The Wednesday 10-31-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 1, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Threats from the far left over the presidential election. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A political ad financed by MoveOn.org, which has close ties to the Democratic Party and is not a fringe group, features elderly women threatening violence if President Obama loses the election. You judge people by their associations, and that's what's very troubling about the Democratic Party.

Most Democrats are honorable and civil people, but there's a lunatic fringe that has a lot of say in the party. Talking Points is not an ideologue, but I'm very uneasy with the direction the Democratic Party has taken. President Obama cultivates some far-left people and he will not repudiate this vile ad, which makes him somewhat culpable.

There's certainly craziness on the right, but the far right did not have much clout at the Republican convention. The election is a referendum on Barack Obama; do you want his liberal governance or not? If you do want it, then you have to accept the far left loons that come along with it.
Then the right-wing spin doctor Karl Rove was on with his latest analysis of the campaign, particularly three new polls that show President Obama running strong in Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. And here we go again, Rove does not like these polls so he says they are ridiculous, but when he likes the polls he says believe them.

Rove said this: "I don't take these polls seriously, because in Florida they have seven points more Democrats than Republicans. Same thing with Ohio and Virginia, and does anyone really think the Democratic turnout will be higher than it was in 2008? That's absurd! This is sloppy journalism and bad polling. A lot more Republicans are voting early than four years ago and a lot fewer Democrats, so I feel reasonably confident that Mitt Romney will carry Ohio."

Earth to Karl Rove, the reason those polls sample seven percent more Democrats is because there are seven percent more registered Democrats, so that is how you take an accurate poll, moron. And how do you know the Democratic turnout will not be higher than in 2008, you don't, so you are absurd with your speculation. Maybe more Democrats will turn out, you have no idea and neither do I, nobody knows until it happens, idiot.

Then Bob Beckel was on to talk about the number of Americans receiving welfare and disability payments from the federal government, Billy asked former Democratic strategist and 'The Five' co-host Bob Beckel to react.

Beckel said this: "I've been listening to this from the right for thirty years. Long-term chronic welfare is much different than short-term welfare recipients."

So Billy said this: "The federal government runs so inefficiently and wastes so much money that they should just funnel it down and there would be more money to help the people that you and I want to help."

Beckel also agreed with The Factor's suggestion that President Obama hold a press conference to detail exactly what happened during and after the attack on our consulate in Libya, saying this: "It's a good idea, but the reports so far are mostly based on anonymous intelligence sources. This story is running way out in front of what is fact."

Then the right-wing stooge Dick Morris was on,Morris who is never right about anything has consistently forecast a massive Romney victory, also criticized a New York Times poll that shows President Obama gaining ground in some battleground states.

"The New York Times is taking a poll that has raw data showing Romney ahead, and they are then giving more weight to Democrats in order to mirror the turnout that happened in 2008. But it won't be the same turnout in 2012. If we have the same high black and Latino and young person turnout we had in 2008, those polls would be right. But it's not going to happen!"

Once again Morris has his head up his ass with his predictions, because as I wrote about Karl Rove, he does not know what the turnout will be, nobody does. So the pollsters are just going by the last election, and if they are wrong about the turnout, then they will change the way they do their polls. They are also weighting the Democrats up because there are more registered Democrats than Republicans.

Morris reaffirmed his prediction of a Romney landslide, saying this: "Romney will win this election by five to ten points in the popular vote and will carry more than 300 electoral votes."

So Billy promised to bring Morris back in one week, at which time he will either eat steak, or crow. And I predict he will be wrong, because Obama is going to be re-elected with 51% of the popular vote and 280 to 290 electoral votes. Now look at what I say and we will see who is right, me or Morris and Rove.

Then the right-wing Factor Producer Jesse Watters hit the streets to take the pulse, figuratively speaking, of single women in New York City. Among the comments were this: "I am a huge supporter of Barack Obama, I think he has a lot of integrity and he cares about women's rights" ... "I want to see what Romney has to offer because I don't think I've seen all this 'change'" ... "Obama is actually recognizing gay people"

O'Reilly concluded the segment with some stats, saying this: "The latest data shows that single women favor the President 59 - 34, but among married women Romney has surged ahead by 52 - 42."

Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on because he is not a journalist, he is just a has-been right-wing comedian that O'Reilly puts on to make fun of Obama and other liberals, with no liberal comedian on for balance.

Then O'Reilly had the global warming denier Joe Bastardi and climate scientist Brenda Ekwurzel on to talk about Al Gore's claim that "climate change" was a direct cause of Hurricane Sandy. Which is not what Al Gore said, Gore simply said climate change made Hurricane Sandy worse, and he is right.

Bastardi said this: "What Al Gore said is stunningly ignorant or stunningly deceptive. In the 1950's ten major hurricanes rammed the Eastern Seaboard, including Connie and Diane, which caused unbelievable flooding. The 1938 hurricane had a 186 mph wind gust and caused a 50-foot surge of water across Long Island. Ever since Katrina we've seen tropical activity go to record low levels and I've been saying for years that we are returning to the cycle of the 1950's."

Ekwurzel disagreed and argued that climate change is both real and potentially catastrophic, saying this: "Scientists who study this are saying we have sea level rise caused by climate change that is making storm surges worse. We also have more severe rains and coastal flooding. There are warmer ocean waters powering more powerful hurricanes and off the shore of New York we have 8" to 10" higher water levels because of the rise in sea levels."

And finally the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "Hurricane Sandy proved once again that the government can not protect you from disaster, so do everything you can to protect yourself."

The Tuesday 10-30-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 31, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Hurricane Sandy and the presidential race. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: I was transported back in time to 1850 after Hurricane Sandy hit Long Island, New York. The destruction was immediate; trees and power lines collapsed, the Hudson River overflowed into the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, and coastal communities were swamped. The machines that we use and depend on collapsed all over the region.

Cell phone service, gone. Cable TV, out. Power to your house, nonexistent. That means darkness and candles and whining children. That was life back in 1850, but today Americans are so dependent on the machines that this kind of interruption can be devastating.

The relationship between high-tech and our lives is becoming more frightening; we depend on these machines. Generators are a must these days, but mine didn't work! The good news is that in my town people rallied as they always do, helping neighbors clear debris.

Chances are that your town is like that; most Americans are good people who help their neighbors in times of need. And there will be more of those times down the road, especially with America's infrastructure being so fragile.
And O'Reilly is so old he was probably alive in 1850. Hey O'Reilly, get a generator that works, cheapskate.

Then meteorologist Rick Reichmuth was on to summarize the devastation, saying this: "The worst of a hurricane is always going to be the storm surge, and that storm surge was most devastating in New Jersey. Three-quarters of Atlantic City was under water."

Reichmuth also detailed the massive damage in New York City, saying this: "Manhattan didn't get the worst of the wind, but the storm surge came so quickly and it was the highest ever recorded. It flooded tunnels, PATH trains, and subways with salt water, and you have to figure out how to get that water out of there. The storm is still huge, we've got rain and wind as far away as Chicago."

In Peoria Illinois we did not get anything but some wind, no rain.

Then the far-right hack Charles Krauthammer evaluated President Obama's handling of Sandy and its aftermath. With no Democratic guest on for any balance.

Krauthammer said this: "He's doing what you would expect him to do. You speak on behalf of the nation, expressing sympathy, and then you pretend that you're directing the restoration efforts. The President releases a lot of money but the greater response is at the local level."

Which is a joke, and if a Republican was doing what Obama did, Krauthammer would praise him and say what a great job he is doing. Compare what Obama did to what Bush did with Katrina, it's night and day.

Krauthammer also speculated that Hurricane Sandy might have two marginal effects on the election, saying this: "It has hit Ohio and Virginia, places where the Obama campaign had counted on early voting. Also, a tragedy requires the candidates to have a sense of solemnity at a time when campaigns are throwing all kinds of charges around. Since the Obama campaign is far more negative, this will restrain what the Democrats can do."

But even O'Reilly was not buying that, he downplayed the political significance of the storm, saying this: "This story will de-intensify and the political stuff will come back. I don't see Sandy as a big factor in the election."

And I do not either, because people do not think politics after a disaster like a Hurricane. And for Krauthammer to say that, it proves he is an idiot that should not be allowed to do political analysis on tv because he is a biased right-wing hack.

According to the Gallup Poll, President Obama's approval rating took a dive last week and then suddenly recovered. So Billy analyzed the apparent anomaly with political scientist Larry Sabato and pollster David Paleologos.

Sabato said this: "This swing didn't make any sense, and that's why I no longer pay much attention to Gallup. If you look at the polling averages, President Obama's approval average is pretty much unchanged."

Paleologos doubled down on his prediction that Mitt Romney has pretty much locked up North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida, saying this: "President Obama is still stuck at 48% in those states and, as an incumbent, it's very difficult to get to 50% when you are already a known quantity."

But even if Romney wins North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida, he still only has 257 electoral votes, leaving Obama with 281, according to Real Clear Politics. So Obama would win the election if it were held today. And btw, Real Clear Politics has Romney ahead of Obama 47.9% to 47.1%, but Obama is ahead where it counts, in the electoral college vote.

Paleologos also predicted that Elizabeth Warren is likely to unseat Republican Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts, saying this: "Independent women have moved from Brown to Warren and union households have moved from Brown to Warren"

What's funny is when Gallup had Obama beating Romney for months on end, O'Reilly never mentioned it once, he always referred to Rasmussen. But now that Gallup has Romney ahead O'Reilly mentions it all the time, which is just more proof O'Reilly is a biased right-wing stooge.

Then O'Reilly had another storm damage segment, which I will not report on because he already had a storm damage report.

Then the right-wing stooge Bernie Goldberg was on to predict the general media coverage of the election.

Goldberg said this: "I don't think we'll see anything different than what we've seen throughout the campaign. The media has pretty much been covering for President Obama, so they will continue to show the same astonishing lack of curiosity about how the President handled Benghazi. They will portray him as presidential and a strong leader for how he handled the hurricane."

O'Reilly cried about how both candidates have turned down repeated invitations to enter the No Spin Zone, saying this: "I offered both candidates a half hour to show the American people what they are made of. I understand President Obama not doing it because he would have to answer questions about Libya, but I don't understand why Mitt Romney is not doing it."

Notice that O'Reilly did not say if Romney does not do his show he will lose. But when Gore ran against Bush O'Reilly siad if Gore does not do his show he will lose.

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on with their latest presidential analysis. Crowley said this: "Single women are moving toward Romney, for two reasons. The Obama campaign spent hundreds of millions of dollars in attack ads trying to brutalize Romney as a greedy capitalist, then the first debate came along and women saw a normal, thoughtful, compassionate guy."

Colmes simply pointed out that President Obama is still leading among women, saying this: "What really counts is the Electoral College and Rasmussen has Obama winning among women in almost every swing state. Among likely women voters it's Obama 54 to 46 and I don't think Mitt Romney can make up the difference."

And finally the lame as can be Factor tip of the day, which I will not report on because O'Reilly simply used it to promote his new book, there was no tip, just a cheap book promotion.

Dishonest Romney Campaigns At Ohio Hurricane Relief Benefit
By: Steve - October 31, 2012 - 10:00am

Despite promising to avoid political events while millions of residents in the northeast suffer through the devastation from Hurricane Sandy, Mitt Romney made a stop in the state of Ohio on Tuesday morning and engaged in the very kind of electioneering his campaign pledged to not do.

The event itself was billed as a "storm relief" benefit, and the Romney campaign asked supporters to bring with them food and other goods to donate to victims of the storm. But soon, reporters poked holes in the campaign's explanation for staging the rally. First, the relief event was scheduled for the same time and location as a recently canceled political rally.

Then, photos emerged, showing that donors were asked to wait to drop off their goods until Romney arrived to accept them himself, suggesting a photo op not unlike the one his running mate Paul Ryan staged earlier this month in a soup kitchen. And the targeted recipient of all of the donations (the Red Cross) doesn't even accept most of what the Romney campaign collected in Ohio.

But just in case there were any lingering questions over the political nature of the relief rally, Romney's staff left no room for doubt when they aired a biographical video that was part of the Republican National Convention in August (and used by the campaign at political events since).

Even Stuart Stevens, a Romney aide and longtime GOP strategist, admitted that the campaign engaged in politicking at the Ohio event during an interview with NPR political correspondent Ari Shapiro:
@Ari_Shapiro: Romney aide Stuart Stevens says "I agree" that Romney bio video blurs line b/t storm relief & politicking. "I don't know how it happened"
Stevens later offered a ridiculous explanation for the video, blaming it on the venue's in-house Audio/Visual staff for airing the video. Stevens added, "Some volunteer just pressed play, I guess."

And if you believe that garbage, contact me because I have a bridge to sell you.

The Monday 10-29-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 30, 2012 - 11:00am

There was no Factor review, because O'Reilly did not do a show Monday night because of Hurricane Sandy. While a Hurricane is always bad news and I hope everyone is safe, there is at least one good thing that came from it.

It got a Factor show off the air for one night, and that is a great thing for America, because for one night we had one less right-wing spin doctor on the air lying to the American people.

Romney Rented Mormon Church To Avoid Taxes For 15 Years
By: Steve - October 30, 2012 - 10:00am

And of course you never heard about any of this on the O'Reilly Factor, and never will. But if a wealthy Democrat rented a church to avoid taxes for 15 years and then complained about the 47% who pay no taxes (as he is paying no taxes on millions and millions) O'Reilly would be all over them like stink on you know what.

Here is the story:

Bloomberg News: Romney 'rented' Mormon church to defer taxes for 15 years

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney used a loophole to "rent" the Mormon church's tax exemption status and defer paying taxes for 15 years, according to a new report.

Tax returns obtained by Bloomberg News through a Freedom of Information Act request indicated that Romney set up a charitable remainder unitrust (CRUT) in June 1996 just before Congress cracked down on the loophole in 1997.

"In this instance, Romney used the tax-exempt status of a charity - the Mormon Church, according to a 2007 filing - to defer taxes for more than 15 years," Bloomberg's Jesse Drucker explained. "At the same time he is benefitting, the trust will probably leave the church with less than what current law requires."

Estate lawyer Jonathan Blattmachr told Bloomberg that Romney's trust benefits from the Mormon church's exempt status because charities don't pay capital gains taxes when they make a profit from the sale of assets.

"The main benefit from a charitable remainder trust is the renting from your favorite charity of its exemption from taxation," Blattmachr said, adding that the charitable contribution "is just a throwaway" and the church would receive little if any financial benefit from the trust.

"I used to structure them so the value dedicated to charity was as close to zero as possible without being zero," he pointed out.

The CRUT allows individuals to "defer capital gains taxes on any profit from the sale of the assets, and receive a small upfront charitable deduction and a stream of yearly cash payments," Drucker wrote.

"Like an individual retirement account, the trust allows money to grow tax deferred, while like an annuity it also pays Romney a steady income. After the funder's death, the trust's remaining assets go to a designated charity."

In fact, the amount available to go to the Mormon church has decreased from at least $750,000 in 2001 to $421,203 at the end of 2011 as Romney has collected yearly cash payments from the trust.

The Romney campaign declined to answer questions about the trust but insisted that it was "operated in accordance with the law" in an email to Bloomberg.

The trust represents a small fraction of Romney's more than $250 million fortune and is only one of several methods the formal Bain Capital CEO has employed to avoid paying taxes.

Earlier this year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who is also a Mormon, had suggested that the Republican presidential nominee refused to release his tax returns because he had not paid any income taxes over a 10-year period.

In a September speech on the Senate floor, Reid said that leaked tapes insulting the 47 percent of Americans who don't pay income taxes as dependant on the government have gave the world a "rare look at the real Mitt Romney."

And btw, at the time O'Reilly slammed Harry Reid for saying it, when now we know he was right. But did O'Reilly tell Mr. Reid he was sorry and report the truth, haha, of course not. Because O'Reilly is a dishonest right-wing hack who never makes any corrections, and never says he is sorry for anything.

"For all we know Mitt Romney could be one of those who have paid no federal income tax. Thousands of families making more than a million dollars per year pay nothing in federal income tax," the Nevada Democrat observed. "Is Mitt Romney among those? We'll never know because he refuses to release his tax returns."

"We know that Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than middle-class families, thanks to a number of things he's done: Swiss bank accounts, Cayman Islands tax shelters. And we can only imagine what new secrets would be revealed if he showed the American people a dozen years of tax returns like his dad did."

Reid noted that most of those people who Romney talked about "are not avoiding their tax bills using Cayman Islands tax shelters or Swiss Bank accounts like Mitt Romney. Millions of the 47 percent are seniors on Social Security, who don't have Bain Capital retirement funds or inherited stock to fall back on."

More Proof Republicans Lie That Obama Is Anti-Business
By: Steve - October 29, 2012 - 10:00am

Since he came into office, Republicans have consistently attacked President Obama for supposedly being anti-business. As ThinkProgress noted last week, the data shows that this charge is nonsense.

In fact, as the financial website Motley Fool noted Friday, President Obama is far and away the best president for corporate profits since 1900.

Under President Obama corporate profits are up 77.9%. Under Bill Clinton corporate profits only went up 9.2%. Under Ronald Reagan corporate profits went up 2.3%. And under George W. Bush corporate profits dropped -17.4%.

Even if corporate profits under Obama are compared to the 2008 peak - in order to erase the effect of the financial crisis - average annual corporate profit growth under President Obama is 6.8%, or nearly three times as large as it was under President Reagan.

Both Presidents Bush actually oversaw corporate profit declines during their terms. Meanwhile, real GDP growth per capita is far higher under Obama than it was under either Bush administration.

Stephen Colbert Deconstructs Fox's 24/7 Libya Reporting
By: Steve - October 28, 2012 - 11:00am

But when Bush was the President O'Reilly and everyone at Fox defended him and said he was not to blame, even though a month before the attack Bush got a Presidential Daily Briefing paper titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In The USA."

A paper Bush never told us about, and yet O'Reilly and Fox did not spend 24/7 making wild accusations with no evidence about Bush, they did the opposite. They spent all their time covering for Bush and making excuses for him. Not once did they say it was proof he had a failed foreign policy, they defended it for 8 years.

And to this day O'Reilly and Fox refuse to talk about the 9-11 attacks that happened under Bush's watch. In fact, if anyone even mentions it O'Reilly says that is in the past so he will not discuss it.

But if someone wants to talk about a tax cheat scandal that happened 12 years ago (where March rich got a pardon for cheating on his taxes under Bill Clinton) O'Reilly not only does not say we can not talk about it, he gladly talks about it and wants to know more about it now.

Proving once again he is a biased right-wing hack with double standards. So the other night Stephen Colbert did a great segment spoofing the ridiculous Fox News coverage on the Libya story. Here is the video:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive


And to this day O'Reilly has still ignored the op-ed Juan Williams wrote about the Libya facts, that detail the truth and how Fox is spinning it for political gain to help Romney.

Not to mention, it's insane for Fox to claim the entire Obama foreign policy is a failure because of one attack on one embassy in Libya, especially when he got Bin Laden killed, something Bush could not do, and especially when except for that one attack Obama has kept us safe, which all the Republicans said he would not do before the election in 2009.

O'Reilly never mentions any of this dishonesty and partisan smear tactics from Fox, because he is doing it too, to help Romney win the election. He ignores the facts and reports lies to smear President Obama, just as all the other right-wing stooges at Fox are doing, as he claims to be a non-partisan Independent, which is just laughable.

In fact, O'Reilly is being dishonest when he claims to be a non-partisan Independent, it's laughable, especially his denial that he is a conservative or a Republican. It's like Karl Rove saying he is not a Republican, or Laura Ingraham saying she is not a Republican. When you support 90% of the Republican Party Platform, and you spend 90% of your show spinning and lying for the right, YOU ARE A FRICKING REPUBLICAN!

To deny that is ridiculous, and if you will lie about your obvious political ideology you will lie about anything, and nothing you say can ever be trusted to be true and free of partisan bias. O'Reilly also says he never uses the RNC talking points, then you watch him and you see that he does, he says the exact same thing they say, and he reports on the same propaganda they try and smear Obama with, as he takes their side and spins out the same words they do.

Obama Improves In Nate Silver Electoral College Vote
By: Steve - October 28, 2012 - 10:00am

Here is some more news on the Presidential election you will never see reported by O'Reilly, because he is in the tank for Romney, and he does not want anyone to think Obama is actually ahead of Romney in what counts, electoral votes.

Two days ago Nate Silver (from the fivethirtyeight election blog) had Obama at 288 electoral votes and Romney at 250. Now he has Obama at 294 and Romney at 243 electoral votes, with 270 needed to win the White House.

That's a 2.5% increase for Obama since October 18th, and a 2.5% drop for Romney since October 18th.

Nate Silver also gives Obama a 73.1% chance to win, with Romney having a 26.9% chance to win. That's a 2.7% increase for Obama since October 18th, and a 2.7% drop for Romney since October 18th.

Silver also has Obama getting 50.2% of the popular vote, with Romney getting 48.7% of the popular vote.

And the great so-called journalist O'Reilly does not say a word about any of this. Because he is a Romney supporter and he wants you to think Romney is winning so he can continue to raise money.

The Friday 10-26-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 27, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Will Libya lose the election for President Obama? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Reporting by Fox News correspondent Jennifer Griffin has revealed that during the four-hour firefight in Benghazi on 9/11, Americans repeatedly asked for help from the CIA. Shockingly, help did not come. The agency could have called for air cover or moved a Delta Force team to the area, but it did not.

Also, the agency told former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, who was a mile away from the attack, not to enter the fire zone. Woods disobeyed the order and tried to rescue Ambassador Christopher Stevens and other Americans. Tyrone Woods was killed that day; so was the Ambassador and two other Americans. Today President Obama said, ''I was not personally aware of any request.'

Once again the President did not explain what happened in Libya and once again he said his administration is investigating. You would think that six weeks after the attack some kind of clarity could be put forth by the President, but he doesn't have to do it because the press is not pushing him.

NBC News anchor Brian Williams had the chance to ask the President some tough questions, but Mr. Williams passed. Instead of citing inconsistencies from the administration, Mr. Williams totally dropped the subject after one misleading question. Talking Points is not sniping at the President or Mr. Williams, but this is one big mess and the national media is not demanding answers.

My view is this: Muslim terrorists were tracking Ambassador Stevens, they had heavy weapons at the ready and saw an opening in Benghazi. There's nothing 'spontaneous' about that! The CIA was caught napping and then froze when all hell broke loose. When the damage and death became fully known, the administration tried to manage it rather than report it, and chaos developed.

U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and White House spokesperson Jay Carney did not assess the situation correctly to the public and Talking Points believes they were told what to say. But by whom? That is the question Brian Williams should have asked because President Obama has to know the answer, it is inconceivable that he doesn't.

Going forward, the President will most likely avoid the Libyan issue entirely and hope the voters don't care. All Presidents have presided over screw-ups, but just tell the folks the truth Mr. President. Tell us what you know and who you are holding responsible for this mess!
And that my friends is what I call right-wing bias and propaganda, it's what biased right-wing hacks do to try and help Romney win the election. All of that was mostly O'Reilly's biased opinion, with not many facts, and it's simply being done to try and hurt Obama politically. If we had a Republican President O'Reilly would ignore the story and say we should not talk about it until the investigation is done.

Then Geraldo was on, who sort of defended Obama, saying this: "We are ten days from what everyone is calling the most important election of our time, and do you really believe the House Oversight Committee, run by Republicans, would be questing for truth? And what would President Obama answer at a press conference? The President should tell what he knows when he feels he knows it, but this would be like putting blood on the water to political sharks. Why didn't Mitt Romney ask the question? Because it's much more ambiguous than political operatives are making it out to be."

Then the right-wing stooge Lou Dobbs was on to talk about the 8.8 million Americans that are now collecting disability payments from the federal government, and the insane Dobbs pinned the blame squarely on the Obama administration. Even though they have nothing to do with it. This whole segment is just more right-wing nonsense by O'Reilly and Dobbs to smear Obama and help Romney.

Dobbs said this: "There's only one logical explanation, and that is that this administration has made dependency a watchword. They have reduced the standards for people to get disability, it's much easier. Up until 2009 it had been a difficult process to get federal disability but it has now exploded. And once you're on, it's almost impossible to get off."

That's a lie, because I know a couple people who have filed for disability and they were denied. One guy was told by his attorney that they deny everyone and then they make you get an attorney and prove to them you are disabled.

Then O'Reilly had his right-wing stooge producer Jesse Watters on to talk about gas prices, and of course it was done to hurt Obama politically.

"I probably pay $300 a week," one motorist told him. Other comments: "This is insane" ... "I'm driving a Prius, I'm doing my share" ... "I have to blame the administration, they can't get out of their own way" ... "The government is letting the oil companies do what they want to do" ... "I do not blame Obama for this."

And most of them are clueless fools, because Obama has nothing to do with gas prices, and O'Reilly knows it. The oil prices are being manipulated by the oil speculators on wall street, and the oil companies use that speculation price of oil as an excuse to charge so much for gas. One former Shell CEO said a barrel of oil should be about $75.00 right now and gas should be about $2.99 a gallon.

Watters returned to the studio with his biased opinion, saying this: "Obama supporters blame OPEC, Congress, the greedy Wall Street traders, rich bankers, and oil company CEOs. One guy hit it right on the head when he said a lot of people in Congress don't drive cars, they don't have to whip out their credit cards."

Then in the last segment O'Reilly had two more biased right-wing hacks on, Greg Gutfeld and Bernard McGuirk, who weighed in on President Obama's recent interviews with MTV, Leno, Letterman and other soft outlets. And of course they slammed him, because they are both Republicans who support Mitt Romney. Notice there is no Democratic guest, and no balance, it's all right-wing bias all the time.

Gutfeld said this: "This is actually infuriating. There is a massive scandal with four people dead and they're talking about music! It's disgusting to me. President Obama is depressed and when you get depressed you put on your giant bunny slippers. This is basically the media equivalent of bunny slippers, making him feel better."

McGuirk questioned the Obama campaign's overall strategy, saying this: "This is desperation time for them because they smell defeat in the air. This is an exercise in futility because they already know these people lean toward Obama."

McGuirk also slammed NBC's Brian Williams, saying this: "They should have laid Johnny Mathis music behind Williams and President Obama. It was disgraceful, it was disgusting, and shame on you, Brian Williams!"

Then O'Reilly even let those two right-wing morons return for a second segment, McGuirk talked about Donald Trump, who has offered a $5 million charitable contribution if President Obama releases his college transcripts and passport application.

And of course he loved it, saying this: "I love Donald Trump's smash-mouth politically incorrect approach, and if stuff like this makes Sarah Jessica Parker spit up her frappe and Chris Matthews choke on his dog whistle I like it a lot. But as far as the efficacy of what he's doing, it doesn't work because he makes Obama look like a victim."

And btw, in my opinion it also makes Trump look like a partisan fool.

Gutfeld then talked about Lance Armstrong, who has been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles for doping. Gutfeld said this: "We knew Lance was juicing when he won the last Tour de France on a pogo stick. He should make lemonade out of lemons and start getting endorsements from juice bars or hypodermic needles. They need a spokesperson!"

That segment is a joke, Gutfeld is an un-funny moron who has a show on Fox that comes on at 3am, and McGuirk is just a stooge producer for Don Imus who has a show on the Fox business network, because Imus was fired from MSNBC for making racist comments about a black college womans basketball team. He called them a bunch of nappy-headed ho's. But Fox had no problem hiring him. O'Reilly has these two fools on every Friday, showing his right-wing bias again.

And finally the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "Take a moment this weekend to figure out what is the single worst thing in your life, something that is doing you the most harm, and then next week begin considering how to rid yourself of that damaging element."

Republican Candidate Calls Rape Pregnancies A Gift From God
By: Steve - October 27, 2012 - 10:00am

And yes he really said it, proving the pro-life right-wing in this country are insane. Here are the details:

NEW ALBANY, Indiana -- At a debate Tuesday with his Democratic opponent Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Indiana GOP Senate candidate Richard Mourdock claimed that raped women should be forced to carry their rapist's baby to term because their forced pregnancy is a gift from God:
MOURDOCK: I believe life begins at conception. The only exception I have for an abortion is in the case of the life of the mother.

I struggled with myself for a long time but I came to realize life is that gift from God, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape. It is something that God intended to happen.
Throughout his campaign, Mourdock has left no doubt that he believes in a sacred right to life that begins at conception and ends at birth. Earlier this year, Mourdock mocked the very idea that Social Security and Medicare - programs that millions of seniors depend on to save their lives - are even constitutional.

In his post-debate press conference, Mourdock repeatedly asserted that he believes God creates life, but contradicting his own remarks from the debate, said God does not pre-ordain rape.

"What I said was, in answering the question form my position of faith, I said I believe that God creates life. I believe that as wholly and as fully as I can believe it. That God creates life," Mourdock said.

"Are you trying to suggest that somehow I think that God pre-ordained rape? No, I don't think that. That's sick. Twisted. That's not even close to what I said. What I said is that God creates life."

Mourdock did, however, re-assert his belief that abortion should be illegal even for victims of rape and incest.

"I've said that consistently," Mourdock said. "I've said that for a long, long time."

And btw folks, earlier this week, presidential candidate Mitt Romney starred in an ad calling upon Indiana voters to "join me in supporting Richard Mourdock for U.S. Senate."

So Romney supports this far right-wing loon, and this is the first time in this election that Romney did an ad for a fellow Republican candidate.

The Thursday 10-25-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 26, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Getting personal in the last days of the campaign. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Now that the debates are over, the two candidates are getting personal with the American people. Mitt Romney is portraying himself as a problem-solver who can create millions of jobs; President Obama is telling the people that the Governor is a 'bulls***ter' and that he is the real job creator.

Mr. Obama has been asking crowds, 'Who is gonna look out for you?' Talking Points is flattered that the President is echoing some of what we say here, even though it may not be intentional. The race this year is the classic 'populist vs. rich guy' situation that we've seen many times before in America.

President Obama believes the middle class folks can be persuaded to vote for him because he understands them; Mitt Romney is trying to sway working Americans to his side by saying Mr. Obama's incompetence in economic matters is making your life miserable.

I have a feeling that the folks are going to break one way or the other over the next ten days, but right now I don't know which way that will be.
And I have a feeling the folks are going to see Mitt Romney for what he is, a lying partisan fool that should never be the President, and never will be. I predict an Obama victory, and Ohio will decide the election.

Then the far-right stooge Laura Ingraham was on to speculate why women are moving toward Governor Romney, even though O'Reilly says he does not allow speculation, he let Ingraham speculate away.

Ingraham said this: "The war on women narrative seemed attractive in the summer, but the totality of what's happening to the country tends to paint a picture. Women are reassured by a candidate who has experience and a plan and indicates that he's not going to start a war in Syria. That's part of what you saw Mitt Romney do in the last debate when he played it safe."

Ingraham also sort of disagreed (but not really) with the insane Dick Morris, who predicted an easy Romney victory, saying this: "I think it is extremely close, conservatives should not think that all Romney has to do is play it safe and he'll win."

Then Mary Anne Marsh and Kirsten Powers were on to explain why many women seem to be shifting to Mitt Romney.

Powers said this: "Democrats overplayed the war on women, and women went into the first debate actively disliking Mitt Romney. They had a picture of him as a man who wanted to tie them down and force them to breed and take away their contraception. Then this other person showed up and they saw someone who seemed like a plausible candidate who was talking about the economy, which is women's top issue."

Marsh blamed the shift on President Obama's lackluster performance in the first debate, saying this: "This has less to do with Romney and more that President Obama didn't show up and fight, women are looking for someone who will fight for them. But I think the benefit for Romney has stopped because women have seen the President fight every single day since then."

Then the two right-wing Culture Warriors Jeanine Pirro and Gretchen Carlson were on to analyze the Libya attack and its aftermath.

Pirro said this: "I've been a judge, and I know what facts are and what proof is. We now know what happened from the emails and the video and the drones. Americans were dying during an eight-hour firefight and no one sent help! The President went to Las Vegas to campaign while the Middle East was burning!"

Carlson said this: "They were watching in real time and the Al Qaeda network took credit for it on Facebook within the first hour. The President initially said it could have been a terror attack but then he changed his messaging. Why did the story change for the President?"

O'Reilly said he would not call the President a liar, but he urged the White House to come clean, saying this: "The President still hasn't held a press conference to explain. The administration screwed this up in a tremendous way but the pro-Obama press is protecting the President."

And that is all right-wing spin, not to mention if the embassy attack had happened under Bush he would not hold a press conference and explain it either, especially before the investigation was done.

Then Dara Torres and Erin Mirabella were on to talk about Lance Armstrong, who has been stripped of his seven Tour de France crowns because he had been using performance enhancing drugs.

Torres said this: "Testing has definitely evolved over the years, and once you're an elite athlete they can come and drug test you randomly. I'm a huge advocate of clean sports and as a society we have to make a decision whether all athletes have to be clean or all of them can have false super-human performances."

Mirabella pointed out that Armstrong and other cyclists were able to fool the testing agencies, saying this: "For years I had suspected that Armstrong and other athletes were doping, and as a clean athlete it was really frustrating to watch their super-human performances. Some of what Armstrong did was quite simple, such as not answering the door when the testers came. But they also had much more sophisticated ways if they did have to give a sample."

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about State Department emails that they claim shed light on the situation in Libya. Which I will not report on, because it's just more right-wing spin from two Republicans who are trying to hurt Obama politically (to help Romney) right before the election. With nobody from the Obama administration or the left on to de-spin their spin.

O'Reilly has also still ignored the op-ed Juan Williams wrote about it, even though he is a regular on the Factor. Proving that O'Reilly does not want to report the truth and all the facts, he just wants to use the attack for partisan political reasons, because he is a partisan right-wing hack of a pretend journalist.

In the last ridiculous segment O'Reilly had the Ventriloquist Jeff Dunham and his puppets on to talk politics, and of course he endorsed Mitt Romney, through the puppet, as he trashed Obama and Biden. Are you kidding me O'Reilly, a Ventriloquist? My God man you are a joke, what happened to this so-called hard news show you claim to have.

And finally the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "If you followed Wednesday's tip, you tuned in to see an entertaining back and forth between Bill and Letterman. So Thursday's tip is self-evident: Always heed the Tip of the Day."

The Truth About Mitt Romney In The Final Debate
By: Steve - October 26, 2012 - 10:00am

Read my Factor review in this blog to see what O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends thought of the final debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney, then read this, the truth about how Romney did.

On foreign policy, the subject of Monday night's final presidential debate, Mitt Romney had little to say and often sounded completely lost. That's because he has no original ideas of substance on most world issues, including Syria, Iran and Afghanistan.

During the debate, on issue after issue, Romney sounded as if he had read the boldfaced headings in a briefing book (or a freshman global history textbook) and had not gone much further than that. Twice during the first half-hour, he mentioned that Al Qaeda-affiliated groups were active in northern Mali. Was that in the morning's briefing book?

At other times, he announced that he had a strategy for the Middle East, especially Iran and Syria, but he gave us no clue what it would be -- much like his claim that he has a plan to create 12 million jobs and balance the budget while also cutting taxes, but will not say what it is.

At his worst, Romney sounded like a beauty pageant contestant groping for an answer to the final question. "We want a peaceful planet," he said. "We want people to be able to enjoy their lives and know they're going to have a bright and prosperous future and not be at war."

Okay, then why are the Republicans starting all these wars, and why did you support them all.

