher ratings than O'Reilly and Fox, proving once again that O'Reilly is a far-right lying idiot, especially about the ratings.

Then Brit Hume was on, who assessed Mitt Romney's defeat. Hume said this: "There's a lot right with the Romney campaign, but there are also a couple of things wrong. One is that the candidate himself has failed to respond vigorously to challenges. Number two is that the Romney campaign thought they left Gingrich dead in New Hampshire and didn't come after him until he began to rise in South Carolina."

Hume also suggested that Gingrich's surge may soon fizzle, saying this: "Newt Gingrich has the highest negatives by far of any candidate in the field, and my sense is that he can not make it all the way to the Republican nomination based on a campaign against the news media."

O'Reilly said that Gingrich won the South Carolina vote the moment he confronted CNN's John King, saying this: "Once Gingrich tapped into that deep well of resentment that many conservatives have against the media, nothing Romney could have done would have stopped that surge."

And I still say Romney will win it, and O'Reilly will be wrong about Newt. Even if Newt wins Florida, Romney will still win it. And soon we will see who is right, me or O'Reilly. Not to mention, the only reason far-right hates the mainstream media is because they tell the truth about Republicans, it's not bias, it's called journalism.

Even though Newt Gingrich's former wife Marianne portrayed her husband in the worst light, he won a plurality of votes from married women in South Carolina. So Billy asked Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams to explain that.

Williams said this: "These are not soccer moms or mortgage moms or younger women, these are largely women over 50 and their big issues are paying for prescription drugs and Medicare. They're really upset over the President's health care plan."

Ham said this: "Many conservative women, especially after the beating Sarah Palin took in the media, are very attuned to media attacks. They may feel this Marianne Gingrich interview was suspiciously timed to do the most damage to Newt. I think many very conservative women reacted strongly to that."

And there is a 3rd answer, they are stupid Republican women who voted for Newt anyway.

Then O'Dummy had the far-right loon Ann Coulter on to slam Gingrich, because she is a Romney supporter. Coulter said this: "He says whatever the audience wants him to say, and these attacks on the media have been depleting the well of sentiment against the liberal media. He keeps going back to that issue to protect himself from his infidelities; it's like Jesse Jackson going around accusing people of racism when his mistresses come out. Newt Gingrich doesn't want to answer a question, he wants to cover his infidelities."

WOW! For once Coulter is right, it's a miracle.

Coulter also restated her support for Mitt Romney, saying this: "I think Romney is the most conservative candidate of the four who remain, and the big question is how do we get the most votes? Just close your eyes, look at Newt and Callista, and ask yourself whether these people will be President and First Lady? The answer is no! And if we don't defeat Barack Obama in 2012, Obama-care is here to stay and we will go the way of Western Europe."

Then O'Reilly had a segment about Joe Paterno's death, which I will not report on out of respect for Coach Paterno.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to complain about the media, as he always does, with no Democratic guest to counter his right-wing spin and lies.

Goldberg expressed his doubts about the Gingrich attack plan against the media, saying this: "If you're going to bash the media, your most receptive audience is going to be conservative Republicans. This strategy can continue for a while, but it's going to get old at some point, it's going to lose impact. I'm not sure Republican voters want Newt Gingrich; I think they'd love to have Mitt Romney with his looks and physical demeanor, but with Gingrich's passion and enthusiasm."

O'Dummy said this: "It has been brutally effective for Newt Gingrich to portray himself as an avenger, because that is what a lot of conservative Republicans want against President Obama."

Except there is one problem with that O'Reilly, once we get to the real election where everyone votes, the attack the media for bias plan will not work, and if Gingrich wins he will get crushed by Obama.

And the last segment was the ridiculous Factor Reality Check, that I do not report on because it's bogus partisan garbage. It's just O'Reilly (by himself) putting his right-wing spin on something someone else said, it's not reality and there are almost no real checks.

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




Romney Hypocrisy On Freddie & Fannie Is Stunning
By: Steve - January 24, 2012 - 11:00am

On Monday GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney broke out a harsher line on Newt Gingrich, who was Saturday's winner of the South Carolina GOP primary, saying that the former speaker of the House should give back the $1.7 million in payments he received from mortgage giant Freddie Mac.

"He said in a debate, that people who profited from the failed model of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae ought to give back their money."

"Well, the speaker made $1.7 million in his enterprises from providing services to Freddie Mac. He ought to give it back."

But Romney is throwing stones from his own glass house, because he also profited from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, as the Boston Globe detailed back in September:
On his financial disclosure statement filed last month, Romney reported owning between $250,000 and $500,000 in a mutual fund that invests in debt notes of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, among other government entities.

Over the previous year, he had reported earning between $15,000 and $50,000 in interest from those investments.

And unlike most of Romney's financial holdings, which are held in a blind trust that is overseen by a trustee and not known to Romney, this particular investment was among those that would have been known to Romney.
And btw, over the weekend, Romney intends to start airing an ad that will say this: "While Florida families lost everything in the housing crisis, Newt Gingrich cashed in. Gingrich was paid over $1.6 million by the scandal-ridden agency that helped create the crisis."

Bu shockingly, the ad fails to mention Romney's own investments in the government backed mortgage giants, which have netted him tens of thousands of dollars in profit.

And of course, O'Reilly has not reported a word of it. In fact, not once has O'Reilly done a reality check on any of the Republican campaign ads. Even though he always does a reality check on dishonest campaign ads that are run by Democrats.

Gingrich Caught Lying About His Ethics Investigation
By: Steve - January 24, 2012 - 10:00am

The 1997 House ethics investigation into then-Speaker Newt Gingrich has resurfaced on the campaign trail, but Gingrich told CNN’s Candy Crowley that all information relevant to the scandal was already public.

Gingrich said the $300,000 penalty he was ordered to pay by the House Ethics Committee was a reimbursement for the cost of the investigation, and that "on every single count, I was exonerated."

He added that many House Republicans voted yes on the ethics charges against him in order to put it behind them more quickly, rather than because they believed he had done anything wrong.

As Gingrich himself admitted later in the interview, he was not exonerated on every count. While most of the initial charges against him were dropped, he was sanctioned on one count of flouting tax laws relating to a college course he taught that received non-profit status even though it was political in nature.

And contrary to Gingrich's claim that House Republicans voted to reprimand him simply to move on, many said at the time that they were very disturbed by Gingrich's actions. "Newt has done some things that have embarrassed House Republicans and embarrassed the House," said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) at the time.

"If the voters see more of that, they will question our judgment." Even Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), who cast the lone dissenting vote on the ethics committee against charging Gingrich, said the Speaker made "real mistakes but they shouldn't be hanging offenses."

And of course O'Reilly never said a word about any of it, because he is a stooge for all the Republicans.

Idiot Huckabee Thinks Obama Was A Foreign Student
By: Steve - January 23, 2012 - 11:00am

Here is more proof that Republicans are biased and dishonest idiots, especially the Republicans at Fox News. During a Fox News appearance Friday on the O'Reilly Factor, Mike Huckabee suggested that Mitt Romney, who has come under fire for refusing to release his tax returns, respond by challenging President Obama to release his college application materials in order to "show whether he got any loans as a foreign student."

Huckabee said this: "Let Romney make this challenge: 'I'll release my tax returns when Barack Obama releases his college transcripts and the copy of his admission records to show whether he got any loans as a foreign student. When he releases that, talk to me about my tax returns.'"
O'REILLY: Because of the media, the perception is if you don't release [your tax returns], you're trying to hide something. Look, Romney doesn't want his tax returns in the hands of The New York Times because they're going to cherry-pick it and make him look like a greedhead and he doesn't want to give them any more ammo. You know what this is all about.

HUCKABEE: Absolutely. And the thing is you get zero credit from the media for releasing them and then you buy yourselves a lot of grief. The question is, why would you help load a gun that's pointed at your own head?

O'REILLY: Because the people, the folks, most of them, want you to. I think that's the answer to your question.

HUCKABEE: Well, but he has to forcefully tell it why he's not going to, why it's irrelevant, say, "Look, I've disclosed more than I need to." Let him make this challenge: "I'll release my tax returns when Barack Obama releases his college transcripts and the copy of his admission records to show whether he got any loans as a foreign student. When he releases that, talk to me about my tax returns."
Now what O'Reilly and Huckabee fail to mention is that most Republicans also want Romney to release his tax returns. They spin it as some liberal conspiracy, when a lot of Republicans are also calling on Romney to release his tax returns. Not to mention, O'Reilly calls for full disclosure from Democrats, but when it's a Republican suddenly it's a bad thing to do.

And btw folks, Obama's college applications materials - like his birth certificate - have long been the subject of conspiracies with some loons on the right wing.

Even though in May of 2009, FactCheck.org assessed the claim made in a chain e-mail that Obama had attended Occidental College on a scholarship for foreign students.

The email purported to quote an Associated Press story indicating that Obama's college transcripts had been released and indicated that Obama "under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school," and that the document "would seem to provide the smoking gun" proving that Obama is not an American citizen and is thus ineligible for the presidency.

FactCheck.org determined that "the claim is false and the story is a hoax," noting that the AP story had been fabricated as an April Fools' Day joke.

And this is not the first time Huckabee has promoted falsehoods about Obama's background. During a February 2011 radio interview, he repeatedly claimed that Obama had grown up "in Kenya."

Huckabee then drew heavy criticism for his comments from the media and offered an evolving series of explanations for his comments, eventually blaming Media Matters for bringing his remarks to light and falsely claiming he had been taken out of context.

Which is the same thing O'Reilly does every time the media quotes him about something stupid he said, he then says the media is biased and dishonest and claims they took him out of context. It's a standard right-wing spin tactic, attack the attacker, even when the attacker is accurately quoting you in context.

Wallace Slams Fox For CNN Attacks Over Gingrich
By: Steve - January 23, 2012 - 10:00am

Here is a great example of one person at Fox telling the truth, and while Chris Wallace got it right this time, he usually has almost as much bias as the rest of Fox. So I am not saying Wallace is an objective non-partisan journalist, I am just saying this one time he got it right.

What we have is a Fox News figure telling his colleagues he thinks their "bias" claim is made up.

At Thursday night's Republican primary debate, CNN chief national correspondent and moderator John King opened by asking candidate Newt Gingrich about his ex-wife's allegation that he asked her for an open marriage. Gingrich blasted King in response, saying this: "To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine."

All the other Fox News figures responded to the exchange by attacking CNN for having "bias" against Gingrich. On his Fox News show following the debate, Sean Hannity hosted Gingrich's daughters to attack King's question, he led the segment by referring to the "media's tawdry desire to go after this."

On Friday's edition of Fox & Friends, the co-hosts repeatedly attacked King over the question. Steve Doocy even claimed King's question was "one of the most egregious examples of media bias ever."

Later, co-host Gretchen Carlson interviewed Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. about whether King's question was evidence of bias. Johnson claimed the question was proof of an "unholy alliance between the mainstream media and certain factions in government," and said King was "trying to destroy Gingrich."

O'Reilly and everyone else at Fox were also outraged that King would dare ask such a biased question.

But then they had Fox News anchor Chris Wallace on, who was not subscribing to his own network's line on the story; in fact, Wallace -- who has co-moderated several GOP primary debates during the past year -- said he would have also asked that as the first question.:
CARLSON: Does he have a point? Do you agree with him?

WALLACE: No. I don't agree with him at all. You know, I've got to say, I was thinking to myself last night -- I mean, that's how sad my life is, I sit there even in debates I'm not a part of it, and think, what would I do? And I would have asked that as the first question.
Doocy said this: "The first question?" Wallace replied, "Yes. Absolutely," and went on:
WALLACE: I think it's the news. It's the big development that's out there -- and look, we're judging a president. And how he answers it, and look, it got a -- it got a terrific answer from him.

Our job isn't to be popular. Our job is to ask what's on people's minds. I mean, we've asked about the economy, and we've asked about foreign policy a million times.

We're going to get to it in the course of a two-hour debate. I thought it was a legitimate first question to ask.
Later, Wallace was a guest on The Mike Gallagher Show. When host Mike Gallagher criticized ABC for "electing to run an interview with an ex-wife" the week of the South Carolina primary, Wallace defended ABC's decision and replied, in part, "If [Marianne Gingrich] had called me this week and said we want to do an interview, I would have done the interview and I would have run the interview."

Wallace wasn't the only right-wing media figure who defended King's question; CNN contributor Erick Erickson said the question about Gingrich's ex-wife "had to be asked" and added, "I'm glad John King asked it first, cause it would have otherwise overshadowed everything else in the debate."

Now think about this, do you think Fox and O'Reilly would be so upset if Gingrich were a Democrat, of course not, and they would report on the story 24/7, proving their bias even more.

More Proof Republicans Are Just Ridiculous Fools
By: Steve - January 22, 2012 - 10:00am

Now get this, a few days ago the Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman said Mitt Romney was unelectable:
HUNTSMAN: First of all, you've got to get elected to office for heaven's sake, and making statements like that you render yourself completely unelectable.

Whether you're referring to economic policy, it really becomes more of a political issue, when you've got the Chicago political machine and $1 billion bearing down on you.

You make a statement like, you talk about pink slips, and pretty soon you're going to lose the high ground.
Okay, so Huntsman announced he is dropping out of the race and he would never endorse Romney, right?

Wrong! Yes you heard me right. Now Huntsman is endorsing Mitt Romney, after he said he was unelectable.

On Monday, Jon Huntsman (R) informed his advisers that he is dropping out of the presidential race. After his third place finish in New Hampshire's primary, Huntsman declared that he had a ticket to ride but it appears the be on a bus owned by GOP front-runner Mitt Romney, whom Huntsman is now expected to endorse.

"The governor and his family, at this point in the race, decided it was time for Republicans to rally around a candidate who could beat Barack Obama and turn around the economy," Huntsman adviser Matt David said in a statement.

"That candidate is Gov. Mitt Romney."

Huntsman's decision may have been influenced by the fact that a powerful group of social conservatives called on conservative to coalesce around Rick Santorum as the anti-Romney candidate this weekend.

The Friday 1-20-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 21, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Recapping the debate's best and worst moments. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Faced with harsh accusations from his former wife Marianne, Newt Gingrich turned the tables Thursday night in a very shrewd way - he killed the messenger, he hammered the press. For conservative Americans this was deeply gratifying because there is no question that the media are generally invested in liberal politics.

Mr. Gingrich well understands that reality and the hostility conservatives have towards the media, and so he delivered an epic blow, railing against 'the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media.' What did Speaker Gingrich accomplish?

He deflected the marital issue, he once again proved he is a conservative warrior, and he separated himself from the more low key personalities of Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.

On balance, Speaker Gingrich took a huge negative and turned it into a positive, at least in the short run. His ex-wife's accusations are going to hurt him, especially among women voters, but there is no question that Newt Gingrich is now competitive in South Carolina.

The truth is that there's not much difference among Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney on most policy matters, so South Carolina voters are left with personalities rather than policy. Mitt Romney understands that and on Thursday night he tried to convince voters that he is like them, saying 'what I have I earned.'

The South Carolina vote will be fascinating because there are so many variables in the air. If Governor Romney wins, he cruises into Florida almost unstoppable; if Speaker Gingrich wins, he must immediately hope that translates into millions of dollars in donations so he can compete on television in the Sunshine State; if Rick Santorum comes in third, it's going to be tough for him going forward because of the money factor.
And O'Reilly is drinking the right-wing kool-aid big time, so much he even put out the right-wing spin that the Gingrich wife scandal helped him. Now that is being a true blue right-wing stooge.

Then Mike Huckabee was on, and he applauded Newt Gingrich's smackdown of CNN and moderator John King, saying this: "What he did in the debate was brilliant political gamesmanship. It was absolutely a flawless putdown, and when you are accused of being a 'bad guy' the best thing you can do is turn the person attacking you into the 'bad guy.' Newt did that with precision like I've rarely seen."

Huckabee then advised Mitt Romney to keep his tax returns private, saying this: "In Arkansas I released twenty years of tax records and it was the stupidest thing I ever did because you have to release a very detailed financial disclosure statement. Let him make this challenge: I'll release my tax returns when Barack Obama releases his college transcripts and a copy of his admission record to show whether he got loans as a foreign student."

