The Tuesday 7-31-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 1, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Another possible scandal in the Justice Department. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The 'Fast and Furious' gun scandal has embarrassed the Obama administration and has put Attorney General Eric Holder's job in jeopardy. Mr. Obama has invoked executive privilege to prevent Congress from finding out whether Mr. Holder or his assistants were involved in the botched gun sting operation that led to the death of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

Now we have another potential scandal that most media outlets will not report to you. On Election Day in 2008 two Black Panthers stood outside a Philadelphia polling place acting in an intimidating manner. The Bush administration filed a civil complaint against the New Black Panther party for allegedly violating the Voter Rights Act; the Black Panthers did not show up for the court hearing and one was found guilty of a civil violation.

The Obama Justice Department refused to pursue criminal charges against the Black Panthers, although there was strong evidence that they did violate the law. Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, who testified that politics were not involved, is now in big trouble because the watchdog organization Judicial Watch has obtained evidence that indicates political pressure was in play.

No matter what happens, this is another political embarrassment for the Obama administration and Attorney General Holder. There's no doubt those people were intruding upon a polling place, and now we find out that the decision not to prosecute had political implications. It's very bad news for Attorney General Holder and his friend, the President of the United States.
Okay Bill, let's say that is all true, which is very doubtful. So what, Obama ia a black man and maybe he stopped the DOJ from going after a few Black Panthers, who cares? Nobody but a few right-wing stooges, including Bill O'Reilly who are still reporting on this meaningless garbage 4 years after the fact. Earth to O'Reilly, get a life, nobody cares. The issues are the economy and jobs, jerk!

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing hack Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch on, who claims they have been investigating the Black Panther intimidation case. Why? For partisan political reasons of course.

Fitton said this: "The Bush Justice Department filed a civil case, but the Obama people came in and dropped it. The documents we obtained show that a top Justice Department official orchestrated the effort to drop the charges. There were philosophical objections from leftists who don't like these civil rights laws being applied against black people; they're designed to be applied against white people. They think the law is designed to only protect minorities."

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to talk about a segment on National Public Radio, where Cokie Roberts theorized that Mitt Romney's visit to Poland was intended to win over white ethnic voters.

Crowley said this: "This is how the left thinks. It's all identity politics all the time; they slice and dice every American group into racial and ethnic and gender differences. They don't see Americans as individuals, they see them as groups."

Now that was totally ridiculous, as Crowley complains about Roberts, she lumps all liberals into one group, and she is doing exactly what she is complaining about from Cokie Roberts.

Colmes took issue with the notion that Roberts view is widespread among liberals, saying this: "This doesn't ring true to me, and I never heard anyone else say this. When Cokie Roberts says something crazy, you want to say, 'This is the way liberals think.' But it's not."

Then O'Dummy asked the insane John Stossel how the U.S. should deal with Iran's nuclear threat, as if anyone cares what John Stossel thinks about it.

Stossel said this: "Libertarians are concerned if Iran gets a nuke, but most of us say it's not a crisis. Iran presents a grave danger, but they're not totally irrational. They know they would be annihilated if they attack. We talk with the Chinese and the Russians and we let them know it would be self-destructive to attack."

So now John Stossel is a foreign policy expert, give me a break.

O'Reilly pointed out that Iran is vastly different than the other nuclear nations cited by Stossel, saying this: "The Chinese and the Russians are atheistic secular societies based on world domination, but these people are fanatical Islamists. They want to kill you if you're Jewish just because you're Jewish. You guys are grossly underestimating the danger that Iran presents."

Then O'Reilly had another one of the Strangest Moments on The Factor segments, it's this week's special series topic for some reason that nobody knows why, or cares about, report some real news moron.

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to talk about 58-year-old Drew Peterson, who is on trial in Illinois, he is accused of drowning his third wife Kathleen Savio in 2004. Billy asked Wiehl and Guilfoyle why the case has moved so slowly.

Wiehl said this: "He wasn't charged until 2009, because it was ruled an accidental death until his fourth wife went missing. Then they reopened the case and the legal wrangling started in appeal court after appeal court."

Guilfoyle said this: "There is no justifiable excuse for this. How do you drown in a dry bathtub? Why not just start with that? This is ridiculous." Wiehl also said that it's unlikely Peterson will be found guilty because there is little forensic evidence, but Guilfoyle disagreed, saying this: "I think this guy's going to be convicted."

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had the far-right loon Charles Krauthammer on, who recently waged a war of words with the White House communications staff when he claimed President Obama had returned a bust of Winston Churchill to the British.

Krauthammer said this: "To bolster their charge that I was spreading a false rumor, they showed a picture of Obama with a bust of Churchill in the White House residence, but that was extremely deceptive. After 9/11 Britain loaned President Bush a bust of Winston Churchill as a show of solidarity. When Obama won the presidency, the British offered to extend the loan, but the Obama administration said no and it was returned to the British Embassy. What you saw in that deceptive picture was another Churchill sculpture that had been given to the United States in the Johnson administration."

Here is my question, how does Krauthammer know that, how can he prove it, and who fricking cares anyway. The main issue is the economy and jobs, who gives a rats ass about some bust of Winston Churchill.

Then O'Reilly added to this nonsense by saying this: "Some people believe President Obama doesn't like Winston Churchill because of British colonialism, particularly in Kenya."

Yeah, and those "some people" Billy talks about are right-wing nuts, who cares, report some real news idiots!

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the O'Reilly tip of the day, Billy said this: "Tuesday's literary Tip featured four summer reading suggestions: 'Creole Belle' by James Lee Burke, 'Lullaby' by Ace Atkins, 'I am Spartacus' by Kirk Douglas, and James Donovan's 'The Blood of Heroes.'"

Republican Slams GOP For Being Too Far To The Right
By: Steve - August 1, 2012 - 10:00am

Congressman Richard Hanna (R-NY) is fed up with the Republican Party. Hanna singled out Michele Bachmann's suggestion that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin be investigated to see if she has ties to Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood as an example of a party that has gone off the rails.

Hanna Said This:
HANNA: I have to say that I'm frustrated by how much we -- I mean the Republican Party -- are willing to give deferential treatment to our extremes in this moment in historY.

We render ourselves incapable of governing when all we do is take severe sides.

If all people do is go down there and join a team, and the team is invested in winning and you have something that looks very similar to the shirts and the skins, there's not a lot of value there.

I would say that the friends I have in the Democratic Party I find, much more congenial, a little less anger.
And Hanna is not alone, moderate members of the House GOP conference have also said that they feel Boehner, who has struggled with an often raucous and openly defiant right wing, has forced them to go along with conservative demands but has provided them little in return.

And this is not the first time Hanna has been critical of the Republican party. At at women's rights rally in March he advised the crowd to contribute their money to people who speak out on your behalf, because the other side, as in his side, has a lot of it.

The Monday 7-30-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 31, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Dick Cheney says Palin was a mistake as 2008 VP choice. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Sarah Palin has become a very controversial figure, but four years ago few knew her. Then John McCain chose her as his running mate and, in hindsight, former Vice President Dick Cheney now says that was 'a mistake.'

Talking Points believes Sarah Palin did help the McCain campaign and that the Republicans would not have defeated Barack Obama no matter who had been chosen. Going forward, Mitt Romney has a very important choice to make; his running mate must win him some votes.

Right now the names at the top of the list are Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Bob McDonnell, and Rob Portman. Senator Rubio is very popular among conservative Americans and would get Romney votes in the vital state of Florida; the downside is that he is inexperienced and has had some financial problems.

Congressman Ryan has credibility on the economy and may help deliver Wisconsin. Virginia Governor McDonnell has done well turning the economy around in his state, and Ohio Senator Portman has national experience in a variety of jobs.

Talking Points believes Senator Rubio would help Mitt Romney the most, but he would face massive media attacks. Is he ready to handle that? It's a tough question.
Now that's funny, Dick Cheney tells us what we already knew for 4 years, that the idiot Palin VP pick was a giant mistake by McCain. And of course O'Reilly can not admit it because he called Palin a smart and great woman. And btw, I said Romney would pick Rubio a year ago, and now O'Reilly is stealing my pick.

Then O'Reilly had two Republicans on to talk about Dick Cheney's comment on Sarah Palin. Marc Thiessen said this: "I don't think he was trying to denigrate her, and he's had a lot of nice things to say about her. He was trying to make a point about the kind of VP that Romney should pick, and I think he was trying to say Romney needs to pick a man like Dick Cheney, someone who has instant credibility with conservatives and enough gravitas to be ready to take over the presidency right away. The most likely pick is Paul Ryan."

Sabrina Schaeffer supports Senator Rubio, she said this: "He is the darling of the Tea Party and he gives some conviction and backbone to Romney, who at times has been doubted for his limited government bona fides. Rubio is more politically savvy than Sarah Palin was and he may have a marginal impact with Hispanic voters."

Then the right-wing stooge Brit Hume was on to discuss the strengths of VP prospects Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio. Hume said this: "I don't think either of them makes much difference, because the history of these things, with the possible exception of 1960, is that the vice presidential nominee doesn't matter much in terms of the number of votes you get."

O'Reilly agreed that 1960 was an election in which John Kennedy's vice presidential pick was crucial, saying this: "Lyndon Johnson was put on the ticket solely to get Texas, which they did. And now Mitt Romney needs Florida and Ohio."

Hume also reacted to the news that Bill Clinton will have a prominent speaking spot at the Democratic National Convention, saying this: "You can describe Bill Clinton's role at the convention in three letters: SOS! Barack Obama's relation with Bill Clinton has been tenuous and distant, but Barack Obama is in very, very serious reelection trouble and Bill Clinton has credibility with the swing voters that Barack Obama is losing."

Wow! Hume is an idiot, Obama is ahead by 6 points in the most recent poll, and in the electoral vote count he is winning 333 to 205, and that is trouble to Hume, my God he is a right-wing propagandist to the extreme.

Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to talk about Romney. During his visit to Israel last weekend, Mitt Romney promised his hosts that a Romney administration would use "any and all measures" to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Williams said this: "Nobody has any doubt, that if Israel went after Iran, the U.S. would of course back Israel. While the Obama administration has focused on sanctions, nobody has taken military action off the table. This is an attempt by Mitt Romney to make it seem like Obama hates Israel, which is just crazy!"

Ham of course claimed (with no proof) that Mitt Romney is more supportive of Israel than the Obama administration, saying this: "There is a reason that Obama's numbers in the Jewish community have dipped by double digits. Romney was trying to make a contrast without criticizing the President, and taking some Jewish voters away from Barack Obama can make a large difference in Florida."

Then O'Reilly used a segment to replay some of what he said were the more memorable interviews from the show's 16-year history, why, I have no idea, and I sure as hell am not going to report on it.

Then O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to cry about CNN. Just before airing a segment about Sarah Palin, CNN's producers thought it would be cute to play the song "Stupid Girls."

Goldberg then mocked CNN's excuse that the song was not intended to be linked to any news story. Goldberg said this: "The most offensive part of this, is this statement by a news organization whose mission is to tell the truth. They say this was 'unintentional.' Really? They have millions of songs in their database to choose from, but they picked 'Stupid Girls.' And they have the nerve to tell us it was 'unintentional.'"

And finally O'Reilly had the ridiculous Factor Reality Check Segment, that I do not report on. Because it's simply O'Reilly (by himself) putting his right-wing spin on something someone else said.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame tip of the day, Billy said this: Monday's Tip, Vacation suggestions: "In the Pacific Time Zone, Monterey, California is a great vacation destination; in the Mountain Time Zone, consider visiting Jackson, Wyoming; in the Central Time Zone, head to Rainy Lake, Minnesota; and if you're in the East and still making vacation plans, Newport, Rhode Island has much to offer, even if you're not a "one-percenter." "

Republican AG Admits Voter ID Won't Prevent Voter Fraud
By: Steve - July 31, 2012 - 10:00am

Taking a break from defending his state's restrictive voter ID law in court, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson spoke at a Heritage Foundation panel on Thursday regarding the dire need to prevent the threat of voter fraud. To illustrate, he offered a hypothetical in which a man votes under a stolen identity, by using a fraudulent voter ID card:
WILSON: The ability for someone to come in and, through fraud, dilute the voting pool is very present. I want to be able to give our government the ability to combat that, to give them the tools.

It is very difficult to prove a negative. If Alan Wilson goes in and uses a fraudulent voter ID card under the name of John Smith and I vote under John Smith's name and then leave the polling place, you cannot go back in time and prove the negative. It is impossible.

It is very difficult to catch somebody in the act. But I hear countless stories of people who witnessed that.
In Wilson's made up scenario, a voter uses a fake ID to cast an extra vote. But his own argument rests on the idea that the requirement to show ID at the polls is necessary to combat rampant voter fraud and identity theft. But if you use that logic, voter ID laws would do nothing to prevent this threat.

In-person voter fraud like the type Wilson claims to prevent is extremely rare. It is so rare, in fact, that a person is more likely to be struck by lightning than commit voter fraud. Even the Supreme Court could only identify one example of in-person voter fraud in the past 143 years in their 2009 decision upholding a voter ID law.

By contrast, a recent Brennan Center report found that nearly 500,000 voters (mostly low-income and minority individuals) in the ten states with voter ID laws stand to be disenfranchised.

Wilson has sued the Department of Justice for blocking South Carolina's voter ID law, arguing this: "The changes have neither the purpose nor will they have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority."

According to the ACLU's estimate, 180,000 voters will be affected by the South Carolina law, with minority voters hit hardest by the new requirements.

And this is not the first time Wilson's made up voter fraud scenarios have fallen flat. After he claimed over 900 dead voters cast ballots in South Carolina, an investigation by the State Election Commission found no evidence to back him up.

But Wilson has continued to insist that the threat of dead voters is real, and repeated the statistic at the Heritage Foundation on Thursday.

Democratic Senators Introduce Ban On High Capacity Magazines
By: Steve - July 30, 2012 - 10:00am

As a former member of the NRA, and a gun lover, I support the ban, because nobody needs a clip with a hundred bullets in it, except for the police and the military.

A group of Democratic senators are bucking President Obama and calling on Congress to pass new legislation that would establish federal restrictions on large capacity gun magazines.

Identical to a separate bill introduced by amendment sponsor Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), the senators amendment to the Cybersecurity Act would ban the sale or transfer of large capacity feeders like magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.

The amendment was introduced amid growing outcry from police and gun control advocates who want Washington to take a stand on gun control. New York City Mayor Bloomberg prominently demanded action hours after the Aurora theater shooting. The White House pledged to strengthen existing gun rules but has since clarified that the administration will not promote new legislation.

24-year-old James Holmes, the suspect in the Aurora shooting, purchased a 100 round drum magazine. Jared Loughner, who shot former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) in 2011 along with 18 others, used an extended magazine that held 33 bullets, and police found two more 15-round magazines in his pockets.

Under the federal assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004, these two killers could not have legally purchased these large capacity ammunition feeding devices. On the state level, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York all prohibit the sale of high capacity magazines.

In a floor speech supporting the new amendment, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) attempted to find common ground with gun rights advocates, conceding that liberals in the 1980s and 90s "basically felt there was no right to bear arms," prompting an extreme reaction from the pro-gun movement.

Schumer stressed the need to disprove the misconception that "The Chuck Schumers of the world want to take away your gun, even if it's the hunting rifle your uncle Willy gave you when you were 14."

Calling for rational gun control measures, Schumer said liberals need to make it clear once and for all that is not our goal...the Second Amendment does matter, and if you're an average normal American citizen you have the right to bear arms.

Rep Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), whose husband was killed in a 1993 mass shooting on the Long Island Railroad, has proposed a similar ban on high-capacity magazines in Congress but does not expect it to pass.

Because the NRA will dump a load of cash on the Republicans in Congress to vote against it.

Fox News Adds To Their Dishonest Obama Attacks
By: Steve - July 29, 2012 - 11:00am

Fox News accused President Obama of "doubling down" on comments they helped characterize as "insulting" to business owners, but in doing so, Fox itself doubled down on its campaign to strip Obama's statements out of context to further a political agenda.

Obama spoke at a campaign event and pointed out how benefits such as American infrastructure factor in the success of small businesses. Fox deceptively edited the president's remarks to accuse him of telling small business owners that if they have a business, "you didn't build that."

Then Thursday morning, Fox returned to the scandal they helped to manufacture, reporting that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney called Obama's comments "insulting" to business owners.

Fox then turned its sights on another campaign event and accused President Obama of "doubling down." Here's the part of the speech that Fox chose to play as evidence:
OBAMA: We did not build this country on our own. We built it together. And if Mr. Romney doesn't understand that, then he doesn't understand what it takes to grow this economy in the 21st century for everybody.
But the only way these comments can be portrayed as doubling down on an insult to business owners is to completely strip them of context. In the portion of Obama's speech that Fox chose to ignore, it's clear that he explicitly touted the "drive and ingenuity of Americans who start businesses" as crucial to "what makes us such a robust dynamic economy."

Here is what President Obama actually said:
OBAMA: As I said, I believe with all my heart that it is the drive and ingenuity of Americans who start businesses that lead to their success. And by the way, that's why I've cut taxes on small businesses 18 times since I've been President.

I believe the ability for somebody who is willing to work hard, and sweat and sacrifice to turn their idea into a profitable business, that's what makes us such a robust, dynamic economy. We prize that.

But I also believe that if you talk to any business owner -- small or large -- they'll tell you what also helps them succeed alongside their hard work, their initiative, their great ideas, is the ability to hire workers with the right skills and the right education.

What helps them succeed is the ability to ship and sell their products on new roads and bridges and ports and wireless networks. What helps them succeed is having access to cutting-edge technology, which like the Internet often starts with publicly funded research and development.

And what helps them succeed is a strong and growing middle class, so they've got a broader base of customers.
There you go O'Reilly, it's right there in black and white, PROOF Fox News dishonestly edited a statement from the President, so do your job and expose them as the biased frauds they are, haha, yeah right, and that will happen when I turn into a Karl Rove loving Republican.

Republican Admits They Try To Suppress The Black Vote
By: Steve - July 29, 2012 - 10:00am

In a 630-page deposition, released to the press Friday, former Republican Party Chairman Jim Greer described a systemic effort by Republicans to suppress the black vote. Referring to a 2009 meeting with party officials, Greer said this: "I was upset because the political consultants and staff were talking about voter suppression and keeping blacks from voting."

Greer said some GOP leaders were meeting to discuss ways they could suppress black votes while others were constantly scheming against each other.

On voter suppression, Greer said he had just completed a December 2009 meeting with party general counsel Jason Gonzalez, political consultant Jim Rimes and Eric Eikenberg, Crist's chief of staff, when questions arose about fundraising.

"I was upset because the political consultants and staff were talking about voter suppression and keeping blacks from voting. It had been one of those days," he said.

He also said party officials discussed how "minority outreach programs were not fit for the Republican Party."

Florida is currently embroiled in a controversy surrounding Gov. Rick Scott's (R) voter purge program, which disproportionately affects voters of color.

Fifty-eight percent of Scott's original list of voters who were supposedly ineligible to voter were Hispanic while Hispanics make up only 13 percent of Florida's eligible voters.

But you will never see this reported by O'Reilly, because he does not want you to know the truth about what his right-wing friends are doing, while at the same time saying there is no racism in the Republican party.

The Friday 7-27-12 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - July 28, 2012 - 11:00am

There was no TPM because the far-right stooge Laura Ingraham was filling in for O'Reilly, she went right to her Top Story called: Slow economic growth and the presidential election.

Ingraham started the show with the news that the U.S. economy is growing at an annual rate of 1.5%. The Republican Economist Peter Marisi was on to put that number in perspective.

Marisi said this: "We have to grow at 3% to get the kind of job creation we need, and this is just half that rate. Consumers lost confidence in the second quarter, they don't believe President Obama's policies are working, they're very skeptical about his criticism of the private sector, and this is just a terrible report. At this point Ronald Reagan had the economy growing at 6%, whereas Mr. Obama has it growing at 2%. But he alibis better than anyone I've ever seen."

Simon Rosenberg was also on, and he said that President Obama is still likely to win in November, saying this: "The economy is not growing as fast as Obama wants, but it's not growing as slowly as Mitt Romney needs for Barack to get un-elected. In the latest polling, Barack is still up by six points and if the election were held today he would win. The debate is about what to do now, and the balanced Obama approach is much more what the economy needs now. I think he's in a strong position to get reelected."

Then the biased hack Laura Ingraham said this: "The President remains on the defensive after his "you didn't build that" remark that infuriated small business owners." Which is a right-wing lie, because his remark did not make most small business owners mad, and what the idiots on the right are quoting is an edited remark out of context to smear Obama. Most small business owners know what Obama really said, and they agree with it.

Ingraham asked Republican strategist Dee Dee Benkie to comment, and she said this: "That was probably the worst statement he has made, because small businesses all over the country say, we worked our tails off and we are barely making money in this economy. What is he going to say about the Olympics, 'You didn't earn that gold medal?' Should we give everyone a silver medal because it's more fair and it spreads the wealth? This is not a pro-business President; he's a community organizer, he's a good singer, but when it comes to business he's not getting it done."

So then the Democratic activist Rod Snyder set the record straight and defended the President as a supporter of small business.

Snyder said this: "Let's give credit to the Romney campaign for slicing and dicing his comments and totally distorting them and taking them out of context. It's very clear that the President was saying that government must invest in roads, bridges, infrastructure and the Internet for the private sector to succeed. What's so wrong with saying that?"

Then Ingraham cried about Romney screwing up in London. While being interviewed about the London Olympics, Mitt Romney implied that Britain may not be fully prepared. And the British press slammed Romney. Ingraham discussed it with British journalist Peter Spencer.

Spencer said this: "Mitt Romney was saying exactly what the British press has been saying. They've been incandescent with rage about the organization of the Olympics, particularly the problems with transportation and with the private security firm. But we are allowed to be rude about ourselves, while foreigners are not, so there was an almighty outburst from the newspapers. The best headline came from the Daily Telegraph, which called him a 'wazzock,' an expression that means 'idiot, dipstick, moron.'"

Then Ingraham pointed out that many sophisticated Brits were not Romney fans to begin with, saying this: "Mitt Romney is as well-loved in London as he would be speaking at Harvard. You guys like the Obamas, while Mitt Romney is seen as too buttoned-up."

Then Leslie Marshall and Janine Turner were on to talk about a new ad President Obama put out. His latest spot talks about the greatness of America and its middle class. Marshall said this: "The mud-slinging ads are very effective, but the Olympics are a time when the world actually unites. If only for a few days, we put down our politics and our differences. I think the timing of the ad is essential; it is a unifying message and a glimpse of the President that ran last time around."

But Turner accused the President's campaign operatives of blatantly playing politics, saying this" "That is a political commercial, he is hiding behind the middle class. He really wants to choose the winners and losers; he'd like to take from the rich and give to the poor unless the rich are his friends."

Then Ingraham cried about Chick-fil-A and how some liberal activists and a few politicians are complaining about Chick-fil-A, whose president Dan Cathy spoke in favor of traditional male/female marriage.

Which was spin, because it was not just speaking out about it, they give money to anti-gay groups too. The gay rights activist Wayne Besen was on, who explained his outrage at the chain.

Besen said this: "They have given millions of dollars to anti-gay organizations, and a lot of people are incredibly offended. Not only did he say he's opposed to gay marriage, but he said it would invite God's wrath upon this nation. What does that do to young gay and lesbian children who are hearing these terrible things? People have a right to be really angry and not want to eat their greasy chicken. My marriage isn't recognized in many states and at the federal level because of people like Dan Cathy, who has turned his chicken shop into a political house."

And of course Ingrahm supports what Cathy said, and she claimed that the chain does not discriminate against homosexuals, saying this: "Chick-fil-A has said they treat everyone who comes into their restaurants with dignity and respect, and they've done an enormous amount of charitable giving and community work."

