The Thursday 5-31-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 31, 2012 - 11:30am

Their was no TPM, instead O'Reilly went right to the top story called: The John Edwards Verdict. As I predicted Edwards was found not guilty, and O'Reilly was wrong.

Crazy O'Reilly had Megyn Kelly on who said this: "He was found not guilty on one count, which related to whether the heiress 'Bunny' Mellon gave him illegal campaign contributions to cover up the affair he had with his mistress. They said he's not guilty on that, but they couldn't reach a decision on all the other counts. This whole verdict feels a little inconsistent and the jury says they are hopelessly deadlocked."

Kelly declared that the Edwards case is over, saying this: "There's no way the government will retry this case, it's too much effort and this case was an uphill battle from the beginning."

O'Reilly said this: "I would have sentenced him because of his haircut and because he's a weasel."

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about liberal media bias and Dan Rather saying most journalists are not liberals.

Goldberg said this: "I'm not sure why you have a media analyst on to talk about this. I think you need a psychiatrist because what Dan said is delusional. Poll after poll show that large numbers of Democrats and Republicans believe the media has a liberal bias. This is simply ridiculous and delusional - there is an abundance of liberalism in the media and they don't keep it to themselves."

O'Reilly concluded that media bias is beyond dispute, saying this: "At this point I think we've established the fact that what you just said is absolutely true."

Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about the House of Representatives, who on the heels of the undercover video showing Planned Parenthood counselors advising women how to abort their fetus if it is a girl, rejected a bill that would ban abortion for the sake of gender selection.

Ingraham said this: "This is a stunning development. People think this is a pro-choice/pro-life issue, but it is not. This is about basic human decency and whether we're going to go down the road of barbarism or humanity. It is an extremist position that the left holds, and I predict that if Democrats continue to be chained to Planned Parenthood and NARAL they will continue to see their majorities in states erode. The tide is turning on the abortion issue."

O'Reilly denounced members of Congress who voted against the legislation, saying: "This law was symbolic but it was sending a message of what kind of society we want to be."

Then the right-wing Father Michael Pfleger was on to talk about shootings, murders and gang violence in Chicago. Pfleger said this: "There is an epidemic across the country, that we are largely ignoring because the victims are black and brown. You have high unemployment, poor education, and communities broken apart - it creates the perfect storm and there is a culture of violence. We've become immune to it and we can't be immune to children dying in our streets."

O'Reilly said Pfleger that not all cities are in the same predicament, saying this: "In New York and other towns the murder rate is coming down, but in Chicago it's going the other way. We have to be honest about this - the more chaos there is in the family, the more crime you're going to have."

Then Gretchen Carlson and Judge Jeanine Pirro were on to talk about the New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg who wants to outlaw super-sized sugared drinks that are larger than 16 ounces.

Carlson said this: "Some studies do show, that the more sugared drinks that you have, the fatter you get. But I don't believe it's only sugared drinks, and the flaw here is that you can buy two 8-oz. cups and still get the 16 ounces."

Pirro pointed out a possible unintended consequence of the ban, saying this: "If you buy double the number of drinks, you double the environmental impact because you double the number of cups that you throw out. And if Mayor Bloomberg is concerned about health costs incurred, what about cancer, because there's a correlation between artificial sweeteners and cancer. We're a country of freedoms, but you want to limit my consumption?"

And finally Steve Doocy and Martha MacCallum were on for the total waste of time Factor News Quiz.

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

The Wednesday 5-30-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 31, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Crazy O'Reilly said this:
Today Planned Parenthood endorsed President Obama, less than 24 hours after we broadcast a shocking story showing a Planned Parenthood counselor in Texas advising a woman on how to abort her fetus if it turned out to be a girl. Planned Parenthood is a pro-abortion outfit which has been in trouble for years.

Undercover videos have documented underage abortions, abortion advice associated with prostitution, and now gender-based abortion guidance. Mr. Obama is sympathetic to the pro-abortion movement; as a Senator in Illinois, he voted seven times not to restrict late-term and partial-birth abortion.

The question is whether or not Americans care. The latest Gallup Poll says 50% of Americans now call themselves pro-life, 41% pro-choice. With science establishing that human DNA is present upon conception, the pro-abortion lobby and Planned Parenthood are weaker.

Talking Points believes abortion based on gender is barbaric, and Planned Parenthood did issue a statement, saying 'gender bias is contrary to everything our organization works for.' The statement went on to say that the counselor made a mistake, but that's the same thing Planned Parenthood said in all the other undercover stings.

And remember, Planned Parenthood gets $500 million a year in taxpayer money. America is supposed to stand for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What about the 'life' part, Mr. President..
Then O'Reilly had two Democratic strategists Margie Omero and Alexis McGill Johnson on. Omero said this: "It's important to note that this is not something that's widespread. In other countries this is a huge issue, but in this country it doesn't happen. Of course we shouldn't be using technology for gender-predictive abortions."

Johnson added that Planned Parenthood does much more than provide abortions, saying this: "If I was somebody who was not aware of all the great things Planned Parenthood does this would make me feel a little concerned. But attacking Planned Parenthood and attacking the pro-choice movement is really a failed strategy."

And then the pro-life O'Reilly took issue with Johnson's choice of words, saying this: "You're using the word 'attack,' but we're using the word 'expose.' We believe Planned Parenthood is an enthusiastic pro-abortion outfit that's extremist."

Then O'Reilly asked Dick Morris how Romney should deal with the "birther" matter. Morris said this: "There are a lot of people who feel this is a legitimate issue, but I believe it's a marginal issue and Romney is right to pass it by. If he focuses on it, Obama would make the whole election about that. He needs to focus on the economy and not go off on a sideshow."

O'Reilly laid out the dilemma facing Governor Romney, saying this: "This is a minefield for Romney because he's seeking Trump's approval and he wants Trump to help him financially. McCain tried to tamp down the Obama-hatred but Romney isn't doing that."

Then O'Reilly had the Republican Senator Marco Rubio on to respond to speculation that he'll be Mitt Romney's running mate.

Rubio said this: "I know this is the No Spin Zone, but I try to not even comment on this. Mitt Romney has made a lot of good decisions in his life - in his personal life, his business life, and his political life. And I think he's going to make a great decision."

Rubio then moved on to President Obama's endorsement of same-sex marriage and how it will play in his home state of Florida, saying this: "It's important to people and we have a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. I think a lot of Floridians believe that and it will be reflected in the polling."

Finally, Rubio asserted that Mitt Romney, despite his tough stance on illegal immigration, can earn some Hispanic votes, saying this: "Hispanics don't support illegal immigration and Republicans need to do a better job of talking about what we're for. We're for a legal immigration system that works."

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing idiot John Stossel on to tell us how great the poor have it, he has been investigating poverty in America, and discovered that many of the self-described poor have TVs, cell phones and other high-tech devices.

Stossel said this: "We found out what most people don't know. People think that to be poor in America is horrible, but on average a lot of people classified as 'poor' in America have more than one television. In many ways poor people live better than kings and queens lived a hundred years ago. Some people really suffer, but it's a myth that the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer. The poor do better in America than middle class people in most of the world."

And that my friends is 100% lies from John Stossel, he is nuts if he thinks the rich have not got richer and the poor have not got poorer.

Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on because it is not news. It's biased so-called comedy, where Miller makes fun of liberals, with no liberal on to make fun of conservatives.

Then Juliet Huddy was on to talk about the Factor producer Jesse Watters who questioned some Pakistanis in New York about the imprisonment of Dr. Dhakil Afridi, who helped the CIA find Osama bin Laden. One elderly man told Watters that Dr. Afridi "deserved to get the jail ... because he's doing against Pakistan."

Huddy was taken aback by the interview, saying this: "Some of these people really concern me. Pakistanis are the second-fastest growing Asian American group in the United States and I wonder if it's only the old guard that thinks that way."

Huddy also watched tape of the 81-year-old California woman who nearly got killed when she went skydiving. "She's fine, everything is cool, but the video went viral and everybody's freaking out about it. The skydiving company is now getting investigated by the FAA."

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

O'Reilly Tells Romney To Be A Warrior In Debates
By: Steve - May 31, 2012 - 10:00am

Brit Hume was on and he even told O'Reilly that the debates rarely ever decide elections. Killing the spin from O'Reilly that the debates will decide the election. So what does O'Reilly do, go on a 2 minute spinfest for Romney, telling the people how Romney can win the debate and be a warrior.



Which is just laughable, so laughable that Brit Hume was not even buying it. O'Reilly sounded like the Romney campaign manager, instead of a so-called non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone.

What advice did O'Reilly have for Obama, none of course because he is a Democrat and O'Reilly wants him to lose to Romney.

The Tuesday 5-29-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 30, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: What Mitt Romney has to do to win the presidency. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: We expect a very close vote in November and the polls will go up and down until then. But what Mitt Romney absolutely has to do if he hopes to defeat Barack Obama is win the three debates. We have seen the Governor debate well and we have seen him get his butt kicked, but the best we've seen of Mr. Romney was back in 1994 when he was running for the Senate against Ted Kennedy.

That debate was intense and included some of the same issues that are on the table today. Senator Kennedy easily defeated Romney, but that was expected because the Kennedys rule in Massachusetts. But now Mr. Romney has a very good chance to unseat President Obama because the economy is bad and the president is governing, at least domestically, as a far left guy.

Romney must bring the challenge right to the President - not by attacking Obama the man, but by taking facts and confronting Mr. Obama with them in a very vivid way. John McCain stayed completely away from Mr. Obama's left-wing background; Romney has to highlight it. Again, whoever wins the debates wins the election.
Wrong idiot, because if the economy continues to get better, jobs keep increasing every month, and gas prices continue to drop, Obama will win no matter what the flip-flopping fool Mitt Romney does in the debates.

Then O'Reilly Brit Hume how Mitt Romney should comport himself in the debates. Hume said this: "Remember the debate with Newt Gingrich in the Florida primary, when Romney called him out on the contents of Gingrich's investment portfolio? Sometimes anger works, particularly if it seems to the audience that it's been provoked, but anger as a general tone in a politician is not attractive. And I disagree with you about the debates, which are rarely decisive in presidential elections."

O'Reilly then said that Romney needs to show anger that is authentic and resonant, saying this: "This is a referendum on President Obama. If Romney can somehow show the American public that he's angry about the state of the union and that he feels the pain of the people who are suffering economically, he brings attention to himself in a positive way."

Then O'Reilly said that about half of all Americans now receive some kind of government benefit so Billy asked Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes if the USA is now a welfare state.

Colmes said this: "No it is not, and in fact some numbers are going down. In the last year the number of Americans receiving unemployment insurance went from 7.7 million to 6.1 million, and temporary assistance to needy families also went down. Part of the issue is that we have an aging population and many of them are getting government assistance."

Crowley argued that liberals have created ever-more-expansive government programs, saying this: "The modern Democratic Party is essentially a cult of victimhood and dependency, and over the last few decades they've done everything they could to establish these redistributionist pillars. This President has massively expanded the welfare state."

But she never says a word about most of the debt being caused by Bush and his tax cuts, or the fact that under Bush the debt exploded and under Clinton we had a surplus. So even if we give out help to the poor we still had a surplus under Clinton.

Then Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham were on to talk about the wealthy and taxes. And of course O'Reilly and his right-wing friends Mary K. Ham cried for the wealthy.

Williams said this: "This is about fairness. The system is being rigged against working Americans while the rich get tax shelters and deductions and writeoffs that are not available to others."

Ham said this: "We have to deal with entitlements and wasteful spending, but 'soak the rich' is the easy message that Obama wants to sell."

O'Reilly claimed there is a lack of honesty in the argument, saying this: "I'm worried about the con. What's being presented to the American public is that rich people aren't paying their fair share, and if they would all these debt problems would be solved."

Then the Lila Rose from the dishonest pro-life group called Live Action was on, she took a hidden camera into a Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas, where a counselor advised a young woman how to abort her fetus if it turns out to be a girl.

Rose said this: "This counseling went on for fifteen minutes, and they went on about different ways to determine gender and the different ways to opt for abortion. The Planned Parenthood worker advised the young woman to wait and confirm that it's a little girl and then come back and schedule a late-term abortion if it's a little girl. This was a horrific disregard for human life."

O'Reilly complained that all Americans are forced to support the abortion industry, saying this: "In 2010 Planned Parenthood received about $500-million in taxpayer money, so I'm paying for a counselor to tell a young woman that if you don't like the gender we'll get rid of it!"

Earth to O'Reilly and Rose, abortion is legal, get over it. And btw, O'Reilly and Rose never mentioned the Planned Parenthood worker was fired, and that the number of boys and girls being born is about equal, proving them wrong. Not to mention, the number of girls being born has gone up, not down. And finally, only 3% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortion, so they do very few abortions. But you never heard any of that from the pro-life O'Reilly or Rose.

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to talk about a federal judge in Ohio who has ruled that a high school student can attend classes wearing a shirt with the message 'Jesus is not a homophobe.'

Wiehl said this: "This student was also awarded $20,000 by the judge, because he has attorney's fees to pay. The school was not able to show any evidence that the shirt caused a disruption. Nobody was outraged in this school."

Guilfoyle turned to the case of pop singer Justin Bieber, who is accused of assaulting a paparazzi, saying this: "He was at a mall with his girlfriend, and a paparazzi came up to him and tried to get a photo. There are no witnesses who say the paparazzi was injured, but a lawyer told him he could make a lot of money, so he called an ambulance and filed a complaint."

And finally in the last segment the far-right Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about the case of Dr. Shakil Afridi, who helped the CIA find Osama bin Laden and was subsequently sentenced to 33 years for treason. And of course Krauthammer attacked Obama for some reason.

Krauthammer said this: "President Obama has to cut out the idiocies, and the administration has to stop the leaks and the stupid defenses. The President should announce that we are cutting aid to Pakistan in half today, and if Afridi isn't released in three months we're going to cut it again."

Krauthammer also said this: "Say the word 'India.' Announce that the Secretary of State is going to cement a new strategic relationship between the United States and Pakistan's arch-enemy India. Pakistan doesn't care about us, they have no respect for us, and they are able to do this to the good doctor with impunity. This is a humiliation to the United States!"

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

O'Reilly & Lila Rose Tell More Lies About Planned Parenthood
By: Steve - May 30, 2012 - 10:00am

The pro-life activist Lila Rose was on The O'Reilly Factor to push her latest hoax video attacking Planned Parenthood. Rose and O'Reilly want people to think that, in the words of Rose's group, Planned Parenthood is complicit in "widespread sex-selection by means of abortion."

But in fact, Planned Parenthood has stated that it "finds the concept of sex selection deeply unsettling" and the organization "does not offer sex determination services; our ultrasound services are limited to medical purposes."

The Huffington Post also reported that Planned Parenthood "condemns seeking abortions on the basis of gender, and its policy is to provide 'high quality, confidential, nonjudgmental care to all who come into' its health centers."

And of course O'Reilly and Rose did not mention of that information. Because they were too busy lying about Planned Parenthood.

Instead, they aired footage from Rose's bogus video of a person walking into a Planned Parenthood office and pretending to be a patient. O'Reilly and Rose pretended that the actions of the employee were representative of the organization.

O'Reilly even asked this: "Are we now China in this country? If Planned Parenthood is advising woman to abort because of gender choice, then we are China. And you should remember that the next time a politician or famous person endorses Planned Parenthood."

Here is another thing they did not report: Planned Parenthood has said that the staff member highlighted in the video was terminated "within three days of this patient interaction" and that "all staff members at this affiliate were immediately scheduled for retraining."

O'Reilly and Rose also ignored the fact that statistics show no evidence of systematic sex-selection abortion, since the majority of abortions are performed before the gender can be identified, and the gender-birth ratio in the United States is almost even.

This is nothing new for O'Reilly and Rose. O'Reilly repeatedly hypes Rose's attacks against Planned Parenthood but refuses to give his viewers the facts behind the attacks. Maybe that's because once the facts are known, Rose and O'Reilly's biased right-wing attacks are proven to be spin and lies.

Baier Birther Report Violated Journalism Ethics Rules
By: Steve - May 28, 2012 - 10:00am

Journalism veterans and ethics experts are criticizing Fox News Bret Baier for treating as credible the false claim that President Barack Obama might not have been born in the United States, with one experienced news person calling his recent coverage of the issue "a complete abandonment of integrity and responsibility."

Baier, often viewed as among the more credible news people at Fox News, reported in a news brief Monday night that Arizona Republican Secretary of State Ken Bennett threatened to remove Obama's name from the Arizona ballot if Hawaii officials didn't prove to his satisfaction that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Baier said this:
"Bennett says he is not, quote 'a birther' but wants to clear up the issue for concerned Arizonans."
But Baier failed to "clear up the issue" for Fox's viewers by stating outright that President Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii, as indicated by his birth certificate and a newspaper announcement of his birth.

This marked at least the third time this year that Baier reported on developments in the debunked 'birther' movement without providing that important context.

What Baier should do is stop reporting this birther nonsense, or if he does report on it he should clearly state that it is wrong and President Obama is a U.S. citizen. But he does not do that, because he is biased and he wants people to believe it is true.

By contrast, Fox News own Shepard Smith said this in 2011:
"Well, he has produced a birth certificate. It shows his mother gave birth to him in Hawaii. It is stamped and sealed by the state of Hawaii. It is confirmed, and Fox News can confirm the president of the United States is a citizen of the United States, period."
In a radio interview Tuesday Bennett stated he had withdrawn the threat and told listeners: "If I embarrassed the state, I apologize."

The Arizona Republic reported that a "Hawaii official sent Bennett's office verification of birth for President Obama on Tuesday, according to both Bennett and Hawaii officials."

And btw folks, Baier did not respond to several requests for comment by numerous sources.

Several veteran journalists and media critics have also criticized Baier for his reporting on the subject.

"Whatever the motivation of Arizona's secretary of state it is a complete abandonment of integrity and responsibility for any news gatherer or disseminator not to ask the questions necessary to put a report on the secretary of state's actions in a context that would allow the reader or viewer of the report to make a decision on how he or she can use the information," said Bill Kovach, co-founder of the Committee of Concerned Journalists and former Washington, D.C. bureau chief of The New York Times.

"In this case there is a rich history on the subject that raises deep and serious question about the motivation of anyone questioning President Obama's qualification for holding office including his citizenship and matters surround the time and place of his birth. To ignore this rich history of facts is irresponsible."

James Rainey, media writer for the Los Angeles Times, criticized all news outlets that continue to question Obama's birth status:

"Obama's birth in Hawaii has been verified and documented. Every reputable news outlet has concluded that there is no doubt that he is a native born American. Those who continue to air silly theories about the president's foreign birth -- especially without clearly stating the evidence to the contrary -- put their own credibility at risk."

Kelly McBride, ethics instructor at The Poynter Institute said this: "I think it's irresponsible for Bret Baier to report on the [Secretary of State] of Arizona's threat to remove Obama from the ballot without emphatically stating that the birth certificate issue has been settled. It is not like they are making things up, they are choosing to not report the fact that the birth certificate question is done and over with and already settled."

For David Zurawik, television writer for The Baltimore Sun, having Baier engage in such poor reporting is a sign that Fox is using "dirty tricks."

"He's used in a clever way by Fox, as he is the friendly face of what goes on behind the scenes, you look at Bret Baier in the anchor seat with the Boy Scout face and think he couldn't be part of the evil empire," Zurawik said in an interview.

"They haven't had him do any of the Fox dirty tricks, he hasn't had to carry the water anyone else has had to carry. Now he is being asked to pay for it by giving this crazy 'birther' stuff some credibility."

And of course O'Reilly never says a word about any of it, even though he does a weekly media bias segment on his show with Bernie Goldberg, that is passed off as a non-partisan media bias analysis.

Bruce Told She Will Never Host The Factor Because She's Gay
By: Steve - May 27, 2012 - 11:00am

O'Reilly claims he is not opposed to gay people, and that he has nothing against them, but if that is true why was Tammy Bruce told she will never host the Factor for Bill because she is gay.

Tammy Bruce tweeted Thursday that she's been told she'll never guest host The O'Reilly Factor because she's gay. Bruce replied favorably to a fan who responded to her tweet by criticizing the network.

Bruce is a conservative radio show host who regularly appears on The O'Reilly Factor with Bill O'Reilly. According to Nexis, Bruce most recently appeared on the program's April 6 broadcast with guest host Juan Williams.

Bruce is openly gay, a fact she's noted on The O'Reilly Factor. A biography posted on WMAL, which carried her radio show, states that when her radio show "debuted in Los Angeles in 1993, she was the first openly gay woman in the country to host a show on a mainstream talk radio station."