O'Reilly reminded Huckabee of this: "The media perception is that if you don't release your returns you're trying to hide something."

Are you kidding me O'Reilly, is that the best you have. Here is a reality check for you, it's not just a media perception, if you refuse to release your tax returns you are hiding something. Once again O'Reilly has proven beyond a doubt he is a right-wing spin doctor with that crazy statement.

Then O'Dummy asked if women will be reluctant to vote for Newt Gingrich because of his troubled marital history? Billy had Janine Turner and Leslie Marshall on to discuss it.

Turner said this: "If you saw that room in South Carolina, it wasn't all men applauding. I think women are more concerned about the economy and I don't think this whole issue with his former wife is important to them."

Marshall disagreed, saying this: "He comes across as a bit bombastic, whereas Romney comes off more like a gentleman. And Romney is better looking! It shouldn't matter, but it does."

So O'Dummy reported this: "A Fox News poll shows that Mitt Romney is by far the most popular among women, and if he wins in South Carolina it will be because of women."

Then the two right-wingers James Rosen and Carl Cameron were on, who reported the latest news from South Carolina. Cameron said this: "The debate last night didn't work out so well for Mitt Romney, and to give you an example of how risk-averse the Romney campaign is right now, they have yet to commit for a debate scheduled for Monday in Tampa. They're rattled and they can see that Newt Gingrich is really surging in South Carolina."

Rosen reported that Romney spent most of Friday engaging in face-to-face retail politics, saying this: "I don't think the Romney campaign imagines that their candidate suffers from a lack of visibility or that the GOP primary electorate needs to get to know him better. It's a question of getting out the vote on the eve of this primary."

Then Lou Dobbs was on, who has been looking into reports that Mitt Romney has millions of dollars invested in the Cayman Islands. With no Democratic guest at all, making it a biased joke of a segment with nothing but right-wing spin from Dobbs and O'Reilly.

Dobbs said this: "The essential question is why would he put his money there, and the answer is very simple. He gets to defer taxes on the money that is in a trust in the Cayman Islands earning interest. It's exactly like an IRA, it's nothing nefarious. And there's another reason that wealthy people tend to put their money in places like the Cayman Islands - it gives them protection from civil litigation and private investigators."

Then Dobbs slammed ABC News for focusing on the Cayman Islands issue, saying this: "This is tacky reporting, it's sensationalized to the point of nausea." And finally, Dobbs offered some advice to Mitt Romney regarding his tax returns, saying this: "He should say 'stick it,' this is none of your business. At some point someone has to say to hell with you, there is a right to privacy."

And finally in the last segment Bernie Goldberg was on, who denounced ABC News for airing the interview with Newt Gingrich's second wife Marianne, saying this: "I wouldn't have run it, and it has nothing to do with whether I like or dislike Newt Gingrich. I can only think of one reason to run the interview - it's a ratings bonanza. When you get beyond that most of it is old news. Everything the electorate needs to know about Newt Gingrich's character is out there and it's been out there for a long time."

Without a word from O'Reilly or Goldberg that Fox's own Sunday News show anchor Chris Wallace saying it was a good question, and he would have asked it first. They both implied it was some evil liberal conspiracy, when even the conservative Chris Wallace said he would have done the very same thing.

And of course O'Dummy agreed, saying this: "I would not have run the interview because there is no corroboration for the personal attack launched on the Speaker by his former wife."

Which is so ridiculous it's laughable. How can you have any corroboration for a private conversation between Gingrich and his wife, what a joke. Not to mention, when a Democrats wife says something about her husband O'Reilly never pulls the corroboration nonsense.

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

Another Poll Proves O'Reilly Wrong Again
By: Steve - January 21, 2012 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly has ignored this poll and not said one word about it. Because he only reports on polls that agree with his right-wing spin on an issue.

A new New York Times/CBS News poll shows 43 percent of Americans blame President Bush for the deficit, compared to just 14 percent who blame President Obama.

Which is the exact opposite of what O'Reilly claims, Billy claims the people blame Obama for the debt and the deficit. Because that is what right-wing spin doctors do, spin the truth.

The facts show that only 14% of the people blame Obama for the deficit. While O'Reilly blames it all on Obama, and claims his social justice programs are to blame. When in fact, only 14% of the American people agree with that propaganda.

This is just more proof that O'Reilly is a partisan right-wing hack who only cares about spinning out right-wing propaganda, and to hell with what the people actually think. Then on top of that he ignores the poll, then spins out his propaganda on the issue.

The Thursday 1-19-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 20, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Political chaos in South Carolina. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The polls are all over the place in South Carolina, but there is one common thread - Newt Gingrich is on the rise after Monday's debate. However, ABC News is running an interview with the Speaker's ex-wife who says bad things about him.

Also, Governor Rick Perry dropped out of the race today and endorsed Mr. Gingrich. The Republican campaign has become very nasty and that of course helps the Democratic Party and President Obama.

There is no question that some South Carolina voters are going to be disturbed by the Speaker's past, and the report on ABC will certainly ramp that up. Mr. Gingrich's second wife Marianne says in the interview that 'he was asking for an open marriage.'

Talking Points believes this is terrible stuff and you the voter must decide if it's relevant. In the past the press has largely looked away from high-level marital indiscretions, but President Clinton's problems and the 24/7 news cycle changed everything. So Newt Gingrich will have to relive his past once again.
And btw, the reason the Gingrich info is RELEVANT is because he signed a marriage pledge saying he supported marriage, then he violated that pledge by asking his ex-wife for an open marriage. And of course O'Reilly defends it, because he is a right-wing stooge, and Newt Gingrich is his friend.

Then Brian Ross was on, who conducted the interview with Marianne Gingrich. Ross said this: "This was not where I thought this was going to go when I sought out Marianne for an interview. We were interested in the alleged ethics improprieties during the Speaker's term, but she said she wanted to tell all about what happened in the marriage and why, in her view, Newt Gingrich does not have the moral character to be President."

Ross also explained why he feels the interview is newsworthy, saying this: "In this campaign character has become an issue and Mr. Gingrich has taken a strong stand on 'family values' and the sanctity of marriage."

O'Dummy pointed out that Newt Gingrich's past foibles were already well documented, saying this: "He says he's a converted guy now and this is a redemptive situation. He says he has turned his life around with a new religion and a new outlook."

And O'Reilly believes him, haha, what a right-wing fool. Earth to O'Dummy, he is only saying that because he wants to be the President. And if a Democrat was saying it O'Reilly would laugh at him and say he will never believe it.

Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about whether ABC News should have aired Marianne Gingrich's revelations. Ingraham said this: "The key question here is newsworthiness. Except for the 'open marriage' claim, this was a rehash of past articles, but ABC is putting all this effort into promoting the interview. The fact of the matter is that Newt Gingrich sought forgiveness and received forgiveness from his family and his daughters, and sought forgiveness from God. ABC doesn't seem to be making moral judgments about their shows that have people jumping in and out of bed, but suddenly Newt Gingrich's pillow talk from more than ten years ago is breaking news. I find it all quite repugnant."

But she sure never finds and sex scandals by Democrats repugnant, ever, not once.

O'Reilly even reminded Ingraham that Brian Ross has investigated both sides, saying this: "Last time around it was Ross who drove the Jeremiah Wright stuff, so I don't think he has a political agenda."

Then professor Marc Lamont Hill was on. While campaigning in South Carolina, Mitt Romney handed some cash to a black woman who told him she was going through a rough time, and was then denounced as "patronizing" by Miami Herald columnist Joy-Ann Reid.

Hill said this: "I don't think Romney's decision to give the woman money was bad in and of itself. If he ignored the woman he would have been blasted for being cruel to the poor, so I think he did the right thing. But there's a very old narrative that is woven by Republicans that equates poverty to race. Helping one individual person is great, but if you don't have any sense that we need structural change and not individual charity, then who cares whether he gave $50 to the woman?"

And of course O'Dummy complained that Romney is being punished for doing a good deed, saying this: "This person from the Miami Herald could not even give credit for such a simple and charitable act because of her racial animus and political fanaticism."

Are you kidding me, Romney only did it because it would be seen on camera, and because she was black. It was a cheap political stunt to try and gain some support among black people, that will never work, and no blacks are going to fall for it.

Then O'Dummy asked Culture Warriors Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson to name the most important cultural issue in this year's presidential election. Carlson said this: "In my mind it should be the breakdown of the family, which has been in the forefront of many people's minds for years. Divorce is a reality in our society and 41% of all births are to unmarried women. Politicians can set a good example and start talking about the family again."

Hoover singled out the overriding importance of faith, saying this: "The main cultural topic is the role of religion in politics. I'm in South Carolina tonight, where 60% of primary voters are self-identified evangelicals or born-again Christians. Barack Obama has been to church three times in the past month because religion is an issue. The electorate in this country actually is religious, so religion plays into all of our social issues."

Then Megyn Kelly was on, who has been looking into Mitt Romney's wealth and business dealings.

Kelly said this: "His rivals will try to make it an issue, but the folks who have objectively examined how he made and invested his money tell me there's nothing particularly unusual about it. His 15% tax rate is perfectly legal, although it may not play well politically and people may not like it. There's also a story out that he has investments in the Cayman Islands, but he pays the same tax rate that he would pay here. Some critics are upset that he took advantage of tax loopholes, but doesn't everybody?"

Wow, no Kelly everybody does not take advantage of tax loopholes, only the rich do you right-wing stooge. And think about this, she claims to be an objective journalist, haha, and I'm Elvis too.

Even O'Dummy said that Mitt Romney has to do a better job explaining and justifying his wealth, saying this: "I've gotten a lot of mail from conservative Republicans who don't like the way the Governor comes across on the money issue, they think he's way out of touch from their concerns."

And finally Martha MacCallum & Steve Doocy were on for the (total waste of time) Factor News Quiz, that I sure do not waste my time reporting on.

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

Newt Gingrich Ex-Wife Nails Him On Marriage Hypocrisy
By: Steve - January 20, 2012 - 10:00am

Let's see O'Reilly spin this as a liberal attack on Gingrich. Last year, in a written affidavit to the conservative FAMiLY Leader, the married (3 times) Newt Gingrich pledged to defend traditional marriage between one man and one woman, writing this: "As President, I will vigorously enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, which was enacted under my leadership as Speaker of the House, and ensure compliance with its provisions."

Newt also said this: "I will support sending a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification. I will also oppose any judicial, bureaucratic, or legislative effort to define marriage in any manner other than as between one man and one woman."

But as the former House speaker gains steam as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney in the lead up to Saturday's South Carolina primary, his second wife, Marianne Gingrich is claiming that he did not live up to his public proclamations.

In an exclusive interview with Brian Ross, Gingrich claims her ex-husband wanted an open marriage, saying this: "He came to her and said, 'I want to stay married to you and still have an affair with Calista, his current wife," said Ross. "According to Marianne, he said 'You need to share me,' and she said 'I don't want to share,' and the marriage ended."

The full interview will was on ABC after the Thursday GOP Presidential debate in South Carolina.

More Worthless Mail From An O'Reilly Lover
By: Steve - January 20, 2012 - 9:00am

Here is another worthless e-mail from a braindead O'Reilly lover, notice he does not address one specific example of anything I have on the website about O'Reilly. All he does is call me a lying progressive, and ask why I do not report on the mainstream media.

Earth to Rod, the website is called oreilly-sucks.com, not mainstream-media.com. So why would I talk about the mainstream media when it's a website about the right-wing bias and journalistic dishonesty from Bill O'Reilly.
Subject: Yo man
Date: Friday, January 20, 2012 2:48 AM
From: Rod Bedard - rod.bedard@holbrooklumber.com
To: no-spam-oreillyspins@yahoo.com

I feel sorry for you. If you were honest you'd have plenty to say about the main stream media.... a bunch of lying, lefty progressives....like you.

Get a life man.

Rod
P.S. I feel sorry for you Rod, because you worship a lying, spinning, dishonest, right-wing hack of a pretend journalist. It's people like you that allow O'Reilly to do what he does, because if you did not watch his bias, spin, and lies, he would not be on the air. And if you have a problem with the mainstream media, do a website about it.

The Wednesday 1-18-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 19, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Mitt Romney under fire for money. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It is not a good week for Mitt Romney so far. He was rather flat in Monday's debate and a new poll of Republican voters shows Romney with 30% and Newt Gingrich at 27%. Governor Romney's latest problem is money; some Americans believe he is not sensitive about his vast wealth.

Romney said he earns 'not very much' from speaking fees, but he earned about $375,000 in speaking fees in 2010 and early 2011. That's big money for most people, but not for the Governor, whose net worth is around $200 million. So how should we process this?

According to research by The Atlantic, George Washington was worth $525 million in today's currency and the Kennedy family was worth about one billion dollars. The truth is, many who go into public service are rich folks. You can decide if Mitt Romney is some sort of greedhead, but consider that our capitalistic system is based on the freedom to earn as much as you can, provided you do it honestly.

Do some Americans have unfair advantages? Of course. But as President Obama's term in office demonstrates, the more the feds try to create 'social justice,' the more debt piles up, leading to inevitable outcries of 'tax the rich.' Mitt Romney should release his tax returns and vigorously defend the system that has enriched him. If he doesn't, he will not become president.
Notice how O'Reilly fails to mention that most of the debt problem were caused by Bush, his wars, his recession, and his tax cuts for millionaires. Instead O'Dummy puts out the right-wing spin that the Obama so-called social justice programs are to blame. The debt was ok until Bush got in office, bankrupted the country and caused 3 million job losses. Which led to a massive loss of revenue and created most of the debt problem.

Then O'Reilly talked about Mitt Romney's wealth with liberals Heather McGhee and David Arkush. McGhee said this: "I think where he's going to get into trouble, is not how much money he has, but how much he's contributing to our country in taxes. His 15% rate is a lot lower than most Americans actually pay, and we just learned that he uses over a dozen tax havens in the Cayman Islands. That's the kind of thing that will make voters pause."

NOTE: Notice that until the liberals reported it in this segment, not a word about any of Romney's tax havens in the Cayman Islands were reported by O'Reilly.

Arkush agreed that Mitt Romney has gone far out of his way to lower his tax burden, saying this: "He's exploiting a tax loophole and paying only 15%. It's important to do things that are actually productive to society, not merely legal. Romney's entire business model was wrong."

But of course O'Dummy accused Romney's critics on the left of selective outrage, saying this: "When John Kerry took his yacht and registered it in Rhode Island instead of Massachusetts, I didn't hear progressive Americans scream that a guy worth $300 million was trying to dodge yacht taxes."

And once again O'Reilly breaks his own rule of making excuses of bad examples with other excuses. He says nobody can do it, then he does it himself. O'Reilly ignored the Romney tax dodging to change the subject to John Kerry, who has nothing to do with Romney or his tax dodging.

Then Juan Williams, who butted heads with Newt Gingrich during Monday night's debate was on, and he disputed Gingrich's implication that some poor children lack a strong work ethic. Williams said this: "He's wrong. The reality is that when jobs are offered to young people you have lines around the block. He didn't say he wants to fund jobs, he said poor kids lack a good work ethic, and I thought his intent was to belittle people and play racial politics."

But of course O'Dummy interpreted Gingrich's remarks differently, saying this: "He didn't say it was the kids' fault, he said they don't see it at home in a lot of instances, so the school system has to begin teaching the value of work."

Then Glenn Beck was on to weigh in on the Republican race, as if anyone cares. Beck said this: "Ron Paul needs to ssshhh! on foreign policy, because he sounds a little like Osama bin Laden at times. It's not America's fault and I don't think Ron Paul gets that. Gingrich is probably the best at a debate, but he loves every president that I think is despicable - Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and now Andrew Jackson. He's a big-government progressive. "

Beck also said this: "Mitt Romney scares me because I don't think he sees the Federal Reserve as a problem. If there is a global crisis I am not convinced that Romney is the guy to bring us into a small government age, but he understands the economy and business. He's the guy who will wipe the floor with Barack Obama in a debate, and I have a gut feeling that Romney will be the GOP nominee."