Which is ridiculous, it's like saying I rob banks but if I give some of the money to charity and do some community work that makes it ok.

And finally in the last segment the insane far-right moron Laura Ingraham replayed O'Reilly's recent interview with Beach Boys Brian Wilson and Mike Love. Which I will not report on because it's a re-run.

Jon Stewart Slams Fox & Romney For Dishonest Obama Attacks
By: Steve - July 28, 2012 - 10:00am

If you ever wanted one thing to show how dishonest Fox and Mitt Romney are, this is it. And O'Reilly was part of it too, O'Reilly also used the edited Fox video clip from the Obama speech to slam Obama and help Romney.

On The Daily Show, Jon Stewart lampooned Fox & Friends' latest attempt to continue the dishonest narrative based on President Obama's recent comments by purporting to provide more context to Obama's remarks which Fox & Friends initially deceptively edited.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook


Stewart pointed out that Fox, once again deceptively edited remarks made by the President and that these newest edited remarks have become a corner stone of the Romney campaign.

The addition of "context" by Fox & Friends still left out crucial components of Obama's comments, and further muddied the water, or as Stewart put it, the context Fox & Friends provided was "not context. That's just different no context."

And where is the media watchdog MRC, or Bernie Goldberg on this, nowhere to be found, because it's an example of dishonest bias by a right-wing news source, and it hurts Obama while helping Romney. Bill O'Reilly not only says nothing about the dishonesty, he joined in with it when he knows it's an edited clip that takes Obama out of context to imply he meant something he did not mean.

The Thursday 7-26-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 27, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: New charges for Brooklyn child predator who got light sentence. The biased right-wing Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: 27-year-old Andrew Goodman raped two boys, ages 11 and 13, over a period of four years. This savage pleaded guilty to 48 felony counts of criminal sexual acts, but New York State Judge Martin Murphy sentenced the monster to just two years in prison. Murphy gave Goodman the minimum sentence, but refuses to explain why.

Enter U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch, who has charged Goodman with the federal crime of transporting a minor across state lines to engage in sexual activity. If convicted, Goodman could get at least ten years in a federal prison. Ms. Lynch is obviously doing this to protect children from Goodman, something Judge Murphy is unwilling to do.

She is a hero and should be respected by all Americans for standing up to a gross injustice. Finally, we see a public official willing to right a grievous wrong and we want the entire country to know it. What about New York Governor Andrew Cuomo? He remains silent in the face of a judicial atrocity that has embarrassed his state.

New York does not have Jessica's Law and Governor Cuomo does not seem to care; we challenge the Governor to stand up and protect the children. New Jersey also doesn't have Jessica's Law because one guy, Senate President Steve Sweeney, is blocking a vote. How cowardly is that?

We have a petition on BillOReilly.com we'd like you to sign so we can give it to Governors Cuomo and Christie.
Then the Republican Megyn Kelly was on to discuss it, Kelly said this: "The sentence came down on July 12th, and you, Bill, brought this into the national eye on July 19th. The following Monday is when the feds got involved and did their first interview of Mr. Goodman. Now, instead of getting out in September, he will be transferred to federal custody and he's facing 10 years mandatory imprisonment."

Kelly also reminded everyone that Andrew Goodman has more counts of child molestation and rape than Jerry Sandusky.

So then O'Reilly slammed Judge Martin Murphy, who handed down the original two-year sentence, saying this: "We called the judge and gave him every opportunity to explain himself, but he gave us and the whole nation the finger. There is no rational explanation for what he did."

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, all the judge did was refuse to talk to you, he did not give the whole nation the finger. I agree the sentence was too weak, but he still does not have to talk to your biased ass about it.

Then the Republican (and Romney campaign spokesman) John Sununu was on to spin for Romney and talk about a recent poll that says a wide majority of Americans consider President Obama more "likeable" than Mitt Romney.

Sununu said this: "President Obama started out with a high rating and he's maintained it, but he's had a rough couple of weeks and I think you're going to see that begin to change. His 'you didn't build that' moment is really resonating around the country. He says it's out of context, but even worse than the context is the tone and the really arrogant and insulting way he's addressing people who have had success."

O'Reilly compared President Obama's personal popularity with that of George W. Bush, saying this: "People liked Bush the younger, even when his policies on Iraq and the economy were going south. They still separated his job performance from the man, and it seems like they're doing the same thing with Barack Obama."

And that comparison is insane, because Obama did not approve torture, Obama did not take us into Iraq, Obama did not out a CIA agent for political revenge, Obama did not let the wealthy crash the economy, the stock market, and the housing market, by letting them do whatever they want with no oversight.

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing stooge Laura Ingraham on to cry about the mayors of Boston and Chicago, who want the fast food chain Chick-fil-A to steer clear of their respective cities because the company's president openly opposes gay marriage.

Ingraham said this: "I find this story to be disturbing for a number of reasons. "Number one, we're supposed to be able to express our viewpoints in the United States without being called 'haters,' and the majority of Americans probably agree with this CEO. Apparently you can't have that opinion and run a business in the United States, and you can't speak freely. Think of the jobs Chick-fil-A has created across the country."

So what happened to all men are created equal and the discrimination laws, explain that O'Reilly and Ingraham. Chick-fil-A is discriminating against gay people, and you two right-wing idiots do not seem to care. But if a Republican who is pro-life was discriminated against you would scream bloody murder. How about sticking up for the rights of gay people, oh yeah I forgot, you will never do that because you are biased, right-wing hypocrites with double standards.

Then the Culture Warriors Jeanine Pirro and Kim Serafin were on to discuss a new study that correlates sex in the movies and personal sexual promiscuity. Which is funny, because we needed a study to tell us that if people watch movies with sex in them they will have more sex, duh! And so what if they do, it's none of our business, in a so-called free country.

Pirro said this: "We put our kids in front of a television to learn how to count and spell, and then we're shocked to find out that if they see sex in a movie they might replicate it. Now we have studies that show kids who see sexual content in movies tend to have sex earlier, with more partners, and they have more risky sex. I believe the study."

Serafin questioned whether the study actually proves causation, saying this: "There were 1,200 kids, so this was not a huge sample. We also don't know how they were raised, what their parents taught them, who their friends were, what other movies they saw. With 1,200 people you can't make a definitive determination from this one study."

Then the right-wing biased Lou Dobbs was on, who rejected the idea that tougher gun laws will help prevent future mass murders. Dobbs said this: "I believe the laws we have on the books right now are adequate. The reality is that if we are not enforcing our laws, if we are not setting certain standards and enforcing those standards, we are going to watch this chaos continue."

Dobbs also urged mental health professionals to step up when they know a patient may be violent, saying this: "Psychiatrists and psychologists in this country are not meeting any obligation of duty to society when they refuse to report people who are deeply troubled. This goes way beyond guns."

And finally in the last segment the two right-wing stooges Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum were on for the total waste of tv time Factor News Quiz.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame tip of the day, Billy said this: "Here are a few foods that make you stronger and strengthen your immune system without breaking the bank: wild salmon, cinnamon, tomatoes, sauerkraut, almonds, and blueberries. "

O'Reilly Has Rove On To Lie More About Obama Statement
By: Steve - July 27, 2012 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly (the man who claims to be a non-partisan Independent journalist) let Karl Rove go on his show and lie his right-wing ass off about what President Obama said about the small business owners in America. O'Reilly never once corrected Rove, or pointed out that Fox dishonestly edited his speech, he just let Rove and the rest of Fox to lie about it.

Karl Rove went on The O'Reilly Factor to hype a new web ad, put out by the conservative super PAC he co-founded. The American Crossroads ad paints President Obama's statement that his small business remarks have been taken out of context as dishonest, presenting Fox's deceptively edited version of the president's remarks as the full version of his comments.

During the segment, Rove said the goal of the ad was "to mock the president for saying you took my words out of context."

He then repeated the Fox lies about Obama's comments, claiming that the president "stood up there, in front of a crowd in Roanoke, and diminished the success of small business people by saying, 'if you build a business - you know, somebody else did that.' "


Even though President Obama said no such thing. In Bloomberg's review of the Crossroads ad, the report noted: "The problem, of course, is that Obama's words have been spliced and diced in this ongoing game."

Here's the full context of Obama's comments, with the small part that is repeated in the Crossroads ad below:
OBAMA: Look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges.

If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
Fox cherry picked this one line: "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that."

And left out all the context before that, then O'Reilly, Rove, and virtually everyone at Fox smears to the lie. It's shameful, and one of the worst examples of bias in the media I have ever seen. And yet, O'Reilly and his media watchdog Bernie Goldberg have not said a word about it in the weekly media bias segment O'Reilly does on his very own show.

Then O'Reilly let Karl Rove come on his show to lie twice about it, the first time was about the edit, and the second time about what Obama said about how Fox was being dishonest. And for O'Reilly to allow that after saying he is a non-partisan Independent is just laughable. Because O'Reilly is also part of the scam, making him just as biased as Rove, or Hannity, or any conservative at Fox.

Later on that same night, Sean Hannity also played the Crossroads ad, and incredibly claimed that "there's no slicing, no dicing, full context" in it.

And this is just the latest example of Fox promoting its very deceptive version of Obama's remarks. The deceptive editing made its way through the entire network, eventually appearing in the Romney campaign's talking points and attack ads.

Fox then promoted Romney's use of the false attack they helped to create.

The Wednesday 7-25-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 26, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Presidential Polling. The biased right-wing Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll says President Obama is ahead of Mitt Romney 49% - 43%. However, in a Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll among likely voters, Mitt Romney leads 47% - 44%. So what is going on?

First, the NBC poll is 'registered voters,' not 'likely voters.' Second, there is an 11 point difference, with more Democrats than Republicans being polled. It's not that they stacked the deck; it's just that the random sample came out that way.

The truth is, nobody knows who is ahead, the campaign is very fluid right now. What Talking Points does know is that many voters have no clue what is going on in the country. Last night we told you that 35% of American homes are now receiving welfare payments; 50 years ago that number was 6%. And more workers are on disability than at any other time in the nation's history.

Our society is changing from self-reliance to 'give me stuff!' Not everybody on disability is gaming the system and not every family on welfare is taking advantage of taxpayers, but the trend is undeniable. Under President Obama, and even under President Bush the younger, America has moved toward government dependence.

That's the primary reason we have $16 trillion in debt and the workplace is stagnant. That's also the reason President Obama's poll numbers remain competitive, even in the face of a terrible economy. Millions of Americans simply want the government to provide, and the President is the provider-in-chief. The 100-million Americans receiving welfare are not likely to be supporting Mitt Romney.
And that is what you call right-wing spin from O'Reilly, Billy said this: "The truth is, nobody knows who is ahead, the campaign is very fluid right now." But we do know, the polls have Obama ahead by 4 to 6 points, O'Reilly even quoted the right-wing WSJ and still could not admit Obama is ahead.

Not to mention, Obama is way ahead in the electoral votes, 333 to 205, which is what really matters because that is how you get elected, not by total votes. But O'Reilly never reports any of that, and if a Republican had those numbers O'Reilly would say they are winning big time.

Then the biased right-wing hack Karl Rove was on to talk about a pro-Obama group that has created an ad accusing Romney of outsourcing jobs to countries around the world. Which is true, but of course Karl Rove and O'Reilly will never admit it, instead Billy has the dishonest Rove on to spin it for the GOP.

Rove said this: "They repeat stuff about outsourcing, which even the Washington Post called 'bunk.' More people will see this ad tonight on your program than anywhere else."

Rove also claimed the 'Romney as rich guy' ads have not been effective, saying this: "When they started to make this argument on May 15, the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll was 45 - 45. Today, after three months of being pounded on this issue, it's 46 - 45 Romney. President Obama is fundamentally out of synch with the American people because he believes we can spend our way to prosperity. No country in the history of the world has succeeded at that."

Then Joanne Sosa was on to talk about riots that broke out in Anaheim, California last weekend after two young men were shot and killed by police officers. Billy asked one of the protesters, Joanne Sosa, to explain the violence.

Sosa said this: "This started out as a rally, so those residents who have been disenfranchised and feel they have no voice would be able to come and speak at city council. But once the folks got to city hall, they could not get in. What America should know is that the gentleman who was killed on Saturday was running from the police and he had no weapon. We've had six to eight police shootings since the beginning of the year without any real answers, and there are layers and layers of other issues underneath this."

Then the Republican Adam Carolla was on to discuss the film industry's response to last week's massacre in Colorado. Carolla said this: "It's interesting that everybody in Hollywood calls it a tragedy, but the rest of us call it a massacre, which is what it was. A tragedy is when the roof collapses."

So then Billy advised Warner Brothers, which will make hundreds of millions of dollars on the Batman movie, to step up and help the survivors, saying this: "The movie had nothing to do with this, it didn't incite anything. But if I were Warner Brothers, I'd do some scholarship activity and make sure we help people, just because we want to show we're Americans."

Then O'Reilly had a Factor Producer Jesse Watters on to talk about his segment where he hit the streets of Long Island, and he tried to determine why so many younger Americans are fans of President Obama.

"He supports same-sex marriage, which is amazing," one young woman told Watters. A few other random comments: "I think it's going to take a while for him to fix the mess that the Republicans started." ... "He kind of accepts things as it is." ... "I think he's too right-wing."

Then Billy added this: "Whatever their politics, the vast majority of the young people seemed far more interested in listening to music and basking in the sun."

Then the far-right lunatic Glenn Beck was on, who will host a massive rally in Texas this week. And O'Reilly simply had this loon on to promote it, plain and simple.

Beck said this: "We will have 35,000 volunteers on the streets on Friday, and we already have more than a million meals for the homeless across the country. If we believe in small government, then we have to roll up our sleeves and do the work. People are going to do everything from rebuilding churches to helping people in nursing homes. And on Saturday night in the Dallas Cowboys' stadium, we're going to 'restore the culture.' We have to take our rightful place back in society, we on the right have given away almost everything."

And finally in the last segment called did you see that the Republican Juliet Huddy was on to talk about the General Services Administration, who recently spent $823,000 on a Las Vegas junket, and who ran up a $270,000 tab on another conference.

Huddy watched a video clip from the event and said this: "The whole audience, was given these little things called 'wackers,' and they were supposed to play to the beat. Can you imagine sitting in the audience and some chick is telling you to play this beat? I guess it was supposed to be some kind of Kumbaya, 'let's all get together' thing. They spent a fortune of taxpayer money, including $28,000 on time/temperature picture frames."

O'Reilly also played part of of his 1998 interview with actor Sherman Hemsley, who died Tuesday at age 74. Hemsley spoke fondly about his signature role as George in 'The Jeffersons.' "I finally had a regular job, and as an actor that's great. The work was good, the writing was wonderful, the people I worked with were wonderful."

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as ever tip of the day, Billy said this: "A drink called Xocia Xe, which is 75% juice and has no refined sugar, is actually good for you and tasty at the same time."

The Super-Rich Are Hiding $21 Trillion Dollars In Tax Havens
By: Steve - July 26, 2012 - 10:00am

And of course you never hear a word about this from O'Reilly, as he complains every night that the wealthy are paying too much in taxes.

According to a new study, the world's super-rich are shielding at least $21 trillion in secret offshore tax havens. Including Mitt Romney btw.

Using data from the Bank of International Settlements, IMF, World Bank, and national governments, the Tax Justice Network found that an astonishing 100,000 people worldwide hold nearly $10 trillion of offshore wealth, equivalent to the size of the Chinese economy. According to the study:
1. Big banks manage the wealth. The three private banks handling the most assets offshore are UBS, Credit Suisse, and Goldman Sachs.

2. Offshore wealth is creating a global economic black hole. If the $21 trillion in offshore earned a conservatively-estimated 3 percent rate of return, and that income was taxed at just 30 percent, this would generate tax revenues of nearly $200 billion -- roughly twice the amount OECD countries spend on international development assistance.

3. High impact on developing countries. In the 139 developing countries highlighted in the report, the richest citizens had amassed $7.3 to $9.3 trillion of unrecorded offshore wealth that is beyond the reach of local tax authorities. The report reveals that many developing debtor countries are actually quite wealthy, but the money is held by a few individuals.

4. Huge tax haven growth in the last few years. In 2005, the world's top 50 banks managed $5.4 trillion in offshore money. By the end of 2010, the figure is over $12 trillion, representing an average annual growth rate of more than 16 percent.
This tax avoidance study comes at a time when many are questioning presidential hopeful Mitt Romney's use of tax havens. As an executive at Bain Capital, Romney routed investments through companies in Bermuda or the Cayman Islands to allow investors to avoid U.S. taxes.

The Tuesday 7-24-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 25, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Are you weak? The crazy & right-wing biased Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Fifty years ago, just 6% of Americans received welfare. Most families didn't have very much but made do without taking from other people...[And] nobody complained...

"Now 35% of American homes receive some kind of welfare and that does not include social security or Medicare, which we, the American workers, pay into. Talking points is not talking about that. No, I'm talking about the more than 100 million Americans who are currently getting taxpayer funds from other Americans because they can't or won't earn enough to support themselves.

"President Obama wants to re-distribute income and impose social justice through taxing the wealthy and business concerns. But Mr. Obama cannot possibly believe that a giant welfare state leads to strength. It does not - it leads to weakness.
Wow is that ridiculous, O'Reilly is pretty much saying everyone who gets any Government money is weak and a bad person. Even the disabled and the people who can not work for medical reasons. And that's not all, a couple weeks ago O'Reilly said everyone on disability is a faker. But he never speculates, and he only reports the facts. Yeah right! And I'm Bill Gates too.

And btw folks, O'Reilly said his show is never edited, but then he edited out all the nonsense he put out in the TPM about how his family was poor and how they had one black and white tv, one used car, one cheap vacation a year, etc. Which is just laughable, because his Father had a high paying job as an oil company account, who left his Mother a lot of money, sent Bill and his sister to private schools, etc. What he fails to mention is that his Father was cheap, but he had money.

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on, and of course the biased right-wing hack Crowley accused the Democratic Party of perpetuating a long cycle of dependency and victimhood, in order to create a permanent welfare class which leads to a permanent Democratic voting bloc.

Colmes countered saying that blaming Democrats is disingenuous because they have also had Republican presidents and leadership in the past 50 years. To which O'Reilly even conceded some truth to that, but argued that Democrats, unlike Republicans, think the welfare state is a good thing.

No O'Reilly you idiot, Democrats just think it's right to help the poor and sick when they need it, unlike you and your right-wing friends who think everyone should be on their own and get no help from the Government.

O'Dummy also asked about the "where's mine?" mindset that is now pervasive in our society. Colmes told him that 50% of the people on food stamps are kids and 8% are elderly.

Then the Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz was on to talk about gun control. O'Reilly claims the far-left is trying to use the Colorado movie massacre to promote gun control. O'Reilly said he believes Congress should pass a new law that requires the sale of all heavy weapons be reported to the FBI.

The Congressman disagreed with O'Reilly's plan, saying that you currently can not buy a fully automatic machine gun or a bazooka without getting a permit from the ATF.

Billy said that the FBI could have started tracking this guy when he bought 60,000 rounds on the Internet if they had known he'd also purchased heavy weapons. But Chaffetz said it's not feasible to assign an FBI agent to follow every guy in this country who buys a lot of ammunition.

O'Dummy ended the segment by saying there are too many loopholes in the gun purchasing laws in this country. He reminded his viewers that he's not trying to take away anybody's right to buy these types of guns; he just wants their sales reported.

Notice that he has still not called for a law against the high-capacity magazines, because he is scared to have the NRA come down on him, and he is scared of all the hate-mail he would get from his right-wing viewers if he called for it.

Then O'Reilly put the far-right loon Keith Ablow on to talk about Penn State having its football program gutted by the NAACP for not protecting kids from former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, and how not everybody thinks this punishment is fair.

Ablow expressed his support for the punishment, referring to it as "perfectly just." He said sportsmanship and character are part of the game and they showed none of that at Penn State by virtue of not protecting kids from rape. O'Dummy said that it's important to discourage anybody else from ever doing this again, but there's no denying innocent people are getting hurt in the process.

On Jessica's Law, Billy laid out his campaign to get it instituted in New York and New Jersey. But Ablow opposes Jessica's Law, indicating that he believes it's still important to grow up in a land of freedom where judges have some discretion. So then O'Reilly said that some crimes are so bad they can't be left to the discretion of a judge.

Then the insane John Stossel was on to talk about the city of San Francisco, and how they want to ban cigarette smoking in public places, but allow medical marijuana smoking in those same places. Also, there's a proposal to tax drivers on how many miles they travel by imposing a mandatory GPS in cars.

Stossel defended the GPS idea, saying somebody has to pay for the roads, so it might as well be the heavy users. But O'Reilly labeled the proposal a Big Brother tactic, reminding Stossel that drivers already pay tolls and registration fees.

On the cigarette law, Stossel said that both tobacco and marijuana smoking should be legal in most places because we're a free people. He cited the tyranny of the majority for smoking bans around the country, suggesting that the bans are based on the fallacy that secondhand smoke is a health risk.

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to talk about a 17-year-old Kentucky girl who was sexually assaulted by two 17-year-old boys and convicted but not yet sentenced. Angry about a potential plea deal, the victim named her attackers on Twitter and now she's in trouble with the court.

Billy asked if it's true that a victim has to go along with a plea deal in order for it to get approved. Guilfoyle said that didn't happen in this case and that's why the victim was so upset. Wiehl said the prosecution may consult with the victim, but doesn't have to go along with what the victim wants regarding a plea deal.

In Florida, a "stand your ground" case turned into a courtroom brawl. Guilfoyle described the case in which two brothers were gunned down at a local bar after an altercation. At the courthouse, words were exchanged by families and friends of the alleged shooter and victims. Wiehl criticized the court for putting all these people in the same room to await the hearing.

And finally in the last segment Charles Krauthammer was on to backtrack on his prediction about Obama and Romney, most likely after he was flooded with hate mail from O'Reilly's right-wing viewers.

On last week's Factor show, Krauthammer said that if the election were held today, Obama would win. He received lots of reaction to that statement. So Krauthammer reminded viewers that he went on to say the election is not being held now but in November, and at that point, he predicted a Romney victory.

Krauthammer said that it's a static race now, but it won't be static forever. He said the economy is weakening, people are highly disappointed, and Obama has nothing to run on.

Because Charles is also a psychiatrist, he weighed in on the Colorado shooting, saying it's not easy to get dangerous people off the streets because the restrictions on involuntarily committing people are now too high.

What's funny is how O'Reilly and Krauthammer both ignore the fact that even with a slow economy Obama still has 333 electoral votes to only 205 for Romney. Which means Obama is crushing Romney where it counts, in the electoral vote where you need 270 votes to win the election.

Obama is way over the 270 needed to win, and Romney is 65 short, so if he can not get the 270 now in a slow economy and with all the right-wing SuperPAC's spending hundreds of millions in attack ads against Obama, how the hell is he ever going to get to the 270 number, answer that O'Reilly you right-wing clown.

Then the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "Cut back on wheat in your diet - you'll feel better and probably live longer! "

Great Example Of The Ridiculous Drug Laws In Action
By: Steve - July 25, 2012 - 10:00am

Not only was this prosecution (for 2 lousy pot plants) ridiculous, because most likely the plants grew in the wild and the property owner had no idea they were there, it was a massive waste of taxpayer money.

In a local case that shows the changing attitudes on the War on Drugs, a jury found a farmer in Albemarle County not guilty of marijuana possession on Wednesday evening.

54-year-old Philip Cobbs was summoned to court to answer for two marijuana plants spotted on his 37-acre farm by a helicopter. About 10 law enforcement officials came to his farm to confiscate the illegal plants, armed with semi-automatic guns. Even though Cobbs claimed that he was not aware of the marijuana plants on his property, which can sometimes grow in the wild.