Bruce's comments came in response to a Twitter follower who told her this: "You are awesome Tammy. You need to fill in for O'Reilly sometime."

Bruce replied with this: "I'd love to fill in for O'Reilly, but I've been told it will never happen because I'm gay. Go figure..."

So once again you see that O'Reilly is not only a liar, he is a biased liar who does have something against gay people.

And now here is my latest prediction, O'Reilly will find out about the tweet from Bruce and have her host his show so he can then claim Bruce was wrong and say he has nothing against gay people.

Bias Alert: O'Reilly Gives Romney Advice On Beating Obama
By: Steve - May 27, 2012 - 10:00am

Now how many time do you think O'Reilly has given advice to a Democrat on how to beat a Republican. The answer would be zero, zip, nada. But her sure has no problem telling Romney how to beat Obama.

O'Reilly said this on his 5-23-12 Show:



What's really amazing is that O'Reilly still claims to be a non-partisan, while doing nothing but attacking Obama and promoting Romney.

The Thursday 5-24-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 25, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Pakistan spitting in the eye of America. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Many people believe the USA is in decline, and with a $16 trillion debt we are certainly not the powerful economy we should be. Also, our military has absorbed two ferocious wars in the last decade, so there is a weariness factor in that arena.

Recently China challenged America over the dissident Chen Guangcheng, who the Chinese were persecuting. Secretary of State Clinton negotiated his release to the USA and America stood tall. But now Pakistan is doing something far worse, it has sentenced Dr. Shakil Afridi to 33 years in prison for helping America find Osama bin Laden.

Pakistan convicted him of treason simply because he helped us find the Al Qaeda leader. Everyone from President Obama to Secretary Clinton to Secretary of Defense Panetta has politely asked Pakistan to commute the sentence and send the doctor to this country.

Pakistan has refused and publicly the Obama administration has done nothing in the face of that refusal. President Obama must get involved and address the situation publicly; is that too much to ask, Mr. President? I am one who believes that President Obama has done a pretty good job on foreign policy, but there's no question that Mr. Obama is not showing leadership in the case of Dr. Afridi.

I am very concerned and believe the administration must act decisively, and publicly, in defending Dr. Afridi. We are waiting, Mr. President.
Now that's funny, keep waiting O'Reilly because not only does the Obama admin. not care what you want, they are not even watching your ridiculous right-wing biased show.

Then O'Reilly had the Democratic Dennis Kucinich and the Republican Peter King. King on to discuss it. King said this: "In the immediate days after the killing of bin Laden, there were sources in our government talking about DNA samples. Soon after that the Pakistani authorities started locking up health officials, including this doctor. And earlier this year Leon Panetta went on '60 Minutes' and told how the doctor was a CIA asset."

Kucinich argued that Dr. Afridi is merely a pawn in Pakistan politics, saying this: "The U.S. is putting unlimited drone strikes into Pakistan, there is an election coming up and the government is in trouble unless they show resistance to what the U.S. is doing. He'll get released after the election."

Then O'Reilly had Charles Krauthammer on to of course slam Obama for his foreign policy, the same foreign policy that even O'Reilly apporves of himself.

The biased right-wing fool Charles Krauthammer said this: "The administration talks about these operations because it wants political credit, and it talks about them in a way that is unprecedented and unconscionable. As another example, we had a double-agent in Yemen who discovered the high-tech underpants explosives. Because the administration wanted to spike this one in the end zone, it blew the guy's cover and we lost all the future information we would have gotten."

Krauthammer also claimed that President Obama's greatest foreign policy blunder involved Iran, saying this: "In 2009 we were given a historic opportunity when the regime of our biggest adversary was hanging by a thread. This could have changed the entire strategic relationship in the Middle East, and what did Obama do? Nothing! He should have spoken out on behalf of the demonstrators and, worse than that, he actually supported the mullahs because he wanted to keep the regime in office."

Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about the 5-year-old Maryland girl who is being raised as a boy. Which is just ridiculous, this is not real news and yet O'Reilly does 2 segments on it in 2 nights.

Ingraham said this: "I happen to know one family that has gone through something very similar, and it is not an easy situation for a family to deal with. But the concern is that these are children and they can't give informed consent for hormone blocking drugs. A lot of these kids grow out of this gender variance by the time they're adolescents, so if you intervene, especially medically, those kids might grow up to regret it. Let them choose when they're older."

O'Reilly questioned the wisdom of the girl's parents, saying this: "I don't understand all this, just let Catherine be Catherine, and if she wants to be Jake when she's 18 then she can make that decision. This is an unnecessary drama with two dopey parents."

Get over it morons, they are the parents and they can do what they want with their child. Leave them alone, mind your own business, and report on some real news.

Then Jeanine Pirro and Lauren Green were on to talk about the Gallup sample of Americans to determine what they think is morally correct. 89% believe birth control is acceptable, 67% are okay with divorce, and 59% believe premarital sex is within moral bounds. On the other side of the ledger, only 38% believe abortion is morally acceptable and 7% are fine with adultery.

Pirro said this: "80% of Americans are against suicide, which I found kind of stunning, especially given the fact that people are living longer and getting sicker. Also, more Republicans think it's okay to have sex outside of marriage than to view pornography. Does that make sense?"

Green focused on another issue, saying this: "54% say it's morally acceptable to have a baby outside of marriage, but I think it's unacceptable on all levels. Out-of-wedlock births have eviscerated the black community."

Then Megyn Kelly was on again to talk more about the John Edwards trial, where the jury continues to debate whether or not the former Senator is guilty of misusing campaign funds.

Kelly said this: "Usually long deliberations are not good for the prosecution, so if I were John Edwards I'd be feeling more confident as the days go by. The jury has been asking to review evidence virtually every day, this is a really complex case, and it appears the jury is going through this in a methodical way."

Kelly also examined the case of Desmond Hatchette, the Tennessee man who has reportedly fathered some 30 children with 11 different women.

Kelly said this: "He can be put in jail on civil contempt for not paying the necessary child support, and that has happened numerous times. You can put deadbeat dads in jail when there's an order to make them pay child support."

Billy said this: "If I were the judge, I would put him in jail for one year for each child, which adds up to 30 years."

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

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

O'Reilly Ignores New George Zimmerman Information
By: Steve - May 25, 2012 - 10:00am

When news broke last Friday that new documents indicate that two witnesses support George Zimmerman's claim that he got into a brutal fight with Trayvon Martin on the night he shot and killed Martin, Bill O'Reilly was all over it. He reported it and devoted a full segment to the new information.

But then on Wednesday May 23rd, more news broke that said Zimmerman had a close connection to the Sanford police department. The report says Zimmerman went on patrol rides with police officers, went to police department picnics, and even went back to the police station three days after he killed Trayvon Martin and wandered around unaccompanied.

And of course O'Reilly never said a word about that, he ignored it all, no segment, nothing, he totally ignored the entire story.

So for the people who want real journalism, who want to hear both sides of the story and get all the needed info, here is the story.

From ABC News:

George Zimmerman, who was not initially charged by police in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin, was familiar with some of the officers in the Sanford, Fla., police department, having gone on several “ride alongs” with the cops, he told the city’s mayor last year.

Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, voiced his opinion at a January 2011 city commission hearing that included then Mayor-Elect Jeff Triplet.

One officer “showed me his favorite hiding spots for taking naps, explained to me that he doesn’t carry a long gun in his vehicle because — in his words — anything that requires a long gun requires a lot of paperwork and you’re going to find me as far away from it,” Zimmerman said.

He added the officer “took two lunch breaks and attended a going away party for one of his officers.”

These rides, along with new video showing Zimmerman roaming the police department unescorted just three days after the shooting, are reviving old questions of Zimmerman’s relationship with the department that decided against charging him with a crime on the night of the shooting.

When ABC News asked the Sanford Police force in mid-March whether Zimmerman had any contact or relationship with the police force, the answer on more than one occasion was no.

“We do not have specific dates Mr. Zimmerman may have ridden or with whom he rode, if in fact he ever did ride with SPD,” Capt. Robert O’Connor of the Sanford Police Department said in a statement Wednesday.

These revelations come as a number of witnesses who claimed to have seen or heard parts of Zimmerman’s fatal confrontation with Martin apparently changed or expanded their testimony in the weeks after the shooting.

In a March 13 ABC News article on possible police missteps in the investigation, it was also noted that some of the witnesses felt that police had “corrected” their testimony.

Given that Zimmerman’s trial may not take place for a year the memories of the dozen or so witnesses that dark rainy night — memories that possibly influenced evolving coverage of the case in the news — would likely be hotly contested in court.

But you will never hear this news on the Factor, because the biased Bill O'Reilly is only reporting what he want's you to see in the case, not all the news you should be getting to be informed with ALL the facts.

The Wednesday 5-23-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 24, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Pakistani doctor jailed for helping CIA find Bin Laden. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There are three things I want to tell you about. #1, Dr. Shakil Afridi has been sentenced to 33 years in prison in Pakistan after helping the CIA locate Osama bin Laden. He did the world a major favor, but Pakistan is punishing him.

That's a direct insult to every American citizen and Pakistan must be punished by us - all U.S. aid to Pakistan must be immediately suspended. #2, another friend of the President goes off the reservation. When asked about Bain Capital, Mitt Romney's previous employer, Democratic Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick stuck up for the company.

That's the second shot across the bow of the Obama reelection campaign, first Mayor Cory Booker of Newark and now Governor Patrick are telling the President to knock off the anti-capitalist stuff. #3, you will not likely hear critical commentary against President Obama on the issues of Pakistan or capitalism on the three network news broadcasts.

Many believe the network newscasts won't report stories that make President Obama look bad unless they absolutely have to. So let's recap: Talking Points wants President Obama to get tough with Pakistan and knock off the anti-capitalist campaign rhetoric, and wants the networks to cover the election in a fair and balanced way. The last one, no hope! The first two, not much.
Then Dick Morris was on to talk about President Obama's Pakistan dilemma. Morris said this: "We have given Pakistan $19 billion in aid since 2002. We fund their intelligence agency entirely and pay for half of their military."

Morris also claimed that cutting off aid to Pakistan won't do much good, saying this: "Jimmy Carter cut off aid, George H.W. Bush cut off aid, President Obama suspended $800 million in aid two years ago. But Pakistan knows that when you suspend the aid it rekindles in about eight months because we want them to fight Al Qaeda."

O'Reilly insisted that President Obama has to play it tough, saying this: "There's no debate that Pakistan is helping the Taliban and they knew bin Laden was living there. So the President has an obligation to deal with Pakistan, whether publicly or behind the scenes."

Then Lou Dobbs was on to discuss the Government loans and grants that are being directed to people who donate money to President Obama's reelection campaign.

Dobbs said this: "Most administrations have taken care of their friends, but I have gone back and I have tried to find anything that rises to the level of what this administration is doing in the way of tying grants and contracts to those who are involved in campaign contribution bundling. I can't find anything that comes close. Two-thirds of these energy loan guarantees go to companies that have direct association with the Obama administration and its fundraising."

Now that is just ridiculous, because every President helps the people that donate money to them, all of them do it, and O'Reilly never says a word when Republicans do it, he only reports on it when Democrats are doing it.

O'Reilly even complained about the appearance of impropriety, saying this: "The Obama administration says we need to stimulate the economy, that's why we're giving these loans and grants. But it looks sleazy, it looks bad."

Then Bernie Goldberg, who predicted that President Obama will eventually slap down the Occupy Wall Street movement was on.

Goldberg said this: "Let's say that in September or October the Occupy movement does something really stupid. That's when Barack Obama will come down on them like a ton of bricks. And whatever negligible support he loses on the far left, that's the kind of thing that may make independents and undecideds say it's a good move. If he does it now it won't have the same impact as if he does it closer to the election."

Goldberg turned to ABC News and NBC News, whose evening newscasts completely ignored the lawsuits filed by the Catholic Church against the Obama administration. Goldberg said this: "This is a historic challenge to Obamacare, but the media won't cover anything that might hurt this President unless they have to."

Okay get this folks, O'Reilly says he does not allow any speculation, but then he does. Because Goldberg said if the Occupy movement does something really stupid Obama will come down on them like a ton of bricks. Which is 100% pure right-wing speculation. So O'Reilly is a liar, because he does allow speculation, but only for Republicans, if a Democrat does it he stops them and shuts it down.

Then Jesse Watters was on, who went to Las Vegas to take that town's economic temperature. And I do not report on this garbage because it's not news and has nothing to do with any news. It's just a way for O'Reilly to give his lame producer some tv time, and it's a total waste of time on a so-called hard news show.

Then Dennis Miller was on for his lame comedy/insult liberals segment, that I do not report on because it's garbage and not news.

And finally Juliet Huddy was on for the did you see that segment, she watched tape of a 5-year-old child who was born a female but is being raised as a boy by her family.

Huddy said this: "When you hear the whole story, you might have sympathy for these people. They obviously care about their child, they're not trying to torture this kid. But I spoke with one psychiatrist who said this is like collaborating with madness, these parents are going to all these shrinks and psychologists and the one message they clung on to is to let the child grow up as a boy. The problem is that these parents will eventually start giving this child hormones, which will change the child's features."

The Factor claimed that the parents are making a grave error, saying this: "To just play into the whole gender alteration at that age seems crazy to me."

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as ever pinheads and patriots garbage that I do not report on.

Fox News Viewers Are The Least Informed
By: Steve - May 24, 2012 - 10:00am

Now here is a survey you will never see reported by O'Reilly, because it tells the truth about Fox and his misinformed their viewers are.

Fox News fails the fundamental test of journalism: are you informing your audience with the truth and facts?

According to a new study by Farleigh Dickinson University, Fox viewers are the least knowledgeable audience of any outlet, and they know even less about politics and current events than people who watch no news at all.

Respondents to the survey were able to answer correctly an average of 1.8 of 4 questions about international news and 1.6 out of 5 questions about domestic affairs. Based on these results, people who dont watch any news at all are expected to answer correctly on average 1.22 of the questions about domestic politics, just by guessing or relying on existing basic knowledge, said Dan Cassino, the polls analyst.

The study concludes that media sources have a significant impact on the number of questions that people were able to answer correctly, wrote Cassino and his colleagues.

The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly, a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly.

This should come as no surprise if you follow Fox. Consider some recent history. Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy invented a quotation from President Obama completely out of thin air. He falsely claimed that Obama had said he and Michelle were not born with silver spoons in their mouths unlike some people, in reference to Mitt Romneys privileged upbringing.

In fact, Obama did not say unlike some people and he has been using the silver spoon line for years. Several other news outlets repeated Doocys assertion as fact and Doocy initially avoided correcting the record after it was revealed he was wrong.

Eventually he admitted that he seemed to misquote Obama, instead of stating that he did, in fact, misquote him. And he did not apologize for the error.

When Fox isnt inventing smears against Obama, it uncritically regurgitates corporate-funded lies about him. Consider a segment of Sean Hannitys show from last week. He showed a TV commercial by Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group founded and funded by the Koch brothers, that attacks President Obamas record on investing in renewable energy.

Hannity and Frank Luntz praised its effectiveness, with Luntz saying, It was fact-based, not assertions. You see the facts come up on the screen. There's specific numbers.

The only problem is that the factual assertions are incorrect. The ad says that 80 percent of taxpayer dollars spent on green energy went to jobs in foreign countries.

But the article it cites as a source clearly states that the money went to foreign firms. The bulk of American tax dollars spent on the subsidies, according to Politifact, went to American subsidiaries of the firms.

You could go on and on forever with similar examples. And yet O'Reilly never says a word about any of it, while crying about liberal bias at MSNBC and CNN.

The Tuesday 5-22-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 23, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Who is behind the Occupy Wall Street movement? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Officials in Chicago say they consider themselves lucky that there wasn't more violence at the NATO summit over the weekend. Thousands of protesters, many aligned with the Occupy movement, hit the streets, determined to tell the world how much they despise NATO.

About 90 people were arrested and dozens were injured, including eight police officers, one of whom was stabbed. The Factor has been investigating who exactly is behind the Occupy movement, which is now very well organized. It is a hardcore far-left movement designed to cause as much trouble as possible and it is being run out of Washington in offices belonging to the Institute for Policy Studies.

The institute accepts money from George Soros through the Tides Foundation, and the Service Employees International Union is paying rent for the Occupy Wall Street crew in DC. The Occupy leadership e-mails game plans to their hardcore members, telling them where to assemble, what to protest, and even what to wear.

Again, the goal of the Occupiers is no longer to raise awareness of economic injustice; it is to disturb the peace and attack those with whom they disagree. The Occupiers have big plans for the political conventions this summer and disruption is the strategy.

It is long past time for President Obama to condemn the anarchistic element of the Occupiers. Instead, the President falls back on protecting freedom of speech platitudes. Sure, tell that to the Chicago cop who got stabbed, Mr. President.
And once again the right-wing bias from Bill O'Reilly is clear, why involve President Obama, he has nothing to do with it. Only right-wing hacks link Obama to the protests, and O'Reilly is doing just that. And as I said before, not once did O'Reilly investigate who the rich conservatives that were funding the Tea Party, and in fact ignored it.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley debated whether President Obama should denounce the Occupy protests. Colmes said this: "There's no reason the President should dignify crazy left-wing or right-wing agitators by giving them attention. Does anybody in their right mind think the President backs someone who stabs a Chicago cop? Not every candidate can renounce everybody who is crazy."

Crowley attempted to tie the protesters directly to President Obama, saying this: "Occupy Wall Street was set up to supply President Obama with his central campaign theme of income inequality and to create enough chaos and disorder to get the redistributionist agenda through. They're operating on behalf of his agenda, which is why he will not condemn them."

Then the David Westin was on to do a segment about a conservative group that says network news programs, which largely ignored John Kerry's vast wealth in 2004, are far more focused on Mitt Romney's riches.

Westin said this: "I was responsible for the news coverage in 2004, and the big issue was the war in Iraq. Right now I think many Americans are worried about their economic situation, but that was not true in 2004."

Westin also said this: "I saw a lack of diversity, and it wasn't just political diversity. I thought we should diversify out from an East Coast, upper-middle class, white orientation."

Then the biased right-wing stooge Brit Hume was on to talk about the differences in coverage between Mitt Romney's wealth and that of John Kerry.

Hume said this: "It is not surprising to me that John Kerry's wealth and the way he lived did not occasion much interest or coverage, just as the Kennedy wealth never really occasioned any unfavorable references when that family was front and center. Democrats with money look different to reporters in the mainstream media than Republicans with money. There's some taint that seems to attach to rich Republicans in the minds of some journalists. This Romney versus Kerry example seems to be evidence of that."

Then John Stossel was on to cry about a high school teacher in North Carolina who has been suspended after she got into a heated argument with a student and accused him of disrespecting President Obama.

Stossel cited the incident to argue for greater school choice, saying this: "The problem with this situation, is that even if she's a terrible teacher, in the government monopoly system you can't fire 'em. In New York City it took eight years to fire a teacher who sent sexual emails to his 16-year-old student. The principals just give up and transfer the teachers to another school. How would you like it if you were assigned your grocery store based on where you live?"

O'Reilly added that some teachers use their classrooms to promote their ideology, saying this: "A lot of people are concerned that teachers are trying to indoctrinate the students to their political points of view."

Now take note of this, O'Reilly and Stossel never say a word when a conservative teacher gets into it with a liberal student, they only cry when a liberal teacher does it.

Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to talk about the more than forty Catholic organizations who have filed suit in federal courts, claiming the health care reform law violates their religious liberty.

Wiehl said this: "The administration has to defend this, and can you imagine how awkward this is going to be? The Supreme Court is hearing the whole health care law and now they'll be hearing about these cases."

Guilfoyle speculated that defending the many suits will cost taxpayers big time, saying this: "This will cost hundreds of millions of dollars by the time it goes through the full course of legal proceedings. Get out your calculator, your abacus isn't going to cut it."

O'Reilly also cried about the gross waste of money, saying this: "This is crazy because the Obama administration could have just eliminated the mandate for Catholic institutions, they could have done it in a day."

And finally Kirsten Powers and Margie Omero were on to discuss Newark Mayor Cory Booker, a staunch supporter of President Obama, who came under fire from fellow Democrats after slamming the Obama campaign's attacks on Mitt Romney's business record. Booker has now backed away from that criticism.

Powers said this: "Mayor Booker now says he was taken out of context, but I don't think he was. It was more that he misspoke and he's now saying that he's critical of all negative advertising."