He added that the United States "didn't ask for" the mantle of global leadership but was willing to wear it. I wonder what Ronald Reagan would say about that.

Romney's problem is that he does not actually have any real ideas on foreign policy beyond what President Obama has already done, or plans to do. He supports the planned withdrawal from Afghanistan -- and was quick to insist on Monday night that he would pull out by 2014.

After slamming Obama in the past for giving a timeline for a troops pull out.

He thinks there should be economic sanctions on Iran, and he thinks the United States should be encouraging Syrian opposition forces that seem moderate. Which is the same position Obama has, and not what Romney has said in the past on it. Romney also said he would work with Saudi Arabia and Qatar on this, but those governments are funneling arms to the jihadist groups that he says he hates.

President Obama kept up the attack at virtually every opportunity. When Romney called for spending more money on the military than the United States can afford or the military wants, Obama nailed the fool with this: "You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets."

Romney even tried to revive the Republican claim that Obama conducted an apology tour at the start of his presidency, which President Obama correctly called the biggest whopper of a campaign that has been filled with them. And he took a dig at Romney's recent world travels. "When I went to Israel as a candidate," he said, "I didn't take donors, I didn't attend fund-raisers."

Romney tried to say that the president had wasted the last four years in trying to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program. But President Obama said this: "We've been able to mobilize the world. When I came into office, the world was divided. Iran was resurgent. Iran is at its weakest point, economically, strategically, militarily."

Romney then tried to set himself apart from President Obama on Iran, but ended up sounding totally incoherent. At one point he said he would indict President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on genocide charges. But he gave no clue how he would do that; like many of his comments, it was just a pre-planned sound bite.

President Obama hit Romney hard on his ever-shifting positions on world affairs, including comments he made in 2008 disparaging the idea that killing Osama bin Laden should be a priority. Obama said this: "You said we should ask Pakistan for permission. If we had asked Pakistan for permission, we would not have gotten it."

And finally, Romney's closing statement summed it all up. He said almost nothing about foreign policy. He moved back to his comfort zone: spinning out disinformation about domestic policy.

The Wednesday 10-24-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 25, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Will the media help President Obama in the last 2 weeks of the campaign? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It is widely believed that the national media want President Obama to win the election and, when it comes to influence, it is the TV news operations that have it. So let's look at the key players: Diane Sawyer, the anchor for ABC News, used to work for Richard Nixon. She has no registered political affiliation and has given no money to political parties.

Brian Williams of NBC was an intern in the Carter administration; he has no registered political affiliation and we could find no political donations. However, he has said negative things about conservatives on a few occasions. Scott Pelley of CBS has no registered political affiliation and has given no donations.

Anderson Cooper of CNN registered as a Democrat in 2004 and has criticized the Tea Party, saying it is 'driving moderates out of the GOP.' Wolf Blitzer of CNN has not registered with any party, but he has criticized conservatives and once suggested that the Tea Party is racist.

Charlie Rose of CBS This Morning, was a registered Democrat in 1990 and told President Obama his health care legislation is 'enormously successful.' Matt Lauer of NBC's Today Show is not registered with any party, while George Stephanopoulos of ABC's Good Morning America is a registered Democrat and worked as a Clinton adviser.

That's the roster of national news people delivering campaign information; Talking Points believes there is not one Republican among that group.
Then Bob Beckel, who is a lifelong Democrat, took issue with the insane claims from O'Reilly.

Beckel said this: "I've been hearing this for thirty years, and all I can say is that Republicans may want to get some people to enroll in journalism school and maybe they'll have the opportunity to get themselves in some of these high positions. These people worked their way up the ranks and got their jobs. It's a ridiculous argument that we've been hearing over and over and I don't care if there are conservatives in those positions because I don't think it matters."

Beckel is right, it does not matter what political party you are in when you report the news, what matters is if you show your bias in your reporting, which most of those people do not. Not to mention, a study of the media shows that Obama was getting more negative coverage than Romney, which blows the O'Reilly "media has a liberal bias" complaint out of the water.

O'Reilly argued that political leanings make a difference in network hiring, saying this: "They didn't always work their way up the ranks, they were appointed to these positions. I worked in network news and I know that promotions were given to people based upon their political leanings."

But he makes the exact opposite argument when it comes to people who work at Fox News. When people at Fox are called right-wing biased hacks, he says it does not matter what political party they are in because on the air they show no bias. Proving O'Reilly talks out of both sides of his mouth.

Then Rozzie Franco was on to talk about President Obama and Mitt Romney, who both sat down for separate interviews with the Des Moines Register, but the President initially insisted that his conversation be kept "off the record."

Franco said this: "Someone at the White House dropped the ball. President Obama was endorsed by the Register back in 2008 and the likelihood of him getting caught in some kind of 'gotcha' situation was highly unlikely. For him to agree to an interview off the record just seemed silly."

Then (with no proof at all) O'Reilly dismissed the idea that President Obama's campaign team is to blame, saying this: "The President is in charge of his own destiny, he made the call and he screwed up. But this paper is absolutely going to endorse President Obama on Sunday."

So much for O'Reilly never speculating, and only reporting on what he has hard facts to back him up on, it was pure speculation.

Then the insane right-wing fool John Stossel was on. O'Reilly said Romney will try to end taxpayer support for PBS and NPR if he wins the presidency.

Stossel said this: "Big Bird is rich, and he can live on his own without taxpayer money. Sesame Workshop has assets of $400 million! And the point about Bill Moyers is even stronger because we should have separation of news and state. Monies are taken from us to subsidize ideas we don't agree with. I have to pay for lefty propaganda like NPR's 'All Things Considered,' and that's wrong."

O'Reilly added that left-wing host Moyers makes a killing from PBS, saying this: "Moyers and other people with programs on PBS get to sell DVDs and keep the money. It's the biggest con going!"

No Billy, the biggest con going is you saying you are a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone, who is fair to both sides, that is the biggest con in the history of America!

Then the actor and comedian D.L. Hughley was on to slam Romney. Hughley said this: "I think he's smug and arrogant, and I just don't think he should be president. He has a level of business acumen, but he has disdain for people he can't relate to. Anybody who says the '47%' comment is clueless and lacks empathy."

Hughley also said he will not blame racism if President Obama loses in November, saying this: "I'd be disappointed but not bitter. There's an element in this country that despises President Obama's ideology and an element that despises his race. I have never seen the level of disrespect afforded this President."

And as I say about what hollywood celebs have to say about politics, who cares. O'Reilly tells us to ignore these hollywood pinheads and not listen to what they say, then he has them on his show all the time, it's ridiculous.

Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on because he is a comedian that is only on to make fun of Obama and liberals. With no liberal comedian on for balance. Proving once again that O'Reilly has a right-wing bias, even though he denies it.

Then Juliet Huddy was on for did you see that. She talked about a new pro-Romney TV ad featuring Clint Eastwood, saying this: "This was done by Karl Rove's America's Crossroads, which has spent about $12 million for a big battleground ad blitz. Despite the fact that Eastwood was mocked and derided by the left for his appearance at the convention, they went back to him."

And O'Reilly said nothing about Karl Rove raising (and spending) all that money for ads to help Romney, while also working as a Fox News political analyst, which is a conflict of interest. O'Reilly also complained about all the money in politics on Letterman, but never once slammed Rove or anyone on the right for spending all that money on political ads.

Huddy also watched a pro-Obama spot that excoriates Mitt Romney as a job-killing boss, saying this: "This is done by Priorities USA, which is bringing back some of the same people from the summer when they spent a fortune attacking Bain Capital. These are just regular folks who were working at factories or other places that Bain Capital had owned."

And finally the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "If you're still hungry for stimulating conversation, perhaps even confrontation, you can catch Bill on David Letterman's program Wednesday night." I watched, and it was b-o-r-i-n-g, there was no confrontation, just 2 guys talking politics and joking around.

Fox News Juan Williams Destroys Libya Spin From Fox Stooges
By: Steve - October 25, 2012 - 10:00am

Notice that Bill O'Reilly has not said a word about this article Juan Williams wrote for the Hill, that debunks all the right-wing lies from O'Reilly and others at Fox on Libya. O'Reilly has totally ignored it, even though Juan is a regular on his show every single week.

And the reason O'Reilly has ignored the article by Juan, is because it also debunks lies O'Reilly has put out himself on Libya. If Bill O'Reilly were a real Independent journalist, he would have had Juan on his show for a segment (by himself) and talked about this article, instead, O'Reilly just ignores it and keeps putting out lies about the Libya situation.

Here is the article:

Debunking the GOP's false narratives about the Benghazi attack By Juan Williams - 10/22/12

With the presidential candidates preparing for Monday's final debate on foreign policy, it is time for American journalism to hit pause on the political spin cycle and - without taking sides - make three corrections to the record about the campaign's most controversial foreign policy topic: the murder of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya.

The first correction is to the charge that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice lied to the American people in the days after the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

Rice told television interviewers the violence grew out of a spontaneous demonstration, prompted by an American anti-Muslim video.

Here is the simple fact: The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper has confirmed that Rice told the truth in describing the assessment of the intelligence community at the time of her remarks.

She was not the only one relying on those initial intelligence reports.

Two days after the attack, CIA Director David Petraeus briefed the House Intelligence Committee. Petraeus told lawmakers the best intelligence showed it was a demonstration sparked by the video that got out of hand.

Patrick Kennedy, the Undersecretary of State for Management, also said - in testimony before Congress earlier this month - that anyone would have said exactly what Rice said based on the intelligence available at the time.

Some U.S. officials have said they never believed the attack was mounted by a disorganized mob, but that was not the official assessment.

The spin-free truth is that Rice accurately stated what U.S. intelligence showed at the time, and stressed that there was an ongoing investigation where conclusions were subject to change.

Now for the second correction.

It is being charged that requests for extra security in Benghazi were denied by the administration.

The suggestion is that the attack would have been stopped, and the ambassador still alive, if the requests had been granted.

But at a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee this month, Charlene Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and head of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, testified that the request was for added security in Tripoli, the capital of Libya, and not Benghazi.

The added manpower would have been based 400 miles away from the violence.

In addition, U.S. security officials report more guards could not have repelled heavy weapons used by the attackers.

The Wall Street Journal has reported "a four-man team of armed guards protecting the perimeter and four unarmed Libyan guards inside to screen visitors."

In addition, "Besides the four armed Libyans outside, five armed State Department diplomatic security officers were at the consulate."

There is an air of hypocrisy about this second charge from Republican critics.

House Republicans voted to cut nearly $300 million in funding from Embassy Security as part of their most recent budget.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) conceded this in a CNN interview.

"Absolutely. Look, we have to make priorities and choices in this country...When you're in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices how to prioritize this."

The third and final correction comes in response to the charge that the attack on Benghazi is evidence that al Qaeda is resurgent.

The Romney campaign argues that, notwithstanding the Obama administration's claims, the threat from al Qaeda has not significantly diminished despite the death of Osama bin Laden.

The reality is that missions authorized by the Obama administration have killed the top commanders of the terrorist group, including bin Laden.

In addition, President Obama's drone strikes targeting al Qaeda members have decimated the remaining members of the group.

Tommy Vietor, a National Secretary Council spokesman, explains the impact.

"Our assessment that we have decimated al Qaeda leadership is unchanged. Dozens of their senior leadership have been taken off the battlefield as a result of the president's anti-terror policies," Vietor said.

"We know affiliates like al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula will seek to target us and that's why we go after them relentlessly."

This is a key point. No one is arguing that all Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is gone.

There are still radical groups intent on killing Americans. As one incarnation of al Qaeda is smashed, another one may emerge.

Young Islamic radicals are currently a threat in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, but they are not the same terrorists that attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001.

Once the political spin stops, the bottom line is there is no evidence so far to support the Romney camp's claim of incompetence or a cover-up by the administration. There is only a tragic attack on the United States, our understanding of which is becoming clearer as new intelligence comes to light.

Win at all costs and apologize later is the rule in political campaigns, and the GOP has seen Obama's approval rating on foreign policy fall in the aftermath of the Libya attack.

But this is one political strategy that is based on deliberate misinformation about the Benghazi assault.

Presidential Election Prediction O'Reilly Has Totally Ignored
By: Steve - October 24, 2012 - 11:30am

And the reason O'Reilly has ignored it is because it shows Obama winning, which O'Reilly hates because he is a Romney supporter, and he wants you to think Romney is doing good so he will raise more money.

Here is what Nate Silver (one of the best electoral college experts in America) is currently saying about the election.

The FiveThirtyEight forecast was essentially unchanged again on Sunday, with Mr. Obama retaining a 67.6 percent chance of winning the Electoral College, little different from his 67.9 percent odds on Friday and Saturday.

The FiveThirtyEight method is, principally, an Electoral College simulation, and therefore relies more heavily on state-by-state polls. Our estimates of the popular vote in the critical states are highly similar to those of other Web sites that use different methods to calculate them.

Electoral Vote:

Obama - 288 -- +4 since October 14th.

Romney - 250 -- -2.4 since October 14th.

Note: 270 Electoral votes are needed to win.

Percentage of winning:

Obama - 67.6% -- +4.3 since October 14th.

Romney - 32.4% -- -4.3 since October 14th.

Popular Vote:

Obama - 50.0% -- +0.0 since October 14th.

Romney - 48.9% -- -0.1 since October 14th.

This is what the Electoral college expert is predicting, remember this and compare it to what O'Reilly, Morris, and all their right-wing friends are telling you.

The Tuesday 10-23-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 24, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Who won the final debate? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Nobody won, but we, the American people lost because the debate was boring, the same old stuff over and over. Where were the pointed questions by moderator Bob Schieffer? Where was the Libya stuff, the Pakistan stuff? The questions were general, which allowed both candidates to recite their talking points.

I did not learn one thing from the debates. The key question is, why did Governor Romney avoid asking President Obama a question about the chaotic Libya situation? My guess is that Mr. Romney wanted to appear benign in the debate in order to court single women. Polls say Romney is running behind with them, so the Governor might have decided to take a softer approach, knowing the President would be aggressive.

As for President Obama, the CBS and CNN snap polls say he won the debate, but what did he win? He looked peevish and certainly his foreign policy knowledge is not superior to the Governor's. In the end, the third debate was tedious, nothing more.
Wow, are you kidding me O'Reilly, you said nobody won and that Obama's foreign policy knowledge is not superior to the Governor's. Which is just ridiculous, because Obama has been the President for 4 years and Romney knows nothing about Foreign Policy, all he has been is a Governor. Talk about bias, this is it, you are so biased for Romney it's pathetic. Obama won the debate in a landslide and all the polls say so.

President Obama scored a clear two-to-one victory against Mitt Romney during the final presidential debate Monday night, according to a CBS News instant poll of uncommitted voters. The poll said 53 percent of the more than 500 voters polled gave the foreign policy-themed debate to Mr. Obama; 23 percent said Romney won, and 24 percent felt the debate was a tie.

Uncommitted voters in similar polls gave the first debate to Romney by a large margin, but said Mr. Obama edged the GOP nominee in the second debate. But when Romney won the same poll after the 1st debate O'Reilly admitted Romney won. Now that Obama wins O'Reilly refuses to admit it, talk about being a biased right-wing hack of a Romney stooge, O'Reilly should be working for the Romney campaign.

And think about this folks, before the debates started O'Reilly said they were the most important debates of our lifetime and will decide the election. Now he is saying the debates are boring and he did not learn one thing from the debates. I am guessing he is getting senile and he can not remember what he says from one day to the next. Not to mention, he was wrong, because the debates rarely ever decide any elections.

Then O'Reilly has the far-right stooge Charles Krauthammer on to discuss it.

Krauthammer said this: "You're completely wrong about the moderator. The role of the debate is not to get information, the reason for a debate is to put the two men together and see how they interact together. What you're asking for is what we already have 500 hours of ever year, the Sunday morning inquisition where you lock the candidate in with a journalist who asks questions. That's not what we want. Debate number one, where Jim Lehrer asked a question and got out of the way, was the single most important debate in the history of American debates!"

O'Reilly disagreed, saying this: "This system is out of date and a waste of time because all the candidates do is spout talking points. The moderator is basically setting them up for propaganda purposes and the American public deserves more."

Which is why most of the people do not even watch the debates, including me. They should get rid of them and stop wasting air time.

Then O'Reilly had the biased Romney supporter Dick Morris on with his analysis of the debate.

Morris said this: "I wanted Mitt Romney to throw more punches, but he did not want to make news. He's got the election squarely focused on the economy and all the polls show that by two-to-one he's more trusted on the economy. So the news he wanted to make was on the economy, not on foreign policy, and I think he was right. Romney had some very specific objectives - to separate himself from George W. Bush, to make Obama seem nasty and outrageous, and not to focus on the economy. He did them all."

Morris also said that Mitt Romney will win by "between four and eight points."

Morris is a liar, and a fool. Not to mention all the polls do not say the people trust Romney more than Obama on the economy. In fact, Gallup says Obama is more trusted on the economy than Romney. Proving Morris is a liar, and O'Reilly never asked him what polls say Romney is more trusted.

Then O'Reilly had pollsters David Paleologos and Scott Rasmussen on to crunch the numbers.

Rasmussen said this: "Our poll is showing Mitt Romney up by four points, which is the biggest advantage, other than convention bounces, that we've seen in months. Since the first debate nothing has changed in the national polling, it has been a narrow lead for Mitt Romney. Either man could still win the election but no one is going to win by anything approaching eight points."

What he does not tell you is that the polls and total votes do not decide elections, electoral votes do, and Nate Silver has Obama winning 288 to 250, with Obama a 67% favorite to win the election.

Paleologos reported that Ohio is up for grabs, saying this: "If you look at the early voting, Mitt Romney trails Barack Obama by 13 among that small slice of voters, but if you look at the people who are very likely to vote, Mitt Romney leads by three. So right now it's 47 - 47."

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to talk about MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who O'Reilly said berated a young man on live TV, telling him the Benghazi attack was "about the video."

Alan Colmes actually came to Matthews' defense, saying this: "The attack was partly about the video. The CIA report said it was about the video and a reporter talked with people on the ground in Libya who said it was about the video."

And of course the biased right-wing stooge Monica Crowley slammed both Colmes and Chris Matthews, saying this: "First, Matthews was picking on a kid who doesn't even look like he's old enough to vote, he should pick on someone his own size. Second, he's repeating the administration's lies from five weeks ago."

And of course O'Reilly took the right-wing side and reminded Colmes that even the administration no longer blames the anti-Islamic video, saying this: "This was bizarre and when I heard it last night my head just snapped back. You're the only person in the country, Colmes, who would defend that. Sane people know the video had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack."

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to talk about Romney trying to appeal to women with his more conciliatory style in the debate.

Wiehl said this: "I hate to generalize about all women, but many women don't like confrontation. I think Mitt Romney struck the right tone, I don't want to see my President and my presidential candidate trying to beat up on each other."

Guilfoyle agreed that many women are turned off by aggression, saying this: "It doesn't come off as professional or presidential when you see two men circling each other like a chicken fight in the back yard. People are there to listen and to learn more about the candidates, asking who do I trust with my life and the lives of my children? I still would have liked to see Romney hold the President accountable on Libya."

Then the biased right-wing stooge Karl Rove was on with his latest assessment of the race.

Rove said this: "Last week there were five polls in Virginia, and Mitt Romney won four of them, and by next week I think those 13 electoral votes will be pointed toward Romney. North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida are going to be for Romney, so it's going to come down to Ohio and one other state. Romney leads in New Hampshire and Colorado, the race is even in Ohio and we have a barnburner."

Rove also agreed with Mitt Romney's decision not to press the Libya issue in the third debate, saying this: "He has won the issue of Libya and President Obama's ratings on foreign policy have dropped dramatically. The American people are saying that President Obama doesn't seem to be on top of this at all."

Which is just laughable, Romney did not mention Libya at the debate because it has been proven he is wrong, and that his lies are ridiculous trash that nobody but right-wing fools like Rove and O'Reilly believe.

And finally the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "Never, ever text or email anything that could hurt you in the future. No sexting, no gossip, no threats, nothing that could embarrass you. "

Federal Judge Blocks Arizona From Defunding Planned Parenthood
By: Steve - October 24, 2012 - 10:00am

So once again a federal judge has stopped the far right from trying to put in place partisan policies over abortion that are wrong and possibly even un-constitutional. What it shows is that Republicans are trying to abuse their power for partisan political reasons, because they are pro-life stooges who are trying to bypass the Roe v Wade abortion laws.

A federal judge has blocked Arizona from implementing HB 2800, a measure that would have revoked Medicaid funding for family planning services at any health organization that also provides abortions, effectively defunding the state's Planned Parenthood affiliates. The ruling represents a victory for Planned Parenthood, who sued to prevent HB 2800 from going into effect after Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) signed the bill into law in May.

Judge Neil Wake rejected the argument that Arizona can cut off federal funding for family planning simply based on the state's own determination that abortion providers aren't qualified for Medicaid eligibility, pointing out that Medicaid recipients have the right to choose between the full range of qualified providers without government interference.

Planned Parenthood officials told Reuters that they are pleased the judge's decision will preserve health services for thousands of low-income women in Arizona:
Bryan Howard, the president of Planned Parenthood Arizona, called the ruling a victory for poor women in the state. With the ruling, their health care will not be interrupted while the case moves forward, he said.

"Today's ruling affirms what we have said all along: no woman should ever have to fear being cut off from her doctor's care because of shortsighted political games," Howard said in a statement.
Remember that Bill O'Reilly supported the Republican Gov. Jan Brewer for signing the bill, saying it was a good bill that would not be thrown out in the courts, and as usual O'Reilly was wrong. Because he is also a pro-life right-wing stooge that is opposed to all abortions, even though they are LEGAL.

Under HB 2800, an estimated 3,000 Medicaid recipients in Arizona who currently receive contraception and other preventative care at their local Planned Parenthood clinic would no longer be eligible for services there.

Planned Parenthood officials condemn these type of measures (which Republican-controlled legislatures in Texas and Oklahoma have also pushed through) as politicized attacks on the organization in the ongoing War on Women, especially since abortion services account for just 3 percent of the patient care provided by Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide.

This does not represent the only politicized battle over Planned Parenthood in Arizona, however. Anti-abortion groups are also opposing a proposed sales tax in the state because they worry that some of the funds will go to Planned Parenthood.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly and ALL his lunatic right-wing friends, abortion is LEGAL and always will be, so move on with your lives and stop crying about it, do something about the jobs and the economy, and leave women alone.

The Monday 10-22-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 23, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Is America an exceptional country? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Tonight's foreign policy debate will once again feature two very different philosophies. President Obama won the election last time by repudiating American power as the big stick in the world; he presented himself to the world as a man who would seek consensus and that appealed to many Americans who were tired of seeing complicated situations like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Obama also went out of his way to tell the world that the USA would no longer take the lead in world controversies; instead, we would work with other nations to solve problems. But now many, including Governor Romney, believe that President Obama's foreign policy has weakened America and emboldened our enemies.

The Governor says Iran, Egypt, the Taliban and others no longer fear us and, therefore, Americans are in far greater danger than they were when President Bush was in power. That is the crux of tonight's debate - whether America is an 'exceptional' country that has a moral right to lead the world or a country no more entitled than anyone else.

Mr. Romney has a huge advantage tonight because of the Libya business. President Obama owes the American people a press conference, he owes it to us to explain what happened over there and why security was not what it should have been. The debate tonight is vital to both candidates.

According to the polls, Governor Romney has momentum almost everywhere, and if he wins decisively tonight, he is likely to be the next President. President Obama knows that, so he must counter Romney and emerge as a wiser man on foreign policy.
Notice how O'Reilly called President Obama, Mr. Obama instead of President Obama, which is disrespectful, and calling them both Mr. is O'Reilly trying to show that Romney is equal to Obama, when he is not. O'Reilly should show some respect and call him President Obama.

Then O'Reilly had the biased right-wing stooge Brit Hume on, O'Reilly asked Hume if Governor Romney will try to empahsize the Libya debacle.

Hume said this: "It will depend on the context in which it comes up, whether it's a direct question to him or whether the President brings it up first. I would think Mitt Romney will try to make the most of it, but I suspect he'll go about it in such a way that he'll look presidential. You don't do it like a street brawler, you do it like somebody who is bidding to be commander-in-chief. The last time he tried asking the President a question directly it didn't work very well."

Then O'Reilly had the biased right-wing fool Col. Ralph Peters on with his take on the Libya attack and the administration's various explanations.

Crazy Peters said this: "Mitt Romney should ask the President, to send his Director of National Intelligence, the Director of Central Intelligence, and the Director of the National Security Agency to Capitol Hill to testify under oath about what they knew and when they knew it. The American people deserve answers on this, it was a carefully planned attack and no reasonable adult could conclude anything else! If Governor Romney states the basic facts of the case and the essential timeline, President Obama has to respond. To me this is bigger than Watergate because no one died at Watergate."

Then the Democrat Wesley Clark, former commander of NATO was on to discuss it. Clark said this: "No President has ever been able to prevent bad things from happening somewhere around the world. Bad things happen even when a good guy is president, so the question is what the commander-in-chief does about it."

Clark also said this: "Barack Obama immediately strengthened diplomatic security wherever our embassies could possibly be in danger. He reinforced that with a military backup, he called the heads of state in these countries and emphasized their responsibility, and he put in motion a plan to go get the guys who did this."

O'Reilly once again claimed President Obama owes the country a clear explanation, saying this: "You're right that it's impossible to protect Americans everywhere, but this is about giving a straightforward explanation about what happened. The President has not done that in a month-and-a-half."

Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to talk about the importance of Libya and its possible impact on the election.

Williams said this: "This is not all that big an issue to the voters. It's not as important as the economy and jobs and the deficit. People don't think President Obama is a liar, they like him, they see him as having gotten out of Iraq, and they see him as having handled Libya and Egypt without having American forces intervene."

But of course the right-wing stooge Ham disagreed and argued that President Obama is being damaged by the Libya aftermath, saying this: "This is a big deal, with four Americans dying, and the Obama campaign has to be careful about how they talk about this. There's an institutional advantage for the incumbent in this situation, but when the American people learn more about this situation, it is a problem for him."

Wrong! Because if the American people know the truth about Libya they do not blame Obama and it is no problem for him. It's only a problem for him with people on the right, the people who watch Fox and believe the lies Fox is putting out about the attack.

Then the biased right-wing joke Bernie Goldberg was on, he looked ahead to Monday night's debate and the role of moderator Bob Schieffer.

Goldberg said this: "I worked with Schieffer at CBS for a long time, and despite the good-old-boy Texas routine, he is no bumpkin. He has spent more than half his life in Washington, he knows what's going on, and I think he'll be tough on both candidates. He knows conservatives are out there waiting to pounce on him if he makes any mistake. He's not going to go easy on Barack Obama and tough on Mitt Romney because the spotlight is too bright and he's not that dumb."

O'Reilly even speculated that Schieffer might bend over backwards to appear fair, saying this: "He might even be tougher on the President than on the Governor because he doesn't want to be accused, as Candy Crowley was, of helping out the President."

Okay, so if you both agree Schieffer will be fair, and a good moderator, why even do this topic, you right-wing morons!

And finally the two biased right-wing stooges Carl Cameron and Ed Henry were on to speculate about what will happen at the debate. Which I will not report on because it's the same old right-wing bias, and O'Reilly claims to not allow speculation, then he does.

Not to mention, nobody cares what Carl Cameron and Ed Henry have to say about it.

Big Win For Obama In Final Presidential Debate
By: Steve - October 23, 2012 - 10:30am

In a CBS News poll of 521 uncommitted voters conducted immediately after the final presidential debate, 53% said President Obama was the winner, 23% think Romney won, another 24% feel the debate was a tie.

And here is a great example of just how stupid Romney is on the military, he said the Navy is smaller now than ever, and implied they can not get the job done by counting how many ships they have. Here is a partial transcript:

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

ROMNEY: Our Navy is old - excuse me, our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917. The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We're now at under 285. We're headed down to the low 200s if we go through a sequestration. That's unacceptable to me.

We've changed for the first time since FDR - since FDR we had the - we've always had the strategy of saying we could fight in two conflicts at once. Now we're changing to one conflict. Look, this, in my view, is the highest responsibility of the President of the United States, which is to maintain the safety of the American people.

And I will not cut our military budget by a trillion dollars, which is a combination of the budget cuts the president has, as well as the sequestration cuts. That, in my view, is making - is making our future less certain and less secure.

OBAMA: Bob, I need to comment on this.

First of all, the sequester is not something that I've proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen. The budget that we are talking about is not reducing our military spending. It is maintaining it.

But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works.

You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.

And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we're counting ships. It's what are our capabilities. When I sit down with the Secretary of the Navy and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we determine how are we going to be best able to meet all of our defense needs in a way that also keeps faith with our troops, that also makes sure that our veterans have the kind of support that they need when they come home.

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

Romney fact-checkers also found 23 other lies by Romney during the debate, and O'Reilly never said a word about any of them. Because he is in the tank for Romney, and he is helping Romney by ignoring all his lies because it will make him look bad.

Fox News Dishonestly Edits Obama Rose Garden Speech
By: Steve - October 23, 2012 - 10:00am

And O'Reilly can not explain away this bias, because it was done by the so-called straight news Fox anchor Chris Wallace, on their so-called non-partisan Sunday News show.

Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace aired a deceptively edited video of President Obama's September 12th Rose Garden address to promote the Romney lie that Obama waited 2 weeks before calling the attack on a U.S. Consulate in Libya an act of terror.

In the days since Romney lied that Obama did not immediately call the deadly September 11 attack in Benghazi at act of terror, Fox has aggressively tried to muddle the conversation and introduce false ambiguity in Obama's initial comments.

Wallace even claimed he was going to show "what actually happened" when Obama first addressed the attack. He then aired a video that clearly fast forwarded through portions of the speech.

Here is Obama's September 12th speech as aired by Fox:
OBAMA: Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi .... We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others .... Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks .... No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation.
Wallace claimed that Fox eDITED portions of the speech "to show that there was quite a gap between various things that he was discussing."

But what Fox edited out of the tape is critical to understanding that Obama was very clearly discussing the Consulate attack when he said that "no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."

In fact, the very next sentence in Obama's speech discussed the victims of the Consulate attack, which he called "this terrible act."

This is what Obama actually said, with the portion aired by Wallace in bold:
OBAMA: Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
Now remember this, it is only possible to pretend that there is any confusion over whether Obama was calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror, if you edit the tape. When you play the entire tape (un-edited) as the honest journalists have done, there is no confusion.

The Truth About Mitt Romney's Mystery Jobs Plan
By: Steve - October 22, 2012 - 10:00am

Notice one thing, O'Reilly is not asking Romney to give us details on his jobs plan. But when Democrats run for office, O'Reilly demands they give him details of their plan, and says if they do not go on his show they will lose.

Romney has not given O'Reilly details, or went on his show, and O'Reilly is giving him a pass on both counts. Why? Because O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack that is doing everything he can to help Romney, by dishonestly slamming Obama for everything he can, and ignoring all the details of the Romney Taxes/Jobs plan, because he knows the numbers do not add up, and the jobs plan is a joke.

So what does O'Reilly do, he helps Romney by not asking for details, and by ignoring the ridiculous Romney jobs plan.

To get the truth you have to find it yourself, and Professor Paul Krugman wrote the truth about the Romney jobs plan, calling it a snow job. Here is what Professor Krugman, a Pulitzer Prize Winner For Economics wrote:

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

You can defend President Obama's jobs record -- recovery from a severe financial crisis is always difficult, and especially so when the opposition party does its best to block every policy initiative you propose. And things have definitely improved over the past year. Still, unemployment remains high after all these years, and a candidate with a real plan to make things better could make a strong case for his election.

But Mr. Romney, it turns out, doesn't have a plan; he's just faking it. In saying that, I don't mean that I disagree with his economic philosophy; I do, but that's a separate point. I mean, instead, that Mr. Romney's campaign is telling lies: claiming that its numbers add up when they don't, claiming that independent studies support its position when those studies do no such thing.

Before I get there, however, let me take a minute to talk about Mr. Romney's claim that he knows how to fix the economy because he's been a successful businessman. That would be a dubious claim even if he were honestly representing his business career, because the skills needed to run a business and those needed to manage economic policy are very different. In any case, however, his portrait of his own experience is so misleading that it takes your breath away.

For Mr. Romney, who started as a business consultant and then moved into the heady world of private equity, insists on portraying himself as a plucky small businessman.

I am not making this up. In Tuesday's debate, he declared, "I came through small business. I understand how hard it is to start a small business." In his speech at the Republican convention, he declared, "When I was 37, I helped start a small company."

Ahem. It's true that when Bain Capital started, it had only a handful of employees. But it had $37 million in funds, raised from sources that included wealthy Europeans investing through Panamanian shell companies and Central American oligarchs living in Miami while death squads associated with their families ravaged their home nations. Hey, doesn't every plucky little start-up have access to that kind of financing?

But back to the Romney jobs plan. As many people have noted, the plan has five points but contains no specifics. Loosely speaking, however, it calls for a return to Bushonomics: tax cuts for the wealthy plus weaker environmental protection. And Mr. Romney says that the plan would create 12 million jobs over the next four years.

Where does that number come from? When pressed, the campaign cited three studies that it claimed supported its assertions. In fact, however, those studies did no such thing.

Just for the record, one study concluded that America might gain two million jobs if China stopped infringing on U.S. patents and other intellectual property; this would be nice, but Mr. Romney hasn't proposed anything that would bring about that outcome. Another study suggested that growth in the energy sector might add three million jobs in the next few years -- but these were predicted gains under current policy, that is, they would happen no matter who wins the election, not as a consequence of the Romney plan.

Finally, a third study examined the effects of the Romney tax plan and argued (implausibly, but that's another issue) that it would lead to a large increase in the number of Americans who want to work. But how does that help cure a situation in which there are already millions more Americans seeking work than there are jobs available? It's irrelevant to Mr. Romney's claims.

So when the campaign says that these three studies support its claims about jobs, it is, to use the technical term, lying -- just as it is when it says that six independent studies support its claims about taxes (they don't).

What do Mr. Romney's economic advisers actually believe? As best as I can tell, they're placing their faith in the confidence fairy, in the belief that their candidate’s victory would inspire an employment boom without the need for any real change in policy. In fact, in his infamous Boca Raton "47 percent" remarks, Mr. Romney himself asserted that he would give a big boost to the economy simply by being elected, "without actually doing anything." And what about the overwhelming evidence that our weak economy isn't about confidence, it's about the hangover from a terrible financial crisis? Never mind.

To summarize, then, the true Romney plan is to create an economic boom through the sheer power of Mr. Romney's personal awesomeness. But the campaign doesn't dare say that, for fear that voters would (rightly) consider it ridiculous. So what we're getting instead is an attempt to brazen it out with nakedly false claims. There's no jobs plan; just a plan for a snow job on the American people.

O'Reilly Ignoring More Republican Racism Against Obama
By: Steve - October 21, 2012 - 10:00am

And he ignores it as he denies there is any racism on the right against Obama, when it does show up O'Reilly just ignores it and claims there is none.

This was not just random racism either, it was at an actual Romney campaign rally. A supporter of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was spotted wearing a T-shirt with the words "Put the white back in the White House" at a campaign event this week.

The photograph was taken on Friday at a Romney/Ryan campaign event in Lancaster, Ohio. A Romney spokesperson even commented that "The shirt was reprehensible and has no place in this election."