The plants were discovered by a task force of law enforcement officials that routinely flies over farms searching for marijuana. Cobbs attorneys, Paul Belonick and Andrew Sneathern, unsuccessfully contested in a pre-trial motion that these helicopter flyovers violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable search and seizure."

Sneathern, pointing out that the task force uses National Guard helicopters, protested, "We're treating our citizens like they're the enemy."

As Sneathern noted, Virginia law dictates that anyone found guilty of a first offense of marijuana possession must have their drivers license revoked without exception.

While the jury ultimately found Cobbs not guilty, it took half a day to find 7 people out of 25 who were neutral enough on drug laws to serve as jurors. Many potential jurors had to be dismissed because of their strong disagreement with national marijuana laws.

Sneathern, who in the past has prosecuted drug possession cases for the Commonwealth, observed that the law is still "playing catch up to a massive sea change in public opinion about small amounts of marijuana."

Support for marijuana legalization is currently at an all-time high of 56 percent, and 15 states and several cities have reduced penalties for marijuana possession; recently, Chicago decriminalized small amounts of marijuana.

The prosecutor's closing statement warned the jury against nullification, which allows jurors to find a defendant innocent because of their dislike of a law. Most judges prevent defense attorneys from informing the jury of this right.

In Virginia, Sneathern hopes that lawmakers and prosecutors all over the Commonwealth keep Cobbs trial in mind for future prosecutions.

"This is not a good use of their resources," he said. "This was an extraordinarily expensive trial for them to bring when the best outcome they were going to get was a maximum of 30 days in prison, and likely just a fine."

He also questioned the non-financial cost of frightened citizens: "This is over in the sense that this case is over, but as Cobbs told me yesterday, it will take him a long, long time to get over the feeling of the invasion and the fear that he felt -- and still feels every time he sees a helicopter fly over his house."

The Monday 7-23-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 24, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Guns and murder in America. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Predictably, far-left ideologues are demagoging the mass murder in Colorado. They want gun control imposed on the country. Uber-liberal Bill Moyers has no clue. He apparently believes that federal and state governments can actually control gun crimes.

That's so dumb it hurts...

Alright here's the deal: anyone who sells a heavy weapon or ammo should be compelled to report the sale to the FBI. It's a felony if you don't. That just makes sense in this age of terrorism.

Congress should pass two laws. First, the heavy weapon reporting. And second, if you commit a crime, like a robbery with a gun, it becomes a federal offense with a mandatory 10 year prison sentence upon conviction. That would dent the problem. But the truth is criminals will always get guns, always.

The Second Amendment is there for a reason. The Founding Fathers firmly believed that Americans should have the right to protect themselves. Finally, most Americans do not want more gun laws.

According to a Pew poll taken in April, 49% do not want the government intruding on gun ownership, 45% do. The folks know that government cannot protect you from monsters like James Holmes in Colorado
First, O'Reilly is an idiot if he thinks all liberals think new guns laws should be passed, because they dont. I am a liberal and I know that gun laws do not work, so as usual O'Reilly lumps all liberals in together as one voice. Second, notice that O'Reilly did not say a word about making those big ammo clips illegal, that would also help. And third, I oppose the assault rifle ban, because it will not work.

Then Jon Scott and Craig Silverman were on, Scott described the detached expression and bizarre appearance of 24-year-old James Holmes during his initial court appearance. Billy questioned whether this appearance was the first step in Holmes legal team setting up the insanity defense. Silverman agreed, suggesting that the insanity defense will likely be used to try to help Mr. Holmes escape capital punishment.

Then NJ attorney Greg Gianfarcaro & Polly Franks, director of a foundation protecting kids from predators were on to discuss the NCAA saying it will fine Penn State $60 million, ban its football team from bowl appearances for four years, and cut scholarships.

Both of them agreed that the Penn State punishment was a good start, saying that it might bring some closure to Sandusky's victims.

Gianfarcaro pointed out that Penn State, like the Catholic Church, is an example of institutional abuse, where the authorities are more concerned about protecting the institution than they are about protecting kids.

Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to answer a ridiculous question about President Obama from the biased hack O'Reilly. President Obama will be campaigning in Oakland, Portland, Seattle, New Orleans, and McLean, Virginia. So Billy asked if there was anything unsettling about the President raising campaign funds while poverty is mounting in the country.

Williams defended President Obama by saying that Republicans who have been obstructing Obama's jobs bill will also be out campaigning. But O'Reilly claimed that he personally wouldn't vote for that jobs bill either because pouring billions of dollars into failed government programs doesn't make sense.

Mary Katharine opined that the President's coolness factor worked for him in 2008, but now when people are suffering and he's hanging out with Vogue editor Anna Wintour, Obama runs the risk of looking out of touch.

Billy ended the segment by saying this is all about perception, and it might look bad to voters to have the President hopping around all week to line his pockets with cash so he can get re-elected, when he should really be dedicating time to turning the economy around.

Which is just laughable, because when Bush did the same thing O'Reilly defended him, proving once again how biased O'Reilly is, and what a hack he is. Earth to O'Reilly, every President has to campaign and raise money, even if the economy is slow, idiot!

Then Amanda Beard and Dara Torres were on to talk about the Olympics. Torres predicted the U.S. women's swimming team will be dominant and that Michael Phelps will walk away with at least three medals. Beard said that while she's fanatical about watching all the swimming events, she won't necessarily watch every minute of this Olympics.

Then O'Reilly had the biased right-wing stooge Bernie Goldberg on to slam Obama and ABC News. President Obama said this in Virginia Beach: "Just in case some of your friends, neighbors, or your stubborn Uncle Jim who's been watching Fox News thinks I've raised taxes, let's just be clear: we've lowered taxes on middle class families."

So even after Obama called out Fox for their lies about taxes, O'Dummy brushed off the President's remark, but Goldberg thought it important to note that the President dislikes Fox News because it gives significant coverage to stories like Solyndra and the Fast & Furious scandal, which don't reflect well on his administration.

Wrong Bernie! Obama dislikes Fox because all they do is lie about him and spin for Romney, including you and O'Reilly.

Then they cried about ABC News, Brian Ross made a small mistake in his initial reportage of the Aurora shooting by indicating that the shooter may be a member of the Tea Party.

Goldberg insisted that there was no relevance at all to bringing the Tea Party into the discussion of the shooting; he said too many reporters have a predisposed opinion of the Tea Party so they unnecessarily tie them to stories.

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

Then the Bill O'Reilly tip of the day, Billy said this: "Every state has a Bureau of Consumer Protection. Find out the phone number of yours so if you get ripped off you can let them know. Stand up for yourself!"

And I personally contact the consumer protection division at the Illinois state attorney general's office when I have a problem. They will help you, and they have helped me a few times.

CAT Pushes 6-Year Pay Freeze While Making Record Profits
By: Steve - July 24, 2012 - 10:00am

Back in June, ThinkProgress reported that the manufacturing giant Caterpillar was seeking major concessions during contract negotiations with striking workers, even as it was making billions in profits and giving its CEO a 60 percent pay boost.

And the New York Times Steven Greenhouse added more details Monday, reporting that the company wants to implement a six-year pay freeze and a pension freeze, at a time when it is making record profits. From the article:
Despite earning a record $4.9 billion profit last year and projecting even better results for 2012, the company is insisting on a six-year wage freeze and a pension freeze for most of the 780 production workers at its factory here. Caterpillar says it needs to keep its labor costs down to ensure its future competitiveness.

Caterpillar, which has significantly raised its executives compensation because of its strong profits, defended its demands, saying many unionized workers were paid well above market rates.
"A company that earned a record $4.9 billion in 2011 and $1.586 billion in the first quarter of this year should be willing to help the workers who made those profits for them," said Timothy O'Brien, president of Machinists Local Lodge 851.

"Caterpillar believes in helping the very rich, but what they're doing would help eliminate the middle class."

Several labor experts told the Times that Caterpillar is a pioneer in tough labor negotiations meant to drive down workers wages.

Last year, Caterpillar's CEO made nearly $17 million in total compensation. At the moment in the U.S., the typical worker would have to work 244 years in order to earn what the average CEO makes in one year.

Company That Paid No Taxes Complains About Taxes
By: Steve - July 23, 2012 - 10:00am

Notice that while O'Reilly is putting out the right-wing talking points that corporations and the wealthy are paying too much in taxes, he ignores stories like this, and the fact that the corporations and the wealthy never pay the actual listed tax rate, because of tax shelters, loopholes, and deductions.

Over a four year period from 2008 to 2011, Corning Inc. was one of 26 companies that managed to avoid paying any federal income taxes, even though it earned nearly $3 billion during that time. In fact, according to Citizens For Tax Justice, the company received a $4 million refund from 2008 to 2010.

But that didn't stop Susan Ford, a senior executive at the company, from telling the House Ways and Means Committee this week that America's high corporate tax rate was putting her company at a disadvantage:
FORD: American manufacturers are at a distinct disadvantage to competitors headquartered in other countries. Specifically, foreign manufacturers uniformly face a lower corporate tax rate than U.S. manufacturers, and virtually all operate under territorial systems which encourage investment both abroad and at home.
Ford told the committee that Corning paid an effective tax rate of 36 percent in 2011, but she is counting taxes on profits earned overseas that have not yet been paid and won't be unless the company decides to bring the money back to the United States.

Corning's actual tax rate in 2011 was negative 0.2 percent.

The territorial system Ford testified in favor of would actually encourage the offshoring of profits earned by American companies, thereby reducing the amount they pay in taxes even more.

And rather than helping remove a disadvantage that prevents companies from creating jobs, an economic analysis of such a tax system found that it could actually cost the United States as many as 800,000 jobs.

The United States does, indeed, have one of the highest marginal corporate tax rates in the world. In reality, however, few corporations pay it, and the nation's effective tax rate is far lower than the rate in other developed countries.

Republican Slams Bachmann & Admits She Is Misinformed
By: Steve - July 22, 2012 - 10:00am

And this was no regular Republican, this was her former campaign manager. Ed Rollins, a longtime GOP strategist and the former campaign manager for Michele Bachmann's 2012 presidential campaign, wrote an op-ed for Fox News website Thursday slamming the Minnesota congresswoman for her recent remarks about the Muslim Brotherhood and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's Chief of Staff Huma Abedin.

Bachmann has been roundly condemned by members of her own party for suggesting that Abedin is part of a coordinated effort to undermine or diminish the United States response to the Muslim Brotherhood.

"Shame on you, Michele!" writes Rollins, before unleashing a wave of criticism on his former boss:
<
ROLLINS: Her unsubstantiated charge against Abedin, a widely respected top aide to Secretary Hillary Clinton, accusing her of some sort of far-fetched connection to the Muslim brotherhood, is extreme and dishonest.

Having worked for Congressman Bachman's campaign for president, I am fully aware that she sometimes has difficulty with her facts, but this is downright vicious and reaches the late Senator Joe McCarthy level.
Rollins comments are the most forceful condemnation yet of Bachmann's decision to submit a letter to several national security agencies in which she and three other congressmen claim (without a shred of evidence) that the Muslim Brotherhood had infiltrated the US government by securing senior-level positions in various government agencies.

Rollins had guided Rep. Bachmann to a surprising victory in the 2011 Iowa straw poll before he stepped down from the day-to-day responsibilities in September amidst the campaign's falling poll numbers.

Earlier Thursday, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) gave an impassioned defense of Abedin and also denounced Bachmann on the senate floor. But of course O'Reilly never said a word about the Bachmann story Thursday or Friday night, because he is a Republican who likes her so he ignores it to cover for her stupidity.

Romney Advisor Can Not Say How He Would Reduce The Debt
By: Steve - July 22, 2012 - 9:00am

Romney's campaign responded to questions about his tenure at Bain Capital and his failure to release tax returns by blaming President Obama's campaign for not wanting to talk about the economy. So when they were given a chance to talk about the economy Thursday morning, a Romney adviser could not give any specifics about how his plan would boost economic growth while also balancing the budget, as Romney claims he will do.

Romney's plan is to provide a massive tax cut to the rich, that would blow a hole in the federal budget Romney promises to balance by 2020. When Luke Russert asked Romney adviser Tara Wall how Romney would offset the lost revenue, she failed to offer any specifics, telling Americans they could instead research his plan to find them.

When Russert returned to the subject, Wall again failed to give him an answer, saying Romney's business experience is the reason he would balance the budget.

Despite Wall's ridiculous claims, Americans can't research Romney's plan to offset the lost revenue from the tax cuts because he has not put one out. He has instead named just a few tax breaks he would end, but those would not generate nearly enough revenue to make up the cost of his tax cuts.

And Wall is not alone among Romney advisers. Multiple members of his campaign (including Romney himself) have had the chance to describe in detail how his plan would reduce the deficit and balance the budget.

But even though the Romney campaign claims to want to talk about the budget and economy, it has nothing to say when it's actually the topic of discussion.

And where is O'Reilly on this, nowhere to be found. But when Democrats make claims about the economy and the debt, O'Reilly has segment after segment asking for specifics and details.

The Friday 7-20-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 21, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Another sad day in America. O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Bad things happen to good people all the time, and nobody knows why. Once again we have mass murder in America, and the killer is a young man who is simply out of his mind. It's nobody's fault, there's no policy deficit, it's just an atrocity that's impossible to explain.

24-year-old James Holmes allegedly killed 12 people and wounded 59 others in a Colorado movie theater. So once again we have a crazy guy causing a massive amount of pain and destruction.
Then O'Reilly discussed the atrocity and its aftermath with Fox News correspondent Jon Scott, a Colorado native who spoke from the crime scene.

Scott said this: "Another one of these tragedies has happened here, just like it happened thirteen years ago at Columbine. This seems to be the case of an individual who just snapped."

Scott also talked about how Holmes carried out his massacre, saying this: "He bought a ticket, came in dressed as a civilian, and sat in the very front row. Then he went out through one of the fire escape exits, went to his car, dressed up in all his gear, and came back in carrying all those weapons. He must have either jammed open the door or used a piece of tape to make sure he could open it again."

O'Reilly added that this episode had an atypical ending, saying this: "Usually in cases like this the suspects either kill themselves or the cops gun them down, but they captured this guy. Obviously he was bent on killing as many people as possible, but this guy had nothing in his past to indicate any violence."

So then O'Reilly spent the rest of the show talking about the shooting with a few other guests, and a couple people who were there when it happened.

Steffan Tubbs, Sara Morris, and Dr. Keith Ablow were the other guests who spoke about it. Which I will not report on because it is not anything we do not already know.

At then end of the show O'Reilly had this personal message for everyone: "I've been a journalist for more than 35 years and I've seen horrendous violence all over the world. Most Americans are good people and we feel terrible tonight for the victims and their families, but there is nothing we can do about it. Those who try to exploit stories like this by blaming others or political policies are charlatans. Don't listen to them!

We hope you say some prayers for the victims and their families, and we hope you tell your children and grandchildren that America is a noble nation, that what happened in Colorado is an aberration, and that no country is immune to this kind of stuff."

And I would also like to add this: I hope this shooting wakes some people up, we should pass a law limiting these big clips that hold 50 rounds of ammo or more. I am a gun guy, and a former member of the NRA, and I do not support changing the gun laws, but I do support making it illegal to have such big ammo clips.

If he had been limited to a 10 round clip it just might have given someone time to jump him as he put a new clip in, but we will never know. My prayers go out to all the victims families, and I hope something good can come out of this, like laws against big ammo clips.

Cavuto Does Insane Comparison To Trash Food Stamps
By: Steve - July 21, 2012 - 10:00am

Neil Cavuto continued long tradition at Fox News of denying that food stamps and unemployment benefits stimulate the economy, asking this stupid question: "What is more stimulative? Kate Upton or this: lovely granny promoting food stamps from her fridge."

And after that insane comparison Cavuto had some right-wing hack on to claim food stamps and unemployment insurance are not the best way to stimulate the economy, even though ALL the honest economists say it is, and there are facts to back them up.

Cavuto was slamming Democratic House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer's statement that food stamps and unemployment benefits stimulate the economy. But economists agree.

On Tuesday, Hoyer responded to a question about extending the Bush-era tax cuts for incomes above $250,000 by saying this: "If you talk to economists, they will tell you there are two things that are the most stimulative that you can do -- one's unemployment insurance, the other's food stamps, okay?"

After first comparing the stimulative value of food stamps to images of Sports Illustrated swimsuit model Kate Upton in a bikini on Your World, Cavuto disparaged the effect that food stamps and unemployment benefits have on the economy, leaving out the fact that Hoyer was contrasting the stimulative value of these benefits to the effect of extending the Bush tax cuts.

Economists agree that food stamps and unemployment benefits are more stimulative in a struggling economy than extending the Bush tax cuts.

Moody's chief economist Mark Zandi, and former adviser to John McCain, said in congressional testimony that to get the largest bang for the buck, "The most efficacious spending includes extending unemployment insurance benefits and expanding the food stamp program."

Zandi also said that extra food stamps and unemployment benefits "are the most efficient ways to prime the economy's pump."

Based on Zandi's testimony, the Economic Policy Institute created the following chart showing that food stamps have nearly six times the bang for the buck as extending the Bush tax cuts.

Food Stamps came in at #1, with Unemployment Benefits at #2, #3 was infrastructure spending, #4 was aid to states, #5 was a payroll tax holiday, #6 was a refundable tax rebate, #7 was a temporary across the board tax cut, #8 was a non-refundable tax rebate, #9 was extend the ATM patch, and #10 was make dividend and capital gains tax cuts permanent.

Those are facts, food stamps and unemployment insurance give the biggest bang for the buck to the economy as far as a stimulus.

A January 2010 Congressional Budget Office report even showed that increasing aid to the unemployed would have a bigger impact on the economy than reducing taxes, and at the time nobody denied that was true, not one Republican denied it or argued against it.

CBO director Douglas Elmendorf testified in January 2009 that increased unemployment benefits and food stamps would help the economy more than tax cuts, because cash transfers tend to be spent quickly whereas tax cuts are more likely to be saved.

In August of 2011 Economist Dean Baker said this: "Unemployment Insurance Stimulates The Economy By Putting Money In The Pockets Of People Who Are Very Likely To Spend It."

In July 2010 Moody's Economist Sophia Koropeckyj said this: "Those getting extended unemployment benefits have no choice but to spend. They've likely depleted their savings, and this is really all the income that they have. And they have kids to feed, they have rent to pay, and there's a very, very high probability they're going to spend that entire amount that they get."

In July of 2010,Alan Blinder, former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve said this: "Extending unemployment benefits is one of the best forms of stimulus we know."

I could go on and on forever with similar quotes from real economists, but it would still not get the biased right-wing hack Cavuto to tell the truth, because he works for Fox News, and his job is to lie to you by putting out right-wing propaganda.

Zimmerman Tells Hannity GOD Wanted Him To Kill The Kid
By: Steve - July 21, 2012 - 9:00am

Wednesday night George Zimmerman (who is currently facing second degree murder charges for killing Trayvon Martin) did a highly unusual interview on Fox News with Sean Hannity.

Hannity asked Zimmerman if he regretted getting out of his car to follow Trayvon, carrying a gun, or anything at all about the night he killed Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman said he regretted nothing because he believed "it was all God's plan." He also said there isn't anything he would do differently in retrospect.



Then after the interview Trayvon's father wrote this on Twitter: "We must worship a diff God bc no way that MY God would hv wanted GZ to kill my son."

The Thursday 7-19-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 20, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Is Barack Obama anti-capitalism? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The President's comments about success in America are important because they show how he really feels about capitalism. The President is a 'reluctant capitalist,' a man who believes our economic system is stacked against the poor and working class and always has been.

He believes American capitalism is often predatory, rewarding the wealthy and exploiting the workers. So he wants to restrain capitalism through taxation. If you score big, he wants a big piece of the action so he can give what you get to other people.

I see no evidence that he wants to seize private property, which is what communists do; also, the feds are not running the Fox News Channel, as they would be in a socialistic system. I may be wrong, but I think Mr. Obama allows historical grievances to shape his economic thinking. Rather than seeing the USA as basically noble, he gives the bad things about America too much weight, leading to his desire to redistribute wealth and correct those grievances.

The President's big spending policies have not helped the economy and have run up enormous debt, which threatens each and every one of us. In order to defeat the President, Mitt Romney will have to convince you that we will all be better under robust capitalism, that the private marketplace will rebound and create decent-paying jobs.

The President will counter with the status quo, which of course is shaky. Summing up, Mr. Obama is not a socialist, he's not a communist, he's a social justice anti-capitalist.
And once again O'Reilly is lying, because the President's spending policies have helped the economy and a lot of the debt is from the Bush tax cuts and other things Bush did when he was President, like wars. O'Reilly is spinning for Romney, which is sad, because he claims to be a non-partisan Independent who does not use RNC talking points, then he does just that. In fact, he might as well be working for the Romney campaign.

Then the far-right stooge Laura Ingraham was on with her analysis of President Obama's economic philosophy. Ingraham said this: "I don't think these labels get us anywhere. I call him what he is, which is an economic disaster for America. Whether you call him a socialist or anti-capitalist, he hasn't had much experience working in the free market. The dependency culture is what is being empowered right now."

Then Michelle Fields and radio talk show host Janine Turner were on to comment on reports of friction between Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin.

Turner said this: "I believe that Palin needs to get behind Romney, and Romney needs to recognize Palin's virtues and how she can be an asset. I would like him to invite her to the Republican convention."

Fields claimed that tension between the two governors should come as no surprise, saying this: "She is kind of a wild card and there is the possibility that she will 'go rogue.' And she's very charismatic, while Romney isn't, so there's the possibility that she'll outshine him. Romney's campaign is focused on independents and Sarah Palin is a bit polarizing, so they don't want to be associated with her."

And I would say that maybe they are avoiding Palin because she is a far-right nut that only other far-right nuts support. I would also say it's smart to stay away from Palin, because it will not get Romney any votes, but if they hook up with her it will clearly cost them votes.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to discuss an interview with Sean Hannity and George Zimmerman, who expressed no regret about having a gun that night and portrayed the event as "God's plan."

Kelly questioned the wisdom of Zimmerman speaking on national TV, saying this: "The real question here is why his lawyer Mark O'Meara agreed to this. A lot of defendants want to speak, but it's up to their lawyers to say, 'It's not a good idea.' It's human nature that the more times you comment on something, the more inconsistencies there will be, and Zimmerman offered a couple of statements that are inconsistent with his prior statements."

Kelly then talked about the case of sexual predator Andrew Goodman, who was sentenced to two years for repeatedly raping two young boys. Kelly said this: "This is a disgusting man. In open court he admitted to grooming these two young men, trying to seduce them with gifts."

O'Reilly denounced Judge Martin Murphy, who handed down the two-year sentence, saying this: "We have tried to get a comment from Murphy, but he's hiding under his desk. He's not accountable for anything he does!"

Then the two right-wing Culture Warriors Gretchen Carlson and Jeanine Pirro were on to discuss the high school in Alexandria, Virginia that was allowing students to grab condoms out of a large jar.

Carlson said this: "Here's the amazing thing. You need parental consent to get an immunization, a physical, or to participate in sports, but not to get your hands on condoms."

And why anyone has a problem with kids (who are going to have sex anyway) using condoms is beyond me, and just one of the reasons I could never be a Republican, not to mention, what happened to that free country stuff they claim to support. For a party that claims to support freedom, they sure are against a lot of freedoms.

Even Pirro reluctantly endorsed the idea of providing condoms to high school students, saying this: "I come at this as a judge and a district attorney and we have all seen the consequences of children having children - abused and neglected children and abortion and sexually transmitted diseases. So the bottom line for me is, I hate it, I don't like to normalize teen sexual behavior, but let's deal with the fact that 47% of children in high school have already had sex."

Wow! A Republican who actually deals with an issue in a smart way, what a shocker.

