O'Reilly & Rush Limbaugh Both Speak The Same Language
By: Steve - August 31, 2013 - 10:00am

Responding to the strike by fast food workers across the country seeking better working conditions and a living wage, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly decided their own stories of working low-wage jobs would do these workers more good.

Limbaugh told his audience about his former job selling tickets for the Kansas City Royals in 1979. That year he was paid $12,000. Limbaugh claimed on that income he "couldn't afford his house payment and food."

For a family of two -- Limbaugh was married to his first wife at the time -- his income was nearly three times the 1978 baseline federal poverty level of $4,366 and nearly double the poverty line for a family of four, $6,612.

As Limbaugh himself pointed out, his $12,000 salary was the equivalent of $38,610.91 in today's dollars. Currently the poverty threshold for a two-person family sits at $15,510, less than half of Limbaugh's converted salary. The poverty line for a family of four is $23,550.

The workers Limbaugh was lecturing? Their yearly salary is $18,500, barely above the poverty line for a family of two and $4,500 below the threshold for a family of four.

Limbaugh's experience in 1979 was vastly different than the one faced by low-wage workers today. Limbaugh concluded by claiming that "life is life and we all have self-determination and Martin Luther King understood it."

But here is one very important fact neither Limbaugh or O'Reilly told you: One of the demands of the 1963 March on Washington was a $2 per hour minimum wage, which according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator is the equivalent of $15.27 an hour in today's dollars -- which is almost exactly what the workers going on strike Thursday were demanding.

Bill O'Reilly began with his story of scooping ice cream for minimum wage in his teenage years. In 1966, when O'Reilly was 17-years old, the minimum wage was $1.25 per hour or $9.01 in today's dollars -- nearly 24 percent more than minimum wage workers currently make -- putting a then-single O'Reilly well above the 1966 poverty line and nearly reaching the threshold for a family of four.

Maybe O'Reilly should return that 24 percent because according to his rant, guaranteeing a wage is "called socialism" and "the USA is a capitalist country."

Limbaugh and O'Reilly are two old conservative white men blessed with amazing communications ability. Neither was born wealthy but they were both able to parlay their talents, combined with some luck, into the upper economic echelons. From those heights they look down at the bottom opposing the concept that employers should pay a living wage and at the same time opposing food stamps, public housing, and other programs that would help bridge the gap for low-income workers.

While they offer no policy solutions other than if you're not making enough to get by, just go get a better job.

From a position of extreme privilege, they point to their lowly beginnings and ask workers to survive on the same incomes they did. If only those who went out on strike yesterday were fortunate enough to receive the modern-day equivalent of the wages they did.

What O'Reilly made back when he was 17 years old is equal to $15.00 an hour today, but he is now opposed to a $15.00 an hour minimum wage, even though he was making equal to that when he did it. Which just goes to show what a right-wing hypocrite O'Reilly is, because it was ok for him, but now he is against it for other people. And he was also dishonest in his reporting for not telling you that what he made back then was equal to $15.00 an hour now.

The Thursday 8-29-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 30, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Fast Food Fight. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Thousands of Americans working in fast food places are demanding that their wages be doubled to $15 an hour. President Obama is sympathetic and the left generally believes our economic system is unjust to working Americans.

So let's take a look at that, beginning with my working history. My first job was at a Carvel stand where I was paid minimum wage. I understood that I was a rookie and could get a recommendation, so I didn't complain about the pay. The next summer I got my lifeguard certification and became a water safety instructor, making five times more than at Carvel.

The next year I needed more money so I started a painting business and did that for five summers. Then I went to graduate school and drove a taxi in the summer. After graduating with a masters in broadcast journalism, I took a very low-paying job at a TV station in Scranton, Pennsylvania. I had to work for peanuts, but I knew that if I did good work I would rise up.

Nobody's forced to work at a fast-food joint, you do that to get experience and a better job. The USA is a capitalist country and if you get educated and work hard you will not be making minimum wage. But many Americans feel they are entitled to high-paying jobs, and if they don't secure them, here come the charges of 'economic injustice' and 'oppression.'

