Florida RNC Tells Seniors Obama Is A Muslim By: Steve - September 30, 2012 - 11:00am
And that's not all, they are making phone calls to seniors and saying Obama is a Muslim who is going to take away your medicare.
Now that is about as dishonest as you can get, and it shows the Republican party will go as low as they can to try and get a win for Romney. And of course the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly never said a word about any of it.
Because his Republican friends are doing it, and he supports Romney. But when Democrats put ads out saying Romney and Ryan would get rid of medicare, which they actually would, O'Reilly reported it and spent half the show slamming Democrats for using scare tactics.
O'Reilly even advised the Romney campaign and the Republican party to use scare tactics, after saying the Democrats were wrong to do it. Because he is a biased right-wing hack who has double standards.
And btw, O'Reilly also ignored the story about the RNC hiring a corrupt voter registration company in Florida and 5 or 6 other swing states to turn in bogus registration forms. And the RNC knew they were corrupt, because they got caught before shredding forms filled out by Democrats, and only filing the forms filled out by Republicans, yet they hired them anyway. They even had the owner file under a fake name in the hopes that nobody would find out who they were.
A woman who worked for the Republican Party of Clay County, Florida called President Obama a Muslim and said that he would get rid of your Medicare while calling voters on behalf of Mitt Romney.
In audio obtained by a Tampa-area radio station, the woman made the remarks directly to senior citizens, and her comments were recorded by an answering machine:
Well think really hard, y'all sound like y'all are senior citizens, no? Yea, you don't want Obama, you don't want Obama because he'll get rid of your Medicare. You might as well say goodbye to it.
Yea, and I don't know if you have done any research on Obama or not, but he is a Muslim. He has got a socialistic view on the government, economy, the whole nine yards. If he had his way, we would be a socialistic country.
Pay attention to Fox News. If you can get out and watch that movie 2016, do so, it has a lot of really good information. Just really read the newspapers and Fox News will help you.
And here is the best part, the Republican party in Florida claims they knew nothing about it, and that she just did it all by herself, yeah right, and if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.
Here is what the Florida Republican party spokeswoman said after getting caught: Leslie Dougher, said the caller went off script, but wasn't even sure if the woman was still making the dishonest calls.
"It was off-script completely. We have everything scripted," Dougher added. "Those are clearly not the views of the Republican Party of Clay County or the Mitt Romney campaign."
Tom Nazworth, chairman of the Clay County Democratic Party, told WJXT that his GOP counterpart should resign over the incident.
"They should monitor everything," Nazworth said. "We monitor people when they make phone calls. They would have been asked to leave our headquarters."
The Florida incident follows news that a million swing-state voters were mailed a DVD claiming that President Obama's mother appeared nude in pornographic magazines while she was pregnant with Barack and that the president's real father was not a Kenyan student, but rather the leftist poet and labor activist Frank Marshall Davis.
And what a shocker, not! O'Reilly never reported any of that story either. But if a Democrat even gets a stat wrong about a Romney plan, O'Reilly reports it and slams them for it.
Although Obama is neither a Muslim nor a socialist, notions that he is one, the other or both stubbornly persist among conservative Americans.
In fact, a Public Policy Polling survey of likely voters in Mississippi's March 2012 Republican primary election found that the majority of Republicans (52 percent) thought Obama was a Muslim. Only 12 percent said he was a Christian. In neighboring Alabama, 45 percent of polled GOP primary voters said they thought Obama was a Muslim.
O'Reilly Ignores Violation Of State & Federal Voting Laws By: Steve - September 30, 2012 - 10:00am
Thursday night O'Reilly and his 2 right-wing Fox News legal analysts Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl dismissed and lied about a lawsuit alleging that a citizenship question on certain Michigan ballot applications illegally burdens the right to vote.
What they denied is this: The "citizenship checkbox" may keep citizens from voting, as the state's Republican Governor anticipated when he vetoed an earlier attempt to implement the practice.
The ACLU of Michigan has filed a lawsuit accusing Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson (R) of once again violating state and federal law by including a checkbox to re-determine a voter's citizenship on absentee and election-day ballot applications.
Although supporters defend the practice as a means to prevent noncitizens from voting, election experts have pointed out redundant citizenship verification is a solution to an almost non-existent problem, contrary to the claims of Johnson and Fox's Guilfoyle.
O'Reilly characterized the ACLU lawsuit seeking to eliminate the citizenship checkbox as "madness and stupidity," and threatened that if a "crazy judge" granted the injunction, he would "put the judge's face on the screen and then send his producer Jesse Watters out to see him."
Then Fox's biased right-wing legal analysts not only agreed with O'Reilly's evaluation of the facts and law, they also backed up his unsupported allegation regarding the motive behind the lawsuit.
But not one of them acknowledged the actual arguments behind the lawsuit, that including a checkbox for citizenship affirmation on these ballot applications violates state and federal law and suppressed voters in Michigan's most recent primary election. None of that information was ever reported by O'Reilly or anyone on his show.
It was this concern that led the Republican Governor Rick Snyder (R) to veto the proposed citizenship checkbox law in July. In his veto message, Snyder, a conservative Republican, stated the citizenship question could impermissibly "create voter confusion."
Voting by noncitizens is not a problem nationally or in Michigan. According to the authoritative and exhaustive News21 study of thousands of alleged instances of voter fraud in the U.S., voter fraud such as noncitizen voting is "virtually non-existent."
O'Reilly and his so-called legal experts also ignred this: "Johnson may not even have the power to place the citizenship question on the ballot. The state legislature originally tried to pass the election change in a bill, and Michigan law does not appear to allow the Secretary to unilaterally adopt this failed legislation."
And even if it did, there does not appear any justification for the Secretary to then ignore the standard administrative notice and comment procedure behind the introduction of new state rules.
Finally, the Secretary appears to have passed an election practice change statewide, despite the fact that the federal Voting Rights Act -- in order to prevent illegal racial or national origin discrimination -- requires certain townships in Michigan to pre-clear any such changes with the U.S. Department of Justice before they are put into effect.
And you never heard any of this on the Factor, all you heard was O'Reilly and his 2 right-wing legal stooges spinning out propaganda, and putting out threats to a judge to do what he wants or else. Even though it violates state and federal laws.
The Friday 9-28-12 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - September 29, 2012 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Capitalism vs. Socialism and the presidential race. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The far-left magazine Mother Jones has put out another old video of Mitt Romney, in which he says Bain Capital 'was formed to invest in start-up companies and ongoing companies ... then harvest them at a significant profit.' Even though Mother Jones is appalled, that's what capitalism is!
You grow companies, you make them more profitable, then if you're lucky you sell them for lots of money. Sometimes the free market is brutal, but it does provide vast opportunity for those willing to work hard and take chances. Capitalism has made the USA the most powerful nation on Earth; it's the primary reason people all over the world are desperate to come here.
But apparently some who support President Obama don't much like capitalism. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who criticized Romney's comments, doesn't like the fact that some American companies maximize profits by limiting compensation to workers and controlling their hiring. Reich wants guaranteed wages, salaries, and tenure, all the things that happen in socialistic countries.
The question is, does President Obama believe the same things that Dr. Reich and Mother Jones magazine believe? The answer to that question is ... maybe. The President certainly wants to control economic outcomes, but so far he has not seized assets. President Obama wants to run the entire US economy from Washington, which has gotten him into big economic trouble.
It used to be that a poor economy would doom an incumbent, but that's not happening this year. President Obama is not even conceding that his policies haven't worked; he's essentially saying they will work if you give him four more years. Millions of Americans seem to be on board with that.
Governor Romney has the economic stats on his side, but it's clear that he and Paul Ryan have not convinced the casual voter that they can improve the economy. Mr. Romney's moment will come Wednesday in the first debate; he must win or he will not recover. He has to show that he cares about the folks and that his expertise can return the nation to prosperity while more of Barack Obama would be a disaster.
It's quite a challenge for Governor Romney and the media is heavily rooting for his opponent, but the folks are generally fair, they will be watching, and they will make up their own minds. So the Governor does have a chance as the drama builds.
My God O'Reilly, why dont you just quit Fox News and go work for the Romney campaign. You can spin with the best of them, and all your spin is for Romney. You lied about everything in that biased TPM, and the people are watching, that is why Romney has dropped 3 points in the polls over the last 10 days and Obama has gone up 3 points. Because the people see he is a lying right-wing hack that only wants to help the rich.
Then O'Reilly had the biased stooge Lou Dobbs on to slam Obama. Billy said that according to a new Fox News poll, 38% of Americans feel President Obama's policies have actually helped the economy; the same percentage say his policies have done damage.
Dobbs said this: "Things are not going well for the American people, and that's one of the most confounding parts of this race. People don't want to deal with reality and that $16-trillion debt is repeated so often that it becomes a cliche. They are taking the responsibility for their own lives and putting it on their children. It's up to Mitt Romney to galvanize the public's attention and he can't do that by saying we both care about the middle class. The fact is that the middle class has been torn to pieces!"
Then O'Reilly had the right-wing stooge Ben Stein on to slam Hillary Clinton, Stein called on Hillary Clinton to resign after terrorists killed our Ambassador to Libya.
Stein said this: "She was being briefed all the time, and they had warning after warning. They did nothing to protect the Ambassador, plus there was a cover-up immediately afterwards. It was clear that well-armed and well-organized terrorists did this, but the State Department and President Obama were still saying it was a 'spontaneous' uprising. Hillary Clinton is a fine woman, but she screwed up very badly in this case."
But even O'Reilly said he was not ready to call for the Secretary's dismissal, saying this: "I agree with you that we could have done a better job of protecting our people, but I'm not sure Hillary Clinton is directly responsible. You can make the argument that she's all over the world, she's not micro-managing what's going on in Libya."
So then O'Reilly talked about a skit on SNL, even after he said we should ignore this stuff. During a special Thursday edition, the folks at Saturday Night Live did a bit on President Obama's economic performance.
Geraldo was on to evaluate the skit and its possible impact, saying this: "I think the Saturday Night Live parody of Sarah Palin helped destroy the Republican chances in 2008. I don't think this humor is quite as personal, but there is no doubt that it reached many people who don't watch Fox News or CNN or MSNBC. My sons, who are in their 20's and 30's, don't watch the cable news outfits."
O'Reilly then challenged Rivera to bring one of his sons onto the Factor next week to be quizzed about current events. Rivera agreed, but no doubt his son will also have a say in the matter.
Then Greg Gutfeld and Bernard McGuirk were on to give Obama and Romney advice for next week's debate. Which was just stupid, and this segment is nothing more than a joke. It's just 2 more Republicans who are on to make fun of Obama and other Democrats. It's a total waste of tv time. O'Reilly even said that now he knows why Gutfeld is on at 3am, because nobody wants to hear what he has to say about anything.
McGuirk said this: "Everybody's talking about likability, but it's desperation time for Mitt Romney and all that 'likability stuff has to go by the wayside. He's got to go 'street,' he has to rattle 'Mr. Cool,' and he has to break through to the common denominator nitwits who live and die by football. He also needs to be honest and be himself. If they ask a stupid pop culture question about Snooki, be honest and say you wouldn't let her clean the toilet bowls at Bain Capital."
Gutfeld had some advice for the President, saying this: "President Obama needs to win over guys like me, the married, middle-aged dude who has unicorn pajamas, the guy who isn't interested in getting anything free. That means enough with Sandra Fluke, stop going on The View, and visit Monday Night Football. No more beach vacations, go fishing. Be a guy!"
Which is just laughable, having Gutfeld give advice to President Obama is like having Rosie O'Donnel give beauty tips to supermodels.
Gutfeld and McGuirk then turned to the new Obama campaign video in which actor Samuel L. Jackson urges Americans, "Wake the F - - - Up." Which are great ads btw, and that is why O'Reilly and the right hate them so much. But if they were doing them for Romney, they would love them.
Gutfeld said this: "This is how the left works. Everything he says was not true, but it was charming. Politics in Hollywood is like high school, you have to vote for the cool kid and if you are not cool they come after you."
McGuirk denounced the spot as ineffective and profane, saying this: "This ad is offensive, he's cursing in front of children. If some guy came into your house like that, you'd go upside his dome. I used to like Samuel L. Jackson, but this is about as effective as Madonna endorsing Obama."
And finally the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "With mortgage rates incredibly low, this is the best time ever to buy a house."
O'Reilly Ignored Republican Voter Registration Fraud Story By: Steve - September 29, 2012 - 10:00am
And of course everyone at Fox News has also ignored the story. While they cry every day about the Democrats and voting fraud. Which is just insane, because it's the Republicans doing the voting fraud, and getting caught doing it.
But O'Reilly ignores all that to claim the voter ID laws are needed to stop voting fraud by the Democrats, voting fraud that is not there. There is almost no actual in-person voter fraud, none, all the voting fraud we know of is from the Republicans. They were caught in a voter registration fraud scam, and they also tried to cover it up by changing the name of the crooked voter registration company they hired.
And O'Reilly has not said one word about it, not a word. But when the ACORN scandal hit O'Reilly made a living reporting on that. And this is worse than ACORN. Here is the story.
The Republican National Committee is cutting ties to Strategic Allied Consulting, a voter registration firm under investigation for turning in fraudulent voter registration forms in Florida. The RNC hired the firm to do voter registration drives for $3.1 million this year.
The firm's founder, Nathan Sproul, is a longtime Republican strategist whose reputation was tarred by widespread accusations of voter registration fraud and attempts to suppress Democratic voter turnout.
George W. Bush's campaign paid Sproul over $8 million dollars for his work in the 2004 election. Sproul, now under new scrutiny, claims he started Strategic Allied Consulting because the RNC wanted to hide his past:
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, so as to not be a distraction from the false information put out in the Internet," Sproul said.
The RNC is now scrambling to distance itself from Sproul after Florida launched a criminal investigation into the company. Strategic Allied Consulting submitted 106 questionable voter registration forms to the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections, and several other counties have discovered fraudulent forms as well.
The Florida GOP fired the firm on Tuesday night.
Republicans have launched relentless efforts to prevent in-person voter fraud, which is exceptionally rare, yet seem to have ignored the real threat of voter registration fraud by their own consultant.
In a twist one Florida Supervisor of Elections called ironic, Sproul's organization was in fact registering dead voters as Republicans, even as Republican lawmakers all over the country justified discriminatory voter purges with the threat of dead voters showing up to the polls.
In Florida, election workers in Palm Beach County discovered numerous registration forms that appeared to be filled out in the same handwriting, some with incorrect addresses and birthdays. Some Republicans were simply re-registered as Republican.
Some forms switched voters addresses or requested new voter identification cards. Some changed party registration from Democratic or independent to Republican, said Susan Bucher, county elections supervisor.
Her staff identified about 20 suspicious forms, all of which came from the Republican Party of Florida, she said. After she contacted local Republicans, a supervisor for Strategic Allied Consulting identified 106 forms, all apparently filled out by one worker.
Insiders also reported they destroyed voter registration forms that had the (Democrat) box checked so they were not registered to vote as the person thought they were. Bucher turned them over to Palm Beach County prosecutors, who have begun a criminal investigation.
This is as serious as it gets, and actual voter registration fraud, but O'Reilly does not say a word about the story, he is totally ignoring it. So much for non-partisan journalism by O'Reilly, if he were a real journalist he would be all over this story, as he was with ACORN.
And if the DNC was caught doing this, O'Reilly would lose his mind and report it every night for a month, and spend half the shows talking about it. But when the RNC gets caught doing it O'Reilly not only does not spend half the show on it, or report it for a month, he does not say one word about any of it.
The Facts About The Poll Numbers You See Reported By: Steve - September 28, 2012 - 9:00am
As nearly every major public opinion poll puts President Obama ahead of Mitt Romney, conservative pundits new favorite accusation is that the polls are biased because the media is oversampling Democrats.
On Wednesday Karl Rove and Dick Morris were on the Factor to make the claims, and Romney's senior adviser, Eric Fehrnstrom, repeated this line on Fox News to explain why the polls couldn't be trusted:
FEHRNSTROM: Some of these polls have been called into question because they assume a higher Democratic turnout in 2012 than we experienced in 2008. I don't know of any campaign operative or political scientist in the country who thinks Democrats are going to show up in the same number as they did four years ago.
After four years of relentlessly condemning Obama as a historic failure and all around bad person, conservatives are desperately trying to explain the disconnect between their dire Obama denunciations and the on-the-ground political reality about Obama's polling surge. They need a scapegoat, and pollsters have been cast in the role.
O'Reilly and his right-wing friends say that instead of producing too many votes, pollsters are allegedly doing the opposite - making sure fewer people cast a ballot on Election Day. Teaming up with the media, pollsters are suppressing the vote by concocting phony results; by skewing the data. That drumbeat of results is supposedly designed to "depress Republican enthusiasm," which in turn hands victories to the Democrats.
While real voter suppression is happening by Republicans with these bogus un-needed Voter ID laws. Which O'Reilly and the right deny is a voter suppression plan, even though some Republicans have admitted it is.
The right-wing spin doctors also say this: "The intended effect is to suppress Republican turnout through media polling bias," said Romney's pollster John McLaughlin this week. And who was way ahead of McLaughlin and the Romney campaign in pushing the polling conspiracy claim? Rush Limbaugh, of course.
But today's Alice-in-Wonderland polling plot seems to surpass it in terms of being nonsensical. (Why would professional pollsters cook the books for Obama and then run the risk of ruining their reputation?)
In fact, in a strange marriage of right-wing paranoia, the blogger who launched the uskewed polling site, Dean Chambers, actually claims pollsters are trying to keep the race close enough so the Obama campaign and "their allies and former members and leaders in groups like ACORN" can come in and steal the election at the end via voter fraud.
Except it's all a lie, because what's really happening now isn't just conservatives carping about polling methodology. What's unfolding is that conservatives are constructing an elaborate, all-purpose explanation for Election Day if Obama wins. They will insist the pollsters' voter suppression plot worked and that Romney's loss proves it!
If Obama ends up winning, what does that say about the right-wing media's ability to influence American politics? The truth is, lots of right-wing commentators can't comprehend that Romney's behind in the polls, including Bill O'Reilly who said he was stunned Romney is not ahead by 5 points. They think he should be winning in a walk because of Obama's so-called "trainwreck" presidency.
"Why Isn't Romney Up by Ten Points?," asked a recent National Review Online piece.
Some conservatives like Dick Morris and Hugh Hewitt even insist Romney is winning, saying this: "The sense of the growing panic among Obamians is palpable," wrote talk show host and blogger Hugh Hewitt this week, dismissing as untrustworthy and useless recent polling results that brought dire news for Republicans. Rather than trailing Obama, Romney's campaign is actually "in an enviable position," Hewitt stressed.
Which is just laughable, because even the biased Fox News poll has Obama ahead by 5 points. How can this all be some kind of giant liberal conspiracy between all the pollsters, and the media, when Fox News poll says the exact same thing.
And that is not the only proof we have to show the idiots like O'Reilly, Morris, Rove, etc. are lying fools. The Gallup poll is the most trusted polling company in America, O'Reilly even uses them on his show once in a while and he has also said they are a trusted polling source.
So 8 days ago Gallup had the race in a 47 to 47 tie, now they have Obama up 50 to 44 with a 6 point lead, which is almost the exact same numbers the Fox poll has. The race turned after the media reported on the Romney 47% secret video.
And that is why Obama moved out to a 5 to 7 point lead. It's not poll bias, it's reality, Mitt Romney is a flip-flopping fraud, and a rich guy that only cares about the rich. The people saw that in the 47% video, and his numbers have dropped since then.
Here is the real truth, the idiots like O'Reilly, Morris, Rove, etc. are just making it up to cover for how bad Romney is as a candidate. And they have to say Romney still has a chance to win so the stooges on the right keep giving him money.
If they admit the polls are right, and admit Romney is a terrible candidate who is running a bad campaign, the people on the right will stop giving them money. So they spew out these poll bias lies to keep the money coming in, while in private admitting the polls are right and that Romney is a terrible candidate.
And the so-called non-partisan Independent Bill O'Reilly is right at the top of the list of the spin, saying he is stunned Romney is not winning by 5 points. He said Obama is a bad President and he can not understand why Romney is not crushing him.
O'Reilly even implied the voters are stupid and in a fog, because they are not for Romney. O'Reilly said the economy was terrible, and Obama is a disaster. And he just can not understand why Obama is winning, his only answer is that voters are stupid and clueless.
But all that shows is that O'Reilly is a delusional right-wing hack who can not understand Romney is a joke, and a corporate stooge that nobody likes except other Republicans. In O'Reillyworld you are all supposed to love Romney and hate Obama because he does, and if you dont, you are stupid and in a fog.
The Thursday 9-27-12 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - September 28, 2012 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: The presidential election and the likability factor. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There are two kinds of voters in America, those who know what the issues are and those who don't. For the uninformed casual voter, emotion usually drives the decision and part of that equation is likability. There is no question that both President Obama and Governor Romney know they must come across as 'nice guys,' which is why they go on entertainment programs.
Some candidates believe they should not be dealing with trivia when the economy is awful and there's turmoil in the Middle East, but they do what they think they have to do. Talking Points understands that Americans want their leaders to be accessible, and that's why the President's campaign has spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to demonize Governor Romney as a callous rich guy.
No one knows how many American voters are basically uninformed folks who vote on whims, but it's safe to say the group is substantial, especially in a time when social media is diverting attention from important issues. If you look at newspaper circulation and TV news ratings, you might come to the conclusion that about half the country is simply uninformed.
Certainly the folks are not paying as much attention to serious things as they did when there were only three networks and no Internet. Remember those days?
So much for no speculation, because O'Reilly has no idea how many voters are uninformed, he just made it all up. He is just mad that everyone is not voting for his guy Romney, so he calls them stupid, says they are in a fog, and that they are uninformed. When in fact they are right, because Romney is a jerk, and a bad candidate who is never going to be the President.
O'Reilly then pursued the likability issue with political science professors Wendy Schiller and Jeanne Zaino.
Schiller said this: "Likability can make the deciding difference, and people like Obama right now more than Romney because they are more familiar with his story. He looks like a loyal family guy, a good father and husband, and he hasn't given people any reason not to stick with those images of him. Mitt Romney is also a likable guy, but he has to tie that to how his policies will help the average American."
Zaino thinks that Romney's handlers should focus less on his likability, more on the issues, saying this: "The Romney campaign has not given the voters a chance to look at the basic issues he needs to talk about, so the more they focus on likability, the better for Obama. What people really want to see is a focus on the economy."
Then O'Reilly had the right-wing hack Laura Ingraham on to discuss the recent controversy surrounding polls and their tendency to over-sample Democrats.
While they ignore the fact that the Fox News poll also shows Obama with a 7 point lead, and they are clearly not part of the so-called liberal media, or the so-called liberal polling methods. And they also ignore the fact that Gallup had the race a tie at 47-47, just 8 days ago, and now they have Obama with a 6 point lead because of the crazy things Romney was caught saying, mostly the 47% comment.
Ingraham said this: "There's some validity to the criticism of the polls, but if the Romney campaign's internal numbers were markedly different, you would really hear a Romney-Ryan pushback in those battleground states. I think they believe they're running behind and that's why you're seeing some tweaks to the Romney campaign. They are making some changes in tone and in strategy."
Ingraham then agreed with O'Reilly that many Americans seem to be totally uninformed, saying this: "Deep understanding of issues today is kind of out the window. We ingest news in 30-second bites and people make very quick reads on things, and for some people personality trumps results."
Then again, maybe Romney is just a terrible candidate and the voters know it, so Obama is beating him, as he should be. Did you 2 right-wing loons ever think of that, of course not, because you are both right-wing spin doctors who can not understand why Romney is not winning.
Then Tonya Reiman was on for the bogus body language segment, which I do not report on because it's a total waste of tv time garbage.
Then the two Republican culture warriors Gretchen Carlson and Jeanine Pirro were on to cry about the 50 public schools in New York City who can give the "morning after" birth control pill to students as young as fourteen, even without their parents' consent.
Pirro said this: "Do I like this as a parent, and do I like parents not being notified? No! But what I like less is that the United States has the highest incidence of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world. I like it less when teenagers give babies that they drop into toilets or throw into dumpsters and are not prepared to raise."
Carlson slammed the state officials who enacted this plan and the parents who are simply not involved, saying this: "Parents should have the ability to make all decisions, especially this one, with their children. Tomorrow I'm going to send a note to school for my kid to go home with another parent for a play date, but if I had my kid in New York City, my child could get an abortion and I wouldn't know."
Earth to Carlson, it's not an abortion. It's a pill to prevent a pregnancy after sex, that's not an abortion, because their is no child to abort, idiot!
Then the crazy far-right pro-life O'Reilly argued that New York is enabling some criminals to avoid prosecution, saying this: "The state is saying, 'We don't care about statutory rape.' If an underage girl is pregnant, that's obviously a crime, but the states won't tell the parents! The State of New York is abdicating its responsibility to protect children from statutory rape."
Which is ridiculous, because 99.9% of it is not rape, it's a guy and a girl having sex, then taking a pill to avoid getting pregnant the next day, you uninformed right-wing fool! Then Megyn Kelly was on to preview next week's presidential debate. Kelly said this: "We have a shot at getting something meaningful in these debates, because of the format they've chosen. There will be a discussion following the initial answer and maybe the moderators will get a little aggressive."
And that is ridiculous, because the debates are just a chance for the candidates to spin the people directly, instead of using tv ads or other people to spin for them. The debates are meaningless, and that is a fact.
Based on previous performances, Kelly characterized Governor Romney as a fairly accomplished debater, saying this: "I would say Mitt Romney is moderate to strong, I think he was one of the best during the primaries and was very solid throughout. You have to have a memorable moment and you have to avoid a misstep."
And I am predicting Obama will not only out debate Romney, he will make him look like a fool, and win every debate.
O'reilly concluded with some unsolicited advice for the President, saying this: "If I were President Obama, I would try to say Mitt Romney is an out of touch rich guy who never really accomplished anything but throwing people out of work, hoping that Romney might overreact."
What a joke, earth to O'Reilly, Obama does not care what you say, and he will never take your stupid advice.
Then Martha MacCallum and Uma Pemmaraju were on for the lame Factor News Quiz, that I do not report on because it's not news and it's a waste of time.
And finally the Factor tip of the day, which I will not report on for this reason. O'Reilly used his tip of the day to tell people what newspaper not to read, and of course that paper is what he called a liberal joke. So now he is using his tip of the day for partisan political reasons, and I will not help him by naming the paper.
All I will say is that they told the truth about Fox and their bias, so O'Reilly said his tip of the day is to not read that newspaper. I would say if you know the newspaper he is talking about, read it, because they told the truth about Fox, O'Reilly just did not like that.
Right-Wing Group Compares Obama Policies To Hitler By: Steve - September 28, 2012 - 10:00am
And of course O'Reilly never said a word about it, but when Bush was in office and any liberal group compared him to Hitler, O'Reilly not only reported on it, he slammed the group for doing it and said the Hitler comparisons should stop. But now that a right-wing group is doing it to Obama, O'Reilly is silent.
A conservative religious group is sending its members a survey that compares President Obama's policies to those of Nazi Germany, and asserts that the President has communist beliefs.
The mailer, a product of the Faith and Freedom coalition, is titled the "Voter Registration Confirmation Survey."
But its questions have little to do with registering to vote. Rather, the survey asks a host of leading questions into how its members view the President's record.
The options prompt the most extreme answers - with very few moderate or supportive possibilities.
As Mother Jones points out, the Faith and Freedom coalition and their head Ralph Reed are leading the effort to turn out Evangelical voters for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. The group plans to spend over $10 million for this purpose.
And Romney has praised Reed for his turnout efforts, saying this: "Ralph Reed is doing a great job here with the Faith & Freedom Coalition. This is going to make a big impact across America and I appreciate the work you are doing here."
Romney likes Reed so much he even gave him the honor of sharing a hotel with him during the RNC convention.
The Wednesday 9-26-12 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - September 27, 2012 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: The status of the presidential race. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Two new polls today are very good news for President Obama, yet the polling in general continues to be fluid - that is, there's a wide discrepancy in the results...The Washington Post poll in Florida has President Obama leading Gov. Romney by four points - 51% to 47% - but the New York Times poll has Obama up by nine points - 53% to 44% - same state, same likely voter scenario.