Then Dennis Miller was on for his weekly so-called comedy segment, that I do not report on because it's not news.

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had Uma Pemmaraju and Steve Doocy on for the total waste of time Factor News Quiz. That I do not report on because it is not news, it's nonsense.

Then the lame tip of the day, Billy said this: "Try to avoid websites that print vicious personal attacks; in other words, 'steer clear of the smear.'"

Bill O'Reilly & Lou Dobbs Lied For Mitt Romney
By: Steve - July 20, 2012 - 10:00am

The honest Fact-checkers have said that pretty much every claim made in the latest Romney ad attacking green energy investments and the Obama stimulus is misleading or false. Yet on The O'Reilly Factor, Lou Dobbs said this: "Basically the ad is true," and then Dobbs and O'Reilly went on to promote several of the misleading attacks in the ad.

After airing the full Romney campaign ad, O'Reilly asked Lou Dobbs to do a truth serum on the ad, and Dobbs said this: "Basically it's true."

The biased and dishonest Lou Dobbs also said this: "There are exceptions to that. There are a couple of issues that the ad, I think, missed, but overall, absolutely straight forwardly directly true."

The New York Times reported that contrary to the ad's claim that "all the Obama stimulus money" went to friends, donors, campaign supporters, and special interest groups, the majority of stimulus funds went to programs such as tax credits for the middle-class, Medicaid grants that help poor families, and public school funding.

Out of the $763 billion in stimulus money used so far, the largest amount has been hundreds of billions of dollars for such things as a tax credit for working middle-income families, larger exemptions for families hit by the alternative minimum tax, public school funding and Medicaid grants.

Then they talked about a Fisker loan, and they got that wrong too. O'Reilly accurately stated that the "Fisker thing started during the Bush administration," but then Lou Dobbs said he was wrong. When for once O'Reilly was right.

And I quote:
O'REILLY: So they want electric cars, but Bush was in this, too. Bush was in this too.

DOBBS: Bush himself was not in this.

O'REILLY: All right, not in the Bush administration? My notes are no good?

DOBBS: No, your notes are very good. The problem with it is that this money was dispatched by the Obama administration.

DOBBS: All right. All right, so let's blame it all on Barack Obama.
Politifact clarified that Fisker's loan was funded by a program that started under the Bush administration and that the Obama stimulus bill had nothing to do with it:
Fisker received a loan guarantee for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program through the Energy Department. And it was not funded by Obama's stimulus bill of 2009.

It is, in fact, a program signed by President George W. Bush in 2007 and first funded by legislation Bush signed in 2008.

The program was designed to support development of advanced technology vehicles. The Bush administration was in charge when the automaker filed its application. The Obama administration was in charge when the company's loan was approved. And the Obama stimulus bill had nothing to do with it.
During the segment no one made clear that no federal funding went toward the Finnish plant. O'Reilly even wrongly claimed we sent money to Finland:
O'REILLY: But why did we send money to Finland then? Why?

DOBBS: They gave it to Fisker and that's the way it is.

O'REILLY: This is crazy.
As the New York Times and others have repeatedly pointed out, Fisker and the Energy Department say that Fisker's loan went towards U.S. projects:
The ad's claim that stimulus money went to "electric cars from Finland" is false, according to the car's manufacturer and the Energy Department. The struggling company, Fisker Automotive, received approval from Obama administration officials for $529 million in government loans under a George W. Bush-era program, not the Obama stimulus.

Most of that loan has been suspended. The $193 million actually lent to Fisker was spent in the United States, not at its plant in Finland, according to Fisker and the Energy Department. Fisker's investors include firms whose executives have donated to both parties.
The Firm That O'Reilly Suggested Was Full Of "Big Obama Guys" Also Employs Republican Donors.

The Washington Post Fact-Checker noted that senior Romney adviser Ed Gillespie "singled our John Doerr, a wealth venture capitalist at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers" and suggested that "because Doerr raised money for Obama, he was rewarded with a big loan for a company in which his firm invested."

But the Washington Post pointed out that "the Kleiner partner mostly closely associated with the Fisker investment is Ray Lane," who "contributes to some Democrats but mostly Republicans -- and he gave money to Rudolph Giuliani and John McCain in 2008, not Barack Obama or other Democrats running for president."

The Post also reported that Meg Whitman is a Kleiner partner and a "$100,000 contributor to Romney's SuperPAC Restore Our Future."

O'Reilly asked this: "What Was The Intent Of Giving Any Money To Build Chinese Windmills?"

Dobbs admitted, while laughing, that only "a few windmills were actually supported by American taxpayer dollars," but he didn't explain that only some of the turbines were manufactured overseas, why that happened, or how the stimulus still created American wind energy jobs.

The Washington Post noted that the stimulus created about 51,000 jobs in the U.S. wind industry, but that some tax credits went to foreign firms that manufactured turbines overseas because the U.S. was simply unable to meet the demand for wind turbines at the time. So basically, O'Reilly and Dobbs got almost everything wrong, in their defense of the dishonest and misleading Romney ad. And the worst part is that O'Reilly billed the segment as a reality check, when they got all the reality wrong, and they simply lied for Romney to justify his dishonest ad. All that from a guy who said he only reports the facts and that he is never wrong.

The Wednesday 7-18-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 19, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Who would win the presidential election if it were held today? The answer is clear, President Obama would win with 333 electoral votes and 205 for Romney, but of course the Crazy right-wing stooge O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Last night Charles Krauthammer predicted President Obama would win if the election were held right now. However, Karl Rove disagrees and believes Romney would win. Talking Points believes Barack Obama would not carry one state that voted for John McCain last time around; therefore, Mitt Romney begins with 173 electoral votes.

I also think the President will lose North Carolina, New Hampshire and Indiana, which brings Governor Romney up to 203 electoral votes, with 270 needed to win. He can gain 60 electoral votes if he wins Ohio, Virginia and Florida, which would leave him just seven electoral votes from the presidency. So you can see that President Obama has very little margin for error.

Florida is most likely to go to Romney - the economy is shaky and the minority vote for Obama will not be as great as it was in 2008. Ohio has Republican John Kasich as governor and the economy is improving there, so Romney has a very good chance. Virginia is a wild card, but again its controlled by a Republican governor who has improved the economy in his state.

So going forward, Mitt Romney is in pretty good shape, according to Karl Rove's map. With all due respect to Charles Krauthammer, at this point I think Romney might be in the zone.
My God, can O'Reilly be any more of a right-wing Romney butt-kisser, in the zone? what does that even mean? I don't see how, when he is losing 333 to 205. To begin with, O'Reilly, Rove and Morris are all wrong. Because the current electoral college map projections ALL have Obama winning 333 to 205, not one electoral map projection has Romney winning, none, zero.

O'Reilly has Romney magically winning Ohio and Virginia, but the electoral college map has Obama winning Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado, which easily puts Obama over the 270 threshold he needs for re-election. And btw folks, that map is done using a combination of ALL the polls in America, even the biased Rasmussen is used in their projections. If you throw Rasmussen out, Obama has even more than 333 electoral votes.

Not to mention, in the 12 swing states all the polls show the ads against Romney over Bain are working. But the insane biased hack O'Reilly still gives Ohio and Virginia to Romney, which is just laughable, and it is nothing but right-wing wishful thinking.

Then the biased idiot Dick Morris was on to analyze the latest polls. With no guest on from the left to provide the balance or the counterpoint. And btw, not one Democratic guest was on the entire show, as in NONE.

Morris said this: "Polls that survey registered voters include about a third of their sample that doesn't vote. Obama is sweeping that demographic, he is winning those who don't vote by three-to-one. But among those who do vote, which is the 'likely voter' poll, Scott Rasmussen has Romney up 47 to 44. Undecided voters are predisposed to vote against the incumbent, and I think Romney is going to win almost all the battleground states. He's going to win Virginia, Florida, New Mexico and Colorado."

Then Dana Perino was on to talk about former President George W. Bush, who said "it's bad for the presidency to have former presidents bloviating, opining, telling people how it ought to be done ... I don't want to undermine our President."

Perino said this: "I think President Bush always thought that this is what he would do, because he watched what happened to his dad and Ronald Reagan. One of the things President Bush says is, 'The man deserves my silence.' I don't think this was necessarily directed at Bill Clinton; Carter is the obvious choice."

But O'Reilly questioned President Bush's decision to sit on the sidelines, saying this: "This is a vital election and President Bush is a prestigious Republican. In certain fundraising opportunities he could help Mitt Romney big time, and so could his father."

Really? Bush is a prestigious Republican? On what planet, not the planet earth O'Reilly. Bush is seen as a dummy who simply got elected on his name, and then almost ruined the country by letting Dick Cheney and the far-right run America. To say he is a prestigious Republican is laughable, and I hope he does campaign for Romney, then we can remind the people what you want them to forget, that Bush was an idiot that almost ruined the entire country.

Then the biased right-wing hack Lou Dobbs was on to talk about Romney airing an ad accusing President Obama of wasting billions of dollars on questionable stimulus projects.

Dobbs said this: "Basically it's true. There are a couple of issues the ad missed, but overall it is absolutely true. One of the thing we've noted in the Obama administration expenditures is that it doesn't really matter where the money goes. We're going to see higher debt and greater waste."

Dobbs also speculated that the Obama administration has no clue where much of the stimulus money went, saying this: "I not only don't believe they know, I don't think they necessarily care. And even more troubling is that the national media doesn't have a very good grip on this."

Then O'Reilly wasted our time having the body language bimbo Tonya Reiman on to spew out nonsense, that I will not report on.

Then O'Reilly had the Republican comedian Adam Carolla sit in for Dennis Miller. Carolla said this: "I'm wildly insulted when people ask 'when are you going to start paying your fair share?' Last year I paid what a meter maid pays in fifty years. You don't think that's my 'fair share?' I work harder than a meter maid, I'm smarter than a meter maid, and I bust my ass."

O'Reilly then joked that one segment of American industry should actually be taxed to the hilt: "I would tax you guys in Hollywood at about 70% because you spend your take-home pay on hookers and cocaine. It would be better used to fund some of the programs we have to have."

And finally, Juliet Huddy was on for the did you see that segment, she watched cell phone video showing New York City subway riders subduing a man who allegedly groped a woman on the train.

Huddy said this: "Let me tell you something as an occasional subway rider. Every single time I'm on a subway during rush hour, it's a hotbed of perversion with people rubbing up against you. This guy allegedly grabbed the bottom of some woman and she went ballistic. A couple of guys grabbed him, he was arrested and he's charged with inappropriate touching. This is a message to all the pervs out there."

Then the lame O'Reilly tip of the day, Billy said this: "A product called Smartmouth does a great job of killing bacteria and keeping your mouth clean."

Seven Freshman Tea Party Congressman Lied About Spending
By: Steve - July 19, 2012 - 10:00am

And what a shocker, Not! They are all Republicans who claim to oppose all this Government spending. And here is another shocker, O'Reilly has not reported a word about it, and never will, because they are not Government spending liberals. Shocking I tell you, Not!

Even though they campaigned on a platform of reducing the deficit and ridding wasteful spending, seven Tea Party congressmen have collectively spent over $100,000 in taxpayer money on personal vehicles.

An examination of spending records for the 112th Congress found seven Republican Tea Party freshmen -- Chip Cravaack (R-MN), Sean Duffy (R-WI), Bill Flores (R-TX), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Bill Johnson (R-OH), Mike Pompeo (R-KS), and Steve Womack (R-AR), spent an average of $15,000 on cars for themselves. All together, their taxpayer bill totaled $106,643.

And for the record, there is nothing illegal about using taxpayer money to lease personal-use cars, but it smacks of hypocrisy for Tea Party Congressman like Sean Duffy, who promised to lead by example when it comes to deficit reduction.

And many of the cars are very expensive. For example, Chip Cravaack is charging taxpayers over $1,000 a month to pay the lease on his 2011 Chevy Equinox, an SUV with all-wheel drive.

Here's what the seven Republican freshmen congressional offices have spent on cars in the past year and a half:

Chip Cravaack (R-MN): $25,580.84
Sean Duffy (R-WI): $24,525.00
Cory Gardner (R-CO): $20,978.07
Bill Flores (R-TX): $10,997.45
Steve Womack (R-AR): $10,746.59
Mike Pompeo (R-KS): $8,848.00
Bill Johnson (R-OH): $4,889.76

Total: $106,643

Remember that O'Reilly praised the Tea Party and even said they are honest about cutting spending, and now we have proof they are as corrupt as anyone, but O'Reilly does not say a word about it, because he does not want you to know the truth. That they are true blue Republicans, just as I said they were, and dishonest stooges that will be as corrupt as the rest of them.

The Tuesday 7-17-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 18, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: What do you owe your country? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There's a big debate because President Obama is putting forth that affluent Americans owe their country more than they're giving. The President said, 'If you've got a business, you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen.'

Apparently the President believes the federal government should take more in taxes from wealthy Americans and business owners because the feds make individual success possible. Here's my take: No man is an island, that's true, but individual achievement is just that.

Barack Obama did not help me develop The Factor; no federal agency helped me go to college. I paid my own way by painting houses. Yes, the Founding Fathers gave me freedom of speech to bloviate and I owe a debt of gratitude to my country for that. I am grateful and I am willing to pay 40% of my wages to the powers that be.

But President Obama wants far more than that, and I believe that punishes achievement. Because of my personal success, I employ a lot of people. Because of the Fox News Channel's success, it provides jobs for thousands of Americans. I pay my taxes and I give millions of dollars to charity.

I give back, but not enough for President Obama. He wants me and other high-income folks to finance a massive redistribution of wealth in this country. The Congressional Budget Office reports that the richest 5% in this country pay 64% of all federal income tax, so there's no question that affluent Americans are paying their fair share.

Most wealthy Americans are not evading their responsibility, but that's not what the President is saying. He wants to redistribute income on the backs of the achievers.
Earth to O'Reilly, Obama did not say small business owners didn't build their business, he said they didn't build it all alone, they had help, get it right, liar. All Obama said is that the infrastructure in America helps them get rich, and that a lot of the wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes after they use tricks and loopholes to lower them. And he is right, so get over it you right-wing hack.

Then the former Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee was on to discuss the Talking Points Memo.

Goolsbee said this: "I think you went wrong in two places. If you look at how much of their income wealthy people are paying in taxes, it's not higher, it's actually dramatically lower. It's about half of what it was fifteen years ago, so it would not be 'class warfare' to have those rates go back to what they were under Bill Clinton. The second place you went wrong is that the President wants to have about $3 trillion in spending cuts."

O'Dummy reminded Goolsbee that income taxes are only a small part of the overall story, saying this: "Property taxes, state taxes and all the other taxes have zoomed. And now the President wants to raise the Social Security tax and the capital gains tax. He wants to do more taxation than at any other time in the history of this country!"

Then Karl Rove was on to cry about the Obama campaign, that has been depicting Mitt Romney as a greedy capitalist with offshore accounts and an unwillingness to release his tax returns.

Rove said this: "President Obama does want higher taxes on the rich, but let's be honest about it, he wants higher taxes on everybody. Under Obamacare, ordinary Americans will pay a 2.8% tax on their insurance policies, and he levies a half-trillion dollars in new taxes on anybody who goes to a hospital, anybody who buys a drug, anybody who buys a medical advice. We have new taxes everywhere."

Wow! Now that is a lie, Obama lowered taxes on everyone, and he wants to pass another tax cut for the middle and lower class, basically everyone who makes less than $200,000 a year, but the Republicans are blocking it, making Rove a massive liar.

Then Billy speculated that President Obama sees himself as a latter-day Robin Hood, saying this: "He believes he's on Earth to take from those who have and give to those who don't. But by doing that he could destroy the entire economic infrastructure of the country, which is not built on social justice, it's built on competition!"

Then Monica Crowley and Leslie Marshall were on to talk about Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who has ordered his police department to ignore federal immigration laws.

Crowley said this: "Rahm Emanuel just put President Obama in a box. This administration sued Arizona and other states for effecting their own immigration laws, saying states and communities can't be freelancing immigration policies. But you now have the Mayor of Chicago, President Obama's former chief of staff, saying we're going to do our own thing."

Marshall explained how the Arizona and Chicago situations are different, saying this: "Chicago has not made a law, Mayor Emanuel made a statement about what he wants. But I disagree with Emanuel because all the states and cities need to cooperate with the federal government."

Then O'Reilly talked about the so-called epidemic of gun violence, Billy said this: "If you commit any crime involving a gun, there should be a mandatory sentence because it's such a threat to carry a loaded weapon. If I put a gun to your head and take your wallet, I should get a year for taking your wallet and seven years for having a gun pointed at your head."

John Stossel was on to discuss it, and he said that tough gun laws are ineffectual. "I used to be for gun laws, but now I don't think they work. Chicago has really tough gun laws and more gun crime! There's no evidence that mandatory sentences reduce crime, it should be left to the judge who hears from both sides. Just because a few judges do stupid things doesn't mean the legislature should lock everybody up for a million years."

Wow! For once, I actually agree with Stossel.

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to talk about an unnamed female witness in the George Zimmerman case, who has accused him of molesting her when they were both children.

The Republicans Wiehl and Guilfoyle both denounced the prosecution for making the accusation public. Wiehl said this: "It's crazy, but in Florida everything is open. It's called 'open discovery,' meaning whatever the prosecutor gets goes to the defense. But this will never be admitted into court."

Guilfoyle agreed that justice is not being served by releasing the accusation, saying this: "This is so out of line, the prosecutor's office should be ashamed of itself. This is highly objectionable, the court should have sealed it."

Then O'Reilly had the far-right stooge Charles Krauthammer on to talk about why President Obama has a huge lead among young voters.

Krauthammer started out insulting their intelligence by saying this: "What do the young know? The young are the embodiment of hope over experience, but older people remember that in 2008 they elected a charismatic conjurer who came out of nowhere. He gave them 8% unemployment, the slowest recovery since the Second World War, and $5 trillion in debt. Older people who were pro-Obama now have buyer's remorse, and there will be a lower turnout among the young. He has no chance of recreating the excitement and near-hysteria of 2008."

And that my friends is all lies, Obama did not do any of that, Bush and the Republicans did, and only $3 Trillion of that debt can be put on Obama, the other $2 Trillion is from Bush. Not to mention, $1 Trillion of that was the stimulus package that saved the country from a 2nd great depression. Krauthammer ignores the facts to imply Obama took over a normal economy and then caused all the debt and unemployment, when in fact Obama made things better and lowered the unemployment rate.

And finally, the Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: According to surveys in the USA and Britain, between a quarter and a third of tattooed folks regret getting the ink. So if you want something emblazoned on your skin, do it in a place not visible when you're wearing clothing.

O'Reilly & Brit Hume Spin And Lie For Mitt Romney
By: Steve - July 18, 2012 - 10:00am

Here is a prime example of the right-wing bias from O'Reilly. He spins out some right-wing propaganda talking points memo full of lies, spin, and insane comparisons, then he has one guest on, a Republican, to agree with him, making it seem as if he is accurate, when in fact he is full of it.

On Monday O'Reilly actually compared Mitt Romney losing jobs and outsourcing jobs when he was the at Owner and CEO at Bain, to the GOVERNMENT providing loan money to the GE corporation. There is no comparison, none at all. And yet O'Reilly still did it, here is what the fool wrote:
O'REILLY: According to an analysis by FactCheck.org, Bain Capital did invest in companies that did outsource.

But that's not unusual; so did the Obama administration, which has continued to make billions of taxpayer dollars available to General Electric, including grants for 'green energy' projects.

GE employs about 300,000 people, but fewer than half work in the USA. GE has plants in 43 countries and keeps overseas profits overseas, thereby avoiding U.S. income tax.

Here's the end game: Outsourcing is a fact of life in capitalism. The Obama administration has embraced corporations that embrace outsourcing, and so did Mitt Romney. So I'd call it a tie, with the Obama campaign having some deep explaining to do.
Now if you wanted proof O'Reilly is a right-wing spin doctor, there it is, right there. O'Reilly is spinning so much for Romney he should get paid as a political advisor for the Romney campaign.

The comparison is ridiculous, Romney bought companies at Bain, then bankrupted them after taking all the money out of them and making a huge profit for himself and his investors, which also cost the economy thousands of jobs.

Romney also invested in companies in China that were used to outsourse American jobs, this is borderline treason, and he did it after recently saying he would be tougher on China than any other President, if he is elected. Are you kidding me, he is in bed with China, so he will not be tough on them, he will most likely help them get more jobs so he can make even more money off it.

But O'Reilly says nothing about that, instead he attacks Obama for doing accurate ads against Romney, that even he admitted were true. Not to mention O'Reilly ignoring all the money Romney is hiding in offshore accounts, or the fact that he will not come clean about his taxes. But when Kerry ran for President O'Reilly demanded he release 10 years of tax records.

Proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack who is doing everything he can to help Romney, and everything he can to hurt Obama, including lie and spin out right-wing propaganda.

Then O'Reilly had Brit Hume on, who said the attacks on Mitt Romney's private sector experience have done little damage. With nobody from the left to provide the balance in the debate, making it a biased one sided discussion with 2 Republicans who did noting but spin and lie for Romney.

Hume said this:
HUME: One begins to sense that the public thinks this is phony. This has been going on for some weeks and the Obama campaign has spent a lot of money hurling these charges related to Bain Capital, but it hasn't seemed to move the needle of public opinion. The Romney campaign seems to be keeping their powder dry and holding their money until later.
Here is a headline that proves Brit Hume is a lying right-wing idiot:

Bain Ads Hit Home In Swing States

Call me crazy, but if the ads are working in swing states that will decide the election I would say they are working, but not in Humeworld.

And here is a quote from the article: Polling suggests President Obama's attacks on Mitt Romney's private-equity background at Bain Capital are hurting the presumptive GOP nominee in key swing states.

Earth to Brit Hume, that means the ads are working, idiot!

Here is another headline for THE DISHONEST bRIT Hume, from TPM: Bain Attacks Are Working

From the article: Priorities USA Action, the super PAC backing Obama has launched a series of attack ads focusing on Romney's record at Bain Capital. Their push to turn Romney’s asset into a liability is working, the group says in a memo released Wednesday morning.

Polling commissioned by Priorities USA from the Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group and Global Strategy Group shows that voters in key swing states are now wary of Romney's business background.

Consistently, Obama's lead was greater in the markets where the ads had aired.

Where voters saw Priorities USA's ads, according to the memo, Obama leads Romney by 5 points more than in markets without the ads; Romney's unfavorables were 4 points higher where voters were exposed to the ads. Forty percent of voters who saw the ads said Romney's Bain experience made them less likely to vote for the candidate compared with 34 percent in sample of those who didn't see them.

I could go on with headline after headline that says the same thing, but Hume ignored it all to claim the ads are not doing anything to hurt Romney. Not to mention, Obama is not doing the ads, an Obama SuperPAC is, and neither O'Reilly or Hume disclosed that fact.

And what O'Reilly and Hume also never report on is that President Obama still leads with 333 projected electoral votes compared to 205 votes for Mitt Romney in the most recent Electoral College map projection. Which is how you win, with electoral votes.

Instead they spin and lie for Romney with bogus comparisons and one sided biased segments, with only right-wing partisan hacks on to discuss it.

The Monday 7-16-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 17, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The ongoing outsourcing controversy. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The Obama campaign is making a big deal out of Mitt Romney's Bain Capital tenure, accusing him of being a big 'outsourcing' guy who sent jobs abroad. According to an analysis by FactCheck.org, Bain Capital did invest in companies that did outsource.

But that's not unusual; so did the Obama administration, which has continued to make billions of taxpayer dollars available to General Electric, including grants for 'green energy' projects.

GE employs about 300,000 people, but fewer than half work in the USA. GE has plants in 43 countries and keeps overseas profits overseas, thereby avoiding U.S. income tax. In fact, General Electric paid zero federal income tax in 2010. Nevertheless, President Obama is a huge fan of GE and its CEO Jeffrey Immelt, saying 'GE has something to teach business all across America.'