If the workplace where I was became unjust or unproductive, I went someplace else. So let's stop the whining, shall we? This country offers huge opportunities. Seize them!
What a joke, comparing your work history to a poor person who did not go to college or have a wealthy daddy to pay for it is just ridiculous. In other words, O'Reilly is telling the working poor to stick it, even though he claims to be looking out for the little guy. Now you have your mission folks, just do like Billy and work your way up to being a multi-millionaire like him, what an idiot.

Then Eboni Williams and Rich Benjamin were on to discuss the ridiculous O'Reilly Talking Points Memo. And don't you just love it when rich old right-wing idiots say this is America and you should just do like they did and become a millionaire, it's laughable.

Williams said this: "You talked about how you were a 17-year-old working at an ice cream shop, but in the current fast food industry these aren't kids trying to work their way through the summer. Two-thirds of the workforce is women with a median age of 32. They are trying to provide for their families."

Not to mention, back when O'Reilly grew up there were a lot of good jobs, and a lot of the good paying jobs were not moved out of the country back then. The economic conditions were far different, and the wage equality from the rich to the poor was a lot better. So O'Reilly's argument makes no sense, as usual.

Benjamin accused O'Reilly of living in the past, saying this: "I wish we could go back to that economy where the middle class wasn't hollowed out, but over the last couple of decades we've seen workers work harder without being rewarded. These workers are wise to strike, I don't know anyone who can live on $7.25 an hour."

Then O'Reilly dug the ditch deeper and urged low-wage workers to seize control of their fate, saying this: "Take a typing course, take a computer course, get skills. I want the mother working at McDonald's to make more money, but the unintended consequence of that is that the Big Mac will go up by a buck."

So what if a Big Mac goes up by a buck, and btw moron studies show it would only go up by 60 cents, and then the people could afford it anyway because they would be making more money, fool.

Then Michael Scherer from Time Magazine was on to talk about the Obama administration's threat to take military action against Syria.

Scherer said this: "Weapons inspectors leave Syria on Friday and report their findings on Saturday. U.N. inspectors are not trying to figure out who is responsible for chemical attacks, only whether a chemical attack happened."

Scherer also talked about what Congress wants from the Obama administration, saying this: "They're demanding consultation, but it's pretty clear that the leadership doesn't want to have to take an up-or-down vote authorizing this sort of strike because that could put them on the wrong side of history. President Obama got elected through opposing the Iraq war and now he ironically finds himself on the other side."

Then the Republican Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal was on to discuss the U.S. Department of Justice suing to stop a Louisiana plan that gives vouchers to poor children, thus enabling them to escape failing public schools. Because it's discrimination and vouchers do not work.

Jindal said this: "The Obama administration is trying to use rules that were designed to protect poor minority kids to actually keep them trapped in failing schools. We have 8,000 kids getting these scholarships and 100% of them are from low-income families. We talk about equal opportunity in America, but we're not providing it unless we give every child the chance to get a great education. It is ridiculous for the Department of Justice to listen to teacher unions, this is all ideology and it's not about the kids!"

Then Laura Ingraham was on to cry about this week's remembrance of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "dream" speech, where Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley said this: "The lives of people of color are too often valued less than the lives of white people." When it's true, and btw, O'Reilly never said a word to Ingraham about her taking heat for using the gunshot sound on her radio show to stop a replay of a speech by Congressman Lewis, not a word.

Ingraham said this: "Implicit in his message, is that blacks can't get a fair shake in the judicial system and conservatives don't value black life. What he said is pathetic and it's incredibly divisive. Conservative policies are targeted to help all Americans up from poverty."

It's true, Ingraham just refuses to admit it.

Ingraham also denounced black leaders and the left for embracing abortion, even though it had nothing to do with the topic, she said this: "A cold hard fact that was not addressed at this week's rally is the crime of 16-million pre-born black children who are not here today. There was no voice raised in their defense."

Then Greg Gutfeld was on for "What the Heck Just Happened?"

He started with Miley Cyrus's raunchy performance at the MTV awards show, saying this: "When you look at Billy Ray Cyrus with that hair, how can you be surprised? He said his kid screwed up and he would do the same thing, so at least you know where Miley gets her brains. This performance made Madonna roll over in her grave and she's not even dead yet."