Omero contended that bringing up Mitt Romney's business past is a winning formula for President Obama, saying this: "Mitt Romney wants to talk about his experience at Bain Capital, but that experience really underscores a lot of what we know about him. He has a hard time reaching out to and relating to middle class voters."

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

Romney Taken Apart For Bain By Other Republicans
By: Steve - May 23, 2012 - 10:00am

Romney, O'Reilly, and everyone on the right are saying Romney did great at Bain and the attacks on him for it are partisan bias by the unfair Democratic operatives.

Romney has placed his record at Bain at the center of his campaign. In April, Romney said, You might have heard that I was successful in business. And that rumor is true. And after 25 years, I know how to lead us out of this stagnant Obama economy and into a job-creating recovery!

(Even though Multiple independent fact checkers concluded that Romneys claims on job creation at Bain are simply false.)

Then on Monday, President Obama took Romney at his word and noted that the former Massachusetts governors record at Bain Capital is not a distraction but what this campaign is going to be about.

Romneys Republican primary opponents agreed, and in the last six months offered criticism of his tenure at Bain that make Obamas remarks sound tame by comparison.

So if you want to know the truth, just look at what his Republican friends said about it during the primary.

The idea that youve got private equity companies that come in and take companies apart so they can make profits and have people lose their jobs, thats not what the Republican Partys about. Rick Perry [New York Times, 1/12/12]

The Bain model is to go in at a very low price, borrow an immense amount of money, pay Bain an immense amount of money and leave. Ill let you decide if thats really good capitalism. I think thats exploitation. Newt Gingrich [New York Times, 1/17/12]

Instead of trying to work with them to try to find a way to keep the jobs and to get them back on their feet, its all about how much money can we make, how quick can we make it, and then get out of town and find the next carcass to feed upon Rick Perry [National Journal, 1/10/12]

We find it pretty hard to justify rich people figuring out clever legal ways to loot a company, leaving behind 1,700 families without a job. Newt Gingrich [Globe and Mail, 1/9/12]

Now, I have no doubt Mitt Romney was worried about pink slips whether he was going to have enough of them to hand out because his company, Bain Capital, of all the jobs that they killed Rick Perry [New York Times, 1/9/12]

He claims he created 100,000 jobs. The Washington Post, two days ago, reported in their fact check column that he gets three Pinocchios. Now, a Pinocchio is what you get from The Post if youre not telling the truth. Newt Gingrich [1/13/12, NBC News]

If Governor Romney would like to give back all the money hes earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years, then I would be glad to then listen to him Newt Gingrich [Mediaite, 12/14/11]

Theyre vultures that sitting out there on the tree limb waiting for the company to get sick and then they swoop in, they eat the carcass. They leave with that and they leave the skeleton Rick Perry [National Journal, 1/10/12]

And that's not all, on Monday night Newt Gingrich defended his attacks, saying this: I think there are things you can legitimately look at in Bain Capital. I think there are things you can legitimately look at in anybodys record including Mitt Romneys record.

The Monday 5-21-12 O'REILLY/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - May 22, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: . Crazy Laura Ingraham (who was filling in for O'Reilly) said this:
INGRAHAM: Protests continued Monday in Chicago after all-out chaos over the weekend, when thousands of Occupy protesters flooded the streets to protest the NATO summit. Nearly 50 people are under arrest and four police officers suffered injuries, including one who was stabbed in the leg.

An Occupy organizer insisted that it is 'a non-violent movement,' and claimed NATO is 'killing people.' And at a post-summit news conference, President Obama brushed off the protests, saying 'this is part of what America is about.
Then she had O'Reilly on as a guest. Billy, who called in from Boston said this: "I've been following this very closely, and the President should be answering the question, do you still support the Occupy Wall Street movement, because in the beginning he did. When he's asked about it now, he gives an answer that doesn't say whether or not he approves of this kind of thing."

Billy added that his team is examining Occupy's financial backers, saying this: "On Tuesday night's Factor we'll investigate where the money is coming from to fund these demonstrations. There is a group in Washington that is allied with the SEIU labor union, they seem to be running protests all over the United States.

This Occupy Wall Street movement is very well coordinated and they are terrorists! Here's my question to the President: 'What do you, Mr. Obama, think of the Occupy movement? Do you support it as you did in the beginning? Yes or no."

Take note of this folks, when the Tea Party was protesting not only did O'Reilly not investigate who was funding them, he ignored the reporting by the rest of the media on who was, because the Republicans were funding them. But when the Occupy people protest O'Reilly wants to investigate who is funding them.

And O'Reilly links Obama to them when he has nothing to do with it, which is only what a partisan hack would do. Proving once again he has a total right-wing bias.

Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on with their take on the story. Williams said this: "These folks in Chicago, are not Occupy Wall Street. I think they're anarchists who should be condemned. You're asking why the President doesn't denounce Occupy Wall Street, but I don't know that these two are synonymous. Occupy Wall Street was really an expression of American discontent over the fact that Wall Street gets away with murder."

Ham said she thinks that the Occupy movement has been taken over by radicals, saying this: "If Occupy Wall Street and the anarchists are not together, they're at least kissing cousins. All these protesters are people of the left and the rules are different. If this had been a right-wing protest, the President would have been asked about every tiny infraction. The left is allowed to be violent, the right is not."

Then John Hlinko and Ed Rollins were on to talk about Newark Mayor Cory Booker, a supporter of President Obama, who is under fire from his fellow Democrats after saying he is "nauseated" by ads attacking Mitt Romney's tenure at Bain Capital.

Rollins said this: "Mr. Romney had a tremendous career. He created jobs, he invested other people's money, and Bain Capital has done some wonderful things. But this is fair game because this President can't run on his record."

Klinko contended that Bain Capital operated as Robin Hood in reverse, saying this: "Private equity is fine if your goal is to maximize wealth, and what Mitt Romney did at Bain was make a lot of wealthy people wealthier at the expense of a lot of jobs. I have no doubt he would do that for America as well as President."

Ingraham pointed out that President Obama's investment record is less than stellar, saying this: "He did his own version of private equity, but with the taxpayers' money, on Solyndra and other solar projects that haven't panned out."

Which is just laughable, because under President Obama the stock market is up 56% in the last 3 years, a fact that both Laura Ingraham and Bill O'Reilly continue to ignore.

Then Ingraham played tape of Bill's recent interviews with former CIA agent Jose Rodriguez and former FBI operative Ali Soufan. Which I will not report on because it's a re-run.

Then Jennifer Bonjean and Richard Gabriel were on to talk about the case against John Edwards, who is accused of illegally using campaign funds.

Bonjean said this: "The Federal Election Commission, which is responsible for administering campaign laws, determined that John Edwards did not violate any campaign laws. The government has to show that Edwards knew he was committing a crime, and they just didn't do that in my view."

Gabriel said this: "For the most part jurors want to look at what their own moral conviction is. If they feel this is morally wrong and Edwards was breaking the rules, they could be leaning toward conviction."

And I predict Edwards will be found not guilty. Because they will never prove it in court.

And finally Ingraham played another tape of a segment O'Reilly had on a past show. It was about Jenna Talackova, who was born a male, and then competed in Miss Universe Canada. Laura introduced Bill's discussion of the issue with radio talk show hosts Leslie Marshall and Janine Turner. Which I will not report on because it's a re-run. Then the pinheads and patriots nonsense.

More Proof Dick Morris Is A Lying Right-Wing Idiot
By: Steve - May 22, 2012 - 10:00am

And O'Reilly has this fool on every week for so-called impartial and honest political analysis. Not to mention, he never says a word about all the things Morris gets wrong.

Monday on Hannity, Dick Morris returned to fearmongering over potential Senate ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Morris previously suggested that the treaty was part of a plot by the Obama administration to create "one world government." But Monday his anti-Law of the Sea Treaty push took the form of a series of lies about the treaty.

And here is the proof he was lying, Morris suggested that the Law of the Sea Treaty would harm our Navy's control over the high seas. But the Navy actually supports the treaty provisions and has done so since 1983.

Morris said this:
"This treaty basically sets up a judicial arbitration tribunal appointed by the United Nations to resolve disputes about sea lanes.

Now, currently the dispute resolution mechanism is the U.S. Navy that goes out and polices the world's waterways because we're incomparably the world's greatest naval power and keeps the sea lanes open.

But this would give the UN a veto over our Navy's decisions."
The truth: The Navy strongly supports the provisions discussed by Morris. In 2003, Admiral Mike Mullen said this: "Since 1983, the Joint Chiefs and the combatant commanders have supported the navigational provisions of the convention because of the core belief that a comprehensive, widely accepted, and stable legal basis for the world's oceans is essential to U.S. national security."

Morris said this:
"Once it's passed, a treaty is forever. You can't repeal it. It has the force under the Supremacy Clause of a constitutional amendment. And nobody is talking about this."
The truth: Morris just made this up out of thin air. The Law of the Sea Treaty itself allows nations to repeal it.

From the treaty: "A State Party may, by written notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, denounce this Convention and may indicate its reasons.

The denunciation shall take effect one year after the date of receipt of the notification, unless the notification specifies a later date."

Now if treaties really were "forever" and could not be repealed, this would come as news to former President George W. Bush. Because in late 2001, Bush announced that the White House was withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. If Morris were correct, the ABM Treaty would still be in effect.

Morris constitutional interpretation is also a flat out lie. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution states this: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."

If Morris interpretation were correct, all federal laws would also have the force of constitutional amendments since the Supremacy Clause makes no distinction between "laws of the United States" and treaties.

Morris also said this:
"Remember Obama got START treaty approved in a lame-duck session. I think he is going to take all of these measures -- this one, International Criminal Court, telling us how to raise children, banning missiles in outer space.

I think he's going to take all of this stuff and pass it in the lame-duck session while he still has a Democratic majority in the Senate."
The truth: Obama does not have the power to sneak any treaties through a lame-duck session of the Senate. According to the Constitution, the president has the power "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."

Since Democrats control only 53 seats in the Senate, Obama would need significant buy-in from Republicans to ratify any treaty.

In fact, Morris got almost everything wrong. What he did was go on Hannity and tell him a bunch of lies to make Obama look bad. And Hannity never corrected any of it, he just let Morris spew out all the lies because he also wants to make Obama look bad.

And you never hear O'Reilly (or his so-called media watchdog Bernie Goldberg) ever say a word about any of this bias and lies from Morris and Hannity. Because O'Reilly is also a Republican who is glad they lie to make Obama look bad. Making him just as much of a right-wing hack as Sean Hannity.

The Friday 5-18-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 20, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Another sign the media wants Barack Obama reelected. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The Media Research Center is a conservative watchdog group that exposes left-wing bias in the national press. The center has put out an amazing analysis of how the evening newscasts on the three networks covered John Kerry's wealth when he was running for president in 2004 as opposed to Mitt Romney's money position now.

Both men have access to about $250-million, but when Kerry's vast wealth was mentioned only two times from January to April of 2004. Contrast that to this year, when Romney's wealth has been mentioned 27 times from January to April.

The network news organizations are treating Mitt Romney's economic circumstance far differently than they treated John Kerry's, but why? A logical conclusion is that they continue to favor the Democratic Party and will try to reelect President Obama. Not everybody working on the evening news programs, but some key decision makers, are committed left-wing ideologues.

With the country in economic turmoil and a very important presidential election on the horizon, fair play should be a must for the media ?" it doesn't serve the USA well to have powerful national news organizations skewing their coverage. The truth is that John Kerry's vast wealth was virtually ignored by network news, but Mitt Romney's fortune is a huge issue. Not fair!
What a joke, to begin with MRC is a biased hack of a media watchdog group that spins everything to the right, and anyone who quotes or talks about anything they do is a biased right-wing stooge. And the reason the media did not attack Kerry for his wealth as much as they do Romney is because Kerry did not want to give tax cuts to the wealthy. Not to mention O'Reilly is wrong, the media slammed Kerry for his wealth, reporting on his boat that he bought in another state to pay less taxes. And they always mentioned how much money him and his wife had.

Then Karl Rove was on to spin it with O'Reilly, with nobody from the left to balance the segment. Rove, who helped George W. Bush defeat Kerry in 2004, talked about the media's treatment of Kerry's fortune, saying this:

"They didn't make it an issue in 2004 because Kerry is a Democrat, but they will make it an issue in 2012 because Romney is a Republican. I'm sure it's unconscious at some level, Democratic rich people are okay, Republican rich people are bad. The White House in 2004 wasn't making an issue of John Kerry's wealth, but this White House is clearly trying to make an issue of Mitt Romney's wealth and the national media are happy to do their part in driving the message home."

Then Geraldo was on to talk about the Zimmerman case. Geraldo said this: "The marijuana is not as significant as the surveillance video at the 7-Eleven. What's far more significant is what Trayvon Martin looked like that night, he was dressed in 'thug wear' and he's 6-2, a strapping youngster. Trayvon Martin looks just like the people who had been burglarizing that neighborhood for the past six months."

Rivera also criticized prosecutor Angela Corey, who charged Zimmerman with second degree murder, saying this: "I have no doubt but that she overcharged George Zimmerman, not based on evidence, but based on the enormous pressure she was under from every civil rights activist in this country, up to and including the President. There's no murder two here!"

Then O'Reilly said that Some Democrats continue to accuse Republicans, many of whom oppose "equal pay" legislation, of waging a "war on women." Janine Turner and Leslie Marshall were on to discuss it. And of course the Republican O'Reilly denied there is a war on women, without talking about what Republicans have actually done.

Marshall said this: "I would like to see more women as heads of corporations, 85% of the heads of corporations are men, which means it'll take more years for us to be equals. I want the playing field leveled."

Turner cited a new survey showing that four of America's five most highly paid celebrities are women, saying this: "These women didn't need the government to accomplish this, they did it on their own. What I find interesting about the Democratic Party is how dependent they want women to be on the government."

O'Reilly said that equal-pay legislation is superfluous, saying this: "There are already laws on the book saying you can't discriminate against anybody, so we don't need this legislation."

Then O'Reilly had the retired Navy Seal Marcus Luttrell on, whose new book "Service" details his time in Iraq. Luttrell said this: "Our primary mission in Iraq was to disrupt and eliminate enemy activity. Fighting in the cities is a lot different than fighting in the mountains because every corner and every window is a fighting position. We're in the enemy's back yard and front yard, so urban combat was a lot crazier than up in the mountains."

Luttrell also explained why so many vets experience difficulty when they leave the war theater, saying this: "You're going from 100 miles an hour to nothing, so you're just kind of sitting there trying to figure out what to do and where to do it. It's causing a lot of problems for a lot of guys."

O'Reilly said this: "The rate of post-traumatic stress for people coming back from the battlefield is about 40%, which is an enormous problem."

And if you care O'Reilly, how come you never report on it, and how come you support all these needless wars, jerk!

Then Lou Dobbs was on to talk about Facebook, which offered shares to the public Friday. Dobbs said this: "The thing I love about this, is that we're talking about a company with $100-billion in market capitalization, which is bigger than half the companies in the Dow Industrial index. And here's 28-year-old Mark Zuckerberg who is worth a little over $19-billion today, but we've got folks in Washington saying this country has lost its edge and we don't innovate."

Dobbs explained how Facebook can be a huge money-maker, saying this: "There's advertising, just like on television or other parts of the web. But more importantly is the way they monetize all that information about the users of Facebook and sell it to marketers. There are 900-million people using this!"

Really? Who cares, and how is this news the people need to know.

And finally Arthel Neville and Greg Gutfeld were on to pick the week's stupidest people and happenings. Neville chose writer Michelle Goldberg, who managed to compare Ann Romney to Stalin and Hitler. "This is dumb because Ann Romney is not running for president, so she's not fair game. And there's never the necessity for a Stalin or Hitler reference."

Gutfeld went with Florida school officials who objected to a test question because 4th graders might not know what a camel is. "Apparently there are no zoos in Florida. This goes to show that education right now is a protection racket for incompetents."

O'Reilly picked the Jesuit-run Georgetown University for inviting HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a staunch supporter of abortion, to speak at its Friday commencement."

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, Sebelius is not an abortion supporter, she is PRO-CHOICE and that is a big difference. I am also PRO-CHOICE, but I am not an abortion supporter. I am against abortions, but I support a womans right to choose what to do with her own body. So stop lying about people who are PRO-CHOICE.

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




Republican Wants To Fire People For Simply Being Gay
By: Steve - May 19, 2012 - 11:00am

I guess he never heard that we have discrimination laws, so what he wants to do is illegal. Not to mention just plain stupid. And of course you never hear a word about this from O'Reilly, while he tells you every night that conservatives are not anti-gay.

During an interview last week, Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) told ThinkProgress that he doesnt believe that LGBT people should be protected from being fired because of their sexual orientation.

According to the local Oklahoma television station, Oklahoma News 6, Lankford reaffirmed that being gay is a choice and shouldnt be protected while simultaneously denying that he thinks it should be legal to fire someone for it.

And these are the guys that claim to support freedom and the constitution, while ignoring the laws and stepping on the constitution to advance their anti-gay agenda.

Obama Spending & Deficit Facts O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - May 19, 2012 - 10:00am

O'Reilly and his right-wing friends go on and on about taxes and how much Obama is spending and adding to the debt, but what he does not tell you is that most of that debt is from what Bush did when he was in office, or that taxes and spending is actually down under President Obama.

Federal spending is lower now than it was when President Obama took office. Ill pause to let you absorb the news.

In January 2009, before President Obama had even taken the oath of office, annual spending was set to total 24.9 percent of gross domestic product. Total spending this year, fiscal year 2012, is expected to top out at 23.4 percent of GDP.

Heres another fact O'Reilly has failed to report. Taxes today are lower than they were on inauguration day 2009. Back in January 2009, the CBO projected that total federal tax revenue that year would amount to 16.5 percent of GDP. This year it's 15.8 percent.

And this: The deficit this year is going to be lower than what it was on the day President Obama took office. Back then, the CBO said the 2009 deficit would be 8.3 percent of GDP. This years deficit is expected to come in at 7.6 percent.

Finally, here is the fact that O'Reilly never talks about. President Obama inherited a disaster of a federal budget. Eight years prior, when President George W. Bush took the oath of office, there was a $281 billion surplus from Bill Clinton. By the time Obama was sworn in, he was facing a $1.2 trillion deficit.

Inconvenient though it may be for O'Reilly and his conservative friends (especially those who are running for president), the truth is that spending, taxes and the deficit are all lower today than when President Obama took office.

The Thursday 5-17-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 18, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Vice President Joe Biden attacking the rich. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There are about 315 million people living in the USA and about 3 million of them are millionaires. So we're not a country dominated by fat cats, the real power lies with working class folks. And most wealthy Americans are self-made; therefore, the question becomes, 'What is the beef from the Obama administration, why are they trying to demonize people like me?'

Speaking in Ohio Wednesday, Vice President Biden lashed out at wealthy Americans, saying 'They don't get us, they don't know who we are.' That's true, Mr. Biden, I don't get you! You came from humble beginnings and made it big; same with me. By the way, I give millions to charity while you, Mr. Vice President, give very nearly nothing.

This is all a bunch of garbage, the class warfare the Obama administration is peddling is bogus. Wealthy people are not responsible for the bad economy; bad federal policies and corrupt financial greedheads are responsible. Rich people pay most of the income tax, while 50% of the population pays no federal income tax at all.

Wealthy people create jobs, the Occupy Wall Street protesters break windows. Are you getting this, Joe? Do I have to come to your lavish house in Delaware and explain this to you? One more thing: If the Obama administration continues this foolishness, it will get its butt kicked next November.

Working Americans aren't buying it; only far-left zealots who want to tear down the capitalistic system are down with Joe Biden's analysis.
Wow, is O'Reilly ever crazy. To begin with, all the power is with the corporations, the lobbyists, the wealthy, and the special interest groups, the actual working people have almost no power. And Obama can not get his butt kicked next November, because he is going to win, and the fricking election is this November, in 5 and a 1/2 months you biased right-wing moron.

So then O'Reilly has the far right biased hack Laura Ingraham on to discuss it and of course agree with him. Ingraham said this: "My brothers and I were talking about this recently. We didn't have a lot, we didn't go on vacations, but we were fine and we were never envious of other people. There wasn't a sense that, 'They're rich, so they must have done something to us.' The difference today is that they're creating envy and jealousy and animosity where there really shouldn't be."

O'Reilly pointed out that President Obama recently dined with the ultra-rich at the home of George Clooney, then concluded with a pointed question for Vice President Biden: "You're trying to drive a wedge between some Americans who work hard and others who work hard. Why do you want to drive that wedge, Joe? Is that morally correct to do? Is that a good thing? I don't think so!"