Talking Points would like to know exactly what GE could teach corporations. How to create jobs overseas? How to avoid U.S. taxes? How to borrow billions from the taxpayer? What lessons are we talking about, Mr. President?

Here's the end game: Outsourcing is a fact of life in capitalism. The Obama administration has embraced corporations that embrace outsourcing, and so did Mitt Romney. So I'd call it a tie, with the Obama campaign having some deep explaining to do.
Well it's official, O'Reilly is a total right-wing stooge who is in bed with Mitt Romney. Because it is ridiculous to compare the Government making billions of taxpayer dollars available to General Electric, who then used some of that money to do things in plants that were not in America.

GE is an American company, and to compare that to Romney investing in a Chinese company who took American jobs to China to make money for his investors is just insane. O'Reilly called it a tie, which is just laughable, and 100% proof O'Reilly will say and do anything to defend and spin for his right-wing buddy Mitt Romney, including making insane comparisons about outsourcing. Romney put people out of work to make a profit as a private citizen, and helped a China company outsource American jobs, which is far more different than the Obama administration giving loans to the American company GE.

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing stooge Brit Hume on to agree with him and spin for Romney, with no liberal to give the counter argument. Hume said the attacks on Mitt Romney's private sector experience have done little damage. Even though all the polls show that the Obama ads are working, proving that he is a total right-wing stooge that will not admit reality.

Hume said this: "One begins to sense that the public thinks this is phony. This has been going on for some weeks and the Obama campaign has spent a lot of money hurling these charges related to Bain Capital, but it hasn't seemed to move the needle of public opinion. The Romney campaign seems to be keeping their powder dry and holding their money until later."

Now here is proof that Hume is a liar, here is a headline from ABC News: Bain Attack Takes Toll on Romney. Here is a headline from The Hill: Bain Ads Hit Home In Swing States. And I could list 10 more, proving the ads are working, but the dishonest O'Reilly and Hume refuse to admit it, because they are both right-wing hacks.

Then O'Reilly had the former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown on to talk about how Mitt Romney and other Republicans can win more black votes. And of course O'Reilly would not let Brown talk about whether the Obama ads against Romney are working. He was only allowed to talk about how Romney can get more black votes.

"I don't think it's hopeless," Brown replied. "Black people were Republicans first, but then Democrats moved in and offered programs and policies that allowed African Americans to become incredibly dedicated and the anchor tenants in many Democratic elections."

Brown also advised Romney to tailor his message to specific audiences, saying this: "If I'm an unemployed person and you're soliciting my vote, I want you to tell me exactly how you're going to help me get a job. If I'm an environmentalist, I want you to tell me what you're going to do with the environment. But if you're going to give me a stock speech that ranges all over the place, I'm going to find you uninteresting."

O'Reilly concluded with some statistics, saying this: "Black unemployment is 15%, black youth unemployment is 40%! President Obama has not done the job, yet Mitt Romney has 2% of the African American vote. It looks to the casual observer like skin color is a pretty big issue here."

And that is just laughable, now Obama is to blame for the black unemployment rate, when it was Bush who ruined the economy. O'Reilly is such a right-wing stooge he should be getting his checks from the RNC.

Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to talk about President Obama saying wealthy folks didn't accomplish anything without government help and should therefore pay higher taxes. Which is not what he said, that's the O'Reilly spin on it.

The far-right loon Ham said this: "I think its disturbing, and this may be the 'spread the wealth around' comment of this election. Occasionally you get a glimpse of what Obama truly believes. He says if you built a business, you didn't build it and what you earn is not actually yours. It's a really backwards philosophy and I don't think Americans will respond to it."

Williams even disagreed with Ham's interpretation of the President's message, saying this: "It's unbelievable what Mary Katharine is saying. There's political stability, there are laws that protect us, an education system, a legal system if someone violates your patent rights. It's why everyone wants to come to America to start a business."

O'Reilly said this: "All of us who are successful owe something to our country for providing the structure. But the government didn't build The Factor, I did. And I paid every nickel of my education."

Hey O'Reilly, a lot of people who are wealthy got free public educations, jerk, and that is a fact.

Then the Factor producer Jesse Watters was on for his worthless segment, that I do not report on because it's nonsense and not news.

Then the biased far-right hack Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about the subject of the disintegrating black family, Goldberg said this: "I think it's embarrassing, that the out-of-wedlock birth rate today is 72.5% for African Americans. In the entire recorded history of the planet, there has never been a greater voluntary abandonment by men of their children. Black civil rights attribute this to racism, but in 1940, when there was a lot of racism in America, the out-of-wedlock birth rate in black America was 19%. The rise coincides with the beginning of the Great Society welfare state, the government became the father!"

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had the totally worthless Factor Reality Check, that has almost no reality and very few checks. It's simply O'Reilly (by himself) spinning about something someone else said. And all the so-called reality checks are usually about liberals.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the Factor tip of the day, Tip: If you need to buy something, do it now while interest rates are at historic lows and before taxes go up on just about everything.

Fox & Friends Dishonestly Edit Obama Quote (Again)
By: Steve - July 17, 2012 - 10:00am

On Monday morning Fox & Friends dishonestly edited President Obama's statement to make it seem as though he was claiming that small business owners do not deserve any credit for their own success.

Even though Obama's actual statement shows that he praised the success of small businesses to both the individual drive of small business owners, and to the benefit provided by influences such as great teachers, and government-created infrastructure.

President Obama argued that while small business owners individual talents and drive allow them to attain their own portion of the American dream, credit for such attainment is not theirs alone. Obama pointed out that the success of small businesses can also be attributed to outside influences such as a great teacher somewhere in your life and investment in roads and bridges.

Which is 100% true and accurate, but Fox edited his quote to imply he did not say that. They cropped the clip of Obama's appearance to make it appear as though he was making a different point. Here is what they reported:
OBAMA: If you've got a business, you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen.

(Other text Fox & Friends Edited out)

The point is that, when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.
Gretchen Carlson reacted by calling the very misleading clip startling, before hosting a biased small business owner who switched from the Democratic party to the Republican party.

Now if Fox & Friends played the entire clip of Obama's comments regarding small business and success, Fox & Friends attempt to gin up outrage would have made even less sense. Take a look at what Obama actually said, and notice what Fox edited out, almost all of it, about 99% of what he said was not played:
OBAMA: Look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That's how we funded the GI Bill. That's how we created the middle class. That's how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That's how we invented the Internet. That's how we sent a man to the moon.

We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that's the reason I'm running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You're not on your own, we're in this together.
Selectively editing Obama's comments is normal business for the dishonest and biased Fox & Friends. This example of dishonest editing is a part of Fox's regular practice of accusing Obama of attacking small business.

But this editing of Obama crediting both "individual initiative" and the help of outside forces is very hypocritical given other Fox opinions on how government spending can help foster individual prosperity.

In a segment during the June 24th Fox and Friends Sunday, co-hosts Clayton Morris and Alisyn Camerota expressed disgust at the notion that some wealthy Americans were denouncing their citizenship to avoid paying taxes on their wealth.

Morris asserted that such people should, "get out of here" arguing they "made all this money on the backs of the infrastructure, taxpayers that got you there, the roads that taxpayers pay so you can drive back and forth to work to get rich on a regular basis."

Which is exactly what Obama said, and yet the Fox & Friends team dishonestly edited what he said and used a partial quote to misrepresent him.

Camerota added "are they just greedy? I mean, are they just -- after this country allowed you the entrepreneurial spirit, the freedom to make all this money, now you're going to leave it?"

They say the same thing Obama says, but then they attack Obama for saying it to make him look bad to the people and small business owners. Which is highly dishonest, misleading, and right-wing propaganda.

More Conservatives Call On Romney To Release Tax Returns
By: Steve - July 16, 2012 - 11:00am

The conservative Bill Kristol added his name to the growing list of Republicans calling on Mitt Romney to release his tax returns. Kristol said that Romney should release additional returns and recommended releasing 6 to 10 additional years:
Here's what he should do. He should release the tax returns tomorrow. This is crazy, you've got to release 6, 8, 10 years of back tax returns. Take the hit for a day or two. Then give a serious speech on Thursday.
Kristol joins Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and strategist Ana Navarro as other Republicans calling on Romney to release his tax returns.

Then on ABC News, two other prominent Republicans, Matt Dowd and George Will, called on Romney to release more returns:

MATT DOWD: There is obviously something because if there was nothing there he would say have it. But I think the bigger thing is, it's arrogance. Many of these politicians think I can do this, I can get away with this.

STEPHANAPOULOS George Will You are nodding your head at that.

GEORGE WILL: Absolutely. Mitt Romney has said he has released all that's necessary for people to understand something about my finances. Now something is a pregnant word. The costs of not releasing the returns are clear, therefore he must have calculated there are higher costs to releasing them.

Three Lies Romney Is Saying About His Business Record
By: Steve - July 15, 2012 - 11:00am

Mitt Romney is lying to you about policy matters. He falsely claims that President Obama is adding regulations at a staggering rate, making the economy worse, and is constantly apologizing for America. He even claims that his tax plan is not a tax cut for the rich, when that is exactly what it is.

According to the Securities and Exchange Commission documents uncovered by the Boston Globe, Romney's lies extend beyond partisan policy disagreements. He has lied about his main qualification for seeking the presidency: his own business record:
-- Mitt Romney left Bain Capital later than he claims. Securities and Exchange Commission documents show that Romney remained Bain's chairman and president, owning 100 percent of Bain as late as 2002, the Boston Globe reports.

Romney said he left in February 1999 in order to deny that he is responsible for Bain layoffs or outsourcing.

-- Mitt Romney said he created 100,000 jobs at Bain. But he downgraded that number to thousands after even Sarah Palin doubted it.

And btw, his own campaign now admits the number is completely bogus. Romney's tally did not even begin to include the thousands of layoffs at companies in which Bain invested.

-- Mitt Romney said none of his business investments were responsible for outsourcing any American jobs. And now we know that's a lie. Romney's campaign even tried to have the Washington Post retract its story on his outsourcing record.

The paper, however, refused, after the Romney camp could not provide any credible evidence to contradict the Post's reporting.
So what we have is a liar, and a man who helped (China) take American jobs out of the country. While making millions off the investment, which in my world is borderline treason, especially when it involves China.

Then on top of that he slams Obama over jobs, when he helped a Chinese company take American jobs to China.

The Friday 7-13-12 O'Reilly/Williams Factor Review
By: Steve - July 14, 2012 - 11:00am

Their was no TPM because Juan (The Pretend Democrat) filled in for O'Reilly. Juan went right to his Top Story called: Will this be the nastiest presidential campaign ever?

He started the show crying about the Obama campaign's attacks on Mitt Romney's tenure at Bain Capital and Romney's counter-attacks against the President.

Democratic strategist Bernard Whitman and Republican Chip Saltsman reacted were on to discuss the accusations. Saltsman said this: "This is going to be a nasty, mean campaign. Every time there's a bit of bad news like the jobs report this week, the Obama campaign punches back on Bain. We're going to see them banging on Bain as many times as they can because they think they have an issue that matters, but I think the Obama campaign may really be overplaying its cards."

And of course Whitman disagreed saying that the attacks on Romney are both truthful and effective.

Whitman said this: "In nine separate filings with the SEC Mitt Romney was listed as chairman, CEO, and president of Bain through 2002, despite repeatedly saying he left in 1999 in order to avoid responsibilities for some of Bain's disastrous investments. To further that, he's got secret bank accounts in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands and Bermuda and won't release his tax returns. The American people fundamentally do not know who Mitt Romney is."

Then Williams had Obama supporter Margie Omero and conservative columnist Michelle Fields on to talk about why unmarried women are among President Obama's most loyal supporters. And I can answer that, because the Republican party is in a war against women. But O'Reilly and the right want you to believe it's only because single women get a lot of benefits from the Government.

Omero said this: "Single women are disproportionately younger, and they are less likely to be white than married women. It's a mistake to say food stamps are the reason they're voting for Obama; they're voting for him because Obama has policies that help women."

Fields argued that many single women have grown dependent on government handouts, saying this: "Democrats promise single women a life where everything is provided to them and they're essentially married to the state. All they have to do in return is provide a vote to Democrats so they can stay in power. That's an extremely appealing message to single women, who are individuals who use government programs."

Then Williams talked about the Romney ticket. He said there are rumors that former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is the front-runner to be Mitt Romney's running mate. But conservative columnist Stephen Hayes, said a Romney-Rice ticket is unlikely. And I agree, because it will most likely be a white man, or Marco Rubio, and I am going with Rubio. Because without the Latino vote and the womens vote Romney is toast.

Hayes said this: "There are a couple of reasons that I'm skeptical. I don't think he'll pick her because he said in an interview with me that he won't even be considering a pro-choice running mate, and Condoleezza Rice describes herself as moderately pro-choice. And he shouldn't do it because she brings back the Bush administration foreign policy, which is controversial inside conservative circles and in the rest of the country."

Juan speculated that the Rice rumors could be a tactic to steer the political debate, saying this: "Isn't this just a conversation changer, something to get people away from talking about Bain Capital and all the attacks on Mitt Romney?"

Then Williams said Black voters turned out in droves to support Barack Obama in 2008, but will they be equally enthused this year? Juan asked that question to Bishop Harry Jackson, a social conservative, and Obama supporter Reverend Conrad Tillard.

Tillard said this: "African Americans have suffered disproportionately under every administration, and we have unique challenges. The election comes down to a choice between two people, and African Americans like the philosophy of the Obama administration as opposed to a prospective Romney administration, which essentially says the most successful would survive and everyone else would be in great difficulty."

Jackson theorized that the black vote in November will not be monolithic, saying this: "Three issues are on the table. One is marriage as an institution; 20% of blacks will not vote for President Obama. Also, many are concerned that he is not promoting the 'faith-based social values.' And third, he could have done something specific in the economy and he didn't. Mitt Romney has to be as aggressive as he was at the NAACP."

And that is just laughable, because in every election the Democratic black candidate gets at least 95% of the black vote, so the 20% number is crazy talk.

Then Williams talked about Former President Bill Clinton, who has accused Republicans, specifically Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, of hoping for a bad economy in order to boost their chances in November.

Economist Ben Stein and liberal analyst Simon Rosenberg debated the issue. Stein said this: "Mitch McConnell said his number one goal is to change presidents, and I'm sure he meant that if we change presidents we'll be on the way to a stronger recovery. The idea of saying that Republicans would rather have people be unemployed and win the election is just holier-than-thou partisan nonsense."

But Rosenberg portrayed Republicans as obstructionists who oppose every one of the President's initiatives, saying this: "Mitch McConnell says he wants to get the economy going by cutting spending and reducing the deficit, but look at what Republicans are actually proposing. They want to increase defense spending, roll back Obamacare, and cut taxes on wealthy people. All of that will increase the deficit by trillions of dollars. The Republicans are now the ones promoting the exploding deficit."

And Clinton is right, the Republicans are blocking job growth so it will hurt Obama politically, so it will help Romney beat Obama. Which in my book is borderline treason, and the so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly never says a word about any of it.

Finally in the last segment Juan pulled an O'Reilly and talked about an FBI report that says the shooting of Trayvon Martin was not racially motivated. Juan was joined by former prosecutor Joey Jackson and defense attorney Diana Tennis.

Tennis said this: "This is extremely relevant. FBI agents are seen as professional, more objective, and they're credible to juries. Also, the second degree murder charge has to have an element of ill will or spite or anger or hatred. If you don't have this guy profiling Trayvon Martin because he's black, you don't have second degree murder. This is really big for the defense."

But Jackson dismissed the FBI report as immaterial, saying this: "This is not about whether Zimmerman is a racist, it's about whether his actions that night were appropriate and if he acted with depravity. So I don't think this is a death knell at all for the prosecution and I don't think it's relevant to their establishing this case. This comes back to George Zimmerman's veracity."

And the Juan Williams Factor was over, thank God!

Romney Caught Lying About Job Losses While At Bain
By: Steve - July 14, 2012 - 10:00am

And not only was he caught lying about the job losses while he was the CEO, he was also caught lying about how he was investing in a Company in China that takes jobs away from Americans in outsourcing deals.

And this is from drudge, not some liberal news source:
While Mitt Romney led Bain Capital, an affiliate company of Bain bought a large stake in a Chinese venture that counted on American companies sending manufacturing jobs to China.

The deal runs counter to Romney's tough talk on the campaign trail regarding China. "We will not let China continue to steal jobs from the United States of America," Romney declared in February.

With this investment, Romney sought to profit from a foreign company that banked on American firms outsourcing manufacturing overseas.

On April 17, 1998, Brookside Capital Partners Fund, a Bain Capital affiliate, filed a report with the Securities and Exchange Commission noting that it had acquired stock in the Hong Kong-based Global-Tech Appliances, which manufactured household appliances in a production facility in the industrial city of Dongguan, China.

That August, according to another SEC filing, Brookside upped its interest in Global-Tech and bought more of their stocks. Both SEC filings identified Romney as the person in control of this investment:

"Mr. W. Mitt Romney is the sole shareholder, sole director, President and Chief Executive Officer of Brookside Inc. and thus is the controlling person of Brookside Inc."
Then on Thursday it was reported that Mitt Romney remained at the head of Bain Capital for as many as three years longer than his campaign claimed calls into question the Romney's past defense of Bain Capital's job-killing business practices.

Critics have highlighted a number of businesses that were bought by Bain Capital and then reorganized to maximize profit for the investment firm, with several falling into bankruptcy and vanishing entirely.

In several instances however, Mitt Romney defended his candidacy by pointing out that he left Bain Capital in 1999 to run the 2002 Winter Olympics, before those companies began their collapse. With a new timeline that shows Romney was the CEO and principle owner of Bain Capital as late as 2003, that defense now sounds much more questionable.

Here are four companies that folded or downsized in the three year period after Romney claimed to have left Bain Capital:

-- GS Industries - 750 Jobs Lost.
-- KB Toys - Up to 3,500 Jobs Lost.
-- Dade International - 1,700 Jobs Lost.
-- DDi Corporation - 275 Jobs Lost.

In all, as many as 6,000 jobs were lost at these four companies alone during the period between when the Romney campaign alleges he retired, and when the Globe's report suggests he actually stepped down.

And of course Bill O'Reilly has never said a word about any of it, not a word. In fact, O'Reilly has also not said a word about the Romney tax cut plan that would add over $5 Trillion dollars to the deficit, even though he has said the most important issue facing America today is the deficit.

Not to mention this: O'Reilly is lying about the deficit, because all the polls show that only about 8 to 10 percent of the American people even care about the deficit. And do not forget this, during the Bush years when he was adding to the deficit, O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends laughed at Democrats who complained about the deficit.

O'Reilly, Cheney, etc. made jokes about liberals who talked about the deficit, and they said the deficit does not matter. But now that a Democrat is in the White House, suddenly O'Reilly claims the deficit matters, even when the polls say nobody cares about it.

The Thursday 7-12-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 13, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Backlash over Mitt Romney's speech at the NAACP. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
OREILLY: As we reported last night, Mitt Romney was kind of brave to go to the NAACP convention, where he knew he would be speaking to folks who very much like President Obama. But the analysis of Mr. Romney's speech is fascinating and says some very unflattering things about America.

NBC News owns a website directed mostly at African Americans; one of its employees went on TV yesterday and said Mitt Romney failed to speak about 'how we fix basic public education.' Either she missed it or she is not being honest, because during his speech the Governor spoke to the education issue. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the speech 'a calculated move on his part to get booed at the NAACP convention.'

Why would any politician want to get booed? The former Speaker of the House seems to believe that Governor Romney wanted to get scorned so people who don't like blacks would rally to his cause. That's an underlying theme being put out by the far left, that Romney wanted to be received poorly so anti-black people would vote for him.

I want to make it clear that no one in the Obama campaign is saying that, but others are clearly implying there was a racial component to the Governor's appearance in Houston. In a fair country, that innuendo is absolutely unacceptable.
And as I reported here O'Reilly was a right-wing fool to say Romney was brave to speak at the NAACP.

Then O'Reilly had NAACP official Hilary Shelton on, who agreed with me and the women on MSNBC. Shelton said this: "You can't dismiss what these women said. The way Mitt Romney came to the NAACP was clearly not to garner support. The issue that got the strongest rebuke was what he called 'Obamacare,' and many found that to be quite offensive."

But of course O'Reilly the Republican disagreed and accused Shelton of misrepresenting what Romney actually said, saying this: "I'm going to tell our audience that you basically did not tell the truth on our broadcast. You just said he would take all the money out of public education, which is flat-out false!" Billy then posed a direct question to Hilary Shelton, asking her this: "Do you think Romney went to Houston to gin up a racist vote?" Shelton said this: "I can't say yes, but I can't dismiss it."

Then Megyn Kelly was on to discuss a new report that accuses Penn State officials, up to and including the university president and former head coach Joe Paterno, of ignoring Jerry Sandusky's repeated child molestation.

Kelly elaborated on the report, saying this: "They investigated for months and reviewed over 3-million documents, and they produced emails showing that Penn State officials knew, or had reason to know, exactly what was going on with Sandusky. They did nothing for two reasons: They wanted to be 'humane' to Jerry Sandusky the molester and they were worried about the bad publicity for Penn State. It's clear that there was a consciousness of wrongdoing on their part."

Then Lou Dobbs was on to talk about the Florida city of Opa-Locka that has repeatedly tried to fire policeman German Bosque, who has been arrested and jailed three times.

Dobbs explained why Bosque still has a badge, saying this: "He has a long rap sheet, and in one case four people were killed pursuing a stolen car he was driving. But the unions are protecting him. I spoke with one union leader who called Bosque a 'pro-active' cop in a city that is filled with corruption. Why aren't state officials investigating?"

O'Reilly added a personal note to the story, saying this: "I taught high school in Opa-Locka for two years and it is the most corrupt city you've ever seen. But at least the city wants to get rid of this guy."

But what O'Reilly did not tell you is that he taught there 30 years ago, and that the only reason he did it was to avoid the draft.

Then the culture warriors Gretchen Carlson and Jeanine Pirro were on to talk about some New York City students who were caught cheating on a high-stakes exam, and most were simply told to re-take the test.

Pirro said this: "If it was proven that one of my kids had done something that involved cheating, I would take away absolutely everything that makes their life comfortable. It wouldn't be a week or a month, I'm talking serious time because once you start cheating in high school you cheat in college and you cheat on Wall Street."

Carlson agreed that her own kids would pay a heavy price for cheating, saying this: "I would ground them for the entire summer, take away all technology, take away the car. Six out of every ten kids cheat and we need to find out why. I don't think it's just a breakdown of values and culture."

Now that's funny, because if 6 out of every 10 kids is cheating, it's a good possibility that the kids Pirro and Carlson have are cheating too.

Then O'Reilly had Megyn Kelly on for a 2nd time, Kelly analyzed New York City's 'stop and frisk' program and charges that it is racially discriminatory.

Kelly said this: "They put this in place to stop violent crime, and it was working - crime went down 22% over the past ten years in New York. So the cops like it and residents like it, but the civil liberties organizations don't like it because they call it racial profiling. And of all the people who were stopped and frisked, 88% were doing nothing wrong."

Then O'Dummy put a statistical spin on the program, saying this: "8,263 weapons were seized in the 'stop and frisk' program last year alone. If they didn't have the program, 8,263 additional weapons would be on the streets. Society has to decide whether we intrude on poor peoples' rights for safety reasons."

So basically what the two right-wing stooges O'Reilly and Kelly are saying is that it's ok to violate 88% of the peoples rights who did nothing wrong, as long as you get a few people who are criminals, and get some guns off the street. Earth to O'Reilly and Kelly, is that not a violation of the constitution you claim to support?