In Ohio, the Washington Post has President Obama up by eight points - 52% to 44%. The Times poll has Obama up by 10 - 53% to 43%. However, in the Rasmussen daily tracking poll, the national survey, the race is tied - a dead heat 46% to 46%. On this day four years, Rasmussen had Mr. Obama up five points over John McCain...
"The presidential race is going to come down to just a handful of states, Ohio and Florida being the most important. Gov. Romney must win in both places...Talking Points has said from the very beginning that the debates this year will be the deciding factor...
"The problem Mitt Romney has right now is the perception that he's out of touch with the folks. The President has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on ads stating that, and the Gov. does come across as a classic rich guy...
"The President's record is dubious, to say the least, but many Americans aren't paying attention and will vote on emotion."
Notice that O'Reilly, Rove, Morris, etc. all ignore the Gallup poll, which is the best polling company in America. And the Gallup poll has Obama up by 6 points, 50 percent to 44 percent. They also ignored the fact that Gallup had it tied 8 days ago at 47 percent.
That means that Romney has dropped 3 points in the last 8 days, and Obama has went up 3 points in the last 8 days. But O'Reilly and all these right-wing idiots cry about the polls being biased and wrong, but 8 days ago when it was a 47 to 47 tie none of them said a word about the polls, or any bias they might have. O'Reilly and his right-wing friends just refuse to admit Romney has screwed up a lot and dropped in the polls, or that Obama has improved in the polls.
Then he has the biased hack Karl Rove on, and of course he doubted the state polling, talking about what he referred to as a "partisan matrix" to the polling. He cautioned against endowing these polls with a false scientific precision they simply don't have, and pointed out that NYT/CBS polling has a long history of inaccuracy, dating all the way back to Reagan vs. Carter.
But Gallup does not have a history of inaccuracy, and they show Obama with a 6 point lead now, when they had it tied 8 days ago, explain that O'Reilly and Rove, you hacks.
O'Reilly also said he was worried that when news agencies report the polling and it shows that Barack Obama has gained a big lead in some key states, it gets into people's minds and that helps the President because people perceive him as a winner.
Rove then called the race a toss-up in both Florida and Ohio at this point.
So Rove is saying you should ignore the polls, because he does not like what they show, but 8 days ago when it was a tie he was not saying ignore the polls then. He was citing the polls and saying it shows Obama is in trouble, but as soon as his man drops, and for good reason, he says ignore the polls, which is just laughable.
Then O'Reilly had another Republican hack on to discuss it, Ohio. Gov. John Kasich said he doesn't even pay attention to the polling, because it all depends on what you ask, how you ask it, and the sample. He said it will be very close in Ohio, going right down to the wire and coming down to who convinces people they can create jobs.
If that's true why were all the Republicans promoting the polling when Romney was doing good and tied with Obama.
O'Reilly said that since Gov. Kasich is performing so well in the state and he's a Republican, he would assume Romney could more easily win the state. Gov. Kasich countered that his personal performance helps, but people are still questioning whether Romney understands their problems.
Proving that O'Reilly is an idiot, to begin with a 48% approval for Kasich is not that good. Because when Obama had a 48% approval rating O'Reilly said it was terrible. But when a Republican has the same approval rating suddenly O'Reilly thinks that is doing great. Even though a 48 percent approval means the majority of the people are not happy with you.
Not to mention, even if Kasich was doing good it does not mean Romney is going to win Ohio, that's just stupid, and a biased opinion from the so-called Independent O'Reilly. But O'Reilly still expressed surprise that Romney isn't doing much better in Ohio.
Then O'Reilly had another right-wing hack on to discuss the polls. Dick Morris, who recently predicted Romney will carry Florida and Ohio and possibly Pennsylvania - is he standing by that in light of these recent polls? He sure is, and he accused the media of a deliberate effort to encourage Obama supporters and discourage Romney donors by portraying this race as an Obama cakewalk.
O'Reilly asked if he could back up his provocative claim that these polling outfits are cooking the books to help Obama. Morris answered that the polling is assuming a higher turnout among African-Americans, Hispanics and young people, which makes their likely voting sample much more Democratic than it will be and weighs the polls inaccurately. He insisted these polls are assuming the same turnout as 2008, which was an outlier and won't be repeated in 2012.
Really? How is that proof, because they could be right, and we will not know until after everyone has voted. Morris speculated it is true, the speculation O'Reilly claims to not allow. It's just spin from Morris and the right, until is is proven to be true, and it can not be proven until after the election.
And btw folks, Rasmussen also weights his polls, to favor Republicans, but you never ever see O'Reilly, Rove, or Morris complain about his poll bias.
Then O'Reilly had Scott Rasmussen and Larry Sabato on, Rasmussen said the race is close, and that it's not a blowout. He said Romney does have some ground to make up in Florida and Ohio, but not much and within the margin of error.
O'Reilly said he thinks Rove and Morris made a good case that the polling isn't accurate, but it has an effect on perception. Sabato said he believes in polling averages, which show the President is leading the race nationally by about 4 points, leading Ohio by several points, handily winning in Pennsylvania, and in a toss-up situation in Florida.
On the media influence, Sabato said this: "People are not empty vessels into which the media can pour opinions." He claimed Americans only accept the parts of arguments that reinforce the biases they already have.
Rasmussen explained that the President has made strides in the polling because consumer confidence has improved a bit and Romney isn't convincing people who are concerned about the economy that he'd make it any better.
Which ignores the fact that Romney has made many mistakes and even some Republicans are crying about how bad the Romney campaign is and how they make too many mistakes, mostly the 47% comment. O'Reilly, Rove, Morris, and Rasmussen ignore all that, to claim it's a tie, which is ridiculous, especially when Gallup has Obama 6 points ahead now, when they had it a tie 8 days ago.
Then Dennis Miller (the right-wing comedian) was on, which I do not report on.
Then Juliet Huddy was on to talk about a University of New Hampshire study that found celebrities who talk openly about their politics become less popular in the public marketplace. Somebody tell Oprah Winfrey, Ted Nugent, Eva Longoria, and Jon Voigt!
And tell O'Reilly, because he has right-wing celebrities on his show, like Dennis Miller, Adam Carolla, Jon Voigt, Chuch Norris, etc. and he wants you to listen to them. But if they are liberal celebrities O'Reilly says ignore them. Proving his bias again.
According to Huddy after her conversation with the lead author of the study, when celebs espouse beliefs that conflict with our own, they can fall out of favor. But, she went on to say that we're also very forgiving if we really like the particular star.
The Factor argued that some celebrities, like Sean Penn who is forever branded a far-left guy, aren't ever really forgiven. He also claimed that Americans respect free speech, but if a celebrity attacks a politician, they must explain why they're attacking them, which most cannot or will not do.
But notice O'Reilly does not say the same thing about Clint Eastwood. Even though all the liberals are now boycotting everything Eastwood does after his RNC chair speech. And I personally will now never watch anything Eastwood has ever done.
As a perfect example of someone who won't back up her beef, the Factor played a clip of comedian Sarah Silverman starring in an ad about voter ID laws, declaring that showing an ID at the polls will make it hard for black, elderly, poor people and students.
And finally the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this "If you want to prosper in our competitive society, don't wear crummy shoes. Guys, you only need two pairs of shoes - one black and one brown. Looking sharp often translates into making money."
That tip shows just how out of touch O'Reilly is with the average American, because I am an average American man and I wear tennis shoes 100% of the time. I own one pair of dress shoes that are black, I have worn them a total of one time, and that was at my Mother's funeral in December of 1998.
O'Reilly Obsession With Smearing & Lying About Sandra Fluke By: Steve - September 27, 2012 - 10:00am
Now think about this folks, Bill O'Reilly is a man who claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone. Then he joined in with the far-right Rush Limbaugh to attack Sandra Fluke, while ignoring the fact that Limbaugh called her a slut.
Then on top of never saying a word about Limbaugh calling her a slut, O'Reilly has spent hours and hours slamming her, for what you ask? For simply saying the health care plans in America (that women already pay for) should pay for birth control for women, just like they pay for viagra for men.
She does not want the Government to pay for it, she simply wants her health care provider to pay for it, under the health care plan she pays for with her own money. And for that, she has been constantly attacked by Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. Two of the biggest Republicans in America, Limbaugh on the radio and O'Reilly on cable tv.
In the past month, O'Reilly has repeatedly misrepresented and smeared Sandra Fluke and falsely claimed that she has advocated for universal taxpayer-funded contraception.
In fact, as she made clear in her testimony in front of a congressional panel in February, Fluke was voicing support for the health care mandate that requires private health insurance plans -- which women already pay for -- to cover women's preventive health services without a co-pay.
The mandate is intended only for private health insurance companies where premiums are paid by individuals, often through their employer -- not the taxpayer.
O'Reilly has criticized and misrepresented Fluke's testimony five times in the last four weeks, and most recently on September 18 during his interview with Comedy Central's Jon Stewart:
After Stewart described Fluke as speaking "about an issue close to her heart," O'Reilly said this: "and her hand in my wallet at the same time."
He then asked, "Do you want to pay for this woman's birth control?" adding, "She wants everybody's contraception to get paid for."
O'Reilly also said this on other shows:
1) September 13 -- O'Reilly stated: "Of course" Fluke is "demanding the taxpayer fund female birth control, abortion, and now transgender operations."
2) September 11 -- O'Reilly stated: Americans "don't want to pay for Sandra Fluke's lifestyle choices." O'Reilly went on to say, "if you're going to tell me that I got to pay for Sandra Fluke's birth control, I'm going to tell you that's an extremist position."
3) September 5 -- O'Reilly stated: "Sandra Fluke wants us to pay for her birth control."
4) August 27 - O'Reilly asked his guest, Juan Williams, "Do you want to pay for her birth control?" He finished by claiming that Fluke wants us to pick up her lifestyle expenses, and said in another segment that Fluke "believes the constitution mandates that the American people pay for her birth control."
Even in O'Reilly's absence, his guest host Laura Ingraham mentioned Fluke several times while asking if "Democrats are going overboard with their war on women campaign?"
And O'Reilly is not the only Fox News host to have recently spread the lie that Fluke wants taxpayers to pay for her birth control. The same day as O'Reilly's Jon Stewart interview, Charles Krauthammer said that Fluke's "great demand" is "that ordinary Americans, average income $50,000, pay for her contraceptives."
On the September 6th The Five, co-host Greg Gutfeld said that Fluke "wants you to pay for her birth control. I am woman, hear me roar is now I am needy, give me more."
The next day he smeared actress and Obama supporter Scarlett Johansson, who spoke at the Democratic National Convention, saying that since the actress is "worth millions," she should pay for her friends' contraception, "instead of asking me."
His co-host Dana Perino, on August 23rd, said "thanks to Sandra Fluke and President Obama women now have free birth control."
The "free birth control" smear has also filtered into Fox's so-called "straight news" shows, with Megyn Kelly claiming this: "You got Sandra Fluke out there saying thank God for government paying for my birth control, which for me is now free."
The so-called straight news Fox White House reporter Ed Henry also said this: "A fight with the Catholic Church over contraception coverage highlighted Obama's support for free contraception."
These are all lies, for political reasons. With O'Reilly leading the pack, while he claims to not be for Romney or against Obama, and while he claims to be a non-partisan Independent who is looking out for the folks.
O'Reilly also claims to never ever use any Republican talking points, as he does exactly that, and does it every single night. Almost every talking points memo O'Reilly spews out, and almost every argument he makes on every issue, sounds just like it came out of the RNC headquarters.
O'Reilly is a 99% right-wing propaganda spewing Republican spin doctor. And yet, he claims to have a no spin zone, which is just laughable.
The man is a fraud, a dishonest, lying, spinning, right-wing fraud of a so-called journalist. And if I was lying about this he would sue me for slander, which he never has, and never will, because I am right. And if he sued me I would be able to prove it in court, which he would never let happen, because it would ruin his reputation.
The Tuesday 9-25-12 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - September 26, 2012 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Is President Obama protecting us against the danger from Iran? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The campaign is heating up. The Iranian tyrant Ahmadinejad in New York today again, threatening Jews and demeaning gay people. That's what the man does. But Ahmadinejad is also presiding over the building of a nuclear weapon. Thus, the irrationality and aggressiveness of Iran is a primary presidential issue.
Today at the United Nations, President Obama said, 'America wants to resolve this issue through diplomacy and we believe that there is still time and space to do so. But that time is not unlimited. A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained. The United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.'
Now the word 'must' is the key here because nobody really knows what that means. Even Mr. Obama might not know. But it sounds tough. However, Mitt Romney isn't buying it. In a time when the economy is dominating the campaign in the USA, it is worth noting that we Americans remain in danger from Muslim fanatics like Ahmadinejad. And that danger "must", note the word, be dealt with.
According to a new Rasmussen poll, 45 percent of likely American voters believe that U.S./Muslim relations are worse now than they were four years ago. Just 18 percent say relations are better. That would seem to indicate a failure in the Obama foreign policy.
Yet the President will point to the decimation of al Qaeda and the killing of bin Laden to persuade voters that he is not soft on the Muslim jihad. So this issue is a bit confusing and to be fair to President Obama opinions about his Muslim outreach are inconclusive at this point. Most Americans don't want war with Iran because that would send oil prices through the roof, hurt us all and possibly lead to World War 3.
However, there is no way on this earth that Israel is going to allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. The Israelis will attack the Iranians. They will attack. It's just a matter of when. So Americans must decide which presidential candidate can better manage the situation.
Things have not changed in Iran since Mr. Obama took office, except the Iranians are further down the road to development of the nuclear weapons. Governor Romney says he would get tougher with the Iranians by supporting Israel to a greater extent. It's an incredibly difficult situation but one that all Americans should be thinking about.
Here we go again, O'Reilly is slamming Obama over Iran and spinning for Romney, when he has no clue what Romney would do, or if he would actually be tougher on Iran than Obama, or if that would be a good thing. So all it does is prove O'Reilly is a biased hack who supports Romney over Obama.
Then Kirsten Powers and the ridiculous, Obama hating, biased right-wing jerk, Colonel Ralph Peters were on to talk about the biased O'Reilly Talking Points Memo.
Peters said this: "I think Romney is, to a large extent, an unknown quality in foreign affairs. President Obama is a known quantity and that known quantity has failed in every single respect of foreign policy, except the SEALs killing bin Laden, which any President would have done."
Now here is proof that Col. Peters is a right-wing idiot who hates Obama and will never say one good thing about him no matter what he does. Peters said Obama has failed in every single respect of foreign policy, except killing Bin Laden, and that any President would have done it.
Okay, to begin with the Obama foreign policy approval rating is 49 percent, which is about half the people, most likely all the Democrats and the people who voted for him. His disapproval is 46 percent, which is most likely all the Republicans who did not vote for him and the people that do not like him. A 49 percent approval shows he is doing a good job on foreign policy, and it proves Col. Peters is a liar.
And btw, the poll I am using was the NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll, taken September 16th, which was about a week ago.
After Peters suggested war was a better alternative than allowing Iran to have a nuke, Powers brought up the inherent problem of the Iran debate, saying this: "we come back to... exactly what Bill was just saying, which is the only thing left is bombing Iran. And then you hear even people who are criticizing Obama say, but no we don't want to do that. So where does that leave us? But it just comes right down to the fact that the only thing that's going to stop them is -- is attacking them."
O'Reilly disagreed, suggesting a naval blockade of Iran by the U.S. and NATO allies, such as was done to Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis. Powers then said this: "I don't think either of the candidates, frankly, are strong enough. And we need a leader that projects more strength."
Then while speaking at the Congressional Black Caucus gala last Saturday, Michelle Obama, while trying to prove a political point, brought up the fact that the White House was built in part by slaves. O'Reilly defended the quote, saying she was telling an emotional story about how all African Americans should be proud to have a black man as president. But some object to using slavery to make political points.
Crowley said this: "All is fair in politics. I do think it is a bit exploitative, but again we're talking about politics."
Colmes disagreed, asserting that she was not turning this into a partisan issue, and that the point is we should all be proud our country has evolved to this point. O'Reilly disagreed, insisting that Michelle Obama was trying to get votes by implicitly referencing the voter registration issue - which is what makes the story exploitative, not the fact that she invoked slavery.
Then the right-wing loon John Stossel was on. O'Reilly said that when President Obama took office, 32 million Americans were on food stamps. Now the number is 47 million. And there are charges that the Obama administration wants to get as many people as possible on the dole.
Yeah and those ridiculous charges are only coming from right-wing spin doctors like O'Reilly and his biased friends at Fox. There are more people on food stamps, not because of Obama, because of Bush, you idiots. Bush put us into a recession, and Bush is why more people are on food stamps.
Stossel dod a so-called investigated into whether or not welfare work requirements are becoming more lax under the Obama administration, and even he found that "there is no real evidence that they're intentionally watering down the work standards."
In 1996, there were 25 million Americans on food stamps in the Clinton administration. After the welfare work rules were tightened up, there were 17 million. So O'Reilly and Stossel agreed that this was a good thing, but Stossel claimed that, while it helped for a while, it was not sustained. He believes that states need to experiment to find what works, but O'Reilly concluded with this: "You don't experiment with the taxpayer money. You don't experiment with it."
Then Dakota Meyer, the 24-year-old Marine Corporal, who received the Medal of Honor for Gallantry in Afghanistan in 2009 was on to promote his new book, "Into the Fire," which gives a firsthand account of the most extraordinary battle in the Afghan War. When questioned about the current situation in Afghanistan, where American and NATO troops are forbidden to patrol with our Afghan allies, he was stumped.
Meyer said this: "I was living with these guys, these Afghans. And I trusted them with my life... they're just regular guys... I'm seeing the recent media here lately and it's just -- I don't know what's going on."
Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to examine the case of a woman who was arrested in the great state of Texas for letting her children play outside. A neighbor called the cops with accusations of child neglect, claiming the kids were in the street, unsupervised. The mother claimed to be in her driveway the entire time. She was put in jail for 18 hours, and, even though the charges were dropped, is now suing the neighbor and the police department. O'Reilly and the 2 guests all showed their disdain for such cases, stating that the large majority of them are bogus.
In the last segment O'Reilly calls reality check, he talked about Madonna, he said that during her concert, she gave a dissertation on history and current events. She implored concertgoers to vote for Barack Obama, claiming, "for better or for worse, all right, we have a black Muslim in the White House."
Then Billy concluded that if a moron like that can make tens of millions of dollars and then have the freedom to spout whatever she wants, this is a great country.
Earth to IDIOT, Madonna was joking about Obama being a black Muslim. She was making fun of the idiots on the right who actually think Obama is a Muslim, fool!
And you tell us to ignore these hollywood pinheads, then you report everything they say, which is just stupid. Do as you say, ignore them, moron!
And finally the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "Emotions lead us to make poor decisions. Every night, take a few minutes to write down the best and worst thing that happened to you that day. Then, at the end of the week, review what you wrote down. Notice patterns. Try to eliminate what is hurting you and do more of what makes you happy."
More Proof Mitt Romney Is A Total Right-Wing Idiot By: Steve - September 26, 2012 - 10:00am
A central premise of Mitt Romney's now infamous speech to a room full of wealthy donors is that nearly half of the country relies heavily on the government for assistance with housing, food, and health care. Despite widespread criticism, Romney has stood by his claim that 47 percent of the country are victims who are dependent on the government.
And not only did O'Reilly defend Romney over the insane 47% statement, he agreed with him and called him a truth teller, so that makes O'Reilly just as big of a right-wing idiot as Romney.
But while Romney slams direct government programs that benefit lower and middle class Americans, he is silent about all the government tax breaks that richer Americans enjoy.
As an independent study by the Tax Policy Center found, the other 53 percent receive their own form government assistance: they disproportionately benefit from the federal government's $1.08 trillion annual allocation for tax breaks:
1) The top 1% of income earners got 23.9% of all the tax breaks.
2) The top 10% of income earners got 40.3% of all the tax breaks.
3) Now get this, the bottom 60% of income earners got just 20.1% of all the tax breaks.
So the rich actually get more tax breaks from the Government than the middle class and the poor. And Mitt Romney himself even admitted he only paid 13% in Federal taxes, which is less than the 15% in Federal payroll taxes a low income working American pays.
It's the classic right-wing double standard from jerks like Romney and O'Reilly. They cry about the Government helping the middle class and the poor, but never say a word about all the tax breaks and loopholes the wealthy use to get even richer, by legally bribing Congressman and Senators with campaign donations to pass more tax cuts for them.
And the most ridiculous thing about this whole deal is that O'Reilly defends Romney and the 47% nonsense, as he claims to be looking out for the folks. It's insane, because O'Reilly does not look out for the folks, he looks out for the wealthy, the Republicans, and the Corporations.
In fact, I can not think of one time O'Reilly has actually taken a position in support of the average working man, except on gas price fixing by the oil speculators. On every other issue, O'Reilly supports the wealthy, the Republicans, the pro-life nuts, the religious right, and the Corporations.
The Monday 9-24-12 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - September 25, 2012 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Presidential candidates on "60 Minutes". Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: On '60 Minutes' last night the President and Governor Romney did not say anything new, but it was the way they said it that was most interesting. The President looked a little jumpy, especially when Steve Kroft started ticking off things he promised to do but has not done.
Mitt Romney looked a bit more authoritative, even when dodging a question about which tax deductions he might eliminate. It's obvious that Mitt Romney does not want to say which deductions and tax exemptions he would phase out, but I believe he wants to simplify the tax code and keep the wealthy paying far more tax than anybody else.
On the subject of Romney's own money, there is unfairness going on. The Governor has released his 2011 tax return; he paid a bit more than 14% in federal taxes because his income is earned from investments and that's the long-term capital gains rate. President Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax, which might very well slow down investment in American companies.
And if there is less investment, there will be fewer jobs. The media should know the difference between the income tax and the capital gains tax, but they choose not to report it. Instead, they mislead folks into thinking that Romney is not paying his fair share. This is not a pro-Romney Talking Points, this is a fair Talking Points. Memo to the media: You might want to try it.
My God O'Reilly is a spin doctor, who spins like a top for Romney. Because Romney is not paying his fair share and even if the capital gains tax rate is raised there will not be less investment and there will not be fewer jobs.
That is right-wing spin, because it has been proven that giving tax breaks to the rich does not create jobs, and when the capital gains rate was higher investment did not go down. O'Reilly and the right just use that lie to try and keep the rates down and taxes lower on the rich.
Ask yourself this, is it fair for a guy who made $20 million dollars to pay 14% in taxes when a guy making $50.000 pays 29%, and people who are in the lower pay scale pay 15% in federal payroll taxes, which is more than Romney paid.
Not to mention, O'Reilly never even reported the Romney lie, the part where he had to deduct $2.5 million to charity to get to the 14% number, otherwise it would have only been 11%, making him a liar. Romney had to doctor his tax return to get it to the number he said it was, and the biased O'Reilly never said a word about it. Instead he attacked the media and put a spin for Romney on it.
Then Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham were on. Williams said this: "History tells us a different story. The capital gains tax rate was higher during the '90's and, guess what, people were investing and making lots of money. We didn't even have a deficit."
And then of course the biased Republican Ham agreed with O'Reilly, saying this: "President Obama is proposing that we should jack up the capital gains tax, which would discourage investment. Mitt Romney is offering some details on his tax plan, but he's afraid the Obama campaign will demagogue anything that's on the table."
Then O'Reilly said this: "The highest amount of tax revenue ever flowing into Washington came under President Bush when he lowered the capital gains tax."
And that's a misleading stat, that does not show the true reality. Because under Bush the country almost went into a depression, so the increase in tax revenue was only because the wealthy made more money and paid more taxes on it. Which did not help the economy or jobs, it only helped the rich get richer.
Now think about this, O'Reilly and Ham want you to vote for Romney, even though he will not tell you what his tax plan is, are you kidding me. Nobody should vote for him until he tells us what his entire tax plan is, wow!
Then Brit Hume was on to talk about how most polls show that President Obama holds a slim lead over Mitt Romney among likely voters nationally and is also ahead in the swing states.
Hume said this: "If you look at the battleground states of Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and down the list, they're all going badly for Mr. Romney. Even in Wisconsin, despite the nomination of Paul Ryan. All this can change, but it isn't looking good for Mr. Romney. I'm at a loss to understand how this President is defying gravity. He's facing conditions that would normally lead to the almost certain defeat of an incumbent, but he seems to be doing just fine."
O'Reilly reminded Hume that September polls are hardly definitive, saying this: "Jimmy Carter, who had similar problems to President Obama, was well ahead of Ronald Reagan in October of 1980."
Then the far-right stooge Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about attorney Tony West, who defended the "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh, who has been nominated to fill the third-highest spot at the Department of Justice.
Krauthammer said this: "One of the great things about American law, is that everybody gets a defense. The tradition goes all the way back to John Adams, who defended British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre."
Asked whether he would vote to confirm West, Krauthammer implied that he would, saying this: "I don't accept the idea that he's beyond the pale. I'm not sure you should reject him for the post because he's a civil libertarian who believes in defending just about everybody."
But O'Reilly argued that West is simply too radical, saying this: "There's no doubt this guy is on the real left-wing spectrum, and do we need to have that kind of a man at #3 in the Justice Department? I wouldn't vote for him in the Senate."
What a joke, how is it radical to defend someone when you are an attorney, it's not radical at all, it's called doing your job and getting paid for it. O'Reilly is an idiot.
Then Jesse Watters, who followed Vice President Joe Biden to an appearance at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire was on. The VP wouldn't talk with Watters, but Jesse got a few comments from some students: "I support President Obama and Biden is his right-hand man" ... "Biden stands for gay marriage and women's rights" ... "I think a lot of people are going to vote for Romney quietly, but they won't talk about it."
Watters then summarized his visit, saying this: "I talked with about 30 people, and 20% were undecided, which shocked me. In the latest poll Mitt Romney is only down by nine points among young people, so this is a danger zone for President Obama."
Then Bernie Goldberg was on to evaluate O'Reilly's recent interview with Ted Koppel, who implied that most Fox News anchors and correspondents lean to the right. And Koppel was dead right, but O'Reilly and Goldberg still deny it.
Goldberg said this: "Koppel basically knows one thing about Fox, and that one thing is that he doesn't like it. He's apparently unaware that Fox News has an evening newscast and he doesn't know who Bret Baier is. This is embarrassing and it shows a tremendous gap in his journalistic knowledge and curiosity. He doesn't understand that Fox gives a voice to people who Ted Koppel and the mainstream people won't let in. Ted is a smart guy and he's done a lot of good work, but he's not a terrible thoughtful guy when it comes to issues involving the media."
And that is just laughable, because Koppel is 100% correct, all the people who work at Fox lean to the right, and that is a fact.
Then the right-wing Adam Carolla was on to talk about Howard Stern, who sent his crew to Harlem, where they spoke with some black Obama supporters who were clueless about pretty much everything.
O'Reilly asked Carolla whether Stern's routine was fair. Carolla said this: "Comedy isn't fair, and that's how life works. He's trying to get a laugh, not be fair and balanced. You pick a group and mock them and have fun with them. We have a black President which is why they were focusing on African Americans."
And finally the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: Monica Lewinsky is reportedly considering writing a book that would include graphic details of her relationship with Bill Clinton. The Factor's tip was directed squarely and solely at Ms. Lewinsky. "If you do this, you will further lower yourself in the eyes of the world. If you write a book that hurts the Clinton family and America, you are a sad human being."
Mitt Romney Has To Bus In Supporters For His Forums By: Steve - September 25, 2012 - 10:00am
And of course the so-called great and honest journalist Bill O'Reilly has not said one word about it. In O'Reillyworld it never happened and will never be reported. Even though it shows that Romney is scared of real people, because he has to bus in partisan supporters.
Mitt Romney packed the audience for a Univision forum last week, busing in local supporters after exhausting the few conservative groups on campus. The campaign even threatened to reschedule the event if organizers did not allow the activists from around southern Florida in order to fill the extra seats at their town hall.
Romney also refused to come out on stage after the hosts introduced him by noting that he "had agreed to give the network 35 minutes, and that Obama had agreed to a full hour the next night." Univision then re-taped the introduction after Romney flipped out over it.
During the event, Romney dodged four questions about whether he would maintain President Obama's directive allowing young undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States on a temporary basis and said that he is happy to be known as the grandfather of Obamacare.
And that's not all, Romney has a history of padding the audience. During a speech before National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) in June, the GOP presidential candidate also brought in his supporters to the address.
During a speech before some coal miners nobody on the right reported that the miners on stage were told they had to go to the Romney speech or they would not get paid. And O'Reilly has ignored it all, not a word about any of it. Because it makes his guy Romney look bad, so he just refuses to report it.