Wow, what a genius. I have been saying Romney will win the GOP nomination for over a year, so tell us something we do not know already moron.

Then O'Reilly had 2 segments that are worthless so I do not report on them. First he had the body language bimbo on Tonya Reiman, then the (has-been) so-called comedian Dennis Miller.

And finally in the last segment Juliet Huddy was on for did you see that, she viewed a cartoon created by Newt Gingrich supporters in which President Obama makes mincemeat out of Mitt Romney.

Huddy said this: "All these attacks are much more palatable, when they're delivered in this cartoon form. It's the same old message that Romney flip-flopped on his position and doesn't have much to say, but it's entertaining and it's creating some buzz."

O'Reilly said that Romney has to take the offensive in Thursday's debate, saying this: "Romney has to come out roaring and defend himself or Gingrich is going to win the South Carolina primary. This rising above the fray is not working."

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

Carlson Outraged Springer Told The Truth About Fox News
By: Steve - January 19, 2012 - 10:00am

Jerry Springer dared to tell the truth about Fox News, and everyone over there was outraged, specially Gretchen Carlson who actually said she was outraged at what Springer said, even though it was all true.

Springer said this: "It Is A Little Disingenuous For Fox To Complain That Newsweek May Be a Little Partisan"

And this: "Every Single Day Fox News Bashes President Obama"



And now that Springer told the truth about Fox, you can bet the farm he will never be back to do another Fox show, ever.




The Tuesday 1-17-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 18, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The best GOP debate so far! Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There was lots of action last night in South Carolina as the Republican guys brought a sense of urgency to the floor. Front-runner Mitt Romney had a so-so night, not making any dramatic statements or breaking any new ground.

His toughest moment came when he hedged on whether he will release his tax returns. Today he said he will make his returns public in the spring and admitted that most of his income is taxed at 15%, the long term capital gains rate.

As far as Newt Gingrich is concerned, he had a good night because he challenged liberal orthodoxy, saying 'more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.' It's true that more Americans are using more food stamps than ever before, but the Obama administration can make the case that in a severe recession food stamps are vital.

With Ron Paul it was more of the same - he continues to believe that the USA brought the 9/11 attacks on itself. Speaking as an American, I would not feel safe with Congressman Paul protecting me. Rick Santorum made a big deal out of allowing felons to vote after they've fulfilled their sentences, saying 'I voted to allow them to have their voting rights back once they've completed their sentences.'

But if an American commits a violent crime against another person, he or she should never be allowed to vote again. I understand Senator Santorum's point of view, but I respectfully disagree. As for Governor Rick Perry, he was a minor player last night but he scored when he said 'South Carolina is at war with this federal government and this administration.'

That was a smart play because South Carolina fought hard with the feds over the Boeing controversy, where the labor relations people in DC tried to prevent Boeing from moving to South Carolina because it is not a union state. In the end, Governor Perry has no chance to get the Republican nomination, and neither does Ron Paul.

After Saturday's vote in South Carolina, it is likely to come down to a race between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, with Rick Santorum a long shot. The Florida vote on January 31st will likely nail down the Republican candidate once and for all.
Then Charles Krauthammer was on to grade Monday night's debate, saying this: "Gingrich obviously won the night and he won big, and Ron Paul lost really big. Romney came out so-so - he got nicked slightly but he's playing defense and sitting on a lead. How could he not have been prepared for a question on his tax returns, and how could he not have prepared a nice and short and humane answer about what he did at Bain Capital?"

Krauthammer also said that Rick Santorum did well, but perhaps not well enough: "Because he's in competition with Gingrich, the fact that Gingrich did so well means that Santorum lost ground."

O'Reilly agreed that Newt Gingrich stood out, but questioned his appeal, saying this: "In a general election I don't know whether Americans can get behind a guy like Newt Gingrich because he's so blunt."

Are you kidding me O'Dummy, the reason Americans will not get behind Newt is not because he's so blunt, it's because he's a far-right corporate stooge.

Then Mary K. Ham and Robert Zimmerman were on to pick the most significant moment in the debate. Ham went with Newt Gingrich's declaration that America should deal with its enemies in only one way - "kill them!"

Ham said this: "What this shows about Gingrich, is that he speaks with a little bit of flourish, he brings in history, and he's not afraid to land a punch. Republicans are missing that spark from Romney."

Zimmerman picked the back-and-forth between Romney and Gingrich over misleading ads, saying this: "That was a very revealing moment about Mitt Romney. He is in his 16th debate and he still can't give a straight answer about his relation to Super PACS. It's the same way he can't give a straight answer about the number of jobs created at Bain Capital and when he's going to publicly release his taxes."

And O'Reilly still never reported that Romney lied about the number of jobs lost under Obama, O'Reilly refuses to report the truth about it for 2 reasons, to cover for Romney, and to make Obama look bad.

Then the crazy far-right loon John Stossel was on, who claims the Obama administration continues to heavily subsidize many financially troubled "green" companies, despite losing more than $500 million in taxpayer funds by guaranteeing loans to bankrupt Solyndra.

Stossel said this: "The Energy Department says the CBS story is wrong, but I think there's a lot of truth in it. The government shouldn't be giving out any of this money, they should not be trying to pick 'clean energy' winners and losers. It never works."

And of course O'Reilly agreed with Stossel (even though it has not been proven) and denounced the constant waste of money, saying this: "The Obama administration has tried to engineer green projects with taxpayer money. It was really stepped up in the last three years and it isn't working!"

Then to show just how far-right and insane John Stossel is, he confirmed his support for the loon Ron Paul saying this: "I would rather have him in charge than all the other guys."

Then Jonna Spilbor & Lis Wiehl were on to talk about Francesco Schettino, captain of the capsized cruise ship Costa Concordia, who faces manslaughter charges in Italy. Wiehl said this: "Under maritime law, passengers who lived or even the estates of people who didn't live can only sue for up to $75,000 unless they can show recklessness, which is a huge issue here. The captain was hanging out with the passengers and he veered off course."

Spilbor implied that Captain Schettino, is dead in the water, saying this: "With a manslaughter charge there doesn't really have to be intent. If a prosecutor can show that this guy was reckless, that manslaughter charge is going to stick. He's going to have to show that he wasn't reckless."

And finally Dick Morris was on, who disagreed with two items in the Talking Points Memo. Morris said this: "Rick Santorum has a shot, because he has been endorsed by evangelicals. And remember that Newt Gingrich still has a lot of personal issues that are difficult for him in South Carolina. Ron Paul killed himself, but Santorum didn't."

Morris also raised the possibility of a drawn-out primary fight, saying this: "Romney really jeopardized his chances for a South Carolina win last night, and this will not be resolved in Florida. If Gingrich beats Romney in South Carolina, you will have an ongoing fight between the two of them that could go on and on."

O'Reilly reminded Morris that Mitt Romney has amassed a large war chest and has created a formidable organization, saying this: "Romney is already running television spots in Florida, where it costs an enormous amount of money to buy advertising. If Romney takes South Carolina and Florida, I don't see how anybody can stop him."

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as ever pinheads and patriots nonsense. And now you might wonder why I call the pinheads and patriots segment nonsense, well here is a great example.

O'Reilly named Tuesday's Patriot Sofia Vergara, saying this: "Glamorous actress Sofia Vergara, who laughed along as Ellen DeGeneres caked makeup all over her comely face." Really? So getting makeup on your (comely) face by Ellen makes you a patriot, how?

Romney Dishonest About Jobs Under Obama
By: Steve - January 18, 2012 - 10:00am

Here is just how dishonest Mitt Romney is, on 1-14-12 Romney said 1.7 million jobs have been lost since President Obama took office.

Except Romney is being dishonest, and his facts mislead the public. Now here is the actual truth: In the first six months of 2009, the U.S. economy lost 3.89 million jobs.

That's not a guess, it's a fact, from January 2009 to June 2009, 3.89 million American jobs vanished. And it's hard evidence of an economy that was facing an extraordinary crisis that was created by George W. Bush from 2000 until 2009.

For Mitt Romney, President Obama deserves to be blamed for those losses, even though he had just taken office, even though his policies had not even taken effect yet, and even though his economic team was not yet in place.

President Obama took office when the global financial system was on the brink of collapse, inheriting a recession that began a year before his inauguration, but for Romney, somehow it makes sense to count the job losses from Obama's first six months in office against him. (This even includes January 2009, and Obama didn’t take the oath until the 20th of the month.)

By any standard, this is ridiculous. Even in early 2009, no sane person thought this way. It was simply understood three years ago that the president had walked into a catastrophe that was not of his making. Blaming him for the job losses of early 2009 simply does not make any sense.

And if you exclude those first six months of 2009, when the nation was hemorrhaging jobs due to a crisis the president was not responsible for, Barack Obama has overseen a net gain of 1.4 million jobs. And in the private sector it's 1.97 million jobs.

Those are the facts, the facts Romney and the Republicans ignore. As Greg Sargent explained last Sunday:
There's no denying that Obama's policies have not engineered the recovery as fast as we would have hoped, and by all means, Obama advisers should be pressed on that. But the Romney campaign's ongoing use of this figure in this way is just absurd.

Journalists really should be pressing the Romney campaign on why their "net" job loss figure proves Obama's policies failed, when the metric it uses includes so many jobs lost before those policies kicked in.

This claim, which has become central to Romney's whole argument, deserves scrutiny, not uncritical amplification. You can bet that Romney aides broke out high fives when Candy Crowley echoed it on national television.
Basically Romney lied, and then a few journalists fell for it, including Candy Crowley from CNN. And of course O'Reilly knows the bogus jobs lost claim from Romney is a lie, but not once did he do a segment calling Romney out for the lie, he just let Romney continue to lie about it as if it's true.

The Monday 1-16-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 17, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Who are the 'one percent'? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The Obama reelection campaign, in conjunction with the progressive media, is already crafting a narrative: Mitt Romney is a rich greedhead who made millions by firing regular folks, and he is a terrible person. You see that theme in the liberal press and among talking heads representing the Democratic Party.

Talking Points is not here to root for anyone, but we are here to tell you the truth. The liberal press is ramping up the 'one percent' theme, saying Romney is in bed with rich Americans and solely wants to win the presidency to help them get richer.

Let's look at the stats. According to the IRS, there are about 1.4 million households that earn more than $345,000 a year, therefore qualifying as the 1%. That small group paid roughly 37% of the nation's income taxes in 2009. Also, in 2007 the one-percenters accounted for 30% of the charitable giving in the USA.

There is no question that an Obama-Romney race will be class warfare at its highest level. Governor Romney is a rich guy, but the Kennedys are rich people and so were the Roosevelts. This whole thing is bogus - what really matters is which presidential candidate can restore economic prosperity to America.
Now that's funny, because O'Reilly is a lying fool. Romney is a rich guy who only cares about corporate profits, and O'Reilly defends the 1% because he is one of them. Not to mention, O'Reilly says he does not root for anyone, and if you believe that I have some land to sell you. O'Reilly is a die-hard right-wing stooge, his positions on the issues and his biased guest list proves it, and to deny it is just laughable.

Then Dick Harpootlian (from the South Carolina Democratic Party) was on to talk about the Democrats who have criticized the GOP for scheduling a debate on Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday. Harpootlian said this: "In a state where one out of three voters is African American, there has not been a single ad on African American radio, no mailings or outreach to African Americans. Adding insult to injury is the debate on Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday."

Then the crazy right-wing hack O'Reilly claimed he caught Harpootlian flat-footed by pointing out a glaring contradiction, saying this: "In 2008 you had a Democratic debate in South Carolina on Martin Luther King Day and it was sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus. In hindsight, wasn't it foolish to say the Republicans shouldn't debate? Your injecting race into this is not good for the country."

Really O'Reilly? Are you nuts? It's not foolish because the Republicans are the party that black people hate, so it's ok for the Democrats to have a debate on MLK day because blacks like them, especially when the Congressional Black Caucus is the sponsor. The comparison O'Reilly made was just stupid, and only a right-wing idiot would come up with that garbage.

Then O'Dummy had Republican Senator Jim DeMint on for another view of the South Carolina debate flap. And of course he defended it, saying this: "We Republicans have been here at Myrtle Beach celebrating Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday all day. It was fun to look at the fact that our party was formed around equal rights for African Americans and at the things we've done since then. It's time Americans know the truth about the Republican Party."

DeMint also insisted that Republicans will not concede the black vote, saying this: "We're going to put our message out there of freedom and opportunity and decentralized government and I think you're going to see a lot of minorities get more involved in our party."

What an idiot, because the truth is that 97% of all blacks hate the Republican party because of their racism and their positions on the issues that face black people, that is why every Republican who runs for office only gets 3% of the black vote. Now that is the real truth.

Then Brit Hume was on to assess the Obama campaign's effort to portray Mitt Romney as an rich guy. Hume said this: "Obviously he's not going to run on the great results in the economy, so I think you'll hear a lot about the Republican nominee being a rich man completely out of touch with the average American. If it's not effectively rebutted by Romney it could hurt him very badly; he is going to have to establish that his business was beneficial to the country and, on balance, beneficial to workers."

O'Reilly questioned whether the class warfare strategy will work, saying this: "The Obama reelection campaign must really think that they have something here, but these attacks are not helping Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry in South Carolina."

What an idiot, the attacks are not working now because other Republicans are doing it to Romney in a Primary, and the other Republicans who vote in the primary do not like it. But when the general election starts it will work with Independent and Democratic voters. Wow, O'Reilly is just stupid.

Then Monica Crowley & Alan Colmes were on to talk about voter ID laws. Billy said that even though 80% of Americans say folks should be required to present a photo ID before voting, the Obama administration is vehemently opposed to state laws imposing that requirement.

Crowley said this: "Keep in mind, that President Obama is someone who cut his political teeth as part of ACORN and community organizing. You've got a Democratic Party that has been engaging in systematic voter fraud since 1960, so for them this is nothing new."

Which is a 100% lie, because there was no voter fraud by Obama or ACORN. All that happened was a few people (who were paid by the signature) forged some voter names so they could get paid more, and then nobody using that name tried to vote with it, so there was no voter fraud, it was all made up by right-wing idiots like Crowley and O'Reilly.

Colmes claimed that Attorney General Eric Holder is merely enforcing the law, saying this: "The Voting Rights Act specifies that the Justice Department has to do this in states where there has been discrimination in the past. It's not Obama's choosing to do it, it's the law!"

Earth to O'Reilly, the public once approved of slavery too, that does not mean it was the right thing to do. Voter ID laws have been proven to keep poor and minorities from voting, who mostly vote Democratic and that is a fact.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to cray about an opinion writer named Lee Siegel who called Mitt Romney the "whitest white man to run for president in recent memory."

Goldberg said this: "Siegel is not saying Romney is a racist, but that racists like Mitt Romney because of his 'whiteness.' This is a nasty strain of shallow stupidity masquerading as political analysis. I'm starting to think that these people are laying the groundwork for an Obama loss, so they can say the only reason was because of these racist bigots in America. It's pathetic!"

Then crazy O'Reilly said that some Democrats are injecting race into politics, saying this: "Isn't it a shame that we have to talk about this stuff on Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday? That man was inclusive and he wanted everybody to join together."

And finally in the last segment Karl Rove was on, Billy asked him how he would advise front-runner Mitt Romney. Rove said this: "He has to strike a reassuring note. He has to say things about the Bain Capital attacks in such a way that people at the end of the night will say they can see him in the Oval Office. Even if his opponents don't bring up the issue, Romney should bring it up. It's a way for him to positively begin to lay the foundation for the general election."

Rove also talked about the Democratic Party's efforts to bring race into the campaign, saying this: "The President runs the risk of not being reelected unless the African American community turns out to the degree it did in 2008, when he got 97% of a very large African American turnout."

And O'Dummy said this: "By doing all of this race stuff, he alienates a lot of independents who voted for him the first time around."

Wrong, as usual O'Reilly puts his bias into the issue. Because Independents will not care, and if they do they will say it's ok because it's true. The only Independents who will care are Republicans that are pretending to be Independents.