No jerk, all they are doing is pointing out that the wealty get all the breaks and are not paying their fair share. And btw, only biased right-wing hacks see it the way you do.

Then O'Reilly had the insane Glenn Beck on to promote his plans for a June 13th event that will call attention to excessive government regulations.

Beck said this: "We're having a national lemonade sale and bake sale and 'hugathon,' because they're telling our children they can't hug in school, that they can't have a bake sale, that you can't have a lemonade stand without a permit. What is happening to us, Bill? This is insane! This is the government trying to tell our children that you can't open a lemonade stand without coming to us first. Stop it!"

And of course O'Reilly agreed that government has become too intrusive, saying this: "This all goes back to political correctness. They don't want kids to eat muffins and candy, so they ban 'em. I would love to see 2-million lemonade stands by kids on June 13th."

Then Bruce Sams was on to talk about race relations in Norfolk after two white reporters were beaten by a mob of young black men. Sams, who is representing one young man charged in the beating said this: "I wouldn't say there is a racial climate in Norfolk, any more or less than any other major city in the country. We don't seem to have any issues, so I don't think there is one. None of the defendants were charged with any hate crime or bias crime."

And of course O'Reilly took issue with Sams characterization of the assault, saying this: "This crime was perpetrated by young black men and was watched by as many as a hundred people. I don't believe that the mob of young black men would have jumped two black people in the car, that's the troubling aspect here."

100 people, really? First it was 30 then we found out it was 5, now it's a hundred, wow is that some serious dishonesty by O'Reilly.

Then Gretchen Carlson and Jeanine Pirro were on. O'Reilly said that for the first time in U.S. history, there are more non-white babies being born than Caucasian babies.

Pirro said this: "Politically this bodes very well for the Democratic Party. Minorities have historically aligned themselves with Democrats, so this puts a burden on Republicans to try and bring in Hispanics and African Americans and Asians. But we've always been a country of ethnic change."

Carlson raised the prospect of many more single-parent households in America, saying this: "This could matter culturally because there are more births to single mothers among minorities. We all know that does not bode well for the future of a child, who is more apt to grow up in poverty if they only have one parent."

On another subject, Pirro denounced Jessica Simpson for selling photos of her newborn baby. "She put her child out there for every pervert, pedophile, and whacko nut job to say, gee, Jessica Simpson has a little kid and this is what the kid looks like. This is flat-out wrong!"

Then O'Reilly asked Megyn Kelly if John Edwards will wind up in the big house. Kelly said this: "I'm going to say there is a 55% likelihood that they acquit, and a 45% likelihood that they find him guilty. The prosecution made its case that money was paid to cover up Edwards affair and they made the case that he knew about it. But I don't know that they made the case that he knew it was a violation of campaign finance law. I didn't see the evidence of that."

And of course O'Reilly said that John Edwards will soon be wearing stripes, as he tells everyone not to convict Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin on TV he is convicting John Edwards on TV. Billy said this: "The judge gave instructions to the jury saying that if this money benefitted the Edwards campaign, which it did, then you can convict this guy. That means they're going to convict. Edwards is such a weasel and the jury has to loath him."

Which is just laughable, and I predict Edwards will be found not guilty. And you will never hear an apology from O'Reilly.

And finally in the last segment Martha MacCallum and Steve Doocy were on for the total waste of tv time Factor News Quiz. That I do not report on because it is not news, and it's a worthless segment.

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

FBI May Charge George Zimmerman With Hate Crime
By: Steve - May 18, 2012 - 10:00am

The State of Florida has charged George Zimmerman with murdering Trayvon Martin. But that might not be the end of his legal problems.

According to WFTV, an affliate of ABC in Orlando, Zimmerman may soon be charged with a hate crime by the FBI:
WFTV has learned charges against George Zimmerman could be getting more serious. State prosecutors said Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman, profiled and stalked 17-year-old Trayvon Martin before killing him, so the FBI is now looking into charging him with a hate crime.

FBI investigators are actively questioning witnesses in the retreat at the Twin Lakes neighborhood, seeking evidence for a possible federal hate crime charge.
WFTV notes that if Zimmerman is charged and found guilty of a federal hate crime involving murder, he could face the death penalty. FBI officials confirm to ABC News that the investigation is ongoing but say the hammer wont be dropped anytime soon.

Most of the evidence against Zimmerman has yet to be disclosed. Late yesterday, Florida prosecution delivered 67 CDs of evidence against Zimmerman to his attorney. Under Florida law, most of it should be available to the public soon.

The Wednesday 5-16-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 17, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Stunning new developments in the Trayvon Martin case. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: ABC News is reporting, and Fox News is confirming, that a doctor examined George Zimmerman hours after his confrontation with Trayvon Martin in February. According to the doctor, Zimmerman suffered a 'closed fracture' of his nose, two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury.

Also, Zimmerman had bruising to his upper lip and cheek. Obviously, all of that points to a physical confrontation between him and Trayvon Martin. After the initial story pundits went wild, but I called for restraint, asking the commentators who were convicting George Zimmerman on television to stop.

Once again, I do not want to try this case on television, but since it has become a national controversy loaded with racial implications, the doctor's report is major news.

This latest exposition should prove to Americans once and for all that the case needs to be tried in front of a jury and people need to stop jumping to conclusions, exploiting the death of an American teenager. Trayvon Martin was used by pundits and politicians to make political and social points. Very wrong!
Then attorney Benjamin Crump, who represents Trayvon Martin's family and who voiced skepticism about the new findings was on. Crump said this: "This doctor's report needs to be vetted properly. If George Zimmerman was so hurt, why didn't they take him to the hospital that night? He said his head was beaten into the pavement for a minute, but we saw a video thirty minutes later. We think the most objective thing is what we see on that video and what we hear on those 9-1-1 tapes."

O'Reilly theorized that the case against George Zimmerman has become tougher to prove, saying this: "A Florida TV station is reporting that the autopsy of Trayvon Martin shows that his knuckles were scraped, so there does seem to be strong evidence of a confrontation. That makes a murder case very tough unless there's an eyewitness."

O'Reilly said this in the TPM: "This latest exposition should prove to Americans once and for all that the case needs to be tried in front of a jury and people need to stop jumping to conclusions."

So what does he do, he jumps to conclusions based on media reports, the same media he says we should not trust because they are biased and dishonest. So he is doing exactly what he tells everyone else not to do, then on top of that he now wants us to believe the media, after he told us they can not be trusted.

Then Dick Morris (who is always wrong) was on to talk about a couple polls that show President Obama has lost ground in North Carolina and elsewhere since his endorsement of same-sex marriage. Including one of his own biased polls.

Morris said this: "I just did a poll of 400 likely voters in Michigan, and I have Romney two points ahead of Obama. The biggest problem Romney had with the right wing was with evangelicals because he's a Mormon, but President Obama solved that problem for him overnight. Everything I'm looking at is showing a tremendous Romney victory."

And even O'Reilly told Morris that a new Fox News poll shows President Obama with a seven-point lead over Mitt Romney, and then jokingly posed this scenario: "Do you realize that if President Obama wins, you're through? You're going to be selling refrigerators in Topeka!"

Which is just laughable, because even if Morris is wrong (which he will be) he will continue to work for Fox and put out more dishonest biased garbage. And O'Reilly will have him back on the Factor to do his so-called political analysis, that is nothing more than right-wing propaganda.

Then Ben Stein was on to talk about Government stats that show 36% of Americans who could be in the workforce are either unemployed or have given up looking for work; many of them get by on government benefits. Really? Have you noticed that O'Reilly says do not believe the Government, except when he wants to use their numbers. Just like he does with the media, he says they are dishonest and not to be trusted, except when he likes what they report, then he uses it.

Stein said this: "Every single problem we see in Greece is coming our way. There are huge deficits, we'll have difficulty selling our bonds, there will have to be some austerity, and some people will riot. We've already seen riots in Oakland over alleged mistreatment by the government; if austerity becomes the way of life in America, that could happen everywhere."

Earth to Stein, you are an idiot and none of that will ever happen.

O'Reilly suggested that some demagogues would actually welcome social unrest, saying this: "If the government cuts back food stamps and other direct payments to people who aren't in the workforce, I think there will be a lot of trouble. The occupiers and the far-left cranks and kooks on certain cable networks will whip up these crowds."

Then Tonya Reiman was on for the body language nonsense, and Dennis Miller was on after her. Which I do not report on because it's garbage, and not even close to news or journalism.

And finally Juliet Huddy was on for the total waste of time did you see that segment. Here is a reality check, she is only on for eye candy to get ratings, because her segment is worthless.

She watched footage of actress Halle Berry berating a photographer who followed her to her child's preschool, saying this: "There's a law in California, that addresses paparazzi who sneak onto people's property. But it doesn't do anything about the paparazzi who shove a camera in your face or go chasing you down when you have a baby in your arms. I don't blame Halle Berry, this was just ridiculous."

O'Reilly also sided with the actress and her anti-paparazzi crusade, saying this: "You don't want your child's picture in the media because that opens up all kinds of security problems. So she's absolutely right and I think there should be stronger laws."

And nobody cares, it's tabloid garbage, not real news for a so-called hard news show.

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

More Proof O'Reilly Wrong About Fox News Anchors
By: Steve - May 17, 2012 - 10:00am

About a week ago (while slamming a straight news anchor at MSNBC for some so-called bias) O'Reilly said he can not think of one straight news anchor at Fox who has ever given a biased opinion. Even though it's a ridiculous statement, because Megyn Kelly, Chris Wallace, Bret Baier, and Martha MacCallum do it all the time.

Now we have two more examples of bias at Fox by their so-called straight news anchors, and of course O'Reilly never said a word about any of it.

Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum has a habit of defending GOP talking points. During a conversation with Sen. Tom Coburn Wednesday, she continued the practice, scoffing at Democratic suggestions on how to help reduce the deficit and increase revenue:
MacCALLUM: I think everybody in this country, Democrats and Republicans across the board, know that there need to be some spending cuts in order to move -- in order to protect the country, basically, from complete default.

But Democrats will tell you, as you hear all the time, that if you just, you know, tax wealthy people more, and you take, you know, raise taxes on oil companies, that you're going to go a long way to solving the problem. That's what they believe.

SENATOR COBURN: Well, they know that's not true.
Coburn went on to say that those Democratic proposals wouldn't make a dent in the deficit, adding that "this is all about politics, this is all about November, this is silly time in Washington -- unfortunately, it's silly time all the time in Washington 'cause there's no grownups up here."

MacCallum replied with more right-wing bias, saying this: "I was just gonna say, I think a lot of folks feel like it extends throughout the year."

Because in fact, the Democratic budget proposals amount to more than just "tax wealthy people more and raise taxes on oil companies" -- measures Fox News has defended against in its rush to protect the rich and tax breaks for oil and gas companies.

President Obama's proposed 2013 budget includes a mixture of revenue increases and spending cuts, as well as tax reforms, to achieve more than $4 trillion in deficit reduction over a 10-year span.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, Obama's plan would slash the deficit to 3 percent of GDP by 2022.

By contrast, the Republican Ryan budget plan would create slightly less than $400 billion in deficit savings over the next 10 years.

Not only would the Ryan plan extend the Bush tax cuts permanently and maintain the $4 billion annual subsidies to oil companies, the plan is "surely the most fraudulent budget in American history," as the New York Times Paul Krugman described it. He wrote this:
KRUGMAN: The trouble with the budget devised by Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, isn't just its almost inconceivably cruel priorities, the way it slashes taxes for corporations and the rich while drastically cutting food and medical aid to the needy.

Even aside from all that, the Ryan budget purports to reduce the deficit -- but the alleged deficit reduction depends on the completely unsupported assertion that trillions of dollars in revenue can be found by closing tax loopholes.
CBPP president Robert Greenstein added this:
GREENSTEIN: In essence, this budget is Robin Hood in reverse -- on steroids.

It would likely produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history and likely increase poverty and inequality more than any other budget in recent times (and possibly in the nation's history).

It also would stand a core principle of the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission's report on its head -- that policymakers should reduce the deficit in a way that does not increase poverty or widen inequality.
Greenstein also stated that under the GOP plan, the country would see the "dismantling of key parts of the safety net, on top of stunning new tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans."

The Tuesday 5-15-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 16, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The politics of gay marriage and President Barack Obama. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: In 2008 then-Senator Obama ran on a platform of uniting the country and transforming politics into a positive for the folks. That was what 'hope and change' was all about. According to a new poll, the President has failed to do that. When asked why President Obama publicly supported same-sex marriage, 67% of the country said it was for political reasons.

That poll is devastating because it says most Americans now think President Obama is just another politician who will change positions if he thinks it will personally benefit him. As Talking Points said last week, the gay marriage deal will be a negative for the President in November, he can say goodbye to North Carolina and has also lost some support in Virginia, Ohio and Florida.

So the political calculation, if that's what it really was, has actually hurt him and maybe even damaged his image among his most loyal constituents, African Americans. On black radio stations across the country there is outrage over the President's support of gay marriage.

President Obama has a 50-50 chance of being reelected and many things can happen between now and November. But right now the President is slipping everywhere!
And that is some big time right-wing spin, because another poll says 6 in 10 do not care if Obama supports gay marriage and will still vote for him. And Obama is not slipping everywhere, that is just ridiculous.

Then O'Reilly had two black ministers on to weigh in on the same-sex marriage debate. Rev. Emmet Burns said this: "I will support the President, but I can be true to my theological understanding of the Bible and not support same sex marriage. We are going down a slippery slope here, somebody will want to marry his sister."

Rev. Delman Coates equated the controversy over same-sex marriage with the civil rights movement of the 1960's, saying this: "There is no group that has a monopoly on civil rights. As a Christian evangelical pastor and as an American, I support equal treatment under the law for all citizens, even those who are gays and lesbians."

In his commencement address at Barnard College, President Obama slammed the media's "steady stream of sensationalism and scandal." So O'Reilly had Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes on to evaluate the President's message.

Crowley said this: "I agree with him, but he is just stating the obvious. This has been true since Gutenberg's printing press, sex, violence and sensationalism sell. President Obama is not getting the kind of coverage he was getting back in 2008 and now he's whining."

Colmes disagreed with the claim that the media is a single monolithic entity, saying this: "The media is more than just the cable news channels, there's digital media, there are the networks. The younger generation is on line, that's where people get their information."

O'Reilly put his spin on President Obama's anti-media message with this: "The President is saying the media is demoralizing the nation, and he's saying that because he's in big trouble. He's now going to tell his constituents that it's not that bad, the media is telling you it's bad, but it's not that bad."

Then Dave Parker was on to talk about the Police in Norfolk who have arrested three more black teens for taking part in the mob assault of two white reporters.

Parker reported that the case is finally moving ahead, saying this: "According to the reporters who were attacked, on that night about thirty people surrounded their vehicle and a small contingent of five people broke off and attacked them viciously. Now four of those guys have been arrested, and I have every indication that this case will be prosecuted to its fullest."

Then the far-right loon John Stossel was on to talk about one town in New Jersey that is cracking down on pedestrians who are texting while crossing the street.

Stossel said this: "The authorities are doing this for their own good. They mean well, but they get more power if they have more rules. Everyone wants more power, more attention, more importance, but we have enough rules! The number of deaths has been dropping steadily since cell phones were introduced, so why do we need these laws? Let's ban radios and GPS systems in cars, they're distracting!"

O'Reilly argued that some rules are absolutely necessary for the public good, saying this: "I feel very strongly that you shouldn't be allowed to talk on a handheld cell phone and drive at the same time. People have a hard enough time driving with two hands on the wheel! We have to have protection against loons."

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle, who assessed two high-profile cases were on, beginning with John Edwards trial in North Carolina. Wiehl said this: "The defense wants Edwards daughter to take the stand, to humanize him and get some sympathy. But if I were a juror I'd be mad that a father is putting his daughter on the stand after she had to go through everything else."

Guilfoyle turned to the case against former baseball star Roger Clemens, accused of lying to Congress about his steroid use. Guilfoyle said this: "Do I believe his is probably guilty, based on the evidence and the testimony? Yes. But do I think he is going to be convicted? No. That's based on the lack of credibility of the witnesses."

After reports that the Justice Department might charge George Zimmerman with a 'hate crime' in the slaying of Trayvon Martin, Fox News Charles Krauthamer was on to give his opinion of Attorney General Eric Holder. And of course the far-right Krauthammer slammed him, with of course no guest to defend Holder, or provide any balance.

Krauthammer said this: "He's a political hack. The reason that is so grating is that you can be a political hack somewhere else, but the Justice Department is a really important job. You are the top law enforcement official in the country, entrusted with upholding the rule of law and the Constitution. And the amount of stuff he has done shows this to be a guy who will be at the beck and call of his political masters. He has brought cases to gin up issues and agitate the base, and if you're Attorney General, you shouldn't be acting in that way. You should be acting for the nation."

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

And on a side note, O'Reilly named Former press secretary Robert Gibbs, CNN correspondent Lizzy O'Leary, and MSNBC host Chris Matthews pinheads, for simply going on Jeopardy. O'Reilly said this: "Matthews, who has repeatedly implied that Sarah Palin would be terrible at the game, came in dead last."

But what he failed to mention is that it's the 3rd time Matthews was on Jeopardy, the first time he won the show, and the 2nd time he came in 2nd and almost won. But O'Reilly ignored that to make it look like Matthews is a dummy who came in last. Not to mention, Gibbs and O'Leary are smart and well educated people, so it is not that bad to come in last behind them.

O'Reilly Caught In Cover Up For Frank VanderSloot
By: Steve - May 16, 2012 - 10:00am

Here is more proof that Bill O'Reilly is a dishonest and biased right-wing hack of a pretend journalist.

Tuesday night O'Reilly interviewed Romney campaign national finance committee co-chair Frank VanderSloot yesterday and whitewashed VanderSloot's record on LGBT issues. Discussing criticism of VanderSloot's record that appeared on KeepingGOPHonest.com, O'Reilly suggested the Obama campaign engaged in "political terrorism" and "slimed" VanderSloot. But O'Reilly failed to press or even mention the substance of VanderSloot's record on LGBT issues.

VanderSloot told O'Reilly had VanderSloot on his show, he said that KeepingGOPHonest.com had "said that VanderSloot hated gay people and that he was anti-gay."

O'Reilly then said this: "You're anti-gay. So anybody who was buying your product who was gay said I'm not going to buy my products from this guy."

VanderSloot then said this: "We have a lot of people we work with, who we deal with in the business world that are gay."

So O'Reilly said this: "So they basically slimed you. They smeared you."

And that is as close as O'Reilly got to confronting VanderSloot with the actual substance of VanderSloot's anti-LGBT statements.

And now the facts, the facts you never heard from O'Reilly. VanderSloot and his company, Melaleuca Inc., launched a billboard campaign in Idaho that attacked Idaho Public Television for airing a documentary called "It's Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues In Schools." Idaho Public Television said the documentary "chronicled how some public and private schools in several states are dealing with gay issues in the classroom, specifically name-calling and harassment."

But VanderSloot's billboards attacked the documentary, asking "Should public television promote the homosexual lifestyle to your children?"

VanderSloot also attacked a reporter who had written that the Mormon Church and Idaho Boy Scout officials were sheltering a known pedophile. VanderSloot printed a full-page newspaper ad that called the reporter a "homosexual."

The ad said this:
Much has been said on a local radio station and throughout the community, speculating that the Boy Scout's position of not letting gay men be Scout Leaders, and the LDS Church's position that marriage should be between a man and a woman may have caused Zuckerman to attack the scouts and the LDS Church through his journalism.

We think it would be very unfair for anyone to conclude that is what is behind Zuckerman's motives. It would be wrong to do.

The only known facts are, that for whatever reason, Zuckerman chose to weave a story that unfairly, and without merit, paints Scout leaders and church leaders to appear unscrupulous, and blame them for the molestation of little children.

That too, is wrong and the editors of the Post Register should not have allowed it.
Zuckerman said that as a result of the ad, his boyfriend lost his job, and Zuckerman himself started getting violent threats:
There was a tremendous impact on me both personally and professionally. Personally, it was really hard when my boyfriend, at the time, came home and said, "I don't have my job anymore. They know I'm gay. They know about my relationship with you. They don't want me there anymore."

And it was really hard for him. He actually got sick soon afterwards and was in bed for a month. I didn't know how we were going to pay the bills. It was really hard when people started leaving notes on my doorstep, when somebody kept calling in the middle of the night threatening to rape me with his handgun.