More Proof Bill O'Reilly Is A Biased Right-Wing Stooge By: Steve - September 24, 2012 - 10:30am
On Friday O'Reilly said he found it "hard to believe" that most voters in three swing states believe that President Obama's policies have helped the economy more than they've hurt it; yet, while O'Reilly insinuated that these voters are ill-informed, most economic experts agree that Obama's economic policies have helped the economy.
The only people who doubt it, are right-wing loons that can not see the truth.
Friday O'Reilly was discussing a recent poll conducted by Fox News in swing states Florida, Ohio and Virginia that shows that "more voters believe the Obama administration's policies have helped rather than hurt the economy."
O'Reilly said the poll contained some "surprising data," saying it was "simply stunning" that voters in the swing states "apparently believe the economic policies of Barack Obama have helped more than hurt the economy."
Elaborating on a theory he first shared with conservative radio host Laura Ingraham last night, O'Reilly speculated as to why this might be true:
O'REILLY: We all know that the internet now dominates the lives of many Americans. Millions of us are addicted to texting, entertainment websites, gaming -- pretty much blocking out the world whenever we want to.
It's now possible to live in an alternate universe that is operated out of your home or in your hand. You never have to deal with reality. There's always some fantasy you can create.
Economic issues are boring and complicated. There's spin flying all over the place. Very hard to know what the truth is -- unless you're out of work. Then you know. But to understand what's actually happening in the marketplace, you have to pay attention. You have to read. Listen to news reports.
Almost every person I know has a handheld internet device. American children and adults spend hours surfing the net. So you can see how our society has been dramatically impacted by high tech. In my opinion, that's why this presidential election is so close.
O'Reilly suggested that the technological advancement of having a smartphone explains why this election is so close: because most Americans can go on a computer and lose themselves in a fantasy world.
But O'Reilly failed to address another possible explanation for the poll: That experts agree the president's economic policies have, in fact, helped the economy.
Obama signed the stimulus act, which helped raise the GDP and employment; he oversaw the auto bailout, which saved between 2.5 and 3 million jobs; and he signed into law multiple tax breaks for small businesses, which were designed to spur economic growth and job creation.
But in O'Reillyworld none of that ever happened, and he hopes you will forget all that and just vote for his buddy Mitt Romney.
It's especially ironic that O'Reilly worries that "spin flying all over the place" is making it "very hard to know what the truth is, as his own network has frequently misinformed viewers about the president's economic policies.
O'Reilly himself has encouraged Mitt Romney to falsely blame Obama for rising gas prices, falsely claimed that the stimulus didn't create jobs, and has dedicated entire segments of his Fox program to making misleading or false claims about the president's economic record.
Romney Co-Chair Quits The Campaign By: Steve - September 24, 2012 - 10:00am
Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty announced Thursday morning that he would step down as co-chair of Mitt Romney's campaign to become the head of the Financial Services Roundtable, a trade organization that represents the 100 largest financial services companies in the country.
Pawlenty tenure will begin as the group continues to lobby against the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reforms that are starting to take effect.
Among his new causes will be defeating the law's price controls on debit card fees and the Volcker Rule, which is intended to keep banks from engaging in the risky behavior that led to the industry’s collapse in 2008.
FSR has also taken aim at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the bill's provisions for whistleblowers.
In their new partnership, FSR and the former governor seem to be ignoring Pawlenty's inflammatory anti-bank rhetoric during his failed presidential run.
In 2011, Pawlenty wholeheartedly condemned Wall Street on the campaign trail, saying this: "Get your snout out of the trough just like everybody else." A Pawlenty presidency, he said, would not tolerate cozy relationships between banks and politicians:
We will get rid of all the deductions, credits, or exemptions, and you will compete not based on your connections to a congressman, but connections whether you can convince consumers if you have a good product.
If you cannot do that, you should not be in business. Do not look for government to bail you out. You either compete and succeed in the market or you do not.
In spite of this rhetoric, Pawlenty opposed Dodd-Frank in 2010, often pushing the GOP's false talking point that the law promoted bank bailouts. "The notion that we're going to have privately held entities in this country that can't go out of business, to me, is troublesome and philosophically concerning," he said in 2010.
Romney released a statement shortly after the announcement praising Pawlenty, saying this: "His new position advancing the integrity of our financial system is vital to the future of our country."
Fox Expert: Odds Of Voter Fraud Is Like Hitting The Lottery By: Steve - September 23, 2012 - 11:00am
Voting Expert On Fox: Voter Fraud Is Extremely Rare, "On The Order Of Winning The Lottery"
A voting expert from a nonpartisan think tank on Thursday deflated the hype that new voter restrictions are necessary when he told Fox News that voter fraud was as rare as winning the lottery. Brookings Institution fellow Michael McDonald explained to Fox News host Shepard Smith that the instances of in-person voter fraud were very low.
"We've had millions and millions of voters over the last years and the likelihood of vote fraud occurring is on the order of winning the lottery," McDonald said.
"Winning the lottery is like 11 billion to one," Smith noted.
Yes, McDonald agreed. "It's a very rare, infrequent sort of thing. But when it does happen, we are concerned. And election officials do take these allegations seriously, they investigate them fully. Usually what happens is, the allegations come out and then afterwards we find out that maybe someone signed on the wrong line on a poll book or something of that nature, and that's the source of the error. It wasn't really that vote fraud occurred."
And a study by the Brennan Center for Justice warned last year that voting restrictions passed by Republican lawmakers could suppress as many as 5 million votes in 2012. Which is more proof these voter ID laws are meant to do one thing, stop minorities, and the poor from voting for Democratic candidates.
O'Reilly Links High Ratings To Honest Journalism (Again) By: Steve - September 23, 2012 - 10:00am
Here is a perfect example of just how dishonest Bill O'Reilly is. During a discussion about bias in the media with Ted Koppel, O'Reilly said that Fox could not "Sell a product that's inferior or dishonest and still have high ratings."
Which is so laughable it's hard to believe a Harvard graduate would make such a ridiculous claim. Here is the reality, just because you get good ratings, it does not mean you are telling the truth or being honest to the people.
High Ratings does not have to equal truth and quality journalism, you can also get high ratings from lying to people by reporting spin and propaganda that they want to hear. Just as Fox does, they know 95% of their viewers are Republicans, so they target their programming to those people.
In fact, Fox anchors and guests get caught lying and spinning for Republicans every day, that is what they do to get those high ratings. And it's ridiculous to claim that because you get high ratings it means you are telling the truth to your viewers. Which is exactly what O'Reilly did Thursday night during the Koppel interview.
The Friday 9-21-12 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - September 22, 2012 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Are American voters in a fog?. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A new Fox News contained some surprising data from the key swing states of Ohio, Florida, and Virginia. Voters there apparently believe the economic policies of Barack Obama have helped more than hurt the economy. That is simply stunning!
Unemployment remains above 8%, wages are down, the national debt is $16-trillion, and the annual deficit is now over $1-trillion. But likely voters think President Obama's policies are helping!
The Internet dominates the lives of many Americans; many of us are addicted to gaming and entertainment websites and it's possible to live in an alternative universe operated out of your home or in your hand. But to understand what's actually happening in the marketplace you have to pay attention, you have to read and listen to news reports.
So you can see how our society has been dramatically impacted by technology, and in my opinion that's why this presidential election is so close. We have $4 gas prices and people go, 'so what?' The average American worker is losing take home pay and the value of your home is down dramatically.
About 30% of the electorate is paying attention; the other 70% is distracted, to say the least. I believe that's what the polls are reflecting.
And O'Reilly insults the voters again. Earth to Bill O'Reilly, the voters are not in a fog, you are. Obama has helped the economy, what is stunning is that you will not admit it. Look at what the economy, the stock market, and jobs were when Bush left office, then compare it to now, it's night and day, idiot!
You are so biased against Obama it has clouded your insane right-wing mind. Your right-wing bias has you in a fog, the people see Romney as a two-faced flip flopping dishonest fool. You can not see that because you are a mindless Romney supporter.
So what does O'Reilly do, have a balanced segment on it with a liberal and a conservative, hell no, he had the far-right stooge Lou Dobbs on to explain President Obama's positive ratings on the economy.
And of course Dobbs could not understand it either, because he is a Republican loon just like O'Reilly, Dobbs said this: "There is a touchstone that is moving this in President Obama's favor right now. There are 47-million food stamp recipients, which is a statement of the largesse of the federal government, and that is persuasive to a lot of people in these polls. And when you talk about Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, I think it's because of the advertising of the Obama campaign and the ads they are directing into those battleground states."
O'Reilly said this: "If you take a poll and the majority of likely voters say President Obama is doing a good job on the economy, doesn't your head spin around? How in God's name can you arrive at that conclusion?"
Then Viviana Hurtado and attorney Francisco Hernandez were on. Hurtado said this: "The President said his heart breaks for young and undocumented illegal immigrant students, but the question is whether Latino voters are going to buy this and will get the polls. How can he explain sky-high deportations that have been deeply unpopular in Latino communities?"
Hernandez gave the President higher marks, saying this: "Everybody knows that the silent enemies of immigration reform are some people in the Democratic Party and, to his credit, President Obama has done more than anyone else has done in the last twelve years. You can't fault him for not having the ability to pass legislation."
So then of course O'Reilly disputed the Hernandez claims, saying this: "I can fault him all day long because he had control of both houses of Congress and he simply didn't even try."
Then Geraldo was on to slam Obama and Ambassador Susan Rice, who initially described the attack in Libya as a spontaneous protest. Geraldo said this: "Rice was either ignorant, or she was dangerously naive. When you have a three-pronged attack on a compound and the attackers use heavy weapons, it's clear that is not the response of a student mob to a movie. I believe it is the most embarrassing foreign policy blunder they've made. My 93-year-old mom knew this was a terrorist attack!"
And of course O'Reilly agreed that Rice's explanations defied logic, saying this: "Either Susan Rice doesn't know what she's doing and should resign, or she was ordered to say that. And if that's the case, we have some big trouble in the White House. As an American, this disturbs me because I see chaos at the highest level of our government."
Then O'Reilly talked about a Chicago politician who is claiming that Chick-fil-A will stop donating money to groups that defend traditional marriage. Mike Huckabee, who organized a national "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" last month was on to discuss it.
Huckabee said this: "They are not backing down. The last thing they would want is for millions of Americans to stand with them and then stand down. I spoke with CEO Dan Cathy today and they have made no concessions, they are not changing who they are."
Huckabee also looked ahead to the presidential debates, saying this: "The debates are critical for Mitt Romney. He has to take it to the President, he has to be as tough as the Univision anchors were with President Obama and he has to be specific about how the President has messed up."
In the last segment O'Reilly had his 2 new Republican regulars Greg Gutfeld and Bernard McGuirk on to talk about the state of the presidential race.
Gutfeld said this: "The two videos that came out this week, exposed the flaws of the candidates. But you have to ask yourself whether you'd rather have a cloddish capitalist or a charming collectivist? Would you rather have someone who knows business or someone who knows Beyonce? I would choose the guy who knows business, although I love Beyonce."
Which just shows what a total right-wing stooge Greg Gutfeld is, because it was a terrible week for Mitt Romney, Gutfeld will just not admit it.
McGuirk admitted that Romney handled his "47%" remark clumsily, saying this: "Mitt Romney called attention to this by holding a stupid press conference where he looked timid and indecisive. Anthony Weiner showed more confidence and less contrition during his resignation press conference."
Returning for a second segment, the stooges turned to singer and songwriter Randy Newman, whose new pro-Obama song basically accuses Americans of racism.
McGuirk said this: "This guy and people like him are the closet racists themselves, and this is to exorcise the demons in his own head."
Gutfeld questioned Newman's politics ... and his talent, saying this: "Who told this guy he could sing, I've seen better pipes in a public toilet. You've got Bill Maher, David Letterman, Randy Newman, and all these rich old white guys chasing Obama like he's a Playboy bunny. Hollywood has become the propaganda arm of the government. They're supposed to speak truth to power, but instead they're kissing its _ _ _ ."
But when a right-wing country singer does a song about Obama that is disrespectful and hateful, they love it, and O'Reilly even has them on to promote it. They are all 3 biased hacks who have double standards.
And finally the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "When Bill joked that "not many people are as obnoxious as I am," NBC's Brian Williams couldn't resist saying this: "He may have a point there." So Friday's Tip of the Day was directed squarely at Williams: "That kind of stuff makes you look small, like a tiny guy. You might rethink it."
Really O'Reilly? You make jokes about liberals all the time, you even have two right-wing comedians on a week to do it. So lighten up, Brian Williams was making a joke, and you cant take it, you cry baby. Slamming Brian Williams for making a joke about you makes you look small, jerk!
Great Example Of Right-Wing Bias From O'Reilly By: Steve - September 22, 2012 - 10:30am
I watch the Factor every night, and keep track of the political party the guests are in, I count the right-wing guests and the left-wing guests and archive it every month. In an average month O'Reilly has about 6 Republicans guests to 1 Democratic guest per show.
And since O'Reilly is a die-hard Republican who supports almost every right-wing issue they have, I also count O'Reilly himself as 1 Republican guest, only because he gives his opinion in every segment, and 99% of the time he takes the Republican side.
Now, once a week O'Reilly will have 2 Democratic guests on at the same time, like like Leslie Marshall and Mary Anne Marsh. But this only happens about once a week, and does not happen every week.
The rest of the time you are lucky to see 1 Democratic guest on the entire show, and most of the time when a Democratic guest does get on they are paired with a Republican, so they barely get any time to talk, and barely get a word in.
Usually it's O'Reilly and a Republican guest against the 1 Democrat, so it's almost always a 2 on 1 unbalanced segment. And usually that Democrat is Alan Colmes, who works for Fox, so he can not be too hard on O'Reilly or he will get fired. Basically Colmes says O'Reilly is wrong, but he never hammers him like a liberal that does not work for Fox would.
Okay, now get this. After hearing all that a viewer wrote this to O'Reilly and he read it on the Friday night show:
Frances Pickens, Plantation, FL: "Bill, why do you torture us with partisans like Leslie Marshall and Mary Anne Marsh?"
WOW! Are you kidding me, what about the 35 partisan Republicans who are on every week, that is not torture?
Once a week 2 liberals get on the show, while every night 5 to 7 partisan conservatives are on, from Laura Ingraham, to Karl Rove, to Dick Morris, to Lou Dobbs, to Monica Crowley, and on and on and on.
But the Factor viewers have no problem with that, because they are right-wing stooges who want to hear what they want to hear. It's insane, and a perfect example of the viewers O'Reilly has, if 2 liberals get on 1 show a week they can not stand it. But when 35 conservatives are on every week with nothing but spin and right-wing propaganda they say nothing, because they love them.
Torture is watching O'Reilly, Ingraham, Rove, Morris, Dobbs, Carlson, Kelly, Stossel, Krauthammer, Hume, Gutfeld, Miller, Crowley, Carolla, Peters, etc. etc. etc. go on and on with the same right-wing propaganda and lies every night, with almost nobody from the other side to speak out about their propaganda. Now that's real torture, or what O'Reilly's viewers call the truth and real news.
Fox Caught Using 3 Year Old Photo To Slam Obama By: Steve - September 22, 2012 - 10:00am
And of course O'Reilly never said a word about it, even though he does a weekly media bias segment with the right-wing stooge Bernie Goldberg. Here is what happened.
Fox News falsely suggested that President Obama met with a pirate Wednesday, saying he doesn't have time to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In fact, Netanyahu has said that Obama has met with him more than "any other leader in the world." And the picture Fox showed to suggest that Obama was meeting with a pirate was actually taken in May of 2009 for use during that year's White House Correspondents Dinner.
So it was a photo from a comedy bit Obama did at the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2009, and yet, Fox used it to claim it was a recent photo from this year (2012). This was no accident, someone at Fox found that photo and talked someone else into dishonestly using it, and nobody at Fox said no.
The photo was also at the top of the Drudge Report, with the headline "But No Time For Netanyahu..."
Basically Fox & Friends went along with Drudge's lies. So Thursday morning, the show displayed the picture and featured the caption: "TOO BUSY FOR ISRAEL: President finds time for pirate, and Letterman."
Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy characterized the picture as "a quick look at what President Obama has been up to." Doocy added: "Here he is, sitting down with a pirate, making sure he didn't forget to mark International Talk Like A Pirate Day."
Fox and Drudge's suggestion that Obama won't meet with Netanyahu is also a lie. When asked about the lack of a meeting with the president, Netanyahu told David Gregory on Meet The Press that it was just a scheduling conflict. Netanyahu added: "I think he's met with me more than any other leader in the world and I appreciate that."
After this post went live, Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade made the false statement that "this pirate got a sit-down in the Oval Office yesterday."
Now get this, they finally put out a correction, but not on the show, it was done more than an hour after the show ended, the Fox & Friends Twitter account reported that the picture was from 2009.
Steve Doocy also later tweeted the photo was from 2009, but neither one of the tweets addressed Kilmeade's claim that the photo was taken yesterday.
In fact, they never corrected the record that day on their show, so their viewers still think the photo was taken Wednesday.
O'Reilly Says Romney Is Losing Because Voters Are Dumb By: Steve - September 22, 2012 - 9:00am
So basically he is saying the voters are stupid because they are all not voting for Romney, which is about as biased a statement a person could make, and not something you would expect a so-called non-partisan Independent to make.
Here is the video:
Now get this, when a Democrat said the voters were dumb when they voted for Bush, O'Reilly said that was an insult to the voters, and that the people are smart. He even slammed the Democrat for saying such a thing, and said it was wrong to call voters dumb.
But then he does the very same thing, saying the voters are dumb because they are not all voting for Romney. Which is just laughable, because Romney is a pathetic joke of a candidate, who is the biggest flip-flopping fraud I have ever seen. And in my opinion, anyone who votes for Romney is a fool.
The Thursday 9-20-12 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - September 21, 2012 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: The Slacker Factor. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Mitt Romney has begun to take the offensive about comments that were offensive to liberal Americans. Mr. Romney was seen on tape saying many Americans would not vote for him because they want free stuff rather than to earn their way.
That's largely true, so let's break it down. When I was teaching high school there were three kinds of students in my class: The first type worked hard and succeeded; the second worked hard but found getting good grades difficult; the third didn't work at all and made excuses.
The point is that some of those failing students were outraged that I held them accountable; they felt entitled to pass and couldn't believe I was giving them bad grades. Today the situation is far worse on the entitlement front.
A fairly significant percentage of Americans believe society owes them stuff, even if they don't even try to succeed. It's impossible to put a percentage on people who think that way and therein lies Mitt Romney's mistake. 47% of Americans are not slackers and the Governor knows that, so he didn't word the criticism properly.
But there is no question that President Obama and the Democratic Party are not very interested in holding people accountable; they are far more interested in giving them stuff in return for votes. The sad truth is that millions of Americans are not willing to do what it takes to support themselves and they want the government to provide.
And that my friends is a giant load of right-wing bull, it's nothing but partisan Republican propaganda. Because most of those people O'Reilly talks about are/were working, some are on disability, and some are retired. They are not slackers, they are and were hard working Americans, and O'Reilly insults every one of them, the people who made this country great. Making him a giant, Romney ass kissing, right-wing jerk!
Then Democrats Mary Anne Marsh and Leslie Marshall were on to discuss it. Marshall said this: "This is not because everyone wants a handout. There are a couple of reasons for this - one is the population increase and the other is the economy. We had a healthy economy in Bill Clinton's time but it's gone downhill since then."
Marsh implied that some of our problems would be solved by higher taxes on the wealthy, and a fairer tax code, saying this: "What made this country great, is when people paid their fair share. Just like there are people on the lower end who are cheating the system by being on welfare when they shouldn't be, there are very wealthy people who cheat the system by not paying their fair share."
But of course the right-wing stooge O'Reilly disagreed, saying this: "This country is getting deeper and deeper in debt and the entitlement culture is rising. Don't you see what's happening in Greece and Spain?"
Then O'Reilly talked about a new Fox poll that said Obama's economic policies have been good for the country. So he had the far-right spin doctor Laura Ingraham on to discuss it.
According to the Fox News poll, a plurality of voters in the swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Virginia believe President Obama's economic policies have helped the country.
Ingraham said this: "Northern Virginian voters have been helped by the federal government, because many of them work in government and there are also government contracts that spin off into private industry. The government presence is very important to the economic lifeblood of the region. But the Florida numbers are perplexing because of the large drop in home values in Florida."
Ingraham added that President Obama has successfully convinced many voters that he has done the best he could, saying this: "The President and his team have masterfully framed this election by saying these problems were so monumental and Bush handed us such a mess that one person in one term couldn't really change this. That was a brilliant way to frame this."
Then Ted Koppel, who has been critical of Fox News and other cable news outlets was on. Koppel said this: "I don't have a beef with you, although sometimes you are a little too bold, sometimes a little too fresh, sometimes a little too intolerant of allowing people to complete an answer. It offends me when you ride over people, which you have a tendency to do."
My God Koppel grow a set, and tell O'Reilly the problem with him is that he is a partisan right-wing hack who claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone. When we all know that's a lie, and that he is a Republican stooge who spins everything for the right.
Koppel also said this: "Fifteen years ago there was a crying need for a network that focused more on conservative issues and Fox has done that. MSNBC has now come along, not because it saw the need for an ideological balance, but because it saw the balance sheet. Ideological coverage of the news, be it of the right or be it of the left, has made it difficult, if not impossible, for decent people on Capitol Hill to reach across the aisle and find compromise."
So then O'Reilly urged Koppel not to conflate Fox News and MSNBC: "We actually do hard news here from nine in the morning until five in the afternoon. MSNBC doesn't do one hour of hard news, it's all pushing the liberal Democratic agenda."
WOW! That is a flat out lie! Fox News spends all day and all night pushing a conservative agenda, it's just worse at night because of all the opinion shows. Hey O'Reilly, if Fox does not push a conservative agenda how come none of their show hosts are liberals, hey are all conservatives, every single one of them.
Then the two Republican bible thumpers Gretchen Carlson and Janine Turner were on to talk about a public service announcement that warns parents not to get drunk in the presence of their children. Carlson said this: "It has drastic ramifications for the children. They're embarrassed, they harbor an immense amount of guilt and anxiety, and they lose what a parent's essence is, which is to provide guidance and be there at all times."
And that is just ridiculous, because millions of kids watch their parents get drunk all the time and have no problems from it. In fact, it probably does some good to have the kids see it and then they decide to not be like that.
Turner spoke from first-hand experience, saying this: "I'm 26 years sober myself. It's a dark and devastating disease and it's a selfish disease. Alcoholics don't stop to think about how it's affecting the children. I tell my daughter alcoholism is a disease and I teach her coping skills."
Earth to right-wing idiots, it was a public service announcement in Finland, which has nothing to do with anyone in America, morons!
Then Megyn Kelly was on to say if the individual who secretly taped Mitt Romney speaking to supporters engaged in criminal activity. Kelly said this: "The law requires two-party consent in Florida, so if I want to tape you we both have to consent to it. But that changes if you can prove that the person you taped did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. They would argue that here because there were 150 people at a fundraiser, which was not exactly a private event."
O'Reilly complained that most states and the federal government are loathe to prosecute invasion of privacy, saying this: "I don't understand why the government, in this high-tech age, isn't protecting privacy more."
What a joke, you two right-wing stooges are just mad that Romney got caught being a right-wing idiot and it made him look bad. Now if you were honest and you supported better privacy laws against liberals too, I would agree with you, but you dont. You only care about privacy when a Republican gets caught being an idiot.
In the last segment Martha MacCallum and Uma Pemmaraju were on for the stupid Factor News Quiz, which I do not report on because it's a worthless waste of tv time, on a so-called hard news show.
And finally the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "The great columnist Thomas Sowell has a piece on income distribution that is must reading for everyone. You can access it at www.tsowell.com."
And Thomas Sowell is a partisan Republican, so of course the right-wing hack O'Reilly loves his biased column on income distribution. Notice that O'Reilly never does a tip of the day telling people to read about income distribution columns written by liberals.
If you want the real truth on income distribution and income redistribution read these two articles by Kimball Corson:
Some Republicans believe Mitt Romney’s mistakes could prevent them from winning back the Senate. Romney's failure to close the gap with President Obama less than 50 days before the election, as well as a variety of high-profile gaffes, have raised concerns that the GOP nominee will strand candidates in close swing-states races.
Polls show Obama leading Romney in Ohio and Virginia, two states where strategists think the top of the ticket will most affect the Senate contests.
Several Republican senators believe Romney's campaign needs to change course by presenting a bolder vision of how he would govern, if elected, and fleshing out his policy agenda with more detail.
Republican strategists say that Romney has had a rough stretch recently and warn it could cost the party Senate seats if his execution fails to improve by November.
"Every year the top of the ticket has a great influence on the races below. Massachusetts is a very competitive race, and we have a great candidate in Scott Brown. If Obama wins overwhelmingly, it's a lot more difficult for Scott Brown to get reelected," said John Weaver, a senior adviser to Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) 2000 and 2008 presidential bids.
"If your guy wins the White House, he's going to sweep in one or two or three Senate races that might not happen otherwise," he added.
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and another GOP Senate candidate in a Northeastern state - Connecticut's Linda McMahon - both sought to distance themselves from Romney’s remarks, made during a fundraiser earlier this year, that 47 percent of the nation depends on government handouts.
"I disagree with Gov. Romney's insinuation that 47 percent of Americans believe they are victims who must depend on the government for their care," McMahon said in a statement. "I know that the vast majority of those who rely on the government are not in that situation because they want to be."
Brown, who has fallen behind Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren in three recent polls, denounced Romney's comments hours later.
"That's not the way I view the world. As someone who grew up in tough circumstances, I know that being on public assistance is not a spot that anyone wants to be in. Too many people today who want to work are being forced into public assistance for lack of jobs," he said in an email to The Hill.
Several Republican strategists also expressed frustration that Romney wasn't running a better campaign, and warned it could cost them dearly in a number of states.
"If Romney doesn't improve, that could cost us our chance of picking up the Senate, for sure," said one senior strategist working on a number of Senate races. "Honestly, I don't know who's driving the train, but they need to get their message focused."
The strategist said Romney's comments about the "47 percent" hurt the most in blue-leaning states like Connecticut and Massachusetts, as well as swing states where the GOP Senate candidates hopes are closely tied to Romney's.
Update: O'Reilly Ignored IG Report Clearing AG Holder By: Steve - September 21, 2012 - 9:00am
As I predicted Wednesday, O'Reilly totally ignored the IG report clearing the Attorney General Eric Holder, because he had smeared Holder and said he was guilty, before the investigation was even done, breaking his own rules.
An investigation by an independent arm of the Department of Justice concluded on Wednesday that Attorney General Eric Holder had no knowledge about a series of botched gun stings, which began in 2006 under George W. Bush, until the operation's flaws became public in January 2011.
The 471-page Inspector General's report on Operation Fast and Furious discredits sharp allegations by Republicans in Congress (and O'Reilly) who launched a witch hunt against Holder, subjecting him to hours of interrogation to float conspiracy theories, alleging repeatedly that the Obama administration was using the high-profile gun violence from the operation to garner support for gun regulation, and finding Holder in contempt of Congress.
The Wednesday 9-19-12 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - September 20, 2012 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: A bad week for Mitt Romney. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Beginning with his reaction to violence in the Middle East and extending to his secretly-taped comments about Americans wanting entitlements, the last seven days have not been good for Governor Romney. However, despite the national media's disdain for Mitt Romney, the election remains very close.
Many committed Republicans are frustrated with Governor Romney; they believe he's made too many mistakes, comes across as remote, and is on defense rather than offense. With just 47 days before the vote, it looks like Governor Romney will have to persuade the voters by winning the debates.
A fascinating part of the election cycle is how many people continue to believe in Barack Obama. It's clear that his economic policies haven't worked and the economic situation remains bleak. So if you're going to vote for the President, you're doing it on emotion and you hope things will turn around.
The same thing can be said for Mitt Romney's free marketplace strategy, but Romney has a far stronger economic background. But the race remains deadlocked and that's because both candidates have visible deficits.
And the biased right-wing hack O'Reilly is wrong on 2 things. To begin with, the election is not very close anymore, Obama is ahead by 5 to 7 points, and 7 points or more in the 3 swing states. All this happened in the last 2 weeks, and a lot of people do not think Romney can recover from his most recent mistakes.