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

O'Reilly Ignoring Republican Prays About Obama Children
By: Steve - January 16, 2012 - 10:00am

Here is a good story that the media should be reporting, and some of the media are reporting it, the real media, but not O'Reilly or Fox. Because it's about a Kansas GOP House Speaker who Prays That Obama's Children Be Fatherless And His Wife A Widow.

It was reported last week that Kansas House Speaker Mike O'Neal (R) was forced to apologize to First Lady Michelle Obama after forwarding an email to fellow lawmakers that called her "Mrs. YoMama" and compared her to the Grinch.

Earlier that same week, the Lawrence Journal-World was sent another email that O'Neal had forwarded to House Republicans that referred to President Obama and a Bible verse that says "Let his days be few" and calls for his children to be without a father and his wife to be widowed.

Nick Sementelli at Faith in Public Life notes that Psalm 109, which is a prayer for the death of a leader, became a popular conservative meme after Obama's election.

The "tongue-in-cheek" prayer for the president was seen on bumper stickers. The relevant part of the psalm reads:
Let his days be few; and let another take his office

May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow.

May his children be wandering beggars; may they be driven from their ruined homes.

May a creditor seize all he has; may strangers plunder the fruits of his labor.

May no one extend kindness to him or take pity on his fatherless children.
O'Neal even forwarded the prayer with his own message, saying this: "At last - I can honestly voice a Biblical prayer for our president! Look it up - it is word for word! Let us all bow our heads and pray. Brothers and Sisters, can I get an AMEN? AMEN!!!!!!"

And now O'Neal's office refuses to apologize for the email, insisting that the message was only referring to Obama's days in office. Sementelli notes the response of a Rockford Register Star columnist who explains why this excuse won't do.

Speaking to a reader he wrote this: "You say that verse 8 of Psalm 109, as applied to President Obama, does not suggest a wish for his death. But the first five words of verse 8 are: 'Let his days be few.' And verse 9 says: 'Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow' You suggest yourself that scripture should not be 'taken out of context.' Well, the context of Psalm 109 is a wish for someone's death."

And the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly has not said a word about it. Now imagine what he would say if a Democratic House Speaker said that about a Republican President. O'Reilly would lose his mind, report it for a week, call for the Speaker to resign, and do follow up segments on it.

Stossel Said Young People Are Idiots Who Should Not Vote
By: Steve - January 15, 2012 - 11:00am

Want more proof John Stossel is a giant moron, here it is. Thursday night on Fox's Your World with Neil Cavuto, John Stossel said "We're alive because our ancestors had the instinct to avoid the tigers and know when to harvest things," Stossel also said that "In a modern economy, our instincts are not good."

What the sam hell does that mean you ask, I'll tell you.

He was saying our instincts tell us that everybody should vote, but some people are dumb or don't pay attention, and they shouldn't vote. A concerned Cavuto asked him who exactly qualified as dumb, to which Stossell replied, essentially, kids.

Then he said that we should end the "Get Out The Vote" campaign because kids don't pay attention so they don't deserve to vote:
STOSSEL: I'm not saying we should have a test or something. But this endless cheerleading - let's go to the rock concerts and register the kids. And the kids aren't paying attention. And it's important in a democracy, it's important to vote.

And these are important issues. The people who participate ought to be the ones who pay attention. I'm just saying we shouldn't have these "Get Out The Vote" campaigns and make these statements: "Everyone has to vote. It's your patriotic duty!" Well if you're not paying attention, I think it's your patriotic duty not to vote.
So I guess Stossel likes to time his antipathy for democratic participation with the election cycle. Because in 2008, he insisted that some people (specifically young Americans) should just stay home.

In 2010, he said young people should just "stay in the mall." After all, "We don't want everyone doing brain surgery. And voting is difficult and important too."

Of course, young voters were very informed on issues that matter to them in 2008. And according to seven separate polls, Fox News viewers (whose average age is in the mid-60s) appear perpetually misinformed.

So unless he is advocating for his own audience to stay away from the polls, maybe it's Stossel who should just stay away from the voting booth.

Gingrich Still Refusing To Release Freddie Mac Contract
By: Steve - January 15, 2012 - 10:00am

Newt Gingrich has come under fire for his relationship with troubled mortgage giant Freddie Mac, which paid his company $1.6 million for what former officials described as "building bridges to congressional Republicans."

Gingrich maintains he was not a lobbyist, and said he would love to release his contract with the company to prove it, but that Freddie Mac wouldn’t allow it.

But when Freddie Mac said last week that they welcome the contract's release, Gingrich said he still couldn't release it, because his former consulting company had to sign off.

Now, that company (a division of Gingrich Group) is refusing to release the document. Gingrich technically severed ties with the company to run for president a few months ago, but some may wonder if the candidate influenced their decision.

And of course O'Reilly has not said a word about it, but he calls for full disclosure from Democrats, and if O'Reilly would call for Gingrich to release the contract it would put pressure on him and it just might happen. He does not call for it because he does not want to say anything negative about his buddy Newt.

The Friday 1-13-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 14, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Pop culture and the presidential election. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: I believe about 50% of Americans actually know what's going on in the country - people like you, who watch news programs, read newspapers and listen to news talk radio. But about half of 'we the people' never bother informing themselves, they form opinions based upon what they hear, what their friends say, and what they see in the popular culture.

A recent study shows that last year Republicans were the targets of jokes by late night comedians three times as often as Democrats. There is no question that comedy writers like to tweak conservatives more than liberals, and that last time around the media gave Barack Obama a big advantage over John McCain.

But truthfully there are very few media personalities who have any influence. With the rise of the Internet, people are scattered everywhere. But that doesn't change the likelihood that the Republican presidential contender, whoever it may be, will be vilified in the media while President Obama should get a rather soft ride.
So what happened to that no speculation rule O'Dummy claims to have, oh yeah, there is no rule, and O'Reilly speculates all over the place. Not to mention he is calling 50% of the people stupid, but when a liberal calls Americans stupid O'Reilly slams them and calls them bad Americans. So in other words, it's wrong, except when O'Reilly does it. And comedians make more jokes about Republicans because they are idiots who say stupid things.

Then the Republican Ben Stein was on, who is clearly not a big believer in media objectivity. Stein said this: "People in the media, tend to be leftists, liberals, anti-business, anti-religious and anti-military. They grind out that message night and day. Yes, the audience has been dispersed because of the Internet, but they're still getting a heavy dose of anti-business, anti-conservative propaganda each and every day. I have a son who is 24 and he and his friends believe every word Jon Stewart says."

Dear Ben Stein, if your son and his friends believe every word Jon Stewart says, they are fools and idiots. Because Stewart is a comedian who does a comedy show, he is not a journalist.

New York Post media writer Linda Stasi reported that Democrats and Republicans are targeted equally, saying this: "There are 600 people running for president, so there are a lot of people to make fun of. Bush was a target, Obama is a target, and anyone is a target who is in the catbird seat. I promise you that Barack Obama will be mocked and there will be an equal playing field - everyone is going to get trashed."

The O'Reilly said that President Obama has asked Congress for more authority to combine agencies, downsize the federal government and save money, leading him to ask this question: "Isn't that the same thing Bain Capital did, downsize companies to save money?"

Wow, no! Is O'Reilly really that stupid, of course not, he is just a Romney butt kisser so he is defending his buddy.

Billy had Janine Turner and Leslie Marshall on. Marshall said this: "These are very different situations. One is the President, the other is a guy who made millions of dollars from the downsizing. And stockholders are not going to be left holding shares worth nothing with President Obama - with the President, the jobs will be lost over time through attrition."

Turner of course ridiculed President Obama's initiative and questioned his sincerity, saying this: "Romney was concerned about solvency, but Obama is not concerned about solvency in this country. This is just a big PR campaign, like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic."

Haha, now that's funny. Because all Romney cared about was making a profit for Bain, he could care less about solvency or jobs or ruining people lives so he could get more wealthy.

First Lady Michelle Obama complained that people have depicted her as an "angry black woman." So Billy had attorney and former beauty queen Faith Jenkins, who has come to Michelle Obama's defense.

Jenkins said this: "She's disturbed by the 'angry black woman' description, which is the way she has been portrayed by a lot of people in the media. In early 2008 there were several high-profile individuals who said she was bitter and angry, that she had a chip on her shoulder. Most black women are not in that category but people want to put us in that category. The stigma attaches to black women when they are in positions of power and show passion."

And of course O'Dummy disputed Jenkins claim that Michelle Obama is still being vilified, saying this: "I think she's widely accepted and the polls show that people like her."

Then the biased right-winger Lou Dobbs was on to talk about President Obama's request for another increase in the national debt ceiling. Dobbs said this: "This is part of the deal from last summer, and we're now headed toward $16.5 trillion of debt. In 2008 President Obama himself said this was like taking a 'Bank of China' credit card and continuing to run it up. Our children are going to pay for this, it's utter madness."

Which is as biased and dishonest as it gets, because 80% of the debt was caused by Bush and the Republicans from 2000 to 2009, not Obama.

O'Reilly then asked Dobbs about the President's claim that his policies have helped create millions of jobs. Dobbs said this: "In fact, 1.6 million jobs have been lost since he took office, including 800,000 high-paying middle class manufacturing jobs that have been lost in that same period."

Which is another lie, because Obama has created jobs and some of the proof is that the unemployment rate went down. Not to mention, most of the jobs lost were lost because of Bush in the first year of the Obama administration. Since the 2nd year jobs are up, and Dobbs knows it. He lied and O'Reilly let him lie, which is what these two dishonest hacks do every day, and they get paid for it.

And finally in the dumbest things of the week segment Arthel Neville picked the Colorado high school senior who wanted a sexy photo of herself in the class yearbook. "This is not appropriate for a yearbook photo," Neville said. "I say act right and dress appropriately for the yearbook. But the picture is going to make it in the yearbook after all - as an ad in the back of the book for which she paid $300."

Greg Gutfeld picked Newt Gingrich's ad that mocks Mitt Romney for many things, including his fluency in French. "It's not a great strategy to make fun of someone because they're smart," Gutfeld said. "But here's the big problem - Newt Gingrich also speaks French, so this is a case of the pot calling the kettle French."

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

O'Reilly Spins Like A Top About Michelle Obama Comment
By: Steve - January 14, 2012 - 10:00am

On January 11, ABC's World News did a report on Michelle Obama's denial of accusations that she is an "angry black woman." As an example, ABC used a clip of Bill O'Reilly saying in 2008 that "there is some validity" to the statement that Michelle Obama "looks like an angry woman."

On the January 12 Fox News show, O'Reilly reacted indignantly, saying this: "For ABC News to paint me as critical of her is flat-out dishonest."

O'Reilly's defense of his comment focused on the fact that the clip of him was from 2008, and that since then, he has been generally favorable to Michelle Obama.

O'Reilly then showed a series of clips of him saying nice things about the first lady.

Here's the problem: This defense doesn't make any sense. As O'Reilly said himself, "the country was still getting to know Mrs. Obama" in 2008. During that getting-to-know-you period, O'Reilly did indeed say that Michelle Obama "looks like an angry woman."

In doing so, he clearly helped create a perception in his viewers minds that she is an angry woman.

O'Reilly may have said otherwise since then, but he can't honestly claim that he had no role in creating the angry woman image of Michelle Obama. Maybe he forgot he has the #1 rated news show on cable, but I doubt it. So when you call her an angry woman you have a role in creating that image, whether you admit it or not.

O'Reilly also dragged Media Matters into his complaint, saying this: "ABC News also did not tell its audience that it got the clip it used on me from the far-left website Media Matters, which is in business solely to smear non-liberal media people."

And that does not make much sense either. Because O'Reilly did not dispute the authenticity of the clip or the context of what he said back in 2008. The clip is accurate, and where ABC got it from is irrelevant.

Now if O'Reilly is suggesting that ABC deceived its viewers by not telling them the clip was from 2008, he's wrong there too. The image ABC used with the audio of O'Reilly noted it was from "Sept 2008."

Basically O'Reilly was just mad they showed him to be an Obama hater, and he tried to spin to explain it, but as usual his spin excuses do not make sense, and look like something a 5 year old would come up with, not a Harvard Graduate.

The Thursday 1-12-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 13, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Media race-baiting stemming from Michelle Obama book. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As you may know, there's a new book about the Obamas in which the First Lady is discussed at length. ABC News reported on the book last night and used me to represent pundits critical of Michelle Obama.

ABC aired a 2008 clip in which I said this: 'I have a lot of people who call me on the radio and say she looks angry. And I have to say there's some validity to that. She looks like an angry woman.'

That sounds kind of bad, does it not? But here's the context: That interview was done about three-and-a-half years ago when the country was getting to know Mrs. Obama, who did have some problems in the beginning.

My interview back then was with Rebecca Johnson, who wrote a profile on Michelle Obama. On this program Johnson described Mrs. Obama as 'lovely ... very bright ... very thoughtful ... intelligent.'

As usual, I did my job - I asked tough questions about Mrs. Obama because there was a perception that she was not happy-go-lucky. Ms. Johnson was given plenty of time to set the record straight, which is why we had her on. Subsequently I have generally been favorable to Michelle Obama - I described her as 'charismatic, articulate and beautiful.'

But those statements did not fit into the narrative ABC News wanted to present. ABC also did not tell its audience that it got the clip from the far-left website Media Matters, which is in business solely to smear non-liberal media people. We brought the situation to ABC's attention today and they said that from now on they will call people like me who are injected into their news coverage.

I'm simply not going to let this presidential campaign degenerate into a race-baiting media propaganda exposition. All who participate in that are going to be called out. From my vantage point Michelle Obama has been a fine First Lady; for ABC News to paint me as critical of her is flat-out dishonest. All of us have a lot riding on the presidential election this year, so let's cut the crap!
What a joke, O'Reilly claims his statement about Michelle Obama was taken out of context, wrong. It was in context and he even admitted that he said he agreed she looked like an angry black woman. How is that out of context when he said it, and then admitted he said it.

So what does O'Reilly do then, have the far-right loon Laura Ingraham on (of course) to weigh in on the Michelle Obama story. Who he knows will agree with him because she is also a conservative who hates the mainstream media.

Ingraham said this: "I'm shocked that you would be accused of saying anything critical of the First Lady, because in 2010 when I was on to promote my book I made the point that she was aggressively pushing policy. And you rose to the First Lady's defense. So if they should be coming after anyone, Bill, I'm happy to take the bullet for you. Michelle Obama is aggressively and somewhat effectively meddling in policy."

Then O'Reilly again criticized ABC News for sloppy reporting, saying this: "They had an inexperienced correspondent and a lazy producer who took the clip right off of Media Matters. This is what happens all the time."

Then O'Reilly cried about Bain bashing, and said it was out of control. Billy said Mitt Romney is being hammered by Democrats and Republicans alike for his tenure at Bain Capital, which he said invests in distressed companies.

O'Reilly talked about the story with Rick Tyler, who supports Newt Gingrich, and Romney supporter Bay Buchanan. Buchanan said this: "Mitt Romney has explained several times, exactly what he did at Bain. They added more than 100,000 jobs while he was there - he helped start up Staples and Sports Authority and other companies."

But Tyler denounced Romney in the harshest of terms, saying this: "He has based his campaign on the message that he can create jobs, but it's not true. He's not a high-flying businessman, he's a low-flying vulture looking at companies that innovation destroys."

And what they all failed to mention is that Romney just made the 100,00 jobs number up, and that Bain will not even admit it's true. Not to mention, if you count the jobs they destroyed it is not even close to 100,000 jobs. And None of them reported any of that information.

In the latest "Occupy" story, a 13-month-old infant was abandoned at the movement's encampment in Washington. Meanwhile, DC police report that crime has risen because the occupiers have diverted cops from their regular beats.

O'Reilly had the far-right Washington Times reporter Kelly Picket on, who has been covering the protests. Picket said this: "We didn't see crime go up just in DC, but also in New York and all over the United States where Occupy encampments came in. And remember that $400,000 in stimulus funds were used to improve the park in Washington and these Occupy protesters just destroyed it. The park has vagrants walking in and out and the rat population has exploded."