But this is not the first time in recent weeks that racism has been directed towards President Barack Obama. On Tuesday, The Huffington Post reported that "Symbolic protests against the president featured empty chairs and racist imagery continued this week in California, with an arrangement featuring a noose, watermelons and a birther sign."

And last month, an Obama supporter in Texas said her Obama/Biden yard sign had been vandalized with the words "N*GGER LOVER -- Obama Sucks D*ck!"

"We have at least 4 African American families living on this street. I'm so offended," said the woman in the wake of the vandalism. "Not just because whoever did this is ignorant and misinformed and trespassed and vandalized my sign, but infinitely more for my neighbors who might have driven by and seen it.”

But of course none of this stuff ever happens in O'Reillyworld, it happens, O'Reilly just refuses to report it.

The Friday 10-19-12 Factor Guest List
By: Steve - October 20, 2012 - 11:30am

Here is a good one folks, O'Reilly claims he has a balanced guest list, that for every Republican he has on he has a Democratic guest on. During the Stewart/O'Reilly debate Billy even told Stewart that he has a 1 to 1 political party balance, to which Jon Stewart laughed in his face, as he called him the Mayor of bullshit mountain.

About a year ago O'Reilly said this on his show:
O'REILLY: I make sure, personally make sure, that throughout the week we have equal representation of conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican. OK, I mean, if you have been watching the show I've been doing this now into our thirteenth year, and we have voices, and they're equal.
Now look at the guest list for his Friday show:

1) Mike Huckabee - Republican
2) Wayne Allyn Root - Republican
3) Kenneth Bickers - Republican
4) Lou Dobbs - Republican
5) Bret Baier - Republican
6) Greg Gutfeld - Republican
7) Bernard McGuirk - Republican

Where is the balance O'Reilly, how is 7 to 0 balance, if you personally make sure you have an equal representation of conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican, then this proves you are a liar and a biased right-wing hack. Answer this, how do you explain 7 Republican guests to 0 Democratic guests on the Friday night show.

The Friday 10-19-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 20, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: President Obama and Mitt Romney trade barbs. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama and Governor Romney attended the Al Smith Dinner in New York City last night, a a charitable exposition run by Cardinal Timothy Dolan. Talking Points believes that kind of stuff is worthy. We all know how intense and competitive the election is, and to have a few laughs over it shows that our democracy is vibrant.

But back to reality: Before he went to the dinner the President taped the Jon Stewart show, where he said, 'If four Americans get killed, it's not optimal.' By using the word 'optimal' President Obama has upset some people who don't like him; they are saying it shows he is insensitive to the murders of in Libya.

I disagree, I think Mr. Obama was simply playing off Stewart's description and the remark was in context. However, there is a strange detachment here. After the President learned of the assassinations he went to Las Vegas to campaign. We now know that the CIA told the Obama administration early on that what happened in Benghazi was an organized terror attack, yet the President would not hold a press conference and say that.

Instead, his U.N. Ambassador and press spokesperson openly misled the public. Even now Mr. Obama remains nebulous and foggy about the whole situation. Hold a press conference, Mr. President, and lay everything out there. If the President fails to do that, Mitt Romney has a huge advantage with the foreign policy debate coming up on Monday. We need answers; Romney should demand them.
And as usual O'Reilly gives you his right-wing opinion on it, while everyone else does not see it the same way, it's called right-wing spin for Romney to help him beat Obama. From the so-called non-partisan Independent, Bill O'Reilly. And btw, look at the guest list, all Republicans, 7 of them, and O'Reilly makes 8, not one Democratic guest on the entire show. So it was all right-wing spin, all the time.

Then O'Reilly had the Republican Mike Huckabee on. O'Reilly said the latest national tracking polls show Romney with a six-point lead in the Gallup poll, while the candidates are tied in Rasmussen's daily poll. Which is funny, because when Obama was ahead in the Gallup poll O'Reilly never reported it, he only reported the Rasmussen poll. Now that Gallup has Romney ahead suddenly he reports it, what a biased hack.

Huckabee said this: "In Florida, Barack Obama was winning among women by 19%; that's now 4%. Polls are showing that women are much more comfortable and are moving toward Mitt Romney. They had an impression that he was this corporate executive with no heart and no feeling, but then they saw him debate. Women care about more than getting free birth control pills."

Then O'Reilly had two more Republicans on, Wayne Allyn Root and Kenneth Bickers. They don't believe the presidential election will even be close.

Root said this: "I've been saying since May, that Romney will win in a landslide. It will be a 5 to 7 point popular vote and 100 electoral vote victory for Mitt Romney. I know lots of small business owners, Jewish voters and Catholic voters. Four years ago they were all willing to give Obama a chance, but every single person I know who has a small business says they can't take another four years of Obama. There has been a sea change in this country."

Political science professor Kenneth Bickers explained that his analysis is based not on anecdotal evidence, but on economic statistics, saying this: "We think Romney will get around 330 electoral votes, and this is based on elections going all the way back to 1980. My colleague and I base this on unemployment rates and real income per-capita in the individual states. We show that Governor Romney will carry most of the battleground states."

And now here is how biased that segment was, none of them mentioned that Las Vegas does not do odds on the Presidential election, or that there are only 130 electoral votes up for grabs, so for Romney to get 100 or 130 more he would have to win all the swing states, and Obama is ahead in most of them, so it's virtually impossible for Romney to win them all and get 100 to 130 more electoral votes.

Now get this, in England they do have odds on the Presidential election, and Obama's current odds of -250 are comparable to a 6-point favorite in the NFL. So Obama is the favorite, and gaining in the polls after the 2nd debate. But O'Reilly and his gang of right-wing stooges never told you any of that.

Then the Republican Lou Dobbs was on to explain why gas costs $4.00 a gallon. And Dobbs put out some insane right-wing spin about offshore drilling, which is ridiculous and even O'Reilly admitted it.

Dobbs said this: "The real answer, is that in 2009 President Obama ordered his Interior Secretary to re-impose a moratorium on drilling offshore. Prices started to move up and within a year they were up by 80 cents a gallon. Then, in 2010, he reinstituted nearly all of the moratoria on offshore drilling. Gas and oil production is rising on private lands, but we are not producing enough to satisfy demand. We could be energy independent but we are not."

Even O'Reilly did not buy that, saying this: "We have plenty of oil, everybody says there is plenty of oil and gas around."

What they failed to tell you is that in some places gas is $3.49 a gallon, as it is here in Peoria Illinois, and dropping, it's dropped 20 cents in just the last 5 days. The problem is not a lack of supply, it's the corrupt oil speculators bidding up the price of a barrel of oil. A former Shell CEO even admitted he can not see any reason why oil is $92.00 a barrel, he said it should be around $75.00 a barrel, and gas should be around $3.00 a gallon, or less.

Then the Republican Bret Baier, who is hosting a special report about the attacks in Libya and the aftermath, was on to spin it to make Obama look bad.

Baier said this: "Officials on the ground were sending up red flags and Ambassador Stevens himself, on the day he was murdered, wrote a cable saying he was worried about the security situation in Benghazi. These cables were unanswered all along by his bosses in the State Department."

Baier also said this: "There was an effort to make sure the situation was okay between the Libyan population and the Ambassador, even though the situation was extremely volatile."

And of course they never sent them to Obama or Biden, they went to the State Department, so how is Obama and Biden to blame, they are not to blame of course, but in O'Reillyworld and on Fox they are. Then they do not mention the Republicans cut the embassy security funding by $300 million either, so there was no money to pay for more security.

Then two more Republicans were on to be part of the all right-wing spin show, Greg Gutfeld and Bernard McGuirk. O'Reilly talked about how some women's groups have ridiculed Mitt Romney for saying he received "binders full of women" when he was seeking qualified females to fill his gubernatorial staff.

Gutfeld and McGuirk then ridiculed the women's groups. Gutfeld said this: "I love it when the media pretends not to know what Romney meant, and now they're taking everything literally. If he had said, 'I have a panel of women,' they'd go, 'He created paneling out of women, oh my goodness, he's an atrocious monster!' They are on purpose trying to pretend that they don't understand."

McGuirk singled out one CNN reporter who took offense at the "binder" reference, saying this: "Her name is Jessica Yellin, but her name should be Jessica 'Whining.' She's supposed to be a reporter, not giving her opinion. They first tried to paint Romney as Leona Helmsley in a suit, a guy who killed his employee's wife, and now they're trying to paint him as Joey Buttafuoco in a suit, a guy who rips the heads off Barbie dolls."

Gutfeld and McGuirk were even on for a 2nd segment to discuss the general intelligence and awareness level of American voters. Which is funny, because they are two stupid morons, and have no credibility to talk about the intelligence of anyone, especially Gutfeld who is so stupid he can only get a show on Fox that's on at 3am in the morning.

McGuirk said this: "the electorate is an ass. We live in a Jersey Shore and Kardashian world, and I know more people who watched the whole Yankee game Tuesday night than the debate. They can tell you Alex Rodriguez' salary but they couldn't tell you the national debt."

Gutfeld jokingly quarreled with McGuirk's disparagement of American voters, saying this: "Maybe America is so awesome that we don't have to pay attention until we need to. I didn't know who Rick Perry was, I thought he played for the Golden State Warriors in the '70's, and I am almost considered slightly average in intelligence."

And btw, not once does O'Reilly disclose that all those guests are Republicans who support Mitt Romney, no disclosure at all, ever. But when a liberal guest is on CNN or MSNBC, O'Reilly demands full disclosure about their bias.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "Retailers are hungry for business right now, so if you buy your Christmas gifts before Halloween you'll save a boatload of money."

Ben Stein Tells Fox We Must Raise Taxes On The Very Rich
By: Steve - October 20, 2012 - 10:00am

Stein even said this: I hate to say this on Fox because I may not walk out of here alive, but we must raise taxes on the very rich because we can not just cut spending to fix the deficit.



And that is pretty sad, because every economic expert agrees with Stein, but O'Reilly and the right are still opposed to raising taxes on the wealthy. Sten was afraid to say it because he knows the propaganda from Fox and the right is that we do not need to raise taxes on the rich, and doing so would hurt the economy.

But Stein shot that garbage down by saying we have had high tax rates on the rich in the past and it did not hurt the economy. He was even on the O'Reilly Factor where he told the insane Bill O'Reilly the same thing, and as expected O'Reilly disagreed with him, because he is a right-wing spin doctor.

Stein is being honest, and he admits it must be done. But O'Reilly and the right are still sticking with their propaganda that you can not raise taxes on the rich without hurting the economy. Even though it worked under Clinton, and that led to 22 million new jobs. And the best years we have ever had in this country (economically) were when tax rates were at 70% or more on the wealthy.

The Thursday 10-18-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 19, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: What kind of country do you want? The biased and insane O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As Talking Points has been saying, the presidential vote this year is about what America will become. Here are the two choices: We will go back to traditional capitalism and self reliance, or we'll stay with President Obama, who is using the federal government to impose 'social justice.'

The problem is that 'social justice' costs a lot of money and some European countries like Greece are now exploding in violence because the government can no longer pay the huge entitlements, so these people are angry and want to destroy the establishment. With the USA currently owing more than $16 trillion, it could happen here.

President Obama has not addressed the issue; his theme is that if you tax wealthy Americans and corporations more, the debt will get under control. But the figures don't back that up. The USA spent $746 billion last year giving people stuff. That's more than Medicare, more than Social Security, more than the non-war Defense budget.

President Obama wants to increase entitlement spending, while Governor Romney says he'll reduce most domestic spending by 5% right off the bat. So, that's what we'll be voting on come November 6th. Self-reliance with safety nets or social assistance for more than half the population. You make the call.
And that my friends is what you call right-wing spin, almost none of what O'Reilly said is actually true, it's pretty much his opinion of things. Most of that debt is from the Bush tax cuts and wars, which O'Reilly failed to mention, as he blames Obama for what Bush and the Republicans did. Not to mention, social programs did not cause the debt, as O'Reilly claims, and yet he wants to cut their funding anyway.

Then O'Reilly had the Republican Ben Stein on, who endorsed President Obama's call for higher taxes, saying this: "We are going to go bankrupt without them, and I don't see any means of avoiding national bankruptcy way down the road if we don't raise taxes. The government will waste a lot of it, which is the nature of government and the nature of human beings."

Entrepreneur Monica Mehta specifically called for an increase in the capital gains tax rate, saying this: "We spend so much time, talking about increasing ordinary income tax rates for the top 1%, but the amount of money you would collect from that is a drop in the bucket. If you were to tax a dollar made in the stock market or in real estate the same way you tax a dollar made in a factory, the U.S. government would raise $250 billion more a year."

But of course the right-wing propagandist Bill O'Reilly disagreed with both of them, he warned that a higher capital gains rate could be counterproductive, saying this: "I'm an investor and if the capital gains rate goes to 25% or 30%, I'm not going to invest in stocks."

Which is a lie from O'Reilly, he will still invest even if the rate is raised, and Stein said even if the Cap. Gains rate is raised people will still invest because they will still want to make money on investments.

Then O'Reilly had Wendy Murphy and Erica Payne on to talk about how a lot of people are mocking Mitt Romney for saying he received "binders full of women" when he was seeking qualified females to fill his gubernatorial staff.

Attorney Wendy Murphy, who is a Republican who not only supports Romney, she helped Romney recruit women in Massachusetts, jumped to his defense, saying this: "We really did put binders together, and what he said is exactly true. He could have just sat back, but he sent his lieutenant governor to our meetings. Why would anyone object to what this man did?"

And I can answer that, Romney did it for political reasons because he was getting hurt by not having very many women working for him, out of the 89 people working for him at Bain only 4 were women. He did not do it because he cares about giving women good jobs, he did it for political reasons, idiot!

Liberal activist Erica Payne explained why the "binder" comment was offensive, saying this: "It conjured up the view of an Arab sheikh flipping through to find women for his harem. But what I find more offensive is that he created a smokescreen by saying he did a great job hiring women in his administration."

And of course O'Reilly defended his buddy Romney and agreed with the crazy Wendy Murphy, he then ridiculed the groups who claim to be offended, saying this: "When you have a president who is in trouble, as President Obama is right now, his supporters are going to find anything to denigrate and diminish the opposition."

Then the body language bimbo Tonya Reiman was on, which I do not report on because this is not news, it's a waste of tv time on a so-called real news show.

Then 2 Republicans Gretchen Carlson and Jeanine Pirro were on to talk about the Obama campaign, who is using famous actresses to warn women of the dire consequences of a Romney presidency.

Pirro said this: "This is a bunch of hogwash. This election will probably be decided by women because there are more women, and this is fear-mongering. So if you don't die of breast cancer because there won't be breast cancer screenings, you'll be barefoot and pregnant and you won't have any clothes! The fear-mongering and the misstatements of facts are an outrage."

Then the totally insane Gretchen Carlson even suggested that the war on women is actually being waged by the left, saying this: "It's an attack on women to think they only vote on a single issue, which is reproductive rights or contraception. Women are going to vote on the exact same issues as men, which are jobs, the economy, debt, health care, and their children's future."

Which is so laughable it does not even deserve a comment. The war on women is by Republicans who want to tell them what they can and can not do with their own bodies.

Then the Republican Megyn Kelly was on to talk about the federal court ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional.

Kelly said this: "The court is opening it up to marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. The court was simply striking down a law that the Obama administration has refused to defend. The law had no forceful government advocate."

O'Reilly questioned whether the ruling is an invitation to even broader interpretations of marriage, asking this: "How about two guys and a girl, or three girls and a guy?"

Which is just ridiculous, because the law says one person to one person, not 2 or 3 on 1, idiot.

Then Professor Marc Lamont Hill was on to talk about an article he wrote listing the "most overrated white people," among them Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Babe Ruth, and Sarah Palin.

Hill said this: "Christopher Columbus epitomizes overrated white people. He thought they were in one place and they landed somewhere else. We give him credit for creating something in a way that ignores indigenous people."

Hill also explained why his list includes Elvis Presley and Ronald Reagan, saying this: "I'm not saying Elvis is not good, he's just overrated. He's not the 'king of rock and roll.' Reagan expanded prisons and shrank public assistance for the most vulnerable people."

O'Reilly said this: "What if I wrote an article, 'The 15 Most Overrated Black People?' There's a double standard."

Really? Where is the double standard O'Reilly, because you can write an article about The 15 Most Overrated Black People. Nobody is stoppong you, just do it.

And finally the totally dishonest Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "After years of pushing a left-wing agenda, Newsweek magazine is ending its print edition. So the tip: Ideology can hurt you in business and in your personal life, so be fair and reasonable. "

O'Reilly Called Obama A Liar Over Gas Price Claims
By: Steve - October 19, 2012 - 10:00am

This is how much of a partisan right-wing hack O'Reilly is, he does not believe President Obama when he said gas prices were so low when he took office because of the recession, even though it's true, and everyone else in the world knows it is true.

Wednesday night O'Reilly dismissed President Obama's statement in the second presidential debate that gasoline prices were unusually low when he was inaugurated due to the recession as "totally bogus."

But while O'Reilly thinks it "doesn't make any sense," oil market experts and even News Corp. outlets have explained that the recession led to a huge drop in oil demand, which temporarily drove prices down just before Obama took office.

Economists for the American Petroleum Institute said this:

Most oil market experts believe that the rapid and sustained reduction in oil prices that began in 2008 and extended beyond occurred because the world economy began to slow down and ultimately to experience a deep recession. This is one way to reduce oil prices, but not a very attractive one.

The Wall Street Journal said this:

When Mr. Obama was inaugurated, demand was weak due to the recession. But now it's stronger, and thus the price is higher.

Fox Business said this:

The economy is making gains on its path to a slow recovery, which means consumers can expect higher gas prices this year.

"When the economy improves, we will be using more petroleum," explains Patrick DeHaan, senior petroleum analyst at GasBuddy.com. "It's all but a certain that prices will likely go up this year."

Fox News Chris Wallace said this during an interview with Newt Gingrich:

WALLACE: You pointed out the fact that gasoline was $1.89 a gallon when President Obama took office. They say that's a bit misleading because it was the depths of the recession, so understandably gas prices had gone down. And fact is, just six months before it was $4.11 under President Bush.

Accepting that gas prices dropped due to the massive recession would require O'Reilly and other conservative media figures to face not only the fact that Obama can't control the price of gas, but also just how bad the economy was when Obama took office.

The hypocrisy from O'Reilly never fails to amaze me and the hypocrisy of blaming President Obama for rising gas prices is no exception.

Gas prices under bush went to $4.21 a gallon and was over $3.00 a gallon most of his last term in office.

The only reason gas was at $1.85 when President Obama took office is because of the economic crash which greatly reduced demand and the crash effected all countries not just the US.

Gas prices rise with demand and as the economy has improved it is completely normal for gas prices to increase as more businesses use fuel for deliveries, more trucks on the road, more people traveling, and more people driving to work.

So our rising gas price is actually an indicator that the economy is recovering. We also see a spike when the Libya UN action happened and now with Iran and Israel in a standoff an Syria effecting the region we are seeing another spike as speculators are betting on a war.

Anyone that tries to blame president Obama for higher gas prices is a fool and drilling more oil would not lower the price because we do not have a shortage and oil drilling has quadrupled in the last 4 years and the US is now a net exporter of oil.

And now you have the facts, not the right-wing propaganda O'Reilly put out.

The Wednesday 10-17-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 18, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Presidential debate Highs and Lows. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Last night President Obama helped his cause, but he did not damage Mitt Romney, who held his own. Because Mr. Obama was on the ropes after debate #1, he gained the most from last night's exposition. Governor Romney's best moment was when he delineated President Obama's record; the President's best moment came at the end of the debate when he brought up Mitt Romney's 47% comment.

On the negative side, Governor Romney had a weak moment when he hectored the President over his energy policy. He did not look presidential; he looked like a cable news analyst. The President looked bad trying to answer Romney's question about why gas prices have more than doubled on his watch and when he avoided a question about embassy security in Libya.

With all due respect, the President dodged a very important question about who pulled two security teams out of Libya in August. When moderator Candy Crowley sided with the President about when the attack in Libya was called terrorism, she totally blew it. She helped the President when she should have stayed neutral; the President did not specifically call the murder of the American ambassador in Libya a terrorist attack.

Summing up, President Obama regained some momentum, but did not diminish his opponent. With the third debate looming Monday night, anything can happen in this very intense race.
And all that is nothing but the opinion of Bill O'Reilly, the right-wing hack, of what he saw. I saw Obama smoke Romney, and so did almost everyone else. Because all the polls had Obama winning the debate by 7 or more points. Romney had many weak moments, O'Reilly just ignored them, and never said a word about all the lies Romney put out.

O'Reilly even lied for Romney on the act of terror statement Obama made, not once but twice in the 2 days after the embassy attack. Read my other blog posts for details.

Then the far-right stooge Laura Ingraham to evaluate Tuesday night's debate, who of course thought Romney did great. Because she is a right-wing spin doctor who sees what she wants to see, not the truth.

Ingraham said this: "No doubt Romney missed some opportunities, and it might have been good for him to make some references to the President's comments on Libya. Nevertheless, the issues that America is really hungering for leadership on are the deficit, taxes, jobs, and the economy. And whether it's the CNN poll or the CBS poll, on those metrics Obama is in big trouble. Romney wins and he wins handily on how people view him in handling the economy."

Ingraham also advised Romney to incorporate a particular word whenever he speaks about the last four years, saying this: "The word 'failure' is so powerful, when he says, 'Your record, Mr. President, is one of failure.' That kind of language would be helpful to him."

Which is ridiculous, because it has not been a failure. Obama has done pretty well considering the situation he was put in by the Republican George W. Bush. The economy is recovering, unemployment is on the way down, jobs are coming back, the stock market is about to break 14,000, and things are improving. O'Reilly and Ingraham just refuse to admit it, because they are too busy campaigning for Romney.

Then the real liberal Bob Beckel was on. Beckel first took issue with a post-debate focus group conducted for Fox News by the biased pollster Frank Luntz.

Beckel said this: "That's not the way you do a focus group, and it doesn't rise to the standard of your show. Someone doing a focus group does not stand in front of people and be a cheerleader. I think Luntz is a Republican and I'd be suspicious about how these people were chosen."

As for the debate itself, Beckel called it a big victory for President Obama, saying this: "Mitt Romney didn't come up with an overarching way of how he'll deal with our problems. He was asked a question about his tax plan and he ducked it. Replacing an incumbent president is a big deal for people and in Mitt Romney's case this is a guy no one has a firm grip on."

And then of course O'Reilly defended Romney and claimed he did a good job pointing out President Obama's economic failures, saying this: "You have 50 million people watching the debate and they get impressions. The impression Mitt Romney wants to give is that President Obama is a failure economically and the way he did it was effective."

Then Thomas Friedman was on with his assessment of the debate, saying this: "All these debates come down to one question. I think people are still looking for who has a plan to get us out of this mess. The candidate who can use the last debate to drive that issue home is the one who will have the best chance of becoming the next president."

Friedman also outlined how President Obama can make his best case, saying this: "He can talk about things like 'Race to the Top,' which has had a phenomenal impact on education reform, the foundation of jobs. He can talk about his mileage initiative, which is going to drive massive innovation in the auto industry. People are looking for a sense of conviction and a sense that you're excited about your ideas."

Then O'Reilly spoke out for Romney once again, telling Friedman that Mitt Romney has one very powerful argument, saying this: "The economy is growing at a slower rate now than it was in 2011. It's not getting better, it's getting worse, and that's indisputable."

Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on because he is a biased hack of a comedian who is only on to make jokes about liberals, and there is no liberal comedian on for balance to make jokes about conservatives.

Then the did you see that segment with Juliet Huddy, she watched footage of O'Reilly being interviewed by Katie Couric on the former Today Show host's talk show.

And of course Huddy kissed his butt, saying this: "You looked lovely, and I liked the chemistry between the two of you. You started talking about the debate and how the candidates may have turned women off. The debate was anxiety-producing, I was stressed out watching the two of them."

Huddy also viewed tape of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie explaining to an interviewer why he hasn't appeared on The Factor. As the Governor put it: "Because I don't want to ... I don't choose to go on that show."

Huddy was obviously disappointed in her governor, saying this: "I loved him. You have defended him and I have no idea why he would be this way. He will lose my vote if he doesn't come on the show."

Then Mr. no speculation (speculated) that Governor Christie has some unknown personal reason for avoiding his show, saying this: "I've never met him, I've never talked with him, and I don't even make fun of him. I think someone in his organization loathes me, there is definitely an edge there."

And finally the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "Author Nelson DeMille has a new thriller out called "The Panther," which includes a lot of inside stuff on terrorists. You always learn something when reading fiction by DeMille."

Reuters Poll Says President Obama Clear Debate Winner
By: Steve - October 18, 2012 - 10:00am

But the partisan right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said it was basically a tie, even though all the polls have Obama winning.

(Reuters) - Voters say that President Barack Obama performed better than Republican rival Mitt Romney by a substantial margin in their second debate, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday.

Forty-eight percent of registered voters gave the victory to Obama, while 33 percent say Romney prevailed in the Tuesday debate, the online poll found.

The poll reflects the broad consensus of debate observers who said Obama's forceful approach gave him the upper hand over Romney.

"Clearly, the debate was a bit of a turnaround for Obama. He put in a much stronger performance than he did in the first debate and it's showing in the numbers," said Ipsos pollster Julia Clark.

Obama's favorability rating also climbed five percentage points after Tuesday's debate to 55 percent. Romney's favorability rating fell two percentage points, to 48 percent.

(Another important fact Bill O'Reilly never reported in his post debate show.)

Voters' views of Obama also improved slightly on a range of issues and personal attributes, from managing the economy to whether he is tough enough for the job.

Obama launched aggressive attacks against Romney on jobs, energy and Libya in the debate. His feisty performance thrilled Democratic supporters who had been disappointed with his lackluster effort in the first debate.

Conventional wisdom holds that debates rarely affect the outcome of presidential elections, but this year may prove an exception.

Romney surged ahead of Obama in polls in the weeks following the first debate, but his lead was already shrinking before the second debate, which was held at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York.

O'Reilly & Fox Covering For Romney & His Lies
By: Steve - October 18, 2012 - 9:00am

Bill O'Reilly and pretty much everyone at Fox is covering and lying for Romney, over his lie that President Obama did not call the attack in Libya an act of terror for 14 days. O'Reilly even said the debate moderator Candy Crowley also got it wrong, and that she was helping Obama.

Which is nonsense, Obama did say it one day after the attack, and he said it again 2 days after the attack, both times he said it in the context of the embassy attack. O'Reilly even tried to claim Obama said he will fight terror in general terms and that he was not talking about the embassy attack.

During the Tuesday night presidential debate, moderator Candy Crowley corrected Mitt Romney's false claim that President Obama did not refer to the September 11 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya as an act of terrorism the day after the attack.

Crowley was right, and Romney was wrong: In his September 12 remarks, the president said this: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America."

Now get this, Obama said "act of terror" as he was making a statement about the September 11 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya. How is that not calling it an act of terror, well only O'Reilly and Fox News know that answer. Because everyone else knows it was said about the embassy attack.

O'Reilly argued that the line was just a generic, reassuring line Obama added into the speech. Even though Obama mentioned the four Americans killed in Benghazi in the very next line of the same statement.

That makes little sense and is speculation far too thin to stand on, even for O'Reilly. But it's good enough for Fox News and the conservative blogosphere. What O'Reilly and Fox are doing is just covering for the Romney mistake.

Fox News furthered its efforts to protect Mitt Romney from fact checks, claiming Wednesday that moderator and CNN host Candy Crowley interrupted a "major moment" for Romney during the presidential debate when she corrected his lie that President Obama did not immediately characterize the September 11 attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

During the October 16 debate, Crowley stepped in to debunk Romney's claim that it took 14 days for Obama to characterize as terrorism the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. As she noted, Obama "did call it an act of terror" the day after the attack.

Addressing the nation on September 12 about the attack, Obama said: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America."

The next day in Colorado, Obama again referred to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror.

And btw, it's the same thing he said the day before on 9-12-12, but O'Reilly and Fox are not saying a word about the 2nd time he said act of terror, that's because they hope you do not know about the 2nd time, or hear about it. Here is what Obama said that next day for the 2nd time, 9-13-12:
OBAMA: Let me say at the outset that obviously our hearts are heavy this week -- we had a tough day a couple of days ago, for four Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Libya. Yesterday I had a chance to go over to the State Department to talk to friends and colleagues of those who were killed.

And these were Americans who, like so many others, both in uniform and civilians, who serve in difficult and dangerous places all around the world to advance the interests and the values that we hold dear as Americans.

And a lot of times their work goes unheralded, doesn't get a lot of attention, but it is vitally important. We enjoy our security and our liberty because of the sacrifices that they make. And they do an outstanding job every single day without a lot of fanfare.

So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice.

I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.
Sean Hannity also falsely claimed that when Obama referenced "acts of terror," he was "talking about September 11, 2001. He doesn't talk about Benghazi being an act of terror." Just as O'Reilly did, so they are both using the same right-wing talking points Romney and the Republicans have put out. Even though O'Reilly claims to be a non-partisan Independent who never uses right-wing talking points, that is exactly what he did.

No matter what you believe, one thing is for sure, O'Reilly used the right-wing talking points to spin for Romney. That is a fact. Without saying a word about the act of terror statement on 9-13-12, because it kills his spin that it was only said on 9-12-12 and that is was said in general terms.

If you watch O'Reilly for your news you will never hear about the 2nd Obama act of terror statement the very next day after the 9-12-12 statement, proving once again that O'Reilly is a dishonest partisan right-wing hack who is willing to lie and spin for Romney.

The Tuesday 10-16-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 17, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Debate preview. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: This verbal shootout at Hofstra University on Long Island is vital for President Obama. According to the Rasmussen daily tracking poll, Mitt Romney now leads the President by two points among likely voters, while the Gallup daily tracking poll has Governor Romney up by four points.

The swing states are also trending toward Governor Romney and all over the country he is surging. Thus, tonight's debate takes on a huge importance, as does its town hall format. President Obama will try to convince voters that Mitt Romney is simply blowing smoke, that he has no problem-solving capability.

Like Joe Biden, the President will try to diminish the Governor and Romney should be prepared for that, and he should begin unfolding some specific plans to deal with the economy and the chaos overseas. If Romney does not get more precise this evening, he will likely lose the debate.

But even if Governor Romney stalemates the President, he wins. Barack Obama has to dominate the town hall or we may be looking at a new president.
Now that my friends is classic right-wing spin, O'Reilly says that even if Romney stalemates the President, he wins. Which is ridiculous, and only something a total right-wing stooge would say. It is clear that O'Reilly is in the tank for Romney, so nobody should believe anything he says about the election, because he is a Republican partisan.

So what did O'Reilly do then, have a fair and balanced debate on it with a liberal and a conservative? Haha, of course not, O'Reilly had the biased partisan hack Charles Krauthammer on to talk about the debate.

Krauthammer said this: "You were right except for one particular. I don't think Romney needs to be precise, I don't think he needs to give details. He's already given infinitely more details than President Obama has while the President has offered nothing. He has no plan on entitlements, tax reform, or the budget. In fact, not only has he not presented a plan for the future, but for the last three years he has not submitted a budget that hasn't been rejected by the Congress unanimously. Obama is running on pure air!"

Which is ridiculous, because Obama has a new plan for the future, and he also has a plan in place now, not to mention the plan he has now is working. O'Reilly and Krauthammer just refuse to report it, and refuse to admit it is working. Unemployment is down, jobs are increasing, the stock market is up, and the economy is getting better.

O'Reilly once again said that Governor Romney will have to delve into details, saying this: "You know Candy Crowley is going to go after Romney for particulars."

As she should, but Romney is still using the vote for me and I will tell you my plan after the election nonsense. And of course O'Reilly does not hammer Romney for not giving specifics, but when Obama and Gore ran he did. Proving once again O'Reilly is a biased right-wing stooge with double standards.

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to talk about the battery maker A123 Systems, which received $250-million in taxpayer subsidies, is the latest "green" company to go belly-up.

Crowley said this: "The timing of this, does give Mitt Romney another piece of ammo to use against President Obama. When the President and his team use the term 'invest,' they're talking about taxpayer dollars, not private investment. This is what happens when you have direct government intervention in what should be the private sector."

Colmes remined the two right-wing loons that environmentally-friendly industries are well worth the cost, saying this: "There have been about a million jobs created because of this energy investment program. Dozens of companies are successful and the detractors of Obama are cherry-picking companies like Solyndra and this one, ignoring companies that are successful."

Then O'Reilly had the biased right-wing Col. David Hunt on to slam Obama and the State Department official Charlene Lamb, who has testified that she listened in real time while our embassy in Libya was attacked last month.

Hunt said this: "We have the finest military intelligence agencies in the world, and we have the senior State Department official in charge of security admitting that she listened to a six-hour firefight from a command center. That means the Secretary of State, the President, the National Intelligence Director had to know that we had an embassy being attacked and Americans being murdered. We didn't do a damn thing about it and later lied about it. We had the capability to at least try to help that embassy but didn't, which is outrageous and criminal."

Now that statement is ridiculous, and O'Reilly should never have that biased hack on again, but he will. Hell even O'Reilly disagreed with him.

O'Reilly said he was not prepared to conclude that government officials are guilty of criminal behavior, saying this: "I don't know who screwed up or who did what, but I think there was mass confusion."

Then Political scientist Larry Sabato and pollster Scott Rasmussen were on to discuss the possible political effect of the Libya situation.

Rasmussen gave O'Reilly a reality check and said this: "Only 7% of voters say national security issues are most important right now, and when we ask about Libya specifically, 35% say the President is doing a good job. That's down from 44% a couple of weeks ago, but it's not yet reached a level where it's having an impact on polling results."

Sabato said this: "Candidates set the agenda, particularly in the last three weeks of the campaign. Even if the media isn't covering the Libya issue in the way that Republicans would want, it can be used by Mitt Romney to put President Obama on the defensive."

Then O'Reilly had his lame producer Jesse Watters on again, he went to Hofstra University, site of the second presidential debate. And here are a few of the questions Hofstra students wanted to ask the candidates:

"I want to know what they'll do about college tuition raises" ... "I'd ask President Obama, where are the jobs?" ... "What are they going to do to handle the recent illegal immigration problems?" ... "I'd probably ask about global warming" ... "How would you prioritize care for the poor?" ... "Pepperoni or sausage?"

Watters also reported that Hofstra students tend to be well-informed, saying this: "I think it's a politically engaged campus and it's probably 60 - 40 for Obama right now, but there are a lot of undecided voters who will actually make their decision based on the President's performance in the debate tonight."

Which is pure 100% speculation, and O'Reilly let him get away with it, even though he claims to have a no speculation (and only the facts) rule.

And finally O'Reilly had 2 more right-wingers on to discuss the debate. Carl Cameron and Ed Henry were on with the latest from the site of the debate.

Henry said this: "I just spoke with two advisors to the President, and they tell me he looks energetic. He has watched the videotape of the Denver debate several times and realizes that he blew it, that he didn't have enough pep and didn't show that he really wants this job for another four years. But the challenge is that he can't be too negative."

Cameron reported that Mitt Romney is about to launch a major new television offensive, saying this: "He is announcing a $12 million advertising buy, the biggest one-week buy of his entire campaign. He'll spend $3 million in Florida, $2 million in Ohio, $1.5 million in Virginia, with the rest spread out over six or seven states."