Second, O'Reilly said it's clear that the Obama economic policies haven't worked. And that's a lie, because they have worked, they just did not work as good as Obama wanted them to because the economy was worse than he thought it was. And because the Republicans have refused to work with him to create jobs. Not to mention this, all the Republican owned businesses not hiring on purpose to make Obama look worse for partisan political reasons. Which O'Reilly never says a word about.
Then the biased Karl Rove was on to assess the current state of the race. With no liberal guest for balance, or any disclosure about his PAC, or how he spends millions and millions to get Romney elected.
Rove said this: "Last week in the immediate aftermath of the Democratic convention, there was some movement toward Obama. There were 20 states in which there was some kind of movement and 14 of them were toward Obama. But the election is still up for grabs. We have to be careful about reading too much into the polls; in September of 1980 Ronald Reagan was trailing Jimmy Carter despite double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates, and double-digit unemployment."
For anyone that does not know it, that's called spin to cover for serious damage done by Romney in the past few weeks.
Rove pointed out that most national polls include a larger sampling of Democrats than they should. But even O'Reilly concluded this: "Mitt Romney looks like he doesn't have control of his campaign, he can't capture any momentum."
Then the biased right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly had a segment on President Obama saying this: "I actually believe in redistribution."
But that was a 14 year old statement from before he was the President. And when liberals went back in time to slam Bush over his bogus national guard record, O'Reilly cried foul and said going back that far in time is wrong. Then he does the very same thing he says is wrong, and reports on a 14 year old Obama statement that has nothing to do with today, or what Obama thinks now.
Then Dick Morris was on to talk about how most people are focused on the presidential race, Republicans are hoping to recapture a majority in the Senate.
Morris said this: "Republicans absolutely will win the Senate. There are three seats that are almost given Republican wins in North Dakota, Nebraska, and Wisconsin, and there are three other seats that are about to fall into Republican hands. Republicans will pick up five or six seats."
Now remember this, Morris is almost always wrong on his predictions. Because he does not predict what might actually happen, he predicts what he wants to happen, and he says it because that is what Republicans want to hear. And even if they do get a slim majority back it's meaningless, because if you do not have 60 votes nothing gets passed.
Morris also took issue with the Talking Points Memo and the notion that Mitt Romney had a bad week, saying this: "This was not a rough week for Romney. The media loves to yell, 'gaffe, gaffe, gaffe,' and say Romney is screwing up. But now he has told the truth about the 47% and I think it will be a positive by injecting welfare and entitlements into this campaign. The crisis abroad is also going to sap Obama's credibility on what had been his strength."
WOW! That alone proves Morris is an idiot, because everyone thinks Romney had a bad week, even the Romney supporter O'Reilly thinks so. Morris is just stupid!
Then Bernie Goldberg was on, who watched tape of Mitt and Ann Romney on "Live with Kelly & Michael," during which they spoke about the Jersey Shore cast. And Goldberg was not amused, saying this: "Mitt Romney talking about Snooki, is like Yogi Berra lecturing about art during the Ming Dynasty. Mitt Romney doesn't know jack about Snooki, so what does it say when he makes believe he does? It says, 'I'm going to pander to the audience.'"
Goldberg also laid out why he is openly rooting for Romney, saying this: "I simply don't think Barack Obama is a good President. He's the kind of person who can look you in the eye and say, 'I want to unify this nation' after he has spent months pitting Americans against each other based on how much money they have, telling us there is a war on women, and having his Vice President strongly suggest that Republicans are racists. He is not a competent President."
Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on because he is a biased right-wing hack comedian, who is only on to make jokes about Obama and the Democrats. And because O'Reilly does not have a liberal comedian on with him (or after him) for balance.
Then Juliet Huddy was on for the total waste of time, did you see that segment. Huddy said Rapper Kanye West has a new song that includes these catchy lyrics: "Mitt Romney don't pay no tax." Huddy said this: "It's a rap and he's an entertainer. He's also a P.R. genius because he's rapping about something you're talking about here."
Huddy also opined on the British conservationist who allowed his 18-month-old daughter to play with a gorilla, saying this: "This video is twenty years ago and it just came out because he knew there would be flak for it. This father studied gorillas, he lived with them, and look at how much fun this is. He says he never put his child in danger."
O'Reilly disagreed, saying this: "This is a wild animal and that was a poor parental decision!"
And finally the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "Instead of betting in football pools, how about starting a "patriot pool?" You all throw in ten bucks and the first one that gets his or her letter printed in a newspaper wins all the dough. "
IG Fast And Furious Report Clears Attorney General Holder By: Steve - September 20, 2012 - 10:00am
Now let's see what the so-called Independent O'Reilly says about this, I am guessing he will either ignore it or say the IG report is garbage. Especially after O'Reilly and his right-wing friends convicted Holder on tv and called for him to resign. Before the investigation was even done.
But when the same thing is done to a Republican O'Reilly says you can not make a judgement on it until the investigation is over.
Here are the details: An investigation by an independent arm of the Department of Justice concluded on Wednesday that Attorney General Eric Holder had no knowledge about a series of botched gun stings, which began in 2006 under George W. Bush — until the operation's flaws became public in January 2011.
The 471-page Inspector General's report on Operation Fast and Furious discredits sharp allegations by Republicans in Congress (and O'Reilly) who launched a witch hunt against Holder, subjecting him to hours of interrogation to float conspiracy theories, alleging repeatedly that the Obama administration was using the high-profile gun violence from the operation to garner support for gun regulation, and finding Holder in contempt of Congress.
Yes, you heard it right, the Republicans in Congress wasted their time finding Holder in contempt of Congress, before the investigation was even done. And O'Reilly did not slam them for it, because he agreed with them and said he also thought Holder was guilty.
The report debunks suggestions that Holder attempted to mislead Congress or cover up information, and confirms Holder's own account of the operation: that it employed "flawed strategy and tactics," but that Holder did not know about or authorize those tactics.
When Holder learned that the operation out of Phoenix had been selling guns to suspected gun smugglers in an attempt to snag traffickers, he initiated changes to Department policy and personnel, and asked for an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General, which concluded this:
We determined that Attorney General Holder did not learn about Operation Fast and Furious until late January or early February 2011 and was not aware of allegations of "gun walking" in the investigation until February.
We found no evidence that Department or ATF staff informed the Attorney General about Operation Wide Receiver or Operation Fast and Furious prior to 2011. We concluded that the Attorney General's Deputy Chief of Staff, the Acting Deputy Attorney General, and the leadership of the Criminal Division failed to alert the Attorney General to significant information about or flaws in those investigations.
Although the Office of the Attorney General received various weekly reports from components in the Department that mentioned Operation Fast and Furious, we found that Attorney General Holder did not personally review these reports at the time that his office received them and that his staff did not highlight them for his review.
Moreover, we determined that these reports did not refer to agents' failure to interdict firearms or include information that otherwise provided notice of the improper strategy and tactics that ATF agents were using in the investigation.
The report does hold several lower-level officials responsible for their role in what it calls a pattern of serious failures, and refers 14 DOJ employees for possible discipline. Holder announced Wednesday that some officials would be leaving the Department, including former acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Explosives Kenneth Molson, while others would be subject to review.
With this exhaustive report, the Department of Justice can further the real and important work of instituting necessary reforms, hopefully without the continued distraction of defending a bogus campaign to demonize Holder.
The Tuesday 9-18-12 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - September 19, 2012 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Mitt Romney speaking the truth on the entitlement nation. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: We now have a controversy over Governor Romney telling supporters that a large portion of the American population is dependent on government and most likely will not vote for him. Here is my question: Why is that controversial?
If I'm Governor Romney I run with this all day long and I have the stats to back up my position. The federal and state governments are spending nearly $1 trillion a year on means-tested entitlements, which are payments other than Social Security and Medicare.
More than 46-million Americans are receiving food stamps, nearly 9-million are on federal disability, and more than 100-million are in a household receiving some kind of welfare. I'm assuming that Governor Romney wants to stop the madness and get people back to work so they can pay their own bills, so he should be pointing a finger at President Obama, who is well on his way to creating a welfare state.
This is so crazy it's painful! Last week the Federal Reserve pumped about $23-billion into the marketplace, flooding the zone with dollars, hoping they will be loaned out by American banks. That puts us all in danger because the more dollars in circulation, the less the currency we have in our wallet is worth. So while we have a lemming-like press braying over Romney being insensitive, the man is telling the absolute truth.
The government is broke and now they're manipulating the dollar in order to pay the bills. That's economically insane, that's Greece! Americans should wise up: If you're on the dole, other people have to pick up your tab, and there aren't enough 'other people' to do that.
WOW! That is total right-wing propaganda, and O'Reilly should just quit his job and go work for the Romney campaign as their #1 spin doctor. To begin with, O'Reilly said Romney speaks the truth, then 30 seconds later he said Romney is wrong about the 47%, saying it's closer to 40%, based on what? A fricking Gallup poll that shows 39% think the Government should help people more.
Are you kidding me, that's insane. If you say the 47% is wrong and it's closer to 40% then it can not be the truth, based on your own fairy tale arguments, idiot!
And you can not prove it based on a poll, that btw says 39% not 40%, so O'Reilly even lied about that and added 1% to his dishonest calculation. O'Reilly also ignored the fact that 10% of that 47% are retired or elderly who pay no taxes at all.
Here are the real facts: 28.3 percent pay payroll taxes, which cover Social Security and Medicare. 10.3 percent pay no federal income tax because they are retired or elderly, and Social Security payments are not taxed.
Only 6.9 percent of the people who are non-elderly don't pay income tax. That is a far cry from 47 percent. And we are not a nation of moochers, as Bill O'Reilly and Mitt Romney claim we are.
Then the far-right Charles Krauthammer was on, who disagreed with O'Reilly as he critiqued the Talking Points Memo, saying this: "If Romney had said what you just said instead of what he said, he'd be President. What you presented is the guts of his case, which is a winning argument that Obama is turning America into a welfare state."
Krauthammer also said this: "The problem is he said the 47% of Americans who aren't paying income tax consider themselves 'victims,' which is not a very smart thing to say and it's not even accurate. You don't win an election by disparaging half the electorate, and the only way out of this is to pivot away and go after Obama with an attack on welfare."
So even after all that O'Reilly still said Romney should forcefully argue that "we are heading toward economic Armageddon if we don't stop it right now."
Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to talk about Romney and his ridiculous statement about America's entitlement culture.
Colmes said this: "The attitude comes off as insensitive, and it's not Barack Obama who did this. Romney was wrong on the numbers and he disparaged half the American people. Most of the people who want help and get help are in and out of the system in a short period of time, and most people want to work, they don't want to sit and collect money."
Colmes also said it was less than 6.9%, and that O'Reilly is wrong. Which means one thing, O'Reilly is trying to help Romney beat Obama by spinning and lying for jim when he makes mistakes and gets the numbers wrong, or says something stupid. And as O'Reilly is doing that he tells you he is a non-partisan who is not for or against anyone, which is just laughable.
Then of course Monica Crowley disagreed with Colmes saying this: "This administration has made a deliberate attempt to get as many people dependent on the government as possible. The ultimate objective of that is to create a permanent Democratic voting majority. If people can vote themselves freebies, goodies, and a raise from the U.S. Treasury, they will. That's human nature."
And that's a lie, all the Obama administration has done is try to help the average working or poor Americans get by during a time of a slow economy, etc.
Then John Stossel was on to talk about the minimum wage, as if anyone cared what Stossel thinks about it, other than O'Reilly, nobody does. During a discussion on poverty last week, O'Dummy said that an increase in the minimum wage, combined with tax credits for employers, could help alleviate poverty.
So Stossel said this: "My purpose in life is to teach you how ignorant you are about what you think you can design. This complicates life because you have to go hire some lawyer to try to understand the tax credits. Also, you'd never hire some entry-level kid for $16 an hour to learn on the job. The minimum wage cuts off opportunity, you don't give a guy a chance if the government sets a limit. It kills jobs and jobs don't get created."
Then O'Reilly said that without a minimum wage, "There is an exploitative situation in some businesses where they'll take advantage of people who are uneducated or don't speak the language well."
Not to mention, they would not even be able to buy food or gas (let alone rent a home/apartment or buy a car, etc.) if they were only paid $2.00 or $3.00 an hour. Proving that John Stossel is an idiot who should not even be allowed on tv to spew that garbage out.
Then Tucker Carlson was on to smear Media Matters, that both O'Reilly and Carlson hate because they tell the truth about the both of them. So it was a totally biased joke of a segment with nobody from Media Matters to give the other side, or anyone for that matter. They cried about bias and their tax-free status at Media Matters, but never say a word about the right-wing bias at the tax-free Media Research Center.
Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to talk about the nude photos of Kate Middleton. Which I will not report on because it's tabloid garbage, and it did not even happen to an American in America, it happened to someone from England in France, how the hell is this news in America, on a so-called hard news show.
Then Jon Stewart was on to talk about a duel more anticipated than Pacquiao vs. Mayweather or Frazier vs. Ali. On October 6th in Washington, where Bill and Jon Stewart will square off in 'The Rumble in the Air-Conditioned Auditorium.'
Stewart said this: "The reason I'm doing this, is very similar to Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader. I sense that there is still good in you, I sense that you can be saved, and it is my job to bring you back from the dark side. When I'm done with you, you'll be 5'7" and I'll be 6'4"."
For information about the big event, which will be streamed live over the Internet, visit www.therumble2012.com.
And all I will say is that O'Reilly should step up to the plate and give 100% of the money to charity, not just 50%, and drop the lame fee for the live internet stream. So we can all see it without paying for it.
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "If you can make somebody feel better by an action or a word or a surprise gift, do it! The kinder you are, the better life you will have."
What O'Reilly Did Not Tell You About The 47 Percent By: Steve - September 19, 2012 - 10:00am
The Romney campaign is in damage control mode, trying to explain Romney telling wealthy donors in a private meeting that "there are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it."
"These are people who pay no income tax," Romney continued, in a video posted by Mother Jones. "My job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
But who are the 47 percent of Americans who currently have no federal income tax liability?
Mostly, they are either too poor to qualify for even the lowest tax bracket (but still pay federal payroll tax, and state or local sales taxes, gas taxes, and excise taxes), or they benefit from tax credits for the working poor, the elderly, or students, as these charts from the Tax Policy Center show.
None of which O'Reilly showed, or reported on while he was spinning and defending for Romney.
Only 7 percent of the country is non-elderly and has no federal tax liability, and most of them make less than $20,000 a year.
In 2011, payroll tax receipts totaled $818 billion, only $200 billion less than was brought in by the federal income tax. Those Americans who paid payroll taxes, but had no income tax liability, still pay about 15 percent of their income, which is higher than the 13 percent Romney himself paid.
More and more income has become concentrated at the top of the income scale in the last few decades, so the wealthy have paid a larger share of federal taxes, because they have a larger share of the income.
Romney is hardly alone in his contempt for those who people on the right claim don't have any federal income tax liability (even though people who fall into that category disproportionately live in Republican states).
Another fact that O'Reilly ignored.
Over the last few years, many Republicans have explicitly called for finding a way to make the poor pay more, so that the number of federal income tax payers rises. including O'Reilly, who spins out these lies that they do not pay any taxes, when they pay a federal payroll tax, which is a tax, jerk.
The real number is less than 7%, and yet O'Reilly did a talking points memo, and spent half his show lying about it for Romney. O'Reilly even called it "Romney is telling the truth."
The Monday 9-17-12 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - September 18, 2012 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: What's at stake in the presidential election. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Most Americans do not understand what is at stake in the upcoming election and there are three vital issues. First, the economy is terrible. But it's not just unemployment and low wages, it's the staggering amount of debt. President Obama rolled the dice, believing that record government spending in peacetime would lead to job creation. If the feds continue spending at this rate, the dollar will collapse.
We must stop the massive borrowing, now estimated at $3.5 billion a day. Second, President Obama is using a 'soft power' approach to the Muslim world and has done everything he could to convince Muslims that America is not their enemy. Sadly, he has not convinced them and millions of Muslims continue to hate the USA. Even in the face of that, the Obama administration doesn't want to change course.
Afghanistan is in peril, Iran is spitting in the eye of America, and al Qaeda is reconstituting in places like Yemen. Third, gas prices are through the roof and the nation has no coherent energy policy. Mr. Obama is well-intentioned in wanting alternative fuels, but his opposition to the fossil fuel industry has put working Americans in a very bad place. So there you have it, three vital issues that all voters should understand
Notice how O'Reilly starts out saying most Americans do not understand what is at stake in the upcoming election, which implies they are stupid. And when a liberal once said the same thing O'Reilly slammed them and called them un-American traitors who hate America. But then he does it himself, making him an un-American traitor who hates America.
O'Reilly is an idiot, because most Americans do understand what is at stake. Here is the real deal, O'Reilly only said that because he can not understand why Obama is still ahead of Romney in the polls, and how Obama has even increased his lead. He thinks Romney should be winning, and the only reason he is not winning, is because people do not understand what is at stake, which is just ridiculous and nothing but right-wing thinking.
And the economy is not terrible, it's a little slow but it's not bad. That is simply right-wing propaganda from O'Reilly, and it is the exact same garbage the Republicans and the Romney campaign are spinning out.
Then O'Reilly had the author Irshad Manji and Harris Zafar of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community on to discuss the muslim problem, O'Reilly asked why so many Muslims hate America?
Manji said this: "One reason is hypocrisy over democracy. While America preaches democracy, it has propped up authoritarian leaders and has overthrown democratically elected ones. We're not talking about logic, we're talking about emotion, and I have never denied that there is a problem with the way we Muslims are practicing Islam."
Zafar agreed that anti-American animus goes back many decades, saying this: "Since the 1950's there have been many crises in the Middle East and we have sided with the status quo governments, the dictators and kings, while disregarding the people who are being oppressed. The problem then becomes that current leaders keep reminding people of that to rile them up."
Then the genius O'Reilly told them that the widespread Muslim protests are indicative of a wider problem, saying this: "This is irrational, but it's on the level of millions and millions of people. They use their religion as an excuse and this is an out-of-control culture."
Then Brit Hume was on to talk about how President Obama vowed that his election would engender a new spirit of cooperation between the U.S. and Muslims. Hume speculated as to how the Islamic protests could affect the November election. And of course O'Reilly let him speculate, even though he claims to have a no speculation rule. That only Republicans are allowed to break.
Hume said this: "American voters might ask what kind of policy it is, when we have an ambassador murdered, particularly one who was a friend to the Libyan uprising. That is shocking and distressing to Americans and when they hear the administration saying this is all the result of a crude little movie trailer, that doesn't make sense. The impact on the election will depend on how long this wave of violence continues."
Which is ridiculous, because no matter what our policy is about Muslims it would not stop terrorists from killing an ambassador, and for Hume to say that it proves he is a right-wing idiot.
And of course O'Reilly agreed with the right-wing fool Hume saying the President's policies as woefully ineffective: "It doesn't look to me like any of the Muslim governments on this planet have stepped closer to the USA. President Obama did a massive outreach and they're basically giving him the finger around the world."
Then Kirsten Powers and Mary Katharine Ham were on to talk about how some Democrats and Obama-friendly media analysts are implying that the President is a shoo-in for reelection.
Ham said this: "Confidence is good to project in a campaign, but getting too cocky can be problematic. The Democrats just spent their entire convention getting their base really excited; you don't want to then go on TV and say the election is a foregone conclusion."
Powers advised her fellow Democrats to be cautious, saying this: "I don't know a lot of Democrats who think this is going to be a wipeout. Right now President Obama is doing well in the swing state polls, so I think there is reason for Democrats to feel confident. I would say he has the advantage, but I wouldn't say it's a slam dunk."
Then the fool Jesse Watters was on, he spoke with the rich and beautiful during Fashion Week in New York City. And he got a few tips from ultra-thin models: "It's all about hydrating, fruits and vegetables" ... "I run a lot, as much as I can" ... "90 minutes of hot yoga" ... "Bill O'Reilly seems to be in good shape to me, I don't know what he's doing but it seems to be working."
Back in the studio, Watters concluded that many fashionistas are not exactly residing in the real world. "Katie Holmes debuted her fashion line, and she's selling a black cape for $3,100. They're in such a bubble that they don't care, they don't know anything about Paul Ryan or Medicare. They're starving, they just want to eat!"
Which is pure speculation, because O'Reilly could not possibly know that for a fact.
Then Adam Carolla, who observed that Clint Eastwood is defending his empty chair routine at the Republican convention, said this: "He's old, he's crazy, and that's fine, John Wayne used to speak to a hat rack for hours and no one said anything about it, it's just part of being old. I'm making fun of him because we can't make fun of fat people or Puerto Ricans anymore, all we have is old people."
Carolla also commented on Occupy Wall Street, which marked its first anniversary with protests in Manhattan, saying this: "I love these guys, and now that they've fixed Wall Street they can move on to curing cancer and diabetes. They've all run out of momentum and they're back to their original movement, 'occupy futon.' This is all about people not having a daytime gig and having way too much free time on their hands."
Then O'Reilly ended Monday's show with a major announcement, saying this: "In order to illuminate the vital issues associated with the upcoming election, Jon Stewart and I will debate on Saturday, October 6th at George Washington University in D.C. We are calling it 'The Rumble in the Air-Conditioned Auditorium.'"
"For $4.95 you can sign up for live streaming of the rumble at www.therumble2012.com. Stewart and I will discuss the intense issues of the day and then answer questions from the live audience and those watching on the Internet. We will donate 50% of the profits to a bunch of very worthy charities."
What a joke, you are both multi-millionaires, so why not give 100% of the money to charity and make the internet stream free, jerk!
And finally the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "To help build character in young children, make sure you do what you say you're going to do. That simple philosophy - "do what you say you're going to do" - should be seared into the minds of all American children."
Stunning: Half Of Fox Promoting For The Romney Campaign By: Steve - September 18, 2012 - 10:00am
Here is a good one, Bill O'Reilly recently told a guest that he does not think Fox is helping the Romney campaign in any way, and that they are not biased against President Obama. Which is just laughable, but he was serious.
And what makes it 100% ridiculous is because a lot of people who work for Fox are also actually working for the Romney campaign. A fact that O'Reilly never discloses, even though he calls for full (conflict of interest) disclosure from everyone at CNN and MSNBC.
If it's hard to differentiate Fox News contributors from members of the Romney campaign, it might be because they're sometimes one in the same.
Four Current Fox News contributors are serving as surrogates or advisers for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. In many instances, Fox News has failed to disclose its employees ties to the Romney campaign while hosting them. Not to mention, it's against the ethics rules of Journalism to work for a news network and a political campaign at the same time.
Another Fox contributor, Karl Rove, is a co-founder and adviser for the super PAC American Crossroads, which is spending millions and millions of dollars to defeat President Obama. Jay Sekulow also frequently appears on Fox News to discuss legal issues and attack the Obama administration without being identified as a Romney legal adviser.
The following are the Fox News contributors who are also members of the Romney campaign:
1) John Bolton: Role with Romney campaign: Foreign policy adviser.
Bolton frequently appears on Fox News to criticize President Obama and boost Mitt Romney.
During his Fox News appearances, Bolton has called Obama's foreign policy "confused, incoherent, and incompetent." During one appearance, Bolton even praised Romney as someone who has "had extensive international experience both in his business career."
2) Elaine Chao: Role with Romney campaign: National chair, Asian Americans & Pacific Islanders for Romney.
Fox Business has hosted Chao numerous times to analyze the Obama administration without disclosing her Romney campaign affiliation.
3) Walid Phares: Role with Romney campaign: Special adviser, Foreign Policy and National Security Advisory Team; Co-chair, Middle East & North Africa working group.
Phares has been critical of the Obama administration's handling of foreign policy issues during appearances on Fox News and Fox Business. Phares ties to the Romney campaign have repeatedly not been disclosed.
4) Pete Snyder: Role with Romney campaign: Snyder has appeared as a Romney surrogate at several campaign events.
Snyder is the chairman of Virginia Victory 2012, the Republican Party of Virginia's 2012 coordinated committee in charge of defeating "President Obama, Tim Kaine, and congressional Democrats" in Virginia. During a recent event, Snyder identified himself as the "Virginia Victory chairman for the Romney/Ryan campaign."
During his first appearance as a Fox News contributor on August 8, Snyder was introduced as a "Republican strategist and the newest Fox News contributor."
Snyder's Fox analysis, as billed, was along partisan lines. Snyder repeated the distortion that President Obama is "systematically dismantling the Bill Clinton legacy" on welfare. Snyder also repeated the charge (made frequently by the Romney campaign and its surrogates) that Obama is running the most negative campaign in modern history.
Then after you add O'Reilly, Hannity, Cavuto, etc. who all spin and lie for Romney as they slam Obama, they might as well just be on the Romney payroll. And O'Reilly never says a word about any of it, but if anyone who supports Obama or Biden go on CNN or MSNBC O'Reilly is crying foul if they do not disclose it.
GOP Elector Resigns - Says She Can't Support Romney By: Steve - September 17, 2012 - 11:00am
One of the Republican appointees to the Electoral College abruptly resigned from her post Thursday after publicly questioning whether she would support the party's presidential ticket when casting official votes after the November election.
Melinda Wadsley of Ames, Iowa, told The Associated Press that she could not in good conscience vote for Mitt Romney. Wadsley was among three electors who told the AP that they were exploring alternatives should Romney win their states.
"I have always been a straight ticket Republican, and for the first time in my life I am an undecided voter, therefore, I need to resign my position as a Republican presidential elector," Wadsley said in an email exchange.
Iowa GOP Chairman A.J. Spiker said in a statement that the state party's central committee would begin the process of selecting a replacement, essentially allowing the party to confirm a die-hard Romney supporter.
Wadsley and others had expressed frustration at how Republican leaders have worked to suppress Paul's conservative movement and his legion of loyal supporters.
"They've never given Ron Paul a fair shot, and I'm disgusted with that. I'd like to show them how disgusted I am," saying she was considering withholding her electoral vote from Romney. She is an Iowa mother of three who was selected as a Republican elector earlier this year and said Paul was the better choice.
Now that's funny, she can not vote for Romney because she is a Ron Paul supporter, which is ridiculous, because frankly Ron Paul is nuts, and even O'Reilly admitted it. Now think about that, she is not willing to vote for Romney, but she would vote for the crazy Ron Paul. Proving that some Republicans are insane.
And of course you never hear a word about this from O'Reilly, or anyone at Fox for that matter, because they do not want you to know that Romney is so bad even some Republicans are not going to vote for him.
More Proof O'Reilly Uses Biased Right-Wing Liars By: Steve - September 16, 2012 - 11:00am
Charles Krauthammer is a regular guest on the O'Reilly Factor, and he is sold to the people (by O'Reilly, who even calls him Dr. K.) as a great mind in the political analysis business. Even though it has been proven over and over that Krauthammer is nothing but a biased, dishonest, Obama hating right-wing hack of a joke.
Here is more proof, he was caught lying about U.S. embassy attacks in order to slam Obama, here are the details:
On Fox News last week, Charles Krauthammer suggested that "under other presidents, particularly Bush," there was "no storming of any U.S. embassies."
Krauthammer said this:
KRAUTHAMMER: The irony is that it began in Cairo, in the same place where the speech he made at the beginning of his presidency in which he said he wanted a new beginning with mutual respect, implying that under other presidents, particularly Bush, there was a lack of mutual respect, which was an insult to the United States, which had gone to war six times in the last 20 years on behalf of oppressed Muslims in Kuwait, Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
So to imply that we somehow had mistreated Muslims, which was the premise of his speech, and how the Iraq war had inflamed the Arab world against us -- well, there was no storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo in those days.
What we're seeing now is an Al Qaeda stand developing in Libya, a meltdown of our relations with Egypt. We've got riots in Yemen, attacks on our embassy in Tunisia. This entire premise that we want to be loved and respected, we're going to apologize, has now yielded all of these results, and these are the fruits of apology and retreat and lack of confidence in our own principles.
But in fact, there were 7 attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates during the Bush years, and numerous other such attacks have happened under recent presidents.
During the September 13 edition of Fox News Special Report, as images related to the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Cairo played on the screen, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer also said this:
KRAUTHAMMER: "What we're seeing on the screen is the meltdown, the collapse of the Obama policy on the Muslim world."
Now the facts: Seven U.S. Embassies And Consulates Were Attacked Under George W. Bush:
1) 2002: U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked; 10 Killed, 51 Injured.