Liberal strategist Alicia Menendez put forth a far different interpretation, saying this: "$8,000 was spent, to re-sod the park, and that was the only money that was spent in reaction to the protests. I walk by that park every day and it looks beautiful."

Hey O'Reilly, I thought you said the Occupy movement was not dead, wrong jacko. And the best you can come up with is an $8,000 bill for new sod, man you are pathetic.

Then Lis Wiehl & Stacy Schneider were on for is it legal. They talked about Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, who has pardoned more than 200 criminals, among them David Gatlin, who served 18 years after shooting and killing his wife while she was holding their 2-month-old baby.

Lis Wiehl said this: "Gatlin was on good behavior, and he and some of the other people who were pardoned worked at the Governor's Mansion for many years. Barbour signed a pardon Sunday and the guy walked."

Stacy Schneider denounced the pardon, saying this: "This was a reckless decision by the Governor. This was a man who was denied parole two weeks before and the Governor did this without analyzing who he was pardoning."

O'Dummy said this: "18 years in prison is not justice for shooting a woman in the head."

Then Megyn Kelly was on. She talked about some students who are intentionally provoking their teachers in order to elicit reactions to be posted on the Internet. Kelly said this: "That teacher actually had a nervous breakdown, and he had to be taken away on a stretcher and placed on administrative leave. Schools need to have regulations saying no cell phones during school hours, period! And there should be a rule prohibiting kids from posting pictures online that they've taken in the classroom."

Speaking from what he said was personal experience, O'Dummy offered some advice for the teachers, saying this: "You've got to isolate the troublemakers. What I did very quickly when someone tried to challenge me in the classroom was get them out of the room."

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had the total waste of time Factor News Quiz with Steve Doocy & Martha MacCallum. Which I do not report on, because it is not news, and it is garbage.

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

Frank Luntz Tells Republicans Not To Defend Capitalism
By: Steve - January 13, 2012 - 10:00am

And he is telling them that for political reasons, not becaue they do not believe in it. Basically, he is telling them to lie to the American people to get elected. And this is the same guy that O'Reilly calls an Independent non-partisan pollster, when all he does is give the Republicans advice, making him as biased as a person can get.

Last year, Mitt Romney told a Tea Party gathering, "I believe in free enterprise, I believe in capitalism."

Now, Romney's practice of "vulture capitalism," in Rick Perry's words, is coming under attack. As Rush Limbaugh observed recently, "Here we have capitalism being attacked by Republicans, capitalism under assault by Republicans."

In the face of this assault, one of the GOP's chief strategists is advising Republicans to stop defending capitalism. Just over a month ago, GOP pollster Frank Luntz offered strategic advice to Republican governors, in which he expressed concerns about the increasing strength of the 99 Percent movement, the Occupy protests, and the waning support for "capitalism."

Luntz also told the group that the public thinks "capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem."

Now, as Romney faces heat from within his own party, Luntz is worried about a nightmare scenario where conservatives will go down the tubes if they are forced to defend crony capitalism. Then last night on Fox News, Luntz said the solution is not for conservatives to support a fairer tax system or rid corporate loopholes, he said just change the language they use:
LUNTZ: Conservatives should not be defending capitalism. They should be defending economic freedom. And there is a difference. The word capitalism was created by Karl Marx to demonize those people who make a profit.

We've always talked about the free enterprise system or economic freedom. Suddenly, they're trying to defend something that has only 18 percent support.
There's more than a few problems here. Of course, the Republicans have been long-time defenders of the worst elements of unregulated capitalism. Conservatives have pilloried Obama for his war on capitalism, for wanting to put capitalism on trial, and for his so-called lack of knowledge about capitalism.

As Jeb Bush said recently: "I think President Obama has used the bully pulpit as a way to attack capitalism."

And now Frank Luntz wants the public to believe that Republicans are both the defenders and the opponents of capitalism.

The Wednesday 1-11-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 12, 2012 - 10:00am

The TPM was called: Is Romney unstoppable now? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: After getting nearly 40% of the vote in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney now appears to be unstoppable as President Obama's opponent next November. As Talking Points has said, the Ron Paul vote - 23% last night - is basically a protest vote as he has no chance to get the nomination.

Even if you don't like Mitt Romney, you have to admit he has run a disciplined campaign. He is cool, calm and collected, but the Romney-bashing is not likely to stop. Newt Gingrich is royally teed off and it looks like he will go after the Governor in South Carolina.

That brings us to the Democratic Party. It didn't take the DNC long to put out an ad showing Romney saying 'I like being able to fire people.' Of course, the DNC took that comment out of context - Romney was talking about being able to fire insurance companies that disrespect their customers.

But context and fairness do not matter in the dirty world of politics. The bottom line is that Romney won big in New Hampshire and his pathway to the nomination is strong.
And of course O'Reilly never mentioned that all the other Republicans running for President also slammed Romney for saying he likes to fire people. Jon Huntsman even said Romney is unelectable after saying it, but O'Reilly dishonestly claims only the Democrats are attacking Romney for it.

Then Dick Morris was on to analyze the New Hampshire results, saying this: "Most likely Romney is on a glide path to the nomination, but I could see a scenario where he would lose. He's not getting a majority of the voters and if the anti-Romney vote ever comes together it could defeat him. I could see a scenario where we go into Florida with a two-way race, with Romney against either Santorum or Gingrich."

Aand Morris is only saying that because he is getting paid by Gingrich and Santorum, so he is biased and a fool, because everyone knows that Romney will be the GOP Primary winner now, just as I predicted over a year ago.

O'Reilly then reported that, of those two Romney rivals, Newt Gingrich has one powerful advantage, saying this: "Rick Santorum has money problems but Gingrich has enough money because Las Vegas casino guy Sheldon Adelson came in with $5 million. That puts Gingrich in a good position to rip up Romney."

Then O'Dummy asked Monica Crowley and former Clinton adviser Lanny Davis if the Romney juggernaut can be stopped. Davis said this: "The answer is no. Romney is the toughest one for us to beat because he appeals to the middle, but he's also the most un-genuine candidate. So he'll be the nominee but I think we'll beat him."

Crowley agreed that Romney is the big favorite, saying this: "It's tough to see any path to victory for Perry, Gingrich or Santorum, but they could make some inroads in South Carolina, which is the first reliably Republican state to actually hold a primary."

Crowley then talked about the attacks Romney is likely to face in the general election, saying this: "I think the whole 'Occupy Wall Street' movement was orchestrated to provide President Obama with a major theme, which is income inequality. They're going to do everything they can to paint Romney as this evil, rich capitalist stooge who is not on your side. He has to be out there making the moral case for free market capitalism."

Then O'Reilly reported that some prominent evangelical leaders will reportedly meet this week to devise a strategy to defeat Mitt Romney. So Billy asked the conservative Gary Bauer, who attend the meeting in Texas, whether he would vote for Mitt Romney over President Obama.

Bauer said this: "Oh my goodness, I will enthusiastically work for Romney. I've endorsed Rick Santorum and I think he's the best guy, but I believe all of these candidates are head and shoulders above the guy who sits in the Oval Office and is taking us down the road to bankruptcy. If this week's meeting starts turning into a session bashing one of the Republican candidates, I will stand up and fight that. And if that doesn't work I'll leave the meeting."

Wow, what a stupid question from O'Reilly, of course the far-right religious loon Gary Bauer will vote for Romney over Obama.

Then the Factor producer Jesse Watters hit the streets, this time asking people to name the greatest American president. There were mentions of Lincoln, Jefferson, Clinton and George W. Bush. Watters was then on to report the results of a scientific survey.

Watters said this: "According to a Gallup Poll. Americans think Ronald Reagan is the greatest United States president, followed by Abraham Lincoln and Bill Clinton. Fourth and fifth are JFK and Washington. But they probably haven't all read 'Killing Lincoln' so the poll is skewed."

O'Reilly concluded that not enough Americans have read their U.S. history, saying this: "I'm not going to get into who is the best, but I don't think people know what they're talking about."

Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on because he is not a journalist and he does not report the news. He is simply a right-wing stooge comedian put on by O'Reilly to make jokes about Democrats and Liberals.

And finally two more right-wingers were on, Carl Cameron and James Rosen looked ahead to the next contest. Cameron said this: "South Carolina is going to be a battle. The state has a long history of wanting a street fight, and Romney is going to take a pounding from not only Gingrich, but also from Perry and Santorum. This may go down to the very last second."

Rosen reported that Romney's rivals are continuing their attacks on his business dealings, saying this: "The Republicans who are trying to outflank Mitt Romney on the right, such as Perry and Gingrich, are making the same arguments as the Democratic Party and MoveOn about Romney's past. I don't suspect that argument will have much traction, but Romney has to fear the fact that 60% of South Carolina GOP primary voters identify themselves as evangelical Christians."

O'Reilly said that if Romney wins South Carolina, it's over. Haha, earth to O'Dummy, it's already over, and Romney will win it.

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

Gingrich Says Romney Only Cares About Corporate Profits
By: Steve - January 12, 2012 - 9:00am

A new film bankrolled by Newt Gingrich supporters attacks Mitt Romney as a man more ruthless than Wall Street, responsible for laying off thousands of workers.

The 28-minute film titled "When Mitt Romney Came To Town" shows Romney laughing while saying this:
"Make a profit. That's what it's all about, right?"
And btw, you could say the same about every Republican, but here you have another Republican saying it, so when a Democrat says it they can not claim it's an unfair and biased partisan attack.

On a side note: Mitt Romney won Tuesday night's New Hampshire primary with less than 40 percent of the vote, a smaller-than-expected margin of victory.

Ron Paul came in second, and Jon Huntsman was third. Winning both Iowa and New Hampshire shores up Romney's frontrunnner status going into South Carolina, where conservatives are desperately trying to stop his momentum.

The Tuesday 1-10-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 11, 2012 - 11:00am

There was no Tuesday O'Reilly Factor Show because of the New Hampshire Republican primary, that Mitt Romney won.

Romney Tax Plan Hurts Working Middle Class Families
By: Steve - January 11, 2012 - 10:00am

If you need one reason to NOT vote for Mitt Romney (when or if he runs against Obama in 2012) here it is folks. His tax plan would greatly benefit millionaires, while raising taxes on the middle class working man and woman with families.

Last Friday the Tax Policy Center released an analysis showing that Mitt Romney's tax plan is heavily weighted towards the richest Americans, giving 50 percent of its benefit to those making $1 million or more. While millionaires would receive an annual tax cut of nearly $150,000, many middle class and low income families would see their taxes go up.

And because Romney would phase out tax breaks that the Obama administration put in place in 2009 specifically for families with children, it's those families that would be hardest hit.

According to the analysis, half of families with incomes of less than $50,000 who have children would see a tax increase under Romney's plan.

Here are some finding from the study:
-- 40% of families with incomes under $100,000 who have children (more than 14 million families) get a tax hike.

-- 55% of families with incomes under $50,000 who have children (more than 12 million families) get a tax hike.

-- Families with incomes under $50,000 who have children (including the ones who get small tax cuts) see an average tax hike of $512.
Basically, under Romney's tax plan, 22.1 million households would see a tax hike, including 17.4 million who have incomes under $50,000.

Now this about this, Republicans claim to oppose ALL tax increases, while Romney plans to raise taxes on 22.1 million Americans, and those Americans are the people who can least afford a tax increase. Especially during a slow economy.

Romney also likes to claim that his tax plan is focused on providing tax relief to the middle class, but his signature tax cut gives literally no tax break at all to most middle class families (because he centers it on investment income that is almost exclusively collected by the wealthy).

Romney tries to claims that he's not worried about rich people, but his plan proves that he's mostly worried about the wealthy, while not sparing much of a thought for families struggling with the effects of the Bush Recession.

And btw, you never ever hear a word about this from Bill O'Reilly, or anyone at Fox News. That's because O'Reilly and Fox ignore this kind of News about Romney, because they do not want the people to know the truth about the Romney tax plan. And because most of them are millionaires and they would financially benefit from his tax plan.

The Monday 1-9-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 10, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Will conservatives fall into line behind Mitt Romney? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A new Gallup poll says just 27% of Americans describe themselves as Republicans; 31% say they're Democrats and a whopping 40% now say they are independent.

America does remain a rather conservative country as far as values are concerned, but in the political arena a strictly conservative candidate will have trouble getting elected president. Enter Mitt Romney, who has become the likely Republican nominee.

The question now becomes, how should conservative Americans handle the Romney situation? He must define why the USA is losing power and he must make his case very clearly. The candidate who does run against Barack Obama is going to need a spine of iron and an arrow-point message.

Most important, he's going to have to be bold and fresh without losing credibility. This will be a brutal campaign and the Governor might even get his hair messed up.
Wow, O'Reilly is a right-wing dishonest hack in denial. He cites a poll that says only 27% of Americans describe themselves as Republicans, with 31% DEMOCRATS and 40% INDEPENDENTS. And yet he still claims America is a center-right country. Which is just insane, and only something a right-wing loon would say.

Not to mention, another poll has progressives the #1 most popular people and more popular than conservatives at #2, which also proves we have a center-left country. Earth to Bill O'Reilly, if there are 40% Independents, 31% Democrats, and only 27% Republicans, we have a center-left country, MORON!

Then Brit Hume was on, who wasn't quite ready to coronate Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee. Hume said this: "There has been some slippage in his standing in New Hampshire, and remember that New Hampshire is the most treacherous place there is for a front-running candidate. Perhaps he won't lose, although I don't think you can rule that out, but there is a very distinct possibility that he will be seen as having under-performed expectations."

O'Reilly reminded Hume that Mitt Romney has built a formidable organization, saying this: "Even if Romney does underperform in New Hampshire, he has infrastructure in South Carolina and Florida that is not there for any of the other candidates."

Some pundits believe President Obama could bolster his re-election chances by naming Hillary Clinton as his running mate. So O'Dummy had Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams on to discuss it.

Juan said this: "This is a propitious moment, because just this very day William Daley was ousted as White House Chief of Staff. There is a real power battle inside the White House and Daley was being undercut at every turn. This is also the time when they are re-orienting toward the campaign and it would be a perfect time to get Hillary Clinton in. She's the most popular politician in America, but the problem is that it would look like desperation."

Ham said this: "She's hugely popular, but I'm not sure she would want this gig. She pretty much has it made without having to play second fiddle to Obama right now, and I'm not sure he is someone who would want her to sign on."

O'Dummy said this: "Newt Gingrich and his supporters are hammering Mitt Romney for buying companies and making millions in the private sector." So O'Dummy had Charles Krauthammer on, who advised Romney to brace himself for a wave of attacks.

Krauthammer said this: "South Carolina is going to be one place, where Romney is going to get everything hurled at him. Newt Gingrich isn't going after victory, he's after vengeance - this is Ahab on the loose hunting his 'Great White Mitt.' A month ago it looked like Gingrich was about to ride to the presidency, and he blames his fall on the negative ads of Mitt Romney. He's going after his revenge here, there will be ads showing people with tears in their eyes saying they lost their home so Mitt Romney could become a millionaire. This will be a good test for Romney."

Then O'Dummy introduced a new segment called: Truth Serum, that O'Dummy said would cut through the rhetoric to set the record straight on topical issues. And of course both people are Republicans, just like the culture warriors and the is it legal segments.

First up, the claim by his rivals that Mitt Romney was a rapacious boss when he ran Bain Capital. Wall Street Journal columnist Kelly Evans revealed the results of a Journal investigation, saying this: "We found that about 30% of the companies that Bain invested in, wound up collapsing, filing for bankruptcy, or not returning the money Bain had originally invested. That sounds like a high rate, but Bain was trying to find struggling companies and turn them around. The real question is whether people are more upset with Mitt Romney for his successes or for his failures at Bain Capital."

Stuart Varney of course vigorously defended Bain and other turnaround specialists, saying this: "Investment bankers make America more efficient and more dynamic. You don't put your money into an institution to run it down, close it up and throw people out of work. How do you make money out of that?"

O'Reilly reported that at least some investment bankers do great harm to workers, saying this: "There are situations where venture capitalists go in, gut the company, fire everybody, then reorganize and sell for a profit."