And finally in the last segment Martha MacCallum and Steve Doocy were on for the totally ridiculous Factor News Quiz, that I do not report on because it's not news, it's non-news garbage.

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

Record Heat Wave Responsible For 52 Deaths
By: Steve - July 13, 2012 - 10:00am

And the so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly never said a word about any of it, even though it was a big news story that proves Global Warming is real and happening right now. Not to mention, O'Reilly has claimed to believe in Global Warming, as he ignores all the Global Warming news, and makes jokes about Global Warming.

A couple years ago O'Reilly even made the ridiculous claim that a big snowfall during winter was evidence there is no Global Warming, which was propaganda put out by a few right-wing loons, O'Reilly even sarcastically asked Al Gore to explain it. So Gore did, and O'Reilly ignored his answer.

Proving once again that O'Reilly is a liar about his belief in Global Warming. Because he never reports on it, he puts out right-wing propaganda on it, and he makes fun of people that actually believe in it, like Al Gore.

O'Reilly even has the far-right Joe Bastardi on the Factor once in a while to report on Global Warming, and all he does is spin out right-wing talking points that there is no Global Warming. Even though there are 500 Global Warming scientists who believe in it to every one who does not, O'Reilly does not have any of them on, only the biased Bastardi.

Basically O'Reilly ignores all the evidence of Global Warming and makes jokes about it, as he claims to believe in it, while having only far-right non-believers on to talk about it.

The Wednesday 7-11-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 12, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Mitt Romney speaks at NAACP convention. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: 95% of African American voters supported Barack Obama in 2008, but this time around Mitt Romney apparently thinks he can do better. The black unemployment rate is 14.4%, as opposed to 12.7% when Mr. Obama took office. So it's obvious that the scenario for black American voters is much different than it was four years ago, and today Governor Romney made that case to the NAACP.

He knew he would not be received well there, but he also knows that if he wins the election he'll be president to all Americans. The problem is that most African Americans believe the Republican Party does not value them, and certainly some African Americans cast their ballots along color lines. The good news for Mr. Romney is that African Americans will not decide the election this year; many analysts believe fewer of them will vote for Barack Obama.

Because of the bad economy and because the President has not actively supported black special interest groups, some blacks will walk away. By the way, Mr. Obama has largely kept his promise to be a 'color-blind' President. Summing up, Mitt Romney was brave to go to the convention in Houston. It won't change many hearts and minds, but the symbolism of him being there is a positive thing.
Now that was a good one, O'Reilly wrote an entire talking points memo defending Romney, which he has never done for Obama about anything ever. Proving once again that O'Reilly is a Republican who supports Romney. Billy keeps calling the economy bad, when it's not, it's not bad, it's average.

And let me also say this, O'Reilly claims the deficit is the most important thing in America, even though the polls show that only about 8% to 10% of Americans care about it. But the Romney plan would add $5 Trillion to the deficit, and O'Reilly never says a word about it. O'Reilly even said Romney was brave for speaking to the NAACP, which is just laughable, and something only a total right-wing stooge would say.

Then O'Reilly had a real liberal on, who said O'Reilly was wrong about everything he talked about in his TPM. Professor Marc Lamont Hill said this: "Mitt Romney is not 'brave' for going to the NAACP. He had to do it because if he didn't go he'd get trashed in the press. He seemed bitterly partisan and there was no need to go after President Obama. Say what your message is, say what your vision is for black America, you don't have to beat up on President Obama. That's why he got booed."

O'Reilly even argued that Romney was wise to criticize the President, saying this: "Mitt Romney brought the same message to the black community that he brings to everybody, but you're telling me he should change the message. That sounds like some kind of race deal! You're saying he should tailor his message because of color."

Then the right-wing loon Dick Morris was on with his take on the President's lead among women voters.

Morris said this: "They like him less than they did in '08, but the basic point is that single women tend to be Democrats, while married people are much more likely to be Republican. Single women are poorer than single men. Part of it is that they're poorer, part of it is that abortion is still an important issue for them."

Morris also predicted that Mitt Romney will make inroads among two groups of voters who came out strong for President Obama in 2008, saying this: "He is going to get Latinos because of their core values, and he'll get young voters because they're unemployed."

And I predict Morris will be wrong again, as he usually is, Romney will not make inroads into those two groups.

Then O'Reilly talked about Chicago again, saying 263 people have been murdered in Chicago so far this year, an increase of 39% over 2011. Mayor Rahm Emanuel is warning gangbangers and thugs to stay away from the city's children.

Billy discussed the situation with Rev. Ira Acree. Rev. Acree said this: "So many people are frustrated here. Police blame the politicians, the politicians blame the pastors, and parents blame the school system. The reality is that what we see is a collaborative failure of multiple institutions. Many people are desperate, and desperate people resort to desperate measures."

Billy claimed that more poverty programs are not the answer, saying this: "Tens of millions of dollars have been poured into the poor communities in the Windy City. It's the collapse of the family - there are kids without fathers and women having four or five babies. When you raise children like that, especially male children, they're subject to joining gangs."

And this same thing is happening in a lot of cities across America, but O'Reilly only reports about it in Chicago because that is where Obama is from, and he wants to use it for partisan political reasons to make Obama look bad.

Then O'Reilly had the Republican Jimmy Walker on, who is best known for playing "J.J." on the sitcom "Good Times." And O'Reilly only had him on because he is a black celeb who is opposed to President Obama. Even after O'Reilly said we should not listen to the pinhead celebs, and after O'Reilly said he does not have many celebs on his show.

Walker said this: "Barack Obama is a Tony Robbins type of guy. You watch him, you feel good and you're happy, then you go home and you realize there's a foreclosure sign on your door. I don't think he's a bad guy, but I don't think he's a good guy for the job. I go back to the old Reagan question: 'Are you better off now than you were four years ago?'"

And the answer to that is hell yes, we are much better off then we were four years ago under Bush, but of course the Republican O'Reilly never admitted that.

Switching to entertainment, Walker criticized Jay Leno for ignoring young performers, saying this: "In his twenty years on the air, he has not broken in one major act. All I'm saying to Jay Leno is, do what was done for you!"

Then Dennis Miller was on for his weekly ridiculous so-called comedy segment, that is biased one sided garbage so I do not report on it. If O'Reilly were truly a non-partisan fair and balanced Independent with a no spin zone, he would have a liberal comedian on with Miller to make jokes about conservatives. And then I would report on the segment, even though it is not news.

And finally in the last segment Juliet Huddy was on to talk about a group called 'FAIR Girls' that has created a TV ad in which an adolescent girl talks about being raped and 'sold' by her pimp.

Huddy said this: "FAIR Girls is an organization that is trying to stop the trafficking of underage girls, and this was an actress playing a girl who was actually sold for trafficking. These situations typically happen through the Internet on something called Backpage.com, a website owned by Village Voice Media."

Huddy also said this: "It's the number one website for prostitution, and within that website there is also a lot of underage prostitution. The company is hiding behind 'free speech' and says it has a hundred people scanning and vetting all the advertisements that come in. They're making $27-million a year just in the 'adult ads' section."

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

Fox Promotes Ridiculous Study Of Doctors & Obamacare
By: Steve - July 12, 2012 - 10:00am

If you wanted just one piece of evidence that Fox News is a biased right-wing joke of a pretend news service, here it is. This study is so laughable and so ridiculous you will be shocked that a so-called news service even reported on it. And the fact that O'Reilly has not reported the study, is even more evidence it's so ridiculous that even O'Reilly is not quoting it.

Here are the details, the details Fox does not tell you when they report on this bogus study:

To begin with, this is a terribly conducted survey by a shady right-wing group, reported only by Breitbart, the Daily Caller, Drudge, and Fox News.

"Eighty-three percent of American physicians have considered leaving their practices over President Barack Obama's health care reform law, according to a survey released by the Doctor Patient Medical Association," reported the Daily Caller Monday.

What is the Doctor Patient Medical Association? The Daily Caller didn't seem too interested (beyond calling them a non-partisan association of doctors and patients) so I will have to tell you.

The Doctor Patient Medical Association's founder, Kathryn Serkes, is a long-time veteran of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a collection of crackpots that opposes mandatory vaccinations, wrongly believe undocumented immigrants spread leprosy, and dabbled in Vince Foster conspiracy theorism.

And the group is solidly conservative in its politics: It boasts membership in the National Tea Party Federation; describes the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as "Destruction Of Our Medicine," or DOOM; and published a sheet of talking points about the health law to help grassroots activists beat back the so-called White House spin machine!

Does that sound like a non-partisan group you would trust to do a valid and impartial survey, of course not, and that is not what they did. They ran a joke of a biased and ridiculous FAX survey with vague questions and limited answers to rig the survey against Obama.

But what about the survey indicating that more than 80% of doctors have considered hanging up the stethoscope rather than tolerate Obamacare?

Well, the first thing to point out is that the survey didn't actually ask about the Obama Affordable Care Act. Here's the question they asked, and the results they reported:
How do current changes in the medical system affect your desire to practice medicine?

-- I'm re-energized - 4.6%
-- Makes me think about quitting - 82.6%
-- Unsure/no opinion - 12.8%
So they're just assuming every respondent, upon reading "current changes in the medical system," thought about Obamacare and nothing else?

Which does not seem too likely. And when asked to give their opinion on these undefined "changes," they were given only three options: super-excited, ready to quit, and "unsure."

What if they were just slightly dissatisfied? Or cautiously optimistic? The survey left no room for anyone who didn't hold an extreme position.

And how did they get to this unreliable sample? Let's take a look at their methodology:
The survey was conducted by fax and online from April 18 to May 22, 2012. DPMAF obtained the office fax numbers of 36,000 doctors in active clinical practice, and 16,227 faxes were successfully delivered.

Doctors were asked to return their completed surveys by fax, or online at a web address included in the faxed copy. Browser rules prevented doctors from filing duplicate surveys, and respondents were asked to provide personal identification for verification.

The response rate was 4.3% for a total of 699 completed surveys.
Yes, you read that right. They did the survey by Fax, and only 4.3% of the doctors even sent the survey back in. So let me get this straight, they say 83% of the doctors will quit based on the surverys from 4.3% of the doctors.

Now I am not a math expert, or an expert on survey data, but I do know you can not claim 83% of doctors will do anything based on a 4.3% survey rate, especially when it was taken by Fax. And this is the garbage the Daily Caller, Drudge, and Fox news are promoting.

Now think about this, the ridiculous blast-fax survey allowed respondents more than a month to answer their questions. And it seems pretty clear that of the very small percentage that did actually respond, the vast majority were ideologically sympathetic to the DPMA and had axes in need of grinding.

Which means it's a good bet the only doctors that took the survery were right-wing hacks who oppose Obamacare. But we do not know, and Fox does not tell you what political party the doctors who took the survey are in. I would bet it's 100% Republicans that took it, and most likely only the far-right loons took it, because most of the doctors did not even bother taking the ridiculous survey.

In closing, the survey question is worthless as a measure of professional medical opinion regarding the Obama Affordable Care Act. Which is likely the reason no one reported it when DPMA released it last month in June.

But then the stooges at Breitbart picked it up, followed by the Daily Caller and Drudge, leading to its inevitable appearance on Fox News Monday morning. It's an awful survey, but it served up a shocking, right-wing headline-friendly number, which is why it's driving the right-wing media's coverage of health care policy.

And if Bill O'Reilly and Bernie Goldberg were real (non-partisan Independent) journalists they would report on this survey and call it what it is, garbage and laughable. Instead they just ignore it and ignore all the right-wing media that's reporting on it.

The Tuesday 7-10-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 11, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: New poll: 63% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A new ABC News poll says nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the USA is on the wrong track, and among independents a whopping 70% feel America is on the decline. But one group happy about the state of the union is liberal Democrats - 66% of them approve of the country's direction.

The liberal statistic isn't surprising because President Obama and the Democrats have changed the direction of the country. The President is promoting a variety of nanny state programs which liberals love. But for many folks, things are grim and the primary reason is the economy. In addition to the awful economy, we are seeing a big social change; younger Americans are now addicted to high-tech.

When you have millions of citizens living in fantasy worlds generated by personal computers, you have a distracted country. America is not yet close to collapse, but we're in trouble. If President Obama is reelected, the national debt could rise to more than $20-trillion before he leaves office. We're also a divided nation, and this election is going to be close.

While President Obama rails against the wealthy, the affluent are carrying the vast financial burden in this country. All in all, these are not good days for the most powerful country on earth, and some cynics believe we will not wear that mantle much longer.
Hey O'Reilly, the economy is not awful as you claim. The economy is doing ok, it's not as good as people want it to be but it's not awful, you right-wing idiot. Awful is what we had under Bush, but you never called it awful then. So you are a fool and a right-wing spin doctor.

The economy is doing ok, and we are adding jobs every month, not like under Bush when the economy was losing jobs every month. Liberals are mostly happy because we got rid of Bush and we have a Democratic President, but they are not happy with the job growth, which is a lot of the Republicans fault for not voting for jobs bills, that you never admit btw.

So then O'Reilly had Dennis Kucinich on to evaluate President Obama's 'tax-the-rich' philosophy.

Kucinich said this: "If you keep the Bush tax cuts, you're going to add $3-trillion to the deficit. And if the tax structure accelerates wealth to the top, that's unfair and it's not American. We could actually have lower taxes if we had different monetary policies. The way the banking is in this country, everybody winds up paying higher taxes because the government is in hock to the banks. We need more public works to rebuild America."

Then the biased right-wing hack O'Reilly accused the Democrats of being without a plan and without a clue, saying this: "It doesn't seem to me that the Democratic Party has any way to get us out of the economic malaise. It doesn't have any policy, doesn't have any plan to get us out of this mess."

So what's the Romney plan, lower taxes on the wealthy and the corporations. Oh yeah, we already had that with Bush, and what did that do, it bankrupted the country and almost put us into a depression. Funny how O'Reilly forgets to mention Bush and his favor the wealthy policies made the country worse, not better.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to talk about the Independence Day parade in Utah that included a display mocking President Obama.

Colmes said this: "These people have done satires of both the left and the right, and their biggest offense is bad humor. It's not funny, but they have the right to do it. You also can't discount that there's a certain hatred of this President because he's black."

Crowley took issue with the display primarily because of its timing, saying this: "Obviously the First Amendment protects even bad taste, but I think Independence Day is a sacred holiday. There are 364 other days in the year when you can make fun of President Obama, but the Fourth of July is a time when we should put politics aside and celebrate the sacrifices and courage that built this country."

Billy slammed extremists on both sides, saying this: "It's almost a mental disorder that people get so upset when people don't agree with them about politics."

Then the right-wing stooge John Stossel was on, he disguised himself as a beggar and hit the streets of New York City.

Stossel said this: "Some people automatically give, and they feel good by giving to beggars. But one guy did the right thing - he said, 'I won't give you money, but I'll help you get to an agency that will help you.' That's what the homeless organizations suggest - don't give to these people, they'll spend it on alcohol."

Stossel then somehow compared begging on the street to government assistance programs, saying this: "It's not just that the government has foolish rules, but over time it gets worse. If your neighbors are doing this, you feel dumb if you don't."

O'Reilly blamed the growing dependency partly on the Obama administration, saying this: "The problem is that it's now so easy to get on the dole. There's been a shift in that it's more legitimate to take from the government because that's the philosophy."

Then O'Dummy had Dr. Keith Ablow and Dr. Andrea Macari on to assess the sexually explicit music video featuring a young Florida boy.

The crazy (and biased hack) Ablow said this: "This is child abuse and sexual abuse of a 6-year old, by the adult women who participated, the producers, and his parents who gave permission for this to occur. We have to decide as a country whether we are going to allow people to sexualize our kids."

Ummmmm, Dr? what happened to America the free, oh yeah, that only counts when you support something. If the kids Parents were ok with it then it's ok for it to happen, and frankly it's none of your business.

Macari said this: "It's asinine to call this child abuse, we can not blur the lines between what is and what isn't child abuse. That takes away from the resources we need to help the true victims. This video is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, it's a type of art."

In response O'Dummy posed this hypothetical to Dr. Macari: "If you had a 6-year-old child on a beach with three adult women surrounding the child and acting in a provocative manner, the adults would be arrested. What's the difference in doing it on video?"

What a stupid question, because there were not on a beach, they were filming a video, idiot. And if a 6 year old boy was on a beach with three adult women surrounding him and acting in a provocative manner, nothing would happen, people would think it was funny, and NOBODY would be arrested, moron!

Then Kimberly Guilfoule and Lis Wiehl were on to talk about the cycling champion Lance Armstrong, who is accused of using performance enhancing drugs.

Wiehl said this: "A judge told Armstrong's lawyers that they didn't follow the rules. This is a civil case and the lawyers are saying the anti-doping agencies don't have any jurisdiction over Armstrong because he's retired."

Guilfoyle elaborated on the actual role of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, saying this: "It's there to prevent abuses within the sports world, whether it's someone who's using human growth hormone or steroids. The accusation is that there was a conspiracy among a team manager, trainers, a doctor, and Armstrong. They could ban him from participating in triathlons, which is his sport of choice. They want to hold him accountable."

And finally in the last segment the biased right-wing hack Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about the growing use of food stamps in America.

"We have a political ideology of liberalism in Washington, which believes that a measure of success of government is how many people it 'helps.' For them this is a great success - they want to see the natural American aversion to taking a handout whittled down. The conservative view is that if you're truly destitute, of course society has an obligation to help you, but the liberal idea is that the role of government is to sustain as many people as possible and to make sure there are no risks in life. That's why you get the growth of these programs."

Now I am a liberal, and I can tell you what the insane Krauthammer just said is nonsense, and nothing but right-wing propaganda, which is exactly why O'Reilly put him on his show.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as ever pinheads and patriots nonsense that is not even worth reporting on.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About The Media & Obama
By: Steve - July 11, 2012 - 10:00am

During a segment with the biased right-wing hack Bernie Goldberg on Monday night O'Reilly said this about the media:
O'REILLY: "What Bernie and I are trying to get across every week is that many powerful people in the media don't want to tell the truth to the people. It's more important to them to get their ideology in play than to let the folks know what the truth is, and that's a total change from what the media was thirty or forty years ago."
And on June 23rd O'Reilly complained about the liberal bias in the media saying this:
"The liberal media wants to re-elect President Obama."
Bernie Goldberg said this:
GOLDBERG: "From time to time the media will be tough on Barack Obama. But if there's a suggestion that this may be the beginning of a historic change in how the so-called mainstream media treats liberal Democrats like Barack Obama, no way is that happening!"
And that is all right-wing lies, spin, and propaganda from O'Reilly and Goldberg. Because findings from a new media study released in June by PEW show that the Republican Mitt Romney has received substantially better press coverage this year than President Obama.

That kind of propaganda has become as natural as breathing for a conservative movement that's built its base since 2008 around the bogus claim that the liberal media has rolled over for Obama.

Notice that O'Reilly has never said a word about this study, and never will. But when the right-wing biased MRC puts out a study saying the media is liberal, O'Reilly reports it that day and reports on it on future shows after that.

And btw, PEW is not partisan, O'Reilly even cites their polls and studies once in a while, so he believes they are honest. But he never once reported this study, because it kills his spin that the media is liberal and they want to help Obama get re-elected.

The so-called liberal media accusation has been a cornerstone to American conservatism for forty years. It's actually grown into a cottage industry that pays the bills for talk radio, fills endless hours of commentary on Fox News, and produces content for right-wing authors like Goldberg, Ingraham, O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter.

Bernie Goldberg even wrote a book claiming the media is liberal and that they slobber all over Obama. Not to mention, O'Reilly has him on the Factor every week for a media bias segment, where the two of them do nothing but complain about liberal bias in the media.

While never saying anything about conservative bias in the media, especially by Fox or the conservative Media Research Center.

What they do is cherry pick a few examples of liberal bias and then claim it is like that everywhere. Which is just laughable, but they put it out as fact anyway, with nobody from the other side to give the counter point. Goldberg is a right-wing stooge who does nothing but spin out lies and right-wing propaganda, and O'Reilly let's him do it.

They claim Obama is benefiting from warm praise and soft coverage. Meaning, now is the time for conservatives to prove definitively that their claims about the slanted press are true. Except that is all lies.

Because the results of the latest survey from the Pew Research Center Project for Excellence in Journalism should not come as a shock. If you look at Pew's research, it shows the so-called liberal media has not given President Obama one single week of positive news coverage in the ten months since Pew started their ongoing study.

Now think about this, conservatives themselves have cited Pew reports to bolster their claims about a liberally biasd media.

For example, last October Pew released a media survey that looked at news coverage stretching back to May. Its conclusion was that Obama had been on the receiving end of "unrelentingly negative" coverage:
The assessments of the president in the media were substantially more negative than positive in every one of the 23 weeks studied. In no one week during these five months was more than 10% of the coverage about the President positive in tone.
In 2011, only Newt Gingrich, whose campaign was crashing at the time, received more negative press than Obama did during the time frame studied by Pew. And you never hear a word about any of this from O'Reilly or Bernie Goldberg, ever, not one word.

In fact, Pew reported that between May and October, "negative assessments of Obama have outweighed positive by a ratio of almost 4-to-1."

As for Pew's latest findings, which covered from January to early April, the trend continued:
Of all the presidential candidates studied in this report, only one figure did not have a single week in 2012 when positive coverage exceeded negative coverage, the Democrat Barack Obama.
The Pew findings are clear: The Democratic president Barack Obama has been hammered with negative press coverage.

And while it was all happening the insane Bill O'Reilly, Bernie Goldberg, and all of Fox News have been saying the media is in bed with Obama and they are helping him to get re-elected.

Which is just ridiculous, and the Pew poll proves it. Not only does it prove that, the Pew poll also proves that O'Reilly and Goldberg are both crazy right-wing liars.

Republican Gov. Admits The War On Drugs Is A Failure
By: Steve - July 11, 2012 - 9:00am

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie(R) spoke out against the country's decades-long War on Drugs during a speech at the Brookings Institution today, saying this: "The war on drugs, while well-intentioned, has been a failure. We're warehousing addicted people everyday in state prisons in New Jersey, giving them no treatment."

Christie is a proponent of mandatory drug treatment programs rather than jail time for first-time, nonviolent drug offenders. Newark Mayor Cory Booker(D) also recently described the War on Drugs as a failure.

And yet, O'Reilly and most of the people on the right fail to admit it. Let me give you an example of what should be done. Here in Peoria Illinois almost every bar in town has illegal video poker machines. The bar owners have the bartenders pay you for what you win, even though it is illegal, and every machine has an "amusement only" sign on it.

So what Illinois did was make it legal, and the State will now sell them the machines so they can tax the winnings. Now it's not only legal, the State will get tax money from it, when before it was legal the Bar owners got all the money tax free.

Because they understand you can not stop it, so why not make it legal and get taxes from it. This is what they should do about drugs like marijuana, make it legal and tax it, because you are never going to stop people from smoking pot, and you sure as hell can not enforce the law when millions and millions of people smoke it.

The Monday 7-9-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 10, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The ghost of Ronald Reagan haunting President Obama. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama has opened a new front in his battle against Mitt Romney by going back to the 'tax-the-rich' mantra. So say hello once again to our little friend, class warfare. But the ghost of Ronald Reagan may be haunting President Obama. 32 years ago America was also in trying economic times - President Jimmy Carter had expanded the federal government and lost control of the private sector.

Unemployment and inflation were very big problems and challenger Ronald Reagan took full advantage. In his inaugural address, Reagan said the tax system 'penalizes successful achievement.' He dropped the federal income tax rate for the highest earners from 70% to 28% and kept the federal government mostly in check during his eight years in office, adding about 12,000 workers in that time.