2) 2004: U.S. Embassy Bombed In Uzbekistan.
3) 2004: Gunmen Stormed U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia.
4) 2006: Armed Men Attacked U.S. Embassy In Syria.
5) 2007: Grenade Launched Into U.S. Embassy In Athens.
6) 2008: Rioters Set Fire To U.S. Embassy In Serbia.
7) 2008: Ten People Killed In Bombings At U.S. Embassy In Yemen.
And when those attacks happened not one time did Krauthammer slam Bush for his foreign policy. Not to mention, Bush and Cheney were tough on these countries and we still had 7 attacks. Proving that to blame it on the Obama foreign policy is ridiculous.
Which is the same right-wing propaganda O'Reilly spins out, making him as big of a dishonest joke as Krauthammer, and btw, O'Reilly has also not reported that 7 U.S. Embassies and Consulates were attacked under George W. Bush.
Krauthammer acts like if Bush had stayed in power there would have not been an attack on the U.S. Embassy, because he had a tough foreign policy, which is just ridiculous. Because there were more U.S. Embassy attacks under Bush than under Obama, proving the Obama policy is working better than the policy Bush had.
Court Strikes Down Wisconsin Union-Busting Law By: Steve - September 16, 2012 - 10:00am
And of course O'Reilly never said a word about any of it, because it makes his right-wing friends look bad.
Wisconsin Judge Juan Colas ruled that Governor Scott Walker's (R-WI) law eliminating collective bargaining rights for public-sector unions was unconstitutional under both the Wisconsin and United States constitutions.
The law, which does not save the state any money but crushes the political and economic influence of unions, has been in effect for roughly one year.
It is unclear, if union restrictions will be suspended immediately pending a likely Walker appeal.
And think about this, Republicans claim to be the Constitution party, as they violate the Constitution all the time.
The Friday 9-14-12 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - September 15, 2012 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: President Obama and the Muslim world. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As we told you last night, Mr. Obama should change his approach to dealing with the Muslim world, it's obvious the 'soft power' strategy is not working. The jihadists don't care what Mr. Obama says and any sign of sensitivity will be seen as weakness.
That's not to say we should antagonize Muslim governments, but we have to hold them accountable when Americans are harmed. Apparently President Obama read the riot act to President Morsi and the Egyptians are finally protecting our embassy.
Today the head of the House Intelligence Committee said that everyone in Cairo knew trouble was brewing before our embassy was attacked. If Mubarak had still been in power, there would have been soldiers all around the embassy.
In Libya the situation is different; the assassination of Christopher Stevens and three other Americans was a planned terrorist attack and the weak Libyan government simply can't stop stuff like that.
President Obama and Governor Romney, if he wins the election, must understand that any attacks on Americans anywhere have to be punished. Egypt should lose all aid for the rest of the year and no American should travel to that country in the same time frame.
So let me get this straight, the President of the United States should ignore all the advice his foreign policy experts give him, and listen to a biased right-wing hack of a cable news tv show host, who does a lame so-called news show on the Fox News Network. Give me a break O'Reilly, you are a fool, and Obama is never going to do anything you tell him to.
Then Washington Post correspondent Michael Birnbaum was on to report the latest from Cairo. Birnbaum said this: "The anti-Islamic video was certainly a topic of conversation here in the days leading up to the protest. There were ultra-conservative parties calling for protests and the United States Embassy knew the protest was coming and told its staff to go home early that day."
Birnbaum said that the ruling Muslim Brotherhood is walking a fine line, saying this: "They're trying to play to their very conservative base here in Egypt while presenting a friendlier face to the rest of the world."
O'Reilly ended the segment by saying he denounced the Brotherhood for its role in the attack, saying this: "Logical thinkers know that this was a cauldron of hatred and you don't just stand by and let it happen. But the Muslim Brotherhood did that."
Then O'Reilly said he thinks the President committed a major gaffe when he said Egypt, officially an American ally, is neither an ally nor an enemy.
So Billy had the former NATO commander Gen. Wesley Clark on to discuss it. Clark said this: "Egypt is considered a major non-NATO ally. There is no mutual defense treaty but we coordinate with them very closely. I think there's still cooperation going on; a lot of their military has been schooled in the United States and we share information and perspectives."
Clark also advised against punishing Egypt by withholding aid, saying this: "There is an internal power struggle between the very radical elements and the moderates and most people in Egypt have nothing to do with these people who stormed the embassy."
O'Reilly argued that the United States must send a strong message to the Egyptian government, saying this: "They were complicit in that attack on the embassy and that's a disgrace and a violation of international law."
Even though O'Reilly does not know that for sure, and Clark pointed out that the security people who let the attack happen may not be in contact (or under control) of the Government.
Basically Clark disagreed with O'Reilly on cutting the aid to Egypt for 3 months and said Obama is not using soft power. So Clark pretty much told O'Reilly he is just a right-wing spin doctor. And Clark also pointed out one thing, that O'Reilly has no idea what Obama said to Egypt, and that he might have said if they do not protect Americans we will stop all their money. So as usual, O'Reilly speculated about something he does not know about.
Then O'Reilly talked about Thursday's Tip of the Day that urged Americans to send a message to the Egyptian government by steering clear of that country. Geraldo was on to discuss it.
Geraldo said this: "There are many American students who go to Egypt to study, and I would absolutely not have them out and about right now, we have to take seriously the threat of kidnapping. This is a society that stood by and even incited some of the violence against our embassy."
Rivera was not prepared to endorse a total tourist boycott, saying this: "When you say 'punish Egypt,' you have to understand that you're punishing Egypt from the bottom up, not the top down. You don't want to push Egypt into anarchy."
Then the right-wing stooge Lou Dobbs was on to talk about a new CBS/New York Times poll that shows President Obama with a three-point lead nationally, while a Rasmussen poll has Governor Romney up by three. O'Reilly asked Dobbs about the polls.
Dobbs said this: "The race is where it was a month ago, and it's extremely tight. The Rasmussen poll is the outlier. And because of its record of accuracy, the others are worried about not being lined up with Rasmussen."
O'Reilly questioned the worthiness of any poll taken in September, saying this: "I don't believe the polls really matter until the debates begin. Ideology won't drive the vote, the wallet will drive the vote, and Mitt Romney is making an enormous mistake by not concentrating on gas prices. People are getting hammered at the gas pump!"
And now here are the facts, Rasmussen is a Republican who has biased polls, so his polls are a joke, a fact that neither O'Reilly or Dobbs will report or admit. O'Reilly even made a good point for once, polls in September are worthless. The polls only matter about 2 weeks before the election. And the polls can not predict how many people for each side will actually go and vote.
Then O'Reilly introduced a new segment called "What the Heck Just Happened," featuring The Five co-host Greg Gutfeld and radio producer Bernard McGuirk, and laid down three strict rules: "No obscenities, no defamatory personal attacks, and no irresponsible behavior."
Now think about that, he also recently added Adam Carolla to the Factor Team, who all have one thing in common, they are all 3 REPUBLICANS, and 2 of them work for Fox News. The number of Democrats added to the Factor team this year, Zero!
Gutfeld talked about the chaos in the Middle East, saying this: "The root cause is they don't like us, and there's nothing we can do about it. I don't care that they're mad, these people are going to hate us no matter what. They hate us because they're insecure in their own religious beliefs. You can make fun of Mormonism and Christianity and we take it, but they can't!"
McGuirk said this: "They hate us because we're there, but the hell with them. We're there to protect the state of Israel and that's the way it should be. They have the emotional maturity of a 10-year-old spoiled child and they need strict parenting."
Then for some crazy reason McGuirk and Gutfeld commented on the odd photo showing Joe Biden in a very close encounter with a biker chick in Ohio. Why, who knows, and how is this news?
Gutfeld said this: "He's preparing for the White House Christmas party, where he is going to be Santa. I love bikers, they're either taking teddy bears to hospitals or giving meth to my uncle."
McGuirk pointed out that the woman's two biker pals didn't seem amused, saying this: "If he didn't have Secret Service protection they would have had to scrape him off the floor after this. This picture was taken after Obama was picked up by the deli owner, so maybe Biden didn't want to be upstaged."
Finally the duo turned to actress Kathleen Turner, who has become a political activist. Gutfeld said this: "She reflects the mindset of a feminist that young conservative women have to go up against every day. If you don't think like her, you're not really a woman. They are the most intolerant toward their own sex."
And finally the Factor tip of the Day, Billy said this: Friday's Tip: "If you're helpless around the house, a website called familyhandyman.com can help you fix all sorts of things."
Fox Covers For Romney Shameful Obama Attacks By: Steve - September 15, 2012 - 10:00am
Fox News came to Mitt Romney's defense after his response to the attack on American diplomats in Libya was seen by many as an "attempt to score political points" and widely condemned, even by some fellow Republicans.
Following the attack on United States diplomats in Libya, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney issued a statement accusing President Obama of "sympathizing with those who waged the attacks" instead of condemning attacks on our diplomatic missions.
ROMNEY: "I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi," Mr. Romney said in a statement that went out just before 10:30 p.m.
ROMNEY: "It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
Romney's comments were referring to a statement released by the American Embassy in Cairo that condemned an American-made Web film denouncing Islam -- the catalyst for the protests and violence in Cairo. However, the embassy's statement was released in an effort to head off the violence, not after the attacks, as Romney's statement implied.
The Daily Beast's David Frum (Republican) criticized Romney for his "attempt to score political points" following the attack on a U.S. embassy that led to the killing of an American diplomat:
Politicians must pander, it goes with the job. But they mustn't leave their fingerprints all over their pandering. The Romney campaign's attempt to score political points on the killing of American diplomats was a dismal business in every respect. Disregarding every other aspect, however, it was graceless and stupid as a matter of politics. [The Daily Beast, 9/12/12]
A Wall Street Journal blog post cited several Republicans who "took the GOP presidential nominee to task" for his attack on Obama. In addition to Frum, the post cited such prominent Republicans as former senior adviser to Senator John McCain's presidential campaign Steve Schmidt, former McCain speechwriter Mark Salter, and Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan for their criticism of Romney.
Like The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post highlighted some of the criticism coming from Republicans for his response to the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Libya and Egypt. The Post highlighted remarks from Republican lobbyist Ed Rogers, who said Romney "bobbled" his response to the attacks.
In a Wall Street Journal video, columnist Peggy Noonan pointed out that "I don't think [Romney] did himself any favors" in his remarks on the violence, adding, "Romney looked weak today, I feel ... at one point, he had a certain slight grimace on his face when he was taking tough questions from the reporters, and I thought, he looks like Richard Nixon."
A New York Times editorial was critical of Romney for attacking Obama during Romney's response to attacks on U.S. embassies in Libya and Egypt:
Mitt Romney, who wants Americans to believe he can be president but showed an extraordinary lack of presidential character by using the murders of the Americans in Libya as an excuse not just to attack Mr. Obama, but to do so in a way that suggested either a dangerous ignorance of the facts or an equally dangerous willingness to twist them to his narrow partisan aims.
Jake Tapper, ABC News senior White House correspondent, noted that Romney's attacks did not "stand up to simple chronology." He went on to explain that Romney's suggestion that Obama "sympathized" with the attackers is based on no evidence, "likely because [the evidence] does not in any way exist."
But Fox Defended Romney, And Endorsed His Criticism Of Obama Administration. On the September 12 edition of Fox News Special Report with Bret Baier, Fox News contributor Stephen Hayes claimed Romey's "critique was the right critique."
During the September 12 edition of Fox News Hannity, Ann Coulter claimed that "you know that Romney's statement was devastating to President Obama because the media is screaming bloody murder. If he hadn't struck gold they wouldn't all be doing this."
In a conversation on Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy asked Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano what he thought about Romney's comments:
DOOCY: What did you think about what Romney said yesterday?
NAPOLITANO: I have a lot difficulties with some of things Governor Romney has done, I'm furious that he wants to keep part of Obamacare. But what he said yesterday in my view was statesman-like and was far more presidential than what President Obama said.
The only person on Fox who disagreed with Romney at all was Bill O'Reilly, who barely disagreed, saying he thinks Romney was mistaken, even though it's clear Romney used the killings for political gain, and he had all the facts wrong. And if a Democrat had said what Romney did about a Republican President O'Reilly would have spent the entire show slamming him.
The Thursday 9-13-12 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - September 14, 2012 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: President Obama and the Muslim world. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: At first the President took a 'soft power' approach toward the Muslim world, hoping that by being sensitive he could convince a majority of Muslims that the USA is not their enemy. That approach has failed.
Compelling evidence out of Pakistan shows the government there was protecting Osama bin Laden, and when Navy SEALs finally caught up with bin Laden, Pakistan imprisoned the man who helped us find him. In Afghanistan, where more than 2,000 Americans have been killed, the government remains corrupt and largely uncooperative in protecting Americans.
In Iran, that country is openly defying the USA and the world by continuing its nuclear weapons development. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood now controls the government and anti-American demonstrations are commonplace.
In Yemen, violent anti-American demonstrations are breaking out, driven by the jihadists. In Libya, there is chaos and the weak government can not protect Americans in that country. So the evidence is overwhelming that much of the Muslim world is not friendly to the USA, despite President Obama's outreach.
Now it is time for America to change its strategy. Talking Points does not believe it is smart to openly antagonize any Muslim government except Iran, but President Obama has an obligation to punish governments like Egypt that allow attacks on American citizens. We are living in a dangerous world and the President's first priority is to protect Americans.
O'Reilly is simply an idiot, he says the Obama 'soft power' approach toward the Muslim world has failed. Which is just ridiculous, because the Obama policy is just not to make the muslim world more upset with America, by not calling ALL muslims terrorists as O'Reilly and his right-wing friends do. That's not a soft power approach, it's just smart.
Then Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison, himself a Muslim, was on to discuss it. Ellison said this: "You're grossly over-generalizing, and you're forgetting about all the Libyans who held up placards today saying they apologize. You're also forgetting that the governments in Yemen and Egypt and Libya have apologized. These troublemakers don't represent the vast majority of the people who live in these countries."
Ellison also said it would be a mistake to withhold aid to Egypt, saying this: "To leap to a conclusion that we should punish Egypt, I'm not sure the evidence supports that at this point. The last thing we need is to make matters worse."
Bingo, cutting aid to Egypt would just make things worse, O'Reilly is just too stupid to understand that. And one more thing, O'Reilly and all these talk show stooges do not have the top secret intelligence to give an educated opinion on the issue. Foreign policy issues like this should be left to the President and Congress, because they are the only people who can see the intelligence on it.
O'Reilly insisted that Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi is not a friend to America, saying this: "The Egyptian government knew demonstrators were going to attack the embassy and didn't stop it. You, as a sitting Congressman, have to say to President Obama that we can't be sending them money if this continues."
Then O'Reilly asked the far-right loon Laura Ingraham to assess the turmoil in the Arab world.
Ingraham said this: "We have a situation in the Middle East today, where the Obama administration touted the idea of an 'Arab Spring' that sounded very hopeful. But in the end, America's interests have been undermined by forces we can't control. We recently sent $1.5 billion to Egypt but we couldn't get a quick statement out of Egypt to condemn the violence."
Ingram then talked about Mitt Romney, who has come under harsh criticism for questioning the administration's handling of the Middle East chaos. Ingraham said this: "In my mind, Mitt Romney was quite reserved in his written statement that was issued late Tuesday night. He did it at the right time and it was substantively correct."
Proving what an idiot she is, because Romney had the facts wrong, everyone, including quite a few Republicans have slammed him for his stupid partisan political attacks on Obama, instead of just talking about the issue.
Then Tavis Smiley and Cornel West, co-authors of a new book about poverty in America, "The Rich and the Rest of Us." West urged the government to mandate a higher minimum wage, saying this: "If the minimum wage had kept up with changes over the last forty years, it would be almost twice what it is now, it could be between $16 and $21 an hour. We want jobs with a living wage, we want quality education, we want child care, and we want to make sure people live in neighborhoods that don't have drugs and guns coming in."
Smiley pointed out that poverty is not merely relegated to high school dropouts, saying this: "Education is not the great equalizer that it used to be. There are millions of Americans who are 'degreed' out their ears but still can't find a job. The people we're talking about who are being hurt in this economy are not just single mothers with two or three kids."
O'Reilly actually praised Smiley and West for their efforts, saying this: "I applaud you both, you're doing a service toward people who don't have very much."
Then Gretchen Carlson and Jeanine Pirro were on to talk about President Obama recently speaking with a Miami radio host whose nickname is "The Pimp with the Limp."
Pirro said this: "You have to reach out to everybody, Pirro said approvingly, and not everybody watches intellectual television. President Obama knows the way to get people to vote for you is to get them to like you."
But the far right stooge Gretchen Carlson criticized the President for avoiding tough questions, saying this: "This is total pandering to the youth vote and an attempt to reignite the magic of 2008. He's avoiding real reporters by doing interviews with People magazine, ET, and radio stations that ask him whether he likes green or red salsa better."
Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about Pennsylvania's highest court, who is deciding the legality of a state law that requires voters to present a photo ID.
Kelly questioned whether a photo ID should be required, saying this: "The state has conceded that they have no knowledge of any in-person fraud in Pennsylvania or elsewhere. The state has won in lower courts, but I don't know how this will turn out. One question is, 'Why now, with only 60 days before the election?'"
But the partisan hack Bill O'Reilly said this: "I don't think it's a burden on anybody to get a photo ID."
Proving what an idiot he is, because it is a burden on people that do not have cars, the poor, and the elderly, etc. Not to mention, the studies that prove it would hurt the Democratic party and help the Republicans.
Then Martha MacCallum and Uma Pemmaraju were on for the garbage Factor News Quiz, that I do not report on because it's not news, it's tabloid nonsense.
And finally the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "Thursday's Tip: No American tourist should visit Egypt for the rest of the year, which will send that government an unmistakable message."
The Wednesday 9-12-12 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - September 13, 2012 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: More Americans murdered by militant Muslims. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: In Libya, 52-year-old Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador to that country, was murdered last night along with 3 other American citizens. Fox News has obtained information that those killings were apparently planned, not a spontaneous demonstration.
But in Egypt the situation was different, as hundreds of Muslims attacked the U.S. embassy because some crank here in America put out an anti-Muslim video...
Muslim fanatics will use any excuse to attack not only Americans but anybody they consider to be an infidel. There is no question about that - and it is the responsibility of the Egyptian government to protect the American embassy. The Egyptian government did not do that, so they must be held accountable...
Talking Points is fed up with Americans who sympathize with the Muslim world. There are far too many fanatics who persecute far too many people, including their own. Women are battered, denied human rights, and any dissent can result in execution...
Bottom line - America should suspend its aid to Egypt, deduct the cost of the damage to the American embassy, secure an apology from Cairo, and let them know attacks on Americans in Egypt simply will not be tolerated.
Okay, so then what did O'Reilly do? Have an objective foreign policy expert on to discuss it, hell no. He had the biased (Obama hating) right-wing hack Lt. Col. Ralph Peters on to discuss it, what a joke.
All Peters did was attack Obama, instead of talking about the killing. Peters started the conversation by criticizing the Obama administration for, in his opinion, elevating political correctness above our Constitution's right of free speech by issuing a statement condemning the anti-Muslim video.
And he was so wrong that even O'Reilly disagreed, saying sometimes it's necessary to be conciliatory in times of crisis to reduce tensions and violence. But that did not slow Peters down, he then said this: "It's also a problem when our embassies go up in flames and our President goes to Las Vegas."
So Peters used the segment to slam Obama for political gain, instead of talking about the killing, making him a biased joke who nobody should ever listen to, he's an idiot. Peters also said we should send troops into Libya and kill them all, proving that he is a fool.
Then O'Reilly had Congressman Luis Gutierrez on to discuss it, as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Gutierrez condemned the death of the American ambassador at the hands of extremists in Libya, but cautioned that he doesn't want to take a tragedy and try to make political points out of it. He pointed out how important it is for America to have a relationship with the new leadership in Libya.
O'Reilly said he wondered how America should handle the situation in Libya, saying this: should we use drones and go in and kill all the extremists? The Congressman promised that we would find the culprits of the embassy violence in a way that still protects our interests in the country.
O'Reilly then asked if President Obama should have been stronger about Egypt situation. Congressman Gutierrez answered by saying this: "Diplomacy is tough, and we want to make sure we communicate to people in Egypt that they are not our enemies; rather it's the extremists we oppose."
Then O'Reilly had another biased right-wing idiot on, Dick Morris. O'Reilly said that according to a new Rasmussen poll, the President is neck-in-neck with Gov. Romney, with 46% and 45% respectively. But a brand new Fox News poll is better news for Obama: it shows him leading his challenger 48% to 43%.
Morris said he had some skepticism about the polling, arguing that the Romney vote is being understated and the Obama vote is being overstated because pollsters are using the 2008 model of turnout. He made the argument that black turnout will be much lower than it was in 2008.
Which is pure speculation, the same speculation O'Reilly claims to not allow, but Morris was allowed to speculate his ass off anyway.
Asked if Libya and Egypt will have an effect on the election, Morris reminded viewers that the President has made foreign policy his strongest suit, trying to capitalize on the bin Laden killing. He said Obama owns Libya, much like Bush owned Iraq, because it was his decision to intervene that put the current regime in power. According to Morris, Obama's Arab Spring initiative looks like a failure now and that will raise questions about his leadership.
O'Reilly said that on this issue Romney must walk a fine line because he doesn't want to be seen as undermining the Commander-in-Chief in the war on terror.
Morris also said he would advise the President to suspend all military aid to Egypt, and he would advise the Romney campaign to try to paint this situation as a result of the President's naivete in dealing with the Muslim world.
Morris even predicted Romney will win the election, and win by a lot. Now remember this, he also predicted Hillary Clinton would lose by 10 (or more) points to Republican Rick Lazio when she ran for Senate in New York. And he was not just wrong, he was really wrong, because Hillary won by 12 points and crushed Lazio, so the Morris predictions are usually wrong.
Then O'Reilly had the biased right-wing hack Charles Krauthammer on, he asked Krauthammer about the President's handling of the Egypt situation.
And of course he slammed Obama, Krauthammer said that the statement issued condemning the anti-Muslim video made by a Californian man was an embarrassment. He insisted we can't apologize for some crackpot filmmaker, and we don't police free speech in this country.
O'Reilly mentioned that he predicted in an interview with the President earlier this year that chaos would end up reigning in the Middle East as a result of the Arab Spring.
Krauthammer congratulated the Factor for his foresight, and followed up with some advice for the Romney team, saying this: "Make a speech saying this is all the result of Obama's weakness in dealing with the Muslim world."
Then O'Reilly had the right-wing idiot Dennis Miller on, and not for just one segment, he was on for two segments. That I do not report on, because Miller is only on to make jokes about liberals, for the mostly Republican O'Reilly Factor viewers, with no liberal comedian on to make jokes about conservatives.
And finally the lame tip of the day, O'Reilly used it to promote a book written by the daughter of a right-wing regular on the Factor, Actress Janine Turner. Billy said this: "Her 14-year-old daughter Juliette has written a book for kids, entitled Our Constitution Rocks, which makes learning about our nation's history fun and interesting."
Biased O'Reilly Tells Romney To Call Obama A Socialist By: Steve - September 13, 2012 - 10:00am
So much for O'Reilly being a non-partisan Independent, he might as well be working for the Romney campaign.
On the Tuesday Factor show he told Romney to call Obama a socialist, even after he has admitted that he does not think Obama is a socialist.
O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack, who has 95% right-wing guests on and who covers for Romney, while slamming everything Obama does. A couple months ago O'Reilly even said the Republican party should use scare tactics against Obama, after slamming the Democrats for what he called scare tactics using Medicare. And recently he called for Romney to dishonestly blame Obama for high gas prices, even though he has admitted the President is not to blame, the oil speculators are.
It's ridiculous, especially when it comes from a man who claims to be a non-partisan Independent who does not have a dog in the fight, and a no spin zone. O'Reilly is dishonest in his Independent claims, so why should anyone believe anything he says, answer; they should not believe him.
Every word out of his mouth is nothing but his biased right-wing opinion, and he always agrees with the Republicans, as he is constantly slamming Obama and the Democrats with right-wing spin and propaganda.
The Tuesday 9-11-12 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - September 12, 2012 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: 11th Anniversary of 9/11. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The war on terror has cost America about $1.4 trillion. That includes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, money for veterans, and other military expenditures. It does not include security within the USA. Under President Obama the war on terror has cost $569 billion, approximately 10% of the debt the President has run up.
So when people say that America's debt is largely war-driven, the stats do not back that up. The important question is, has the war on terror been worth the price in blood and treasure? In the combined wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, 6,596 Americans have been killed, and almost 50,000 wounded. Those casualty figures are nothing like the Vietnam war, but I believe most historians will look back at the Iraq war as being a mistake.
We could have brought Saddam to his knees by blockading his country; we didn't have to invade it. Afghanistan is another matter. We had to remove the Taliban and we did. The problem is that Afghanistan's society is largely corrupt and the USA has not been able to effectively neutralize that corruption. So we're caught in a country that simply will not help itself in becoming a free state.
President Obama has done a good job in neutralizing Al Qaeda, President Bush did a good job in hammering Al Qaeda right after the 9/11 attacks. Summing up, the war on terror had to be fought, we made a mistake in Iraq, but overall we have won the fight against terrorism. However, the conflict goes on and you know those savages want to hit us again.
Notice the lie about Iraq from O'Reilly, he claimed that the money spent in Iraq was counted as terrorism spending. When that is a lie, because Iraq had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks, and nothing to do with terrorism.
Notice that he also did not include the security cost inside the USA, which is about as dishonest as it gets because that is actual money spent on fighting terrorism. O'Reilly did that to mislead you on how much debt Obama has added, and what it was spent on. Because he is a biased right-wing hack who is trying to help Romney win the election.
O'Reilly also said people say that America's debt is largely war-driven, and the stats do not back that up. Which is ridiculous, because what the people say is that the Bush tax cuts and the Bush wars are most of the debt, and the stats do back it up. Proving O'Reilly is a partisan hack who lies to you to make you believe the lies he is spinning out.
When you add the Bush tax cuts and the cost of terrorism, security in the USA, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan you will find most of the debt. O'Reilly also ignores the fact that Clinton gave Bush a surplus of $240 billion, and in 8 years Bush turned it into a deficit of $1.4 trillion. None of that ever happened in the so-called no spin zone. Then O'Reilly blames it all on Obama, which is insane, and biased garbage.
Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to evaluate the costs and benefits of the war on terror.
Colmes said this: "We did a great job over the past four to eight years, and, yet, the money that was spent in Iraq could have been spent for a lot of other things. The war on terror sacrificed our liberty for security."
Crowley described it as a war of necessity, saying this: "We certainly have paid a steep price, but we had no choice. We were hit on 9/11, the war was brought to us, and Osama bin Laden had declared war on us years before."
Colmes then endorsed President Obama's widespread use of drone attacks to kill suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere." Billy concluded with this: "Both Presidents Bush and Obama used their executive power fairly wisely."
Which is laughable, Crowley and O'Reilly linked terrorism to Iraq when they had nothing to do with it, and Bush was a fool to invade Iraq, it cost us a fortune, many lives and wounded, and it got us nothing for no reason.
Then the far-right hack Laura Ingraham was on, who said that Republicans should just fold their tent if they can't defeat Barack Obama. So what does O'Reilly do, he asked the other far-right hack Sarah Palin if she agrees with that analysis.
Plain said this: "Absolutely. She's articulating what so many common sense, fiscally conservative Americans are thinking. C'mon, Republicans, if you can't get the fire lit under this base, if you can't convince them about Barack Obama's lack of a plan to get us out of these economically woeful times, then we're in a world of hurt."
Hey Stupid Sarah, Obama has a plan and it is working, you just will not admit it, loser!
Palin urged her fellow Republicans to take the offensive, saying this: "We're not explaining to the rest of America that you have a choice - you either get 'free stuff' or you get freedom, you can not have both. We need to get the message through that there is no such thing as a free lunch and we are an insolvent nation. Mitt Romney should be very aggressive in his attacks on Obama's dismal record."
You mean the freedom the Republicans want to take away from women by banning ALL abortions, that freedom?
Then George Stephanopoulos was on to talk about the state of the Democratic Party. "There's a lot of rallying the base at a convention, which is what a convention is for. There's no question that the issues of choice and women's rights energize the Democratic base."