That was -- I mean, that was really terrible. And then professionally, it became much harder to do my job because, yes, Idaho Falls was buzzing about my sexual orientation.

And, you know, when I tried to talk to people, they would say things like, "Oh, I can't talk to you. You're a homosexual . We don't associate with that."
Zuckerman also said that before the ad was published: "I hadn't told anybody on my beat that I'm gay and for good reason, because I was worried they wouldn't talk to me."

And you never heard a word about any of that from O'Reilly, because he was too busy spinning the story to cover for VanderSloot.

Now get this, in August of 1999 VanderSloot even discussed the Idaho Public Television documentary that he was attacking on billboards on the O'Reilly Factor show.

During the segment VanderSloot asserted that the documentary was using taxpayer money to bring "the homosexual lifestyle into the classroom and introduce it to our children as being normal, right, acceptable, and good an appropriate."

VanderSloot also went on to say the film was "certainly not a documentary. It's propaganda"

VanderSloot also said this: "We can teach our children -- and adults, too, for that matter -- to be tolerant of people and to love all people and not to judge them, but we don't have to, in the process, teach them that all behavior is acceptable, especially when it's contrary to the moral standards of our community and nation."

He added that "tax dollars should not be used to bring this standard of morality to our children."

And btw folks, the website KeepingGOPHonest.com DOES NOT say VanderSloot hates gays or even that he is anti-gay. It says that he is "a bitter foe of the gay rights movement," which he clearly is. So the only smearing and sliming going on is by Bill O'Reilly.

The Monday 5-14-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 15, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Does the Democratic party hate the rich? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Growing up on Long Island, my folks didn't have much, we didn't have air conditioning, never bought a new car, ate SpaghettiOs and tuna. But never once did my parents show jealousy toward the rich people in Garden City a few miles away. America fifty years later is a much different place; now we have class envy stoked by the Democratic Party.

Ironically, the media is part of the anti-affluent jihad, while many in the media are wealthy themselves. Same thing in Hollywood, where you have these pinheads supporting the Occupy Wall Street protesters. A Gallup poll asked whether the U.S. benefits from having a class of rich people. 46% of Democrats believe wealthy Americans provide no benefit to the country whatsoever.

I take that personally because I, against all odds, have become a rich guy. And here's exactly what I do for my country: I pay all my taxes and my foundation gives away millions of dollars to the poor, to military families in need, and to fight disease worldwide.

I employ dozens of people at BillOReilly.com, and because The Factor is successful, people are hired by the News Corporation to work on the program. Recently I thought about retiring, but I added it up and more than 60 people would have lost their jobs had I packed it in. So now I hear that almost half of Democrats believe I provide no benefit at all to America? Off-the-chart dumb!

The bottom line: Jealous pinheads hurt the country, while I and others like me are helping it.
And as usual O'Reilly is lying and wrong. To begin with, people like you are hurting the country, not because you are rich, because you are a biased lying hack. And the Democrats do not hate the rich, the simply want them to pay more in taxes compared to what they make, it's that simple. In fact, we like the rich, and we are glad they employ people. So O'Reilly is not only a liar, he is a right-wing liar who is trying to make the Democrats look bad.

And btw, O'Reilly acts like he grew up poor. Which is also a lie, his Father was an accountant for an oil company, he paid for Bill and his sister to go to private schools with no financial aid, Bill even went to school in England for a year, to avoid the draft. His Father was just cheap on some things, but he did have money.

Then Kirsten Powers and Mary Anne Marsh were on to talk about their party's so-called disdain for wealthy Americans. Powers said this: "I don't think they're demonizing the rich, the issue is class. This country was founded on the idea of not having an aristocracy and different classes of people living radically different lives. The question for me is why so many Republicans think we should have a rich class."

Marsh argued that America has become more difficult for the middle class, saying this: "The majority of people, including Democrats, still want to be rich. But what has changed is their ability to move up the economic ladder by working hard and playing by the rules. We have an economy that rewards those who least need it at the expense of the people who can least afford it."

O'Reilly said this: "I think the Democratic Party should be ashamed of itself for having 46% of it saying guys like me do nothing for the country."

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to discuss Barack Obama, who endorsed same-sex marriage, Newsweek magazine praised him as 'the first gay president.'

Goldberg said this: "As a desperate business decision. I fully understand this. You put Barack Obama on the cover, give him a multi-colored halo, and maybe you'll sell a few copies at the newsstand. But as a journalistic decision it's downright embarrassing. Liberals make fun of conservatives when we say the media is trying to portray Barack Obama as a messiah, but then they go and do precisely that. If Newsweek put Jesus on the cover, he probably wouldn't get a halo because it might offend some of their liberal readers."

Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to talk about President Obama's campaign that is marketing baby clothing declaring that "my two dads" or "my two moms" support the President.

Williams said this: "We are at a point now, where more and more Americans think gay people should be respected and not stigmatized. But if you wore a t-shirt that made a big deal about having a mom and dad, a lot of people would see that as intentionally antagonistic toward gay people."

Ham pointed out that former Vice President Cheney actually came out in favor of gay marriage before President Obama, saying this: "If Obama truly believes himself to be a leader on liberal social issues, you have to 'evolve' a few years before Dick Cheney, not after Dick Cheney. The President is getting credit from liberal activists for being 'brave' when he's really made a political decision here."

O'Reilly complained that anti-gay marriage folks are being demonized, saying this: "There are good people who support traditional marriage and society should respect both points of view."

Then O'Reilly had the Republican Frank VanderSloot on, who has been personally attacked after donating $1 million to a pro-Romney organization.

VanderSloot said this: "The Obama campaign published a list of eight individuals who supposedly have 'less than reputable' records, which was news to me. Within hours of that, all kinds of things started to appear on the Internet, rewriting history about all kinds of things I'm supposedly guilty of. Phone calls started coming in and we had customers who wanted to cancel their business."

VanderSloot explained how he fought back against the accusations, saying this: "I started having conference calls with our customers and explaining my real positions, and we put up a website of our own to try to handle all of these accusations. Everything is turning around now and heading in the opposite direction."

And of course O'Reilly denounced the left-wing smear merchants who attacked VanderSloot, saying this: "They slimed you, they smeared you, and some believe this is political terrorism."

But of course when Bill Maher was attacked for donating $1 million dollars to an Obama superPac O'Reilly not only did not defend him, he joined in on the attacks. Making him a massive hypocrite with double standards depending on whether you are a Democrat or a Republican.

Then Brit Hume was on, he blasted the Washington Post for running a lengthy piece alleging that Mitt Romney once bullied another young man in high school.

Hume said this: "My objection to the story is very simple. It did not connect this event when he was 17 or 18 years old with other events in his life which would have formed a pattern and told us something about Romney's character. Indeed, much of what we know about Romney's personal character is that he's been an upright guy and very generous to his employees. I think the story was a very small footnote, but they built it up, splashed it on the front page, and ran a story that went on for 5,000 words. It's a wonderful example of how bias works."

And finally in the last segment O'Reilly had his ridiculous one sided Factor Reality Check. That I do not report on because it's just O'Reilly by himself putting his right-wing spin on something someone else said, and it's always about a liberal, he never does reality checks on conservatives. Not to mention, there are no reality checks, it's just the opinion of O'Reilly.

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

More Proof Increased Oil Production Will Not Lower Gas Prices
By: Steve - May 15, 2012 - 10:00am

More domestic drilling does not make America less susceptible to global supply disruptions or protect consumers from gasoline price volatility, according to a new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office.

The CBO report reviewed different policies intended to make the country more energy secure, concluding that the only effective tool for shielding businesses and consumers from price spikes is to use less oil.

Because oil is sold on the global market, CBO concludes that increasing domestic oil production would do little to influence rising gas prices in the U.S.

These findings back up historical experience. According to an analysis of 36 years of gasoline prices and domestic oil production conducted by the Associated Press, there is zero statistical correlation between increased drilling and lower prices at the gas pump.

But Republicans keep beating that dead horse anyway.

The CBO report says that even if increased drilling did substantially lower gas prices (which it has not) the agency says those lower prices would actually make the country less secure from price shocks.

The report also says that even if the United States increased production and became a net exporter of oil, U.S. consumers would still be exposed to gasoline prices that rose and fell in response to disruptions around the world.

In contrast, policies that reduced the use of oil and its products would create an incentive for consumers to use less oil or make decisions that reduced their exposure to higher oil prices in the future, such as purchasing more fuel-efficient vehicles or living closer to work.

Such policies would impose costs on vehicle users (in the case of fuel taxes or fuel-efficiency requirements) or taxpayers (in the case of subsidies for alternative fuels or for new vehicle technologies). But the resulting decisions would make consumers less vulnerable to increases in oil prices.

The solution is clear: the only way to make America more energy secure is to use less energy.

Even Mitt Romney understood this in 2007 when he admitted that these high gasoline prices are probably here to stay and advocated 50-mpg fuel efficiency standards, public transportation, electric vehicles, and renewable alternatives.

But today, Romney champions opening up virtually every possible area of the U.S. to oil drilling disingenuously claiming it will make consumers more secure.

Romney recently said this: The best thing we can do to get the price of gas to be more moderate and not have to be dependent upon the cartel is: drill in the gulf, drill in the outer continent shelf, drill in ANWR, drill in North Dakota, South Dakota, drill in Oklahoma and Texas."

Even as the analysis piles up showing that increased domestic drilling is not an effective solution to high gas prices or energy security, Republican political leaders continue to repeat these false claims.

What we need are proven ideas to help us make America more efficient and less dependent on oil, not insane Drill-Baby-Drill nonsense that does nothing to address the actual problem.

The Friday 5-11-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 12, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Exaggerating and justifying bad behavior in politics. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: One of the really annoying things about my job is when I confront a political partisan with a fact, then they dodge by dredging up a diversion to pettifog the issue. The Washington Post is reporting that when Mitt Romney was 18 years old he hazed a gay guy in prep school.

Instead of dealing with the absurdity of that story, some pundits are referring to other politicians doing even worse stuff. We often justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior, which is what is done in third grade. Let's take a look at this prep school thing: It's dumb, but everybody does stupid things in high school.

If Mitt Romney was hazing people all the time, if he had shaved Barney Frank's head while Governor of Massachusetts, then we might have a story. But a prep school prank? C'mon! Talking Points wants to ask the Washington Post, what is the statute of limitation on bad behavior? Does it ever run out? This is politics in America today, gotcha, getcha, humiliate you. The Romney story means nothing!
O'Reilly and the far-right press now think it's pointless to look into a candidate's past in search of clues about his personality and clues to what shaped him into an adult. Suddenly they mock efforts by the press to paint a detailed personal portrait of would-be presidents by combing over their biographies.

Suddenly right-wing bloggers are strongly opposed to vetting. The same type of partisan media pursuers who obsessed over which elementary school Obama attended overseas as a child, and the same ones who have spent years obsessing over Obama's birth (you can't go back any further than that), suddenly think reporting out disturbing incidents from Romney's high school days is out of bounds.

It's amazing how the vetting urge dissipates when the target shifts from a Democrat to an Republican.

Then O'Reilly had two political strategists on to discuss it. Hlinko said this: "I do think this went beyond a prank," said Democrat John Hlinko. "A prank is short-sheeting a bed, but Mitt Romney led a group of students who assaulted a guy. I agree that we've all done stupid things as kids, but this was assaulting a kid."

Republican Chris Begala denounced the Washington Post for even running the story, saying this: "I see the Post writing a clear political hit piece. It's biased and it's also corrupt because the family of the alleged victim has come out to say he would be furious at this agenda-driven story."

The Factor criticized Hlinko for playing politics with an old and flimsy story, saying this: "Romney was 18, but you are going to sit there and condemn Romney and say he's not fit to be president for what he did at 18."

Then O'Reilly talked about the group "Restore Our Future," which is working to elect Mitt Romney, that has a new ad blasting Obama supporters Bill Maher and Hilary Rosen for mocking Ann Romney. And you can bet O'Reilly will show every ad Romney or any right-wing group runs to help them, while not showing any pro-Obama ads.

Michelle Fields and Leslie Marshall were on. Marshall said this: "Bill Maher doesn't work for the President, and most people know that Hilary Rosen doesn't speak for all of us women on the left. This ad doesn't make the Romney campaign look much better than they're trying to make the Obama campaign look."

But Fields defended the ad as fair and effective, saying this: "I think it debunks the myth that the Romneys can't relate to the American people. If you watch this ad you see that Ann Romney has overcome some serious adversity, which is something Americans can relate to. Hilary Rosen did visit the White House plenty of times and Maher has given tons of money to Obama, so I think it's fair."

Then O'Reilly had the Republican Adam Carolla on to cry about what he claims is bias at CBS News. While interviewing former CIA agent Jose Rodriguez, "60 Minutes" correspondent Lesley Stahl seemed to disapprove of the techniques he used to elicit information.

Adam Carolla disapproved of Stahl, saying this: "It's so easy to sit in the cheap seats and snipe at these guys who are trying to get information that will save American lives. We say 'torture doesn't work,' but it's been around for 5,000 years, most stuff that doesn't work goes the way of the dodo bird pretty quickly. So my question to Lesley Stahl is, what would you use to replace enhanced interrogation to get information out of people who are trying to kill Americans."

Playing devil's advocate, The Factor suggested that Stahl was simply trying to get Rodriguez riled up and passionate: "She was 'bear-baiting,' putting a little carrot by the bear so the bear gets angrier and angrier. That's a technique people use on television and I think you have to give her the benefit of the doubt."

Then Lou Dobbs was on to talk about the biased Rasmussen Poll that has Mitt Romney leading President Obama by seven points among likely voters. Which is just laughable, because it's a biased poll, and it was taken by LIKELY voters not registered voters.

Dobbs said this: "If we have to pick one event that caused this, the obvious one is the President's statement that he now supports same-sex marriage. That's the only variable at work here."

But here is something you will never hear on the Factor, another poll says 6 in 10 people will not change their vote because Obama is for gay marriage.

Dobbs turned to the massive loss suffered by banking giant JPMorgan Chase last week, saying this: "There was a $2 billion trading loss, which shook the markets and the banking industry. They used derivatives and their CEO Jamie Dimon is rattled because they haven't learned their lesson."

And finally Arthel Neville and Greg Gutfeld wrapped up the week with the dumbest people segment. Neville singled out a new website that helps prison inmates find love mates, saying this: "I don't know who's dumber, the people writing to the prisoners or the prisoners themselves. Prison is not a place for personal privileges!"

Gutfeld went with Barney Frank, who announced that he won't be inviting the President to his wedding, saying this: "He doesn't want his guests to have to go through a metal detector, which leads me to wonder what kind of awesome, freaky gifts they're bringing. This is going to be a great reception! But the President would ask everyone to spread the gifts around, and he would be angry because there's no dog on the menu."

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as ever pinheads and patriots garbage that nobody cares about.

O'Reilly Ignored Racist Trayvon Martin Gun Target Story
By: Steve - May 12, 2012 - 10:00am

An unidentified individual from Virginia is hoping to cash in on the tragic death of Trayvon Martin by selling gun range targets meant to resemble him.



While the targets do not have an actual photo of Martin, they do depict a silhouette of a hoodie clutching a can of iced tea and a pack of Skittles hanging out of the pocket, details pulled directly from the descriptions of Trayvon Martin on the night of February 26, when he was shot and killed by George Zimmerman.

According to a local news station in Orlando, the seller of the targets readily admits hes hoping to make a profit over the tragic shooting of a teenager:
In an email exchange with reporter Mike DeForest, the seller wrote, My main motivation was to make money off the controversy.

The seller would not disclose how many paper targets had been made, but said in an email, The response is overwhelming. I sold out in 2 days.

Some of those targets were sold to two Florida gun dealers, according to the seller.
The fact that he sold out in 2 days is pretty clear proof there are a lot of racists left in America, a fact that O'Reilly continues to deny.

The listing, which appeared to have been posted on the online gun outlet store gunbroker.com, has been removed, although as of publication the Google Cache of the page is still available. For $8 plus shipping, anyone could purchase a 10-pack of the paper targets.

Mark OMara, the lawyer for Trayvons killer George Zimmerman, strongly rebuked the targets, calling it hate-mongering.

O'Reilly ignored this story because he does not want to report on the racism from the right, as he denies they are even racist.

The Thursday 5-10-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 11, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The Politics of Gay Marriage. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: With President Obama now telling the nation that he supports the right of homosexuals to marry, the issue becomes significant in his bid to be reelected. The economy will drive the vote, but social issues like gay marriage are important to many Americans.

My take is that it's a matter of conscience. Unlike abortion, no one gets hurt when gays marry, but it does have deep implications for what kind of society we want to be. Therefore, individual states should decide the question. So far seven states have made gay marriage legal, but 38 states have passed legislation opposing gay nuptials.

For President Obama, this is not a winning hand, he can pretty much say goodbye to North Carolina, which overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage this week. He may also lose currency in Virginia, Nevada, Florida and Ohio. The media, of course, is very happy about the President's change of heart.

And largely because of the press, it's just about impossible to have an honest debate about gay marriage. If you oppose it, you're a 'bigot' and a 'homophobe.' Most of the media will not even consider the traditional point of view on marriage. Again, gay marriage is a matter of conscience and it's the responsibility of the states to regulate it as they see fit.

The politics of gay marriage will most likely hurt President Obama's reelection chances, but it's doubtful that will be reported by the national press.
And now here is my take, I do not care if gay people marry or not, it is not an issue with me. But I will say this, anyone who is opposed to it is not for freedom, because in a so-called free country anyone should be able to marry anyone else, man or woman. And anyone who claims to support freedom, but is opposed to gay marriage, is a hypocrite that only says they support freedom.

Then O'Reilly talked about President Obama's declaration with political scientist Larry Sabato and Democratic strategist Margie Omero. Omero said this: "The question is whether this is a vote driver for the election, and I think folks who are strongly in favor of or against gay marriage have already made up their minds."

But Sabato suggested that same-sex marriage could have an impact, saying this: "This will be an election fundamentally about the economy, but millions of people will vote on social issues, whether it's abortion or guns or gay marriage."

The Factor declared that President Obama's endorsement of gay marriage will cost him in November, saying this: "He is not going to get one vote by coming out in favor of gay marriage, all liberal people were going to vote for him anyway. The swing state independents will swing more to Romney."

Now that may or may not be true, O'Reilly has no clue and what he said was pure speculation, which he claims to not allow on his show. O'Reilly also said something really stupid, he said all the people who oppose gay marriage will now stop voting for Obama. Which is just ridiculous, because some people who oppose gay marriage will still vote for Obama, and that one issue will not make them change their vote.

Then Jeanine Pirro and Gretchen Carlson were on to discuss Judge Michael Urbanski, who said that Moses had it all wrong, and has implied that six commandments are sufficient, at least in one location.

Carlson said this: "A school board in Virginia is being sued by a student and the ACLU, because they have the Ten Commandments posted on the grounds of a school. If it were there for religious purposes there would be a case, but the school says it's there as a historical document."

Pirro, a former judge herself, blasted Urbanski for his intolerance toward Christianity, saying this: "His suggestion that we get rid of the first four commandments is blasphemous, he is there to decide man's law and not God's law. I think the Ten Commandments will stand because the school also has the Declaration of Independence and the Star-Spangled Banner on display."

O'Reilly said this: "This was a provocation directed at people of faith, another example of our secular system saying we don't have any respect for you."

Then Father Jonathan Morris and Jonathan Merritt were on to talk about students at Jesuit-run Georgetown University, who have invited Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a fierce defender of abortion, to speak at the school's graduation.

Morris said this: "The Jesuits and the board, are inviting the architect of the mandate that requires religious organizations to provide contraception and abortifacients. They're sticking their fingers in the eyes of the Catholic bishops and the church. It would be fine if she was there for a debate, but they are honoring her at a graduation ceremony!"

Merritt, despite describing himself as pro-life, contended that Sebelius should be invited, saying this: "We're living in a culture where everybody has a right to everything, and people think they have a right not to be offended, not to have to listen to somebody they disagree with. Let her give her arguments and I'll give mine."

O'Reilly reminded everyone that Sebelius, while governor of Kansas, saying this: "She actively supported a doctor (Tiller) who was killing babies up until a minute before they were born for no reason."

Which is ridiculous, and O'Reilly has no proof of that. What Dr. Tiller was doing was 100% legal and it was done for medical reasons, and he was even found guilty of the charges. O'Reilly has even called him Tiller The Baby Killer in the past, but he sure never reported any of that during this segment Thursday night.

Then the former FBI agent Ali Soufan was on to dispute what former CIA agent Jose Rodriguez, who was involved in the waterboarding of suspected terrorists said, he insists that enhanced interrogation helped foil terror plots and saved lives.