By contrast, Jimmy Carter added almost 100,000 federal jobs in just four years. During President Obama's first three years in office, the feds have added about 130,000 employees, more than ten times what Reagan added in eight years. So you can see that Mr. Obama's philosophy is the exact opposite of Mr. Reagan's.

History shows that President Reagan was successful in reviving the economy, which is why President Obama's policies are a bit perplexing. Since June of 2009 there have been 2.6 million jobs created, but 3.1 million people have gone on disability. The math is clear - American workers are leaving their jobs to get paid by the taxpayers, which is a disaster for America.

Yet Mr. Obama continues to believe he can tax his way out of the situation. But suppose Mr. Obama gets his way and is able to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year. That would generate about $85 billion a year in increased revenue, which is what the feds spend every eight-and-a-half days.

So it's all a ruse! Let me ask you - if Ronald Reagan was successful in reviving the American economy by dropping tax rates for everybody, why would anyone think President Obama can revive the economy by doing the opposite?

Talking Points would support federal tax hikes on the wealthy if I thought it would help the folks, but there's no evidence that more revenue to the government would do anything other than allow President Obama to hire even more federal workers. This is 1980 all over again!
And that my friends is nothing but right-wing propaganda. Because O'Reilly never said a word about Bill Clinton raising taxes on the wealthy and then getting 8 years of economic boom with a massive 22 million new jobs added. O'Reilly ignored it all, and he also ignored the fact that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 12 times, O'Reilly never said a word about that.

After his huge tax cut in 1981 slashed all tax rates to 23 percent, sparking a budget crisis, Reagan raised taxes four times between 1982 to 1984, increasing the payroll tax, broadening the base of Social Security payees, applying the income tax to higher earners and rolling back corporate and individual tax breaks.

But O'Reilly never said a word about any of that!

Reagan's historic tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, whose rate went from 70 percent to 28 percent during his administration, ultimately forced the president to raise taxes on more people than any other U.S. president during a time of peace.

So what does O'Reilly do then, have a fair and balanced debate on it with someone from both sides, haha, are you crazy, of course not. He had the biased right-wing hack from Fox News Brit Hume on to agree with his spin.

Hume said this: "I think this is designed to underscore the fact that the challenger is a man of considerable means, and to put Mitt Romney in the position of defending lower tax rates for people like him. It's part of the big campaign theme against Mitt Romney, that he's a rich guy. But I'm just not so sure how much mileage is left in that issue - all the people who are going to vote against him because of that are already going to vote against him."

Hume also said this about taxes in 1980: "We had stagnant growth and inflation in the latter years of the Carter presidency. I don't think very many people would argue that the Reagan tax cuts didn't help the economy, obviously they did."

And of course Hume also ignored what Bill Clinton did in the 90's, which is why the right only talk about the 80's, or mention the fact that Reagan actually had to raise taxes 12 times to make up for his massive tax cuts on the wealthy.

Then for some strange reason Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to talk about a strip club being built next to a convent and retirement home in Illinois. Hey O'Reilly, nobody cares and this is not real news. What happened to America being a free country, jerks.

Williams said this: "I don't want to come across as a prude, but this is antagonistic to a religious institution. You can imagine strippers dressing up as nuns to entertain their customers, and you can also imagine that nuns would be subjected to taunts from unruly men."

-- My God is Juan Williams an idiot, I am 52 years old and I have been in a hundred strip clubs in my life, and not once did I see a stripper dress up as a nun. --

But Ham, no fan of strip clubs, contended that no one's rights are being trampled, saying this: "I don't know that their civil rights or right to religion are being violated, but the club owner has been pretty mean to these elderly nuns. This looks like a David vs. Goliath situation, and the sisters are taking this to the court of public opinion, which is where they will win."

Notice how Williams sounds like a Republican. Juan is more of a conservative than Ham is, but O'Reilly says he is a Democrat. If Juan Williams is a Democrat, I'm a Republican.

Then a Factor Producer Jesse Watters was on, for a total waste of time segment asking people about the founding of the country at the beach. Really? Who cares! And how in the hell is this news?

Then the biased far-right loon Bernie Goldberg was on, and O'Reilly asked him if the Obama-friendly media have become slightly less enamored with the President. Goldberg said this: "I have said on this program, that from time to time the media will be tough on Barack Obama. But if there's a suggestion that this may be the beginning of a historic change in how the so-called mainstream media treats liberal Democrats like Barack Obama, no way is that happening!"

And that's a lie, because a media study of this year shows that Obama has 3 times more negative reporting on him than Romney, but O'Reilly and Goldberg ignore it.

Then O'Reilly laughably accused some reporters of promoting their own politics, as if he does not, saying this: "What Bernie and I are trying to get across every week is that many powerful people in the media don't want to tell the truth to the people. It's more important to them to get their ideology in play than to let the folks know what the truth is, and that's a total change from what the media was thirty or forty years ago."

And what he just said describes what Fox is doing every day, but O'Reilly and Goldberg never complain about anyone at Fox and their bias.

And finally O'Reilly played a re-run of an interview with Ernest Borgnine in 2011, that I will not report on because it's a re-run.

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

Crazy Fox News Regular Claims Voting Is Not A Right
By: Steve - July 10, 2012 - 10:00am

Who else but Fox News would have a crazy far-right loon on to claim voting in America is a privilege and not a right. The answer, nobody.

Fox News regular Jay Sekulow claimed that voting is a privilege as he went to bat in support of the Texas voter ID law Monday, and denied that such laws disenfranchise eligible voters.

When in fact, Americans are constitutionally protected from having their vote denied on the basis of race (which the Department of Justice has said would happen under Texas law) and voter ID laws have already disenfranchised hundreds of voters, and they could also prevent millions more from voting in this year's elections.

Sekulow was on Fox's America Live, debating the Texas voter ID law that was passed in May 2011, but was blocked by the Department of Justice because of this:
As a state with a history of voter discrimination, Texas must get preclearance from the Department of Justice for changes in election law.

The DOJ blocked Texas law under Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, declaring that it would disproportionately affect Hispanic voters.
In his defense of Texas' voter ID law, Sekulow said this: "Look, voting is a privilege. I mean, there are things you have to do to vote."



He also suggested that he didn't find "asking for identification to make sure you're the person that's actually casting the vote" at all problematic.

But Sekulow is in the wrong here, the Justice Department found that the Texas law would disproportionately affect minorities, which is unconstitutional.

All during the segment, Sekulow repeatedly denied that voter ID laws disenfranchise eligible voters and said that in some cases the IDs are available free of charge.

But not only do voters have to sometimes pay for the documents needed to get those so-called free IDs, existing voter ID laws have already been found to have disenfranchised hundreds of voters during the 2008 election cycle.

AP wrote this about it:
As more states put in place strict voter ID rules, an AP review of temporary ballots from Indiana and Georgia, which first adopted the most stringent standards, found that more than 1,200 such votes were tossed during the 2008 general election.

During primaries this year in Georgia, Indiana and Tennessee, the states implementing the toughest laws, hundreds more ballots were blocked.

The numbers suggest that the legitimate votes rejected by the laws are far more numerous than are the cases of fraud that advocates of the rules say they are trying to prevent. Thousands more votes could be in jeopardy for this November, when more states with larger populations are looking to have similar rules in place.
And the Brennan Center for Justice estimated that 3.2 million potential voters lack state-issued photo ID and could be affected by voter ID laws passed in five states since 2010.

The fact is, voter fraud remains incredibly rare and the evidence that voter ID laws disenfranchise eligible voters (and the potential that they can have to discriminate against minorities) is overwhelming.

And O'Reilly, the man who claims to be looking out for you says almost nothing about it. The one time he did report on it, he defended the Republicans and denied the voter ID laws disenfranchise anyone. He spewed out the right-wing talking points lie that they just want to stop voter fraud by illegal immigrants.

When in fact, there are almost no cases of actual voter fraud, less than 1/10th of 1% to be exact, so they want to solve a problem that is not there. And they use the illegal immigrant voting excuse to do it. Because most of them are racist, and most of the people who will be blocked from voting are Democratic voters.

The 5 Ways Republicans Blocked Job Growth
By: Steve - July 9, 2012 - 11:00am

And of course the Republican Bill O'Reilly has not reported on any of this, while at the same time blaming only President Obama for the weak monthly job growth.

The Republican strategy on economic policy has been a key contributor to the slow recovery. As early as 2009, Republican fear-mongering over spending and their readiness to filibuster in the Senate helped convince the White House economic team that an $800 billion stimulus was the most they could hope to get through Congress.

But ThinkProgress has since revealed that the Obama economic team thought the country actually needed a stimulus of $1.2 to $1.8 trillion. And the economy's job growth over the last three years has proven them right. So here are the top five ways the Republicans have blocked the economic recovery:

1) Last October, Senate Republicans killed a jobs bill proposed by President Obama that would have pumped $447 billion into the economy. Multiple economic analysts predicted the bill would add around two million jobs and hailed it as defense against a double-dip recession. The Congressional Budget Office also scored it as a net deficit reducer over ten years, and the American public supported the bill.

2) The Federal Reserve can do enormous good for a depressed economy through more aggressive monetary stimulus, and by tolerating a temporarily higher level of inflation. But with everything from Ron Paul’s anti-inflationary crusade to Rick Perry threatening to lynch Chairman Ben Bernanke, Republicans have browbeaten the Fed into not going down this path. Most damagingly, the GOP repeatedly held up President Obama's nominations to the Federal Reserve Board during the critical months of the recession, leaving the board without the institutional clout it needed to help the economy. 3) Even though the country didn't actually hit its debt ceiling last summer, the Republican threat to default on the United States outstanding obligations was sufficient to spook financial markets and do real damage to the economy.

4) The deal the GOP extracted as the price for avoiding default imposed around $900 billion in cuts over ten years. It included $30.5 billion in discretionary cuts in 2012 alone, costing the country in economic growth and 323,000 jobs, according to estimates from the Economic Policy Institute. Starting in 2013, the deal will trigger another $1.2 trillion in cuts over ten years, and cost the country even more jobs.

5) Republicans also threatened a shutdown of the government in early 2011 if cuts were not made to that year's budget. The deal they struck with the White House cut $38 billion from food stamps, health, education, law enforcement, and low-income programs among others, while sparing defense almost entirely.

There were also a few other things the GOP did that hurt the economy in the short term. The House Republicans delayed a transportation bill that saved as many as 1.9 million jobs. House Committees run by the GOP have passed proposals aimed at cutting billions from food stamps, and the party has repeatedly threatened to kill extensions of unemployment insurance and cuts to the payroll tax.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, those Republican policies (the payroll tax cut, food stamps, unemployment insurance, and discretionary spending for low-income Americans) have the highest multipliers, meaning more job boosting potential per dollar.

And what O'Reilly does not tell you is that the Republicans plan for the last 3.5 years has been to block job growth in every way possible, to simply hurt Obama politically. Which is my book is borderline treason, and when Democrats did something similar under Bush O'Reilly called them traitors and bad Americans.

But when Republicans do it (after Bush & the Republicans ruined the economy) O'Reilly says nothing, and does not call them traitors or bad Americans. Because he is helping them cover it up by ignoring it, in the hopes that it will hurt Obama and cost him the election.

Republican Governor Vetoes GOP Voter Suppression Law
By: Steve - July 8, 2012 - 10:00am

The Governor of Michigan Rick Snyder (R) bucked his fellow Republicans on Tuesday by vetoing a voter ID law crafted by GOP members of the state legislature, the Detroit Free Press reported this:
Among the bills vetoed was one requiring photo ID for first voter registration or to obtain an absentee ballot, a requirement that African-American activists claimed was an attempt to deter voting by the urban poor.

Snyder said this: "I appreciate the issue of ensuring voters are eligible and U.S. citizens, however this legislation could create voter confusion among absentee voters."
Laws requiring residents to present state-issued photo IDs tend to disproportionately effect low-income American citizens -- who also tend to vote Democratic -- because they often lack the resources and the time to acquire the proper documentation.

Snyder also invalidated a requirement that voters check a box on an electoral ballot or application affirming they are citizens -- which could have intimidated voters who didn't understand the question or weren't native English speakers -- as well as new restrictions and requirements on the operations of third party groups registering voters in the state.

The measure bears a resemblance to laws passed in Florida, which were blocked by a federal judge, who ruled that restricting registration in common areas that voters frequent imposes an unconstitutional burden on voter registration efforts.

And of course O'Reilly did not report a word about any of it, because he does not want you to know it happened, and he is covering for the Republican party who is doing this (or trying to) all over the country. In O'Reillyworld it's a non-story, because he wants Republicans to block African Americans and the poor from voting, who mostly vote Democrat, to help Romney win in November.

The Friday 7-6-12 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - July 7, 2012 - 11:00am

Their was no TPM because the insane far-right loon Laura Ingraham was filling in for O'Reilly. Her Top Story was called: Devastating jobs numbers for the country and President Obama.

Ingraham reported Friday's jobs report and the news that unemployment remains stuck at 8.2%. She discussed the job numbers with former Republican Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and David Callahan, co-founder of a liberal think tank.

Callahan said this: "This is not good news for America, but when Obama took office we where hemorrhaging 700,000 jobs a month and unemployment hit 10%. So in many ways we have come a long way - we haven't lost any jobs in the last two years and we're making progress. In retrospect, the 2009 stimulus was not nearly big enough."

But of course Chao, who served under George W. Bush, placed the blame on President Obama, saying this: "This is now his economy. Yes, he may have inherited a bad economy but he made it worse. The number of people working is at an all time low - there are many Americans who have grown discouraged and have withdrawn from the work force. This economy is stuck and clearly this President has not performed!"

Now that is what I call right-wing spin from crazy Ingraham and Chao, because it is not a devastating jobs report, it's just not as good as Obama or the Democrats would have liked it to be. Devastating would be a monthly loss of jobs, but it was still a gain, the economy added 80,000 jobs, which is a hell of a lot better than what we were getting under Bush.

And I guess Chao has no memory, because she forgot to mention the Republicans have blocked every jobs bill Obama and the Democrats try to get passed. Not to mention limiting the stimulus in 2009, Obama wanted it to be much more, and the Republicans blocked that. She also ignored the fact that the stimulus worked, and that Obama turned the economy around after Bush ruined it.

Then Ingraham cried about some Republicans who are criticizing Mitt Romney for not taking advantage of the dismal economy and the Supreme Court's Obamacare ruling. Nasal Nose Voice asked Republican strategist Chris Begala about Romney's recent decision to take a family vacation.

Begala said this: "These are not the best images, but it is the first week of July, there are a lot of people taking vacations, and he's with his family."

Begala also argued that Romney will soon focus on President Obama's record, saying this: "The center and the right of the country want President Obama out and they want these policies stopped. In the long run, the Romney campaign is in a good position."

And even the Romney ass kisser Ingraham took issue with that, saying this: "I'm looking at these poll numbers and I'm not finding them all that comforting."

Then Ingraham talked about a California teachers union that helped defeat a proposed law that would have made it easier for schools to fire teachers accused of sexual misconduct.

Ingraham discussed the issue with radio talk show hosts Leslie Marshall and Janine Turner. Marshall said this: "I am a union gal, but I have to say that I would feel much more comfortable as a mother if we had a temporary suspension until a person is found to be innocent or guilty. If you have them anywhere near the children I definitely have a problem."

Bingo, that sounds like a good idea to me, because in our system you are innocent until proven guilty, but of course the Republicans Turner and Ingraham disagreed.

Turner used the incident to argue for greater school choice, saying this: "Who is looking out for the children? This is why school choice is so important - it helps dignify the children and gives the parents more say."

Then Ingraham talked about a few blacks who have begun criticizing President Obama. Rev. Jacques DeGraff, a supporter of the President was on to discuss it.

DeGraff said this: "What you're seeing right now is a family conversation in the African American community. There is some disenchantment with a number of things that have happened, but when you weigh Barack Obama against Mitt Romney, there is no comparison. President Obama is a role model for our community - he and his family have been devoid of scandal, they live and exemplify family values."

Author and filmmaker Janks Morton agreed, but questioned whether blacks will be as enthused as they were in 2008, saying this: "When you talk about the issues that are affecting the black community today, are we better off now than we were three-and-a-half years ago? It just doesn't give that appearance. The question is whether the black community will turn out in the same way that they did in 2008, which helped him get elected."

Then the crazy Ingraham had the Republican Congressman Joe Walsh on so he could spin his insults of Lt. Col Tammy Duckworth who lost both legs in the Military.

He accused Duckworth, who lost both her legs in Iraq, of exploiting her military service, saying this: "That's all she talks about."

Walsh also said this: "That was said at a town hall meeting about Obamacare. What I did at the beginning of that town hall is what I do at all my town halls - I recognized the heroes in our presence. Any man or woman who wears a uniform is a hero and I've said that about Tammy countless times. Her background demands our respect, but it doesn't demand our vote!"

Walsh pointed out that Duckworth has the full backing of Democratic heavyweights, saying this: "I'm running against a woman who has David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel running her campaign. I've become the White House's number one target and they're throwing everything at me."

And of course Ingraham defended Walsh saying that he is in a no-win situation.

And finally in the last segment Ingraham cried about the Democratic Congressman Andre Carson, a Muslim from Indiana, who contended that U.S. schools should follow the model of Islamic religious madrassas.

She had Muslim spokesperson Harris Zafar on to react to Carson's statement. Zafar said this: "I don't think it's fair to say he's advocating for some kind of Taliban-style education in America. I understand his comments to mean that the educational system in America can benefit from the experience and curricula of American Muslim schools, as well as the emphasis on education and rationality and pluralism found in the Koran. What I think is part of the confusion is the use of the word 'madrassa,' but that Arabic word only means 'school.' It has no implication of a religious affiliation." Ingraham cried about the religious double standard, saying this: "If an evangelical Christian member of Congress got up and said something like this, he or she would be excoriated by the left."

Then the lame pinheads and patriots, and the worthless right-wing hack Laura Ingraham was done, thank God!

O'Reilly Ignoring Record Setting Global Warming Heat Wave
By: Steve - July 7, 2012 - 10:00am

Now before you read this blog post, think about this. Bill O'Reilly has said he believes in Global Warming, and once said that after a big snowstorm (in winter) it proves there is no global warming. Which is ridiculous and an argument a 5 year old would make, but that's what he said.

A couple years ago O'Reilly even asked Al Gore to tell him how Global Warming is real when it is snowing so much. Gore offered his comment in response to Bill O'Reilly, who wants to know why southern New York has "turned into a tundra." On his blog, Algore.com, he said he "appreciated" the question from the conservative talk show host.

It's simple, Gore explained: Scientists have warned for the last 20 years or so that global warming could bring more snow. To help make his point he quoted liberally from a column last year by the Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page. "Snow has two ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow."

Get it? Higher temperatures all over the planet can cause "all sorts of havoc," Gore said, continuing from the Page column. It can range from dry spells, to more frigid winters, to increasingly violent storms, flooding, and loss of endangered species.

The scientific community believes "heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming," Gore told O'Reilly.

And then O'Reilly did not report the Gore answer to him, so he asked him a question, then after Gore answered him he ignored it.

So now that we are having record heat O'Reilly reported on it and admitted Global Warming is real, haha, wrong. O'Reilly has totally ignored the record heat wave and not said one word about it.

Despite the fact that the scorching heat wave has left millions without power, caused destructive wildfires, and led to thousands of record-setting temperatures.

NOAA reported that 3,215 temperature records were set or matched in June, with more than 2,100 of those records occurring in one week, between June 25 to July 1.

Five states saw more than 100 high temperatures broken: Texas (237 records), Colorado (226), Kansas (164), Missouri (126), and Arkansas (115).

With no end in sight to the record heat, the media are now finally connecting the dots between global warming and these rare events, reporting this: "This is what global warming looks like at the regional or personal level."

And Mr. I believe in Global Warming Bill O'Reilly has ignored it all. But when it snows a lot in Winter he says it proves there is no Global Wamring. Proving that he is a liar when he says he believes in Global Warming.

To begin with, NOBODY who actually believes in Global Warming would EVER ask Al Gore to explain why Global Warming is real after a big snowstorm during winter.

And second, if O'Reilly really did believe in Global Warming he would have at least reported on the record heat wave one time. Hey Billy, where is your buddy Joe Bastardi (who is on the Factor to say Global Warming is not real) all the time. Nowhere to be found, because he can not spin this heat wave.

Once again O'Reilly is busted for his lies and right-wing bias, because a real non-partisan Independent journalist would be reporting on the record heat wave, especially one who has claimed to believe in Global Warming.

The Thursday 7-5-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 6, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: America continues to lose power. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Unfortunately, I have to be Paul Revere and tell you the country is in steep decline. Twenty years ago, in June 1992, there were 3.4 million Americans receiving federal disability payments; today that number is 8.7 million. It seems to me safety rules are much improved since 1992, so why has the disability rate increased more than 100%? It's a con!

It's easy to put in a bogus disability claim. In 1984, 85% of American workers paid federal income tax; now 51% pay income tax. Why? Because of 'social justice.' The feds are allowing Americans who don't make much money to pay no income tax.

Right now President Obama and the Democratic Party lead the league in entitlement spending and promoting a nanny state philosophy, but President Bush didn't do much to head that off, so both parties bear some responsibility. However, it is the liberal Democratic machine that continues to promote selfishness, that continues to tell Americans that the wealthy should pay all the bills and the less well off should expect free stuff.

The disability con is just one of many. There is enormous Medicare fraud, Medicaid chaos, and a huge rise in food stamp use. Talking Points believes a Democrat, John F. Kennedy, had the right idea about America when he said, 'Ask not what your country can do for you.'

I want to ask each of the more than 8-million American workers currently receiving disability payments from the federal government: Are you guys honoring JFK's legacy?
Now think about this folks, when Bush was ruining the country from 2000 until 2009, and Democrats said the country is going downhill, O'Reilly called them traitors for saying bad things about our great country. Now he is doing the very same thing he called them traitors and America haters for.

And as far as disability, O'Reilly is a total liar. Because in 1992 there were only 254 million people in America, as the country gained people the number of disability claims went up, which is normal. Not to mention it is not easy to get disability, it's harder.

They make you get an attorney and prove you are disabled, I know because I filed for it and they denied me, even though the judge admitted I was severely disabled. In 2004 my Aunt lost a foot to diabetes and was in a wheelchair, and they still denied her, she had to get an attorney to win her case, then she died a few years later.

O'Reilly implies all the 8-million American workers currently receiving disability payments are faking it. Really? Prove it, where is your proof O'Reilly. And I bet another million were denied disability that should have got it, you right-wing idiot.

Talk about unproven facts and bias, this is it, O'Reilly used the numbers to spin a point, with no proof, none. Which is something he says he never does, then he does it. In 2012 we have 312 million people, so 8 million on disability is about the same percentage as 3.4 million in 1992 when we only had 254 million people.

Then Laura Ingraham was on to cry about Michelle Obama, without having any guests to counter his ridiculous lie of a talking points memo.

Speaking at a church in Nashville First Lady Michelle Obama said houses of worship are the best places to discuss social issues. So Billy asked the biased far-right Laura Ingraham to evaluate her statement. And of course the right-wing stooge Ingraham was outraged.

Ingraham said this: "The issue that arises with the Obamas is that liberals have been attacking faith in politics for decades. If a conservative goes to a church to talk about traditional marriage or abortion, people on the left accuse them of politicizing the pulpit." Ingraham also said that Mrs. Obama was actually promoting her husband's candidacy, which is "crossing the line."

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about the story of 21-year-old lifeguard Tomas Lopez, a lifeguard who saved a man from drowning and was promptly fired.

Kelly said this: "The lifeguard company had a contract with the city to just guard a certain area, but the person who was drowning was outside of that area. The employer who fired him said, 'I was worried about the people you weren't guarding, you left them to help the drowning guy.' At least one other lifeguard has quit in solidarity and six others who have said they're going to give notice as well."