What they failed to mention is that Bain made $587 million dollars profit on the 5 businesses they bought in 6 years, and that all 5 of them ended up filing for bankruptcy. They were good companies before the Romney deal, they they went belly up, but only after the Romney team made almost $600 million dollars profit.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about a new book that alleges Michelle Obama was frequently at odds with the President's top advisers, and that former White House spokesman Robert Gibbs went on a profane tirade against the First Lady.

Goldberg said this: "It really sounds credible, and it's part of a bigger picture. Michelle Obama went to a food bank wearing $515 sneakers and Gibbs is a guy who understands that images matter. He blew up and he was doing the President and Mrs. Obama a favor even if they didn't realize it. This doesn't shock me - there was a lot of tension between Robert Gibbs and the First Lady and her staff."

And it's all speculation, O'Reilly even said the book ALLEGES it, with no proof, but O'Reilly had Goldberg on to speculate on it, even though he claims to have a no speculation rule.

In another controversy involving Michelle Obama, a Los Angeles Times critic has denounced as "racist" a cartoon depicting the First Lady as a high-living Marie Antoinette. "Last week," Goldberg recalled, "we said there will be charges of 'racism' over and over in this campaign if you disagree with the Obamas about anything. This is as crazy as it gets!"

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

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

Crazy Rick Santorum Is Obsessed With Abortion
By: Steve - January 10, 2012 - 10:00am

According to the Sunlight Foundation, GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum said the word "abortion" 1,014 times during his Senate terms between 1996 and 2007, accounting for 12.2 percent of all Senate mentions.

Some of his other favorite words included partial-birth, fetus, and womb.

During his Senate tenure, Santorum advocated for a number of bills restricting women's health rights, including sponsoring an act that criminalized late-term or partial-birth abortions.

So if you are a woman and you support this right-wing loon, you need a check up from the neck up, because you are as crazy as he is.

The real issues are jobs, the economy, and health care, so what does Santorum do, mention abortion a million times of course. Proving he is a right-wing nut who is not focused on the real issues facing America today.

Jon Huntsman Says Mitt Romney Is Unelectable
By: Steve - January 10, 2012 - 9:00am

New Hampshire -- The Jon Huntsman campaign escalated its attacks on front-runner Mitt Romney the night before the New Hampshire primary, with Huntsman himself telling CNBC host Larry Kudlow that Romney is making himself completely unelectable.

Romney is taking flak from all the GOP opponents, in addition to Democrats, for his comments Monday morning that he "liked being able to fire people."

Huntsman said earlier that he prefers to hire people, rather than fire them, and his adviser had harsh words this afternoon for Romney when ThinkProgress interviewed him, but Huntsman's statements on Kudlow represent the strongest attack from the candidate himself yet:
HUNTSMAN: First of all, you've got to get elected to office for heaven's sake, and making statements like that you render yourself completely unelectable.

Whether you're referring to economic policy, it really becomes more of a political issue, when you've got the Chicago political machine and $1 billion bearing down on you. You make a statement like, you talk about pink slips, and pretty soon you're going to lose the high ground.
And as usual O'Reilly never said a word about any of it, because he does not want his viewers to know that another Republican is slamming Romney.

O'Reilly Still Ignoring Record Heat In January
By: Steve - January 9, 2012 - 11:00am

Here is more proof O'Reilly is a liar when he says he believes Global Warming is real. Because while we are having record heat in January, O'Reilly has ignored the entire story and not once mentioned the heat wave.

A surge of record warmth has flooded the United States, shattering records from southern California to North Dakota.

Temperatures have reached up to 40 degrees above early January averages in North Dakota, the Weather Channel reports. Cities are seeing late-April temperatures at the start of January - Minot, ND hit 61 degrees, Aberdeen, SD hit 63 degrees, and Williston, ND hit 58 degrees, all-time record highs for the month of January.

Daily record highs have been set in Des Moines, Iowa (65 degrees), Rapid City, S.D. (73 degrees), International Falls, Minn. (46 degrees), St. Louis, Mo. (66 degrees) and Fargo, N.D. (55 degrees), to name just a few.

Although the record warmth subsides on Friday for the Plains, the mild air mass will bully its way eastward. We're talking temperatures in cities such as Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Chicago, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Detroit and Cincinnati enjoying highs on the order of 10-to-20 degrees above average.

Now think about this: "There has never been a 60 degree temperature recorded during the first week of January in Minnesota's modern climate record."

Then southwestern Minnesota reached the lower 60's last week.

In Southern California, decades-old records were snapped with 80 and even 90-degree weather, sending surfers to the beaches. Long Beach hit 88, UCLA hit 89, San Diego hit 83, and San Gabriel reached 91.

And this breakdown of normal seasons threatens serious economic disruption. The lack of snowcover in the Dakotas means that wildland fires are much more likely. The seasonally cold air following this surge of heat will severely damage the winter crops that are usually protected by at least 3 inches of snow at this time of year.

Here in Illinois we did not have a white Christmas, in fact we have not had an inch of snow here in 315 days, going back to February of 2011. The record is 330 days, and no snow is predicted here for at least 10 days, if not longer. Not to mention, yesterday on Saturday it got up to 55 degrees in Peoria, which is 17 degrees above normal.

And O'Reilly has never said a word about any of it, does that seem like something a so-called Global Warming believer would do, not to me. Not to mention, last winter when we had 18 inches of snow one night O'Reilly asked Al Gore if he still believes in Global Warming. Even though it's a crazy question, because it simply snowed a lot during winter, proving nothing. But when we have record heat in January, that is actual evidence of Global Warming O'Reilly is silent as a mouse.

Fox Straight News Program Still Promoting Birther Nonsense
By: Steve - January 9, 2012 - 10:00am

Here is some flat out 100% right-wing bias, and it's coming from the so-called straight news Fox show called Special Report with Bret Baier. Special Report is Fox News premier straight news show. It's anchored by Bret Baier. And from what he's said publicly, Baier expects the show to be taken seriously.

But then on Friday night, Baier managed to do an entire segment on a court ruling in the insane birthers never-ending legal campaign without actually mentioning that President Obama is, in fact, a citizen of the United States.

Baier's tease for the segment was purposely misleading. Here is what he said in that tease:
BAIER: If you think the controversy over President Obama's birth certificate has ended, think again. That's next in the Grapevine.
That implies their is a so-called controversy, and that it is not over, when in fact there is no controversy and it was over a long time ago.

During the segment, Baier mentioned that the White House released Obama's long-form birth certificate last year, but incredibly, he contrasted that fact with the birthers' arguments, saying this: "However, Orly Taitz, along with many others in the so-called birther movement, is still not satisfied. Some in that movement call it a fake. Others say the real issue is that he's not a natural-born citizen."

Now by this point, everybody knows that Obama is a citizen, except for Fox and some of their crazy viewers, who have been flooded with misleading coverage on birther conspiracy theories.

During the height of the Donald Trump birther nonsense last year, Fox News promoted the myth in at least 52 segments over the course of two months. In 44 of those segments, the myth went unchallenged.

Fox has aired conspiracy theories about Obama's long-form birth certificate as well. So if Obama's citizenship is an open question in the minds of Fox viewers, there's a good reason for that.

Even Baier's colleague at Fox News, Shepard Smith admitted Obama is a citizen and declared the so-called controversy over, saying this:
SMITH: Well, he has produced a birth certificate. It shows his mother gave birth to him in Hawaii. It is stamped and sealed by the state of Hawaii. It is confirmed, and Fox News can confirm the president of the United States is a citizen of the United States, period.
That was what Shepard Smith said two days before the White House released the long-form birth certificate. Smith was able to make such a factual statement because in June 2008, Obama's presidential campaign released a "certification of live birth."

As FactCheck.org noted: "It meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship."

So this so-called controversy has been over for a long long time. Except with Fox News and their crazy insane right-wing loon viewers. They want credibility as a real News Network, then they do biased nonsense like this, and on their so-called straight news show. Which is why they have no credibility as a real News Network.

O'Reilly Ignoring Corporate Profit Level Story
By: Steve - January 8, 2012 - 10:00am

Over the last few decades, U.S. corporate tax revenue plunged to historic lows, falling from about 6 percent of GDP in the 1950s to barely more than 1 percent of GDP today. Obviously, part of the recent low level has to do with the Great Recession and its effect on businesses and their profits. But while corporate profits have rebounded to their pre-recession heights, setting a record in the third quarter of 2011, corporate tax revenue has still remained at record lows:
After plummeting from 2007 through 2009, U.S. corporate profits regained their precrisis peak in early 2010, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The latest, revised data released just before Christmas showed corporate profits before tax rose to a record $1.97 trillion in the third quarter of 2011.

But corporate tax receipts, as reported by the Treasury Department, remain lackluster, even as the economy has gained some ground of late. Although they have trended higher in recent months, corporate taxes measured on a 12-month basis were still under $200 billion in November. That is well below a precrisis peak of about $380 billion and still far below the government’s fiscal 2012 target of $332 billion.
Corporate tax revenue has plummeted for several reasons, but one of the big ones is the growth of deductions, loopholes, and outright tax evasion that helps companies limit, or entirely eliminate, their income tax liability. 30 major corporations, in fact, paid no corporate income tax over the last three years, while making $160 billion in profits.

And the great O'Reilly has ignored it all, he ignores it while saying the Obama policies are hurting businesses. When the facts show O'Reilly is lying.

The Friday 1-6-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 7, 2012 - 10:00am

The TPM was called: Attack politics seeping into the GOP race. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama got some good news today with the unemployment rate dropping to 8.5%. The President says that proves his economic policies are working; those who don't like Mr. Obama say the improvement is due to the fact that millions of Americans have stopped looking for work.

Talking Points believes the big picture is federal spending and regulation, not decimal points on unemployment. This campaign is really about an entitlement society versus a self-reliant one, and the struggle will be intense.

The far-left MoveOn organization has begun to attack Mitt Romney, and on the Republican side, a group supporting Ron Paul is mocking Jon Huntsman because he speaks Mandarin.

The Paul campaign says the Congressman has nothing to do with that ad, but the point is that the campaign is getting dirtier and candidates should be held somewhat accountable for what their supporters do.

Earlier this week we told Rick Santorum that the left-wing media would begin to demonize him. Presto, I'm an oracle! There was a New York Times front page hit piece today on the Senator. I predict that by the time the vote rolls around we're all going to be very sick of the vicious attacks. I'm sick of them now!
Wow, O'Reilly predicted the media would go after Santorum, and the sun came up today too. A monkey could have predicted the media would go after Santorum, because he went up in the polls and almost won Iowa. So the monkey is an oracle too, that means you have an oracle and an a-hole making the same prediction.

And the big picture is not spending and regulation, it's jobs and tax rates, something O'Reilly never talks about. If the country had enough jobs and millionaires who paid their fair share of taxes their would be enough revenue to pay for the spending. Not to mention O'Reilly never reports the reason we are spending too much is because Bush killed all the jobs and bankrupted the country, then he blames it on Obama and spending.

Then Mike Huckabee was on to talk about the anti-Santorum attacks. Huckabee said this: "One of the things you have to get used to when you run, is that if you don't like the sight of your own blood don't do it. Rick Santorum has come up out of nowhere and won Iowa by greatly exceeding everybody's expectations. Everybody had their turn at getting a political colonoscopy on national television and it's his turn now."

Huckabee also said that Santorum has more going for him than just the evangelical vote. "Don't rule out the pro-life Catholics and the populist part of the Republican Party that wants to know if anyone out there understands that we're losing the middle class."

O'Dummy noted on the similarities between Huckabee in '08 and Santorum in '12, saying thid: "He got the evangelical vote, you got the evangelical vote. He came out of nowhere, you came out of nowhere. Then you got your butt kicked in New Hampshire because you didn't have any money. Isn't it spooky that Santorum is in exactly the same position?"

Earth to Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum did not win Iowa, he lost by 8 votes dumbass. And I sure hope Santorum does beat Romney because Obama will crush his right-wing ass in the real election. And btw, Santorum is never going to win, because he is a far-right loon, and Romney is killing him by 20 points in New Hampshire. Romney is going to win it, as I have predicted for 2 years now, case closed.

Then Dana Perino was on to cry about Obama and the White House Press Corp, as if anyone cares. According to a report in the Washington Post, some members of the White House press corps feel the Obama administration is trying to intimidate them. Perino, now a FNC co-host, laid out her relationship with the press.

Perino said this: "We had a style of being very polite, and I had a rule that everyone would be treated nicely. But there were times when you could see the red come up my neck as I tried not to lose my temper. I did lose it when Helen Thomas questioned whether our troops in Iraq were purposely targeting innocent Iraqis, that's when I had enough."

Perino claimed there is a growing frustration among the White House press corps, saying, "It started as a low boil and now it's boiling over."

Really? Who fricking cares and how is this news that the American people need? Answer, it's not news we need and nobody gives a damn.

Then crazy O'Reilly had another segment claiming the far-left is turning on Obama, based on his opinion of one ACLU report. Billy said this: "The ACLU's newly-issued report card on civil liberties actually gives Ron Paul higher marks than President Obama."

So then he had Janine Turner and Leslie Marshall on. Marshall said this: "I don't agree with this report card on a few issues, specifically the discrimination that Ron Paul has when it comes to immigration. The only area I agree with the report card is that President Obama is continuing the ability to have warrantless wiretaps and the ability to just round people up and arrest them."

The conservative Turner accused the ACLU and its ideological brethren of whining, saying this: "The far left has gotten everything they wanted. They've gotten health care, the stimulus package, troops out of Iraq, Dodd-Frank, cuts in defense, restrictions on oil drilling. The fact that they're whining is actually going to hurt them in the long run."

So then the insane O'Reilly brings abortion into the issue, and minced no words about the ACLU, which is staunchly pro-abortion, saying this: "If you're a viable fetus the ACLU doesn't recognize that. They're a bunch of liars and charlatans."

Then Geraldo was on to talk more about Casey Anthony. Really! Why? Get over it morons, she was found not guilty, leave her alone and report some real news.

Then the far-right stooge Lou Dobbs was on to trash the Chevy Volt, because O'Reilly does not like it. Billy said this: The electric-powered Chevy Volt seems to be a lemon despite receiving generous government support.

Dobbs said this: "$2.3 billion has flowed directly toward the Volt from the federal government. It's in the form of loans, direct subsidies, and subsidies to the lithium battery maker. In addition to that, the state government of Michigan has thrown in another $600 million. But the 'good news' is that General Motors has built and sold fewer than 8,000 of these cars. It doesn't go fast or far on electricity and it catches fire. What are we to do other than laugh at this madness?"

Billy then said the Chevy Volt is a disaster.

Except it is new technology, and I would say that all new technology has some bugs in the begininng, then they usually work the bugs out and it goes on to be a good product. O'Reilly and Dobbs just hate it because it is not a gas-guzzling car.

And finally O'Reilly had Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace on to talk about the two more GOP debates this weekend. Wallace said this: "I think this will be a free-fire zone, Mitt Romney is just swamping the field and there will be some attacks on him, but I think Gingrich and Santorum and Paul may go after each other because they're all looking to be the 'anti-Romney' as they go forward into South Carolina and Florida."

He also said this: "Santorum is going to try to distinguish himself as the conservative in the field." Sp then the Oracle (haha, not) O'Dummy predicted that Romney will try to stay above the fray, saying this: "I don't expect Romney to attack Santorum because he knows he needs conservative support in the general election."

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

O'Reilly Said Some College Students Are Too Stupid To Vote
By: Steve - January 7, 2012 - 9:00am

O'Reilly: If College Students "Don't Know They Can Vote Absentee, They're Too Stupid To Vote"



Now remember this, O'Reilly claims he never calls anyone any names, and that he never does personal attacks.

The Thursday 1-5-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 6, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Reaction to the Santorum interview. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There is no question that this program will play a major role in the presidential race this year; we are by far the most-watched news show in prime time, tripling our opposition. And many Factor viewers watch us because they want straight talk.