Soufan said this: "Mr. Rodriguez is totally wrong. The CIA's own investigation of the program revealed that not one imminent attack was stopped because of enhanced interrogation techniques. I don't think we need waterboarding to save lives."

But O'Reilly still maintained that enhanced interrogation may have prevented attacks, saying this: "You weren't there when Abu Zubaydah was being waterboarded and Rodriguez says the waterboarding led to very vital intelligence and saved thousands of lives. If I were you, I don't think I could call him a liar if I wasn't there."

Which is also ridiculous, because Soufan knows what info they got and he says what Rodriguez said is a lie that the right is putting out to justify torture under Bush. And of course O'Reilly supports and defends it, because he is a biased Republican who is covering for Bush and the torture he approved.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about a New York court that dismissed child porn charges against a college professor, declaring it perfectly legal to watch child pornography on the Internet.

Kelly said this: "The judges are focused on the language of the statute, and in New York State to be guilty of possessing child pornography you have to actually 'possess' it. So if you download or save it, you're guilty, but if it's just in the cache of your computer, that doesn't qualify. The New York legislature needs to revise the law, which is thirty years old."

Kelly also assessed the prosecution's case against former Senator John Edwards, who is accused of illegally misusing campaign funds, saying this: "They presented a solid case and could get a conviction. The prosecution needed to prove that he knew about the payments that were being made to his mistress and that the payments were meant to hide the affair from the American public."

And finally Martha MacCallum and Steve Doocy were on for the total waste of time Factor News Quiz, that I do not report on because it's nonsense. But I will say this, MacCallum and Doocy are idiots, they work for a news network and they still get most of the questions wrong.

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

Fox Now Asking If Drop In Gas Prices Is A Bad Thing
By: Steve - May 11, 2012 - 10:00am

If you wanted a perfect example of right-wing bias (by Fox News against President Obama) you could not find a better example than this.

For months and months Fox News has hyped the rise in gasoline prices, blaming President Obama even though experts agree that worldwide market factors, not U.S. policies, set gas prices. So what is Fox saying now that gas prices are falling?

They are asking if the drop in gas prices is a good or a bad thing. Really? Are they serious, yes they are, because they are biased right-wing hacks.

Stuart Varney, the Fox Business host, tried to explain the claim that the recent gas price drop might be "BAD," saying it may be "just a sign of a weakening economy."

The Wall Street Journal reported that one of the reasons for the drop in gas prices was the "softening economies in the U.S. and Europe," along with easing tensions in Iran and changes in the oil market.

Note that Fox is now raising how worldwide economic factors are affecting gas prices, after spending weeks blaming Obama for the price increase since the president's inauguration.

Fox won't explain that the extremely low price in January 2009 was a short-lived drop caused by the massive economic recession. In fact, last week on Fox News, Varney explicitly said with a straight face that the price increase since the bottom of the recession had "everything to do with" Obama, but the recent drop in gas prices "has nothing to do with" him.

Which is the exact same thing O'Reilly does on the stock market reporting. When the market drops O'Reilly blames Obama and says wall street does not like his liberal policies. But when the market goes up O'Reilly does not give Obama credit for it, in fact, he ignores it and does not even report the increases. He also fails to mention the DOW is up 6,000 points since Obama took office. Not once has O'Reilly reported it.

And btw, Varney said the exact opposite during the 2011 price spike, acknowledging that "higher gas prices are the result of the expanding global economy and turmoil in the Middle East," not Obama's drilling policies.

This isn't the only issue on which Varney -- who has admitted that he is "very partisan" -- reversed himself recently. It's almost as if there's something different about 2012 that would make Fox's purported economic analyst revise his commentary.

Fox Hosts Conservative Who Said Women Should Not Vote
By: Steve - May 11, 2012 - 9:00am

Back in March Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson gave a sermon in which he spent 10 minutes lecturing his audience about how women have destroyed America. Lee is a radical Republican pastor who says that allowing women to vote was one of the greatest mistakes that America made.

Look at every place where a women is in control, said Peterson. You see nothing but confusion. Theres no good in it at all, none.

Petersons sermon began with comments about Sandra Fluke, doubling down on Rush Limbaughs slut remarks. But halfway through his speech, he said women are evil:
PETERSON: I think that one of the greatest mistakes that America made was to allow women the opportunity to vote. We should have never turned that over to women.

It was a big mistake, these women are voting in the wrong people. Theyre voting in people who are evil, who agree with them. Men in the good old days understood the nature of the women, they were not afraid to deal with them.

Wherever women are taking over, evil reigns.
Then just last week, Sean Hannity, who even sits on the board of Petersons group BOND: Brotherhood Organization for a New Destiny, invited him to sit on his Great American Panel once again to discuss the presidents comments on the one-year anniversary of the death of Osama bin Laden.

But the conversation never quite made it that far. Because Kirsten Powers, a Democratic Fox News columnist and political analyst, abandoned the segment to hit back against Peterson and his anti-women views, over the objections of Hannity who wanted to spend his time attacking President Obama.

For two minutes, Powers and Peterson exchanged barbs while Hannity and the third panelist, Indiana state Treasurer Richard Mourdock (R), sat quietly on the sidelines. Powers told Hannity that she had no idea Peterson would be a guest on the show alongside her, and invited him to repudiate Petersons remarks (and Hannity declined).

Peterson has made appearances on Fox News for years, fielding frequent invites from Hannity in particular despite Petersons history of hateful comments.

And its not like Hannity had no warning. Peterson has previously said he thanks God for slavery, because had it not, the blacks that are here would have been stuck in Africa.

He also called the victims of Hurricane Katrina welfare-pampered, lazy, and immoral.

And while Powers was outraged at Fox News decision to offer Lee a national platform, Hannity was unapologetic, quickly shutting down the discussion and moving on to his normal agenda of attacking the president.

Peterson was also a regular on the Glenn Beck show when it was on Fox. And of course you never hear a word about any of this from O'Reilly, but if Peterson was on MSNBC or CNN O'Reilly would be all over it like white on rice.




The Wednesday 5-9-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 10, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The Factor responds to criticism from a local Norfolk TV station. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: We have been reporting about a mob attack in Norfolk, Virginia that may have been racially motivated. Only one arrest has been made, despite the fact that scores of people witnessed the assault, and a number of people have said the attacks were in retaliation for the Trayvon Martin case.

We knew that some in Norfolk would try to hurt us for reporting all of that, and the spear point for that is Norfolk's NBC affiliate WAVY-TV. Instead of joining us in trying to get justice for the crime victims, instead of trying to figure out why a mob of young black Americans would attack two innocent people, the TV station says 'Bill O'Reilly is at it again.' Yeah, I am! I'd like to see justice in the case.

We asked WAVY News Director Jim Gilchriest to appear tonight, but he is hiding under his desk and wedged in. So let me ask you, Mr. Gilchriest: If two WAVY reporters were beaten by a mob, would you not try to get to the bottom of it? There you go!
So then O'Reilly had Bishop E. W. Jackson on to agree with him, he is a black Virginian who is currently running for the U.S. Senate as a Republican.

Jackson said this: "I absolutely think the crime was racially motivated. Imagine if a white mob attacked two blacks and someone said it wasn't racial because there were no epithets hurled. Would anybody buy that? Of course not! I think there was racial motivation based on the reporting you've done and what I've heard in the street."

Asked to explain the racial animus, Jackson placed the blame squarely on white liberal paternalism, saying this: "I've been working for thirty years on this, we are perpetrating a horrible crime against the black community by teaching young people that all of their problems are the result of what white people have done. This false idea is perpetrated and all too many of them act out. Every leader ought to be saying this is wrong, but what you hear is deafening silence."

Then the Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli was on to lay out the state's options in the Norfolk beatings, saying this: "The law in Virginia, leaves the responsibility for the investigation and prosecution with the local police and the local district attorney. I do not have any legal authority to step in and intervene in this case."

Cuccinelli also said this: "There are two investigations going on locally right now, if there is any indication that it is a cover up instead of an investigation, then the state police could conduct their own investigation. We have to let this play out, you are on a news cycle, but we are trying to build a good case against more than one person."

O'Reilly said that local authorities may not be up to the job: "The two victims say the Norfolk police are not interested in solving this case. You can see why people might feel the need to have another agency in there."

Then Dick Morris was on to talk about Obama, after years of saying marriage should be between a man and a woman, President Obama has now concluded that "same sex couples should be able to marry."

Morris said this: "He gets the worst of both possible worlds, because he also said 'states have the right to do whatever they want.' So he's not going to appease the gay community, which is one of the four major funders of the Democratic Party, but he will marginalize himself with the rest of the country. This guy is painting himself into a far left corner with these populist attacks and the positions he's taking."

Then the former Saturday Night Live star Jon Lovitz, who has lashed out at President Obama's "tax the rich" rhetoric, explained why he used very harsh terms to castigate the President.

Lovitz said this: "I was in my own comedy club, and the nature of a comedy club is that you're open and honest, you basically say how you feel. I'm just a mouse compared to the President of the United States and in a comedy club people talk like this all the time. I respect the guy and what he's achieved, but on this issue I think he's not being honest and it makes me angry. This whole '1% vs. 99%' is pitting Americans against each other."

Lovitz also added that most of his Hollywood pals feel exactly the same way, saying this: "Almost everybody agrees with me. Most of my friends are Democrats, I'm a Democrat, but they agree that this is a divisive way to appeal to the masses to get votes."

Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on because he is a comedian who only does jokes about liberals, with no liberal comedian on to make jokes about conservatives.

And finally Juliet Huddy was on to talk about Ashton Kutcher, who has come under fire for darkening his face to play an Indian guy in a commercial for a snack food. Huddy said this: "The company had to pull this, because there were people out there who were apparently offended because it was perpetuating a stereotype. He played a perfectly decent character but some people complained. The ad is getting a lot of attention. I didn't know what Popchips are and now I do."

Huddy also focused on the group that put up a billboard featuring 'Unabomber' Ted Kaczynski, saying this: "This was created by a libertarian think tank called the Heartland Institute - they were saying that murderers and madmen like Kaczynski believe in global warming. People were very offended by this and they had to take it down."

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

Dick Morris Violates Journalistic Standards Again
By: Steve - May 10, 2012 - 10:00am

And the worst part about it is that Bill O'Reilly never says a word about any of it. But if anyone at CNN or MSNBC do anything wrong, O'Reilly reports it and calls for them to be fired.

On the Monday 5-7-12 Sean Hannity show Morris used his Fox appearance to "Urge Defeat Of Sen. Lugar without disclosing Lugar's opponent paid him."



And btw folks, Morris is a regular on the Factor, but O'Reilly never reports any of his journalistic violations, ever. Even though he does a weekly media bias segment with Bernie Goldberg.

Only 500 People Show Up For Romney Campaign Stop
By: Steve - May 10, 2012 - 9:00am

Remember when O'Reilly and the right said that Obama failed when he drew 14,000 people to his Ohio rally?

Well Monday Mitt Romney showed us what failure really is by drawing 500 people to his Ohio event.

Cleveland.com wrote this: Before Romney began his town hall forum at Stamco Industries, Ohio Auditor Dave Yost dismissed the killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden as an Obama accomplishment. A Romney backer, Yost told a crowd of more than 500 that giving the president credit for bin Ladens death would be like giving Ronald McDonald credit for the Big Mac you had for lunch. Everyone knows its the man working the griddle, not the man on TV.

The Romney people also called the crowd estimated at anywhere between 300-700, A great turnout.

Romney couldnt even fill up 1,000 chairs for a town hall meeting. The campaign claimed 700 people were there. The low end estimate was 300, and the truth is probably closer to the 500 that the media reported.

Romneys crowd looks just like the crowds that showed up for John McCains events in 2008, except for the fact that McCain drew more people. The Republican nominee cant fill up 1000 seats for a town hall in a swing state that the media claims is in play.

This is not a good sign for the Republican Party. With the exception of the convention, enthusiasm for Romney may never be higher. Yet, his people are excited because 500 Obama haters showed up to hear him speak?

The Tuesday 5-8-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 9, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Why the media and politicians fear African Americans. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As we have been reporting, a vicious crime in Norfolk, Virginia is being stonewalled by the media and the police investigation seems chaotic. Two reporters for the Virginian-Pilot newspaper were beaten by a mob of African American young people, but the newspaper did not report the crime.

In addition, the reporters have filed charges against the Norfolk police, alleging the cops did not do enough to make arrests. Just one minor has been arrested, despite the fact that scores of people witnessed the violence. The national media has also ignored the story, possibly because it has heavily racial implications.

What's really going on here? There are 39-million African Americans in the USA, 13% of the population. 27% of African Americans live below the poverty line and 72% of black mothers give birth outside of marriage, which is a huge poverty driver. There is no question that the United States has not treated blacks well throughout its history and we are still having trouble with equality.

The truth is, African Americans are treated differently by the powerful. On last night's Factor, Bernie Goldberg said the media is ignoring the story in Norfolk because of paternalism, they don't want the nation to know that a mob of young black people beat up a woman and her date.

Virginia authorities are searching for a way to deal with the mess, and tomorrow Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli will be here. Those thugs who attacked the reporters have to be held responsible.
Then the right-wing Fox News contributor Santita Jackson was on to add her perspective to the Norfolk case. Jackson said this: "We pay far more attention to intra-racial violence in this country than inter-racial violence, but I don't feel that the media or other people are afraid of black people. We've had long-simmering tensions and we have to dissect these tensions so we can correct them. We do not pay enough attention to violence in this country, we have not had a real conversation."

O'Reilly then reminded Jackson that her father, Jesse Jackson, has been silent about the Norfolk beatings, saying this: "If your father and Al Sharpton and other black leaders would go to Norfolk and stand in that neighborhood and say, 'this isn't going to stand, we want justice for all,' do you know how much that would help to heal? But we don't see them there!"

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are spokesman for the rights of black people you fool, they have not and should not do or say anything about a few black guys beating up a couple of white people.

Then Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Muslim cleric who was behind the proposed mosque near Ground Zero, explained why he is no longer associated with the project. Rauf said this: "We had differences of opinion on the vision. My vision is for a multi-faith center where people of all religions can come together and build understanding and respect and peace."

Rauf also said that the mosque was in no way intended to be disrespectful, saying this: "When 9/11 happened, we were as much victims as all the people who suffered. Our current mosque is overcrowded we were looking for space, and this is the space that we found. I am here, Bill, because you said that if I came on your show and condemned terrorism, you would raise a hammer and help us build this center." O'Reilly said he would to lend a hand, saying this: "I like the community center vision, just move it a couple of blocks away."

Then John Stossel, who has been examining celebrities and their charities, was on with his so-called findings. Stossel said this: "Charity Navigator ranks charities, and Larry King's Cardiac Foundation gets the lowest rating. 26% of their money goes to fund-raising and their documents are not available on the website. Garth Brooks' charity has low accountability and doesn't make financial statements available. Andre Agassi, whose charity supports inner-city education, also has high fund-raising expenses and low accountability."

Stossel also identified a couple of other misguided or misled celebrities, saying this: "Jay-Z has made a cool half-billion from his talent, but he gave just $6,400 to his own scholarship fund in 2010. And Madonna raised $3.8 million for a school in Malawi that never got built."

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to talk about Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat running against Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts, who claimed to be part American Indian. And how this is a legal issue is beyond me.

Wiehl said this" "From 1984 to 1995, she checked a box saying she is part Native American. She says she was doing it for professional and social reasons, and people at Harvard who hired her say they didn't even know she was Native American."

But Guilfoyle cast some doubt on Warren's claim, saying this: "She says she's 1/32nd Indian, but the genealogical society that investigated this couldn't verify anything." And once again, how is this a legal issue O'Reilly? Answer: It's not, it's just a partisan hit job by 3 Republicans on the Democratic Elizabeth Warren.

O'Reilly then outlined why this controversy is worth exploring, saying this: " It's a serious matter if you're operating in high academic circles and then run for the United States Senate and knowingly put forth that you're a member of an ethic group and you're not. The truth is that we don't know."

And finally the far-right spin doctor Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about Vice President Biden saying he is "absolutely comfortable" with same sex marriage, but President Obama has been straddling the issue. O'Dummy asked Krauthammer if social issues will play a major role in the campaign.

Krauthammer said this: "I think they will be some factor, but the dominant factor will be the economy. I find it quite clever what has happened within the administration, they are telling the American people with a wink and a nod that of course they'll support gay marriage. The only debate in the administration is whether to say it now or after Election Day. The reason he's not saying it now is because he has some worries about parts of his constituency."

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

More Proof President Obama Is Not Anti-Business
By: Steve - May 9, 2012 - 10:00am

A favorite conservative attack on President Obama by O'Reilly and his right-wing friends is that his policies (and even his personality) amount to an assault on American businesses.

One of those right-wing liars is Gary Shapiro, president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association. Shapiro said this:
SHAPIRO: President Obama himself is the most anti-business president in my lifetime. With rhetoric not befitting a president he has attacked oil companies, banks, airplane users, Wall Street and anyone who makes money.
But according to the latest data, President Obama has been very good for Americas businesses. Last year, the Fortune 500 made a record $824 billion, topping the previous record set before the Great Recession:
The Fortune 500 generated a total of $824.5 billion in earnings last year, up 16.4% over 2010. That beats the previous record of $785 billion, set in 2006 during a roaring economy. The 2011 profits are outsized based on two key historical metrics.

They represent 7% of total sales, vs. an average of 5.14% over the 58-year history of the Fortune 500. Companies are also garnering exceptional returns on their capital. The 500 achieved a return-on-equity of 14.3%, far above the historical norm of 12%.
And of course, that return to pre-recession level earnings hasnt translated into job or wage growth for Americas workers. In fact, inflation-adjusted wages fell last year.

Big companies are also squeezing more productivity out of their workers, with annual revenue generated per worker increasing by more than $40,000 over the last five years. CEO pay, meanwhile, increased 15 percent last year.

This data also puts the lie to the O'Reilly claim that corporate tax cuts will spur businesses to hire. If all it took were extra cash, businesses would be hiring like crazy. However, they are clearly not doing so, and the effective corporate tax rate is already at a forty year low.

Secret Republican Group Trying To Swift Boat Obama
By: Steve - May 9, 2012 - 9:00am

A secretive right-wing group, Veterans For A Strong America, is attempting to do to President Obama what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did to Sen. John Kerry. And they arent shy about it.

The groups leader and sole employee, Joel Arends, told Mother Jones, Yes, its the swift boating of the president. And of course O'Reilly does not say a word about them, because he is for Romney and he does not want you to know what they are doing.

Arends said his goal is to take whats percieved to be Obama's greatest strength the successful raid on Osama Bin Ladens Pakistani compound and make it his greatest weekend. The effort started this week with a web video attacking Obama for taking too much credit.

In an interview with ThinkProgress, Arends refused to discuss any information regarding how the group was financed or its leadership. Arends also declined to provide legal forms he claims to have filed with the IRS. A representative from the IRS told ThinkProgress that the agency does not have any forms from Arends group on file.

Heres what we know about Arends and Veterans For A Strong America:
1. In four days, the first ad by Veterans For A Strong America garnered almost 1 million view on Youtube. It has also been played frequently on TV News. [YouTube, 5/1/12]

2. Veterans For A Strong America is seeking to recruit Navy SEALS to attack Obama. In the wake of a warm conservative reception for a web video trashing the president for spiking the football on the anniversary of Osama Bin Ladens death, the conservative group Veterans for a Strong America plans to gather Navy SEALs and Special Forces operators to criticize the White House during the 2012 campaign. [BuzzFeed, 5/3/12]

3. Arends also tried to Swift Boat Obama in 2008. Arends, under the auspices of a similar group called Vets for Freedom, ran an ad accusing Obama of refusing to meet with wounded soldiers from Illinois. [NPR, 7/5/08]

4. Arends worked as a consultant for the Koch Brothers Americans for Properity. Though he doesnt list it on his public resume, around 2006 Arends went to work for Craig Dewey, the state director of Americans for Prosperity, an advocacy outfit thats Astroturfed everything from the tea party and the Wisconsin union fight to public-school segregation. The Koch Brothers and their allies have pledged to spend $100 million to defeat Obama. [Mother Jones, 5/4/12; HuffingtonPost, 2/3/12]

5. In 2008, Arends posing as a journalist organized and participated in a taxpayer subsidized propaganda trip to Iraq. American taxpayers are paying for politically slanted, pro-McCain, anti-Obama reporters embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq.