Then the right-wing idiot talked about NFL star Aaron Hernandez, Gutfeld mocked the accused murderer for demanding a bonus payment he says he is owed. "I don't know why he needs the money."

And btw, what Miley Cyrus did is nothing you do not see in every night club in America every day, only old fools think there was something wrong with it, while most likely secretly loving it and they probably watched the video of her over and over again.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Check Please! Billy said this: "Always check and re-check your facts before you make a definitive statement, and 'fess up clearly when you make a mistake."

To which I was not impressed, because O'Reilly only admitted he was wrong after the entire internet slammed him for lying, then and only then did he admit he was wrong, and he called it a simple mistake, when he has said in the past that he only deals in the facts with no guessing or speculation, so I am not buying it. Not to mention, he said it was really bad because the Factor viewers expect the truth, which is just laughable, because O'Reilly lies every night and can barely spell truth.

Ingraham Cuts Off Congressman Speech With Gunshot Sound
By: Steve - August 30, 2013 - 10:00am

And think about this, Bill O'Reilly has her fill in for him every Friday, even though she is a far-right Republican propagandist. Then she cuts off a black civil rights leader with a gunshot sound effect. Which is an outrage, and if O'Reilly continues to have her host his show he is just as bad as she is.

Monday, conservative radio host and Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham attacked the speakers at the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech, at one point using the sound of a gunshot to cut off a sound bite of civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) -- a man whose skull was infamously fractured by a state trooper on "Bloody Sunday" in Selma, AL, in 1965.

Ingraham used the speech's anniversary to race-bait about black-on-white crime statistics and hosted Pat Buchanan to bemoan the idea that minorities face any higher level of adversity in America 50 years later. Tens of thousands of people gathered in Washington, DC over the weekend to commemorate and recreate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s 1963 March on Washington, an event originally dedicated to calling for civil and economic rights for African Americans.

CBS News reported that the 50th anniversary event -- part of a week-long build-up to Wednesday's anniversary -- "was sponsored by the Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network, Martin Luther King III and the NAACP, featured a roster of speakers, including King, Sharpton, Attorney General Eric Holder, Newark Mayor Cory Booker and Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga. They spoke from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, where 50 years ago this month King delivered his famous 'I Have A Dream' speech."

On her August 26th radio broadcast, Ingraham criticized the event and its speakers, saying the goal "was to co-opt the legacy of Martin Luther King into a modern-day liberal agenda," and scoffing at the topics speakers supposedly discussed."

Ingraham also hosted Pat Buchanan, a prominent racist with white nationalist ties. Buchanan dismissed the idea that minorities suffer any disadvantages in contemporary America, calling the idea "absurd" because "black folks excel and are hugely popular figures in everything from sports to entertainment to athletics to politics."

At one point during her broadcast, Ingraham began playing a clip of Lewis' speech from the 50th anniversary rally, before interrupting the playback of his comments with the sound of a loud gunshot.

Ingraham's use of a gunshot sound effect to cut off a prominent civil rights leader is troubling given the shroud of violence that surrounded the civil rights movement of the 1960s and '70s, when civil rights activists were literally silenced by assassins' bullets. Martin Luther King, whose famous "I Have A Dream" speech is celebrated today, was shot and killed by an assassin at the age of 39.

The use of violent sound effects adjacent to the Lewis comments is particularly troubling, because Lewis himself was the victim of violence as a result of his support for civil rights. Lewis, who was the youngest speaker at the original March on Washington event, helped lead a march in Selma in an effort to secure equal voting rights for minorities.

The march became infamous for the violence perpetrated upon the activists by the Alabama State Police -- Lewis suffered a fractured skull at the hands of state police officers.

Huffington Post Nails O'Reilly For Big Lie
By: Steve - August 29, 2013 - 11:30am

Bill O'Reilly got a few things wrong (aka lied) about the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington on Wednesday.

Some had wondered why no Republicans appeared to be involved in commemorating the historic day. Though three Democratic presidents spoke at the event marking the moment, no Republicans did, and there were no other GOP officials who participated.

Answers were quickly given for this state of affairs. Both presidents Bush had bowed out of the event, citing health issues.