We're not in the business of promoting any candidate, we are tough on everybody, which alienates some Americans who want their candidate to be coddled. Let's take Rick Santorum, who was on the program last night.

The central point of the interview was that he will now become a target because the media will portray him as a right-wing extremist. Some Santorum supporters didn't like my questions, but he ran as a social conservative and did well in Iowa based on that.

We framed the interview that way and it was fair. We have been remarkably consistent for more than fifteen years about asking tough questions, but we have also sharpened our focus recently.

All Americans seeking power will be scrutinized on this program, which is why some of them are too frightened to come on. We don't care much about party politics here; we care about looking out for you.
Wow, O'Reilly is delusional. Straight talk? Now that's funny, more like biased talk. And the only reason O'Reilly gets so many viewers is because he is on Fox and the audience is 90% Republican. If you put the O'Reilly Factor on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, or NBC, nobody watches it.

Then O'Reilly said he does not promote any candidate, which is a flat out lie. Look at my 3 month study here on the website when McCain ran against Obama in 2008, O'Reilly had 10 to 1 positive to negative stories about McCain, and 10 to 1 negative to positive stories about Obama. O'Reilly made it his life mission to help McCain and beat Obama, and McCain still lost by a mile, proving how little power O'Reilly actually has. And btw folks, look at the guest list for this show, all Republicans, fair and balanced? haha, not!

Then Laura Ingraham was on, speaking on Laura Ingraham's radio show this week, Newt Gingrich threatened to team up with Rick Santorum to defeat Mitt Romney. Ingraham said this: "What I think could happen, is that if the polls hold up in New Hampshire and Mitt Romney does well, at some point it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for either Gingrich or Santorum to pull out. Or they could decide not to criticize each other at all and use their resources to go after Romney."

Ingraham also reacted to the news that Planned Parenthood, which receives about $500-million a year in taxpayer subsidies, now has more than one billion dollars in assets. Ingraham said this: "Were it not for the federal government's money, Planned Parenthood wouldn't have the money to do all these things other than abortion. The key fact is that Planned Parenthood's core business is abortion. There are 391 abortions performed for every adoption referral."

O'Reilly reported that "900 fetuses a day are eliminated by Planned Parenthood activities."

And that is all a lie, read my other blog post about it with the details proving O'Reilly and Ingraham both lied about Planned Parenthood. Abortions are only 3% of what they do, and not even close to being their core business.

Then the Culture Warriors Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover discussed whether Rick Santorum's ultra-conservative social positions will connest with the American people. Hoover said this: "Senator Santorum's positions on gay Americans will do him the most damage, because 75% of Americans believe the repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' was a good thing. I think that will hurt him, and so will his arguing for a constitutional amendment on marriage."

Carlson ridiculously claimed that Santorum's positions are not actually that extreme, saying this: "The media will eviscerate him as a right-wing extremist, but Mitt Romney agrees with him on many of these same positions, yet people deem him to be the 'moderate' candidate. Even President Obama doesn't agree with gay marriage and I do not think Americans will be voting on social issues this time around."

Saying Santorum is not extreme is insane, and he will be attacked as a right-wing extremist, because he is one.

Then O'Reilly had a segment about the former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, who is the most lethal sniper in U.S. military history. And I could care less, why is this even a news story for O'Reilly to report on?

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to discuss race, and the media reporting on the Republican primary. O'Reilly said this: The New York Times editorial writer Andrew Rosenthal has apparently discerned a "racist undertone" in much of the Republican opposition to President Obama. That accusation didn't sit well with Bernie Goldberg.

Goldberg said this: "As this campaign heads to the finish line, there's a good chance that any Republican who criticizes Barack Obama will be labeled a 'racist' by members of the so-called mainstream media. People are not going to buy it and there's a danger that this will do a lot of harm - you can't cry wolf over and over without people not paying attention at all to the charge of racism."

Goldberg also said this: "I think they're doing this because a lot of liberals, including a lot of liberals in the media, actually think that hatred and bigotry is in the DNA of conservatives. So if you're a conservative and you criticize President Obama for just about anything, then it must be because you're a racist. This isn't thoughtful analysis, this is just name-calling." O'Reilly said that the "Old Grey Lady" is growing ever weaker and less influential, saying this: "The New York Times is having an awful time - they're hemorrhaging readers and they fired their CEO."

On the other hand, maybe they are right, because the Republicans do say racist things. O'Reilly and Goldberg just refuse to admit it because they do not see any racism from the right, even when it's proven and documented.

And finally Martha MacCallum & Steve Doocy were on for the ridiculous waste of time Factor News Quiz. That I do not report on because it's not news, it's nonsense.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as ever pinheads and patriots nonsense. And btw, if you want to see if O'Reilly is unbiased in his political reporting, just wait until Romney (or whoever wins the Republican nomination) runs against Obama. It will be non-stop attacks against Obama, and all positive reports on the Republican, with 8 to 1 or more Republican guests to every 1 Democratic guest.

O'Reilly & Ingraham Lied About Planned Parenthood (Again)
By: Steve - January 6, 2012 - 10:00am

Thursday night Bill O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham both falsely claimed that abortion is the "core business" of Planned Parenthood, when, in fact, abortion services only made up 3 percent of their medical activities in 2010.

Ingraham also claimed that Planned Parenthood spends $56 million per year on "lobbying"; except they actually spent $56 million in 2010 on "public policy," which includes a variety of activities.
INGRAHAM: But the key fact is, Bill, that Planned Parenthood really exists -- it does all these other things for sure, but abortion is the core business of Planned Parenthood.

O'REILLY: That is their core business, there's no doubt about it.

INGRAHAM: No doubt about it. No doubt about it. [The O'Reilly Factor, 1/5/12]
In fact, she is lying, and the Planned Parenthood Annual Report proves it: Their Abortion Services Made Up only 3% Of Medical Services Provided In 2010.

Their core business is STI/STD testing and treatment, which made up 38% of their business. Their other main business is contraception, which made up 33.5% of their business. Abortion is the least of what they do at the low low level of 3% of their business.

Ingraham: "$56 Million A Year Is Spent On Lobbying By Planned Parenthood."
INGRAHAM: And Bill, $56 million a year, in this report, spent on lobbying by Planned Parenthood. That means the Democratic races, that means the presidency. They need a Democrat to be in control in the White House in order to get this money. That's their lifeline. [The O'Reilly Factor, 1/5/12]
Wrong again, because their own financial report that is available to the public shows the $56 million was spent on Public Policy.

Planned Parenthood's Vice President For Public Policy Said The $56 Million Was Spent on a Variety Of Activities, Including "Government Relations, Grassroots Organizing, Litigation, And Political Affairs."

From the Planned Parenthood website:
Laurie Rubiner is vice president for public policy for Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), the nation's leading sexual and reproductive health care advocate and provider.

Ms. Rubiner leads the organization's implementation of national and state strategies for improved public policies through government relations, grassroots organizing, litigation, and political affairs. [PlannedParenthood.org, accessed 1/5/12]
Most of their money ($699.2 million was spent on medical services) making Bill O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham massive, lying, right-wing hacks.

And btw folks, all the financial information I just quoted is on the Planned Parenthood website (in detail) so that means O'Reilly and Ingraham could have looked it, up just as I did. But instead they decided to lie about what they do, and how much they spend doing it. Proving it was no accident, they just lied on purpose to make Planned Parenthood look bad.

Bad News For O'Reilly: Unemployment Rate Falls Again
By: Steve - January 6, 2012 - 9:00am

Here is some bad news for O'Reilly and his right-wing friends at Fox and in Congress, the unemployment rate fell again and the economy is improving. Which is good news for Obama and his re-election chances in 2012.

And that's not all, here is the full story, the story O'Reilly will mostly ignore because it shows the Obama policies are working.

AP: Unemployment rate falls, lowest in nearly 3 years

A burst of hiring in December pushed the U.S. unemployment rate to its lowest level in nearly three years, giving the economy a boost at the end of 2011.

The Labor Department said Friday that employers added a net 200,000 jobs last month and the unemployment rate fell to 8.5 percent, the lowest since February 2009. The rate has dropped for four straight months.

The hiring gains cap a six-month stretch in which the economy generated 100,000 jobs or more in each month. That hasn't happened since April 2006.

The steady drop is a positive sign for President Barack Obama, who is bound to face voters with the highest unemployment rate of any sitting president since World War II. Unemployment was 7.8 percent when Obama took office in January 2009.

Still, the level may matter less to his re-election chances if the rate continues to fall. History suggests that presidents' re-election prospects hinge less on the unemployment rate itself than on the rate's direction during the year or two before Election Day.

For all of 2011, the economy added 1.6 million jobs, better than the 940,000 added in 2010. The unemployment rate averaged 8.9 percent last year, down from 9.6 percent the previous year.

Economists forecast that the job gains will top 2.1 million this year.

The December report painted a picture of a broadly improving job market. Average hourly pay rose, providing consumers with more income to spend. The average work week lengthened, a sign that business is picking up and companies may soon need more workers. And hiring was strong across almost all major industries.

Manufacturing added 23,000 jobs. Transportation and warehousing added 50,000 jobs. Retailers added 28,000 jobs. Even the beleaguered construction industry added 17,000 workers.

A more robust hiring market coincides with other positive data that show the economy ended the year with some momentum.

Weekly applications for unemployment benefits have fallen to levels last seen more than three years ago. Holiday sales were solid. And November and December were the strongest months of 2011 for U.S. auto sales.

Many businesses say they are ready to step up hiring in early 2012 after seeing stronger consumer confidence and greater demand for their products.

The Wednesday 1-4-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 5, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Iowa reaction: Winners and losers. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There were two big winners last night in Iowa - Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. Governor Romney because just a few weeks ago his campaign thought it would get hammered in Iowa. And just one month ago Rick Santorum was polling at 6% in Iowa, but last night 25% of Iowa voters cast their ballots for him.

Senator Santorum proves two things: Hard work pays off, and consistency of message gains respect among the voting public. But now New Hampshire looms and a CNN poll shows Romney at 47%, Ron Paul at 17%, Jon Huntsman at 13% and Santorum at 10%. It is likely Santorum will not prosper in New Hampshire because that primary is open to all the voters and the conservative Republican crew is not as influential.

As for Ron Paul, we say again that he has little chance to be nominated. Newt Gingrich is hanging in there, hoping a strong debate performance over the weekend can elevate him. Rick Perry is pretty much done and Michele Bachmann pulled out of the race today.

On a personal note, Congresswoman Bachmann waged a noble campaign - she was true to herself, she was honest, and her presence helped the political process.

All in all, Mitt Romney is the front-runner and I think President Obama fears the Governor because a Romney-Obama race would center on the economy.
Notice what O'Reilly said about Michelle Bachmann, that is just more proof he is a right-wing fool. Because she is a far-right loon that even the Republicans do not like, and O'Reilly had nothing but praise for her, not to mention putting her on his show 3 or 4 times trying to help her campaign.

Then Rick Santorum was on, who said this: "I think you were pretty accurate, except for when you talked about me not being able to do particularly well here in New Hampshire. There are a lot of undecided voters and I think you'll see our numbers start to pop up. We've been able to raise almost a million dollars today."

O'Dummy warned Santorum that he's about to be demonized by his rivals and by the media, saying this: "They're going to come after you on gays in the military, that you want to rescind that, and because you would have the federal government rescind gay marriages that have already been performed. You will be portrayed as an extremist and out of the mainstream."

What a joke, O'Reilly says Santorum will be demonized by the media. When all they will do (and are doing) is report the truth about Santorum and his radical far-right positions, that is not demonizing him, it's called honest journalism, which O'Reilly knows nothing about.

Santorum said this: "I don't think being for marriage between a man and a woman is extreme, and I've been talking more about the importance of getting this economy going. The fundamental issue in this campaign is whether government is going to be big and intrusive or whether it will be limited."

Then Karl Rove was on to talk about Michele Bachmann's departure and which candidate will capture her voters. Rove said this: "Bachmann doesn't have much in the way of support, and I think it'll get split up among Santorum, Gingrich, with a little bit to Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman."

Rove then said that Rick Perry's decision to remain in the fight may be a quixotic quest, saying this: "He has three or four million dollars in his bank account, which is a lot of money that he can put on television in South Carolina, but I'm not certain it does him any good. He spent $5.5 million in Iowa, which means every one of the votes he got cost him about $460 in television time."

O'Dummy said that Mitt Romney is in a dominant position unless he stumbles badly, saying this: "He's the front-runner, but there's a real danger for Mitt Romney with two debates this weekend. That is Newt Gingrich's only chance, if he really shines in these debates and gets the momentum back."

Then Lanny Davis and Alan Colmes were on, who both gave their assessment of the Iowa vote. Colmes said this: "It's going to be very good for President Obama, I don't think there's any question that Romney will be the nominee and there's a lot of stuff about him that hasn't yet seen the light of day. I think any of these people would be good for Obama, Huntsman would have been the toughest."

Davis said that the Obama administration would least like to face Governor Romney, saying this: "He's the toughest one for Obama to face because he's a moderate. He appeals to independents much more than Santorum or Gingrich would, but his problem is authenticity - he comes across as not genuine, which turns people off."

Then a Factor producer Jesse Watters was on, who asked the Times Square crowd for some 2012 predictions. Here are a few of the replies: "The world is going to end" ... "A lot of people are going to think the world is going to end so they're going to quit paying their bills and then everything is going to get worse" ... "Only one more year of Obama" ... "The Mets are going to win the World Series." Some baseball fans actually think that last prediction may be the most unlikely of 'em all.

Then Lis Wiehl & Kimberly Guilfoyle were on for is it legal. AG Eric Holder has been fighting state laws requiring photo IDs for voters, because poor people and college students will be unable to cast ballots. To which O'Reilly said he was doubtful it was actually happening, because he is a right-wing stooge. The studies prove it is true, and yet the right-wing hack O'Reilly still has doubts.

Guilfoyle said this: "This is very suspicious and politicized. They're worried about college students being disenfranchised, but there is no credible argument that they're being prevented from voting."

Wow, is she a liar, it is a credible argument, and only right-wing loons even say different.

Wiehl talked about the "Occupy" protesters who were arrested in North Carolina after burning an American flag, saying this: "There were four protesters who burned two flags, and they were charged with starting a fire ten feet away from the flammable tents where they were staying. They were arrested on a misdemeanor city ordinance because there was damage to city property."

And finally Dick Morris was on with his analysis of Rick Santorum's prospects, saying this: "I don't think the attacks on him are going to come from the left as you suggested in your interview with him. I think the attacks are going to come from the right, from other Republican candidates. He'll be hit for supporting Arlen Specter for Senator in Pennsylvania, he'll be hit on some of his affiliations with labor unions, and people will be questioning his conservative credentials. The guy who needs to take out Santorum is Newt Gingrich because Gingrich wants to battle Romney one-on-one."

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

More Proof Romney Puts Corporate Profits Over Jobs
By: Steve - January 5, 2012 - 10:00am

Speaking to reporters Sunday night in Des Moines, Iowa, a worker laid off by a company owned by Bain Capital accused former Bain Capital CEO and current Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney of being out of touch with the concerns of average Americans.

Randy Johnson and more than 250 of his fellow workers at a Marion, Indiana American Pad and Paper (AMPAD) facility lost their jobs after Bain decided to close the plant amid a labor dispute.

Johnson, who noted that he personally reached out to Romney during the labor dispute, said this: "I really think Romney didn't care about the workers. It was all about profit over people."

In addition to the layoffs and eventual bankrupting of AMPAD, Bain Capital under Romney's leadership drove several other firms into bankruptcy and caused thousands of layoffs.

Romney talks jobs and he is right to be talking about job creation considering the unemployment rate, but his record in the private sector is one of job destruction. Romney's company, Bain Capital, was in the business of buying up distressed companies, slashing them to bits, and then selling them off, resulting in thousands of job losses:
-- In 1992, the firm acquired American Pad & Paper. By 1999, the year Romney left Bain, two American plants were closed, 385 jobs had been cut and the company was $392 million in debt. The next year, Ampad was forced into bankruptcy.