6. Vets for Freedom a pro-war organization that buys attack ads against Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama assembled a team of eight military veterans with dubious journalistic credentials to report objectively on what is occurring in Iraq. Joel Arends, another reporter, is VFFs executive director and was on McCains campaign payroll between March 2007 and February 2008. [Charleston Gazette, 8/28/08]

7. Arends is coordinating with key Islamophobic figures on the far-right. He regularly appears at events with anti-Islam conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney, who has been condemned by mainstream conservatives for his intolerant views. He is also alligned with William Jerry Boykin, who was found to have violated Pentagon rules by expressing his anti-Muslim views in an official capacity. [ThinkProgress, 2/12/12; For The Common Defense; New York Times, 3/4/05]

8. Arends helped promote a documentary advocating war with Iran. Arends appeared on a panel in South Dakoa promoting the documentary Iranium, which strongly suggests beginning a war with Iran, in March 2011. [Flier; ThinkProgress, 11/3/11]

9. Veterans for A Strong American is fully endorsed by Karl Rove. The man known as Bushs Brain tweeted his support of their first web ad. [Twitter, 5/3/12]
And it is working, its web ad was aired nationally, for free, on ABCs This Week. Many members of the political round-table then echoed Arends talking points on Obama and Bin Laden. The Monday 5-7-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 8, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Bias crime cover-up in Virginia. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Last week we reported on a bias assault in Norfolk that left two newspaper reporters injured. On April 14th, Marjon Rostami and David Forster were driving home when someone threw a rock at their vehicle. Mr. Forster got out to confront the assailant and was set upon by approximately five African-American young men who beat him.

The thugs then attacked Ms. Rostami as a crowd of about thirty surrounded the vehicle and witnessed the assault. The initial police report described the assault as a 'bias crime,' but now the Norfolk police say it was not. How could that be possible? The newspaper the reporters work for, the Virginian-Pilot, didn't cover the story for two weeks, and editor Denis Finley told Jesse Watters 'there was no evidence that it was a racial attack.'

Here's some advice to Mr. Finley: It's your job to find out if it was racially motivated, you don't sit around wondering and ignoring the story. It gets even more disturbing ?" the victims have received death threats and now have security guards providing protection. Despite all this, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says his office will not intervene or even provide oversight.

We find that apathy troubling, so we called Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, who said this afternoon that he will take a look at the case.

Finally, unlike the Trayvon Martin situation, which the national media aggressively covered, The Factor is the only national news program reporting this story. Yes, Trayvon was killed and these reporters are alive, but it is inconceivable that had a white mob set upon two black Americans the media would sit it out. But that's what's happening in the Virginia case.
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, there is no evidence it was racial, what part of that do you not understand. And how can you keep comparing this to Trayvon Martin when nobody got killed, and it was a 1 on 1, not a 5 on 1. The two cases have nothing to do with each other, just because one guy says it was revenge for Trayvon does not make it true. You are speculating it is true, which is something you never claim to do.

Then Jesse Watters, who spent time in Norfolk investigating the case was on. Watters said this: "The reporters have healed from their injuries, but they're still incredibly shaken up. He knows he shouldn't have exited the vehicle and he feels a little emasculated because he was beaten up in front of his girlfriend. She's livid at the local press, which is taking everything from the police report and discounting the eyewitness testimony from these two reporters."

Watters also theorized why the reporters have received death threats, saying this: "I think there's a lot of racial animosity in Norfolk. This story didn't come out for two weeks and then it exploded like a powder keg. One of the kids I interviewed told me they target white people because it gives them street cred."

Then the biased far-right spin doctor Bernie Goldberg was on, he said why most national media outlets have totally ignored the story. With nobody to counter what he said, so it was a biased one sided segment.

Goldberg said this: "This is about white paternalism. They say, well, we can't really hold black people to the same standards as white people. The media doesn't want to air dirty laundry that could be embarrassing to the black community and they don't want to give ammunition to bigots. We detest the bigots, but a newspaper has a responsibility to cover legitimate news. Do you know why the editor of the Virginian-Pilot hasn't found out yet if it's racially motivated? Because he doesn't want to find out!"

Hey Goldberg, maybe they just hate the media and the black kids wanted to get some street cred by beating them uo, did you ever think about that you moron. Not to mention if they do not get out of the car there is no beating.

O'Reilly cried about the overall lack of interest in the story, saying this: "The national media all know this by now, and if this were reversed it would be covered by every show on MSNBC."

Then the two Republicans Col. David Hunt and Lt. Col. Ralph Peters were on to talk about the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other men is underway at Guantanamo Bay.

Peters said this: "These terrorists are having a ball. They're enjoying exploiting the system, their lawyers are helping them, and this is a tremendous propaganda opportunity. The bottom line is that they should have never made it to Gitmo. When you're confronted with terrorists, you interrogate them, get rid of them, and never let the public know you have them."

Col. Hunt criticized the female defense attorney who asked that all women in the courtroom be forced to dress very modestly, so as not to offend the Islamic prisoners, saying this: "This is a farce, she's being an ass, and it's never going to happen. These people should have been tried, found guilty and executed over eight years ago."

Then Juan Williams and Michelle Fields were on to talk about Vice President Joe Biden saying he is "absolutely comfortable" with same-sex marriage, apparently putting him at odds with the official administration position.

O'Reilly asked Fields and Williams if President Obama will endorse gay marriage prior to the election. Williams said this: "No he won't. There is nothing to be gained by doing it before the election. He says his position is 'evolving,' so the signal has been sent to gays and that community knows where he stands."

Fields agreed that President Obama won't make any abrupt moves before November, saying this: "There's no way he's going to endorse gay marriage. If he did, it would really energize the conservative base and they will come out to vote. It would also alienate Hispanics and African Americans, and all this President cares about is getting reelected."

O'Reilly complained about the ruse, saying this: "Everybody knows that President Obama is fine with gay marriage, this is a charade."

Then Brit Hume was on to talk about a new poll that shows Mitt Romney with a 10-point lead over President Obama among independents; meanwhile, former Democratic Party boss Howard Dean is demonizing Republicans as anti-woman and anti-Hispanic.

Hume said this: "This is what you expect from Howard Dean. This is partisan hockey from a guy who's noted for such talk. The President himself has not been making a very vocal defense of his record, the results haven't been very good and everybody knows that. My own sense of all this is that the ten-point divide among independents is very important. If you win independents by a ten-point margin, you're going to win the election!"

And finally O'Reilly had the Factor Reality Check. O'Reilly actually listed the concerts he plans to see, and my question is this: How in the hell is that a reality check on anything.

Then the highly edited Factor mail, and the lame as ever pinheads and patriots nonsense. And btw, O'Reilly named Charles Barkley the pinhead for simply saying Obama will beat Romney in November.

He said Barkley should not mix politics and sports. But notice that he never says a word when someone in sports says anything about Obama losing, he only slams people that say something about Romney losing.

And it was not anything bad, Barkley simply said Romney is going down in November, after his face was put on tv at a basketball game. So naming him a pinhead for that was just stupid.

Gay Bush Ambassador Slams Romney Campaign
By: Steve - May 8, 2012 - 10:00am

Despite efforts by Mitt Romney and his campaign to put to bed the controversy over their roles in the resignation which occurred under pressure from right-wing groups of openly gay foreign policy spokesman Richard Grenell, the flap continues.

Yesterday, the Washington Post published an op-ed by Michael Guest, an openly gay diplomat who was appointed U.S. Ambassador to Romania by Republican President George W. Bush. Guest laments in the piece that the Republican Partys leadership allows principles of fairness and equality to be hollowed out.

He wrote this:
Romneys slowness to comment amid the noise since Grenells resignation raises questions about his principles, as well as the quality and depth of his leadership. Thats what should concern us most in this sad affair.

We should expect Romney to go further in making clear that issues of sexual orientation will have no bearing on any personnel decisions he makes, whether in his campaign or, should he be elected, in the administration he would lead.
Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of GOProud a group more focused on encouraging LGBT voters to back Republicans than on encouraging Republicans to back LGBT equality echoed these criticisms. In a break from the groups usual GOP unity message, he told the Post this on Thursday:
The Romney campaign should have spoken up publicly in defense of Rick against the attacks over the past two weeks. This was an opportunity to send an important message that Mitt Romney wants everybody to get behind him and to support his campaign. They let that opportunity pass.
Log Cabin Republican Executive Director R. Clarke Duncan and former Bush adviser Mark McKinnon have also called out the Romney campaign for not standing up for Grenell and have encouraged the apparent GOP nominee to take steps to stop employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

In 1994, Romney promised to co-sponsor a federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act and claimed hed be a better advocate for gay and lesbian citizens than Sen. Ted Kennedy. But by 2007, Romney etch a sketched his position and no longer saw a need for a federal employment non-discrimination law.

So LaSalvia, Duncan, and McKinnon are left lamenting that 2012 General Election Mitt Romney and his campaigns cowardly handling of the Grenell situation is much more 2007 Mitt than 1994 Mitt.

Clinton Labor Secretary Schools O'Reilly & Mitt Romney
By: Steve - May 7, 2012 - 11:00am

O'Reilly basically says the same thing Romney does, and he says it almost every night, lower taxes on the rich and cut Government spending. And that spending they want to cut only cuts aid to the poor. They do not want any cuts that help the rich get richer.

Speaking in Pittsburgh yesterday, Mitt Romney said that anything over 4% [unemployment] is not cause for celebration. The United States last achieved a sub-4% unemployment rate in December 2000, the end of President Clintons term. On Twitter, Robert Reich, the Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, reminded Romney how America got to 4% unemployment and created 22 million news jobs in 8 years:
REICH: Rom says unemp shld be 4%. I was sec of lab last time it was 4%. We got there by raising taxes on rich and investing in ed and infrstructre.
Romney on the other hand, is proposing the exact opposite. His tax plan would give massive tax cuts to the rich. (The top 0.1% for example, would recieved a $264,000 tax cut.)

Meanwhile, in a closed-door fundraiser, Romney revealed he planned to make massive reductions in education spending. He is also proposing cutting funding for infrastructure, including the possible elimination of the Department of Housing and Urban development.

Romneys comments also do not reflect well on Ronald Reagan, who Romney now says he wants to emulate. The average yearly unemployment rate exceeded 7% for most of his presidency and never dropped below 5.5%.

Fox News Is Using Secret Romney Political Advisors
By: Steve - May 7, 2012 - 10:00am

And the problem is this, they do not tell you they are advising the Romney campaign, there is no disclosure. And if MSNBC did this with liberals and Obama O'Reilly would lose his mind and call for them to be fired or have the disclosure. But when Fox does it he says nothing, zero, zip, nada.

Fox News has repeatedly hosted advisers to Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney without disclosing that they are helping his campaign. Advisers John Bolton, Jay Sekulow, and Walid Phares, have all appeared on Fox News and criticized the Obama administration.

Bolton and Phares are Fox News contributors, while Sekulow is a frequent Fox News guest.

-- Bolton, a Romney foreign policy adviser, said on Fox News that Obama's foreign policy is "confused and incoherent and incompetent" and defended Romney's foreign policy experience.

-- Sekulow, a Romney legal adviser, has repeatedly appeared on Fox to attack the Obama administration on a variety of legal issues.

-- Phares, a member of Romney's foreign policy and national security advisory team, has criticized the Obama administration's handling of Syria and Afghanistan on Fox.

Fox News routinely violates journalistic ethics. Last week, I reported that Fox News has aggressively promoted Karl Rove's Super PAC American Crossroads, without disclosing Rove's connection to either American Crossroads or Fox News.

The Friday 5-4-12 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - May 5, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: "VA newspaper takes a shot at The Factor over its coverage of Norfolk assault." The insane far-right loon Laura Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: We've been covering a vicious assault that took place in Norfolk, Virginia. Two reporters for the Virginian-Pilot. Marjon Rostami and Dave Forster were driving home when a mob of African American men descended on their car. Apparently someone threw a rock at the car and Mr. Forster got out to confront the attacker.

He was attacked and so was Ms. Rostami, but their own newspaper did not report the story for two weeks! The Factor has been critical of the Virginian-Pilot and believes it did not cover the story because of its racial component.

Well, today a Virginian-Pilot columnist shot back at The Factor, complaining that the paper has been 'kicked in the head by everyone from Fox's Bill O'Reilly to hundreds of our readers, the reaction has been obscenely overblown.'

Shockingly, some local residents don't seem surprised at all by the attack. One young man actually declared that the two reporters 'shouldn't have been there.
Now here is my question, what kind of idiot gets out of their car to confront 5 black guys who just hit your car with a rock. Any moron that does that deserves to get beat up.

Then Ingraham had the right-wing radio host Dave Parker on to speculate whether the assault was motivated by racial animus.

Parker said this: "We know is there were no racial slurs hurled at these two reporters, but the feelings that have been expressed have been vehement and quite loud that there were some racial overtones. And there are some things about this story that don't make sense, the two reporters say their car was surrounded by thirty people, but the police say there were only five people. I would trust the veracity of the reporters who were there over the investigators who were not there."

Ingraham pointed to the obvious double standard at play, saying this: "Let's say a group of thirty white kids attacked two African American individuals and a news organizations weren't reporting on it. I have a feeling the outrage would be expressed quite vehemently."

First, it was 5 guys not 30, and second the Travyon Martin story was not reported on for a month, so there is no hypocrisy or any double standard.

Then Stephen Moore and Christian Dorsey were on to talk about April's unemployment rate that fell to 8.1%. Dorsey, the liberal who is calling for a massive government jobs program said this: "We're not out of ideas, it's just we're out of political will. We've waited a long time for the private sector to generate the jobs necessary to make this a real recovery, but it hasn't happened. The time is way past due to directly create jobs so we can actually get to the business of restoring our fiscal footing."

Moore called that a recipe for disaster, saying this: "We have thrown everything we've got in terms of government spending. We had the stimulus, mortgage modification programs, cash-for-clunkers, and more. That deluge of government spending simply has not worked, and I would actually cut back on the spending."

Then James Hirsen and Democratic strategist Chris Hahn were on to talk about an Obama fundraiser. George Clooney will host a fund-raiser that will rake in an estimated $12 million for the President's campaign. And of course Ingraham and the right hate it, even though it's perfectly legal.

Hahn said this: "George Clooney is a humanitarian who travels the world for good causes, and I think it's perfectly appropriate for the President to go out there and raise money. This is going to be a very expensive election and the President has to get all the funds he can to fight back against negative campaigning by Mitt Romney."

Hirsen described Hollywood as a de facto branch of the Democratic Party, saying this: "Hollywood has been a consistent cash cow for the Democrats, and what Chris just stated is the pitch, that it's going to be a close election and we need your checkbooks. But the President has to be careful with his photo-ops and slow-jamming with Jimmy Fallon. This attempt to regain the 'cool factor' can undermine the seriousness of the office."

Then Geraldo was on to talk about the tan mom, which is not real news so I did not report on it. In the next segment Ingraham played a re-run interview O'Reilly did with Monica Novoa about conservatives calling Mexicans illegal aliens.

And finally Leslie Marshall and Janine Turner were on to say if it's fair to criticize Michelle Obama and Ann Romney.

Marshall said this: "I am not in favor of candidates' wives or husbands or children being attacked. They did not sign up for this, they're not running for office, and they don't dictate policy."

But Turner argued that criticism comes with the territory, saying this: "When you're a president's wife or a potential president's wife, you're in a glass house. Everything you do and everything you wear is going to be critiqued, whether it's Michelle Obama's $2,000 sweater or Ann Romney's $800 shirt."

Ingraham said that a spouse becomes fair game when he or she takes a stand on policy matters: "Michelle Obama was at a fundraiser this week talking about her husband's health care bill, so she has put herself out there as a policy advocate. When you do that you can't expect to be shielded from political criticism."

Then the ridiculous pinheads and patriots garbage, where Ingraham defended Ted Nugent saying the f-word and other things, she actually said he was winning, whatever that means.

Ingraham Defends Profanity Filled Ted Nugent Rant
By: Steve - May 5, 2012 - 10:00am

According to Laura Ingraham, Ted Nugent was "winning" when he started yelling at a CBS News reporter and made sexually explicit comments during an interview that aired on May 4.

The National Rifle Association board member and Washington Times columnist blew up at CBS Jeff Glor when he raised the suggestion that Nugent will have a hard time attracting moderate voters for presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. Nugent responded by citing his charity work with children, and said this:
NUGENT: Call me, when you meet someone who does that more than I do. Because that's really moderate. In fact, you know what that is? That's extreme.

I'm an extremely loving, passionate man, and people who investigate me honestly, without the baggage of political correctness, ascertain the conclusion that I'm a damned nice guy.

And if you can find a screening process more powerful than that, I'll suck your d--k.
Turning to a female producer off-camera, Nugent shouted: "Or I'll f--k you. How's that sound?"

Ingraham highlighted Nugent's comments while guest-hosting for Bill O'Reilly's show, which includes the nightly "Pinheads & Patriots" segment.

After playing Nugent's comments, with the inflammatory parts beeped out, Ingraham said this: "Winning" -- which is a reference to a quote by the crazy actor Charlie Sheen.

Ingraham went on to say this: "Well, Nugent apologized off camera and he said after the interview that he was rushed to the emergency room and had a kidney stone removed."

She also added this: "You can decide if the rocker's a pinhead or a patriot for those remarks."

In the past few weeks, pinheads have included NBC News Andrea Mitchell, who O'Reilly accused of "slanting" the news by seeming to be "crossing over into the liberal precincts lately." Her so-called "slanting" was this:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC NEWS: What do you think of the Republican criticism that we are politicizing -- the White House, I should say, is politicizing it with the Obama ad which focuses on this in part and all the events around today?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: "We," Ms. Mitchell? We? A mouse in your pocket?
Then on April 26, O'Reilly named Doonesbury comic strip creator Gary Trudeau a "pinhead" for a strip critical of Fox News coverage of the news.

On April 17, O'Reilly named the Liberal Bob Beckel a "pinhead" for cursing (saying the F-word) on the air on Sean Hannity's Fox show while defending the Head Start program, then refusing to apologize for it.

O'Reilly said this: "Obviously, Beckel was a pinhead last night. I think he knows it. But he -- he's not a professional broadcaster so sometimes that happens."

Now that's funny, somehow in O'Reillyworld he is a professional broadcaster but Bob Beckel is not.

And the crazy far-right loon Laura Ingraham has refused to weigh in on similar controversial comments by conservatives in the past. On the November 10, 2011, O'Reilly Factor, Ingraham highlighted Herman Cain's disparaging remark about House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and asked this: "So, is Cain a pinhead or a patriot for calling former Speaker Pelosi 'Princess Nancy'? You make the call."

Basically, with O'Reilly and Ingraham you are a pinhead if you say a curse word, but only if you are a liberal. If a conservative does it they are either praised or they say nothing at all about them.

The Thursday 5-3-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 4, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: A racial attack in Virginia raises questions of obstruction of justice. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Last night we reported that two journalists working for the Virginian-Pilot newspaper were assaulted in Norfolk by a group of black men. Marjon Rostami and Dave Forster were stopped at a light when someone threw a rock at their car.

When Forster got out of the car to confront the assailant, he was beaten. Rostami called 9-1-1 and then she was beaten by the men. The couple had to get medical attention and missed a week of work. But incredibly, the Virginian-Pilot didn't cover the story until two weeks later!

We believe the paper avoided covering the story because of its racial component, but consider what would have happened had a mob of white men descended on a car and beat up a black man and woman. I don't have to say any more, you know what would happen.

So why is this case any different? Why isn't it getting national coverage; why isn't the Justice Department on the scene? A bias crime is a bias crime, no matter what skin color is involved. The Justice Department has so far ignored our request for comments, but Attorney General Holder has a responsibility to look into the situation and we will hold Holder to that.

This is a major story, we can not have Americans of any color being set upon by violent mobs. The Factor will continue to demand justice in Virginia.
So then Tavis Smiley was on to compare the Norfolk beating to the Trayvon Martin killing in Florida. Smiley said this: "I think this is a tragic moment, and we don't want any of our fellow citizens to be subject to this kind of random violence. There are a number of similarities to what happened in the Trayvon Martin case, there is the issue of race and there is a police department that bungled the investigation. But Trayvon Martin is dead and it took the national media a long time to cover the story."

Smiley went on to theorize that white victims, especially children, generally get far more sympathetic media attention, saying this: "It's the white babies who end up on the milk cartons, it's the white babies that networks want to profile all the time. Black babies and brown babies don't get the respect."