Kelly also described her July 4th experience, saying this: "I interviewed 14 of the most severely wounded warriors from Iraq and Afghanistan who came to New York to visit Ground Zero. These are not victims, these are role models and heroes who ask for nothing. They're not asking for money, they just need a place to live to help restore their independence."

Then the right-wing loon Gretchen Carlson was on to cry about MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry who she said accused America's founders of stealing land and fomenting oppression. Even though she admitted Melissa Harris-Perry was accurate historically.

Carlson said this: "She's not wrong historically, and we should all learn the lessons about the Indians and slavery and inequality. But on the Fourth of July, do you think any American wants to hear about the negatives of this country? This is the only public holiday where we actually celebrate America."

So she was right, but it's not ok for her to say it on July 4th? What an idiot, Carlson and O'Reilly are just biased idiots. This whole segment was ridiculous, Harris-Perry was right so why slam her. Report some real news you biased hacks.

Responding to Carlson's question, Billy said that, yes, even on July 4th some Americans wallow in the negative: "The far left hates the country, they want to break it down and build a totally new America."

Which is insane, the far-left do not hate America, they just hate the things the far-right has done to America. The far-left love America, just as much (or more) than O'Reilly and all his dishonest right-wing friends do. They just hate what the far-right has done to the country. And btw, only a far-right loon would even make such a ridiculous statement.

Then the Republican Adam Carolla was on with his take on entertainment and politics. Carolla said this: "There are some celebrities you don't want backing you. If you're Barack Obama you don't want Michael Richards or Mel Gibson backing you. George Clooney is cool, but if you hang out at too many parties with all the celebrities, then you're losing touch with the common man. So he has to be careful about how much hobnobbing he does with celebrities."

Carolla also said that celebrity endorsements and positive news coverage may not be enough to earn the President a second term. "People are a smarter than that, they may be wondering whether they really want a sequel to the Barack Obama movie."

Notice that O'Reilly told us in the past to not listen to any of the hollywood pinheads. He now wants us to listen to hollywood pinheads like Adam Corolla, because he is a conservative. And he has him on the show all the time now. But I am going to take the advice of O'Reilly from the past, and not listen to ANY hollywood pinhead.

Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on because his segment is garbage.

And finally in the last waste of time segment Martha MacCallum and Brian Kilmeade were on for the ridiculous Factor News Quiz.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as ever pinheads and patriots nonsense. And btw folks, the day after Independence Day not one liberal was on the show, none, it was all conservatives. Which tells you a lot about O'Reilly and his right-wing bias.

Brit Hume Caught Lying About Medicare Cuts On The Factor
By: Steve - July 6, 2012 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly let him spin the lie out without asking him to prove it, or even question what he said at all.

Last week on the Factor, the so-called impartial former Fox anchor Brit Hume brought back the misleading claim that the Obama health care law cuts $500 billion from Medicare.

When in fact, the cuts will come through eliminating parts of Medicare "seen as ineffective or wasteful," and experts predict that the quality of care under Medicare will not be compromised.

During a July 2nd O'Reilly Factor segment on the health care law, Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume claimed that President Obama "wants to take $500 billion out of" Medicare. Hume also said that "one thing that Romney is for is not taking $500 billon out of Medicare, which is what worries a lot of senior citizens about Obamacare." From The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Senior citizens are very, very worried, that their premiums are going to go up, and that they're going to be tossed off the rolls if they get cancer or something like that.

HUME: No they're not. Bill, they all have Medicare, nobody is proposing to change that except Obama who wants to take $500 billion out of it.

HUME: They have at least one or two bullet points, but one thing that Romney is for is not taking $500 billion out of Medicare, which is what worries a lot of senior citizens about Obamacare.
And if you two right-wing idiots think senior citizens trust Romney more than Obama to deal with medicare, you need a check up from the neck up.

And now the facts, the facts O'Reilly and Hume failed to tell you about. On June 28th, ABC News fact-checked an assertion made by Mitt Romney that health care reform "cuts Medicare by approximately $500 billion."

ABC reported that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Kaiser Family Health Foundation agree that "there will be no benefit cuts to Medicare" and that "spending will be reduced by getting rid of fraud and ending overpayments to private insurance companies."

A June 28th Bloomberg article quoted Gail Wilensky, former administrator of the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare under President George H.W. Bush, as saying, "There are no reductions in the Medicare benefits promised in law."

According to PolitiFact.com, "the health care law does not cut $500 billion from Medicare. It just reduces future growth." PolitiFact.com also noted that "with the law, Medicare spending will still increase."

According to FactCheck.org, the health care law "stipulates that guaranteed Medicare benefits won't be reduced, and it adds some new benefits, such as improved coverage for pharmaceuticals."

Basically the $500 billion in cuts is propaganda from the right, and Hume is putting that propaganda out for the Republicans to make Obama look bad and to try and scare senior citizens who have medicare. Just as O'Reilly let's him, without reporting on any of the facts I just told you about.

The Wednesday 7-4-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 5, 2012 - 11:00am

There was no live show due to the July 4th holiday, so O'Reilly had a best of the Factor re-run clip show. And as usual O'Reilly showed once again what a right-wing stooge he is. Because the entire best of re-run show was nothing but Republicans, no liberals made the best of show, what a shocker, NOT!

In O'Reillyworld, only Republicans make his best of re-run shows. That's because he does not think anything a liberal says is worthy of his lame best of shows. Proving once again that Bill O'Reilly is a partisan right-wing hack, not the impartial Independent he claims to be.

O'Reilly Ignoring Fox News Massive Disclosure Problem
By: Steve - July 5, 2012 - 10:00am

O'Reilly is the king of disclosure when it comes to CNN or MSNBC, he demands they disclose everything about the anchors, fill-ins and guests from CNN and MSNBC. But when it comes to Fox News and their disclosure, O'Reilly is silent, he says nothing, even though he does a media bias segment once a week with the far-right Bernie Goldberg, who also says nothing about the lack of disclosure or any bias at Fox.

Here are more examples of non-disclosure by Fox News.

Fox had the businessman Thomas Belesis on for commentary without disclosing his position as an official for the New York State Republican Party.

According to the biography on his website, Belesis "is currently Co-Chairman of the New York State Republican Finance Committee."

And a 2011 press release touted Belesis as a "key backer of the State Party's efforts in the 2010 election and has also been an active supporter of the Republican National Committee over the last election cycle."

On Tuesday's Your World with Neil Cavuto, Belesis attacked the Obama administration as "anti-business" and claimed that a Romney administration, on the other hand, would be "business friendly and help spur a lot of economic activity and pent-up entrepreneurial demand that's been on the sidelines."

Belesis concluded his analysis by saying, "I think people are going to wait and sit on the sidelines until after or we get close to an eventual Romney win in the White House."

During the segment, Cavuto only identified Belesis as "a CEO, just down on Wall Street" and a caption identified him as "John Thomas Financial CEO," but his Republican ties were never disclosed.

Cavuto's failure to identify Belesis as a Republican official is part of Fox News longstanding disclosure problem. The network has repeatedly hosted Romney advisers John Bolton, Jay Sekulow, and Walid Phares without acknowledging their participation in Romney's campaign.

Fox has also heavily promoted Karl Rove's Republican super PAC, American Crossroads, without identifying his connection to either American Crossroads or the fact that he works for Fox News. And they do that while they imply he is simply an impartial political analyst.

Rove is also on the O'Reilly Factor almost once a week for political analysis, and O'Reilly never discloses his ties to the Republican Party, or mention the fact that Rove has a massive conflict of interest problem. O'Reilly simply has him on and you are to believe he is just a regular non-partisan political analyst.

The Tuesday 7-3-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 4, 2012 - 11:00am

There was no live show due to the July 4th holiday, so O'Reilly had a best of the Factor re-run clip show. And as usual O'Reilly showed once again what a right-wing stooge he is. Because the entire best of re-run show was nothing but Republicans, no liberals made the best of show, what a shocker, NOT!

In O'Reillyworld, only Republicans make his best of re-run shows. That's because he does not think anything a liberal says is worthy of his lame best of shows. Proving once again that Bill O'Reilly is a partisan right-wing hack, not the impartial Independent he claims to be.

Journalist Gives O'Reilly A Reality Check On Schools
By: Steve - July 4, 2012 - 10:00am

A journalist named Jeremy Corey-Gruenes recently wrote this about O'Reilly in a June 29th column at www.albertleatribune.com. He exposes O'Reilly as the right-wing spin doctor he truly is:

I emailed Bill O'Reilly recently. It's the first time I've reached out to him. I don't regularly watch his show, but as I flipped through channels last week, I caught him and his two guests discussing the recent Pew Survey indicating that doubt in God's existence is on the rise among young Americans.

I find O'Reilly to be one of the more arrogant and narcissistic commentators on television, but there's something about him I find irresistible -- and it might just be his incredible arrogance and narcissism. It's intoxicatingly unbelievable.

At one point, O'Reilly -- a proud Catholic -- was lamenting a decline in weekly church attendance and a general movement away from religion. He claimed, "secularism has taken hold among young Americans" and "the public schools have a lot to do with this."

Public schools? This was news to me, and I've been teaching in public schools for the past 14 years.

O'Reilly went on to add that educators have "wiped out spirituality from all of the curriculums" and that educators freak out at the very thought of religious discussion in their schools.

In my message to Mr. O'Reilly, I explained that this just hasn't been true in my experience. Public high schools offer world religions courses, and it's impossible to teach history or literature without exploring the religious belief systems of the people whose histories and works of art you're studying. Student prayer groups even meet in our schools.

In my literature and writing classes, students are free to discuss their religious beliefs and reflect on them in their writing. Often students do this wonderfully and manage to make interesting connections between their faith and our course materials while also meeting the assignment's objectives.

What public school teachers cannot do is proselytize and push their own faith or lack of faith onto students, nor can a school give religious instruction in the way a church or parochial school would prepare young people within their traditions.

Perhaps Bill O'Reilly simply doesn't know much about what goes on in American public schools, which is understandable, I guess, considering he attended private schools. The danger in his ignorance, however, is that he has a highly rated television show from which to spread it, contributing to a false perception of reality and a false sense of impending danger.

But I hope that people -- especially young people -- eventually question statements like O'Reilly's when comparing them with their own experiences. This is why I'm optimistic that in November voters will reject Minnesota's proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Like Bill O'Reilly, prominent voices pushing for the amendment tend to create a false sense of reality and impending danger in their propaganda. For example, a primary argument from those opposing same-sex marriage make is that "research shows" the best environment to raise children in is a stable marriage with biological parents of the opposite sex, implying that raising children in any other family structure is somehow inadequate or even harmful.

Ironically, the active political stances some churches are taking against same-sex marriage might actually be pushing some young people away from religion. It's not difficult to imagine a bright young person struggling to reconcile the reality of a healthy, loving same-sex couple he or she may know with a church's intolerant stance on same-sex marriage.

In my fantasy world this is a related topic Bill O'Reilly and I might explore together in a series of passionate, yet respectful email messages, but in my reality I'm still waiting for his first response.

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

Basically what he is saying is that Bill O'Reilly is one of the most arrogant and narcissistic commentators on television, who is nothing but a lying right-wing hack who knows nothing about public schools because he went to private schools. And I for one agree with him 100 percent.

The Monday 7-2-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - July 3, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Chief Justice John Roberts and the Obamacare ruling. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Chief Justice John Roberts' ruling maintaining the legality of Obamacare is actually a conservative decision. He did not want to overturn a law that had been passed by Congress and he searched for a way not to strike the law down. Initially he wanted no part of Obamacare, but the Chief Justice changed his mind when presented with the taxation option.

Yes, Congress does have the right to tax, even punitively, and that's what Roberts has upheld. By fining Americans who do not buy health care, the feds are punishing them, using taxes as the weapon. That's been done before; the huge tax on tobacco is a great example. But there's one big difference - nobody can force us to buy tobacco products, but the government is forcing us to buy health insurance.

It's hard to believe that Justice Roberts does not understand the enormous power he has delivered to the federal government. According to his reasoning, the feds can now use the IRS to hurt any American who does not do what the feds think they should do. The punitive aspect of government power is something that America has always used sparingly, but no longer.

We either buy the mandated health insurance or we get punished! So what should conservatives do about John Roberts? Hate him? Talking Points says no. The Chief Justice made a mistake, but he did so to avoid judicial activism. Instead of name-calling, the right must put forth something better than Obamacare, but so far the GOP is not off to a good start.

There is a change taking place in Washington, where the liberal Obama administration has greatly expanded federal power. The good news is that we the people can change the course of the country by voting in November. That's the American way and, ironically, that is the message John Roberts is sending us, whether he means to or not.
In all that right-wing spin, O'Reilly forgot one thing. Only a very small percentage of the people will pay the so-called penalty/tax because they estimate that 99% of the people will get health care insurance, that means only 1% or less will pay the penalty/tax. So O'Reilly and the right are crying about this for 1% or less of the people. And btw, I am a liberal and I was opposed to the mandate and the penalty, so not all liberals supported it as O'Reilly implies.

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to evaluate the Talking Points Memo. Krauthammer said this: "You left out one factor in Roberts decision. I agree with you that he wanted to uphold the law and he went looking for this relatively flimsy dodge, but I think what you're overlooking is that Roberts is the Chief Justice and he has a sense of his institutional duties."

Krauthammer also said this: "He sees a major part of his role as maintaining the Court's prestige and standing. He thought, mistakenly, in my view - that by overruling such a sweeping piece of legislation he would be exposing the court to charges that the Court was acting politically in a partisan way. He was intimidated!"

And of course O'Reilly agreed, because he is a Republican, suggesting that Chief Justice Roberts "was not looking at the case, he was looking at the impact of the case."

Then O'Reilly had Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham on to assess the lack of an Obama "bounce."

Williams said this: "This is not the big issue, the big issue is still the economy. Right now about 70% of Americans say the election is about the economy, only 10% say it has anything to do with health care."

Ham depicted Obamacare as an albatross around Democrats necks, saying this: "People fear what is going to happen in the future and this remains incredibly unpopular. Polls show that a majority of Americans would like all or parts of it repealed. This is a giant, horrible bill."

O'Reilly said that Republicans have to propose a viable alternative, saying this: "If the Republicans want to persuade people, they have to look them in the eye and say this is what we're going to do and this is how it's going to help you in your health and in your wallet."

And btw folks, in the video of the TPM O'Reilly compared America to China and Cuba, then he said he was not comparing America to communist oppression, after he just did. Saying it is not a comparison does not erase what you said, fool. Then later in the show with Williams and Ham O'Reilly did it again, saying America is now the same as China.

Then Brit Hume was on to say if Republicans should put forth a sweeping alternative to Obamacare. Hume said this: "The Republican view is that they should take this step by step, because trying to do it all at once doesn't work. 'Hillarycare's' failure proved that, and the failure of this proves it as well. It's not an unreasonable argument and I think that Republicans, in political terms, are doing the right thing. They are focused on taking Obamacare away."

But O'Reilly again insisted that Republicans have to do more than just say no: "As an American I would like to hear the other side of the story so I can make a determination of what's better for my family."

And what O'Reilly really means is that he is a biased hack who wants the Republicans to come out with some kind of health care plan so he can argue it for them, and so it does not make Republicans look so bad for attacking Obamacare when they have no plan.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to spin for O'Reilly. Because back in March Billy predicted that Obamacare would be overturned and made this promise: "If I'm wrong, I will apologize for being an idiot." And as usual his apology was not a real apology, he even said he was not really sorry, and that he is not really an idiot.

Goldberg said this: "You may be many things, Bill, but naive isn't one of them. You should have seen this coming - you're a big name on a big network and you made a big, loud prediction. So of course they were going to go after you. They're going after you for entertainment reasons, it is great entertainment to go after Bill O'Reilly, who has a target on his back. You gave them the ammunition and my advice is to accept it, smile, and move on."

Then O'Reilly claimed he did "smile and move on," but also took a shot at media analyst Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post and CNN: "He does the bidding of MediaMatters and that disturbs me. He certainly knows that they're in business to hurt people with whom they disagree."

Wrong, idiot! They are not in business to hurt people, they are in the media watchdog business, and they do journalism, they report the facts, O'Reilly just does not like them because they report on his bias and spin.

And finally Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl reacted to the Justice Department's announcement that it will not prosecute Attorney General Eric Holder. Wiehl said this: "The Justice Department says they have discretion, and they don't have to charge him. So the criminal side of this is over, but there's a civil side, Congress can take this to a federal judge and say Holder is not abiding by our contempt order."

Guilfoyle predicted that Eric Holder will skate, at least for the time being, saying this: "Nothing is going to happen to Holder unless there's a new president. He has executive privilege and he's a friend of President Obama."

The legal aces turned to the school bullies who viciously mocked an elderly bus monitor. Guilfoyle said this: "The school district eventually did the right thing. They issued a one-year suspension to the four 13-year-old students. They're going to go to a 'reengagement school' and they'll do community service."

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

O'Reilly Sort Of Apologizes For Prediction About Health Care Ruling
By: Steve - July 3, 2012 - 10:00am

O'Reilly admitted he was wrong, but then he said he was not really sorry and that he was only wrong to not factor in the John Roberts situation.

Then he slammed what he called "the far-left smear site Media Matters." He also said he is not really sorry, then said he is a man of his word. Wow is he insane!

So then he had Bernie Goldberg on to kiss his ass and defend him. Which he did, and Goldberg made some arguments that made no sense, like saying nobody at ESPN said anything about O'Reilly, really? Are you for real, they are a sports network, of course they did not say anything about O'Reilly, and that has nothing to do with the issue.

How can you claim to be a man of your word after saying you are not really sorry, then smear Media Matters for simply pointing out you said it would be a 5 to 4 ruling against Obama and if you are wrong you will admit you are an idiot. then not admitting you are an idiot like you said you would.

All they did was quote O'Reilly word for word, play the video of him saying it, then point out he never said admitted he was an idiot. Nothing they did was dishonest or inaccurate, it was the 100% truth.

For that they are called smear merchants, and then he says the Media Research Center is accurate and Media Matters is not, which is just laughable, and something only a far-right loon would say. Because the MRC is a joke, it's nothing but a biased hack of a pretend media watchdog group, and anyone who defends them is as biased and dishonest as they are.

O'Reilly Proven Wrong About Media Matters Again
By: Steve - July 2, 2012 - 11:00am

O'Reilly claims Media Matters is a liberal joke of a media watchdog that only reports on Conservatives, but as I have proven many many times they also report on so-called liberals at CNN and MSNBC.

Unlike the Conservative Media Research Center who never report on Conservative bias in the media, Media Matters does report on so-called liberals in the media once in a while. And btw, O'Reilly never complains about the MRC, because he does not have a problem with them, while always complaining about Media Matters. Simply because they report on his spin and lies.

Now here is more proof that Media Matters does not just report on Conservatives.

Media Matters not only reported on something Erin Burnett from CNN said, they made it one of their top stories, and right now it is current the 2nd most viewed article on their entire website.

Here is their #1 most viewed story:

Howard Kurtz Highlights Bill O'Reilly's Failure To Apologize For Incorrect Prediction On Health Care Ruling

And here is their 2nd most viewed story:

CNN's Erin Burnett Cherry-Picks Numbers To Attack Health Care Law

Here is a little of what they wrote:

CNN's Erin Burnett cherry-picked numbers to claim that the health care reform law was "a massive fail" because medical costs are expected to grow more in 2014 than they did in 2010.

But the massive fail here is on Burnett: health care costs in 2010 grew at historically low rates as the country emerged from a deep recession, making it an inappropriate point of comparison.

Not to mention, if Media Matters is a liberal rag that only reports on Conservatives (as O'Reilly claims) that would make him a Conservative if they report on him right? But O'Reilly denies he is a partisan or a Conservative. So if that were true how is it they report on O'Reilly all the time.

More Evidence Of Racism By The Right
By: Steve - July 1, 2012 - 11:00am

And of course it goes without saying, neither Bill O'Reilly (or his stooge fill-in host Laura Ingraham) said a word about it.

The Republican Party of Texas released its platform this month, calling on Congress to repeal the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965.

They said this: "We urge that the Voter Rights Act of 1965 codified and updated in 1973 be repealed and not reauthorized."

Basically they want to change their voting rights laws so they can stop blacks, poor people, and mexicans from voting. And btw folks, Texas is one of only 9 states with a history of racial discrimination that must get clearance from the Department of Justice before changing its voting laws.

O'Reilly Still Spinning Out Uncertainty For The Republicans
By: Steve - July 1, 2012 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly is still blaming health care reform legislation for "uncertainty" that he warned is harming jobs growth - even after the Supreme Court issued a final ruling that the law is constitutional. Economists and small business owners have said that lack of demand, not uncertainty, has held back jobs growth.



Calling in to his Fox News show, which was being guest-hosted by Laura Ingraham, to discuss the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act, Bill O'Reilly said this: "For business, it's bad. Because the uncertainty continues, the hiring is going to be blunted, and the economy is going to be harmed." [The O'Reilly Factor, 6-28-12]

And O'Reilly said that, even though the Ruling settled much of the so-called uncertainty for Businesses over the Health Care Law. Elise Gould, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, wrote that the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the health care law is "Important because it gives clarity and certainty to states and private industry that they should start preparing for the main provision to kick in in 2014."

She also said this: "It resolves any uncertainty that was felt throughout the country by the important players, and now provides the necessary push for its implementation."

A June 28th Los Angeles Times article quoted Gerry Wedig, an economist with the University of Rochester's Simon School of Business, as saying that because of the health care ruling, "there is a lot more certainty about what the rules [for businesses] are going to be."

Even the right-wing Wall Street Journal wrote in a June 28th post on the Real Time Economics blog titled "Health Law Ruling Removes One Economic Uncertainty" reported that the health care ruling "diminishes an important piece of uncertainty from the business landscape which could has been impeding business hiring or investing."

So even some on the right are admitting the health care ruling removed an important piece of uncertainty. But that did not stop the insane O'Reilly from spinning out his right-wing uncertainty talking points garbage.

And btw, if there was so much uncertainty why did the stock market go up 278 points the very next day after the ruling on Friday. If there was all this so-called uncertainty the stock market would have went down 278 points on Friday not up 278 points.

Not to mention the stock market is up 3.89% over the last 6 months, 5.05% over the last year, and 58.11% over the last 3 years. Which does not look like uncertainty to me, it looks like certainty, and good news. But O'Reilly ignores all that to spin out right-wing propaganda about this so-called uncertainty.

And if any uncertainty does remain, it's Because Republicans are pursuing repeal of the Obama Health Care Law. So if there is any uncertainty it's the Republicans fault, not Obama or the Democrats. And yet, O'Reilly still blames Obama, proving once again that he is nothing but a biased right-wing hack.

Now look at this, even the right-wing Wall Street Journal wrote this about jobs: Economists Say "The Main Reason U.S. Companies Are Reluctant To Step Up Hiring Is Scant Demand." They say nothing about uncertainty.

The Wall Street Journal reported that according to surveyed economists, The reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies."

In a post on the New York Times Economix blog, former Reagan and George H.W. Bush policy adviser Bruce Bartlett wrote that the "only policy that will really help" stimulate growth and job creation is an increase in aggregate demand:
BARTLETT: Aggregate demand simply means spending -- spending by households, businesses and governments for consumption goods and services or investments in structures, machinery and equipment.

At the moment, businesses don't need to invest because their biggest problem is a lack of consumer demand, as a July 21 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York documented.
A Gallup survey of small businesses shows that 71 percent of small businesses that are not looking to hire new employees are holding back on hiring because there isn't enough demand to justify new hires.

So nobody is talking about uncertainty but O'Reilly and a few right-wing spin doctors like Newt Gingrich, etc. Everyone else, including the right-wing Wall Street Journal are saying there is no more uncertainty, and that low demand for jobs is the problem, not uncertainty.