-- Bain Capital and Goldman Sachs bought Dade International for about $450 million in 1994. The firm quickly fired or relocated at least 900 workers. Over the next several years, it sunk increasingly into debt and laid off 1,000 workers. In 2002 - after Romney had left Bain - it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

-- A 1997 buyout of LIVE Entertainment for $150 million resulted in 40 layoffs, roughly one in four of the company's 166 workers. The job cuts affected all aspects of the company, from production and acquisition to legal and public relations.

- In 1997, Bain bought a stake in DDI Corp., a maker of electronic circuit boards. Three years later, Bain took the company public and collected a $36 million payout. But by August 2003, the company filed for bankruptcy protection, laying off more than 2,100 workers.
The facts show that 22 percent of the money Bain Capital raised from 1987 to 1995 was invested in five businesses - Stage Stores, American Pad & Paper, GS Indusries, Dade, and Details. These five companies made Bain $578 million in profit, even as all five eventually went bankrupt.

As the New York Post's Josh Koshman wrote, "there's little question Romney made a fortune from businesses he helped destroy."

Travis Waldron noted today that Romney's company also boosted its profits - and thus enriched Romney - by abusing offshore tax havens.

And you never hear a word about any of this from O'Reilly or anyone at Fox News. Because he is a Republican and he does not want to report the truth about Romney so he will beat Obama in 2012. O'Reilly is trying to help Romney by ignoring stories like this.

The Tuesday 1-3-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 4, 2012 - 11:00am

There was no Factor show because Fox spent the night reporting on the Iowa Republican primary, that Mitt Romney won over Rick Santorum by 8 votes.

Great E-Mail From A Braindead O'Reilly Lover
By: Steve - January 4, 2012 - 10:30am

Here is an e-mail to me from a fan of O'Reilly, notice how he went into great detail with specific examples of something I got wrong about O'Reilly. Oh wait, never mind, all he did was call me names with no evidence that anything I wrote was not 100% accurate.

-----------------------------------
Subject: Fw: O'Reilly
Date: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 12:36 PM
From: "Doug Smith" - old.diver@yahoo.com>
To: no-spam-oreillyspins@yahoo.com

...and you claim to be an independent!? I have read stuff from a lot of jerks, but you are right at the head of the list of jerkdom. Go demonstrate in a city dump, somewhere. You're just another scammer looking for donations from suckers.
-----------------------------------

And btw, I am in fact a 51 year old registered Independent, and have been my entire life. I have never been registered as a Democrat. But unlike O'Reilly I admit I am a liberal who is registered as an Independent. I also do not have a tv news show that I claim is a fair and balanced no spin zone.

O'Reilly was also registered as a Republican most of his life, and he only switched to Independent about 10 years ago after the Washington Post busted him and reported he was still registered as a Republican.

Republican Candidates Only Support The 1% In America
By: Steve - January 3, 2012 - 10:00am

Last night, the people of Iowa kicked off the process to nominate the Republican candidate for president. But a close examination of all of the GOP candidates records and policy positions reveals that Mitt Romney is not the only candidate who represents the one percent.

In fact, all of the Republican candidates share one thing in common: They all have an economic agenda that will benefit the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans at the expense of the other 99 percent.

Every single Republican candidate has called for trillions of dollars in new tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, while also calling for ending Medicare as we know it and dramatic cuts to Social Security, Medicaid, and countless other programs and services that average working Americans depend on every day.

All of the Republican candidates would also take us back to the Bush-era policies that increased income inequality, resulted in the worst job growth in decades, exploded the deficit and national debt, and ultimately crashed the economy.

The policies proposed by the candidates would not only embrace this failed economic agenda, they would take it even further.

To sum it up, a vote for any of the Republicans is a vote against the people. Because they only care about the wealthy and the corporations, and that's because they get all their money from the wealthy and the corporations.

None of them actually care about the people, the average working man and woman, they only care about the people who give them the money to run their campaigns, and then stay in office once they get in.

That means whoever wins the Republican primary should never be elected President. And once the general election is here you are insane to vote Republican, because they do not care about you, they only care about the rich guys who give them money.

The Monday 1-2-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 3, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Assessing the GOP candidates. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The Iowa caucus is important because voters are still trying to get a handle on the candidates - polls say 41% of Iowans who will vote are still undecided, an astounding statistic. So let's take a hard look at the candidates.

Mitt Romney is polling better because of the perception that he is the strongest candidate against President Obama. Newt Gingrich is fading because of the beating his image is taking; we do not expect Mr. Gingrich to finish in the top three.

Rick Santorum has taken some of the Speaker's votes and is now polling at 15%. Rick Perry is campaigning ferociously in Iowa and could surprise. Michele Bachmann must do well in Iowa to continue.

That leaves Ron Paul, who could win the caucus. But he will not be the Republican nominee because his positions on many issues are simply outlandish. In his 23 years in Congress, Mr. Paul has sponsored 620 pieces of legislation and only one was passed.

Paul's supporters are generally angry with the federal government and want a total overhaul; I don't blame them. But Ron Paul, with his soft approach to Iran, his gold standard madness, and other extreme positions is not going to be nominated.

Talking Points will not make a prediction about the vote because last time around I predicted Hillary Clinton would beat Barack Obama, a humbling experience.
Wow, that's a first. O'Reilly actually admitted he was wrong about something.

Then Brit Hume was on with his Iowa forecast, saying this: "I don't see a scenario, which would really disturb Mitt Romney's position as the one to beat. As the pace of the campaign now quickens, you need organization and money and advertising."

O'Dummy then asked Hume why Newt Gingrich, who was scorched by negative advertising, never really fought back. Hume said this: "First, a lot of what was said about him was largely true, and second, he didn't have any money. The image that was working for him was the image of 'Uncle Newt,' the affable and experienced calm fellow in the debates. He would have had to abandon all of that in order to fight back - he didn't and the result is what you've seen."

Then O'Reilly said the star-studded pre-caucus analysis continued with Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams. Which is ridiculous, because they are not star-studded, they are nobody right-wing hacks on the fake News Network called Fox News.

Williams said this: "Romney should win this, and the only hesitation I have is that I was at a Rick Santorum event today and the energy there is unparalleled. A lot of independents who will attend the caucuses are angry at Washington and I think they're likely to go with Santorum or Paul, these are not Romney people."

Ham agreed with that analysis, saying this: "I would place my bets on Romney, but he does have a habit of losing when he should win. Santorum may have enough juice to pull him into second place, and the thing that interests me about Ron Paul is that he was in Texas on Saturday, not Iowa. The independents should be breaking towards Paul but he's losing a little bit of steam at the end here."

O'Reilly also talked about Newt Gingrich's decline in the Iowa polls, saying this: "In the space of a week the whole thing blew up. That has been the single most stunning thing to me this political season."

Then Laura Ingraham for her Hawkeye State prediction, saying this: "If I had a gun to my head. I'd have to say Romney is going to win. A friend of mine was on the phone bank for Romney last night and she contacted 60 undecided voters. There was a smattering of interest for Rick Santorum, some interest in Bachmann, but most of the people were interested in the consistency of Romney. But with 40% undecided, it's really perilous to predict."

O'Reilly tried to delineate the major difference between the two front-runners, saying this: "Romney is a businessman and politician, while Santorum is an ideological guy with very conservative views. I'm wondering whether this year, with the economic circumstances so horrendous, the Iowa caucus voters will support the guy who is most likely to beat the President, and that would be Romney."

Notice anything here folks, ALL the guests were REPUBLICANS. Not one Democratic guest was on the entire show to comment on the Iowa primary. Which is something O'Reilly would never do if it were a Democratic primary.

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to discuss Iran and Iowa. Krauthammer said this: "The reason Iran is doing this now, is because of a bill that passed Congress and which the President signed on New Year's Eve. It compels the President to impose really harsh sanctions on Iran, which is what they're worried about. The threat is that we will sanction the central bank of Iran, meaning that anyone who does business with Iran can not do business with the United States."

Krauthammer also said this: "It means the Europeans would join us in a boycott of Iranian oil and Iran's economy would collapse. But the President managed to weaken the bill at the last minute because the administration does not want to rattle the world economy. Iran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz is a bluff and it's now up to the President - will he impose sanctions that could really change the regime?"

Then Krauthammer said this: "Rick Santorum has a 1-in-50 chance of winning the nomination and Ron Paul has zero chance."

Wow, for once I agree with Krauthammer. That's 2 miracles in one night. O'Reilly admitted he was wrong (once) and I agreed with Krauthammer the right-wing stooge on something.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to assess the media coverage of the Republican race in Iowa, particularly NBC's Andrea Mitchell's claim that Iowa is "too white" and "too evangelical."

Goldberg said this: "Every four years we get the same song and dance from the mainstream media, who say Iowa is not representative. But every four years these same reporters go to Iowa to cover voters they tell us are not typical of anybody else in the United States. What Andrea Mitchell said was factually correct, but I guarantee you that we won't hear that South Carolina is 'too black,' even though proportionately there are more blacks in South Carolina than in the United States."

Goldberg also complained about the overall tenor of the reporting, saying this: "Do we need this nonstop barrage of horse race coverage? We're living in very serious economic times and if you just watch television you don't know anything about Mitt Romney's economic plan or Newt Gingrich's tax policy. This kind of coverage is nothing but cotton candy."

An of course no Democratic guest was on to comment, just the right-wing loon Bernie Goldberg. And the reporting he complains about is the very same thing he does, and what Fox does, and what O'Reilly does. They all do the same thing. Not to mention, they complained about Andrea Mitchell, then they admitted what she said was accurate, what a couple of biased fools.

And finally O'Reilly had the totally ridiculous and biased Factor Reality Check segment. Where O'Reilly is on by himself to put his right-wing spin on something someone else said. It's not reality, it's simply O'Reilly's opinion, and there are almost no checks, so the whole segment is nonsense and a waste of time.

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

More Proof O'Reilly Is Wrong About America
By: Steve - January 3, 2012 - 10:00am

Over and over O'Reilly says America is a center right country, with no actual proof, it's just his opinion. Even though on almost every major political issue facing America today the majority of the people side with the progressives.

And now we have even more proof O'Reilly is wrong and the country has a center left majority. Not to mention, LIBERAL comes in at number two. So Progressive and Liberal are in the top two out of three.

A new poll from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press out December 29th shows that PROGRESSIVE is the most positively viewed political label in America, with 67 percent holding a positive view:
1) Progressive - 67%
2) Conservative - 62%
3) Liberal - 50%
4) Capitalism - 50%
5) Libertarian - 38%
6) Socialism - 31%
The poll found that the term progressive is viewed positively by a majority of all partisan groups — including 55 percent of Republicans, 68 percent of Independents, and 76 percent of Democrats.

While O'Reilly hates all Progressives and Liberals, showing that as usual he is out of touch with the vast majority of the American people.

Note that Libertarian is 5th, who are basically conservatives that are not happy with the Republican party. So the conservatives came in 2nd and 5th, while the Liberals came in 1st and 3rd.

Proving without a doubt that O'Reilly has no clue what he is talking about when he says America is a center right country. Because the evidence (and all the facts) show that America is clearly a center left country.

Massive GOP Double Standard On Photo ID Voting Laws
By: Steve - January 1, 2012 - 11:00am

For all of their years of claims that massive voter fraud is going on at the polling place, and that Photo ID's are required to ensure the integrity of the vote, you'd think that when Republicans have a chance to run their own elections, they'd be sure to want it to be as "fraud" free as possible.

But despite some polling place Photo ID requirements now the law in about a dozen states where the GOP controls both the legislative and executive branches, voters will be able to cast their ballot in next Tuesday's Republican Iowa Caucuses without bothering to show a Photo ID --- even though the Republican Party itself sets their own rules for voting there.

Unlike most primary elections where an official state election board or agency sets the rules and runs the registration and balloting processes, the Iowa Republican Party runs its own state caucuses, determines the rules, tabulates all the votes and announces the results to the public and media themselves. They have complete control over the entire process, and yet they don't bother to ask their own voters to show a Photo ID before casting their ballot.

And I know exactly why that's the case. Polling place photo ID laws, passed in states where Republicans took control in the wave election of 2010, are instituted for one purpose and one purpose only: to suppress the votes of voters such as the elderly, minorities and students, all of whom have a dastardly tendency to vote for Democratic candidates rather than Republicans.

Since only Republicans are on the Iowa Republican Caucus ballot (unlike general elections) the GOP has no interest in disenfranchising their own voters.

While the GOP likes to claim they're attempting to institute these laws to curb "voter fraud", they're unable to show evidence of virtually any polling place impersonation that would supposedly be prevented by such laws.

For example, in rejecting the South Carolina GOP's new Photo ID restriction last Friday, finding that that the state's own statistics showed the law would be racially discriminatory, the U.S. Dept. of Justice noted that the state failed to point to "any evidence or instance of either in-person voter impersonation or any other type of fraud that is not already addressed by the state's existing voter identification requirement and that arguably could be deterred by requiring voters to present only photo identification at the polls."

According to their own "Bullet-Point Guide to the 2012 Republican Party of Iowa Caucuses", as posted at the state party's website last week, only new registrants, those registering to sign up with the Republican Party and vote on the same day at the caucus, will be asked --- but not actually required --- to show Photo ID.

As the information at the website of Iowa Secretary of State and Commissioner of Elections Matt Schultz (R) details, a Photo ID isn't actually even necessary to register and vote on Election Day either!

Any Iowa citizen 18 or over can register as a Republican and then vote in the Republican IA Caucus without a Photo ID being required of any of them.

The IA Sec. of State's website says this:
If you cannot prove who you are and where you live with the documents [such as Photo ID], a registered voter from your precinct may attest for you. Both you and the attester will be required to sign an oath swearing the statements being made are true.

Falsely attesting or being attested for is registration fraud. It is a class “D” felony and is punishable by a fine of up to $7,500 and up to 5 years in prison.
So not only is it possible to register and vote on the same day in Iowa --- something that Republicans have fought against allowing for most citizens in most other states --- one doesn't even need a Photo ID to do it, in an election where the Republicans themselves set all of the rules.

It's almost as if they realize that risking disenfranchisement of any of their own voters in their own caucus would be monumentally stupid --- not to mention potentially illegal and/or unconstitutional, though that has yet to stop them from doing the same in general elections where Democrats may be on the ballot.

And btw folks, earlier this year, Iowa state Republicans passed a Photo ID restriction law, as sponsored by Republican Sec. of State Matt Schult. But it died in a State Senate committee. And yet, when state Republicans had the chance to set any rules they wanted for voting in their own caucuses for President next week, they declined to require Photo ID of their voters.

The DOW Ends The Year Up 6 Percent!
By: Steve - January 1, 2012 - 10:00am

All year long whenever the DOW had a daily drop O'Reilly would slam Obama, then blame him and his liberal policies for the drop. But when the DOW had a daily increase O'Reilly said nothing, and totally ignored all the increases.

Basically O'Reilly would report the drops and blame Obama for them to hurt him politically, while ignoring all the days the DOW went up, which is the same tactic the Republican party used. Now the bad part is that O'Reilly claims to be a non-partisan Independent who has been fair to President Obama.

But if that's being fair to Obama I'm Donald Trump. It's not being fair and it's not even close. It's a partisan hack move that proves beyond a doubt that O'Reilly is a right-wing spin doctor.

Even the conservative Wall Street Journal reported on 12-31-11 that the Dow Jones Industrial Average ended the year up nearly 6 percent.

Proving that not only was the DOW not down for the year, it was up 6 percent. But if you only watched the Factor for your news you would think the DOW was way down for the year, and that the so-called liberal policies from Obama were to blame.

When in fact, the DOW was up and the Obama policies helped the stock market make money. But not once did O'Reilly report that, or give Obama any credit for it.



To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page:
www.oreilly-sucks.com



640-822 dumps - Interconnecting Cisco Networking 200-001 exam - Implementing Cisco Video Network Devices (VIVND) 640-911 dumps - Introducing Cisco Data Center Networking - DCICN VCP5-DCV - VMware Certified Professional 5 - Data Center Virtualization (VCP5-DCV) Exam 640-554 - Implementing Cisco IOS Network Security (IINS v2.0)