Stephanopoulos also theorized that an over-emphasis on abortion could damage the party in November, saying this: "When that element of the Democratic Party takes over, it does have the possibility of hurting Democrats in the general election. Remember Bill Clinton's formulation that he believes in a woman's right to choose, but abortion should be 'safe, legal, and rare.' That is the position most Democrats and most Americans have."
Then the anti-union O'Reilly had the anti-union John Stossel on to talk about the Chicago public school teachers, who went out on strike Monday.
Stossel described the strikers and their union bosses as out of touch, saying this: "Like the other big unions, they are clueless people who think they're entitled to a job. They average $75,000, which is more than nurses and architects. They work nine months a year, they don't want to be judged or rated, and they feel no one should ever fire them. I think the city has offered too much, Chicago is going broke!"
Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to discuss a federal judge who ruled that a Massachusetts prisoner is entitled to a sex change operation that will cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars.
Guilfoyle said this: "This is unbelievable. This guy is in prison for murdering his wife, but the judge is saying that the operation is 'medically necessary' and you can not deprive this individual from becoming a woman."
And for once I agree with Guilfoyle, a sex change operation is not medically necessary, and the taxpayers should not pay for it.
Wiehl, however, sided with the judge, saying this: "This is not about fairness, it's about the Constitution that says you can not punish someone in a 'cruel and unusual' manner. This man tried to kill himself twice, tried to castrate himself, and the prison doctors say he has 'gender identification disorder' and needs this operation. He has a medical disease!"
So O'Reilly offered this solution: "You just tell the guy, 'You walked in here a man and that's how you're going to stay!'"
Then O'Reilly had the far-right loon Chuck Norris on, who created a video in which he warns that "our country as we know it may be lost forever" if President Obama is reelected.
Norris said this: "I grew up as a Democrat, but the Democrats have gone further left and the Republicans have gone to where the Democrats were 40 years ago. When you drive around the country you see these stores that are closed because of what's going on with our economy and it tears my heart up. We have to get somebody in the White House who has the experience to turn this around and get these small companies going."
Norris added that raising taxes on the wealthy won't do anything to help the country's economy, saying this: "If it would help I wouldn't mind it, but it won't help because the more money Congress gets, the more money it spends."
But it will help the debt, and make the wealthy pay their fair share, idiot! And get this, O'Reilly tells us to ignore the hollywood pinheads, but then he has them all on his show, but only if they are hollywood Republicans. So he says ignore the hollywood pinheads, but if they are Republican listen to them. Which is just more proof O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack.
On the 11 year anniversary of 9-11, O'Reilly never said a word about Bush and Cheney ignoring the intelligence on the 9-11 attacks in 2001. Bush got a PDB in August of 2001 titled "Bin Laden Determined To Stike In The USA," and did nothing. O'Reilly totally ignored that information and did it on purpose to cover for Bush, because he is a Republican.
And finally O'Reilly had the lame tip of the day, Billy said this: "Tuesday's Tip A website called 180snacks.com offers snacks that manage to be healthy and tasty at the same time. "
Greg Gutfeld Once Again Proves How Stupid He Is By: Steve - September 12, 2012 - 10:00am
Fox News Greg Gutfeld advanced the bogus right-wing talking point that Americans are responsible for paying for women's contraceptives. Gutfeld was distorting an Obama administration health care ruling, which will require most employers insurance plans to cover preventive health services for women, including contraceptives.
During a segment in which he attacked actress Scarlett Johansson for her speech at the Democratic National Convention, Gutfeld said this to her: "You're worth millions, why don't you help them (pay for contraceptives) instead of asking me?"
He also said this: "I don't want Hollywood to reproduce, but I'm not going to pay for that option."
In her speech, Johansson talked about how some of her girlfriends from high school depend on Planned Parenthood and Medicaid for important health services, saying this:
JOHANSSON: Over the last two days, we've been reminded of something that perhaps we forgot: what has been accomplished and what is at stake -- whether we can get health care, afford college, be guaranteed equal pay. All of these things are at great, great risk.
And on top of that Gutfeld is wrong, because almost everyone has to pay a premium or a co-pay to get health insurance. I know some people who pay $25.00 a week (for a single person) to get their company health Insurance plan. So the Government is not paying for their health services, they are, and the company they work for is paying the rest.
Contrary to Gutfeld's suggestion that taxpayers are responsible for paying for women's contraceptives needs, the Obama administration's regulation guarantees that health insurance policies (that women are already paying for) cover women's preventive health care services, just as they already cover other medical expenses.
And btw, only pro-life right-wing stooges have a problem with it, nobody else cares. Jonathan Cohn wrote this about it:
In a single-payer system, you pay for your insurance through taxes.
In an employer-based system, like the one the Affordable Care Act reinforces, you pay for your insurance through wages that your employers withholds and dumps into a health insurance fund on your behalf.
Either way, though, it's really your money that's paying for your health insurance, not your company's. The only objection that ought to matter is yours.
Gutfeld ended his attack on Johansson by saying this: "If you'd like to discuss this further, I'm free for dinner, and I'll pay. I know how helpless women can be."
Co-host Dana Perino responded with this: "I'm so glad you'll be picking up the check."
Gutfeld's shot at Johansson comes on the heels of his attack on actress Eva Longoria, in which he said this: "I would take the brain of Clint Eastwood at 81 over the vacuousness of Eva Longoria any day."
Gutfeld previously dismissed the struggles of millions of women who can't afford contraceptives, saying this:
GUTFELD: This makes no sense to me. There are two elements that kinda drive me crazy here: The decision is supposed to help make birth control affordable to millions. How much more affordable can you make it? It's like 50 bucks a month.
I mean, do we -- should we start up like a "buy the pill" campaign? Like "feed the children" where we make sure we all adopt one woman and pay for her pills? Anybody can afford this.
Earth to Greg Gutfeld and all the right-wing idiots, $50.00 a month is a lot of money to people that are poor. And he is not the first person at Fox to push the free contraception lies. Bill O'Reilly, Ed Henry, and most recently Megyn Kelly have also done so.
And btw, Bill O'Reilly spins out these same lies, so he is as bad as Gutfeld. In fact, O'Reilly is worse because he does it as he is lying about being a non-partisan Independent. At least Gutfeld admits to being a biased right-wing stooge.
The Monday 9-10-12 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - September 11, 2012 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Assessing the conventions. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: My journeys to Tampa and Charlotte were instructive but not very exciting. The Republican convention featured three main messages: The President has failed to improve the economy; he has no clue what to do next; and Mitt Romney can improve things. It took four days to get that out.
Things were more complicated on the Democratic side because that party is divided. Traditional Democrats continue to support President Obama, but seem a bit uneasy with the radical turn the party has taken. The prime time speakers included the head of Planned Parenthood, who wants abortion without limits with taxpayer funding.
Just to make sure we didn't miss that point, Sandra Fluke was given a high profile speaking spot to put forth her vision for the country. Then there was Caroline Kennedy, who offended millions of Christians when she said, 'As a Catholic woman I take reproductive health seriously and it is under attack.'
The embarrassments continued with the Democrats initially taking the word 'God' out of their platform and then putting it back in. The economy is bad and the Democratic Party should spend the bulk of its time trying to fix that rather than ginning up phony controversies and promoting divisive class warfare.
I simply cannot figure out why President Obama has handed his party over to extremists. If he thinks Planned Parenthood and Sandra Fluke are going to get him elected, he's making a major mistake. The more he embraces the radical left and the more he shows disdain for American tradition, the more likely it is that he will lose.
WOW! O'Reilly is just a joke. To begin with abortion is LEGAL, so a person who supports abortion is not an extremist. The actual extremists are the pro-life O'Reilly and his right-wing friends who oppose abortion no matter what, even in the case of rape or incest. That is extreme, and most of the Republicans are extreme, and yet, the insane O'Reilly calls Kennedy and Fluke extremists for supporting abortion, when it's fricking LEGAL.
That alone shows just how much of a biased right-wing hack O'Reilly is, then on top of that he ignores all the anti-woman policies the GOP support, to claim they are not anti-woman, when they are. O'Reilly just will not admit it, because he is a Republican and he is covering for their extremism and their anti-woman platform.
Then Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham were on to discuss it. Williams said this: "I was in Charlotte and I didn't see extremists as you described them. Caroline Kennedy didn't insult the church, she just said what I think a majority of Catholics believe. 82% of Catholics believe that a woman can practice contraception."
Williams also quoted a Gallup poll that said 40% of Catholic women do not have a problem with abortion. But O'Reilly said he did not believe it and told Williams he was reading the poll wrong. Which is just laughable, O'Reilly just does not want to admit the truth, and even a Gallup poll would not change his biased mind.
Then of course the right-wing Mary K. Ham said that many Democratic speakers, including Sandra Fluke, qualify as extremists, saying this: "She was up on stage saying everyone should pay for everyone else's birth control. The allegation was that people like me allegedly want to take them back to some kind of 'dark age for women.' I think it's ridiculous."
O'Reilly reminded Williams that abortion and contraception are vastly different issues, based on a poll he had from somewhere, not Gallup, Billy said this: "75% of practicing American Catholics believe abortion is morally wrong and the Catholic Church condemns abortion. You can not be a practicing Catholic and promote abortion, so Caroline Kennedy is in deep trouble with the Church."
Basically the ridiculous O'Reilly told Juan that his poll is valid and the Gallup poll he had is garbage, why? Because O'Reilly did not like what it said, and he tried to make people believe the only poll that is valid is the one he dug up from somewhere. Which is just nonsense, because Gallup is the #1 polling company in America. O'Reilly simply made a fool of himself, and proved his pro-life right-wing bias doing it.
Then Karl Rove was on to talk about how President Obama has opened up a lead in some national polls. With no Democratic guest on to give the other side. And remember this, O'Reilly had Rove on even though he is usually wrong, he predicted a 4 to 6 point bounce for Romney and Romney got nothing. But O'Reilly continues to have the biased fool on all alone anyway.
Rove said this: "The polls are probably accurate. Democrats generally get a five-point bounce out of their conventions and that's what this one looks like, but let's see how long it lasts. In 1980 after the conventions Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan 44 - 40, and after the 1988 conventions Michael Dukakis led George H.W. Bush by seventeen points. There have only been four state polls released since the conventions, and all of those showed movement toward Mitt Romney. The outcome is very much up for grabs."
Then Brit Hume was on with his take on the latest poll numbers, saying this: "Looking at the likely voter polls from Gallup and Rasmussen, it appears that the President has a little bit of a lead. There's a certain presumption in favor of a sitting president, which may account for part of President Obama's buoyancy in the polling. And the big TV audience for the Democratic convention was in the 10 to 11 hour, which is where you had Mrs. Obama, Bill Clinton, Vice President Biden, and the President. The strongest impressions that were left by the convention were left by those people."
Then the biased O'Reilly expressed mild surprise at the Obama uptick, saying this: "The Democrats loaded up with prime time speakers who are off-the-chart left, well out of the mainstream. I thought that would have a residual effect."
Earth to O'Reilly, you are an idiot, and the speakers they had are not out of the mainstream, you are! The reason you think they are extreme is because you are the one who is extreme, and you think anyone who does not agree with you is extreme. Look in the mirror, you are the one who is extreme, they are in the mainstream, not you.
Then Jesse Watters was at the Democratic convention last week and ran into some notable folks, who treated him like the plague. Among the people who snubbed Watters: Dan Rather, Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel, Eva Longoria and Jessica Alba. And the pithiest reaction came from Vivian Schiller, who left NPR in disgrace before landing at NBC News.
Schiller's response as Jesse approached: "You're a creep!" Back in the comfort of the studio, Watters summed up his week, saying this: "I was treated pretty well except I was kicked out of a hotel when I tried to interview Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. Hotel security descended on me and told me that if I set foot in the hotel again, they'd charge me with second-degree trespassing."
Then Bernie Goldberg was on to evaluate the "60 Minutes" segment featuring a former Navy SEAL who shot Osama bin Laden. Goldberg said this: "It was riveting television with no slant and no opinions. Scott Pelley asked the questions the way you should and he let the guy tell his story. It was good television, it was serious television, and it was done the right way."
Goldberg also reacted to ABC's Cokie Roberts, who criticized the Democratic convention for being over the top in terms of abortion, saying this: "She's Catholic, and I wouldn't be shocked if a Catholic watches one speech after another on abortion and then says, 'enough!' Another possibility is that Cokie Roberts, a Democrat, feels Barack Obama is in trouble with Catholic voters. The third possibility is that this was just honest analysis. I'm guessing that her politics played some role in this."
Let me add this, O'Reilly said the abortion stuff was a waste of time and that the Democrats should focus on the economy and jobs. Which is just laughable, because the Republicans are the people who bring the abortion issue into the mix, they have been crying about abortion for 50 years, even though it's LEGAL. If they would shut up about abortion and leave it alone, the Democrats would never say a word about it, all they are doing is responding to the Republicans.
Then O'Reilly added another Republican to his list of regulars, he welcomed radio host and comedian Adam Carolla, who will be a Monday regular.
Carolla said this: "Second only to the birth of one of my twins, this is the most exciting day in my life. I won't say which twin so it won't be emotionally damaging."
Asked to review Clint Eastwood's routine at the GOP convention, Carolla gave it two-thumbs-down, saying this: "He shouldn't have been talking to the chair, he should have been talking to his hair. He now has crazy old man hair, he looks like Phyllis Diller just getting out of bed. How unprepared can you be, Clint?"
Carolla also took a shot at the Democrats, especially those who claim there is a war on women, saying this: "I like beer, but I will pay for my own beer. You not paying for my beer is not a 'war on beer,' it's me being in charge of something that I ingest."
Which is the dumbest comparison I have ever seen, comparing paying for drinking beer to a womans right to have their insurance plan (that they actually pay for btw) pay for contraception is ridiculous. And it just proves what a right-wing idiot Carolla is.
And finally, O'Reilly had the lame tip of the day, Billy said this: Monday's Tip: You can make the summer last just a little longer by listening to the latest Beach Boys CD marking the band's 50th anniversary.
Ryan: I Didn't Vote For Defense Cuts I Voted For By: Steve - September 11, 2012 - 10:00am
Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan has gotten in hot water before for criticizing President Obama for the very same defense cuts that he voted for in 2011. When confronted with it Sunday on Face The Nation, Ryan simply denied that he ever voted for the cuts, telling Norah O'Donnell that he didn't actually vote for the cuts he's on record as voting for:
O'DONNELL: Now you're criticizing the President for those same defense cuts you're voting for and called a victory.
RYAN: No, no — I have to correct on you this, Norah. I voted for a mechanism that says the sequester will occur if we don't cut $1.2 trillion in government. We can get into this nomenclature; I voted for the Budget Control Act. But the Obama Administration proposed $478 billion in defense cuts. We don't agree with that, our budget rejected that, and then on top of that is another $500 billion in defense cuts in the sequester.
O'DONNELL: Right. A trillion dollars in defense spending, and you voted for it!
RYAN: No, Norah. I voted for the Budget Control Act.
O'DONNELL: That included defense spending!
RYAN: Norah, you're mistaken.
O'Donnell is, in fact, not mistaken.
The Budget Control Act, included both the roughly $600 billion in sequestration cuts that will happen if there's no compromise on the budget by December as well as the $487 billion of military-supported cuts that will take place regardless.
The fact that Ryan wished that the bill didn't contain those defense cuts does not absolve him of the fact that he and 201 other Republicans voted for the bill as it was passed.
Not to mention, Ryan's statement after voting for the bill did not have a single word of criticism about the defense cuts.
As O'Donnell correctly noted, Ryan said the bill "represents a victory for those committed to controlling government spending and growing our economy and that The agreement – while far from perfect – underscores the extent to which the new House majority has successfully changed Washington's culture of spending."
Basically it's a flat out lie, for Ryan to claim that voting for the Budget Control Act did not mean voting for defense cuts. And as usual O'Reilly never said a word about any of it, because he does not want you to know the truth about the hypocrisy and the lies Romney and Ryan are putting out.
More Proof Mitt Romney Is A Dishonest Right-Wing Liar By: Steve - September 10, 2012 - 10:00am
Back in January Romney admitted to Laura Ingraham that the economy was getting better so it would be hard for him to use the line from Reagan "are you better off now than you were 4 years ago." But now that he is the Republican running against Obama he is spinning out a different tune.
The Romney campaign is reprising former President Reagan's "are you better off?" question, in an attempt to paint President Obama as a failure when it comes to the economy.
"He can't tell you that you're better off," said Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan. "Simply put, the Jimmy Carter years look like the good old days compared to where we are now."
Ummm, yes he can jerk, because we are better off now, way better.
Romney introduced the theme during his speech before the Republican National Convention, saying this: "Every president since the Great Depression who came before the American people asking for a second term could look back at the last four years and say with satisfaction: 'you are better off today than you were four years ago.' Except Jimmy Carter. And except this president."
Which is ridiculous, because we are better off. And of course Fox News is running with the propaganda from Romney and Ryan.
"Saying that things are better off is an insult," added Romney campaign adviser Eric Fehrnstrom. But if it's an insult to say that the economy is better off, then Mitt Romney has been slinging some insults of his own, considering how he answered a question from talk radio host Laura Ingraham back in January:
INGRAHAM: You've also noted that there are signs of improvement on the horizon in the economy. How do you answer the president's argument that the economy is getting better in a general election campaign if you yourself are saying it's getting better?
ROMNEY: Well, of course it's getting better. The economy always gets better after a recession, there is always a recovery.
INGRAHAM: Isn't it a hard argument to make if you're saying, OK, he inherited this recession, he took a bunch of steps to try to turn the economy around, and now, we're seeing more jobs, but vote against him anyway? Isn't that a hard argument to make? Is that a stark enough contrast?
ROMNEY: Have you got a better one, Laura? It just happens to be the truth.
When President Obama took office, the economy was losing 800,000 jobs per month and contracting at a rate of 8.9 percent. As Time's Michael Grunwald noted, at that pace, "we would have lost the entire Canadian economy in 2009."
Just four years ago, in September 2008, the U.S. was gripped by financial panic.
Investment banks were failing, mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed into conservatorship, and the groundwork was being laid for the Bush administration's $700 billion bailout of the financial system. Not to mention the stock market has doubled from a low of 6,500 to over 13,000 now. Which is one of the main things the Republicans used to use to measure the economy, until Obama took office.
Now, a slow recovery has taken hold, which is undoubtedly an improvement. And not that long ago, Romney himself was willing to admit it, before he was the guy running for office against Obama. Proving he is now a dishonest right-wing stooge who will say anything to try and win in November.
Warren Tells Romney How Corporations Are Not People By: Steve - September 9, 2012 - 11:00am
Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic senate candidate in Massachusetts, drew roaring cheers, and applause at the Democratic Convention Wednesday when she laid out the differences between corporations and people.
Knocking Romney for his infamous line "corporations are people, my friend," Warren illustrated the stark divides, saying this:
WARREN: Mitt Romney's the guy who said corporations are people. No, Governor Romney, corporations are not people.
People have hearts. They have kids. They get jobs. They get sick. They thrive. They dance. They live. They love. And they die. And that matters.
That matters. That matters because we don't run this country for corporations, we run it for people.
The Friday 9-7-12 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review By: Steve - September 8, 2012 - 11:00am
The far-right propagandist Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly, and her TPM was called: Bad jobs report is bad news for President Obama. Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: Let's stipulate to the following: President Obama is a loving father and husband who had an unconventional upbringing, and the First Lady is intelligent, dedicated to helping the troops, and a great mom. But this does nothing to change the fact that our economy is virtually stalled.
We learned today that our labor force participation rate is the lowest in thirty years, so when the President cites the August growth of 96,000 jobs it's a joke. The Democrats are playing purely a 'get out the base' strategy here. So it's abortion, gay marriage, raising taxes on the wealthy, and immigration amnesty. This might be music to the ears of the activists, but it's not going to get the economy roaring back, which is what voters care about.
Nothing in the President's speech last night demonstrated that he's prepared to make changes in his policy or his governing style, which is disturbing and deeply disappointing. Given the crushing federal debt amassed during his term, the persistent joblessness, and the pain that so many citizens are feeling, how can he not make any changes?
What happens if Team Obama continues to ask voters for patience without a real plan? You can get elected on hope, but you can't get re-elected on it.
Now remember this, all that is 100% right-wing spin and propaganda. And O'Reilly is just as bad as she is for letting her put that out in his name on his show. Notice that Ingraham never said a word about Georgw W. Bush and the Republicans leaving Obama the giant mess he had to fix, or that Republicans blocked everything Obama wanted to do for 4 years to create jobs by blocking the bills in the Senate.
Then she had the Republican Douglas Holtz-Eakin, and the liberal David Callahan on to discuss it.
Holtz-Eakin said this: "This is an unrelenting bad report. We had 368,000 people give up looking for a job, and the 96,000 new jobs are heavily concentrated in just a few areas. There has been no growth in earnings, no growth in hours, no growth! We need to take on the debt, do entitlement reform, do tax reform, and relieve the regulatory burden."
David Callahan of the liberal think tank Demos suggested that the numbers indicate a structural change in the economy, saying this: "Looking beyond the blame game, my concern is whether our economy is changing in fundamental ways where a lot of the good jobs are going overseas. My fear is that neither political party is addressing the problem that we have a changed economy and we need deep investments in infrastructure and science."
Laura took issue with Callahan's choice of words, saying this: "When you say 'investment,' that means federal spending. We added more than a trillion dollars to the federal debt last year, so how much more can you spend? We're out of money!
In the next segment Ingraham had Democrats Kirsten Powers and Mary Anne Marsh on to assess the speeches at the Democratic convention.
Powers said this: "Joe Biden did a really good job. This was one time when he did what he needed to do, it was like a conversation with the folks and he made the case for Obama. I thought it was a little better than the President's speech, which was flat and more somber than usual."
Marsh agreed that Joe Biden was the star of the final night, saying this: "He is a regular Joe, the guy from Scranton who can say, 'I work with Barack Obama every day and he's got what it takes to be a great president for another four years.' That's what every speech was designed to do. Michelle Obama validated that Barack Obama is a good guy and Bill Clinton said President Obama can put the economy back on track like he did."
But of course Ingraham did not agree, arguing that even great speechifying can't mask the poor economy, saying this: "The razzle-dazzle personal narrative is wonderful to behold, but that doesn't change the reality for most Americans."
And of course she did not say any of that about the speeches at the RNC convention. She loved them, and said they can change reality for Americans.
Then Ingraham cried that Hollywood was resorting to the politics of fear. Ingraham said actress Kerry Washington ominously warned that unnamed "people out there" are eager to take away women's rights, including the right to vote. Which is 100% true, but Ingraham refuses to admit it.
Liberal Jasmyne Cannick was on to discuss it, saying this: "The Democratic Party is doing what it needs to do to fire up its base. Look at voter ID laws that are strongly supported by the Republican Party. I'm actually scared to live under a Romney administration, from contraception to abortion to whether people have access to quality health care and education and housing and jobs."
And of course Ingraham disagreed with those accusations, saying this: "As a woman, I'm actually offended. When you're saying that Republican candidates are trying to stop women from voting, stop them from getting health care, and stop them from getting educated, that sounds like the Taliban, not the Republican Party that I'm a part of."
Then I guess she does not know what the Republican party is doing, because they are trying to stop women from getting health care, etc. It's a war on women, the poor, and the middle class, Ingraham just will not admit it, and neither will O'Reilly.
Then Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky and Republican pollster Kristen Soltis were on to assess the state of the presidential race.
Roginsky said this: "The bottom line, is that most people have already made up their minds. Both parties are all about getting out their base, and I thought President Obama's speech energized his base so they realize the stakes and get to the polls."
Soltis countered that President Obama's speech was mostly recycled, saying this: "This sounded like a speech he could have given in 2008. He's been trying for four years and not succeeding, so the real question is how he'll do something different over the next four years. He didn't answer that. The question is who will make you better off four years from now and I don't think either candidate has fully made that argument, which is why this election is still a tossup."
Ingrham then predicted that President Obama's poll numbers may actually go down, saying this: "I think this could be one of the first times that a candidate doesn't get a bounce out of his own convention, but gives a bounce to the other guy."
And as usual she let her partisan ideology get in the way of reality, because Gallup reported that President Obama got a 7 point bounce in his job approval ratings after the speech and the DNC convention. So that just goes to show you what Ingraham knows, nothing!
Then Geraldo was on for his take on the Democratic convention, especially the voice vote over whether "God" and "Jerusalem" belonged in the party platform.
Geraldo said this: "This was a terrible self-inflicted wound. By taking 'God' out, what extra vote do they get, and they offended the Jewish vote by taking out Jerusalem. So they had to scramble and change the platform, but it was pretty clear that they didn't get even a simple majority of the voice vote, let alone the two-thirds required. This was pie on their face."
Ingraham also asked Rivera about Cardinal Timothy Dolan's convention-ending prayer, in which he decried abortion. Geraldo said this: "Cardinal Dolan is the most powerful Catholic in the United States, and he follows in the great tradition of political activism. He wasn't going to soften his message and he delivered a very hard anti-abortion message."
Now think about this, most people who vote Democratic do not really care about religion or abortion, that is mostly what Republicans care about, so how the hell does that hurt Obama, it's ridiculous. Not to mention, by the time to vote nobody will remember it, and most people have already decided who they will vote for.
Then Ingraham ran a re-run interview of O'Reilly and Sister Simone Campbell, which I do not report on because it's a re-run.
And finally Ingraham had the so-called political reporter Jonathan Strong on to single out the best and worst of the Democratic National Convention.
Strong said this: "One of the big winners, was Bill Clinton, who is at the top of his game. He has the ability to present complicated policy ideas in a real palpable way. And Julian Castro was the Barack Obama of 2004 in this year's convention. Nobody knew who he was but he has this ineffable quality that makes him instantly likeable."
As for the week's biggest loser, Strong didn't hesitate, saying this: "Debbie Wasserman Schultz had a particularly brutal week. She was quoted as saying the Israeli ambassador told her that Republicans are dangerous for Israel, then she went on Fox and denied that she said it. But the reporter posted the audio with the exact words she was quoted as saying."
O'Reilly Tells Romney To Blame Obama For Gas Prices By: Steve - September 8, 2012 - 10:00am
Thursday night, the right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly told Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to hammer President Obama over gas prices. But in 2008 O'Reilly was singing a different tune, correctly saying that "it's complete B.S." for politicians to claim they will bring down oil and gasoline prices.
Then his guest Karl Rove reassured O'Reilly that his SuperPAC is running false advertisements on that very subject. And that's not all, the Fox News network has aided Rove's efforts by repeatedly airing a misleading graphic that implies President Obama is to blame for rising gasoline prices, and claiming that Americans are worse off than they were four years ago.
Even though the right-wing Wall Street Journal has said gas prices are "largely fixed by the price of crude oil, which is determined by global supply and demand," and "when Mr. Obama was inaugurated, demand was weak due to the recession. But now it's stronger, and thus the price is higher."
O'Reilly has also admitted (many, many, times) that a lot of the high cost of oil is the corrupt oil speculators who bid up the price of oil to simply get richer. But now that we are near the election O'Reilly (the so-called non-partisan Independent) is calling on Romney to use lies and dirty tricks to defeat Obama. Even after slamming Democrats for using the same tactics.
Earlier this year, PolitiFact rated a similar claim "mostly false" partly because it failed to account for seasonal gas price fluctuations between winter and summer -- a factor Fox News also ignores.
While oil production has risen under the Obama administration, experts say that increasing drilling in the U.S. won't lower gas prices. But by reducing our dependence on oil, including by raising fuel economy standards, we can reduce the American economy's vulnerability to price spikes.
Folks, this is 100% proof O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack. Because when Democrats use tactics like that O'Reilly slams them and calls them lying traitors, then he calls for Romney to be as dishonest as he wants so he can beat Obama. As he claims to be a non-partisan who has no dog in the fight, which is as dishonest as it gets.
The Thursday 9-6-12 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - September 7, 2012 - 11:00am
There was no TPM, and O'Reilly went right to the Top Story called: Live from the Democratic National Convention. O'Reilly started with live coverage of Caroline Kennedy's speech to the assembled Democrats, in which she affirmed her Catholic faith and her resolute support for abortion.
O'Reilly had this analysis, saying this: "I am stunned at what she just said, that as a Catholic woman she objects to states restricting abortion. She is invoking her Catholic faith, which clearly condemns abortion, and using it as a springboard to criticize the restrictions on abortion that many states have passed. That made my head snap back, I'm flabbergasted."