And what O'Reilly fails to point out is that the Trayvon Martin killing did not get any media attention for a whole month, and only after Al Sharpton and others had a public protest about it. So his story was ignored by the media too, and for a month, not just two weeks.

Not to mention they were only beat up, not killed, and the police were involved in the cover up for Zimmerman killing Trayvon, so that is far worse than the media taking two weeks to report on the two journalists simply getting beat up.

Then O'Reilly had former CIA agent Jose Rodriguez, who led the CIA's counter-terrorism center on, he insists he briefed former Speaker Nancy Pelosi about waterboarding, even though she has denied any knowledge of enhanced interrogation.

Rodriguez said this: "I was the person who led the team on September 4, 2002 to the Congress, to brief her and some of her staff about the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah and some of the techniques that were used. She is either confused or she is not telling the truth. No one has to take my word for it, there is a cable that spells out exactly the briefing that we gave Nancy Pelosi. I am 100% positive that she did not raise an objection to it."

Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about Bill Ayers, that nobody cares about but the far-right biased stooges in the media who hate Obama.

Former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers, recently told college students that America is in decline "economically and politically and in some ways culturally."

Ingraham said this: "Much of the radical left has migrated into mainstream institutions. They have an enormous amount of influence in the academy, in Hollywood, and in the overall culture. Look at the speakers who are brought to college campuses to speak and the way textbooks are conceived and written. Ayers is right about one thing. America is in decline and we have to decide whether we are going to continue to allow America to be in decline or if we'll do something to turn it around. And I would submit that Ayers likes America in decline, he didn't much like it when we were the dominant power in the world."

Now that is funny, Ingraham and O'Reilly attack Ayers, then they say he is right, what a joke. O'Reilly and Ingraham are simply two biased right-wing fools that have no business pretending to be honest journalists.

Then Grethcen Carlson and Jeanine Pirro were on to talk about the NBC Dateline program that recently aired an experiment in which young children were encouraged to cheat by a young girl who was part of the setup.

Carlson said this: "The initial moral compass of these kids was to tell the truth, but the suggestion by the planted cheater changed their minds. The setup on this was that they had the chance to be on a reality TV show, which to me says a lot about our culture today. Kids want to be famous."

Pirro criticized the parents who allowed their kids to take part in the televised experiment, saying this: "Parents who are willing to risk national embarrassment of their children, harm the loving and trusting relationship between parent and child. The kids then carry the yoke of being a cheater, which in some cases could wind up being a self-fulfilling prophesy. Parents went on the show because it was their fifteen minutes of fame."

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about testimony at the trial of former Democratic Senator John Edwards, his wife Elizabeth dramatically confronted him about his extramarital affair.

Kelly said this: "An aide testified about an infamous confrontation that these two had. She found about the affair, she asked for Rielle Hunter to be fired from the campaign, but then he continued the affair. When the National Enquirer came out with a big article proving it, she had a meltdown in an airport hangar. She took off her top, she took off her bra, and she screamed, 'You don't see me any more!' They're proving that John Edwards is not a good man and they're also proving that he was very much in control of his staff."

Then O'Reilly (who claims to NEVER convict anyone on tv) said this: "I hope they convict this guy."

And finally in the last segment Martha MacCallum and Steve Doocy were on for the stupid waste of time Factor News Quiz. Which I do not report on because it is not news.

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

Romney Campaign Silenced & Fired Gay Spokesman
By: Steve - May 4, 2012 - 10:00am

And guess who has not said one word about this story, you guessed it, that great non-partisan (fair and balanced Independent) Bill O'Reilly. He has totally ignored the story, as he rails against the rest of the media for ignoring negative stories about President Obama.

Mitt Romneys openly gay foreign policy spokesman resigned under pressure from right-wing anti-gay hate groups, then the campaign tried to minimize the damage by noting that Richard Grenell had not actually started yet on the job.

When a tv anchor asked campaign spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom about Grenell, the top aide prefaced his remarks by saying: First let me correct you. He wasnt two weeks on the job. He was scheduled to start on May 1st. Other Romney-friendly right-wing media, vaguely sourcing the campaign, addressed Grenells departure the same way, implying that he left the job before hed started it.

When the Washington Post reported that Grenell was kept under wraps, the conservative Byron York pushed back, saying this:
But Romney campaign officials say strongly that they did not keep Grenell under wraps or in any other way discourage him from taking the job.

First, they point out that at the time (last week) in which Grenell was supposedly being held back, he was not yet an employee of the Romney campaign.

Like a number of other new hires, officials say, Grenell was getting ready to move to Boston to begin work May 1. Romney officials fully anticipated he would begin his public role as spokesman then.
The only problem with that spin. They say Grenell was set to officially become an employee of the Romney campaign on May 1, but that's a lie, because he had already started working for the team.

As Andrew Sullivan reported and the New York Times later confirmed, Grenell helped organize a Romney campaign conference call to pre-empt Vice President Joe Bidens foreign policy speech last week. Sullivan reported that after Grenells voice was not heard on the April 26 call, which hed helped set up, people started to ask questions:
Some even called and questioned him afterwards as to why he was absent. He wasnt absent. He was simply muzzled. For a job where you are supposed to maintain good relations with reporters, being silenced on a key conference call on your area of expertise is pretty damaging. Especially when you helped set it up.

Sources close to Grenell say that he was specifically told by those high up in the Romney campaign to stay silent on the call, even while he was on it. And this was not the only time he had been instructed to shut up.
The Times added information to Sullivans story, also noting that the call was the biggest moment yet for Mitt Romneys foreign policy team:
It turned out [Grenell] was at home in Los Angeles, listening in, but stone silent and seething. A few minutes earlier, a senior Romney aide had delivered an unexpected directive, according to several people involved in the call.

Ric, said Alex Wong, a policy aide, the campaign has requested that you not speak on this call. Mr. Wong added, Its best to lay low for now.
Its no wonder Grenell felt the need to resign from the campaign. The newly revealed information confirms his reasons: the campaign was clearly seeking to mislead the media to downplay Grenells departure. Its not that the campaign cared whether Ric Grenell was gay, an anonymous Republican told the Times.

They believed this was a nonissue. But they didnt want to confront the religious right.

If the Romney campaign cant stand up to a bigoted special interest group on personnel issues for what they clearly thought was the best man for the job how could a Romney administration be expected to make the politically tough decisions needed to successfully govern the country?

What really happened is that the word got out Romney had a gay person working for him, so the right-wing anti-gay hate groups put pressure on Romney to get rid of him, so they forced him to resign, simply because he is gay.

And the so-called great journalist Bill O'Reilly never says a word about any of it, because it shows that a big part of the Republican party is anti-gay, which O'Reilly and his right-wing friends have denied.

The Wednesday 5-2-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 3, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: President Obama taking some heat from the left. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The President is back in the USA after a trip to Afghanistan, where he signed an agreement hoping to keep things stable. Mr. Obama also wants to remind everyone that the USA took care of bin Laden one year ago. But the New York Times criticized the President, saying he should lay out America's exit strategy from Afghanistan so the whole world, including the Taliban, could evaluate it.

The uber-liberal Times did have one good point in asking that Mr. Obama explain to the American people what will happen if the Taliban is victorious once we leave. Most Americans want us out of Afghanistan, so why doesn't the President just pull the troops out? Well, it's the same reason he doesn't shut down Guantanamo Bay.

The President knows the Taliban would set up terrorist camps inside Afghanistan, replicating what happened before 9/11. He also understands that Afghan women would be brutalized.

It's kind of ironic, the left screams about a fictional 'war on women' here in America while the real war on women is in the Muslim world.

Talking Points believes the President is doing the right thing in Afghanistan, but he has not done what the left really wants - pull out on a strict timetable.

That would be disastrous, if terrorists could get a country like Afghanistan to become an outlaw state again, worldwide terrorism would make a big comeback. One of the reasons Al Qaeda has been decimated is because it has nowhere to go; it is holed up in some remote mountains in Pakistan.

The bottom line is that we have to protect ourselves, and by staying the course somewhat in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama is doing that, much to the chagrin of left-wing Americans.
My God O'Reilly is a total right-wing idiot. He said the left screams about a fictional 'war on women' here in America while the real war on women is in the Muslim world. Earth to Bill O'Reilly, there is a real war on women, from the Republicans, you just will not admit it because you are a Republican. And the war on women in the Muslim world is not even in this country, so it is none of our business.

Then the far-right biased partisan hack Dick Morris was on to evaluate the President's busy week from a political standpoint. Morris said this: "He had a good week, because the killing of bin Laden was good for him and he hyped the anniversary by the trip to Afghanistan, which was smart. But it was marred by his overreaching in the ad that says Romney wouldn't have killed bin Laden. I don't think there are five people in the United States who believe that. "

Morris also said this: "When the President says something like 'a new day is dawning,' he is really going out there. So it was a good week, but he overreached and it could come back to haunt him."

Wow is Morris an idiot, because by the time the election happens nobody will remember any of that, except that Obama got Bin Laden and Bush did not, even though the cowboy Bush went on tv and said he would get him dead or alive.

Then Dave Parker was on to talk about the two reporters for the Virginia-Pilot were attacked and beaten by a mob of black men, at least some of whom claimed it was revenge for Trayvon Martin. The newspaper didn't report the crime against its own reporters for two weeks, and no one has been charged with a crime.

Parker said this about the beating: "About thirty people attacked this couple. The woman was pulled by the hair and punched in the face. The other aspect of the story that people are furious about is, why in the world did our community not find out about this for two weeks? If the racial roles were reversed, this would be a huge national story and all the people who were down in Florida would be here in Virginia Beach."

O'Reilly denounced the newspaper for ignoring the story, saying this: "Whenever you have a racially charged mob, that's a big story. It looks to me like the Pilot is being politically correct and didn't want to get into the racial aspect."

Then the far-right blonde Fox News bimbo Juliet Huddy was on to talk about the Occupy-affiliated groups (who O'Reilly claims) created chaos and mayhem in cities across the country Tuesday.

Huddy said this: "Seattle was a hot spot, and it has that granola and grunge culture. Hundreds of protesters in black ransacked the downtown area and smashed windows. Police confiscated tire irons and hammers and twelve people were arrested. In Oakland, hundreds of people went downtown, attacking police and throwing bottles. One cop was hit by a metal paint can and kicked in the ribs, 25 people were arrested."

Huddy also said this: "And in Cleveland five guys were arrested, they were self-described anarchists who felt the Occupy events were not violent enough so they wanted to blow up a bridge. This has become an unintelligible mix of nothingness."

So the idiot O'Reilly concluded that the Occupy movement is finished, saying this: "These people are going to cause some trouble at the conventions, but they're dumb and they're done!"

Haha, hey O'Reilly you said it was finished 6 months ago, so which is it? And btw, those people were not part of the Occupy protests, so you two are misrepresenting them. The trouble makers are self-described anarchists. You even admit that, then you lump them in with the actual Occupy protesters. Which is dishonest journalism, and total right-wing bias.

Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on because it is garbage and he is just on to do lame jokes about liberals, with no liberal on to make jokes about conservatives.

And finally, Tonya Reiman was on for the total waste of time body language hocus pocus mumbo jumbo, that I sure as hell will not report on.

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

Republicans Refuse To Offset Cost Of Extending Bush Tax Cuts
By: Steve - May 3, 2012 - 10:00am

Since taking control of the House, Republicans have pushed to offset the costs of everything from emergency disaster relief to unemployment benefits and tax cuts for the middle class. Their goal, they have said, is to cut the deficit and debt, and their willing to gut social safety net programs, including Medicare, to do it.

But when it comes to the budget-busting Bush Tax Cuts, the story changes. Both the 2001 and 2003 versions of the Bush Tax Cuts expire at the end of 2012, and when the House GOP attempts to permanently extend the cuts later this year, they wont offer a plan to pay for them:
House Republicans say they have no plans to pay for the extension of the Bush-era tax rates, a move that could erase the deficit reduction they have achieved since winning their majority in the chamber in 2010.

The lawmakers also said that Republicans had always intended for the rates on income and capital gains, enacted during former President George W. Bushs first term, to be permanent.

"From my perspective, youre setting tax policy on a permanent basis, long-term basis," said Rep. Tom Reed (N.Y.), a freshman Republican and member of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.

"Its not a pay-for situation. Its just strong policy that needs to be adopted."
As The Hill notes,"It's Republican Party spin that tax cuts do not need to be offset because of the additional tax receipts they spur through economic growth."

But as history has shown us, the Republican Party orthodoxy is wrong.

The Bush tax cuts (at a 10-year cost of $2.5 trillion) did not inspire economic growth and instead blew a massive hole in the federal deficit, adding trillions of dollars to the debt.

Which O'Reilly never mentions when he talks about the debt, because he is too busy spinning for the Republican party by blaming all the debt on Obama and liberal policies that benefit the poor.

And btw, without the Bush tax cuts, the debt situation O'Reilly and the Republicans insist is their top concern would actually be sustainable.

Aside from the debt, the economic costs of the Bush Tax Cuts were astronomical. With the money spent, the U.S. could have provided better health care, more student aid, and hired more teachers and public safety officials thousands of which lost their jobs when federal and state budgets were crunched during the Great Recession.

Even top Republicans have admitted that the GOPs justification for the cuts (that they would create millions of jobs) was wrong. But O'Reilly and the right keep trying to spin out that lie anyway.

Far from learning from their mistakes, Republicans are doubling down. The House GOP budget, passed last month, contains tax cuts that are even more heavily slanted toward the wealthy and would blow an even bigger hole in the federal budget. But of course O'Reilly says nothing about that.

The Tuesday 5-1-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - May 2, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: President Obama in Afghanistan on the anniversary of Bin Laden's death. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: At 4 AM Afghanistan time President Obama told the world that the United States and Afghanistan remain strong allies against the Taliban and terrorism in general. Today marks the one year anniversary of bin Laden's death and the President did a good thing by going into the war zone, showing the world that U.S. power is firmly intact.

His appearance there also brings attention to the death of bin Laden and sends the message that America will not tolerate terrorist attacks. And perhaps most importantly, the Commander-in-Chief rallied the troops. But back home, the President has ginned up a controversy about the death of bin Laden and he has made a major mistake.

It began with a political ad asking, 'Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?' Mr. Obama is implying that Mitt Romney might not have had the guts to kill bin Laden. That's pretty strong stuff that might be unfair. So the question is whether President Obama is exploiting the death of bin Laden for political purposes?

Only you can make that call, but I think what the President has done is a huge campaign mistake. Independent voters might think it falls into the 'cheap shot' category.
And that my friends is just O'Reilly defending his friend Mitt Romney, and spinning out right-wing propaganda. Because what O'Reilly failed to mention is that Romney said he would not have gone after Bin Laden if he were the President. So the Obama ad is accurate, but O'Reilly ignored that to spin for Romney. Proving once again he is a biased right-wing stooge.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to discuss it. Colmes said this: "I don't think he implied that Romney didn't have the guts to go in. What Romney said was that he didn't concur with a plan to enter a country that is an ally of ours. That indicated that Romney wasn't sure what he would do, but now he says of course he would have done the same thing."

Crowley said this: "The problem isn't just that he's going after Mitt Romney's qualifications, he is actually questioning the man's integrity and character. He is implying that perhaps Mitt Romney might not have made that call, which I think was a grossly unfair and political slam. This shows Barack Obama to be a very petty and small-minded man."

Then Mary Anne Marsh and Margie Omero were on to say if President Obama will suffer politically for boasting about killing bin Laden. Omero said this: "I don't think so. He used Mitt Romney's own words and it's perfectly fair game to pose a question about one of the biggest decisions he has made. It's important information for voters and it's part of the debate."

Marsh said this: "He can rightfully point to the anniversary of getting bin Laden because he said he would do it and he did. He also told us he would end the war in Afghanistan and he showed us tonight that he would. Those are two promises he made and he kept them."

But O'Reilly said he thinks President Obama made a mistake by injecting Mitt Romney into the conversation, saying this: "The alternative is to congratulate the American military, which is what the President did, and drop the politics entirely. Why do you need to have the death of bin Laden injected into the campaign?"

Which is just laughable, because if a Republican President got Bin Laden O'Reilly would have no problem with using it in his campaign. When Bush used the 9-11 terrorist attacks in campaign ads O'Reilly did not have a problem with any of it.

Then Ed Rollins (the Republican) was on to sort out the poll numbers in the election. Rollins said this: "Mitt Romney is in great shape, considering the knock-down, drag-out primaries he went through. To be dead even with the President with six months to go is a good place to be, but it's not going to be a landslide on either side. President Obama got 365 electoral votes last time and 53% of the vote. I promise you he's not going to get anywhere near that."

Rollins added that winning Florida is an absolute must for Romney, saying this: "If he does not win Florida the game is over and Obama gets reelected, but right now we Republicans feel very good about Florida."

Then John Stossel was on to talk about a recent report that claimed New York City was about to ban "happy hour" at bars. That turned out to be false, but 19 states have outlawed happy hour, leaving Fox Business host John Stossel extremely un-happy.

Stossel said this: "They're banning the price discount, but we have enough laws already. Banning things doesn't help, studies on the happy hour bans show that they make no difference in alcohol consumption. America grew the fastest and did the best when our only laws were the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence."

So then O'Reilly suggested that bars should cut people off when they are obviously drunk, saying this: "If my son or daughter were killed by a driver who got loaded in a bar, I would sue the bar. I would go after the bartender and the establishment that served them enough to be inebriated."

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to talk about 32-year-old Blanca Contreras, an illegal alien from Guatemala, who allegedly killed a man with her SUV and then fled the scene.

A judge was only going to deport Contreras, but she now faces criminal charges. Wiehl said this: "The prosecutor went back to the judge and said you have to revoke this lady's bail. The judge did that and it was the right thing, she is being held without bail."

Guilfoyle added that Contreras will be tried in criminal court, saying this: "She's looking at vehicular manslaughter charges and about two-and-a-half years in jail, which I don't think is sufficient for doing 60 in a 30 mile-an-hour zone and then leaving the scene."

And then O'Reilly took partial credit for ensuring that Contreras would not simply face deportation, saying this: "We started to call everybody up there and they got a little nervous. There's a method to our madness!"

And finally the last segment was the Factor Reality Check, which I do not report on because it's O'Reilly by himself putting his right-wing spin on something someone else said.

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

Insane O'Reilly Compares Sex Workers To Drug Dealers
By: Steve - May 2, 2012 - 10:00am

To begin with, the comparison is ridiculous. Drug Dealers sell drugs that people take to get high, sex workers just sell their body for a short period of time, and it's a whole different situation.

Last week, while discussing the Secret Service prostitution scandal, O'Reilly said he sympathized with police officers who don't view sex workers as people with legitimate human rights.

Talking to sex workers rights advocate Sienna Baskin, O'Reilly said that he understood police who "don't put a top priority on ladies who are engaged in prostitution because it is a crime."
O'REILLY: It's like a drug dealer saying I got ripped off, you know. And they're going to say, "that's too bad, don't deal drugs." It's the same thing -- theoretically, from the police's point of view.
Baskin, co-director of the Sex Workers Project at the Urban Justice Center in New York, was criticizing the "criminalization system" in the United States, which often makes sex workers "afraid to go to the police when they are themselves victims of crime."

Basically in O'Reillyworld if you are violating the law by selling your body for sex you do not deserve to have any rights, and the police should ignore you.

She called for legalizing prostitution as a way to reduce crimes against sex workers. While O'Reilly agreed that there "would be harm reduction" with legalization, he also said that his beef with "legalizing prostitution is basically the same thing about legalizing marijuana -- that it sends a message that this is OK."

O'Reilly also said this: "And I know you represent some of these ladies, but I think that selling your body is -- diminishes a human being. It diminishes that person. And it -- and it does harm to them."
O'REILLY: In my reporting over 35 years, I've seen that almost 100 percent of the time in this industry, and I'm sure you have, too. Do you really want to say it's OK to do this? And that's what you would be doing by legalizing it.
O'Reilly later stated that the "message to society is, hey, look, if you want to be a hooker, go ahead. And we, the society, there's nothing wrong with it -- but there is. There is something wrong with it."

He went on to ask this: "Why do they have to sell their bodies to make a living? Why can't they get a legitimate job like 99 percent of the population?"

O'Reilly concluded with this: "You can wait tables and drive a cab anytime you want in this city."

Now here is a question for O'Reilly, if this is a so-called free country why should it be illegal for a woman to sell her body for sex. Answer that fool, I'll be waiting.



Cut down your exam stress by using our latest 642-732 and high quality Pass4sure C4090-456 and 1Y0-370 exam . We provide updated six sigma training online with 100% pass guarantee along with Lynn University