The Paul Ryan Hypocrisy On Government Spending Is Stunning
By: Steve - October 17, 2012 - 10:00am

And of course you would not know any of this if you watch O'Reilly for your news, because he does not report stuff like this. O'Reilly ignores it because he wants Romney and Ryan to win.

Many times during the vice presidential debate on Thursday, Congressman Paul Ryan slammed the Obama administration for excessive spending by the federal government, saying at one point that "We can't keep spending money we don't have."

But during his time in Congress, Ryan was far less concerned about spending federal dollars, so long as they were being spent in his district.

A new report from the Associated Press highlights almost 9,000 pages of correspondence between Ryan's congressional office and dozens of federal agencies and departments in which Ryan repeatedly asked for millions of dollars for his own constituents, often culled from programs that Ryan is now campaigning to reduce or eliminate entirely:
For 12 years as a member of Congress, Ryan has sought from the federal government money and benefits that in some cases represent the kinds of largess and specific programs he is now campaigning against.

As Mitt Romney's running mate, Ryan calls those kinds of handouts big-government overreaching. He tells crowds he supports smaller government and rails against what he calls Obama's wasteful spending, including the president's $800 billion stimulus program.
A 2002 letter from Ryan asked for funding under the Food Stamps Access Research program for a community center in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

In his letter to then-Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, Ryan says that the grant would "Increase the enrollment of eligibility individuals in the Food Stamps Program by providing laptop computers with touch screens to community organizations for pre-screening of applicants for food stamp eligibility."

Now, years later, Ryan is campaigning on a budget that would cut federal spending on food stamps by $133 billion and kick an estimated 10 million people out of the program.

Some other requests submitted by Ryan:
-- A $550,000 request for stimulus money from the EPA for a town to make utility repairs.

-- A request for a $19.7 million loan guarantee from the Department of Agriculture to develop a processing plant for rural Wisconsin farms, including several in his district.

-- A request to the EPA for approval of the National School Transportation Association's grant application for funding to help cut down on diesel emissions from school buses.
Other news outlets have reported on more instances of Ryan's requests for federal aid. The Nation's Lee Fang reported last month that Ryan even sent a letter to an administrator in the Department of Health and Human Services to request money made available through the Affordable Care Act, a bill that his own ticket has vowed to repeal on their first day in office.

And in August, new reports surfaced that Ryan had submitted several requests for stimulus money to help fund multiple green energy companies in Wisconsin.

The Monday 10-15-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 16, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Three weeks to go til the presidential election. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The RealClearPolitics polling average shows a tie between Mitt Romney and President Obama, but when a challenger is tied with an incumbent the challenger usually wins. The debate Tuesday will be important but, with the town hall format, it's going to be easy for both candidates to simply state talking points.

The vice presidential debate last week didn't do much to help either party. Vice President Biden knows his liberal ideology, but he acted like a condescending talk show host. So I think Biden hurt his own cause, especially among women voters. Many ladies don't like arrogant words and gestures directed toward anyone, much less Paul Ryan, who conducted himself with dignity.

Biden wanted to diminish Ryan; instead, he diminished himself. And by the way, Vice President Biden has dodged The Factor for years, so tonight I invite him to bring his road show to this broadcast. As for the presidential candidates themselves, neither has committed to appear on The Factor ... and the clock is ticking.
Now that is a perfect example of right-wing bias from Bill O'Reilly, because Biden won the debate and only Republicans are crying about it. Not to mention, Biden acted just like O'Reilly does, arrogant and condescending, so when O'Reilly slams what Biden did he is slamming how he acts himself. The truth about the VP debate is that O'Reilly and his right-wing friends are just mad Biden was tough on Ryan and made him look like a fool.

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing biased Brit Hume on to speculate about the next Presidential debate, speculation O'Reilly claims to not allow.

Hume said this: "President Obama will try to present himself as the ally of every questioner who poses a question to him, and he will do a pretty good job of seeming to understand what the questioner is concerned about. There will be a lot of empathy, and that is something that Governor Romney is not thought to be as good at. So the format may tend to advantage Mr. Obama. You have to look like you're really glad to be there and take the questions seriously."

O'Reilly claimed that Tuesday's format is not conducive to a spirited back-and-forth, saying this: "No matter what the folks ask, they can answer whatever they want, which is why the town hall format takes the edge off the debate."

Now think about this folks, the night before the 2nd Presidential debate O'Reilly only had a Republican guest (Brit Hume) on to talk about it, and he let that Republican speculate about what would happen. Even though O'Reilly claims to never let anyone speculate.

No Democratic guest was on to discuss the debate, where is the balance? Where is the 1 to 1 party guest balance O'Reilly said he has during the debate with Jon Stewart? O'Reilly had 7 Republicans and 1 Democrat on the show, how is that 1 to 1 or any kind of balance?

Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to talk about David Axelrod complaining about Mitt Romney exploiting the Libya assault for political gain.

Williams said this: "It is exploitative. When you hear Governor Romney talking about this attack as the equivalent of 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, you understand that histrionics are out there. From the moment this thing happened he was out there criticizing President Obama."

And of course the right-wing stooge Mary K. Ham agreed with O'Reilly, saying this: "There are things going on that the American people would like to know about. Every news report has said that the White House and intelligence sources knew from day one that this was a planned terrorist attack with ties to Al Qaeda."

Then Mary Anne Marsh and Rob Gray were on to talk about one of the most closely watched Senate races with incumbent Republican Scott Brown against Elizabeth Warren.

O'Reilly asked them about accusations that union members have been forced to attend Warren rallies. Which is just laughable, because when Coal Mine workers were forced to attend Romney campaign rallies O'Reilly said nothing, zero, zip. Once again proving his right-wing bias.

Gray said this: "This exposes the underbelly of the union political system here, where union bosses have to pay or penalize their rank and file members to endorse the candidate that the bosses prefer. The head of the carpenters' union has confirmed that a worker's take-home pay would be less if he didn't show up at a Warren rally."

Marsh had a different interpretation of the story, saying this: "The union boss only said there is an 'assessment' for doing community service, which can include political rallies. This would be a big story if they were told it was mandatory and they would lose their jobs if they didn't show up."

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, the Republican mine owner did the exact same thing with the Coal Mine workers, they were told they would have their pay docked if they did not go to the Romney rally, and you were silent, you said nothing. So because of that you lose your right to complain about unions doing it at a Warren rally.

Then the right-wing comedian Adam Carolla was on, which I will not report on, because he is simply on to make jokes about liberals, with no liberal comedian on to make jokes about conservatives.

Then the right-wing stooge Bernie Goldberg was on to report on Tuesday night's debate.

Goldberg said this: "It's interesting that both campaigns have agreed that Candy Crowley may be a problem and they're trying to muzzle her. The campaigns made an agreement that the moderator will not ask follow-up questions, but Candy didn't get the memo and she's already indicated that she plans to ask follow-ups. She's a journalist and all I ask is that she leaves her biases at the door and is an equal opportunity pain."

Goldberg then turned to the Libya story and Ambassador Susan Rice's claim that it was a spontaneous riot inspired by a video.

Goldberg said this: "The fact is that if you go on the Sunday talk shows it was cleared by the White House, and she went on five different talk shows and told a story that was absolutely, totally false. The simple question is, who told her to go out there and say that? We don't need an FBI investigation, we need journalism!"

In the last biased segment O'Reilly had his lame producer Jesse Watters on, he went to a fundraiser in California that attracted thousands of Obama supporters. Watters asked the folks to explain their loyalty to the President, and got these reactions: "I think he has the values, or at least most of the values, that I have" ... "He's got a pleasant face" ... "I've been fighting for universal health care in this country for forty years" ... "I'm here to see George Clooney."

Now think about this, O'Reilly said his show is never edited, but this segment was edited, they cherry picked the comments they wanted to air, not all of them were put on the show, so it is edited, and it's edited to make Obama supporters look bad.

Back on the show Watters summarized his visit, saying this: "This was basically a concert, and they raised about $1.5 million for the campaign. Katy Perry had a political message, saying she supports 'equal rights,' but she didn't say whose equal rights. And George Clooney said that four years ago 'Beverly Hills Chihuahua' was the number one movie in America, so how can you argue that we're not better off than we were four years ago?"

And finally O'Reilly had his lame tip of the day, Billy said this: "When you do well in life, you should give back! It's a karma thing. "

Moody's Chief Economist Says Romney Tax Plan Is A Fraud
By: Steve - October 16, 2012 - 10:00am

But you would not know that if you watch the Factor for your political news, because O'Reilly has never reported it. Instead he ignores it as he spins for Romney, and covers for him by ignoring this important news you need to know to make an informed vote.

The fact that Mitt Romney's tax plan is mathematically impossible was reinforced again on Friday, when Mark Zandi, a former John McCain campaign adviser and Chief Economist at Moody's, admitted it.

Speaking on CNN Zandi admitted that Romney's plan to lower taxes by 20 percent across the board, while making up those losses in government revenue by closing loopholes on the wealthy, does not add up. Zandi even went so far as to say that the arithmetic doesn't work as it is right now:
ZANDI: Yeah, I think the Tax Policy Center study is the definitive study. They're non-partisan, they're very good. They say given the numbers that they've been provided by the Romney campaign, no, it will not add up.

They could say okay I'm not going to lower tax rates as much as I'm saying right now and they could make the arithmetic work. But under the current plan, with the current numbers, no it doesn't.

I'll say one other thing, though. I think it is important that we do focus on the so-called tax expenditures in the tax code. Those are the deductions, and credits, and loopholes in the code.

We need to reduce those, because if we do we're going to make the tax system fairer, easier to understand and ultimately lead to stronger growth. So that's the right place to focus. But, no, the arithmetic doesn't work as it is right now.
Those are the facts, closing all the loopholes and ending all of the deductions currently given to the wealthy does not make up for the losses of giving everyone in the country, particularly the wealthy, another tax break. The only way Romney's plan will not add to the deficit is if middle class families pay over $2,000 more in taxes annually.

More Proof Dick Morris Says What The Money Tells Him To Say
By: Steve - October 15, 2012 - 11:00am

If you ever wanted proof Dick Morris is a right-wing fool that just says whatever the money tells him to, here it is.

Dick Morris can't keep straight who he thinks won the vice presidential debate. Thursday night Morris said Joe Biden won the debate, as did almost everyone else, but Friday morning Morris said Paul Ryan was the winner and used that claim to try and raise money for his super PAC.

During the debate, Morris even sent out several tweets slamming Paul Ryan. While he thought Ryan handled some issues well, near the end of the debate Morris declared that Ryan "did not do a good job" because he "sounds too timid and like a kid."

Morris also said that in his view, "Biden did better," because he was "stronger, more sincere, and more forceful."

But what a difference a day makes, because the very next morning, Morris was spinning out a whole different story. In his daily Lunch Alert video, Morris said this: "I don't know if there was a winner in the vice presidential debate, but I think there was a loser. I think Joe Biden lost this debate horribly."

Are you kidding me? Just the night before Morris slammed Ryan and admitted Biden won the debate. Which has to be the fastest flip-flop in history. So why would Morris change his mind so fast, MONEY!

By Friday afternoon, Morris had completed the full flip-flop. In an email sent to his subscribers raising money for the "Super PAC for America" group that he advises, Morris announced that "Paul Ryan won!"

The email includes several links to the fundraising page for Super PAC for America, which Morris says he recently joined to "serve as their Chief Strategist."

This is what Morris does, he says whatever he needs to say to get on Fox, to sell his ridiculous and usually wrong books, and to raise money for his Super PAC, or raise money for who is paying him at the time.

Dick Morris is the biggest right-wing idiot on television, who is almost never right with any of his predictions. And Bill O'Reilly is just as bad as Dick Morris, for having this fool on his show as a regular political analyst. O'Reilly has him on the Factor as an analyst every week, even though he is a biased hack of a joke, proving O'Reilly is also a biased right-wing joke. Because nobody but Fox would hire someone to be a political analyst who is so wrong all the time.

More Proof O'Reilly Helped Republicans Spin Solyndra Story
By: Steve - October 14, 2012 - 11:00am

All summer long O'Reilly and the Republicans have been hammering the green energy company Solyndra, why? Because it can be used as a partisan political attack to try and link it to Obama and make him look bad.

And Bill O'Reilly (the so-called non-partisan Independent) has been at the head of the attacks. O'Reilly spent hours and hours discussing it on his show, hammering Solyndra, he even went on Letterman and put his spin out.

So now we have new information about the company, and how the right was trying to spin it to hurt Obama.

When the solar manufacturing company Solyndra went bankrupt last September after receiving a $537 million loan guarantee, it sparked a politically-motivated Congressional investigation into the White House's handling of the program - an investigation that critics admitted would stop on election day.

After acquiring 300,000 documents, holding a dozen hearings and official meetings, issuing two subpenas, and spending more than a million dollars on the investigation, members of Congress failed to present any evidence of political wrongdoing.

Congressional critics have not shown the loan was granted as a result of political favoritism, despite repeated campaign-trail claims, reported The Hill.

That didn't stop special interest groups from spending millions of dollars on television ads this campaign season to trump up the Solyndra bankruptcy and spread over-the-top, ultimately ridiculous claims about clean energy programs.

According to an analysis of independent advertisements from Kantar Media's CMAG system, outside conservative groups spent $10.78 million on presidential campaign ads between April 1 and October 1 of this year specifically attacking the Solyndra loan or mentioning Solyndra as part of a broader attack on clean energy stimulus spending.

The ads were purchased by the American Energy Alliance, the American Future Fund, the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity, Karl Rove's Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, and Let Freedom Ring.

But the impact of those Solyndra ads on American voters mirrored the outcome of the year-long Congressional investigation into the company: minimal to nothing.

Despite the millions of dollars spent on Solyndra-related television spots over the last five months, polls show that a majority of American voters still don't know about the company or are indifferent to them.

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll from early October showed that 58 percent of registered voters are unaware of Solyndra. The poll also found that only 25% of registered voters had a negative view of the company and 15% had a neutral view.

At the same time, 70 percent of voters said they would support more government incentives to help develop the solar industry.

In addition, an April poll from the Pew Research Center found that 52% of Americans believe that alternatives to fossil fuels are the most important energy priority for the country, with only 39% saying coal, oil, and gas are should be top priorities. That poll also found that conservative Tea Party males (many of who would never vote for a moderate candidate to begin with) are the only voters likely to view some level of government support for clean energy negatively.

Special interest groups might be buying millions in clean energy attack ads. But voters sure aren't buying them.

The wave of money promoting lies and spin on clean energy has pushed the political conversation around energy to the extreme. But the actual impact is limited. Americans still overwhelmingly support clean energy, despite what well-armed political groups say.

Facts On Embassy Security You Did Not Get From The Factor
By: Steve - October 14, 2012 - 10:00am

Here are the facts on the embassy security issue, and none of this was ever reported by Bill O'Reilly, or his right-wing stooge fill in Laura Ingraham.

As reported by the Republican DRUDGE:

GOP Cut Embassy Security Funding

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's worldwide security protection program -- well below the $2.15? billion requested by the Obama administration.

House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.

Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.

And more: Paul Ryan, Darrell Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions.

Under Ryan's budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

That is all from DRUDGE folks, a Republican who is in the tank for Romney, so O'Reilly and Ingraham can not claim it's all just liberal lies, when it was reported by DRUDGE.

Dana Milbank reported this:

House Republicans cut the Obama administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012....Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" - a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan's budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

Open your eyes you right-wing liars, it's the exact same thing DRUDGE reported, and yet Laura Ingraham and the right all claim it's liberal lies, when DRUDGE also reported the same thing.

Here is the big problem with all that budget cutting O'Reilly and the right are calling for: It sounds great when you're on the campaign trail in front of those tea party loons, but when the actual work of governing comes up, those cuts have to come from actual programs that do actual things. Like protecting our embassies.

Vice President Joe Biden said Paul Ryan is in no position to argue about diplomatic security, arguing that Ryan, in Congress, didn't provide all the embassy security funding that the Obama administration asked for. Biden also said that the Obama administration knew of no requests for more security at the Benghazi mission.

Those claims were fact-checked by CNN and here is what they found:

On Wednesday, the State Department's former point man on security in Libya told the House Oversight Committee that he asked for additional security help for the Benghazi facility months before the attack, but was denied.

Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday's hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.

The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified.

Also, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was a site security commander in Libya from February through August, testified that a regional security officer tried to obtain more personnel, but 'was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with."

Five diplomatic security special agents were in Benghazi at the time of the attack. Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy responded, at the hearing, to suggestions the State Department was responsible for a lack of preparedness: "We regularly assess risk and resource allocation, a process involving the considered judgments of experienced professionals on the ground and in Washington, using the best available information."

On Tuesday, two senior State Department officials told reporters that U.S. and Libyan security personnel in Benghazi were out-manned, and that no reasonable security presence could have fended off the assault.

Conclusion: It's unclear how high Nordstrom's request got in the administration, but he says he did ask the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs for more security help at the Benghazi post.

The amount that the GOP-led House passed for two accounts that pay for embassy security in fiscal 2012 ($2.311 billion) was $330 million less than the Obama administration had requested ($2.641 billion).

A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested.

Conclusion: The final bill, which passed with bipartisan support, gave a total of $2.37 billion to these accounts for fiscal 2012 -- about $270 million less than what the Obama administration had requested.

And those are the facts, the facts O'Reilly and Ingraham have ignored. Because they are too busy spinning the truth to hurt Obama politically.

Facts On Embassy Security You Did Not Get From The Factor
By: Steve - October 14, 2012 - 10:00am

Here are the facts on the embassy security issue, and none of this was ever reported by Bill O'Reilly, or his right-wing stooge fill in Laura Ingraham.

As reported by the Republican DRUDGE:

GOP Cut Embassy Security Funding

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's worldwide security protection program -- well below the $2.15? billion requested by the Obama administration.

House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.

Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.

And more: Paul Ryan, Darrell Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions.

Under Ryan's budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

That is all from DRUDGE folks, a Republican who is in the tank for Romney, so O'Reilly and Ingraham can not claim it's all just liberal lies, when it was reported by DRUDGE.

Dana Milbank reported this:

House Republicans cut the Obama administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012....Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" - a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan's budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

Open your eyes you right-wing liars, it's the exact same thing DRUDGE reported, and yet Laura Ingraham and the right all claim it's liberal lies, when DRUDGE also reported the same thing.

Here is the big problem with all that budget cutting O'Reilly and the right are calling for: It sounds great when you're on the campaign trail in front of those tea party loons, but when the actual work of governing comes up, those cuts have to come from actual programs that do actual things. Like protecting our embassies.

Vice President Joe Biden said Paul Ryan is in no position to argue about diplomatic security, arguing that Ryan, in Congress, didn't provide all the embassy security funding that the Obama administration asked for. Biden also said that the Obama administration knew of no requests for more security at the Benghazi mission.

Those claims were fact-checked by CNN and here is what they found:

On Wednesday, the State Department's former point man on security in Libya told the House Oversight Committee that he asked for additional security help for the Benghazi facility months before the attack, but was denied.

Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday's hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.

The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified.

Also, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was a site security commander in Libya from February through August, testified that a regional security officer tried to obtain more personnel, but 'was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with."

Five diplomatic security special agents were in Benghazi at the time of the attack. Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy responded, at the hearing, to suggestions the State Department was responsible for a lack of preparedness: "We regularly assess risk and resource allocation, a process involving the considered judgments of experienced professionals on the ground and in Washington, using the best available information."

On Tuesday, two senior State Department officials told reporters that U.S. and Libyan security personnel in Benghazi were out-manned, and that no reasonable security presence could have fended off the assault.

Conclusion: It's unclear how high Nordstrom's request got in the administration, but he says he did ask the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs for more security help at the Benghazi post.

The amount that the GOP-led House passed for two accounts that pay for embassy security in fiscal 2012 ($2.311 billion) was $330 million less than the Obama administration had requested ($2.641 billion).

A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested.

Conclusion: The final bill, which passed with bipartisan support, gave a total of $2.37 billion to these accounts for fiscal 2012 -- about $270 million less than what the Obama administration had requested.

And those are the facts, the facts O'Reilly and Ingraham have ignored. Because they are too busy spinning the truth to hurt Obama politically.

The Friday 10-12-12 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - October 13, 2012 - 11:00am

The Ingraham TPM was called: Vice Presidential Debate Winners and Losers. The biased far-right hack (that has no business hosting a so-called Independent news show) Laura Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: Joe Biden showed up last night in Kentucky with twin goals: blunt Mitt Romney's post-debate momentum and give a boost to a Democratic base that had become quite anxious after the President's terrible debate performance. I'll give Biden this much - last night he went from being a 'gaffe-o-matic' to being a 'laugh-o-matic.'

Even left-of-center guys such as Tom Brokaw found the Vice President's smirking, smiling, and constant interrupting off-putting. Biden also told a number of whoppers. He said the administration 'did not know they wanted more security' in Benghazi. Was he unaware of the fact that the former top security official in Libya testified this week that he had repeatedly asked for more security?

When asked who would pay more taxes in a second Obama term, he answered that it would be people making $1-million a year or more. That was totally misleading; Obama's proposed tax increase reaches individuals making $200,000 a year and couples making $250,000.

Finally, Biden claimed 'no religious institution' would have to pay for contraception, but today the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops rebuked the Vice President. Paul Ryan had some difficulty on foreign policy questions and allowed the moderator to cut him off too easily, but Joe Biden's demeanor and mendacity made him both less likeable and less credible.
Of course Ingraham did not like Job Biden and what he said in the debate, because she is a right-wing hack that hates all Democrats and everything they say. The question is, why is O'Reilly letting Laura Ingraham host his show. Because a real Independent would never let her host his show, proving that O'Reilly is also a right-wing hack who has his right-wing friends fill in for him when he is gone.

And it is true the Obama administration did not know they wanted more security in Benghazi. Because the White House does not handle security for an embassy, the State Department does. So Ingraham is lying, and she knows it. Obama and Biden had no idea they wanted more security, and anyone who says they did is lying to you.

Then Ingraham had Simon Rosenberg and Chris Hahn on to discuss her TPM.

Rosenberg said this: "Joe Biden did what he had to do last night. He was aggressive, he took on Paul Ryan and the Republicans, he had energy and vigor, and I think he was himself. That was the Joe Biden I know, I think he had a good night and Democrats are very happy."

Hahn said this: "People saw what they wanted to see. If you were predisposed to like Democrats, you loved what Joe Biden did; if you were a Republican, you loved what Paul Ryan did. I think Biden did what the Democratic Party needed him to do, he went out and took it to the Republicans."

Then the Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz was on to lie about Joe Biden's claim that the Obama administration wasn't aware that our diplomats in Libya had requested more security prior to last month's deadly attack.

Chaffetz said this: "It was absolutely shocking, for the Vice President to admit that he had no idea what was going on. Our consulate in Benghazi had been bombed twice, so how is it that nobody in Washington was saying, 'These people need more help?' The White House and the Vice President are not being straight with the American people, they have a lot to answer for. The administration should have known beforehand that this was going to happen."

Chaffetz also ridiculed the notion that budget cuts were responsible for reduced security, saying this: "In the last five years the State Department budget has increased by 118%!"

And Chaffetz is a liar, because Biden never said he did not know what was going on, he just said neither he or President Obama knew they had asked for more security, because the State Department handles their security not the President and the Vice President. He also lied about security funding, the Republican Drudge even reported it, here is what Drudge published on 10-12-12:
GOP Cut Embassy Security Funding

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's worldwide security protection program -- well below the $2.15? billion requested by the Obama administration.

House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.

Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.
Then Lou Dobbs was on to analyze the economic and tax portions of Thursday night's debate. Dobbs said this: "Score this for Congressman Ryan. The concept of reducing marginal tax rates, which is Romney's plan, has been tested historically. I'm not sure how Vice President Biden thought he would profit from this, Paul Ryan was right."

And of course Ryan and Dobbs are both wrong, because everyone who has studied the Romney/Ryan tax plan says it is not possible and the math does not add up.

In fact, if you cut every single tax loophole there is, all of them for everyone in America, you only get a 4% reduction in savings, but they want an across the board 20% tax cut. That means they are 16% short, and yet they claim their plan is revenue neutral, which is a lie, and impossible. Making Paul Ryan and Lou Dobbs both LIARS!

Then the liberal Leslie Marshall and Marilyn Musgrave, the head of a pro-life organization were on to talk the question of abortion and faith asked at the debate.

Marshall said this: "I think it was a good question. These are two Catholic men and this is an issue that is very emotional and very divisive. I liked both their answers because they seemed unrehearsed and honest."

But the far-right partisan Musgrave accused the Vice President of being less than honest, saying this: "Joe Biden said he doesn't want to force his beliefs on other people, but what about the mandate where religious institutions are forced to subsidize abortion-inducing drugs? What about Obamacare, the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade? While Americans are becoming more pro-life, this is the most extreme President on abortion that we've ever had!"

And then for some crazy reason Ingraham played a re-run interview with O'Reilly and the liberal actor Ed Asner, which I will not report on, because it has already been reported on here, and it is not news, not to mention, who cares what Ed Asner has to say about anything, not me!

In the last segment Republican pollster Chris Wilson and Democrat Bernard Whitman were on to talk about the latest polls and Mitt Romney's recent surge.

Whitman said this: "I think we've seen the end of momentum for Mitt Romney. Ultimately this election will be decided by suburban women, who are beginning to understand the impact of things Paul Ryan said last night when he made it quite clear that he wants to outlaw abortion. Republicans have made it quite clear that they want to control women's lives."

Wilson looked ahead to next week's presidential debate, saying this: "Barack Obama has a tendency to come off as arrogant and smug, almost as if he can't believe someone would have the audacity to disagree with him. He was advised to not be overly-arrogant in the first debate and now he has to find a balance. Conversely, Mitt Romney has to do exactly what he did in Denver."

Facts On Embassy Security You Did Not Get From The Factor
By: Steve - October 14, 2012 - 10:00am

Here are the facts on the embassy security issue, and none of this was ever reported by Bill O'Reilly, or his right-wing stooge fill in Laura Ingraham.

As reported by the Republican DRUDGE:

GOP Cut Embassy Security Funding

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's worldwide security protection program -- well below the $2.15? billion requested by the Obama administration.

House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.

Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.

And more: Paul Ryan, Darrell Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions.

Under Ryan's budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

That is all from DRUDGE folks, a Republican who is in the tank for Romney, so O'Reilly and Ingraham can not claim it's all just liberal lies, when it was reported by DRUDGE.

Dana Milbank reported this:

House Republicans cut the Obama administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012....Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" - a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan's budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

Open your eyes you right-wing liars, it's the exact same thing DRUDGE reported, and yet Laura Ingraham and the right all claim it's liberal lies, when DRUDGE also reported the same thing.

Here is the big problem with all that budget cutting O'Reilly and the right are calling for: It sounds great when you're on the campaign trail in front of those tea party loons, but when the actual work of governing comes up, those cuts have to come from actual programs that do actual things. Like protecting our embassies.

Vice President Joe Biden said Paul Ryan is in no position to argue about diplomatic security, arguing that Ryan, in Congress, didn't provide all the embassy security funding that the Obama administration asked for. Biden also said that the Obama administration knew of no requests for more security at the Benghazi mission.

Those claims were fact-checked by CNN and here is what they found:

On Wednesday, the State Department's former point man on security in Libya told the House Oversight Committee that he asked for additional security help for the Benghazi facility months before the attack, but was denied.

Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday's hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.

The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified.

Also, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was a site security commander in Libya from February through August, testified that a regional security officer tried to obtain more personnel, but 'was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with."

Five diplomatic security special agents were in Benghazi at the time of the attack. Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy responded, at the hearing, to suggestions the State Department was responsible for a lack of preparedness: "We regularly assess risk and resource allocation, a process involving the considered judgments of experienced professionals on the ground and in Washington, using the best available information."

On Tuesday, two senior State Department officials told reporters that U.S. and Libyan security personnel in Benghazi were out-manned, and that no reasonable security presence could have fended off the assault.

Conclusion: It's unclear how high Nordstrom's request got in the administration, but he says he did ask the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs for more security help at the Benghazi post.

The amount that the GOP-led House passed for two accounts that pay for embassy security in fiscal 2012 ($2.311 billion) was $330 million less than the Obama administration had requested ($2.641 billion).

A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested.

Conclusion: The final bill, which passed with bipartisan support, gave a total of $2.37 billion to these accounts for fiscal 2012 -- about $270 million less than what the Obama administration had requested.

And those are the facts, the facts O'Reilly and Ingraham have ignored. Because they are too busy spinning the truth to hurt Obama politically.

The Friday 10-12-12 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - October 13, 2012 - 11:00am

The Ingraham TPM was called: Vice Presidential Debate Winners and Losers. The biased far-right hack (that has no business hosting a so-called Independent news show) Laura Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: Joe Biden showed up last night in Kentucky with twin goals: blunt Mitt Romney's post-debate momentum and give a boost to a Democratic base that had become quite anxious after the President's terrible debate performance. I'll give Biden this much - last night he went from being a 'gaffe-o-matic' to being a 'laugh-o-matic.'

Even left-of-center guys such as Tom Brokaw found the Vice President's smirking, smiling, and constant interrupting off-putting. Biden also told a number of whoppers. He said the administration 'did not know they wanted more security' in Benghazi. Was he unaware of the fact that the former top security official in Libya testified this week that he had repeatedly asked for more security?

When asked who would pay more taxes in a second Obama term, he answered that it would be people making $1-million a year or more. That was totally misleading; Obama's proposed tax increase reaches individuals making $200,000 a year and couples making $250,000.

Finally, Biden claimed 'no religious institution' would have to pay for contraception, but today the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops rebuked the Vice President. Paul Ryan had some difficulty on foreign policy questions and allowed the moderator to cut him off too easily, but Joe Biden's demeanor and mendacity made him both less likeable and less credible.
Of course Ingraham did not like Job Biden and what he said in the debate, because she is a right-wing hack that hates all Democrats and everything they say. The question is, why is O'Reilly letting Laura Ingraham host his show. Because a real Independent would never let her host his show, proving that O'Reilly is also a right-wing hack who has his right-wing friends fill in for him when he is gone.

And it is true the Obama administration did not know they wanted more security in Benghazi. Because the White House does not handle security for an embassy, the State Department does. So Ingraham is lying, and she knows it. Obama and Biden had no idea they wanted more security, and anyone who says they did is lying to you.

Then Ingraham had Simon Rosenberg and Chris Hahn on to discuss her TPM.

Rosenberg said this: "Joe Biden did what he had to do last night. He was aggressive, he took on Paul Ryan and the Republicans, he had energy and vigor, and I think he was himself. That was the Joe Biden I know, I think he had a good night and Democrats are very happy."

Hahn said this: "People saw what they wanted to see. If you were predisposed to like Democrats, you loved what Joe Biden did; if you were a Republican, you loved what Paul Ryan did. I think Biden did what the Democratic Party needed him to do, he went out and took it to the Republicans."

Then the Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz was on to lie about Joe Biden's claim that the Obama administration wasn't aware that our diplomats in Libya had requested more security prior to last month's deadly attack.

Chaffetz said this: "It was absolutely shocking, for the Vice President to admit that he had no idea what was going on. Our consulate in Benghazi had been bombed twice, so how is it that nobody in Washington was saying, 'These people need more help?' The White House and the Vice President are not being straight with the American people, they have a lot to answer for. The administration should have known beforehand that this was going to happen."

Chaffetz also ridiculed the notion that budget cuts were responsible for reduced security, saying this: "In the last five years the State Department budget has increased by 118%!"

And Chaffetz is a liar, because Biden never said he did not know what was going on, he just said neither he or President Obama knew they had asked for more security, because the State Department handles their security not the President and the Vice President. He also lied about security funding, the Republican Drudge even reported it, here is what Drudge published on 10-12-12:
GOP Cut Embassy Security Funding

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's worldwide security protection program -- well below the $2.15? billion requested by the Obama administration.

House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.

Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.
Then Lou Dobbs was on to analyze the economic and tax portions of Thursday night's debate. Dobbs said this: "Score this for Congressman Ryan. The concept of reducing marginal tax rates, which is Romney's plan, has been tested historically. I'm not sure how Vice President Biden thought he would profit from this, Paul Ryan was right."

And of course Ryan and Dobbs are both wrong, because everyone who has studied the Romney/Ryan tax plan says it is not possible and the math does not add up.

In fact, if you cut every single tax loophole there is, all of them for everyone in America, you only get a 4% reduction in savings, but they want an across the board 20% tax cut. That means they are 16% short, and yet they claim their plan is revenue neutral, which is a lie, and impossible. Making Paul Ryan and Lou Dobbs both LIARS!

Then the liberal Leslie Marshall and Marilyn Musgrave, the head of a pro-life organization were on to talk the question of abortion and faith asked at the debate.

Marshall said this: "I think it was a good question. These are two Catholic men and this is an issue that is very emotional and very divisive. I liked both their answers because they seemed unrehearsed and honest."

But the far-right partisan Musgrave accused the Vice President of being less than honest, saying this: "Joe Biden said he doesn't want to force his beliefs on other people, but what about the mandate where religious institutions are forced to subsidize abortion-inducing drugs? What about Obamacare, the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade? While Americans are becoming more pro-life, this is the most extreme President on abortion that we've ever had!"

And then for some crazy reason Ingraham played a re-run interview with O'Reilly and the liberal actor Ed Asner, which I will not report on, because it has already been reported on here, and it is not news, not to mention, who cares what Ed Asner has to say about anything, not me!

In the last segment Republican pollster Chris Wilson and Democrat Bernard Whitman were on to talk about the latest polls and Mitt Romney's recent surge.

Whitman said this: "I think we've seen the end of momentum for Mitt Romney. Ultimately this election will be decided by suburban women, who are beginning to understand the impact of things Paul Ryan said last night when he made it quite clear that he wants to outlaw abortion. Republicans have made it quite clear that they want to control women's lives."

Wilson looked ahead to next week's presidential debate, saying this: "Barack Obama has a tendency to come off as arrogant and smug, almost as if he can't believe someone would have the audacity to disagree with him. He was advised to not be overly-arrogant in the first debate and now he has to find a balance. Conversely, Mitt Romney has to do exactly what he did in Denver."

---------------------- Facts On Embassy Security You Did Not Get From The Factor
By: Steve - October 14, 2012 - 10:00am

Here are the facts on the embassy security issue, and none of this was ever reported by Bill O'Reilly, or his right-wing stooge fill in Laura Ingraham.

As reported by the Republican DRUDGE:

GOP Cut Embassy Security Funding

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's worldwide security protection program -- well below the $2.15? billion requested by the Obama administration.

House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.

Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.

And more: Paul Ryan, Darrell Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions.

Under Ryan's budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

That is all from DRUDGE folks, a Republican who is in the tank for Romney, so O'Reilly and Ingraham can not claim it's all just liberal lies, when it was reported by DRUDGE.

Dana Milbank reported this:

House Republicans cut the Obama administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012....Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" - a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan's budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

Open your eyes you right-wing liars, it's the exact same thing DRUDGE reported, and yet Laura Ingraham and the right all claim it's liberal lies, when DRUDGE also reported the same thing.

Here is the big problem with all that budget cutting O'Reilly and the right are calling for: It sounds great when you're on the campaign trail in front of those tea party loons, but when the actual work of governing comes up, those cuts have to come from actual programs that do actual things. Like protecting our embassies.