And of course he is flabbergasted, because he is a pro-life right-wing hack who hates everything Democrats say, especially when they are talking about abortion.
Then the far-right Karl Rove was on, who agreed with O'Reilly, saying this: "This was a direct attack on the Catholic Church, and she's going out of her way to say she disagrees with the values of her church. No one is talking seriously this year about ending abortion, we're talking about the administration's effort to require churches to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees. We have an attack on religious liberty that's masquerading as an expansion of 'choice,' and Ms. Kennedy tonight threw herself on the side of those who advocate such an attack on religious liberty."
WOW! Rove is a flat-out liar, he said nobody is talking about ending abortion, but he is wrong, because the Republican party even added no abortion for any reason to their platform.
So then O'Reilly again expressed total bewilderment at Caroline Kennedy's speech, saying this: "If she wants unfettered abortion that's her opinion, but she didn't have to mention that she's a Catholic woman and she opposes any restriction on abortion. I'm frankly shocked that she would do that. This isn't like birth control, this is a deeply held belief in the Roman Catholic Church."
Then Rove slammed Clinton's highly-acclaimed (by everyone but Republicans) Wednesday night speech, saying this: "His presentation and energy were good, but the substance was mixed. He did what Obama wanted him to do by saying this will take longer. There's a tension that was evident just by bringing Clinton onto the stage; people's patience is wearing thin and they want to know why President Obama is not getting better at this. The median family income has dropped, which has never happened in a recovery, and there is anemic growth."
And then of course O'Reilly the right-wing hack also gave President Clinton mixed grades, saying this: "I thought the speech was too long, but he did what he had to do, he made President Obama sympathetic."
WOW! That is ridiculous, because Clinton showed that Obama has done a good job considering what he had to deal with what Bush left him. One great point Clinton made that both O'Reilly and Rove ignored is that in the 12 years before Clinton took office the Republicans quadrupled the debt. Then he balanced the budget and left Bush a $200 billion dollar surplus, and the Bush spent it all, and doubled the debt from before Clinton was President.
O'Reilly and Rove never said a word about that, even though they claim to be the debt warriors.
Rove then turned to President Obama's acceptance speech and the pre-speech excerpts that were handed out to the media. Rove said this: "What I'm taken by, is how many of these promises we've heard before and how he is downsizing his promises. For example, four years ago he said he would cut the deficit in half in his first year in office to $580-billion. Now he's promising that he's going to save $4-trillion over the next decade, but his own budget forecast says the budget will still be over a billion dollars."
As actress Eva Longoria took to the podium, O'Reilly asked Karl Rove about the importance of celebrity endorsements. "I'm the last guy to ask about popular culture, but she's a Texan and she's popular. President Obama is worried about declining support among young voters, who turned out in record numbers last time around. This time around enthusiasm is way down, they'll likely be a smaller share of the electorate, and the race is much tighter among young people. So he thinks getting people out there like Eva Longoria will help him."
Then O'Reilly had Megyn Kelly (the pro-life Republican) on to talk about the Democrats claim that American women's "right to choose" is under assault by Republicans.
Kelly said this: "They're talking about reproductive rights and a woman's right to choose what she wants for her own body. They view that as including a right to abortion without government interference and the right to have 'access' to contraception. The pro-lifers don't like abortion on demand and most of them want to see abortion illegal."
Kelly also said this: "Another faction of that group says, 'If we can't have that, then we want more limitations on abortion,' such as requiring women who want to have an abortion to submit to an ultrasound where they are shown the beating heart of a baby. The other side says that's outrageous and I shouldn't have the government telling me what I need to do before I have a procedure that is legal. The official party platform here is in favor of partial birth abortion."
O'Reilly (the pro-life Republican) questioned the claim that women's choice is being threatened, saying this: "The Supreme Court has said abortion is legal in the United States and politicians can not override that, and there's birth control at every pharmacy and at Planned Parenthood. It's not expensive and it's available to everybody. So I don't understand what's being threatened, I don't see women's rights under assault at all!"
Because you are a right-wing idiot, Republicans want to strike down Roe v Wade and make all abortions illegal, even in the case of rape or incest. If you do not see that by trying to do that women's rights are under assault you are a dishonest fool.
Then O'Reilly had the Republican Fox News White House correspondent Ed Henry on, who reported on President Obama and where he is at.
Henry said this: "He has been in a hotel here working a lot on his speech. One of his most senior advisers told me the President is a tinkerer, he's working on the speech and re-drafting it. It's a big challenge for the President tonight if you think about four years ago when he had the Greek columns and talked about 'hope and change.' If you look at the excerpts that have come out so far, it is much smaller in scope."
Henry also speculated that President Obama rarely has pre-speech jitters, saying this: "Once a speech has been written and he practices it, he sits down and mediates, closes his eyes, and then he comes out and feels he's like Michael Jordan, he wants the ball."
Before returning to convention coverage, the far-right biased hack Bill O'Reilly offered some comments, saying this: "The two sides are so far apart, which makes it a fascinating election. We saw the Democratic Party go further left than it has in my lifetime; we saw the Republican Party tilt a little further right. Independent voters, who will decide the election, are going to really have to think about which direction they want to take."
And btw folks, not one Democratic guest was on the show to comment on the Clinton or Obama speeches. It was nothing but Republicans, with all right-wing spin. So where was the balance O'Reilly, you biased hack of a right-wing jerk.
Spin vs Reality On The RNC Mitt Romney Speech By: Steve - September 7, 2012 - 10:00am
O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Crowley, Hume, and all the other right-wing stooges loved the Mitt Romney RNC speech, saying it was great. And that my friends is what is known as spin and right-wing propaganda.
In reality, the speech was average and Gallup even said the Romney speech got it's lowest ratings of any they have measured since 1996. In the poll 40% said the speech made them more likely to vote for Romney, but 38% said the speech made them less likely to vote for Romney. That's a net impact of +2.
Independents, a key group in any presidential election, were essentially split, with 36% saying the convention made them more likely to vote for Romney and 33% less likely -- and 30% said they don't know or that the convention made no difference.
Here are a couple examples of what you can get when the people actually like you. Barack Obama's Democratic convention in 2008 generated a net impact score of +14.
John Kerry's Democratic convention in 2004 also had a net impact score of +14.
And the 1992 Democratic convention generated the largest net impact in Gallup's records; at that time, 60% of Americans said it made them more likely to vote for Bill Clinton and 15% said it made them less likely.
Romney's acceptance speech scored low by comparison to previous convention speeches going back to 1996. Thirty-eight percent of Americans rated the speech as excellent or good, while 16% rated it as poor or terrible.
The 38% who rated the speech as excellent or good is the lowest rating of any of the eight speeches Gallup has tested since Bob Dole's GOP acceptance speech in 1996.
Now think about this, 83% of Republicans said the speech made them more likely to vote for Romney, proving their partisan bias.
Americans today get their news and information about events like political conventions from a number of sources. Many do not watch the conventions live on television, but may see bits and pieces later on the Internet or on other broadcast or cable programs.
Reinforcing this, the 51% of Americans who said they watched a great deal or some of the convention on TV is the second-lowest for any of the eight conventions Gallup has asked about going back to 1996.
Only the Republican convention in 1996 was viewed on TV by fewer Americans. The most watched of the eight based on this measure was the 2008 Republican convention in which McCain was nominated for president and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was confirmed as the Republicans vice presidential nominee.
And btw, on the O'Reilly Factor Karl Rove said Romney would get a 4 to 6 point bump from his speech and the RNC convention. And as usual, Rove was wrong.
Gallup has completed their post-GOP convention polling duties, and the reviews are not complimentary. Mitt Romney has enjoyed little or no post-convention bump. Gallup reports that it is easily the worst rating given to any of the last eight convention acceptance speeches.
The Wednesday 9-5-12 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - September 6, 2012 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Bill Clinton takes center stage at the DNC. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As you may know, the Democratic platform omitted the word 'God' and did not state that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. That caused much fear and loathing and earlier today the Democratic leadership decided to reverse itself. The convention Chair almost had to beg the delegates to stop the madness and bow to God.
It's obvious that some Democrats still do not want any reference to God or Jerusalem, and there is no question that the party has become extremely liberal, dominated by uber-liberals. The performance today shows America that the Democratic Party is not unified. There are moderate Democrats and far-left loons, and the loons have a lot of power.
Sandra Fluke wants us to pay for her birth control, she also wants us to pay for transgender medical treatment, and she is a featured speaker at the Democratic convention! President Obama should be embarrassed, but I don't think he is. I don't think he's a loon, but he certainly doesn't mind crazy folks around him.
On the plus side for the Democrats, Michelle Obama's speech was a good one. The party is not dead, but it is confused and it's hard to see how independent voters are going to be swayed by what's going on in Charlotte.
Then Dick Morris was on, who of course criticized the Democrats for another plank in their platform regarding Israel.
Morris said this: "They deleted a provision about isolating Hamas until it renounces terrorism and recognizes Israel's right to exist. It is very significant to me that the President said he wants Jerusalem back in the platform, but not the provision about Hamas. I believe he is so mesmerized by his own bias toward the Palestinians that he can't help himself. Hamas is the leading terrorist organization in the Middle East."
Morris also defended his previous claim that Bill Clinton doesn't actually want Barack Obama to win in November, saying this: "Having Clinton speak on Wednesday night is a mistake for Obama. He should have put Biden in that spot because Biden is going to rip Romney while Clinton won't. I guarantee you Bill Clinton wants Obama to be defeated. He has to appear to be pro-Obama, but in his heart it's a different story."
WOW! Dick Morris must be on drugs, or he is a total idiot, or maybe both. Because what he said about Bill Clinton wanting Obama to lose is off the charts insanity. And saying the Clinton speech will damage Obama is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Morris concluded with the ridiculous claim that Bill Clinton's appearance will actually damage President Obama, saying this: "The biggest problem Obama has is his incompetence, and when Bill Clinton stands up there he is a walking, living, breathing reminder of what Obama is not."
Then Professor Marc Lamont Hill was on, he reacted to the Democrats' initial decision to omit the word "God" from their platform, saying this: "This is not a religious argument, and we don't have to use the word 'God' to talk about morality or ethics or what people are entitled to. We believe in not having a marginalized or disgruntled minority group, so we don't want to offend people who don't need 'God' language in there. Personally, would I have taken the word 'God' out? No, but what ticked me off is that they put it back. I feel like the Democratic Party keeps caving, they are cowards."
So O'Reilly said that removing the word "God" was a major blunder, saying this: "People are put off by a secular platform that ignores Judeo-Christian tradition. What does it say about Barack Obama that he and his guys allow fringe people to put forth the party platform?"
Then Kirsten Powers and Mary Anne Marsh were on to evaluate Mitt Romney's performance as Massachusetts Governor from 2003 to 2006.
Marsh said this: "He balanced the budget on the backs of the people who could least afford it. He raised fees on everyday people for everyday things. If you wanted to get married, the fees went up; if you wanted to go ice skating, the fees went up; and if you were blind and needed Braille services, the fees went up! He also cut hundreds of millions of dollars from education."
Powers gave Romney mixed grades as the state's chief executive, saying this: "I'll give him credit where credit is due and I think he did a lot of good things as governor. Balancing the budget is one of those things. Mary Anne is right in that there were a lot of cuts, but when you need to balance the budget you need to make cuts. The area where he gets the most valid criticism is the job situation, Massachusetts was 47th in the country in terms of creating jobs."
So of course O'Reilly disagreed with Powers statistic, saying this: "That is bogus because they almost had full employment in Massachusetts, and when Romney was governor that state was booming."
Then James Rosen and John Roberts checked in with a report from the floor of the Democratic convention.
Rosen said this: "The big event we're all waiting for is Bill Clinton. He will formally place the name of Barack Obama in nomination, the first time we've ever seen a former president do that for a sitting president. I spoke with a senior campaign aide who told me they've been working closely with Bill Clinton the entire time and they've reviewed what he's going to say."
Roberts added more perspective to the controversial changes in the Democratic Party platform, saying this: "Barack Obama himself asked why the word 'God' had been taken out of the platform. The more difficult question to answer is whose brilliant idea it was to take out 'God' and 'Jerusalem' in the first place. What was mucked up the most was the whole process of taking these things out and then trying to get them back in."
And finally in the last segment Carl Cameron was on to talk about his interview with Mitt Romney in New Hampshire Wednesday to discuss the Democratic convention.
Romney said this: "No one in the convention so far, has had the temerity to say that people are better off in America. This has been a very difficult four years and they're doing their best to celebrate something, but it's a celebration of failure."
Cameron also had a new update on the Romney campaign, saying this: "Mitt Romney has been doing debate prep for the last couple of days. He's actually doing the whole mock debate rehearsal process with Ohio Senator Rob Portman playing the role of Barack Obama. Romney is very much enthused and pumped up to go at Barack Obama. He was really up today and eager to chime in on a whole bunch of issues."
Another Clueless O'Reilly Lover Sent Me Mail By: Steve - September 6, 2012 - 10:30am
Now this guy is stupid, in fact, he may be the dumbest person who has ever sent me an e-mail. Here it is:
Your website is filled with pointless dribble. You show O'Reilly's show as having a 0 viewer rating this week during the convention as if it's because nobody's watching his show. You do realize his show HASN"T BEEN ON this week! Fox has been showing the actual convention all week. I know you must think you're some sort of intellectual that will save the world from this evil enemy called Fox News but once you get over yourself you'll realize you're just another pointless voice in a chorus of pointless voices.
Now here is my reply: Notice he does not provide any examples of the pointless dribble, and btw, it's drivel, dribble is what basketball players do. Then the idiot says I have a 0 viewer rating this week, which made me fall off my chair laughing.
To begin with, it's a weekly rating average, and I never once implied nobody is watching the show. I can not calculate that average until the week is over, and the Friday rating does not come out until next monday. Once I get the Friday rating then I calculate the weekly average and publish it in the ratings archives. The same archives that is linked to right on the front page, and the same archives that has ratings through the roof from years and years ago.
Then the idiot says O'Reilly has not been on this week because of the conventions, which is 100% wrong. On Monday the show was on and Monica Crowley hosted it, I even have the review in my blog. Then O'Reilly was back for the Tuesday and Wednesday shows, so this moron Silvio is as dumb as it gets.
And I do not (or have not ever) claimed to be an intellectual, I am just one guy who tells the truth about the bias, the spin, and the lies from O'Reilly. I stand by what I publish, and use transcripts, video, and what I watch to show what I am saying is accurate.
If I am just a pointless voice, why is my website the #1 ranked anti-O'Reilly website on the internet at Google. And why do people buy advertising from me, if I was just a pointless voice nobody would buy advertising on the website, and I would not have the #1 Google ranking.
And if you read this Silvio, let me give you some advice. Before you send a biased, partisan, stupid e-mail to a website owner, at least read the website so you know what the hell you are talking about. Because you got everything wrong, and you truly made a fool of yourself. In fact, your e-mail is one of the dumbest inaccurate e-mails I have ever seen in the 12 years I have run this website.
You are a typicl uninformed clueless right-wing O'Reilly lover, who can not dispute my reporting, so you resort to simple insults and name calling, then you get mad when you are called names back. Do yourself a favor, stop sending e-mails to website owners, because you lack the intelligence to discuss what they are reporting. All you have is insulting garbage, with no facts to back you up.
Bill Clinton Slams Paul Ryan Over His Medicare Lies By: Steve - September 6, 2012 - 10:00am
Bill Clinton singlehandedly dismantled the Romney-Ryan campaign narrative that President Obama is trying to put an end to Medicare at the Democratic Convention Wednesday night, pointing out that it is in fact the Romney-Ryan proposal for Medicare that would permanently change the program to a depreciating voucher system.
Clinton said this: It takes some brass, to attack a guy for doing what you did:
First, Both Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan attacked the President for allegedly robbing medicare of $716 billion. But it is not true.
So, President Obama and the Democrats did not weaken Medicare. They strengthened Medicare. When Congressman Ryan looked into that TV camera and attacked President Obama's Medicare savings as "the biggest, coldest power play," I did not know whether to laugh or cry.
Because that $716 billion is exactly to the dollar the same amount of medicare savings that he had in his own budget. It takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did.
RNC Highlights: Clint Eastwood & Record Low Ratings By: Steve - September 6, 2012 - 9:00am
The PEW Research Center released a poll about the RNC convention on September 5th, and here is some of what they found.
The public paid far less attention to this year's Republican convention than it did to the GOP convention four years ago. Just 37% say they watched all or some of the Republican convention, down from 56% in 2008.
And while there has been a modest two percent increase in the percentage saying they view Mitt Romney more favorably in the wake of the convention, his acceptance speech was not the highlight of the event:
As many of those who watched at least a little convention coverage cited Clint Eastwood's speech as the convention highlight (20%) as named Romney's speech (17%). One-in-five say there was no convention highlight.
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Aug. 31-Sept. 3 among 1,008 adults, finds that even among Republicans Romney's speech was not the standout event of the convention.
A quarter of Republican convention-watchers (25%) said Romney's speech was the highlight, 19% named Eastwood's performance, 15% named Paul Ryan's speech and 13% cited Ann Romney's address.
More independents who watched convention coverage cited Eastwood's speech than Romney's speech as the convention highlight (26% vs. 17%), while a plurality of Democrats (40%) said there was no convention highlight.
Read this now and remember it, because you will never get this news from O'Reilly or anyone at Fox News.
The Tuesday 9-4-12 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - September 5, 2012 - 11:30am
The TPM was called: Overview of the Democratic Convention. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The Democrats are really up against it this year. Their story is grim and a new poll conducted for The Hill confirms that. 54% of likely voters say President Obama does not deserve to be reelected, while 52% say the country is in worse condition than four years ago.
So the mood of the country is not with President Obama and the Democratic Party; therefore, the Democrats are going to have to do some high-steppin'. The first thing they'll do is tell voters they are absolutely better off than they were four years ago, they just don't know it. But there is no question the country is worse off today than when President Obama took office.
Unemployment is up, median income down, the price of gas has more than doubled, and the national debt has increased by $5-trillion. Many voters believe President Obama has had enough time to improve things, but he says his situation is unique.
It's up to you to decide whether Mitt Romney and the Republicans should get a chance to improve things. Talking Points has said from the beginning of this campaign that the vote will be a referendum on Barack Obama.
The Republican Party knows that and therefore Governor Romney is going to play it very safe; he's not going to be drawn into any policy controversy or make any bold and fresh statements. He's simply going to say Barack Obama has failed to bring prosperity and he will be able to do that.
I believe that if America continues its record spending and continues to borrow billions of dollars ever day the economy is going to get much worse. Many liberals don't seem to care about looming bankruptcy, they want to provide 'social justice' and don't really care about the unintended consequences.
So throughout the Democratic convention you'll hear that the Republicans want to hurt the folks by taking away their rightful stuff. The President surely knows his administration has not been economically effective. America is in trouble and politicians in both parties better do something about it or all of us will suffer in the years to come. We need unselfish leadership and we need to recognize the truth. The B.S. has to walk!
Talk about B.S., that entire talking points memo was right-wing propaganda B.S. And btw, it's the exact same propaganda the Romney campaign is putting out. The truth is we are better off, 4 years ago we were on the brink of a depression, the stock market was at 6,500, their was a housing crisis, a financial crisis, a banking crisis, and 2 million jobs were lost in 3 months before Obama took office.
O'Reilly ignores all that, to spin out righ-wing propaganda using meaningless stats. Here are some facts for O'Reilly:
1) The Economy Has Grown For 12 Consecutive Quarters.
2) Private Sector Employment Has Grown For 29 Months Adding Millions Of Jobs.
3) The stock market has doubled since the low point in 2009. The Dow increased 99 percent from its low of 6547.05 on March 9, 2009; the Dow closed at 13000.71 on August 30.
4) GDP Has Been Higher Each Year Since 2009 Than It Would Have Been Without the Obama stimulus bill.
5) Because of the Obama Stimulus, The Unemployment Rate Has Been Lower Each Year Since 2009 Than It Otherwise Would Have Been.
Then O'Reilly got even more ridiculous (if that's even possible) by having the far-right partisan hack Charles Krauthammer on to give his analysis of how the media reported on the RNC convention. Which is just laughable, and of course Krauthammer hated it because he is a biased Republican who hates the media.
Krauthammer said this: "I saw one general consensus, which is that Republicans lied repeatedly and shamelessly in their speeches. They particularly centered on Paul Ryan and they don't even pretend to be objective anymore. But when Ryan talked about President Obama taking $716-billion out of Medicare and spending it on Obamacare, that is absolutely true."
Krauthammer also said this: "The media live in a bubble of liberalism, so when you get to a complicated issue they find it easier to accept Democratic talking points. They did the same thing on welfare, where the Obama administration has absolutely undermined the central work requirement which was the triumph of the 1986 welfare reform."
And now the facts, they did lie, and a former Bush official even admitted Ryan lied about the factory that closed under Bush, and yet Ryan blamed it on Obama. Plus a lot more was fact-checked and they said they do not go by what fact-checkers say. That's because they got caught lying and they did not like what the fact-checkers said. O'Reilly is a fool for putting Krauthammer on to put those lies out, and it's even more proof O'Reilly is also a right-wing hack.
Then Jesse Watters was on, who is in Charlotte for the Democratic convention, got some opinions on Clint Eastwood's empty chair routine. Here are a few of the comments: "It was very disappointing" ... "He's a very impressive man but he probably should have had it scripted" ... "The implied words that were not spoken were in very bad taste" ... "We were all kind of appalled" ... "I thought it was really stupid!"
All O'Reilly said about it was that some people liked it and some people did not. Which is ridiculous, because most people thought it was crazy, stupid, and disrespectful. The only people who liked it were a few far-right loons, but O'Reilly never reports that, making him a bad journalist.
Then O'Reilly said that as part of their show in Charlotte, the Democrats presented a tribute to the late Ted Kennedy, which included a portion of his 1994 debate with Mitt Romney. So he asked Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley whether the video was in bad taste. Which was a stupid question, but I expected it from a right-wing jerk like O'Reilly. Kennedy was a great Democrat for many years, so how the hell was it in bad taste to give him a tribute.
Colmes said this: "It was a tribute to Kennedy, and part of his career was going against Mitt Romney for Senate in Massachusetts, so it was relevant. The purpose wasn't to club Romney, the purpose was to pay tribute to Kennedy. You want to talk about bad taste? How about Clint Eastwood putting the 'f-word' in the mouth of an imaginary president?"
And of course the far-right loon Monica Crowley disagreed with Colmes, saying this: "Taking a dead man is indicative of who the Democrats are and what the modern Democratic Party is."
O'Reilly concluded that showing a lengthy excerpt from the Kennedy-Romney debate was inappropriate, saying this: "They used a dead guy to club Romney. This was like a vampire movie, someone rising from the dead to attack Mitt Romney."
Now that's funny, because only Republicans had a problem with it, because it made Romney look bad. O'Reilly and his right-wing friends only hated it because it showed Kennedy punking Romney like the right-wing stooge he is. And O'Reilly claims to be an Independent, which is a joke because he says the exact same things all the Republicans do.
And finally Brit Hume was on with his analysis of the DNC, saying this: "We have seen several things here over the past several days, suggesting that the Obama team is a little rusty and out of practice. We had the whole kerfuffle over the weekend about whether we are better off, then we had the President giving himself an 'incomplete' when asked to grade himself. That was a terrible answer, it was an off-the-cuff response and it didn't work very well."
O'Reilly disagreed, arguing that President Obama was simply making his case to independent voters, saying this: "He's saying to them that he needs more time to prove that his policies will pay off."
Bingo, and when Bush was in office for 4 years all the Republicans (including O'Reilly) said he needed another 4 years to finish his job, and that you do not vote a President out of office in the middle of his term. But now they sing a different tune, and want Obama out after 4 years.
Juan Williams provided his input from the convention floor, saying this: "It's interesting to listen how they're going after Mitt Romney. They're saying he doesn't get it, he doesn't understand what people are going through in this country. The Democratic talking point is that Romney is out of touch with you and me."
So let me get this straight, the so-called Democrat Juan Williams was on to give a Democratic point of view, and all he does is cry about how the Democrats are going after Romney, give me a break, if Juan Williams is a Democrat, I'm the King of England, and they do not have a king.
Then John Roberts reported that Republicans are truly worried about one particular Democratic speaker, saying this: "There is a lot of nervousness as to how good Bill Clinton is going to be. They're concerned that Clinton will be an exclamation point in this convention, that he will make some points that will be difficult to counter."
And they are right to be worried, because Bill Clinton will be the star of the show, and he will point out all the lies from the Republicans, while also showing that liberal policies can work if they are given enough time, as they did when he was the President. A fact that O'Reilly and the right refuse to talk about or admit.
As I predicted O'Reilly did not have one good thing to say about the DNC convention, and never will, because he is a partisan right-wing idiot, who will just not admit it. And he also stacked the show with Republican guests to make the Democrats look bad, while doing the very opposite for the Republican convention. Proving that he is a 100% biased hack of a pretend journalist.
Jon Stewart Comments On The Crazy Clint Eastwood By: Steve - September 5, 2012 - 11:00am
I have one word for this video and what Jon Stewart said about Clint Eastwood, Awesome!
O'Reilly & Crowley Spin And Lie For Romney On Taxes By: Steve - September 5, 2012 - 10:00am
Before I show you the actual evidence that Bill O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack who spins and lies to help Mitt Romney and hurt President Obama, think about this.
Bill O'Reilly claims to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone, where no SPECULATION is allowed. Then he supports 99% of the Republican Party positions on the issues, has 98% Republican guests on his show, spins everything he talks about to make the right look good and the left look bad, and speculates about the left, while not allowing anyone to speculate about the right.
Then on top of that O'Reilly agrees with his Republican guest about 90% of the time, even when they are spinning out 100% right-wing propaganda and talking points. O'Reilly also claims he never uses any RNC talking points, then he does, almost every day. In fact, every talking points memo he writes sounds like Karl Rove wrote it.
O'Reilly even has the partisan right-wing stooge Laura Ingraham fill in for him when he is on vacation, something no real non-partisan would ever do. To have an equal to her he would have to let Alan Colmes host his show, and he never does that, ever, or any other liberal.
But he still claims to be a non-partisan Independent, when he is no different than Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham. The only difference is that he will not admit to being a conservative, even though just watching him for one show clearly shows that he is a conservative. Which is lying to the American people about his bias and his right-wing ideology, making him a dishonest right-wing fraud of a journalist.
Here is another example of right-wing bias from O'Reilly, and you never see him do anything like this for Obama or any Democrat, ever. But he does things like this almost every day for Republicans.
On the 8-8-2012 O'Reilly Factor show, O'Reilly had Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley on to talk about the Tax Policy Center study of the Romney/Ryan tax plan. O'Reilly And Crowley claimed the Study showing Romney raised middle class taxes was "Biased" and nothing but "Conjecture."
Bill O'Reilly also said the Tax Policy Center's study was "basically theoretical." So then the partisan right-wing hack Monica Crowley said that the study had bias built into it by stating 2 of the people that did it served on the Obama council of economic advisors. While not saying anything about the 3rd person, who is a Republicans that served under George W. Bush.
This is what O'Reilly does, when he does not like what a study says, even when it is true, he says you can not believe it because it is theoretical and nothing but conjecture. Then he has a Republican guest on to back him up to make it look as if he is correct. While having the one liberal on who disagrees, so it's always a 2 on 1 with 2 Republicans against the 1 liberal.
Even when the study was non-partisan and proven to be accurate, O'Reilly still spins out the RNC talking points lies and has a Republican on to help him, while saying he does not favor Romney, as he is favoring Romney by lying for him. It's laughable, and totally dishonest.
Here is a partial transcript, don't just believe me, read it for yourself. Notice how O'Reilly says he is not favoring Romney over Obama or anything like that, as he lies about the study to favor Romney with the other lying right-wing guest Monica Crowley.
Here is the transcript:
O'REILLY: So the president is basing his projections of Governor Romney taking money from the poor and the working people and giving it to the fat cats on analysis by the Tax Policy Center, which is very complicated.
It has to do with phasing out deductions, and all kinds of things that are basically theoretical; they're not real things.
But the president is taking this and his guys have taken this and run with it, saying that now Romney wants to take from the folks and give it to the rich people.
Now, I'm laughing because, and I'm not favoring Romney over Obama or anything like that. It's so patently absurd, yet the president clearly believes what is he saying.