Vice President Joe Biden said Paul Ryan is in no position to argue about diplomatic security, arguing that Ryan, in Congress, didn't provide all the embassy security funding that the Obama administration asked for. Biden also said that the Obama administration knew of no requests for more security at the Benghazi mission.

Those claims were fact-checked by CNN and here is what they found:

On Wednesday, the State Department's former point man on security in Libya told the House Oversight Committee that he asked for additional security help for the Benghazi facility months before the attack, but was denied.

Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday's hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.

The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified.

Also, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was a site security commander in Libya from February through August, testified that a regional security officer tried to obtain more personnel, but 'was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with."

Five diplomatic security special agents were in Benghazi at the time of the attack. Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy responded, at the hearing, to suggestions the State Department was responsible for a lack of preparedness: "We regularly assess risk and resource allocation, a process involving the considered judgments of experienced professionals on the ground and in Washington, using the best available information."

On Tuesday, two senior State Department officials told reporters that U.S. and Libyan security personnel in Benghazi were out-manned, and that no reasonable security presence could have fended off the assault.

Conclusion: It's unclear how high Nordstrom's request got in the administration, but he says he did ask the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs for more security help at the Benghazi post.

The amount that the GOP-led House passed for two accounts that pay for embassy security in fiscal 2012 ($2.311 billion) was $330 million less than the Obama administration had requested ($2.641 billion).

A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested.

Conclusion: The final bill, which passed with bipartisan support, gave a total of $2.37 billion to these accounts for fiscal 2012 -- about $270 million less than what the Obama administration had requested.

And those are the facts, the facts O'Reilly and Ingraham have ignored. Because they are too busy spinning the truth to hurt Obama politically.

The Friday 10-12-12 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - October 13, 2012 - 11:00am

The Ingraham TPM was called: Vice Presidential Debate Winners and Losers. The biased far-right hack (that has no business hosting a so-called Independent news show) Laura Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: Joe Biden showed up last night in Kentucky with twin goals: blunt Mitt Romney's post-debate momentum and give a boost to a Democratic base that had become quite anxious after the President's terrible debate performance. I'll give Biden this much - last night he went from being a 'gaffe-o-matic' to being a 'laugh-o-matic.'

Even left-of-center guys such as Tom Brokaw found the Vice President's smirking, smiling, and constant interrupting off-putting. Biden also told a number of whoppers. He said the administration 'did not know they wanted more security' in Benghazi. Was he unaware of the fact that the former top security official in Libya testified this week that he had repeatedly asked for more security?

When asked who would pay more taxes in a second Obama term, he answered that it would be people making $1-million a year or more. That was totally misleading; Obama's proposed tax increase reaches individuals making $200,000 a year and couples making $250,000.

Finally, Biden claimed 'no religious institution' would have to pay for contraception, but today the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops rebuked the Vice President. Paul Ryan had some difficulty on foreign policy questions and allowed the moderator to cut him off too easily, but Joe Biden's demeanor and mendacity made him both less likeable and less credible.
Of course Ingraham did not like Job Biden and what he said in the debate, because she is a right-wing hack that hates all Democrats and everything they say. The question is, why is O'Reilly letting Laura Ingraham host his show. Because a real Independent would never let her host his show, proving that O'Reilly is also a right-wing hack who has his right-wing friends fill in for him when he is gone.

And it is true the Obama administration did not know they wanted more security in Benghazi. Because the White House does not handle security for an embassy, the State Department does. So Ingraham is lying, and she knows it. Obama and Biden had no idea they wanted more security, and anyone who says they did is lying to you.

Then Ingraham had Simon Rosenberg and Chris Hahn on to discuss her TPM.

Rosenberg said this: "Joe Biden did what he had to do last night. He was aggressive, he took on Paul Ryan and the Republicans, he had energy and vigor, and I think he was himself. That was the Joe Biden I know, I think he had a good night and Democrats are very happy."

Hahn said this: "People saw what they wanted to see. If you were predisposed to like Democrats, you loved what Joe Biden did; if you were a Republican, you loved what Paul Ryan did. I think Biden did what the Democratic Party needed him to do, he went out and took it to the Republicans."

Then the Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz was on to lie about Joe Biden's claim that the Obama administration wasn't aware that our diplomats in Libya had requested more security prior to last month's deadly attack.

Chaffetz said this: "It was absolutely shocking, for the Vice President to admit that he had no idea what was going on. Our consulate in Benghazi had been bombed twice, so how is it that nobody in Washington was saying, 'These people need more help?' The White House and the Vice President are not being straight with the American people, they have a lot to answer for. The administration should have known beforehand that this was going to happen."

Chaffetz also ridiculed the notion that budget cuts were responsible for reduced security, saying this: "In the last five years the State Department budget has increased by 118%!"

And Chaffetz is a liar, because Biden never said he did not know what was going on, he just said neither he or President Obama knew they had asked for more security, because the State Department handles their security not the President and the Vice President. He also lied about security funding, the Republican Drudge even reported it, here is what Drudge published on 10-12-12:
GOP Cut Embassy Security Funding

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's worldwide security protection program -- well below the $2.15? billion requested by the Obama administration.

House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.

Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.
Then Lou Dobbs was on to analyze the economic and tax portions of Thursday night's debate. Dobbs said this: "Score this for Congressman Ryan. The concept of reducing marginal tax rates, which is Romney's plan, has been tested historically. I'm not sure how Vice President Biden thought he would profit from this, Paul Ryan was right."

And of course Ryan and Dobbs are both wrong, because everyone who has studied the Romney/Ryan tax plan says it is not possible and the math does not add up.

In fact, if you cut every single tax loophole there is, all of them for everyone in America, you only get a 4% reduction in savings, but they want an across the board 20% tax cut. That means they are 16% short, and yet they claim their plan is revenue neutral, which is a lie, and impossible. Making Paul Ryan and Lou Dobbs both LIARS!

Then the liberal Leslie Marshall and Marilyn Musgrave, the head of a pro-life organization were on to talk the question of abortion and faith asked at the debate.

Marshall said this: "I think it was a good question. These are two Catholic men and this is an issue that is very emotional and very divisive. I liked both their answers because they seemed unrehearsed and honest."

But the far-right partisan Musgrave accused the Vice President of being less than honest, saying this: "Joe Biden said he doesn't want to force his beliefs on other people, but what about the mandate where religious institutions are forced to subsidize abortion-inducing drugs? What about Obamacare, the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade? While Americans are becoming more pro-life, this is the most extreme President on abortion that we've ever had!"

And then for some crazy reason Ingraham played a re-run interview with O'Reilly and the liberal actor Ed Asner, which I will not report on, because it has already been reported on here, and it is not news, not to mention, who cares what Ed Asner has to say about anything, not me!

In the last segment Republican pollster Chris Wilson and Democrat Bernard Whitman were on to talk about the latest polls and Mitt Romney's recent surge.

Whitman said this: "I think we've seen the end of momentum for Mitt Romney. Ultimately this election will be decided by suburban women, who are beginning to understand the impact of things Paul Ryan said last night when he made it quite clear that he wants to outlaw abortion. Republicans have made it quite clear that they want to control women's lives."

Wilson looked ahead to next week's presidential debate, saying this: "Barack Obama has a tendency to come off as arrogant and smug, almost as if he can't believe someone would have the audacity to disagree with him. He was advised to not be overly-arrogant in the first debate and now he has to find a balance. Conversely, Mitt Romney has to do exactly what he did in Denver."

Facts On Embassy Security You Did Not Get From The Factor
By: Steve - October 14, 2012 - 10:00am

Here are the facts on the embassy security issue, and none of this was ever reported by Bill O'Reilly, or his right-wing stooge fill in Laura Ingraham.

As reported by the Republican DRUDGE:

GOP Cut Embassy Security Funding

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending 1.9 billion for the State Department's worldwide security protection program -- well below the 2.1 billion requested by the Obama administration.

House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by 128 million in fiscal 2011 and 331 million in fiscal 2012.

Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.

And more: Paul Ryan, Darrell Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut 1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions.

Under Ryan's budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than 400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

That is all from DRUDGE folks, a Republican who is in the tank for Romney, so O'Reilly and Ingraham can not claim it's all just liberal lies, when it was reported by DRUDGE.

Dana Milbank reported this:

House Republicans cut the Obama administration's request for embassy security funding by 128 million in fiscal 2011 and 331 million in fiscal 2012....Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" - a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut 1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan's budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than 400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

Open your eyes you right-wing liars, it's the exact same thing DRUDGE reported, and yet Laura Ingraham and the right all claim it's liberal lies, when DRUDGE also reported the same thing.

Here is the big problem with all that budget cutting O'Reilly and the right are calling for: It sounds great when you're on the campaign trail in front of those tea party loons, but when the actual work of governing comes up, those cuts have to come from actual programs that do actual things. Like protecting our embassies.

Vice President Joe Biden said Paul Ryan is in no position to argue about diplomatic security, arguing that Ryan, in Congress, didn't provide all the embassy security funding that the Obama administration asked for. Biden also said that the Obama administration knew of no requests for more security at the Benghazi mission.

Those claims were fact-checked by CNN and here is what they found:

On Wednesday, the State Department's former point man on security in Libya told the House Oversight Committee that he asked for additional security help for the Benghazi facility months before the attack, but was denied.

Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday's hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.

The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified.

Also, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was a site security commander in Libya from February through August, testified that a regional security officer tried to obtain more personnel, but was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with.

Five diplomatic security special agents were in Benghazi at the time of the attack. Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy responded, at the hearing, to suggestions the State Department was responsible for a lack of preparedness: "We regularly assess risk and resource allocation, a process involving the considered judgments of experienced professionals on the ground and in Washington, using the best available information."

On Tuesday, two senior State Department officials told reporters that U.S. and Libyan security personnel in Benghazi were out-manned, and that no reasonable security presence could have fended off the assault.

Conclusion: It's unclear how high Nordstrom's request got in the administration, but he says he did ask the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs for more security help at the Benghazi post.

The amount that the GOP-led House passed for two accounts that pay for embassy security in fiscal 2012 (2.3 billion) was 330 million less than the Obama administration had requested (2.6 billion).

A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested.

Conclusion: The final bill, which passed with bipartisan support, gave a total of 2.3 billion to these accounts for fiscal 2012 -- about 270 million less than what the Obama administration had requested.

And those are the facts, the facts O'Reilly and Ingraham have ignored. Because they are too busy spinning the truth to hurt Obama politically.

The Friday 10-12-12 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - October 13, 2012 - 11:00am

The Ingraham TPM was called: Vice Presidential Debate Winners and Losers. The biased far-right hack (that has no business hosting a so-called Independent news show) Laura Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: Joe Biden showed up last night in Kentucky with twin goals: blunt Mitt Romney's post-debate momentum and give a boost to a Democratic base that had become quite anxious after the President's terrible debate performance. I'll give Biden this much - last night he went from being a gaffe-o-matic to being a laugh-o-matic.

Even left-of-center guys such as Tom Brokaw found the Vice President's smirking, smiling, and constant interrupting off-putting. Biden also told a number of whoppers. He said the administration did not know they wanted more security in Benghazi. Was he unaware of the fact that the former top security official in Libya testified this week that he had repeatedly asked for more security?

When asked who would pay more taxes in a second Obama term, he answered that it would be people making 1-million a year or more. That was totally misleading; Obama's proposed tax increase reaches individuals making 200,000 a year and couples making 250,000.

Finally, Biden claimed 'no religious institution' would have to pay for contraception, but today the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops rebuked the Vice President. Paul Ryan had some difficulty on foreign policy questions and allowed the moderator to cut him off too easily, but Joe Biden's demeanor and mendacity made him both less likeable and less credible.
Of course Ingraham did not like Job Biden and what he said in the debate, because she is a right-wing hack that hates all Democrats and everything they say. The question is, why is O'Reilly letting Laura Ingraham host his show. Because a real Independent would never let her host his show, proving that O'Reilly is also a right-wing hack who has his right-wing friends fill in for him when he is gone.

And it is true the Obama administration did not know they wanted more security in Benghazi. Because the White House does not handle security for an embassy, the State Department does. So Ingraham is lying, and she knows it. Obama and Biden had no idea they wanted more security, and anyone who says they did is lying to you.

Then Ingraham had Simon Rosenberg and Chris Hahn on to discuss her TPM.

Rosenberg said this: "Joe Biden did what he had to do last night. He was aggressive, he took on Paul Ryan and the Republicans, he had energy and vigor, and I think he was himself. That was the Joe Biden I know, I think he had a good night and Democrats are very happy."

Hahn said this: "People saw what they wanted to see. If you were predisposed to like Democrats, you loved what Joe Biden did; if you were a Republican, you loved what Paul Ryan did. I think Biden did what the Democratic Party needed him to do, he went out and took it to the Republicans."

Then the Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz was on to lie about Joe Biden's claim that the Obama administration wasn't aware that our diplomats in Libya had requested more security prior to last month's deadly attack.

Chaffetz said this: "It was absolutely shocking, for the Vice President to admit that he had no idea what was going on. Our consulate in Benghazi had been bombed twice, so how is it that nobody in Washington was saying, 'These people need more help?' The White House and the Vice President are not being straight with the American people, they have a lot to answer for. The administration should have known beforehand that this was going to happen."

Chaffetz also ridiculed the notion that budget cuts were responsible for reduced security, saying this: "In the last five years the State Department budget has increased by 118%!"

And Chaffetz is a liar, because Biden never said he did not know what was going on, he just said neither he or President Obama knew they had asked for more security, because the State Department handles their security not the President and the Vice President. He also lied about security funding, the Republican Drudge even reported it, here is what Drudge published on 10-12-12:
GOP Cut Embassy Security Funding

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's worldwide security protection program -- well below the $2.15? billion requested by the Obama administration.

House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.

Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.
Then Lou Dobbs was on to analyze the economic and tax portions of Thursday night's debate. Dobbs said this: "Score this for Congressman Ryan. The concept of reducing marginal tax rates, which is Romney's plan, has been tested historically. I'm not sure how Vice President Biden thought he would profit from this, Paul Ryan was right."

And of course Ryan and Dobbs are both wrong, because everyone who has studied the Romney/Ryan tax plan says it is not possible and the math does not add up.

In fact, if you cut every single tax loophole there is, all of them for everyone in America, you only get a 4% reduction in savings, but they want an across the board 20% tax cut. That means they are 16% short, and yet they claim their plan is revenue neutral, which is a lie, and impossible. Making Paul Ryan and Lou Dobbs both LIARS!

Then the liberal Leslie Marshall and Marilyn Musgrave, the head of a pro-life organization were on to talk the question of abortion and faith asked at the debate.

Marshall said this: "I think it was a good question. These are two Catholic men and this is an issue that is very emotional and very divisive. I liked both their answers because they seemed unrehearsed and honest."

But the far-right partisan Musgrave accused the Vice President of being less than honest, saying this: "Joe Biden said he doesn't want to force his beliefs on other people, but what about the mandate where religious institutions are forced to subsidize abortion-inducing drugs? What about Obamacare, the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade? While Americans are becoming more pro-life, this is the most extreme President on abortion that we've ever had!"

And then for some crazy reason Ingraham played a re-run interview with O'Reilly and the liberal actor Ed Asner, which I will not report on, because it has already been reported on here, and it is not news, not to mention, who cares what Ed Asner has to say about anything, not me!

In the last segment Republican pollster Chris Wilson and Democrat Bernard Whitman were on to talk about the latest polls and Mitt Romney's recent surge.

Whitman said this: "I think we've seen the end of momentum for Mitt Romney. Ultimately this election will be decided by suburban women, who are beginning to understand the impact of things Paul Ryan said last night when he made it quite clear that he wants to outlaw abortion. Republicans have made it quite clear that they want to control women's lives."

Wilson looked ahead to next week's presidential debate, saying this: "Barack Obama has a tendency to come off as arrogant and smug, almost as if he can't believe someone would have the audacity to disagree with him. He was advised to not be overly-arrogant in the first debate and now he has to find a balance. Conversely, Mitt Romney has to do exactly what he did in Denver."

Facts On Embassy Security You Did Not Get From The Factor
By: Steve - October 14, 2012 - 10:00am

Here are the facts on the embassy security issue, and none of this was ever reported by Bill O'Reilly, or his right-wing stooge fill in Laura Ingraham.

As reported by the Republican DRUDGE:

GOP Cut Embassy Security Funding

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's worldwide security protection program -- well below the $2.15? billion requested by the Obama administration.

House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.

Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.

And more: Paul Ryan, Darrell Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions.

Under Ryan's budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

That is all from DRUDGE folks, a Republican who is in the tank for Romney, so O'Reilly and Ingraham can not claim it's all just liberal lies, when it was reported by DRUDGE.

Dana Milbank reported this:

House Republicans cut the Obama administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012....Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" - a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan's budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

Open your eyes you right-wing liars, it's the exact same thing DRUDGE reported, and yet Laura Ingraham and the right all claim it's liberal lies, when DRUDGE also reported the same thing.

Here is the big problem with all that budget cutting O'Reilly and the right are calling for: It sounds great when you're on the campaign trail in front of those tea party loons, but when the actual work of governing comes up, those cuts have to come from actual programs that do actual things. Like protecting our embassies.

Vice President Joe Biden said Paul Ryan is in no position to argue about diplomatic security, arguing that Ryan, in Congress, didn't provide all the embassy security funding that the Obama administration asked for. Biden also said that the Obama administration knew of no requests for more security at the Benghazi mission.

Those claims were fact-checked by CNN and here is what they found:

On Wednesday, the State Department's former point man on security in Libya told the House Oversight Committee that he asked for additional security help for the Benghazi facility months before the attack, but was denied.

Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday's hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.

The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified.

Also, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was a site security commander in Libya from February through August, testified that a regional security officer tried to obtain more personnel, but 'was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with."

Five diplomatic security special agents were in Benghazi at the time of the attack. Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy responded, at the hearing, to suggestions the State Department was responsible for a lack of preparedness: "We regularly assess risk and resource allocation, a process involving the considered judgments of experienced professionals on the ground and in Washington, using the best available information."

On Tuesday, two senior State Department officials told reporters that U.S. and Libyan security personnel in Benghazi were out-manned, and that no reasonable security presence could have fended off the assault.

Conclusion: It's unclear how high Nordstrom's request got in the administration, but he says he did ask the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs for more security help at the Benghazi post.

The amount that the GOP-led House passed for two accounts that pay for embassy security in fiscal 2012 ($2.311 billion) was $330 million less than the Obama administration had requested ($2.641 billion).

A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested.

Conclusion: The final bill, which passed with bipartisan support, gave a total of $2.37 billion to these accounts for fiscal 2012 -- about $270 million less than what the Obama administration had requested.

And those are the facts, the facts O'Reilly and Ingraham have ignored. Because they are too busy spinning the truth to hurt Obama politically.

The Friday 10-12-12 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - October 13, 2012 - 11:00am

The Ingraham TPM was called: Vice Presidential Debate Winners and Losers. The biased far-right hack (that has no business hosting a so-called Independent news show) Laura Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: Joe Biden showed up last night in Kentucky with twin goals: blunt Mitt Romney's post-debate momentum and give a boost to a Democratic base that had become quite anxious after the President's terrible debate performance. I'll give Biden this much - last night he went from being a 'gaffe-o-matic' to being a 'laugh-o-matic.'

Even left-of-center guys such as Tom Brokaw found the Vice President's smirking, smiling, and constant interrupting off-putting. Biden also told a number of whoppers. He said the administration 'did not know they wanted more security' in Benghazi. Was he unaware of the fact that the former top security official in Libya testified this week that he had repeatedly asked for more security?

When asked who would pay more taxes in a second Obama term, he answered that it would be people making $1-million a year or more. That was totally misleading; Obama's proposed tax increase reaches individuals making $200,000 a year and couples making $250,000.

Finally, Biden claimed 'no religious institution' would have to pay for contraception, but today the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops rebuked the Vice President. Paul Ryan had some difficulty on foreign policy questions and allowed the moderator to cut him off too easily, but Joe Biden's demeanor and mendacity made him both less likeable and less credible.
Of course Ingraham did not like Job Biden and what he said in the debate, because she is a right-wing hack that hates all Democrats and everything they say. The question is, why is O'Reilly letting Laura Ingraham host his show. Because a real Independent would never let her host his show, proving that O'Reilly is also a right-wing hack who has his right-wing friends fill in for him when he is gone.

And it is true the Obama administration did not know they wanted more security in Benghazi. Because the White House does not handle security for an embassy, the State Department does. So Ingraham is lying, and she knows it. Obama and Biden had no idea they wanted more security, and anyone who says they did is lying to you.

Then Ingraham had Simon Rosenberg and Chris Hahn on to discuss her TPM.

Rosenberg said this: "Joe Biden did what he had to do last night. He was aggressive, he took on Paul Ryan and the Republicans, he had energy and vigor, and I think he was himself. That was the Joe Biden I know, I think he had a good night and Democrats are very happy."

Hahn said this: "People saw what they wanted to see. If you were predisposed to like Democrats, you loved what Joe Biden did; if you were a Republican, you loved what Paul Ryan did. I think Biden did what the Democratic Party needed him to do, he went out and took it to the Republicans."

Then the Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz was on to lie about Joe Biden's claim that the Obama administration wasn't aware that our diplomats in Libya had requested more security prior to last month's deadly attack.

Chaffetz said this: "It was absolutely shocking, for the Vice President to admit that he had no idea what was going on. Our consulate in Benghazi had been bombed twice, so how is it that nobody in Washington was saying, 'These people need more help?' The White House and the Vice President are not being straight with the American people, they have a lot to answer for. The administration should have known beforehand that this was going to happen."

Chaffetz also ridiculed the notion that budget cuts were responsible for reduced security, saying this: "In the last five years the State Department budget has increased by 118%!"

And Chaffetz is a liar, because Biden never said he did not know what was going on, he just said neither he or President Obama knew they had asked for more security, because the State Department handles their security not the President and the Vice President. He also lied about security funding, the Republican Drudge even reported it, here is what Drudge published on 10-12-12:
GOP Cut Embassy Security Funding

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's worldwide security protection program -- well below the $2.15? billion requested by the Obama administration.

House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.

Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.
Then Lou Dobbs was on to analyze the economic and tax portions of Thursday night's debate. Dobbs said this: "Score this for Congressman Ryan. The concept of reducing marginal tax rates, which is Romney's plan, has been tested historically. I'm not sure how Vice President Biden thought he would profit from this, Paul Ryan was right."

And of course Ryan and Dobbs are both wrong, because everyone who has studied the Romney/Ryan tax plan says it is not possible and the math does not add up.

In fact, if you cut every single tax loophole there is, all of them for everyone in America, you only get a 4% reduction in savings, but they want an across the board 20% tax cut. That means they are 16% short, and yet they claim their plan is revenue neutral, which is a lie, and impossible. Making Paul Ryan and Lou Dobbs both LIARS!

Then the liberal Leslie Marshall and Marilyn Musgrave, the head of a pro-life organization were on to talk the question of abortion and faith asked at the debate.

Marshall said this: "I think it was a good question. These are two Catholic men and this is an issue that is very emotional and very divisive. I liked both their answers because they seemed unrehearsed and honest."

But the far-right partisan Musgrave accused the Vice President of being less than honest, saying this: "Joe Biden said he doesn't want to force his beliefs on other people, but what about the mandate where religious institutions are forced to subsidize abortion-inducing drugs? What about Obamacare, the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade? While Americans are becoming more pro-life, this is the most extreme President on abortion that we've ever had!"

And then for some crazy reason Ingraham played a re-run interview with O'Reilly and the liberal actor Ed Asner, which I will not report on, because it has already been reported on here, and it is not news, not to mention, who cares what Ed Asner has to say about anything, not me!

In the last segment Republican pollster Chris Wilson and Democrat Bernard Whitman were on to talk about the latest polls and Mitt Romney's recent surge.

Whitman said this: "I think we've seen the end of momentum for Mitt Romney. Ultimately this election will be decided by suburban women, who are beginning to understand the impact of things Paul Ryan said last night when he made it quite clear that he wants to outlaw abortion. Republicans have made it quite clear that they want to control women's lives."

Wilson looked ahead to next week's presidential debate, saying this: "Barack Obama has a tendency to come off as arrogant and smug, almost as if he can't believe someone would have the audacity to disagree with him. He was advised to not be overly-arrogant in the first debate and now he has to find a balance. Conversely, Mitt Romney has to do exactly what he did in Denver."

Facts On Embassy Security You Did Not Get From The Factor
By: Steve - October 14, 2012 - 10:00am

Here are the facts on the embassy security issue, and none of this was ever reported by Bill O'Reilly, or his right-wing stooge fill in Laura Ingraham.

As reported by the Republican DRUDGE:

GOP Cut Embassy Security Funding

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's worldwide security protection program -- well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration.

House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.

Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.

And more: Paul Ryan, Darrell Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions.

Under Ryan's budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

That is all from DRUDGE folks, a Republican who is in the tank for Romney, so O'Reilly and Ingraham can not claim it's all just liberal lies, when it was reported by DRUDGE.

Dana Milbank reported this:

House Republicans cut the Obama administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012....Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" - a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan's budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

Open your eyes you right-wing liars, it's the exact same thing DRUDGE reported, and yet Laura Ingraham and the right all claim it's liberal lies, when DRUDGE also reported the same thing.

Here is the big problem with all that budget cutting O'Reilly and the right are calling for: It sounds great when you're on the campaign trail in front of those tea party loons, but when the actual work of governing comes up, those cuts have to come from actual programs that do actual things. Like protecting our embassies.

Vice President Joe Biden said Paul Ryan is in no position to argue about diplomatic security, arguing that Ryan, in Congress, didn't provide all the embassy security funding that the Obama administration asked for. Biden also said that the Obama administration knew of no requests for more security at the Benghazi mission.

Those claims were fact-checked by CNN and here is what they found:

On Wednesday, the State Department's former point man on security in Libya told the House Oversight Committee that he asked for additional security help for the Benghazi facility months before the attack, but was denied.

Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday's hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.

The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified.

Also, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was a site security commander in Libya from February through August, testified that a regional security officer tried to obtain more personnel, but 'was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with."

Five diplomatic security special agents were in Benghazi at the time of the attack. Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy responded, at the hearing, to suggestions the State Department was responsible for a lack of preparedness: "We regularly assess risk and resource allocation, a process involving the considered judgments of experienced professionals on the ground and in Washington, using the best available information."

On Tuesday, two senior State Department officials told reporters that U.S. and Libyan security personnel in Benghazi were out-manned, and that no reasonable security presence could have fended off the assault.

Conclusion: It's unclear how high Nordstrom's request got in the administration, but he says he did ask the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs for more security help at the Benghazi post.

The amount that the GOP-led House passed for two accounts that pay for embassy security in fiscal 2012 ($2.311 billion) was $330 million less than the Obama administration had requested ($2.641 billion).

A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested.

Conclusion: The final bill, which passed with bipartisan support, gave a total of $2.37 billion to these accounts for fiscal 2012 -- about $270 million less than what the Obama administration had requested.

And those are the facts, the facts O'Reilly and Ingraham have ignored. Because they are too busy spinning the truth to hurt Obama politically.

The Friday 10-12-12 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - October 13, 2012 - 11:00am

The Ingraham TPM was called: Vice Presidential Debate Winners and Losers. The biased far-right hack (that has no business hosting a so-called Independent news show) Laura Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: Joe Biden showed up last night in Kentucky with twin goals: blunt Mitt Romney's post-debate momentum and give a boost to a Democratic base that had become quite anxious after the President's terrible debate performance. I'll give Biden this much - last night he went from being a 'gaffe-o-matic' to being a 'laugh-o-matic.'

Even left-of-center guys such as Tom Brokaw found the Vice President's smirking, smiling, and constant interrupting off-putting. Biden also told a number of whoppers. He said the administration 'did not know they wanted more security' in Benghazi. Was he unaware of the fact that the former top security official in Libya testified this week that he had repeatedly asked for more security?

When asked who would pay more taxes in a second Obama term, he answered that it would be people making $1-million a year or more. That was totally misleading; Obama's proposed tax increase reaches individuals making $200,000 a year and couples making $250,000.

Finally, Biden claimed 'no religious institution' would have to pay for contraception, but today the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops rebuked the Vice President. Paul Ryan had some difficulty on foreign policy questions and allowed the moderator to cut him off too easily, but Joe Biden's demeanor and mendacity made him both less likeable and less credible.
Of course Ingraham did not like Job Biden and what he said in the debate, because she is a right-wing hack that hates all Democrats and everything they say. The question is, why is O'Reilly letting Laura Ingraham host his show. Because a real Independent would never let her host his show, proving that O'Reilly is also a right-wing hack who has his right-wing friends fill in for him when he is gone.

And it is true the Obama administration did not know they wanted more security in Benghazi. Because the White House does not handle security for an embassy, the State Department does. So Ingraham is lying, and she knows it. Obama and Biden had no idea they wanted more security, and anyone who says they did is lying to you.

Then Ingraham had Simon Rosenberg and Chris Hahn on to discuss her TPM.

Rosenberg said this: "Joe Biden did what he had to do last night. He was aggressive, he took on Paul Ryan and the Republicans, he had energy and vigor, and I think he was himself. That was the Joe Biden I know, I think he had a good night and Democrats are very happy."

Hahn said this: "People saw what they wanted to see. If you were predisposed to like Democrats, you loved what Joe Biden did; if you were a Republican, you loved what Paul Ryan did. I think Biden did what the Democratic Party needed him to do, he went out and took it to the Republicans."

Then the Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz was on to lie about Joe Biden's claim that the Obama administration wasn't aware that our diplomats in Libya had requested more security prior to last month's deadly attack.

Chaffetz said this: "It was absolutely shocking, for the Vice President to admit that he had no idea what was going on. Our consulate in Benghazi had been bombed twice, so how is it that nobody in Washington was saying, 'These people need more help?' The White House and the Vice President are not being straight with the American people, they have a lot to answer for. The administration should have known beforehand that this was going to happen."

Chaffetz also ridiculed the notion that budget cuts were responsible for reduced security, saying this: "In the last five years the State Department budget has increased by 118%!"

And Chaffetz is a liar, because Biden never said he did not know what was going on, he just said neither he or President Obama knew they had asked for more security, because the State Department handles their security not the President and the Vice President. He also lied about security funding, the Republican Drudge even reported it, here is what Drudge published on 10-12-12:
GOP Cut Embassy Security Funding

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's worldwide security protection program -- well below the $2.15? billion requested by the Obama administration.

House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.

Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.
Then Lou Dobbs was on to analyze the economic and tax portions of Thursday night's debate. Dobbs said this: "Score this for Congressman Ryan. The concept of reducing marginal tax rates, which is Romney's plan, has been tested historically. I'm not sure how Vice President Biden thought he would profit from this, Paul Ryan was right."

And of course Ryan and Dobbs are both wrong, because everyone who has studied the Romney/Ryan tax plan says it is not possible and the math does not add up.

In fact, if you cut every single tax loophole there is, all of them for everyone in America, you only get a 4% reduction in savings, but they want an across the board 20% tax cut. That means they are 16% short, and yet they claim their plan is revenue neutral, which is a lie, and impossible. Making Paul Ryan and Lou Dobbs both LIARS!

Then the liberal Leslie Marshall and Marilyn Musgrave, the head of a pro-life organization were on to talk the question of abortion and faith asked at the debate.

Marshall said this: "I think it was a good question. These are two Catholic men and this is an issue that is very emotional and very divisive. I liked both their answers because they seemed unrehearsed and honest."

But the far-right partisan Musgrave accused the Vice President of being less than honest, saying this: "Joe Biden said he doesn't want to force his beliefs on other people, but what about the mandate where religious institutions are forced to subsidize abortion-inducing drugs? What about Obamacare, the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade? While Americans are becoming more pro-life, this is the most extreme President on abortion that we've ever had!"

And then for some crazy reason Ingraham played a re-run interview with O'Reilly and the liberal actor Ed Asner, which I will not report on, because it has already been reported on here, and it is not news, not to mention, who cares what Ed Asner has to say about anything, not me!

In the last segment Republican pollster Chris Wilson and Democrat Bernard Whitman were on to talk about the latest polls and Mitt Romney's recent surge.

Whitman said this: "I think we've seen the end of momentum for Mitt Romney. Ultimately this election will be decided by suburban women, who are beginning to understand the impact of things Paul Ryan said last night when he made it quite clear that he wants to outlaw abortion. Republicans have made it quite clear that they want to control women's lives."

Wilson looked ahead to next week's presidential debate, saying this: "Barack Obama has a tendency to come off as arrogant and smug, almost as if he can't believe someone would have the audacity to disagree with him. He was advised to not be overly-arrogant in the first debate and now he has to find a balance. Conversely, Mitt Romney has to do exactly what he did in Denver."

Facts On Embassy Security You Did Not Get From The Factor
By: Steve - October 14, 2012 - 10:00am

Here are the facts on the embassy security issue, and none of this was ever reported by Bill O'Reilly, or his right-wing stooge fill in Laura Ingraham.

As reported by the Republican DRUDGE:

GOP Cut Embassy Security Funding

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's worldwide security protection program -- well below the $2.15? billion requested by the Obama administration.

House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.

Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.

And more: Paul Ryan, Darrell Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions.

Under Ryan's budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

That is all from DRUDGE folks, a Republican who is in the tank for Romney, so O'Reilly and Ingraham can not claim it's all just liberal lies, when it was reported by DRUDGE.

Dana Milbank reported this:

House Republicans cut the Obama administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012....Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" - a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan's budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

Open your eyes you right-wing liars, it's the exact same thing DRUDGE reported, and yet Laura Ingraham and the right all claim it's liberal lies, when DRUDGE also reported the same thing.

Here is the big problem with all that budget cutting O'Reilly and the right are calling for: It sounds great when you're on the campaign trail in front of those tea party loons, but when the actual work of governing comes up, those cuts have to come from actual programs that do actual things. Like protecting our embassies.

Vice President Joe Biden said Paul Ryan is in no position to argue about diplomatic security, arguing that Ryan, in Congress, didn't provide all the embassy security funding that the Obama administration asked for. Biden also said that the Obama administration knew of no requests for more security at the Benghazi mission.

Those claims were fact-checked by CNN and here is what they found:

On Wednesday, the State Department's former point man on security in Libya told the House Oversight Committee that he asked for additional security help for the Benghazi facility months before the attack, but was denied.

Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday's hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.

The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified.

Also, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was a site security commander in Libya from February through August, testified that a regional security officer tried to obtain more personnel, but 'was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with."

Five diplomatic security special agents were in Benghazi at the time of the attack. Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy responded, at the hearing, to suggestions the State Department was responsible for a lack of preparedness: "We regularly assess risk and resource allocation, a process involving the considered judgments of experienced professionals on the ground and in Washington, using the best available information."

On Tuesday, two senior State Department officials told reporters that U.S. and Libyan security personnel in Benghazi were out-manned, and that no reasonable security presence could have fended off the assault.

Conclusion: It's unclear how high Nordstrom's request got in the administration, but he says he did ask the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs for more security help at the Benghazi post.

The amount that the GOP-led House passed for two accounts that pay for embassy security in fiscal 2012 ($2.311 billion) was $330 million less than the Obama administration had requested ($2.641 billion).

A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested.

Conclusion: The final bill, which passed with bipartisan support, gave a total of $2.37 billion to these accounts for fiscal 2012 -- about $270 million less than what the Obama administration had requested.

And those are the facts, the facts O'Reilly and Ingraham have ignored. Because they are too busy spinning the truth to hurt Obama politically.

The Friday 10-12-12 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - October 13, 2012 - 11:00am

The Ingraham TPM was called: Vice Presidential Debate Winners and Losers. The biased far-right hack (that has no business hosting a so-called Independent news show) Laura Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: Joe Biden showed up last night in Kentucky with twin goals: blunt Mitt Romney's post-debate momentum and give a boost to a Democratic base that had become quite anxious after the President's terrible debate performance. I'll give Biden this much - last night he went from being a 'gaffe-o-matic' to being a 'laugh-o-matic.'

Even left-of-center guys such as Tom Brokaw found the Vice President's smirking, smiling, and constant interrupting off-putting. Biden also told a number of whoppers. He said the administration 'did not know they wanted more security' in Benghazi. Was he unaware of the fact that the former top security official in Libya testified this week that he had repeatedly asked for more security?

When asked who would pay more taxes in a second Obama term, he answered that it would be people making $1-million a year or more. That was totally misleading; Obama's proposed tax increase reaches individuals making $200,000 a year and couples making $250,000.

Finally, Biden claimed 'no religious institution' would have to pay for contraception, but today the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops rebuked the Vice President. Paul Ryan had some difficulty on foreign policy questions and allowed the moderator to cut him off too easily, but Joe Biden's demeanor and mendacity made him both less likeable and less credible.
Of course Ingraham did not like Job Biden and what he said in the debate, because she is a right-wing hack that hates all Democrats and everything they say. The question is, why is O'Reilly letting Laura Ingraham host his show. Because a real Independent would never let her host his show, proving that O'Reilly is also a right-wing hack who has his right-wing friends fill in for him when he is gone.

And it is true the Obama administration did not know they wanted more security in Benghazi. Because the White House does not handle security for an embassy, the State Department does. So Ingraham is lying, and she knows it. Obama and Biden had no idea they wanted more security, and anyone who says they did is lying to you.

Then Ingraham had Simon Rosenberg and Chris Hahn on to discuss her TPM.

Rosenberg said this: "Joe Biden did what he had to do last night. He was aggressive, he took on Paul Ryan and the Republicans, he had energy and vigor, and I think he was himself. That was the Joe Biden I know, I think he had a good night and Democrats are very happy."

Hahn said this: "People saw what they wanted to see. If you were predisposed to like Democrats, you loved what Joe Biden did; if you were a Republican, you loved what Paul Ryan did. I think Biden did what the Democratic Party needed him to do, he went out and took it to the Republicans."

Then the Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz was on to lie about Joe Biden's claim that the Obama administration wasn't aware that our diplomats in Libya had requested more security prior to last month's deadly attack.

Chaffetz said this: "It was absolutely shocking, for the Vice President to admit that he had no idea what was going on. Our consulate in Benghazi had been bombed twice, so how is it that nobody in Washington was saying, 'These people need more help?' The White House and the Vice President are not being straight with the American people, they have a lot to answer for. The administration should have known beforehand that this was going to happen."

Chaffetz also ridiculed the notion that budget cuts were responsible for reduced security, saying this: "In the last five years the State Department budget has increased by 118%!"

And Chaffetz is a liar, because Biden never said he did not know what was going on, he just said neither he or President Obama knew they had asked for more security, because the State Department handles their security not the President and the Vice President. He also lied about security funding, the Republican Drudge even reported it, here is what Drudge published on 10-12-12:
GOP Cut Embassy Security Funding

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's worldwide security protection program -- well below the $2.15? billion requested by the Obama administration.

House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.

Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.
Then Lou Dobbs was on to analyze the economic and tax portions of Thursday night's debate. Dobbs said this: "Score this for Congressman Ryan. The concept of reducing marginal tax rates, which is Romney's plan, has been tested historically. I'm not sure how Vice President Biden thought he would profit from this, Paul Ryan was right."

And of course Ryan and Dobbs are both wrong, because everyone who has studied the Romney/Ryan tax plan says it is not possible and the math does not add up.

In fact, if you cut every single tax loophole there is, all of them for everyone in America, you only get a 4% reduction in savings, but they want an across the board 20% tax cut. That means they are 16% short, and yet they claim their plan is revenue neutral, which is a lie, and impossible. Making Paul Ryan and Lou Dobbs both LIARS!

Then the liberal Leslie Marshall and Marilyn Musgrave, the head of a pro-life organization were on to talk the question of abortion and faith asked at the debate.

Marshall said this: "I think it was a good question. These are two Catholic men and this is an issue that is very emotional and very divisive. I liked both their answers because they seemed unrehearsed and honest."

But the far-right partisan Musgrave accused the Vice President of being less than honest, saying this: "Joe Biden said he doesn't want to force his beliefs on other people, but what about the mandate where religious institutions are forced to subsidize abortion-inducing drugs? What about Obamacare, the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade? While Americans are becoming more pro-life, this is the most extreme President on abortion that we've ever had!"

And then for some crazy reason Ingraham played a re-run interview with O'Reilly and the liberal actor Ed Asner, which I will not report on, because it has already been reported on here, and it is not news, not to mention, who cares what Ed Asner has to say about anything, not me!

In the last segment Republican pollster Chris Wilson and Democrat Bernard Whitman were on to talk about the latest polls and Mitt Romney's recent surge.

Whitman said this: "I think we've seen the end of momentum for Mitt Romney. Ultimately this election will be decided by suburban women, who are beginning to understand the impact of things Paul Ryan said last night when he made it quite clear that he wants to outlaw abortion. Republicans have made it quite clear that they want to control women's lives."

Wilson looked ahead to next week's presidential debate, saying this: "Barack Obama has a tendency to come off as arrogant and smug, almost as if he can't believe someone would have the audacity to disagree with him. He was advised to not be overly-arrogant in the first debate and now he has to find a balance. Conversely, Mitt Romney has to do exactly what he did in Denver."

Facts On Embassy Security You Did Not Get From The Factor
By: Steve - October 14, 2012 - 10:00am

Here are the facts on the embassy security issue, and none of this was ever reported by Bill O'Reilly, or his right-wing stooge fill in Laura Ingraham.

As reported by the Republican DRUDGE:

GOP Cut Embassy Security Funding

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's worldwide security protection program -- well below the $2.15? billion requested by the Obama administration.

House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.

Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.

And more: Paul Ryan, Darrell Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions.

Under Ryan's budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

That is all from DRUDGE folks, a Republican who is in the tank for Romney, so O'Reilly and Ingraham can not claim it's all just liberal lies, when it was reported by DRUDGE.

Dana Milbank reported this:

House Republicans cut the Obama administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012....Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" - a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan's budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

Open your eyes you right-wing liars, it's the exact same thing DRUDGE reported, and yet Laura Ingraham and the right all claim it's liberal lies, when DRUDGE also reported the same thing.

Here is the big problem with all that budget cutting O'Reilly and the right are calling for: It sounds great when you're on the campaign trail in front of those tea party loons, but when the actual work of governing comes up, those cuts have to come from actual programs that do actual things. Like protecting our embassies.

Vice President Joe Biden said Paul Ryan is in no position to argue about diplomatic security, arguing that Ryan, in Congress, didn't provide all the embassy security funding that the Obama administration asked for. Biden also said that the Obama administration knew of no requests for more security at the Benghazi mission.

Those claims were fact-checked by CNN and here is what they found:

On Wednesday, the State Department's former point man on security in Libya told the House Oversight Committee that he asked for additional security help for the Benghazi facility months before the attack, but was denied.

Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday's hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.

The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified.

Also, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was a site security commander in Libya from February through August, testified that a regional security officer tried to obtain more personnel, but 'was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with."

Five diplomatic security special agents were in Benghazi at the time of the attack. Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy responded, at the hearing, to suggestions the State Department was responsible for a lack of preparedness: "We regularly assess risk and resource allocation, a process involving the considered judgments of experienced professionals on the ground and in Washington, using the best available information."

On Tuesday, two senior State Department officials told reporters that U.S. and Libyan security personnel in Benghazi were out-manned, and that no reasonable security presence could have fended off the assault.

Conclusion: It's unclear how high Nordstrom's request got in the administration, but he says he did ask the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs for more security help at the Benghazi post.

The amount that the GOP-led House passed for two accounts that pay for embassy security in fiscal 2012 ($2.311 billion) was $330 million less than the Obama administration had requested ($2.641 billion).

A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested.

Conclusion: The final bill, which passed with bipartisan support, gave a total of $2.37 billion to these accounts for fiscal 2012 -- about $270 million less than what the Obama administration had requested.

And those are the facts, the facts O'Reilly and Ingraham have ignored. Because they are too busy spinning the truth to hurt Obama politically.

The Friday 10-12-12 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - October 13, 2012 - 11:00am

The Ingraham TPM was called: Vice Presidential Debate Winners and Losers. The biased far-right hack (that has no business hosting a so-called Independent news show) Laura Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: Joe Biden showed up last night in Kentucky with twin goals: blunt Mitt Romney's post-debate momentum and give a boost to a Democratic base that had become quite anxious after the President's terrible debate performance. I'll give Biden this much - last night he went from being a 'gaffe-o-matic' to being a 'laugh-o-matic.'

Even left-of-center guys such as Tom Brokaw found the Vice President's smirking, smiling, and constant interrupting off-putting. Biden also told a number of whoppers. He said the administration 'did not know they wanted more security' in Benghazi. Was he unaware of the fact that the former top security official in Libya testified this week that he had repeatedly asked for more security?

When asked who would pay more taxes in a second Obama term, he answered that it would be people making $1-million a year or more. That was totally misleading; Obama's proposed tax increase reaches individuals making $200,000 a year and couples making $250,000.

Finally, Biden claimed 'no religious institution' would have to pay for contraception, but today the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops rebuked the Vice President. Paul Ryan had some difficulty on foreign policy questions and allowed the moderator to cut him off too easily, but Joe Biden's demeanor and mendacity made him both less likeable and less credible.
Of course Ingraham did not like Job Biden and what he said in the debate, because she is a right-wing hack that hates all Democrats and everything they say. The question is, why is O'Reilly letting Laura Ingraham host his show. Because a real Independent would never let her host his show, proving that O'Reilly is also a right-wing hack who has his right-wing friends fill in for him when he is gone.

And it is true the Obama administration did not know they wanted more security in Benghazi. Because the White House does not handle security for an embassy, the State Department does. So Ingraham is lying, and she knows it. Obama and Biden had no idea they wanted more security, and anyone who says they did is lying to you.

Then Ingraham had Simon Rosenberg and Chris Hahn on to discuss her TPM.

Rosenberg said this: "Joe Biden did what he had to do last night. He was aggressive, he took on Paul Ryan and the Republicans, he had energy and vigor, and I think he was himself. That was the Joe Biden I know, I think he had a good night and Democrats are very happy."

Hahn said this: "People saw what they wanted to see. If you were predisposed to like Democrats, you loved what Joe Biden did; if you were a Republican, you loved what Paul Ryan did. I think Biden did what the Democratic Party needed him to do, he went out and took it to the Republicans."

Then the Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz was on to lie about Joe Biden's claim that the Obama administration wasn't aware that our diplomats in Libya had requested more security prior to last month's deadly attack.

Chaffetz said this: "It was absolutely shocking, for the Vice President to admit that he had no idea what was going on. Our consulate in Benghazi had been bombed twice, so how is it that nobody in Washington was saying, 'These people need more help?' The White House and the Vice President are not being straight with the American people, they have a lot to answer for. The administration should have known beforehand that this was going to happen."

Chaffetz also ridiculed the notion that budget cuts were responsible for reduced security, saying this: "In the last five years the State Department budget has increased by 118%!"

And Chaffetz is a liar, because Biden never said he did not know what was going on, he just said neither he or President Obama knew they had asked for more security, because the State Department handles their security not the President and the Vice President. He also lied about security funding, the Republican Drudge even reported it, here is what Drudge published on 10-12-12:
GOP Cut Embassy Security Funding

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's worldwide security protection program -- well below the $2.15? billion requested by the Obama administration.

House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.

Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.
Then Lou Dobbs was on to analyze the economic and tax portions of Thursday night's debate. Dobbs said this: "Score this for Congressman Ryan. The concept of reducing marginal tax rates, which is Romney's plan, has been tested historically. I'm not sure how Vice President Biden thought he would profit from this, Paul Ryan was right."

And of course Ryan and Dobbs are both wrong, because everyone who has studied the Romney/Ryan tax plan says it is not possible and the math does not add up.

In fact, if you cut every single tax loophole there is, all of them for everyone in America, you only get a 4% reduction in savings, but they want an across the board 20% tax cut. That means they are 16% short, and yet they claim their plan is revenue neutral, which is a lie, and impossible. Making Paul Ryan and Lou Dobbs both LIARS!

Then the liberal Leslie Marshall and Marilyn Musgrave, the head of a pro-life organization were on to talk the question of abortion and faith asked at the debate.

Marshall said this: "I think it was a good question. These are two Catholic men and this is an issue that is very emotional and very divisive. I liked both their answers because they seemed unrehearsed and honest."

But the far-right partisan Musgrave accused the Vice President of being less than honest, saying this: "Joe Biden said he doesn't want to force his beliefs on other people, but what about the mandate where religious institutions are forced to subsidize abortion-inducing drugs? What about Obamacare, the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade? While Americans are becoming more pro-life, this is the most extreme President on abortion that we've ever had!"

And then for some crazy reason Ingraham played a re-run interview with O'Reilly and the liberal actor Ed Asner, which I will not report on, because it has already been reported on here, and it is not news, not to mention, who cares what Ed Asner has to say about anything, not me!

In the last segment Republican pollster Chris Wilson and Democrat Bernard Whitman were on to talk about the latest polls and Mitt Romney's recent surge.

Whitman said this: "I think we've seen the end of momentum for Mitt Romney. Ultimately this election will be decided by suburban women, who are beginning to understand the impact of things Paul Ryan said last night when he made it quite clear that he wants to outlaw abortion. Republicans have made it quite clear that they want to control women's lives."

Wilson looked ahead to next week's presidential debate, saying this: "Barack Obama has a tendency to come off as arrogant and smug, almost as if he can't believe someone would have the audacity to disagree with him. He was advised to not be overly-arrogant in the first debate and now he has to find a balance. Conversely, Mitt Romney has to do exactly what he did in Denver."

Romney Said Nobody Without Health Insurance Dies
By: Steve - October 13, 2012 - 10:00am

And of course this massive lie from Romney was never reported on the Factor, by O'Reilly or his right-wing stooge fill in Laura Ingraham.

Proving Romney is an out of touch wealthy right-wing idiot, because thousands of Americans die every year specifically due to not having any health insurance. And of course O'Reilly never reports any of these insane statements from Romney, because he is covering for Romney so he can beat Obama.

Mitt Romney doubled down on his suggestion that uninsured Americans can find the care they need in emergency rooms, telling The Dispatch that people will always receive the treatment they need, and do not die or suffer because they can not pay for care.

He pointed to federal law that requires hospitals to admit emergency patients, repeating his advice that patients rely on the most expensive form of care reserved strictly for emergencies. Romney told this to the Columbus Dispatch:
"We don't have a setting across this country where if you don't have insurance, we just say to you, 'Tough luck, you're going to die when you have your heart attack,'" he said as he offered more hints as to what he would put in place of Obamacare.

"No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, you get care, and it's paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital. We don't have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." He pointed out that federal law requires hospitals to treat those without health insurance - although hospital officials frequently say that drives up health-care costs.
Emergency rooms serve as a place of last resort, but 45,000 Americans still die every year because they lack health insurance, or one every 12 minutes. Uninsured adults under age 65 are also at a 40 percent higher death risk.

Hospitals may treat patients for emergency medical conditions regardless of legal status or ability to pay, but patients with chronic conditions that don't require emergency interference are often unable to access needed care.

Romney's health care proposal would leave 72 million Americans without health insurance and wouldn't provide all uninsured Americans with a stable source of insurance.

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

The TPM was called: The presidential race and the press. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The pressure is on Congressman Paul Ryan, who is warming up to debate Vice President Biden. Mr. Ryan has never debated in a worldwide forum, while Mr. Biden has, so it is crunch time for the Congressman. Mitt Romney and the Republicans are counting on Ryan to continue the momentum and to at least parry anything Vice President Biden says.

Since the campaign began, the Obama team has not dealt with the media very much, even though the media loves the President. The last White House news conference was seven months ago. Mr. Obama does some soft venues like late night shows and The View, but rarely sits for policy interviews.

Vice President Biden is even worse - he's done few national TV interviews and only rarely does he even talk to local TV people. So the question is what is the Obama/Biden team hiding? The answer is their record, there's an awful lot of bad stuff. So the only place voters can really see the Obama/Biden ticket is at the debates.
And that is just ridiculous, because the Obama team is not hiding anything. No President does many interviews, he is too busy running the country. And when they do an interview, they all pick a friendly place to do then, just a Bush and Cheney did most of their interviews on Fox.

Obama and Biden have not even done many interviews for MSNBC, but they do some at other places. O'Reilly is just mad they will not do his show or any Fox show, so he slams them for it, plus he is a Republican so he does not like Obama or Biden.

Then for some crazy reason O'Reilly had the nut job Sarah Palin on to discuss it. Why, who knows, because nobody cares what she thinks about anything.

Palin lied about this: "My buddy Joe Biden has a penchant for making stuff up, and he has an innate ability to say the wrong thing at just the right time. Joe Biden was in the Senate for decades and he'll have to explain some of his past record that helped create a burdensome federal government."

Palin also said this for Ryan: "At some point the candidate has to chuck the note cards and just say, I will stand on my own record and my own philosophy and principles, making sure they coincide with the top of the ticket."

Then Bob Beckel was on with his view of the vice presidential debate. And btw folks, he was the only Democratic guest on the entire show. O'Reilly had 7 Republicans on the show with him, so much for fair and balanced.

Beckel said this: "Ryan has to figure out how to put Biden on the defensive, and that's a tough thing to do. Ryan will want to look back and Biden will want to look forward. The Republicans don't have a plan to fix the debt and the economy; Romney says he's going to cut taxes, increase military spending, save Medicare and Social Security, and we'll have a balanced budget by closing loopholes. But in the end, does it really matter who wins this debate tonight?"

And Ryan did none of that, Biden wiped the floor with him. Now let's see if O'Reilly admits it on the Friday show, or if he spins it for Ryan. All the polls have Biden winning the debate by 20 to 30 points. And the polls are right, Biden dominated Ryan with facts and the truth, while Ryan just put out the same old right-wing spin and propaganda that nobody with a working brain believes.

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing hack Laura Ingraham on to spin and lie about the embassy attack in Libya. While ignoring half the facts, and slamming Obama before the investigation is even done. Which is what O'Reilly said nobody should never do under George W. Bush. But when Obama is President he slams him before the investigation is over.

Ingraham said this: "Fox News has released a poll, showing that approval of the President's handling of foreign policy has dropped to 46%. This is in the aftermath of the dissembling on Libya and I believe the American people are not as cynical as those in the White House. They don't view everything politically, they care about the dignity and security of the United States and our diplomats abroad. We have four dead Americans and we have administration officials on tape saying things that were verifiably untrue!"

O'Reilly claimed that the Libya controversy could damage the administration at the polls, saying this: "There is no doubt that this is a mess and the administration has mishandled it. Only zealots don't know that."

Except there is a doubt, and only partisan right-wing hacks like O'Reilly and the right are slamming Obama for it, the rest of the people are waiting to see what they find with the investigation.

Then 2 more Republicans Gretchen Carlson and Jeanine Pirro were on to talk about a pro-Romney group that has created a TV spot that excoriates Joe Biden, a Roman Catholic, for his endorsement of same-sex marriage.

Carlson said this: "Anything is fair game in politics, but I actually don't think voters will pay close attention to this ad. This election is about the economy and maybe foreign policy."

Which shows how stupid Gretchen Carlson is, because anything is not fair game, a political candidates family is to be left alone, unless they get involved in the campaign, so they are not fair game, moron!

Pirro claimed Vice President Biden's liberal social views could sway some Catholics against the Democratic ticket, saying this: "When you say this is who I am and then your actions are inconsistent with what you say are your beliefs, that's fair game. You have Catholics who don't believe in same-sex marriage and they might say they'll align themselves with someone who is more like them."

O'Reilly reported that Joe Biden has undergone a major transformation, saying this: "In 1982 Joe Biden voted for a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe versus Wade. He was pro-life, but then as his party became more liberal Joe Biden went along."

Earth to right-wing idiots, nobody cares that Biden supports same-sex marriage, because he is the VP, not the President, and if anyone did care it would most likely gain him more votes than it would lose him. Because most of America supports same-sex marriage, only the right-wing jerks oppose it.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to discuss another U.S. Supreme Court case involving racial preferences in college admission.

O'Reilly asked Kelly to explain. Kelly said this: "The Supreme Court eroded the ability to use race as a factor in college admissions about ten years ago. They said it can only be one factor that colleges consider, they can't have quotas. Now they're revisiting that and this case could lead to the end of affirmative action as we know it in college admissions."

Kelly also said this: "I think what's more likely to happen, based on the oral arguments, is that they're going to erode the ability to use race as a factor even more than they already have. There are conservatives on the Court who say this business of divvying up by race is a 'sordid business,' and they don't seem inclined to continue that."

And for once I agree with her, I am a liberal but I do not think schools should use race as a factor in college admissions. It's discrimination, based on the color of a persons skin, and that is just wrong.

Finally Carl Cameron and Ed Henry werr on to discuss the VP debate.

Henry said this: "I just spoke to a senior Democrat, who told me that when Vice President Biden started his debate prep a few weeks ago the first session did not go well. He had not debated in four years, he was a little rusty and was all over the place. David Axelrod and some of the President's top aides came in and worked with the Vice President, and they now say he's ready. He has a lot of clean up work to do after last week's presidential debate."

That must have been some great debate prep, because Biden cleaned Ryan's clock. It was a slam dunk for Biden, who clearly won the debate. Even most Republicans admitted Biden won the debate last night.

Cameron provided an update on Paul Ryan's preparation, saying this: "They did nine mock rehearsals with the lawyer Ted Olson, who has argued so many cases in front of the Supreme Court. They also spent hours watching Joe Biden's former debate performances. The Romney campaign continues to say that tonight's format, with the candidates seated next to each other at a table, won't lend itself to a major league brawl."

Information On Embassy Security O'Reilly Is Ignoring
By: Steve - October 12, 2012 - 10:00am

For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the Obama administration's request for embassy security funding.

House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the Obama administration's request by $331 million.

And O'Reilly never says a word about any of this!

Consulate personnel stationed in Benghazi had expressed concerns over their safety in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks that killed four Americans, including Amb. Chris Stevens.

Republicans Jason Chaffetz and Darrell Issa co-signed a letter to the State Department, demanding answers on to the Benghazi security detail.

Ahead of the hearing, Democrats claim that partisanship and campaigning are corrupting the Libyan investigation. The charges come as some GOP members attempt to frame the incident as a failure of the Obama's foreign policy and to call criticize the administration for engaging in a "cover-up" of what really occurred.

On the eve of the first Congressional hearing on the attack last month at the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, members of the House committee investigating the assaults spent Tuesday accusing one another of exploiting the violence to score partisan political points.

Democrats and Republicans on the oversight committee traded similar accusations - that the other party had shown scant interest in dealing with the broader issues of intelligence warnings and security matters, and had focused instead on trying to show that their party was better equipped to address volatile and shifting national security challenges.

"Never in all of my years in Congress have I seen such a startling and damaging series of partisan abuses," said Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, the panel's ranking Democrat. "The Republicans are in full campaign mode, and it is a shame that they are resorting to such pettiness in what should be a serious and responsible investigation. We should be above that."

Democrats accused the Republicans of preventing them from interviewing witnesses they plan to call at the hearing, including Lt. Col. Andrew Wood of the Utah National Guard, who led the military security team in Tripoli.

A memorandum circulated by Democratic staff members of the panel said that Republicans concealed until last Thursday their plans to depart on the next day for an investigative trip to Libya and that "due to this inadequate notice, no Democratic members or staff were able to join."

A spokesman for the committee's chairman, Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California, did not respond to several messages seeking comment.

And of course O'Reilly never reported any of this, because he is too busy spinning the story for the Republicans in the hopes it will hurt Obama politically.

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

The TPM was called: Will Libya become a major scandal for the Obama Administration? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Today a House Committee held hearings on the giant screw-up that occurred immediately after our ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was assassinated in Benghazi last month. Many people believe the Obama administration initially covered up the terrorist attack by saying the violence was generated by an anti-Muslim video.

The situation has the potential to damage President Obama's reelection chances, so let's take it step-by-step: On September 12th President Obama reacted to the murder by discussing the anti-Muslim tape. The next day Secretary of State Hillary Clinton again emphasized the video; the day after that White House spokesman Jay Carney said the unrest 'was in reaction to a video.'

Two days later U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice again said this 'was not a pre-planned, premeditated attack.' But then things changed drastically when the President's Director of Counterterrorism said it had been a terrorist attack. So it took eight days for the administration to classify Ambassador Stevens' death as a terror attack!

Now it's CYA time in Washington. The State Department says it's not their fault, that others in the administration misled the public. And the former head of the U.S. military team in Libya said two security teams were withdrawn from Libya in August by the State Department, which put everybody there in danger.

There is no question the Obama administration screwed this up. We simply did not have enough security in Libya to protect the Ambassador. The big question going forward is whether there is a conscious effort to cover up that poor security situation. The answer could decide the election.
And once again O'Reilly is ignoring the fact that House Republicans voted to cut the funding for embassy security. Not to mention it was reported that even with extra security it still would not have stopped the attack.

WHICH IS WHY THEY DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH SECURITY.

So if O'Reilly and Peters are not telling you that security information, and covering that up for the Republicans, it's hard to believe anything else they say about the attack. Then O'Reilly does a biased segment on it with the Obama hating Col. Peters, while nobody from the Obama administration or any liberal guest is on for balance.

Then Col. Ralph Peters was on to assess the so-called scandal, saying this: "I can assure you, that no serious person in the intelligence community at any point believed this was the fault of the video. As far as the responsibility for woefully inadequate security in Libya, that is Hillary Clinton's problem, the blood of the Ambassador and three other Americans is on her hands."

Peters also said this: "The other problem is the apparent cover-up and the White House panicking when this happened on the anniversary of September 11th."

Then the far-right biased stooge Karl Rove was on to talk about how Mitt Romney's recent surge has affected the electoral college outlook.

Rove said this: "Take a look before and after the debate. Some polls now have Romney up in Florida and Virginia, and one poll in North Carolina has Romney up by nine!"

Rove reported that Romney is now slightly ahead in a widely-followed average of national polls, saying this: "In the RealClearPolitics average before the debate, Obama was leading by 3.1%; after the debates Romney is leading by a point, and my suspicion is that bounce is going to grow just a little more as we get polls in the next couple of days."

You mean the polls you said were rigged for Obama, those polls? It's laughable, 2 weeks ago Rove and the right said do not believe the polls that have Obama 5 to 7 points ahead because they are fixed. Now they want you to believe the very same polls, because now they have Romney ahead.

And Rove reports on the RCP election poll average, but fails to mention Obama is still ahead in the RCP Electoral College poll average. Even after the Romney debate bounce Obama is still ahead 201 to 181 with 156 toss ups. Rove says nothing about that, because he is a biased hack, and O'Reilly never reported it either.

Then Levar Burton was on to talk about how the Obama and Romney campaigns have been sparring over Governor Romney's vow to cut funding for Public Broadcasting.

Burton, who hosted a PBS children's show for more than two decades, said this: "We are missing the larger issue when we focus on Big Bird. PBS represents the ideal that we want to give access to a quality education to all American citizens, and public broadcasting has been part of the machinery that has delivered quality education. I'm not saying PBS is perfect, but the underlying issue is how we do that job of educating America's children. Are we going to make them political footballs?"

O'Reilly reminded Burton that Big Bird is a cash cow, saying this: "The Sesame Workshop has $356 million in assets, so I'm going to submit to you that they can compete in the free marketplace without taking taxpayer money."

Then Ben Affleck, who directs and stars in a new movie about the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis, was on. Affleck said this: "This is a complicated CIA movie, and it's all true. This is a tribute to the folks in our clandestine services who risk their lives to serve our country."

Affleck also outlined why he continues to support President Obama, saying this: "He's tried to do a number of things but he's been stymied. His major goal of changing the tax structure so that the wealthy pay their fair share is of towering importance to me. You and I can afford to pay a little bit more in taxes. I also think the stimulus was a good thing that saved us from getting deeper into recession."

With all due respect to Ben Affleck, I do not care what he thinks, because he is just an actor in hollywood. O'Reilly even tells us to ignore what the hollywood pinheads say, then he has them on his show every night, from Dennis Miller to Adam Carolla. Earth to O'Reilly, practice what you preach you idiot, and stop putting these hollywood pinheads on your show. Nobody cares what they think, so have some real guests on and stop trying to use them to get ratings.

Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on, because not only is he a hollywood pinhead, he is just a comedian who knows nothing about politics and has never held a political office. O'Reilly simply has him on to make jokes about Obama and liberals, with no liberal comedian on for balance.

Then Juliet Huddy was on for the did you see that segment, she analyzed a speech given by CBS reporter Lara Logan, who criticized the Obama administration for boasting that Al Qaeda has nearly been vanquished. Even though the Republicans and everyone else has been saying it too, including O'Reilly himself.

Huddy said this: "She is an amazing journalist, and really the true example of what a journalist should be. She works for CBS, not exactly a bastion of conservatism, and gives this speech to a group of high-powered people. She didn't dance around or mince words."

Huddy also talked about the story of black actress Stacey Dash, who has been viciously vilified after announcing her support for Mitt Romney. Huddy said this: "She was attacked on Twitter and people really went after the whole race thing, basically saying she's turning on her race. But she says she's looking at the character of the person running, not the color of his skin."

And finally the lame Factor tip of the day, which I am not reporting, because O'Reilly simply used the tip of the day to once again promote his new book.

O'Reilly & The Right Ignoring Facts In Embassy Attack
By: Steve - October 11, 2012 - 10:00am

Here is the story O'Reilly and his right-wing friends are spinning out on the embassy attack in Libya. Obama and Hillary Clinton are to blame for the attack because they did not provide enough security after more security was asked for.

That would be a big problem, if it was true, but it's not!

Here are the facts O'Reilly and all the right-wing stooges at Fox are not telling you.

1) The State Department said that no reasonable security presence could have successfully fended off the attack.

2) The Republicans in the House voted to cut funding for embassy security.

3) Republicans in the House voted in 2011 and 2012 to give the State Department far less than it requested for embassy security.

So when they asked for more security in Libya, they Obama administration and the State Department could not give it to them because the House Republicans had voted to cut their funding. Then they blame it on Obama and Hillary, when it was the Republicans who cut the embassy security money.

The conservative media talking point that the White House abdicated its responsibility to secure the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, took a hit Wednesday when CNN's Soledad O'Brien pressed Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz to acknowledge that he joined House Republicans in voting to cut funding for embassy security.

Since the September attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, O'Reilly and the right-wing media have attacked the Obama administration for supposedly not having enough security at the compound. That myth is undermined by a State Department explanation that "no reasonable security presence could have successfully fended" off the attack.

Chaffetz, a surrogate for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign who is helping to lead an investigation into the attack, appeared to discuss that investigation on CNN's Starting Point with Soledad O'Brien. During the interview, Chaffetz echoed the right-wing media talking point that security was insufficient in Benghazi.

But O'Brien pointed out the hypocrisy in this argument by noting that Chaffetz, like other Republicans in the House, voted to cut funding for embassy security.

O'Brien asked: "Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?" Chaffetz responded with this: "Absolutely. Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country."

And of course you never hear a word about any of this from O'Reilly, or anyone at Fox News. Because they do not want you to know the truth, they want you to believe their right-wing spin and hope it hurts Obama. Because O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends at Fox support Mitt Romney.

The Tuesday 10-9-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 10, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Mitt Romney versus the kids. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: What I am about to tell you is very hard to believe, but every word is true. On Monday Mitt Romney was campaigning in Virginia when he saw a group of children waving to him from the side of the road. The Governor ordered his caravan to stop so he could meet the kids and talk with them, a nice thing to do.

But the Associated Press ran an unflattering photo that shows a young girl with an expression of surprise while seemingly looking at Governor Romney's posterior. The picture never should have been published; the Governor didn't know a child was behind him and the child was looking at something else. This is a cheap shot!

Accompanying the photograph was an article that chided Romney for not appearing in a Nickelodeon special called 'Kids Pick the President' that will be hosted by Linda Ellerbee, a committed leftist. The Governor says he passed because of scheduling, but he well knows that Ellerbee and her crew are Obama supporters.

The Obama campaign, which believes Governor Romney made a big mistake by saying he will stop federal money to NPR and PBS, has created a TV ad mocking Romney's 'attack' on Big Bird. This year the Corporation for Public Broadcasting will receive $444-million in taxpayer funding, which is money the nation does not have to spend, and President Obama apparently thinks he has an opportunity with this controversy.

The national media should be concentrating on the battle between capitalism and quasi-socialism that's taking place between the two presidential candidates, but the AP and others are now so invested in reelecting President Obama that fair, responsible, and insightful reporting has nearly vanished. And, of course, Mr. Obama is benefiting from that.
Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to evaluate what O'Reilly said was the tasteless photo of Mitt Romney published by the Associated Press.

Colmes said this: "Nobody should be fired for this. AP provided six different pictures from that event, so the editors at various publications who chose to run it are responsible. I don't think it was a purposeful act on the part of the Associated Press to make Romney look bad."

But of course Crowley agreed with O'Reilly and said it portrayed the incident as one more example of media bias.

Crowley said this: "There used to be something called journalistic responsibility and editorial discretion. What we see here is a deliberate attempt to make a Republican look bad."

Now that's funny, the far-right biased hack Monica Crowley (who lies to the people all the time) talking journalistic responsibility, I'm surprised she can even spell it.

O'Reilly even said that heads should roll, at the Associated Press, saying this: "They would not have done that to President Obama, we all know that. If I were in charge of the AP, whichever person sent that out would be fired."

Now that is really funny, because when O'Reilly or someone at Fox makes a mistake and liberals call for them to be fired, O'Reilly defends them and says they should not be fired for a mistake. Now he is calling for someone at AP to be fired, for making a mistake in publishing the photo. What a joke!

Then David Paleologos was on to talk about the major polls showing Mitt Romney gaining ground, both nationally and in battleground states.

Paleologos said this: "In places like North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida, we've already painted those states red. The polling data is overwhelming for Romney in those states and Barack Obama now leads in the electoral college by only 257 - 248."

Except that is not what RCP has, they have it 294 Obama and 244 Romney, so I have no idea where Paleologos got his numbers, because he did not say. What I do know is that RCP is trusted and known and they have it 294 Obama to 244 for Romney.

Paleologos then turned to the key state of Ohio, where citizens can vote prior to Election Day, saying this: "It's less of an advantage for the Democrats than it was in 2008 when Barack Obama built a huge lead in the early voting. The margin is very low so far, which is a problem for President Obama."

Then John Stossel was on to talk about how some major restaurant chains are reacting to Obamacare by firing full-time workers.