CROWLEY: First of all, the Tax Policy Center, one of the two authors of what we are talking about here happened to serve on Obama's Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010.
ALAN COLMES: The other served Bush.
O'REILLY: It doesn't matter whether they served. It's all conjecture.
CROWLEY: Right. And their bias is built into the conjecture.
O'REILLY: Right. It's all, it could, it might, they might have to do this. And he assigns it as fact.
CROWLEY: Correct. And that's very irresponsible on the part of the president.
O'REILLY: People should know this.
Now here is a fact, if you have to tell someone you are not favoring Romney, then you are favoring Romney, because if you were not favoring Romney you would not have to deny you are. Not to mention, when you use your cable news show to defend 99% of what Romney and Ryan plan to do, and you support 99% of their plans for the country, you are favoring them, duh!
And here are some more facts:
Fact: Romney's Tax Plan Will Raise Taxes On The Middle Class
The study by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center concluded that Romney's plan would have to provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle and/or lower income taxpayers in order to be revenue-neutral, as Romney claimed it will be.
This is not theoretical or conjecture, it's the truth. They ran the numbers and they calculated that for the plan to be revenue-neutral Romney would have to raise taxes on the middle and lower class. This is real, based on the numbers, because if you do not raise taxes on the middle and lower class under the Romney plan it is not revenue-neutral.
And yet O'Reilly still called the study a lie, based on things that are basically theoretical. Which is something only Republicans are doing, so it's odd that a so-called non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone would say that. Because he is a partisan right-wing spin doctor, he just will not admit it.
Here is what the Tax Policy Center wrote (that O'Reilly never reported btw) he just called it a lie, without reporting what they actually said, because if he did that someone might actually see what they say is true.
Here is a quote from the study:
Our major conclusion is that a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed - including reducing marginal tax rates substantially, eliminating the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) and maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment - would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers.
This is true even when we bias our assumptions about which and whose tax expenditures are reduced to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible.
For instance, even when we assume that tax breaks - like the charitable deduction, mortgage interest deduction, and the exclusion for health insurance -are completely eliminated -the net effect of the plan would be a tax cut for high-income households coupled with a tax increase for middle-income households. [Tax Policy Center, 8/1/12]
The Tax Policy Center study also found that to offset the $360 billion in revenue losses under Romney's tax plan, Romney would be required to make "deep reductions" in tax benefits:
The proposed reductions in individual and estate taxes specified in Governor Romney's plan would decrease federal tax revenues by $360 billion in 2015.
These tax cuts predominantly favor upper-income taxpayers: Taxpayers with incomes over $1 million would see their after-tax income increased by 8.3 percent (an average tax cut of about $175,000), taxpayers with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 would see somewhat smaller increases of about 2.4 percent (an average tax cut of $1,800), while the after-tax income of taxpayers earning less than $30,000 would actually decrease by about 0.9 percent (an average tax increase of about $130).
Offsetting the $360 billion in revenue losses necessitates a reduction of roughly 65 percent of available tax expenditures. Such a reduction by itself would be unprecedented, and would require deep reductions in many popular tax benefits ranging from the mortgage interest deduction, the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, the deduction for charitable contributions, and benefits for low- and middle-income families and children like the EITC [Earned Income Tax Credit] and child tax credit. [Tax Policy Center, 8/1/12]
O'Reilly did not report a word about any of that, not a word. Instead he just said the study is a lie, based on things that are theoretical. In other words, O'Reilly is saying you should ignore the study by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center (who do nothing but give analysis of tax policy) and believe me, that it's all theoretical and not real.
Then he had the (proven dishonest) far-right stooge (Monica Crowley) on to agree with him to make it look like he is right because someone was on the show who agreed with him. And finally, ask yourself this, when has O'Reilly done something like that to spin for Obama or any of the Democrats?
I can answer that, in the 12 years I have done the www.oreilly-sucks.com website, after watching almost every single show he has done, and or reading the transcripts, I can tell you the answer is: NEVER!!!
If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's a fricking duck. O'Reilly is a Republican, that is a fact, and he proves it every night, as he claims he is an Independent, so he is dishonest and it's why you should never believe anything he says. Because every time I fact-Check what he says it turns out to be right-wing spin, or flat out lies.
The Monday 9-3-12 O'Reilly/Crowley Factor Review By: Steve - September 4, 2012 - 11:30am
There was no TPM because the far-right spin doctor Monica Crowley filled in for O'Reilly, and to this day O'Reilly still does not explain how he can claim to be a non-partisan Independent when he has 2 far-right hacks like Laura Ingraham and Monica Crowley fill in for him when he is gone.
Crowley started her dishonesty with the question that is now front and center (With the Romney campaign and Fox) in the presidential race: Are we better off than four years ago? And of course we are, but not with the stooges at Fox who run with the Romney campaign talking points.
She asked liberal Fox News contributor Jacques DeGraff and Republican strategist Chris Begala. Degraff said this: "We're definitely better off today than we were four years ago, and you'll see in November that the majority of Americans agree. Four years ago the country was hanging on the financial precipice."
But of course the right-wing stooge Begala disagreed, saying this: "It's intellectually offensive to say we're better off than four years ago. We have 15% real unemployment and a $16-trillion debt, which adds up to about $51,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. This administration's policies have created this situation for America. Their message is in shambles because the economy is in shambles."
And of course the right-wing hack Monica Crowley agreed with Begala, saying this: "We have seen sky-high unemployment, anemic economic growth, unprecedented spending, and highly unpopular socialized medicine."
Which ignores all the other facts: The 3 months Before Obama Took Office Saw Largest Economic Contraction In 50 years. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimated that gross domestic product declined at an 8.9 percent annual rate during the fourth quarter of 2008 -- the final quarter before President Obama took office.
Since June of 2009 and after the Obama stimulus passed, the Economy Has Grown For 12 Consecutive Quarters. In an Economic Recovery Watch post on August 30, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) wrote that although "the pace of recovery has been modest," the economy "has been growing for 12 straight quarters."
Nearly 2 Million Jobs Were Lost In Three Months Before Obama Took Office. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment decreased by 803,000 jobs in November 2008, 661,000 jobs in December 2008, and 818,000 jobs in January 2009 -- a total of 2.2 million jobs in three months.
Now we have this: Private Sector Employment Has Grown For 29 Months Adding Millions Of Jobs. CBPP also noted that "private employers have added nearly 4.5 million jobs to their payrolls in the last 29 months, an average of 157,000 jobs a month."
The stock market Has Nearly Doubled Since The Low Point In March 2009. According to data from the Federal Reserve, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has increased 99 percent from its low of 6547.05 on March 9, 2009; the Dow closed at 13000.71 on August 30.
I guess Crowley and her gang of hacks just forgot all that, yeah right, and I'm Bill Gates too. In fact, to evas if we are better off now than 4 years ago is ridiculous and laughable. It's a Romney campaign propaganda talking points question, and only right-wing stooges are asking that insane question.
I will also say this about a guest Crowley had on to promote his hate-filled book about liberals, Mike Gallagher. He is a lying right-wing fool. Gallagher said he theorized that lefties absolutely loathe McDonald's and Wal-Mart, saying this: "They hate McDonald's because it represents entrepreneurialism and corporate culture, and they are fixated against Wal-Mart."
Now that is ridiculous, and just insane. It is true that liberals do not like the way Wal-Mart does not use union workers, but a lot of us still shop there. I shop there for medical supplies for my Father, because they are cheaper than everyone else, and they ship most of it for free. So I not only do not hate them, I depend on them to help me take care of my Father.
Wal-Mart has more things like raised toilet seats, shower seats, bed rails, bath-tub grab rails, etc, then any other place I have ever found. And without them I would have had to spend a lot more money than I do now, and that's if I could even find the same stuff.
I also do not hate McDonalds, and never have. I go to McDonalds all the time, especially to buy ice cream for me and my Father because it only cost $1.19 for a strawberry sundae. I understand the Wal-Mart claim, but where does he get this liberals hate McDonalds nonsense, I have never heard that one before, and I do not know any liberals that hate them.
Now the rest of the show was the same right-wing propaganda and spin O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham put out, so I did not report on it. All I will say is that it's sad and pathetic for O'Reilly to do this right-wing partisan propaganda and try to pass it off as non-partisan objective journalism from an Independent.
O'Reilly is about as non-partisan and Independent as Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. At least I give them credit for admitting they are partisan, which is about the only honest thing they ever say. But with O'Reilly, he is totally partisan and dishonest by trying to fool the American people into thinking he is an Independent.
Facts vs Reality Meets The Romney Campaign By: Steve - September 4, 2012 - 11:00am
Folks, here is something you need to see before you vote this year. Mitt Romney's presidential campaign has had a strained relationship with the truth, repeating false claims with impunity, even after fact checkers, media organizations, and blogs have all debunked their claims.
From claiming that Obama gutted the welfare work requirement to insisting that his own policies won't deregulate Wall Street, Romney has led a lie-filled campaign. A top Romney adviser even admitted this earlier in the week: "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers."
ROMNEY: "The highest income people will continue to pay the largest share of the tax burden and middle-income taxpayers, under my plan. So, we're not going to reduce taxes for high-income people." (CBS, 8/12/2012)
FACT: Under Romney's plan, someone in the richest 1 percent of Americans would receive a $60,000 tax cut, while someone in the richest 0.1 percent would receive a $264,000 tax cut.
So assuming Romney eliminates loopholes and deductions (which is a dream) in the most progressive way possible, millionaires still receive an $87,000 tax cut, while the middle-class sees their taxes go up. (Tax Policy Center, 2/23/2012; Tax Policy Center, 8/1/2012)
ROMNEY: "The people in the middle, the hard-working Americans, are the people who need a break, and that is why I focused my tax cut right there." (GOP debate, 10/11/2011)
FACT: A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney plan showed that - even under the most generous assumptions - Romney's plan raises taxes on everyone making less than $200,000. Middle-class families would see their taxes go up by $2,000 per year. (Tax Policy Center, 8/1/2012)
ROMNEY: "The U.S. economy's 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the industrial world, reducing the ability of our nation's businesses to compete in the global economy and to invest and create jobs at home," Romney's website reads. (MittRomney.com)
FACT: While America has the second-highest corporate tax rate on paper, once all of the loopholes, credits, and deductions are accounted for, the corporate tax rate is the second-lowest in the developed world.
The U.S. raises far less in corporate taxes as a percentage of its economy than other nations, including the UK and Canada. Many of America's most profitable corporations pay no taxes at all, and some even get a tax refund on billions in earnings. (Citizens for Tax Justice, 6/30/2011, 4/9/2012; Center for American Progress, 6/10/2011)
ROMNEY: "Look, no one is talking about deregulating Wall Street." (ThinkProgress, 8/15/2012)
FACT: Romney has called for the full repeal of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, the first major overhaul of the nation's financial regulatory system since the Great Depression, and while he has supported a streamlined regulatory framework, the only specific regulations he mentions in his plan are already in Dodd-Frank.
His own running mate is certainly talking about deregulating Wall Street: the House GOP budget authored by Paul Ryan dismantles key parts of the law. (ThinkProgress, 8/25/2011, 8/13/2012, 8/15/2012)
Romney claims that, as governor of Massachusetts, "we didn't just slow the rate of growth of our government, we actually cut it." (CBN, 5/14/2012)
FACT: Government spending increased by an average of 5 percent per year during Romney's tenure in office. (Politifact, 5/21/2012)
ROMNEY: President Obama has "racked up as much debt as almost all of the other presidents combined." (NYT, 12/16/2011)
FACT: When Obama took office, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. When Romney made this claim in December 2011, the national debt was a bit over $15 trillion. That $4.5 trillion increase is nowhere near as much debt as all the other presidents combined.
Even if you just consider the portion of the debt that is owed to private investors, as Romney's campaign pointed to, the numbers still don't add up.
When Obama took office this figure was at $6.307 trillion and had increased by approximately $4 trillion when Romney made this claim. (NYT, 12/16/2011)
ROMNEY: "What the president is proposing is a massive tax increase on job creators and on small business. Small businesses are overwhelmingly being taxed not at a corporate rate but at the individual tax rate. So successful small businesses will see their taxes go up dramatically, and that will kill jobs." (Los Angeles Times, 7/9/2012)
FACT: President Obama's plan to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on income in excess of $250,000 would affect very few small businesses. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the expiration would affect only three percent of individuals with any business income, from a business large or small. (Joint Committee on Taxation, 7/12/2010)
ROMNEY: "I will remove the crippling uncertainty that is preventing businesses from hiring." (Real Clear Politics, 8/14/12)
FACT: Several surveys and economic analyses have shown that there is no truth to the claim that uncertainty is preventing businesses from hiring; they're not hiring because they simply don't have enough customers with the economy still recovering.
Even the conservative economist Bruce Bartlett said this: "Regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out." (Wall Street Journal, 7/17/2011; Economic Policy Institute, 9/27/2011; ThinkProgress, 10/4/2011)
Now that is just a small sample of lies from Romney, I could go on forever, he has also lied about Obamacare, Medicare, Bain Capital, etc. But O'Reilly and Fox never report any of it, because they want you to be uninformed and just vote for Romney and his lying VP Paul Ryan. Don't be a fool, look at the facts and vote for Obama.
Obama is not perfect, and he has made some mistakes, but he is far better than Romney and Ryan. Who will do exactly what Bush did, let the wealthy and the corporations run wild, which is what led us into the economic mess we have now.
Bush Political Chief Said Ryan Speech Was Full Of Lies By: Steve - September 4, 2012 - 10:00am
And as usual neither O'Reilly or his right-wing stooge fill-in host (Laura Ingraham) said a word about it. Because they want to cover for and protect Ryan and Romney.
Paul Ryans speech at the RNC convention was filled with lies, including the 100% lie blaming President Obama for the closure of a GM plant that announced its shutdown in June 2008, while Bush was still the President, and before Obama was even elected that November.
On ABC's This Week Sunday, Matthew Dowd, chief political strategist for former President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign, criticized Ryan's speech for all the lies, saying this:
DOWD: Paul Ryan, what he did in his speech, I think so stretched the truth. And I like Paul Ryan, have a lot of great respect for Paul Ryan, but the elements that he said about closing the GM plant which closed before Barack Obama took President, about the Simpson-Bowles bill which he opposed and then all of a sudden he faults Barack Obama for.
At some point, the truth should matter. He was trying to convey that Barack Obama was responsible for the closing of that GM plant and that isn't true.
Now think about this, O'Reilly and all his Republicans friends have cried for almost 4 years about Obama blaming Bush for the state of the current economy. And yet, they blame Obama for a plant closure that happened while Bush was still the President, not after he left office.
Talk about hypocrisy and double standards, that is off the chart hypocrisy and double standards from O'Reilly and his right-wing friends.
And here is some more information O'Reilly and the right have ignored. The Bush administration actually praised the closure of the GM plant Ryan mentioned, calling it a sign that GM was adapting well.
The Top 7 Things Romney Does Not Want You To Know By: Steve - September 3, 2012 - 11:00am
Mitt Romney officially accepted the Republican nomination for president at the party's convention Thursday night, in his speech he talked about the economy and his supposed plan to spur growth and speed up the recovery.
This is the information you need to have to make an informed vote, but O'Reilly and the rest of his friends at Fox do not report it, because they do not want you to know the truth. They want you to get fooled into voting for Romney, because they are all Republicans who hate Obama and who want Romney to win.
Romney's economic plan is notorious for its lack of specifics, through the few details he has provided, here are 7 facts about his economic policies that he did not mention in his speech:
1) It gives the rich and corporations another massive tax cut. Romney's proposal to give every American a tax cut is a giveaway to the rich that is four-times larger than the Bush tax cuts. Half the benefit would go to the richest five percent of Americans, and each member of the top 0.1 percent would get at least a $264,000 tax cut.
Romney says he will balance the cuts with the closure of tax loopholes, but he can't name which ones he would close and even if he did, the plan would not generate enough revenue to offset revenue lost to the tax cuts. His corporate tax plan, results in more than $1 trillion in tax cuts.
2) It raises taxes on the middle class. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center (Run by a Republican who served for Bush) analysis found that Romney's plan would raise taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 if he were to keep his promise to maintain the current level of revenue.
And another analysis that added in the cost of Romney's corporate tax cuts nearly doubled the size of the tax hike on the middle class to as much as $4,000 for a family of four. It also pointed out that under the Romney plan the numbers do not add up, that it would be impossible to do what he says it will.
3) It won't balance the budget. Romney's tax plan would add more than $10 trillion to the national debt. Even if Romney closed every loophole for the rich, as he has promised to do, he would need 6.5 percent economic growth for five straight years to avoid adding to the debt. And the economy has not grown that fast over a five-year period since the early 1960s.
4) It won't lead to economic growth. The last Republican president (George W. Bush) promised that supply-side policies like tax cuts for the rich would boost the economy and lead to job growth. They didn't. Romney is trying the same policies as (Bush, just updated), despite overwhelming evidence that they don't work. Romney wants to try them again, which would be a disaster for the Country and especially for working Americans who drive the economy.
5) The Romney plan will even make it easier for corporations to dodge taxes and outsource jobs: Romney's plan to switch to a territorial tax system will make it easier for corporations to stash their profits in off-shore tax havens.
It would also make it easier for corporations to outsource American jobs. In all, economists estimate the plan could cost America 800,000 jobs.
6) It would put bankers between you and your student loans. Obamacare included a provision in the law that removed bankers from the federal student loan process, eliminating a middle-man and allowing borrowers to deal directly with the government.
That reduced costs, saving students $100 billion. By repealing the healthcare law, Romney would put those bankers back in between students and government lenders, handing big banks billions of dollars in the process.
7) It won't address the housing crisis. Romney's economic plan had 59 points, but it failed to detail a plan to help America's struggling homeowners. Instead, Romney says we should let the housing market "run its course and hit the bottom," and that America should not try to stop the foreclosure process."
His plan would not help the millions of Americans who are facing foreclosure or are underwater on their mortgages. It also ignores simple steps the government could take to help housing, and it has been criticized by Republicans in high-foreclosure states.
Those 7 things would hurt the country, especially middle class working men and women, and O'Reilly knows it, but he spins and lies for Romney anyway, despite saying he is looking out for the little guy. If that's looking out for the little guy, I'm Bill Gates.
O'Reilly even recently told Brit Hume that Romney and Ryan are truth tellers and that Obama is lying about them, when virtually nothing they say is true and Obama is accurate, the real truth is that it's all right-wing propaganda to fool you into voting for Romney and Ryan.
More Racism From The Right O'Reilly Has Ignored By: Steve - September 3, 2012 - 10:00am
During a trip to Epcot at Disneyworld, Republican Pennsylvania delegate Mark Harris and his wife were shocked and offended to find a Mexican employee working at the amusement park's American pavilion, which showcases the different cultures in the United States.
According to the couple's blog, Harris complained to staff that he was "highly offended that a person from Mexico was working in the American pavilion," when other nations pavilions were staffed by people from each respective country:
IRENE HARRIS: Prior to National Republican Convention we visited Disney for three days. During our time at Epcot we visited the different countries. It was neat seeing each country and the employees were from that individual country.
Then we visited America . . . one would think you would find American employees. We were offended to find a person from Mexico working in America. Mark spoke up and told them he was highly offended after visiting the other countries and seeing employees from that country and then come to America and find a Mexican.
He was very civil but his point was well made.
The local GOP in Snyder County, Pennsylvania has rushed to disavow Harris overtly racist comments. County Commissioner Malcolm Derk told The Daily Item, "Americans are people of any race, color or heritage. Cheers to the individual working at Epcot for showing what a true American looks like."
According to their website, Mark and Irene are both pro-life, believe marriage is between one man and one woman, are for open records and transparency, believe in very conservative principles and the Republican platform.
The RNC has been marred by racist incidents this week; on Tuesday, two delegates had to be escorted out after throwing peanuts at a black camerawoman and called her an animal.
Harris told the AP at the beginning of the convention that he liked how Romney was "hitting all the conservative bells and has the potential to be a great president if he keeps going in that direction."
And btw, they turned the comments off on that blog post because they were getting slammed for their racism after what they said went public and the media reported on it.
Kristol Slams Romney For Ignoring Afghanistan & U.S. Troops By: Steve - September 2, 2012 - 11:00am
Weekly Standard editor and influential right-wing foreign policy voice Bill Kristol criticized Mitt Romney for ignoring the war in Afghanistan and the military in his speech to the Republican National Convention Thursday night.
In a scathing piece Kristol, the neocon scolded Romney for not saying a word of appreciation to American troops fighting in Afghanistan:
KRISTOL: The United States has some 68,000 troops fighting in Afghanistan. Over two thousand Americans have died in the more than ten years of that war, a war Mitt Romney has supported. Yet in his speech accepting his party's nomination to be commander in chief, Mitt Romney said not a word about the war in Afghanistan.
Nor did he utter a word of appreciation to the troops fighting there, or to those who have fought there. Nor for that matter were there thanks for those who fought in Iraq, another conflict that went unmentioned.
Leave aside the question of the political wisdom of Romney's silence, and the opportunities it opens up for President Obama next week. What about the civic propriety of a presidential nominee failing even to mention, in his acceptance speech, a war we're fighting and our young men and women who are fighting it?
Has it ever happened that we've been at war and a presidential nominee has ignored, in this kind of major and formal speech, the war and our warriors?
Maybe Romney did not mention Afghanistan because he has no plan. Back in July, Romney had a chance to talk about his Afghanistan policy in a major foreign policy speech but he offered no specifics, saying his goal would be to withdraw U.S. troops by 2014, which is exactly what President Obama is going to do.
In fact, Romney's own advisers don't know what Romney's Afghanistan policy is, because he does not have a plan.
And just maybe Romney ignored the military and veterans in his speech last night because he has no plan to address those issues either.
"We haven't heard any specific plans from Governor Romney or his campaign," a VFW official said Friday.
Some Right-Wingers Loved & Defended Strange Eastwood Speech By: Steve - September 2, 2012 - 10:00am
This is 100% proof that some Republicans can not lose their partisan bias no matter what, because a handful of right-wing loons actually defended Clint Eastwood and said they liked it.
Some of them even claimed it was good because it was meant to appeal to Independents, even though only right-wingers liked what he did, and most people thought it was strange and disrespectful to the President.
Not to mention, the right usually hates hollywood pinheads (as O'Reilly calls them) but when that hollywood pinhead is a Republican they suddenly love him, even when they do crazy things. Just imagine what Ingraham and the right would say if Eastwood was a liberal and did that to George W. Bush, they would slam him and call him un-American for being so disrespectful to the President.
Some conservative media figures are praising Clint Eastwood's performance from the final night of the Republican National Convention, in which the actor spoke to an empty chair representing President Obama. Eastwood rambled on at length, engaging in an awkward, one-person back and forth with the imaginary president that was meant to critique Obama's policy record.
Politico reported that "the Romney family seemed less than thrilled when the camera panned to them" during Eastwood's disjointed moment. The Washington Post said Eastwood's performance "looked bizarre on the television screen." The New York Times spoke to Romney aides, who anonymously described the performance as "strange, weird, and theater of the absurd."
Despite widespread confusion over the spectacle (which delayed the timing for Mitt Romney's nomination acceptance speech) and the criticism, some on the right actually said they liked it.
Rush Limbaugh said he "loved Eastwood" and thought the performance was "bold" and that "the left" was "dumping all over Eastwood" because "they can't hit Romney." He also claimed that Eastwood got "under Obama's skin."
Which is just crazy on 2 levels, the left has hit Romney and hit him good, and I would bet Obama laughed his ass off at it because it made Eastwood look like a crazy old man, and it took attention away from Romney's pretty good speech.
That night and the next day the only thing people were talking about was how crazy Eastwood was, and not as much as they were the Romney speech. Honest Republicans admit it was strange, and admit it took attention away from the Romney speech.
Donald Trump tweeted that he "loved" watching Eastwood and that "he was terrific!"
Fox News contributor Monica Crowley said the presentation was "ingenious," because Eastwood represented "independent voters."
Which is ridiculous, because Eastwood represents Republicans, he is a Republican and he mocked Obama at the RNC convention, so how in the hell is that representing Independent voters. Only a few Republicans had anything good to say about it, most Republicans, all the Democrats, and most of the Independents thought it was just strange.
Breitbart.com's John Nolte said Eastwood's appearance was "glorious" and went on to gush over him.
Breitbart.com's William Bigelow attacked Eastwood's critics, saying this: "The only people who mock macho Americans are effete leftists who are uncomfortable with a strong America, and that won't play with most Americans, who are proud of being strong and independent."
Even though many Republicans also said the Eastwood speech was strange, proving that the morons at Breitbart.com are partisan fools.
Fox's Greg Gutfeld said this: "I Would Take The Brain Of Clint Eastwood At 81 Over The Vacuousness Of Eva Longoria Any Day"
Laura Ingraham said this while hosting the O'Reilly Factor Friday night:
INGRAHAM: "I loved Clint Eastwood from beginning to end because it had everyone on edge and it was an unscripted moment in a buttoned-up convention. It drove the left absolutely bonkers."
The Conservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin acknowledged that the speech was "darn weird" but found an upside to Eastwood, writing that it "was funny and devastating in its dismissal of the president's excuses" and proclaiming that "Thursday night was a critical point in the campaign and arguably the point at which Romney (with help from Eastwood) broke free of the media filter."
Which is just laughable, because it was weird, and all people were talking about was how Eastwood is a senile old right-wing fool that hurt Romney by taking attention away from his speech, and hurting Romney by making people think most Republicans are nuts.
Federal Court Rejects Texas Voter ID Law By: Steve - September 1, 2012 - 10:00am
And O'Reilly said only liberals opposed the voter ID laws, but in this ruling a George W. Bush appointee was one of the 3 judges that voted to reject it.
Killing the right-wing spin from O'Reilly that only liberals were against it. Which means that of course O'Reilly will ignore this story, because it proves him wrong, and adds more proof to the case that he is a right-wing stooge.
Thursday a federal three-judge panel struck down the Texas voter ID law, finding it would suppress minority voting. The Department of Justice blocked the measure after it failed to get the pre-clearance required under the Voting Rights Act for states with a history of discrimination. The DOJ concluded that Latino voters would be disproportionately affected by the ID law.
Judges Rosemary Collyer (a George W. Bush appointee), David Tatel, and Robert Wilkins have agreed, finding that the law "imposes strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor and that a disproportionately high percentage of African Americans and Hispanics in Texas live in poverty."
The Texas law is one of the most extreme of the voter ID laws that have become the new fad among Republican lawmakers in the past 2 years. Under its provisions, Texan voters who show up at the polls without ID would not even fill out a provisional ballot; they would simply be turned away.
The law also has a very specific list of allowed IDs. For instance, expired gun licenses from other states are considered valid, but student IDs and Social Security cards are not.
The court was careful to emphasize the narrowness of this opinion, noting it is possible to implement a photo ID law without discriminating against minorities. This leaves open the possibility that Texas could write a less blatantly discriminatory measure before the November election.
This is the second Texas election law struck down this week for suppressing minority votes; another panel found the Legislature's new redistricting map violated minority voting rights.
But according to O'Reilly they do not want to restrict voting, they just want to make sure there is no voter fraud, even though they can not point to any cases of real voter fraud, and voting studies have proven it would mostly go against the minorities and the poor, who almost always vote for the Democrats that run for office.
And btw, only Republicans are trying to pass these bogus voter ID laws, only Republicans defend them, and only Republicans claim it's to make sure there is no voter fraud as an excuse to pass the law.
Which puts O'Reilly at the head of the class defending the laws, proving once again he is as Republican as it gets, even after saying he is a non-partisan Independent. And if O'Reilly is a non-partisan Independent, I'm Elvis!
Rush Limbaugh Says Jump - Fox News Says How High By: Steve - September 1, 2012 - 9:00am
On Tuesday's radio show, Rush Limbaugh complained that there was "no way" TV news coverage would show a split-screen shot of President Obama on the campaign trail and Hurricane Isaac. And about 10 minutes later, the Fox News show (America Live with Megyn Kelly) had a split-screen shot of Obama and Hurricane Isaac:
Limbaugh reacted to Fox's split screen by saying, "Oh, lookie. Fox is split-screening Obama. Hubba hubba!"
And btw, O'Reilly and the other people at Fox claim America Live and Megyn Kelly are non-biased and objective anchors, then she gets caught doing this, among other things, that prove she is just as biased as O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.