Stossel said this: "The law says that if you have more than 50 full-time workers, then you must provide 'affordable' health insurance. So the restaurants are hiring part-time workers instead, which means less than thirty hours a week. All government mandates make things worse - if you're a company with 49 employees, why would you hire a 50th person and fall under Obamacare and a host of other programs?"

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to talk about Jerry Sandusky getting at least 30 years in prison for molesting young boys. Which I do not report on because it is not real news the American people need to know to make an informed vote in the Presidential election or Congressional races.

In the last segment the far-right stooge Charles Krauthammer was on to evaluate the AP's publication of the unflattering Mitt Romney photo.

Krauthammer said this: "I don't think they'll apologize. They've been slanted towards Obama, much more than the rest of the press, trying to drag him over the finish line. But I don't think this photo will have an effect because it's so ridiculous. The reader looks at this and knows it's mischief cooked up by the photographer and the editor, so I think the net effect is to reflect on AP and not on Romney."

Krauthammer also theorized that there is a sense of panic in the Obama camp, saying this: "Their polls are dropping like a stone because they had created an entire narrative about Romney, showing him as an unfeeling, uncaring plutocrat who delights in killing steelworkers wives and lowering taxes on the rich. So here you had a debate, the one time when Romney could address 70-million people, and he utterly demolished this straw man with facts."

Then O'Reilly speculated that President Obama "was preoccupied with something" during his lackluster debate performance. With no proof of that, so it was pure speculation, the same speculation O'Reilly claims to not allow. O'Reilly also says he never reports anything without facts to back it up, haha, yeah right!

And finally the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "When you're conversing with someone, compliment them on something you find interesting. If you can make someone feel good, just for a moment, they'll remember that. "

Five Important Facts About Voting In America
By: Steve - October 10, 2012 - 10:00am

With little more than a month remaining until the Presidential election, time is running out for new voters or voters who have moved since the last election to register to vote this November.

And here are five important facts about elections in the US for voters to think about:

1) American Voter Registration Rates Are Very Low:

Only 68 percent of voting age Americans are registered to vote. That compares to 100 percent of Argentinians, 97 percent of Brits, 93 percent of Canadians and 77 percent of South Africans.

As the Brennan Center explains, America does a poor job of registering voters because we place the burden of registering largely at the feet of the voters themselves, while most of the other nations actively encourage voter registration.

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) recently signed another potential path towards closing this registration gap - election day registration for new voters.

2) Republicans Want To Make This Problem Worse:

Republican officials like Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler both attempted voter purges this year seeking to kick even more people off the voter rolls. Both claimed these purges were justified to ensure that no non-citizens were voting, but purges uncovered virtually no confirmed noncitizens.

Scott also signed an unconstitutional law making it harder to register new voters. Although a federal court eventually struck down the law, that was not until Democratic voter registration all but dried up in Florida.

3) In-Person Voter Fraud Is Virtually Non-Existent:

Republicans have also pushed so-called Voter ID laws, which potentially disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of low-income, elderly, minority and student voters.

They claim these laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud at the polls, but, a person is more likely to be struck by lightning than to commit in-person voter fraud. One study of Wisconsin voters determined that just .00023 percent of votes are the product of in-person fraud.

4) Republicans Want To Cut Early Voting Too:

Republican officials, including lawmakers in crucial states like Ohio and Florida, have also tried to limit the number of days voters can cast an early ballot before the election day itself.

5) The Electoral College Makes No Sense:

Finally, the strangest aspect of the American voting system is the Electoral College, which discourages candidates from campaigning in more than a handful of battleground states and sometimes allows the man who got less votes to become president. As when Gore lost to Bush in 2000, while getting more total votes.

Several states have embraced an effort to neutralize the Electoral College known as the National Popular Vote compact. But it is still in place, and the Congress should vote to get rid of it.

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

The TPM was called: The Rumble in America. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: If you saw Jon Stewart and me Saturday night, you may have noticed there was a very important theme among all the chaos. Stewart, an honest and smart liberal, supports a 'nanny state' where everyone is provided basic life necessities and economic outcomes are guaranteed.

I disagree, not because of the intent, but simply because it's impossible. The Constitution provides Americans protection so they can pursue happiness, but the Founding Fathers did not guarantee happiness or material well-being, and if you try to do that you will bankrupt the nation.

Stewart and I previewed what we'll all be voting on - do you want a nanny state or do you want a self-reliant nation? That's what's at stake in this election. The left-wing press is not going to tell you that; it portrays President Obama as a moderate. And the right-wing media says he's a socialist, maybe even a communist, bent on destroying traditional America. But Stewart and I pinpointed the real situation: nanny state vs. self-reliance.

Polls show the country is deadlocked, but I find it very hard to believe that 50% of us want to be Western Europe. What do you think Europeans are rioting about? They're angry that governments are cutting back on entitlements. This is what the nanny state mentality leads to - give me free stuff or I will hurt you. Jon Stewart doesn't believe that, but it is absolutely true. So I hope you will watch our debate, which is available at TheRumble2012.com.
And as usual O'Reilly spins it his way, I watched the entire rumble and Jon Stewart did not say he thinks everyone should be provided basic life necessities and economic outcomes should be guaranteed. O'Reilly just made that up, because what Stewart said is that the poor and disabled should be taken care of, and that we spend billions and billions on un-needed wars, while O'Reilly and the Republicans cry about a lousy $135 million dollars a year that goes to PBS.

Jon Stewart crushed O'Reilly in the rumble debate, but O'Reilly spins it as a win for him, by cherry picking clips of the show to make it look like he did a lot better than he did. A poll at hollywoodgossip.com has Jon Stewart winning 74% to 26%, and policymic.com said that if you had to pick a winner, it was Stewart on the merit of his ideas.

The best part of the debate was the first 3 minutes by Jon Stewart, when it was his turn to talk he said this:
STEWART: Bill O'Reilly my friend, you are completely full of shit and you live on bullshit mountain.
Stewart then went on to say why O'Reilly is full of shit, and why he lives on bullshit mountain. It was the best 3 minutes I have ever heard anyone telling the truth about O'Reilly. Stewart even called O'Reilly the Mayor of bullshit mountain. And of course O'Reilly never played any of that in the clips he used on his show to report on what happened. Stewart cleaned his clock, and destroyed every right-wing talking point O'Reilly spun out.

Then John McCain was on to talk about a CBS News story that says a U.S. official in Libya asked for additional security prior to the attack on our embassy, but his request was denied. Now get this, O'Reilly says CBS is a liberal news network that you should never trust. But when they report something that might make Obama look bad, suddenly O'Reilly says hey look at what CBS news reported, and trust them.

McCain said this: "There had been previous attacks, and even Ambassador Stevens diary indicated he was concerned about security. What's really frustrating is that five days after this mortar and rocket-propelled grenade attack, the administration trotted out our Ambassador to the United Nations to say this was a spontaneous demonstration caused by a video. How in the world could anyone draw that conclusion? It's either abysmal ignorance or willful deception of the American people!"

O'Reilly urged the administration to step up and explain exactly what happened, saying this: "This is upsetting to me as an American and I think Secretary of State Hillary Clinton owes a full explanation tomorrow."

Then Brit Hume was on to spin for Romney, Hume said that he thinks Romney may suddenly have an opening in the foreign policy area.

Hume said this: "It was something that had looked to be a real plus for President Obama, because of the killing of Osama bin Laden. But now it begins to look as though his Middle East policy is in bad shape. There was a major intelligence and security failure in Libya and there may have been a cover-up about what happened. Not only was it bungled, but the administration knew almost immediately that terrorism was implicated and proceeded to go forward and say otherwise."

And of course there was nobody from the Obama administration or the left to give the other side, it was all right-wing opinion, and no balance in the segment.

Then Mary Katharine Ham and Marjorie Clifton were on to talk about a new Pew poll that shows Mitt Romney with a 49% - 45% lead among likely voters. Which is so funny, because now O'Reilly and the right want you to believe the polls, when a week ago they were saying the polls are fixed because Romney was losing. It's laughable, because one day they say the polls are fixed when their man is losing, but as soon as a poll has their man winning they say believe the polls now.

Ham said this: "I was a little surprised how far the Pew poll moved, but I'm not surprised it's moving in Mitt Romney's direction. There were 70-million people watching the debate and this was the best Mitt Romney had ever looked, while it was the worst Obama has ever looked on a stage with someone else. Some of these numbers should be frightening to the administration."

Clifton downplayed the importance of the major polls, saying this: "National polls don't really matter at this stage. What really matters are the swing states and we're looking at a neck-and-neck race."

O'Reilly reminded Clifton that tight polls are not a good sign for President Obama, saying this: "When an incumbent runs against a challenger, the challenger always wins if it's a dead heat in the polls."

Then O'Reilly aired some clips of the rumble with Jon Stewart, and of course he cherry picked the parts that made him look good. When Jon Stewart crushed him, and he knows it, but he still claims he won and that he made Stewart look bad.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on, who reported on media coverage of the O'Reilly-Stewart rumble, saying this: "This debate is one more piece of evidence, that we live in an entertainment culture. This was covered by the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, even the Guardian in England. I think they covered it because you and Jon Stewart put on a good show and you both bring in big audiences. And because the media love Stewart, they were willing to tolerate you."

Goldberg is just crying because the media reported that Stewart won the debate, and was much funnier than O'Reilly in doing it, even though they were right Goldberg still cried about it.

Goldberg then moved on to coverage of last week's presidential debate, saying this: "In general the media said Mitt Romney won the debate, which is not a small point. This is the same media that we have talked about being Barack Obama's most loyal base. This tells us that while the media is willing to cover for Barack Obama and root for him, they will not let him embarrass them. They tell us that he is the smartest guy in the room and perhaps the smartest guy on the planet, but he lost the debate and it made the media look bad."

Now get this, Goldberg and O'Reilly claim the so-called liberal media is in the tank for Obama, but they all reported Romney won the debate. Which proves they are not in the tank for Obama, because if they were in the tank for Obama they would have said it was a tie, or Obama won, but they did not do that. Proving they are objective, and that O'Reilly and Goldberg are right-wing loons that just say the media has a liberal bias and hope someone believes them.

In the last segment the right-wing fool Adam Carolla was on to talk about California drivers, who are facing gas prices that average $4.67 a gallon, an all-time high in that state.

But O'Reilly and Carolla did not say why. Analysts said the spike has been driven by refinery disruptions and corrosion issues in an important pipeline. Also contributing to the high prices, California law, in an effort to reduce air pollution, requires that gas stations during warmer months use a special blend of fuel that is not widely available.

Carolla, himself a Californian, joked about it saying this: "I came here on a moped powered by propane and good vibes, and we have a bullet train that will go from Bakersfield to Fresno and it'll be done in 2019, so our transportation problems are over in California."

Carolla added that wealthy Hollywood liberals don't fret over the price at the pump, saying this: "Their assistants fill up their Range Rovers every couple of feet. My rich liberal friends don't know how much gas costs, they don't care, and they like it that way."

Which is a total lie, and O'Reilly lets this right-wing idiot Adam Carolla spew this garbage out.

And finally the lame Factor tip of the day, that I will not report on because once again O'Reilly used the tip of the day to promote his book by asking his viewers to go to amazon.com and write good reviews of the book. Which is cheating, and he is doing it because there are a lot of bad reviews and he wants them pushed off the front page of the reviews page.

O'Reilly & Fox Still Ignoring GOP Voter Registration Fraud Story
By: Steve - October 8, 2012 - 11:00am

On Monday, North Carolina election officials became the latest to announce they were taking a closer look at the unfolding voter registration scandal surrounding a notorious Republican consulting firm hired to sign up new voters in five key election states; Florida, Colorado, Virginia, Nevada and North Carolina.

The firm made headlines last week when potentially fraudulent registration forms were flagged in "at least 11" Florida counties, all submitted by the state Republican Party and collected by Strategic Allied Consulting. The firm is run by GOP operative Nathan Sproul, a former head of the Arizona Christian Coalition and the Arizona Republican Party.

At the center of the controversy are recently submitted registration forms deemed to be "questionable" by states elections officials. The suspicion surrounds "similar-looking signatures, missing information and wrong addresses on the forms," according to the Palm Beach Post.

In the wake of allegations, the Republican Party of Florida, North Carolina, and Colorado pulled the plug on Sproul's voter registration project. The Republican National Committee has also reportedly cut ties with the firm.

Do the allegations sound familiar?

Four years ago, Fox News helped lead the right-wing charge against ACORN, claiming the community activist group's allegedly crooked voter registration work represented a criminal extension of the Obama campaign. In order to bolster its flimsy "voter fraud" attacks, the network repeatedly stressed reports that ACORN canvassers had submitted questionable voter registration forms.

Which is actually an allegation of voter registration fraud, not actual voter fraud. And in many states organizations are required by law to turn in all forms they received even if they had reason to believe they were fraudulent.

In 2008, Fox's evening news programs aired more than 50 reports connecting ACORN to "voter fraud" between October 1 and Election Day, according to Nexis. During just one, three-day span (October 8-10) Fox's nighttime programs aired sixteen ACORN segments. And a lot of those matches were from the O'Reilly Factor, where Bill O'Reilly reported on it almost every night.

The Fox news team was relentless in attacking the left-leaning group and accusing it of unleashing election crimes across the country. And btw, by 2009, a majority of Republicans actually believed ACORN had stolen the election for Obama. Because of the false reporting O'Reilly and Fox put out, when it was not actual voter fraud.

Back then when it involved a so-called liberal group, the level of "voter fraud" hysteria was quite high on Fox.

Greta Van Susteren said this:
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: There are huge fears of voter fraud in the presidential election. We're 26 days from the election, one of the biggest horse races in American history. And already there is threat of big trouble.

All eyes are on a handful of swing states where several voter fraud investigations are threatening a basic idea, whether or not free and fair elections will be held.
That was October 9, 2008. To this day, Van Susteren has not said one word about the fate of free and fair elections in America in the wake of the GOP's controversy.

In fact, the response so far to the widening allegations of Republican registration misconduct from the same high profile Fox hosts (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Van Susteren) who toiled endlessly in the ACORN conspiracy fields four years ago?

It's been an eerie silence, confirming that previous concerns about voter fraud were nothing more than partisan right-wing talking points.

And it's not just Fox. It seems the entire GOP Noise Machine has made the same awkward decision to mostly ignore the burgeoning registration scandal after having relentlessly fear-mongered the same topic via ACORN four years ago.

Here are a couple new things you should know about the scandal, that you will never see reported by O'Reilly or anyone at Fox:

-- Sproul was paid directly by state Republican groups, and according to state party representatives, Sproul's firm was hired at the request of the Republican National Committee in Washington, D.C. The state parties also spent lots and lots of money for Sproul's services. The Colorado Republican Party spent half of its total budget paying for the operative's voter registration drive.

-- Sproul has a long history of fraud. The Nation's Lee Fang raised the red flag back in June with his piece at Republic Report, "Romney Quietly Hires Consulting Firm With Sordid History Of Destroying Democratic Voter Registration Forms."

-- Sproul got into a bit of trouble last fall when, in certain states, it came out that the firm was playing dirty tricks in order to suppress the Democratic vote: concealing their partisan agenda, tricking Democrats into registering as Republicans, surreptitiously re-registering Democrats and Independents as Republicans, and shredding Democratic registration forms.

-- Sproul's firm made news again during the 2008 campaign when allegations of destroying voter registration forms were made in Oregon and Nevada. And oh yeah, in Minnesota, Sproul's firm was accused of firing employees for registering Democratic voters.

Let's be clear that tearing up voter registration forms, which Sproul's firm has been accused of, is far worse than allegedly submitting fictional information on forms, which is what ACORN had to deal with in 2008. When forms are torn up, voters whose forms are destroyed won't be able to vote on Election Day, whereas a fictional registrant won't ever try to vote.

As Republican Congressman Chris Cannon noted during a Congressional hearing in May, 2008, "The difference between ACORN and Sproul is that ACORN doesn't throw away or change registration documents after they have been filled out."

Despite those very serious allegations of tampering with forms, Republicans still hired Sproul this year in 2012, as long as they weren't publicly linked to him.

Sproul said he created Strategic Allied Consulting at the RNC's request because the party wanted to avoid being publicly linked to the past allegations. The firm was set up at a Virginia address, and Sproul does not show up on the corporate paperwork.

"In order to be able to do the job that the state parties were hiring us to do, the RNC asked us to do it with a different company's name," Sproul said.

A YouTube clip began to go viral last week, showing a young woman in Colorado out registering voters, but "only Romney" voters. Asked who she worked for, she said worked for the county clerk's office. In fact, she worked for Sproul's firm.

Can you imagine how many times that clip would've aired on the Factor and Fox News this election cycle if the young woman had been working for a progressive organization like ACORN, lied about her employment, and was caught admitting she was only interested in registering Obama supporters to vote?

I'm guessing a million times! But it has not aired one time on the Factor, or any Fox News show.

Fox News made its bogus ACORN "voter fraud" claims back in 2008 with its ACORN crusade. Now, with the spotlight on allegations of Republican fraud, Fox talking heads like O'Reilly won't condemn, or even discuss, possible GOP attempts to taint the election process.

Romney Advisor Admits He Changed Positions To Get Votes
By: Steve - October 7, 2012 - 11:00am

Mitt Romney supporter and advisor Congressman Phil Gingrey (R-GA) admitted that the GOP presidential candidate was changing his positions and moving towards the middle in order to win over voters, during an appearance on CNN's Starting Point on Friday morning.

But you never hear this reported by O'Reilly, because he wants you to believe what Romney is saying now. O'Reilly wants Romney to win because he hates Obama and loves Romney, so he is ignoring news like this to help Romney lie to you, the American people.

Gingrey's comments, reminiscent of Romney advisor Eric Fehrnstrom's claim that Romney would "Etch-A-Sketch" his positions after the GOP primary, came in response to the candidate's recent claim that his 47% remarks were "completely wrong."

"The conservative candidate in the primary, is always going to lean right and come back to the center for the general, the opposite for the Democrat," Gingrey explained. "That's all you are seeing here. It is very typical. We strong conservatives understand that. There are a lot of undecideds in this country, we want those votes too. So, this is campaign strategy."

So what Gingrey is saying is that in the debate with Obama Romney was not being honest to you, the American people. Gingrey is admitting that Romney is moving to the center by lying about his real positions to get votes.

Romney began moving towards the center during Wednesday night's debate, distancing himself from his $5 trillion tax cut plan, embracing portions of his Massachusetts health care law as a model for the states, faulting Wall Street reform for providing "the biggest kiss that's been given to New York banks," and considering eliminating tax deductions for oil companies.

He continued to change his rhetoric on Fox News Hannity on Thursday night. Romney described his remarks about the 47% as completely wrong, despite telling Hannity's colleague Neil Cavuto last month that he stood by the comments.

"This is a message I'm carrying day in and day out and will carry over the coming months," Romney said after his secretly taped comments calling half of Americans dependent upon government surfaced.

"I'm talking about a perspective of individuals who I'm not likely to get to support me. And those that are dependent upon government and those that think government's job is redistribute, I'm not going to get them."

Right-Wing Media Claim The Unemployment Stats Are Bogus
By: Steve - October 7, 2012 - 10:00am

Which is funny, because during the 8 years of Bush when liberals said the BLS Numbers were bogus all the Republicans slammed them and said they are wrong. But suddenly when the unemployment report comes out under Obama with good news, all the right-wing loons scream it was fixed.

But even Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs admitted the numbers are accurate. Dobbs said this on Friday night:
DOBBS: "It's good news for President Obama, but it doesn't really describe the state of unemployment and real pain in the country. 23-million Americans remain unemployed or have given up hope of being employed."

Dobbs also dismissed the notion that the Bureau of Labor Statistics manipulated the unemployment figure.

"That's nonsense! The last thing that anyone should be looking at in these numbers is somebody cooking the books."
Now tell that to Hannity, Limbaugh, Guilfoyle, Welch, etc. Shortly after the BLS announced that the unemployment rate had fallen to 7.8%, former GE CEO Jack Welch tweeted this: "Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers."

Welch's tweet was quickly highlighted by the Drudge Report. Since then, conservative media figures, including multiple Fox News personalities, have tried to cast doubt on the new jobs numbers.

Here is a partial list of loons that say the numbers are bogus: Stuart Varney, Todd Starnes, Laura Ingraham, Eric Bolling, Joe Scarborough, Monica Crowley, Martha MacCullum, and more.

Now the facts: Jesse Eisinger, the senior reporter for finance at ProPublica and a former seven-year Wall Street Journal reporter said this:
This is complete fantasy. It is yet another one of these right-wing denialist ideas. They're perennial ideas that government statistics are manipulated. These are flawed measures, certainly, but the flaws are not due to any partisanship.

These are done by reputable civil servants. There is almost no way that these numbers could be manipulated for political gain. It doesn't hold up in any way you think about it.
Martin Wolk, executive business editor for NBC News Digital, also called such claims baseless, saying this:
I've been covering economics for a long time and I have been watching these reports come out every month and I talk to these economists and I think that those claims are unfounded, Wolk said in an interview Friday.

They do the best to present those claims honestly. I have never seen a pattern where the numbers consistently favor one party or another. I would defy anyone to find a pattern in those numbers that is politically motivated.
Kevin Hall, McClatchy's national economic correspondent and president of the Society of American Business Editors and Writers, called Welch's claim "mindboggling."
"This is a guy who is a business guru, he's a lion of the industry. For him to say something as outrageous as this without any substantiation, is kind of, well, my first thought was maybe his [Twitter] account was hacked," Hall said.

"He is brash and outspoken, but what came out today is pretty outrageous."
Hall also said such claims against the Bureau of Labor Statistics impugn the reputation of a very trusted agency.
"It is really unfortunate because people already have distrust of government and politicians, and to take something that has been done for 70 years and is pretty set in stone and allege without any substantiation that it is somehow corrupt is pretty bad," Hall said.

"If you understand how these statistics are compiled there is nothing new that is being done here. These are government economists."
Noting the political influence on the claims, Hall said: "This is the silly season, but there used to be some limit to what you'd say, some line you didn't cross and that is why this is so unfortunate. If you look at countries that do manipulate their numbers like China, we've had long-established practices of many, many years and no one has ever contested this as somehow fraud-ridden."

The Friday 10-5-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 6, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The Democrats strike back. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: New Rasmussen polls show that Mitt Romney has surged in Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, and the Democratic Party has decided to go into full attack mode. The strategy seems to be simple: Call Mitt Romney a liar. Does the DNC really believe that kind of rhetoric will help the President, that independent voters will respond positively?

For the Democrats to call Mitt Romney a liar is foolish and destructive to their guy because the Obama campaign has made just as many false and misleading statements as the Romney camp. Beyond that, there is the usual hysteria from rank ideologues. Racial hustler Michael Eric Dyson has injected color into the debate, claiming President Obama could not speak candidly because he can't come across as 'an angry black man.'

Here's the reality, Mr. Dyson: You can not analyze anything without injecting race. Both President Obama and Governor Romney should warn their campaigns to stop the slander. The truth is that the President could not defend his economic record on Wednesday night and that's why Governor Romney won the debate. 'Lying' had nothing to do with it.
Then Democrat Mary Anne Marsh and the so-called Democrat Kirsten Powers were on. Powers said this: "I am shocked to say, that I agree with your Talking Points. It is not right for the Democratic Party to go out and call Mitt Romney a liar. When a campaign starts using that word, a lot of people will think they're being nasty."

Which is just laughable, because if Powers agrees with the insane TPM from O'Reilly, she is no Democrat, and she should just admit to being a Republican.

Marsh said this: "The better course would have been to correct the statements during the debate, but now, with 32 days left, is when you call your opponent's truthfulness into question. The problem is that once you use the 'l word' there aren't a lot of places left to go."

O'Reilly added that Democrats risk looking churlish, saying this: "This comes across as petulant 5th grade stuff. I got my butt kicked, so now I'm going to call the other side names."

But O'Reilly says nothing when Repubicans do the very same thing.

Then O'Reilly reported on the official unemployment number that has dipped below 8% for the first time since Barack Obama took office. Lou Dobbs was on to discuss it.

Dobbs said this: "It's good news for President Obama, but it doesn't really describe the state of unemployment and real pain in the country. 23-million Americans remain unemployed or have given up hope of being employed."

Dobbs also dismissed the notion that the Bureau of Labor Statistics manipulated the unemployment figure, saying this: "That's nonsense! The last thing that anyone should be looking at in these numbers is somebody cooking the books."

O'Reilly then downplayed the number and said that Friday's unemployment number is not nearly as important as some other dire figures: "Household median income is down $5,000 since the President has been in office, and there are rising gas prices, rising health insurance prices, and rising-almost-everything prices."

Then O'Reilly had Geraldo on to cry about a pro-Obama public employee union that put out an ad in which Mitt Romney's garbage collector complains that Romney has never come out to shake his hand or give him a hug.

Geraldo said this: "Richard Hayes is the garbage collector at Romney's La Jolla mansion, and he's a member of AFSCME, a vehement opponent of Romney's. The Democrats and this militant group of public employees are trying to portray Romney as a man who is out of touch. It's really a low blow, it's like the ad that accused Romney of killing a guy's wife."

Now get this folks, that was said by a so-called Democrat, Geraldo, which is just laughable. Geraldo is not a Democrat, he's a right-wing idiot who agrees with O'Reilly and is supporting Romney, but O'Reilly has him on and claims he is a Democrat.

O'Reilly then denounced the ad as ineffective and in poor taste, saying this: "This is bogus and I guess they're appealing to ignorant voters."

Then O'Reilly had the ridiculous body language segment, with the biased blonde bimbo, and I do not report on this nonsense. Hey O'Reilly, dump this segment and do some actual news, jerk! Why not add a segment with a real liberal on all alone, instead of this garbage.

Then the Friday right-wing regulars Greg Gutfeld and Bernard McGuirk weighed in on Wednesday night's debate.

Gutfeld said this: "How can this be a surprise? You have a successful businessman who wiped the floor with a grad student. You have a guy who knows jobs and a guy who knows Jay-Z. There was no comparison and Mitt had to win big. If he had merely won, the press would have given it to Obama, so he had to decimate Obama just to get a victory."

The Factor asked McGuirk to identify President Obama's strongest moment during the debate. McGuirk said this: "That's like asking me to highlight the strong points in the Italian Army in World War II. But if you get past some of the hatred on the right and some of the abject panic on the left, President Obama didn't look at his watch, he didn't yawn, he didn't give a shout-out to Reverend Wright, and he didn't ask for any bathroom breaks."

Then McGuirk and Gutfeld gave O'Reilly some last-minute advice for his debate with Jon Stewart.

McGuirk said this: "You're going onto Jon Stewart's turf on a college campus, so you have to come out a little different - maybe on a skateboard wearing a hoodie and flashing the peace sign. Tomorrow night could also be a good night for you to come out of the closet because they eat that up, they love that."

Gutfeld added that some college students in attendance might need medical attention, saying this: "This may be the first time anybody in the audience actually sees a real-life conservative who hasn't been written into an HBO mini-series, so they might be shocked. There could be some fainting, so I'll be there to give mouth-to-mouth to anybody."

Notice what Gutfeld said. Gutfeld said O'Reilly is a real life conservative. Even though O'Reilly denies he is a conservative, when Gutfeld called him one he did not deny it. But when liberals call him a conservative he does deny it.

And finally, the Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "Some of the proceeds from Saturday night's O'Reilly vs. Stewart 'rumble' will be used to help the families of wounded veterans, another reason to sign up at TheRumble2012.com. "

Don't Look Now O'Reilly The Unemployment Rate Dropped
By: Steve - October 6, 2012 - 10:00am

In another sign the economy and jobs are getting better under President Obama the unemployment rate fell from 8.1% to 7.8%, and revisions show employers added 146,000 jobs per month from July through September, up from 67,000 in the previous three months. Added to that is the stock market over 13,000 and it all shows jobs are coming back and the economy is improving, due to the Obama economic policies.

O'Reilly now has the numbers, that prove the Obama policies are working, but he will continue to downplay it, because he is too busy spinning and lying for Romney that the economy and jobs are a disaster. Which is all lies, the economy is doing good, and jobs are coming back.

(AP) -- The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent last month, dropping below 8 percent for the first time in nearly four years. The rate fell because more people found work.

The Labor Department says employers added 114,000 jobs in September. The economy also created 86,000 more jobs in July and August than first estimated. Wages rose in September and more people started looking for work.

The revisions show employers added 146,000 jobs per month from July through September, up from 67,000 in the previous three months. The unemployment rate fell from 8.1 percent in August, matching its level in January 2009 when President Barack Obama took office.

Harry Holzer, public policy professor at Georgetown University, said the improvement is not due to people dropping out of the workforce, but "actually reflects a substantial increase in employment."

The labor force participation rate rose slightly to 63.6 percent from 63.5 percent in August.

The Thursday 10-4-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 5, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: What really happened at the debate last night. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Shortly after the debate ended I received an email from Dennis Miller, who opined, 'I hope the President's butt-kicking is covered by Obamacare.' Mitt Romney won the debate. How do I know? Because I turned to MSNBC, where the commentators looked like Parisians watching the Germans march into Paris in 1940. There was genuine heartbreak on that cable network, but there was joy in the Romney precincts. He was far more energetic and engaged in what he was actually saying.

The mystery here is that Barack Obama is a good debater and a good public speaker, but last night he came off as a boring college professor. Instead of making dramatic points, the President meandered, and I couldn't believe that he didn't even bring up Mr. Romney's '47%' remark. Also, Mr. Obama didn't tell Americans how he is going to improve the economy, while Governor Romney said flat-out that he wants to put more dollars into the marketplace by cutting taxes.

Even if you disagree with that, it's a strategy. Mr. Obama has no strategy other than staying the course, which is a disaster. Reaction to the debate was fascinating. Al Gore blamed the President's weak performance on the altitude in Denver, while some Obama supporters simply declared victory. But a CNN poll taken after the debate said that 67% of registered voters believe Mitt Romney won the contest, while just 25% said President Obama did.

What does this mean going forward? Number one, the Romney campaign is energized and it will be easier to raise money; number two, the President's attack ads on television are not going to be taken as seriously; number three, President will lose some steam in the polls and with the adoring media. But Mr. Obama will come back hard on October 16th and Governor Romney has to again be on his game.
Notice that neither O'Reilly or any of the other right-wing stooges he has on ever said one word about the 27 lies Romney put out during the debate. All he did was praise Romney for winning the debate, without getting into what Romney said, or if any of it was true. Romney was like an actor putting on a show, that was not the real Mitt Romney, and O'Reilly bought it hook line and sinker.

Then O'Reilly actually said he would have a fair and balanced debate analysis show in the no spin zone. Which is just laughable, because then he had 5 Republicans and 1 Democrat on to discuss it. Bob Beckel was the only Democratic guest on the entire show, if that's fair and balanced I'm Elvis.

The far-right stooge Charles Krauthammer was on first and he said this: "What I learned by watching the debate, is that Mitt Romney doesn't seem like the kind of guy who kills the wives of laid-off steelworkers. Which is a way of saying that negative ads have a double edge. They do work, but only until they collide with reality, and reality is a debate where you see the real guy for the first time."

Krauthammer also said this: "In a CBS poll, 56% of respondents said their opinion of Romney had risen, because their opinion of Romney had been that he's a rapacious capitalist who cares for nobody except for himself and money. They now realize that all the ads they had seen were false. What he did last night was dissolve $150-million worth of negative ads and turn them to dust."

Then Bob Beckel was on, who said this: "Obama mailed in that debate last night, and Romney was on his game. Whether that was because Obama thought he was going to have an easy run I don't know. But it is outrageous that no one has followed up and asked Governor Romney about the ridiculous statements that he's going to save defense and Social Security and Medicare but won't name one tax loophole he'll close."

Then Beckel predicted that Wednesday's debate will ultimately be inconsequential, saying this: "There hasn't been a debate that mattered in presidential politics since 1960. Romney will probably get a 6 to 7 point bump but that will dissipate."

And of course the Romney supporter Bill O'Reilly disagreed and issued a tasty challenge, saying this: "When the polls come out on Monday and show that I'm right and you're wrong, I want filet mignon sent to my office."

So then Beckel said O'Reilly would be lucky to get a hamburger from him.

Then Political scientist Larry Sabato and pollster Scott Rasmussen were on to discuss it. Sabato said this: "I think Governor Romney's excellent performance will move the needle a couple of points, but I don't think it will be a giant poll bounce from a single debate. The key is whether he continues showing his stuff in the remaining two presidential debates."

Rasmussen theorized that Mitt Romney could vault into the lead in some key states, saying this: "The President was ahead by a couple of points before the debate and it wouldn't surprise me if he's behind by a couple of points. And if the national numbers move, the swing state numbers will also move, so it wouldn't surprise me if Mr. Romney moves ahead in Florida and Virginia."

Sabato also took a good-natured dig at The Factor and the Talking Points Memo, saying this: "You compared President Obama to boring college professors, and I want you to know that every colleague I have ever had could have turned in a better performance than President Obama gave in Denver. So I want you to take that back!"

Then Megyn Kelly was on, who was back from covering the debate in Colorado, and she gave her analysis, saying this: "I had never been to one of these before, and the one thing that stood out for me was 'spin alley.' You see all the people trying to spin the media and say their guy won. The Democrats sent out Stephanie Cutter, Jim Messina, and David Axelrod, all of whom had different messages. One was saying Romney is a great debater, another was saying Romney was 'testy,' and one even claimed Romney was on the defensive. They didn't have their messages together, they were out for five minutes, and then they disappeared into the back."

Then Laura Ingraham was on to describe the general mood of her conservative listeners, Ingraham said this: "There was definitely some gloating today. It's been a rough month or so for the Romney campaign and I've been on the record saying if you can't beat Obama with his record, shut down the Republican Party. I mean it, this is a record that is very difficult to defend, even if you're a really good politician."

Ingraham also claimed that President Obama was totally flummoxed when challenged by Mitt Romney, saying this: "For the last four years and maybe for most of his life Barack Obama hasn't been challenged all that much. He has always been seen as a rising star and a special guy and people feel reluctant to challenge him. The press corps has had a vested interested in cocooning him and giving him a protective place. When you don't have a teleprompter and you're up against a guy who actually did thrive in the business world, it's like the emperor has no clothes."

And finally the lame Factor tip of the day, and it was nothing more than O'Reilly promoting his debate with Jon Stewart from the Daily Show.

Romney Caught Lying About Green Firms In Debate
By: Steve - October 5, 2012 - 10:00am

And btw, some fact checkers found 26 other lies Romney told during the debate, and the so-called great journalist Bill O'Reilly never reported any of them, all he did was praise his buddy Mitt Romney for winning the debate, and load the show with Republicans who also ignored all the lies Romney put out.

During Wednesday night's president debate, Mitt Romney claimed "that half" of the green firms Obama invested have gone out of business and noted that a number of them happened to be owned by people who were contributors to your campaigns.

Fact checkers quickly pounced on the claim, explaining that only a tiny percentage of firms that received grants or loans from the Recovery Act have actually filed for bankruptcy.

And now, the Romney campaign itself is walking back the Romney claim. From Michael Grunwald:
ICYMI: Romney camp told me (after my tweet-rants) Mitt didn't mean to say half the #stimulus-funded green firms failed. Probably <1% so far.
Grunwald estimates that less than 1 percent of green firms have gone bad.

Romney also singled out Tesla Motors, which designs and manufactures electric vehicles, and received a $465 million loan from the Department of Energy. Last night, Romney said this: "I had a friend who said you don't just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers, all right?"

But the company is not a loser. "Founder Elon Musk says it will accelerate its payment of the principal in the spring - and the Department of Energy isn't complaining it's not getting its money back."

Romney is doing so bad he has turned to lying about an American company in his effort to beat Obama.

The Wednesday 10-3-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 4, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: President Obama talking race and class in a provocative way. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The conservative Daily Caller website released the full tape of then-Senator Obama speaking to a group of black ministers at Hampton University in Virginia back in 2007. Playing to the crowd, Mr. Obama brought up unfairness in the wake of Hurricane Katrina...When Mr. Obama refers to the people down in New Orleans, he is obviously referring to African-Americans and thereby injecting race into the debate.

But here's the key question tonight - should Mitt Romney refer to the race tape in order to demonstrate how the President is divisive?... "You know President Obama will hammer the Governor over his 47% remark...so Talking Points believes Mr. Romney should point out that Mr. Obama has used divisive rhetoric along race and class lines...Some Americans will respond to this kind of stuff, but the casual voter may put it into the category of politics as usual.

Both Obama and Romney were speaking to the choir when they made their controversial statements. They were whipping up their crowd. Many Romney supporters resent the fact that the nanny state is growing stronger in America. Many Obama supporters resent the fact that wealthy Americans have so much power.

The presidential debate this evening should be a passionate display. Governor Romney has to call out President Obama on the weak economy, the muddled foreign situation, and the class warfare campaign. And when that happens, the President will lash back, painting Romney as a ruthless rich guy who wants to exploit working Americans. I can't imagine Romney's gonna take that without a stinging comeback.
Then Karl Rove was on, who defended the Bush administration's assistance to New Orleans after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. O'Reilly suggested Obama intended to leave the impression that people in Florida and New York were given preferential treatment after hurricanes in those cities, but because New Orleans is a black city, it got hosed by the government.

Rove said that Obama may or may not have known the facts, but stepped over the line by intimating that New Orleans was treated unfairly because of race - a tactic he called reprehensible.

O'Reilly wanted to know if Mitt Romney should bring up this tape tonight. Rove answered that it depends on whether the moderator mentions it first because it'll look like a stretch if Romney brings it up on his own. But O'Reilly disagreed, saying he can bring it up as soon as Obama brings up the 47% comment. Rove insisted Romney needs to be presidential.

Then Rove said what he thinks Romney must do to win, Rove said this: "Give the American people a sense of what he's going to do about the problems we face as a country, strike a presidential tone, and call out President Obama on his record and misstatements."

Then Kirsten Powers and Leslie Marshall were on. Powers said this: "If Gov. Romney brings up race as an issue, it'll be an unmitigated disaster. Romney should focus on Obama's four year record in office."

Marshall said this: "Romney should clarify his 47% remark and try to close the gap in the polls."

O'Reilly cried again about how lonely he feels tonight being the only guy who actually thinks Romney should hammer the President on this Katrina tape.

Billy said if he was moderating instead of Jim Lehrer, he would tell Obama he lost the economy as soon as he threw in with big government taking over the private sector. Marshall said that if she was the President, she would highlight the jobs that were created.

O'Reilly predicted that if Romney doesn't take it to the President tonight, the Obama machine will win, but Marshall countered that Romney really needs to have likeability to win and if he goes after the President too strongly, he'll sacrifice that.

And as usual, O'Reilly was wrong, Obama never mentioned the 47% comment, and Romney never mentioned the Katrina tape.

Then the right-wing loon Dick Morris was on, who talked about the Rasmussen daily tracking poll that has Obama up by just two today, within the margin of error.

And O'Reilly said it was a tie, because it's within the margin of error, even though all the other polls have Obama ahead by 5 to 7 points, including the Fox News poll. O'Reilly and Morris ignored that to spin for Romney.

And btw, when a Democrat is behind by 2 points O'Reilly says he is losing, but when a Republican is behind by 2 points O'Reilly calls that a tie, bias? Duh!

Morris then said that Romney shouldn't raise the Katrina tape, but maybe find a way to mention it in the context of something somebody else does, which would then force the mainstream media to start playing it.

Morris also claimed Romney is falling behind in a number of swing states because of a range of attacks Obama has made on his business career. He said Romney has to answer those charges in this debate. But O'Reilly doubted an explanation of Romney's tax shelters tonight would actually put the issue to rest.

O'Reilly wondered how much Romney should attack the President versus promote what he would do for the country, to which Morris advised a 2:1 ratio of positivity.

Look at all that advice for Romney, but notice how much advice they gave Obama, none!

Then the has-been so-called comedian Dennis Miller was on for his weekly segment, which I do not report on because it's nonsense and not news.

And finally in the last segment, Carl Cameron and Ed Henry were on. Henry, who is covering the Obama campaign, reported the President's demeanor as calm, cool, and not at all apprehensive about getting on stage with Mitt Romney for the first time. But he also said his advisors admit they worry there's a lot Mitt could pick on and challengers are usually successful in first debates.

Cameron, who is covering the Romney campaign, gave us some inside baseball, reporting that Romney took it easy today, calming down, avoiding distractions, and focusing on his big opportunity tonight.

As the Obamas are celebrating their anniversary tonight, O'Dummy made a bold and fresh prediction, saying this: "One of the first things Mitt Romney will do is wish the first couple a happy anniversary."

O'Reilly Calls St. Louis Post-Dispatch Dumb & Corrupt
By: Steve - October 4, 2012 - 10:00am

And why did he say that, because they dared to mention his name in an article titled "Screaming at Each Other, Won't Improve Our Democracy."

An article btw, that was correct. The article was about how people are losing trust in the media due to the tone of the discourse. Their mortal sin (according to O'Reilly) is about how Fox talking heads, like Bill O'Reilly, can increase one's blood pressure.

For mentioning his name, they got slammed by the so-called great and powerful Bill O'Reilly who, while not issuing a boycott, is ordering his stooge viewers to stop reading that "dumb & corrupt" newspaper, even though they accurately wrote about the type of toxic talk that Bill O'Reilly specializes in.

After citing a poll shows that 60% of Americans don't trust the media because it's "inaccurate and slanted," he launched into his attack on the so-called left-wing St. Louis Post-Dispatch because the newspaper simply used its First Amendment rights to critique Fox News which, as we know, haha, is a paragon of accuracy and fairness.

Billy was mad at what he said was the "loony" editorial which suggested that "if you're a Democrat, try tuning into Fox News for a while. Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Greta Van Susteren. It doesn't matter."

He didn't read the best part of the paragraph that said this: "While sipping your morning latte and eating granola, watch Fox & Friends as they yuck it up while criticizing President Barack Obama."

He also did not mention the sentence before the Fox reference that said this: "If you're a Republican, take a few minutes tonight and watch the talking heads at MSNBC spew forth about politics. Lawrence O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, take your pick."

So, in less than a minute, you have got Billy engaging in the same spin he's accusing the rest of the media of having.

Bill then cited the stat given by the editorial, for viewership of prime-time news as a segue for bragging about his own viewership which, obviously, says nothing about quality but the mind set of those who enjoy watching Bill be inaccurate and slanted.

Billy actually thinks that his numbers actually mean something, but in reality, they're a testament to that PT Barnum quote that a sucker is born every minute. and in this case they all seem to be watching the Factor.

Billy attacked the writers at this newspaper as "dumb and corrupt" for saying such bad things about Fox News. While "dumb" is subjective, "corrupt" suggests illegalities and O'Reilly provided no evidence for that. He said that "the folks know it." (Really Billy?) He claimed that circulation is down 35% and that the parent company has filed bankruptcy.

Which is a lie, here is a Fact Check for Billy: In May of this year, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that its average weekday circulation declined 4.2%.

Where is O'Reilly getting his number from, most likely he just made it up.

They also note that their average weekday digital circulation grew 61.6%. The bankruptcy filed by Lee Enterprises was part of a debt refinancing plan negotiated with creditors. They state that this "will have no impact on its business and that its papers will continue to publish."

Additionally, "employees, suppliers and customers will not be affected, the company said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission Monday."

So O'Reilly was wrong about the numbers, and wrong about the results of the bankruptcy. Billy then ordered his so-called "folks" not to read the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Here is a reality check for O'Reilly, he has some very thin skin, which the St. Louis Post-Dispatch clearly got under. And if the folks don't trust the media, they should just stick to Fox News where it's all, as clearly demonstrated on The Factor, "fair & balanced."

And if you believe that I have some land to sell you, because they are about as fair and balanced as Rush Limbaugh.

Oh, and one last word to Billy: You might be happy to know that the NY Times is one of three media outlets least trusted. But rounding out the bottom, along with USA Today, is Fox News, you jerk. But of course you don't mention that.

And the reason most of those media outlets are not trusted is because the right-wing loons that take the survey vote that way, even though they are wrong. They think Fox is a trusted news source, which is just laughable.

The Tuesday 10-2-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 3, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Is the president's foreign policy falling apart? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The Libyan situation and foreign policy in general has not arrested the attention of casual voters, who remain locked into the economy and, in many cases, ideology. But Mitt Romney would be smart to seize on the Libyan controversy as part of an overall competence challenge to Mr. Obama...

"According to the American commander in Afghanistan, al Qaeda fighters are again causing trouble in that forlorn country, and the terror group might very well be responsible for murdering Ambassador Stevens...

"Talking Points believes that many voters are still persuadable and that support for the president is thin among some independents. A recent Rasmussen poll says that just 42% of those backing the president are locked in stone. That gives the Governor some room tomorrow night, but he needs to be surgical in making his points."
And once again the so-called Independent Bill O'Reilly used his show to give advice to Mitt Romney on how and what to attack Obama on during the debates and the campaign. Number of times O'Reilly has used his show to give Obama advice on how to beat Romney at the debates and the campaign? Zero!

Then O'Reilly had the biased right-wing hack Col. Ralph Peters on, who said that the Obama administration has never had a foreign policy, only what he calls an assortment of confused initiatives driven by ideology and politics. He also said that in his opinion there is not one troubled country in the world in which relations are healthier than under President Bush.

So then O'Reilly said that there's not an army in history that could stop the insurgents in Afghanistan when you can reportedly buy an Afghan army uniform at any marketplace in the country. Peters then also accused President Obama of lying about winding down the war in Afghanistan.

On Iran, O'Reilly asked Col. Hunt if the president is correct when he says he's making progress with sanctions. Col. Hunt said that no government in modern history has stopped another country from building a nuke, but if we want to do it, we need to play hardball with Iran economically. He went on to say the military option needs to be off the table, to which the total right-wing loon Col. Peters vehemently disagreed.

Then O'Reilly used another segment on his show to give advice to Romney, he had the former Romney debate coach Brett O'Donnell on to discuss it.

When asked to assess Gov. Romney's debate strengths and weaknesses, O'Donnell said he's very good when he's on message and on the offense, but when he gets defensive, that's when he makes mistakes and tends to look bad.

O'Donnell called Romney fast on his feet, and reminded us of the primary debate where Newt Gingrich challenged the Governor on immigration policy, and he came back with a great response about not being able to deport 11 million grandmothers. But O'Donnell also said Romney needs to start and finish the debate on offense to be successful.

Then O'Reilly said that in his opinion, the burden in the debate is on Gov. Romney to prove himself to the American people because President Obama is already a known quantity. O'Donnell agreed, saying the President is the victor of the last election, so there has to be a compelling reason for change.

O'Donnell had one last piece of advice for the Romney campaign, he said they have not been able to get the public to start blaming Obama for the bad economy, and he said that is something he must do better in all the debates.

Then O'Reilly had Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes on so the two conservatives O'Reilly and Crowley could cry about women mostly supporting Obama, and how some hollywood women are also supporting him.

A new Quinnipiac poll has President Obama leading a large amount with female voters, outpacing Mitt Romney 56% to 38%. The president's campaign continues to target women with a new ad featuring Eva Longoria, Beyonce, and Ashley Judd.

Crowley cautioned that Obama is only winning among single women, but trailing by 6-8 points with married women. She explained the lead by pointing to the bogus war on women where Democrats are freaking women out about birth control. And of course O'Reilly agreed with her and called it shameless to pretend, for political gain, that women are going to be denied their rights.

Even though it's true, O'Reilly and Crowley just refuse to admit it.

Colmes pointed out that Republicans don't exactly endear themselves to female voters with some of their policies and rhetoric, while Monica claimed that a significant number of women vote on a single issue: abortion.

Then O'Reilly had the far-right loon John Stossel on, he visited the University of North Carolina to uncover what he called political correctness run amuck. The latest example: believing that "freshman" is a sexist term that might leave some women feeling disrespected, the university administration has officially changed the term to "first year."

O'Reilly ran down some other PC things happening on the Chapel Hill campus, even in a dating relationship, you are forbidden as a UNC student to implicitly ask someone for sex; the civility code mandates that all speech on campus be civil.

But Stossel even admitted that the university rarely punishes people for these things, and yet he still thinks that having these sorts of strict rules in place is not constructive in a university setting.

Then the 2 right-wing legal analysts Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to discuss the Supreme Court back in session and set to potentially hear the case of the Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton in 1996.

Wiehl simplified the law, it says you can only have marriage, and the legal benefits that come with it, between a man and a woman. She explained that some gay couples are now suing so the feds can't take away their rights because they were legally married in states like Massachusetts.

Guilfoyle predicted the Court will find it unconstitutional and in violation of the equal protection clause, making gay marriage a state's rights issue.

They also analyzed a case involving a woman in Michigan convicted of welfare fraud. She won $1 million but still kept cashing her welfare checks. She pled no contest, arguing, according to Guilfoyle, that by taking the lump sum, she was left with very little money after taxes. Now that woman has died of a drug overdose.

And finally they talked about the case of Omar Khadr, a jihadist who pled guilty to killing a U.S. soldier. After ten years at Gitmo, he has been extradited to Canada because he's a citizen of that country. Some Canadians are worried he'll be let out of a civilian prison next year. But O'Reilly doubted Canadian authorities are that crazy because he is a dangerous jihadist.

In the last segment O'Reilly had his ridiculous reality check segment, that I do not report on because it's not reality and there are no checks. It's simply O'Reilly putting his right-wing spin on something someone else said.

The lame tip of the day was about the O'Reilly book and the AARP. Billy said this: "Because the AARP has been partisan left on some issues over the years, the Factor was hesitant to talk to the group about "Killing Kennedy." But they did a great, fair piece on the book...go to AARP.org to check it out!"

Now get this, O'Reilly never said a word about the AARP being partisan on the right sometimes, as in the time they supported the Republicans on the prescription drug bill.

In fact, my Father is a Democrat who was a member in the AARP, but when he saw they supported the Republican prescription drug bill he cancelled his membership, as a lot of other Democrats did. But you never hear a word about that from O'Reilly, as he calls them a left-leaning group.

Congressman Demands Investigation Of GOP Voter Registration Scandal
By: Steve - October 3, 2012 - 10:00am

In the wake of revelations that Strategic Allied Consulting, a controversial voter registration firm that has worked for the Republican National Committee, the Florida Republican Party, and the Romney campaign, is under investigation for turning in fraudulent voter registration forms in Florida, a Florida Congressman is calling for a bipartisan probe.

Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) wrote Monday in a letter to Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R):
In light of the growing voter fraud scandal engulfing the Republican Party of Florida, I urge you to immediately appoint a bipartisan task force to investigate the accusations and ensure that the integrity of our voting rolls will not be compromised by Strategic Allied Consulting's deliberately fraudulent voter registration operations.

I also urge you to ensure that that false registrations submitted by Strategic Allied Consulting do not remain on our rolls, and that you immediately investigative whether any employees involved in this scandal are still working for the Republican Party to register voters in Florida.
Deutch observes that Scott's silence and inaction on the scandal, to date, are "shocking and hypocritical" in light of Scott's Ahab-like attempts to purge suspected non-citizen voters from the state's voting rolls.

Scott has expressed a great deal of concern about potential voter fraud in Florida elections - even though state records indicate show Floridians are more likely to be struck by lightning than to commit voter fraud. But voter registration fraud apparently does exist in Florida.

Scott signed an unconstitutional 2011 suppression law which put major new restrictions on groups who work to register new voters, requiring third-party voter registration groups like Strategic Allied Consulting to turn in completed registration forms 48 hours - to the minute - after completion, or face fines.

Scott's communications office did not immediately have any comment on the letter or the scandal. And to this day Bill O'Reilly has still not said one word about the story, as he complains about media bias where they ignore stories that make the Democrats and President Obama look bad. While he is doing the very same thing with a big story that makes the Republicans and Romney look bad.

O'Reilly Tells Romney To Smack President Obama
By: Steve - October 3, 2012 - 9:00am

Yes he actually told the loons at Fox & Friends that Romney needs to smack the President like Laura Ingraham would. Which is about as disrespectful as you can get, after O'Reilly has said many time in the past that you should respect the office of the President.

Here is the video:



And on 10-1-12 O'Reilly said this: "Romney should fluster Obama." In a discussion with Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume, O'Reilly said that Romney "hasn't been forceful enough," and encouraged Romney to "fluster" Obama during the debates. He also encouraged Romney to convince Americans he can "fix" the economy by saying, "Hey, I'm your handy man here. I can fix it."

So how much advice has O'Reilly given to Obama for the debates, none, zero, zip, zilch.

Now imagine if someone who hosted a show at MSNBC had told a Democrat running against a Republican President that he should smack him. O'Reilly would lose his mind and do a week of shows on it calling for the host to be fired.

The Monday 10-1-12 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - October 2, 2012 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Presidential debate preview. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The upcoming presidential vote is all about cash! Barack Obama wants to redistribute income, regulate the economy from Washington, and generally set up a 'socially just' economic system that guarantees outcomes. Those who are getting other people's money tend to support the President, but these folks may be short-sighted.

If the USA continues to run up staggering debt, our economy will collapse and the dependent will get hurt the most. The United Nations is proposing a global tax on billionaires; one percent of their wealth would be given to the UN to disperse throughout the third world. It's not going to happen, but that's what many people want to see - wealthy people being forced to give up their assets to a controlling power.

The problem with that is that the controlling power is often corrupt, inept, and/or apathetic. How about the USA? The more money Washington gets, the more waste. So when you hear President Obama saying the rich aren't paying their 'fair share,' that's code for, 'We want as much money as we can get and we'll dole it out as we see fit.'

When Americans vote in November they will be voting for one of two things: the free marketplace, capitalistic approach espoused by Mitt Romney, or the social justice, 'spread the money around' approach championed by the President. America is a changing country, and that's why in this bad economy President Obama is hanging tough.
Instead of going through all the right-wing spin in the O'Reilly TPM I will just say this. Bill O'Reilly is still ignoring the biggest story in the political world, the Republican party voter registration fraud story. And if it involved the Democratic party it would be the TPM and the Top Story, as it was with O'Reilly when the ACORN story hit the news.

It's the biggest story in politics, and has been since last Friday, and the so-called Independent journalist Bill O'Reilly has not said one word about it, not a word, which is just pathetic. And if you had any doubt O'Reilly was a partisan right-wing hack, that doubt has now been removed.

Because when ACORN was involved in a similar (but not as bad situation as we have with the Republicans) O'Reilly covered it almost every night for weeks on end, and even did follow up reports months later. But when Republicans get caught in actual voter registration fraud, O'Reilly is silent, proving he is a biased hack that nobody should watch or trust.

Then the Republican Brit Hume was on to preview Wednesday's debate in Denver. With no Democratic guest for balance, which is just laughable, and more proof O'Reilly is a biased right-wing joke of a pretend journalist.

Hume said this: "The public expects President Obama to win, so I suppose Mitt Romney benefits from lower expectations. But the history of these things is that debates don't tend to change the trajectory of a presidential race very much. If you're a Romney fan, you're looking for something that would change the apparent course of this election. A debate could change things, but it doesn't happen often."

O'Reilly suggested that this year could be the exception to that rule, saying this: "The Rasmussen Poll has the President up by three, but when people are asked if they are 'definitely' going to vote for their guy, 43% say yes for Romney, but only 42% for Obama. So there is some swing area there and if Romney can fluster the President, he's going to pick up those votes."

Then the right-wing stooge Pat Caddell was on to slam the media and Obama. Conservatives are accusing the mainstream media of ignoring the Obama administration's conflicting stories after the assassination of Lybia Ambassador Chris Stevens. So Billy had this jerk Caddell on to discuss it.

"Everybody is doing this. It's a purposeful and conscious effort to suppress news that might hurt Obama. We've had bias in the press for many years, but it's gotten worse and now we have a press that is actively engaged in the reelection. On this issue we are seeing a press that is not telling the American people the truth."

O'Reilly once again claimed that many Americans are blissfully ignorant, saying this: "Unfortunately, the folks don't care about this story. The folks who are watching 'Dancing With The Stars' and the NFL don't care about the Libya story and the Ambassador."

Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to talk about Republican Congressman Allen West, who has created an ad that contrasts his military history with his opponent Patrick Murphy's 2003 arrest for drunkenness and assault.

Williams said this: "All's fair in love, war, and politics, and this is an example. It's an effective ad because if you view it in isolation it says one man served his country, the other guy was drunk in a bar. But it ignores the fact that Murphy was a 19-year-old college freshman."

Ham praised the ad's effectiveness, saying this: "This is well done, it's entertaining and it looks good. In this TMZ world, if you have a goofy mug shot from fewer than ten years ago it's going to get used."

Billy closed with this: "West is a hero, whether you like him or not. The other guy is not."

Now that's funny, because West is a right-wing joke. It's not about what you did 20 years ago, it's about what you are doing now, what issues you support and what issues you oppose. And if a Democrat ran an ad like that O'Reilly would be outraged and call for it to be stopped. It's nothing but a personal attack, that O'Reilly claims to oppose.

Then the right-wing moron Adam Carolla was on to talk about the "60 Minutes" interview in which Arnold Schwarzenegger spoke about his illicit affair with his family's maid.

"Schwarzenegger has said he's set for life money-wise, so I don't know why he's doing this. I live in California and I can tell you who else got screwed by Arnold Schwarzenegger - the good people who live in California."

Carolla then asked this: "How surprised is Maria Shriver? She's a Kennedy, you don't think she saw this coming? He's an athlete, an actor, and a politician, so of course he's going to have extra-marital affairs."

Finally, Carolla, who grew up in a family that received food stamps, slammed the program's vast expansion, saying this: "There are 46-million Americans on food stamps, and if you cut out 40-million of those, do you think they'd go hungry? I'll leave 6-million for people who are desperate and can't work."

Now that is ridiculous, Carolla basically said 40 million people who are on food stamps should not get them. With no proof they do not need them, it was 100% pure speculation, the very speculation O'Reilly claims to not allow.

O'Reilly also says he does not allow anyone to report anything without facts to back it up, and Carolla had no facts, or stats, or a study to back him up, nothing, but O'Reilly allowed it anyway.

Then the far-right stooge Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about how some Romney supporters are complaining that major polls are over-sampling Democrats and therefore favoring Barack Obama.

Goldberg said this: "The part that absolutely baffles me, is that I have no idea if the polls are reliable and Mitt Romney is really losing. I don't believe the polls are 'rigged,' but one day I see a poll saying that Mitt Romney is losing in every single battleground state, then I hear Dick Morris saying Romney will win by 7 or 8 points. If Mitt Romney wins big and the final polls don't reflect that, there's going to have to be some kind of investigation."

O'Reilly claimed that most polls probably give President Obama a slight advantage, saying this: "I understand that internal Republican polling says they are falling behind, particularly in Ohio. So I don't think the major polls are crazy wrong, but I think they favor Barack Obama by one or two points."

And finally the lame Factor tip of the day, which I will not report on because O'Reilly used the tip of the day to promote his new book.

More Details On Republican Voter Registration Fraud
By: Steve - October 2, 2012 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly has still ignored it, even though it's one of the biggest news stories in the country, and it even made the top 20 most popular on Google news.

A major element of the Republican National Committee's overall attempt to game the 2012 elections by trying to affect who gets to vote and who does not, has just been stopped dead in its tracks.

Along with it, a criminal election fraud complaint has now reportedly been filed with law enforcement in the state of Florida against a Republican firm, owned by a paid Mitt Romney consultant, which was hired by the GOP to carry out partisan voter registration operations in at least five battleground states.

Millions of dollars were spent on the aborted effort by the GOP over the last two months --- their largest single expenditure in several of the states where the scheme was in full tilt --- to seek out Romney supporters only, and sign them up to vote.

The strategy resulted in (or included) fraudulent registration forms collected by the firm and then submitted in Florida by the state GOP with voter addresses, signatures and party affiliations changed.

Election officials in the state said they fear the scheme could result in the disenfranchisement of a still-unknown number of otherwise legal voters, and they are taking extraordinary measures to try and contain the potential damage as they attempt to work through more than 45,000 new and updated registrations submitted by the GOP and verify their legitimacy.

The fraudulent voter registration forms have so far been discovered in at least 11 Florida counties, all submitted by the state Republican Party and collected by the RNC's top voter registration firm, a shell company formed in June called Strategic Allied Consulting, as owned by a notorious GOP operative named Nathan Sproul.

It took several days for the story to go national, and for the RNC to eventually take action in firing the company that Sproul says he was specifically asked to create for them, but only after the Republican Party of Florida, and then the North Carolina GOP fired the firm first. The state parties say they hired the company "at the request" of the RNC.

They fired Strategic after allegedly fraudulent and purposely changed voter registration forms turned in by the group emerged in other counties beyond Palm Beach County, FL where the Supervisor of Elections Susan Bucher initially discovered and then turned in over 100 "questionable" forms to the State Attorney last Monday.

Now that "suspicious and possibly fraudulent voter registration forms" turned in by the Republican Party and Sproul have been found in "at least 11 counties" in Florida, as reported by the Los Angeles Times on Saturday, their "one bad apple" talking point has fallen to pieces.

Similarly laughable is the RNC's claim that once the fraudulent registrations emerged they acted "boldly" or that they have a "zero tolerance policy" for such things. Their own admissions in this matter, as well as Sproul's, highlight how absurd those positions are.

There is also evidence that they and other Sproul companies, may still be operating in other states, such as California and Oregon, and that the specific type of rather offensive registration work they were doing is not necessarily their own strategy, but that of the entire Republican National Committee and the Romney campaign.

And then there's the matter of the hypocrisy of how Republicans and their media outlets, such as Bill O'Reilly, Fox News and the rest of the Right-wing media are now trying to pretend that this entire matter isn't happening at all.

The very same outlets who all went wall-to-wall in 2008 in claiming (inaccurately) that ACORN was doing what this GOP group appears to actually have done, are now going out of their way to ignore the scandal entirely.

Destroying Democratic registration forms is just one of many things that Sproul's companies, such as Sproul & Associates and Lincoln Strategy Group and now Strategic Allied Consulting, have been accused of in the past, in election after election, in state after state.

It should be noted that while Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VA) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) requested that George W. Bush's then U.S. Attorney General "launch an immediate investigation into the activities of Mr. Sproul and his firm" in 2004, no charges were ever brought.

Instead, the Bush Administration (who had spent millions hiring Sproul for similar work in 2004) "literally welcomed Sproul and his wife into the White House for a Christmas party in 2006."

The initial responses from both Strategic Allied Consulting and the RNC was to downplay the problems as little more than mischief caused by "one individual" who worked for the firm.

But with potentially fraudulent forms tied to the Republican Party reported in at least 11 FL counties --- "in South Florida, including Miami-Dade, as well as counties in southwest and northeast Florida as well as the Florida Panhandle," as AP describes them --- the "one individual" theory was dead almost as soon as it was uncritically passed on to the public by the media.

In Virginia, Strategic Allied Consulting, was paid $500,000 this summer to register voters, according to FEC disclosures reviewed by Richmond's CBS 6. The company was registered as a corporation in Virginia in June of 2012, without Sproul's name on the registration. But a visit by CBS 6's Joe St. George to the Glen Allen address listed as the corporate home of the outfit resulted in the firm that is actually located at the address, telling him that "they have never heard of the group."

The right compares it to ACORN, but there is no real comparison to ACORN. Unlike Sproul's outfits, the non-partisan community organizing group was never hired by the Democratic Party to do voter registration work. Moreover, it was ACORN themselves who discovered fraud by a handful of its more than ten thousand workers and notified officials of the fraud and the names of those who had defrauded them.

As best described by former Republican Rep. Chris Cannon of Utah, during a 2009 voter suppression hearing: "The main difference between ACORN and Sproul is that ACORN doesn't throw away or change registration documents after they have been filled out."

But the pathetically amusing aspect here is waiting for the same Right-wing media who turned false allegations against ACORN into a crusade to destroy the four-decade community organization (simply because they had the temerity to legally register millions of low- and middle-income voters who had the damnable tendency to vote for Democrats), to even cover this scandal at all.

Now that the things they falsely accused ACORN of doing for so many years are actually being done, by the Republicans top voting registration outfit, the Right-wing media has fallen silent.

Fox's Shepard Smith finally mentioned the scandal late Friday night, after what had been nearly a full week of allegations of voter registration fraud in at least 10 Florida counties by then, including allegations by one Republican election official that the group had even been found to have registered dead people as new voters, Fox News had not reported one word about any of it.

At Salon, later that day, Alex Seitz-Wald reported that "a search on Strategic Allied Consulting or Nathan Sproul turns up zero results on the Weekly Standard, the National Review, RedState, the Breitbart sites, Michelle Malkin, Hot Air and other" Right-wing sites which went wall-to-wall about the so-called "voter fraud" by ACORN in the past.

In ACORN's case, there is no evidence that any of the fraud by any of their workers either resulted in a single fraudulent vote or in anybody ever being disenfranchised. Right now, given the addresses changed on existing voter records to places like Shell stations and Land Rover dealers, as is the case in Palm Beach County.

Election Supervisor Susan Bucher said she's very worried that an unknown number of voters may find themselves disenfranchised when they go to vote on November 6, only to find that they are no longer registered at the precinct where they have voted for years.

Bucher also said that she and her staff are madly working through some "37,000 plus address changes and 23,000 new and updated signatures that have occurred in Palm Beach County" since the beginning of August, to determine which ones submitted by the state GOP are legitimate and which ones might be fraudulent and result in a legal voter losing their right to have their vote counted.

This is real voter fraud, and the right-wing media could care less. Especially O'Reilly, who was #1 in reporting on ACORN, and yet he has not said a word about this Republican voting scandal. If you watch the Factor for your news you would not even know about this story, which is just pathetic, because the Factor is the #1 rated news show on cable, and the #1 news show on Fox.

Paul Ryan Says He Don't Have Time To Explain Tax Plan
By: Steve - October 1, 2012 - 11:00am

Okay, then we do not have time to vote for you and Romney!

And the reason he does not want to give you the details is because their numbers do not add up, as Bill Clinton said it's simple math. They can not explain the Romney/Ryan tax plan because it's a fraud and if they explain it you will see the truth, the numbers do not add up, and most of it goes to the wealthy. It will also add to the deficit, the same deficit they slam Obama for.

The Romney campaign has avoided any discussion of specifics, especially when it comes to the tax plan that he and Paul Ryan have put forward. On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace gave Ryan an opportunity to finally talk about the details of his plan to a national audience, how much it will cost and how the Romney administration would pay for it.

But Ryan said he didn't have time to explain the details of the plan:
WALLACE: So how much would it cost?

RYAN: It's revenue neutral.

WALLACE: No no, I'm just talking about cuts. We'll get to the deductions, but the cut in tax rates.

RYAN: The cut in tax rates is lowering all Americans tax rates by 20 percent.

WALLACE: Right, how much does that cost?

RYAN: It's revenue neutral.

WALLACE: But I have to point out, you haven't given me the math.

Ryan: No, but you...well, I don't have the time. It would take me too long to go through all of the math.

But let me say it this way: you can lower tax rates by 20 percent across the board by closing loopholes and still have preferences for the middle class. For things like charitable deductions, for home purchases, for health care. So what we're saying is, people are going to get lower tax rates.
Okay, so why should we vote for you if you will not tell us what your tax plan is? Answer that jerk!

Ryan has been the Republican vice presidential nominee for nearly three months, and has still not found the time to explain how a Romney administration would fund its tax plan of 20 percent deductions across the board. Perhaps that is because if he did, voters would not like the cuts that would need to occur in programs like Medicare for the plan to remain revenue neutral.

Ryan's refusal to talk specifics only lends further credibility to the various studies and reports that have found time to do the math.

Those studies from non-partisan organizations show that the Romney/Ryan tax plan would actually result in a huge tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. And the only way to keep it revenue neutral is to balance their plan on the backs of middle class families, who would see a tax increase of more than $2,000.

And Mr. (give us the details) Bill O'Reilly lets them slide on it just like the stooge Chris Wallace and everyone else at Fox News.

Proof Fox News Ignored The Republican Voter Fraud Story
By: Steve - October 1, 2012 - 10:00am

Four years ago Fox News helped turn ACORN into a dirty word among conservatives by leading an often-hysterical right-wing crusade against the community activist group, charging it time and again with "voter fraud" on behalf of then candidate Obama.

In order to bolster its flimsy "voter fraud" attacks, the network repeatedly harped on reports that ACORN canvassers had submitted questionable voter registration forms.

Yet this week Fox (And Bill O'Reilly Too) has shown little interest in covering the unfolding story out of Florida, where the state's Republican Party has cut ties with a consulting firm accused of handing in more than 100 bogus voter registration forms.

From Tuesday night's Palm Beach Post:
The Republican Party of Florida is dumping a firm it paid more than $1.3 million to register new voters, after Palm Beach County Elections Supervisor Susan Bucher flagged 106 "questionable" registration applications turned in by the contractor this month.
In an interview with blogger Brad Friedman, Bucher described the "similarities in the signatures and certain characteristics in the applications that were very disturbing" on registration applications collected by the firm.

The "disturbing" defects on the forms included addresses of existing registered voters changed to commercial buildings or addresses and, "in some places, they were changing political parties."

Yesterday, Michael Isikoff reported that the registration troubles had spread:
NBC News has learned that four other Florida counties have also reported hundreds of possible fraudulent registration forms submitted by the firm, including apparent dead people being registered as new voters. Prosecutors in two counties are investigating possible voter fraud by the GOP consulting firm, officials said.
And Thursday afternoon, Republicans in Colorado also pulled the plug on the voter registration firm, Strategic Allied Consulting, run by veteran GOP consultant Nathan Sproul.

The allegations lodged against Sproul's company are similar to the ones ACORN faced in 2008; workers submitted voter registration forms that contained dubious information.

Back then it was enough to light a short fuse on Fox News and within the right-wing media, as players rushed in to condemn the independent ACORN group as a corrupt and a criminal extension of the Obama campaign.

Note that in the unfolding Florida story, the firm in question was paid directly by the Republican Party and is accused of ACORN-like activities. But on Fox News, it's silence.

In fact Friday morning, Brian Kilmeade hosted a Fox & Friends panel discussion about voter fraud. In 2008, the allegation that ACORN submitted questionable registration forms was routinely referred to and condemned as "voter fraud" on Fox.

But Friday morning, Kilmeade and his guests made no mention of the fact that the Republican Party was just forced to fire a consulting firm for submitting bogus voter registration forms; forms being reviewed by local law enforcement.

At Fox News, the so-called hotbed for "voter fraud" stories, the embarrassing news from Florida is of no concern to them now, because it involves Republicans.