Speaker of the House John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor were both invited, but declined to attend. (Cantor had a meeting with oil lobbyists instead, and Boehner spoke at a Congressional event.)

Jeb Bush and John McCain also declined. Moreover, every member of Congress was invited.

O'Reilly must not have seen all of this information, because he got angry that, in his words, "no Republican or conservative" was invited to the event. They were!

So all those Republicans were invited, and yet the great so-called super journalist (Billy O'Reilly) did not know it, yeah right, and if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.

He even mentioned George W. Bush as an example of this unfortunate (but false) turn of events.

"I do not know if he wasn't invited," guest James Carville said of Bush.

"He wasn't," O'Reilly said. (Wrong idiot!) "No Republican or conservative was invited." (Also wrong, jerk!)

The Wednesday 8-28-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 29, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: I Have a Dream. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: All over the world people are honoring the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his extraordinary speech on August 28, 1963. People in Washington listened to a variety of talks today, with President Obama as the headliner. But today's event excluded black Republicans and conservatives; all the speakers were Democrats. That is a glaring error and does not indicate a desire for inclusion.

Most of the speeches were uplifting and respectful to America, but not all. Marc Morial of the National Urban League compared 'stop and frisk' to attack dogs and water hoses. That kind of grievance mongering does the cause of civil rights no good whatsoever. The nation's first black President was the star today and he gave an energetic presentation during which he said 'the position of all working Americans, regardless of color, has eroded.'

The reason working Americans are having such a hard time is twofold. First, Mr. Obama's attempt to manage the economy from Washington has largely failed. The private sector must drive economic expansion, not the feds. Second, the skill level of many Americans is declining. Even if jobs become more plentiful, you have to speak proper English, be able to do basic math, and conduct yourself responsibly.

Millions of Americans have not mastered the basics of the marketplace. The private sector is seeking minority workers, but they have to perform and have enough educational success to get a shot. Finally, President Obama entered the world of reality when he spoke of 'self-defeating riots' and 'excuse-making for criminal behavior.'

Self-reliance and hard work are the keys to success, no matter what color you are, but President Obama and many in the civil rights industry believe government must provide to those who fail, even if it's their own fault.

The left wants paternalism and cradle-to-grave protection. America remains the land of opportunity, but only for those who are honest and responsible. If you are irresponsible, lazy, and/or corrupt, this country can be a tough place. Dr. King wanted equal opportunity for all; while that has not been totally accomplished, our system is moving toward it.
That is all lies, the main reason jobs are so scarce is because most of them have been moved to Mexico and other foreign countries, and because the jobs pay so little nobody wants to do them. And btw folks, many Republicans were asked to speak and they all refused, like Bush Sr. & Bush Jr. Boehner and Cantor, etc. Which O'Reilly ignored and failed to report, because he is too busy lying to report the truth.

Then James Carville was on to evaluate the anniversary event in Washington.

Carville said this: "President Obama and President Clinton gave terrific speeches today. I don't think it's political at all to point out that the wealth gap has not improved at all. And the fact that we need to do something about the middle class is factual. This problem is the result of a nasty recession that was brought on by the financial sector and excessive risk-taking."

But of course O'Reilly disagreed saying that President Obama relies too much on government-led solutions: "We were promised a new economic vision that was going to lift all boats and it's failed. The black unemployment rate is double that of whites and it hasn't improved under the Obama administration."

Then James Rosen and Carl Cameron were on to talk about Syria.

Rosen said this: "I've learned that members of Congress will be briefed Thursday. The administration will lay out intelligence proving that the Syrian regime did indeed use chemical weapons. Some officials have dropped hints that the President is going to try and degrade Assad's ability to use those weapons again, thereby helping the Syrian rebels."

Cameron said this: "Syria certainly hasn't attacked the U.S. so bombing it now would contradict what Biden said in 2007. Senator Obama argued in those days that a president needs Congressional approval before attacking other countries. But he did it in Libya and seems pretty ready to do it in Syria."

Then Dr. Keith Ablow, who has been studying Facebook's effect on users, was on to discuss it.

Ablow said this: "I have called for the Surgeon General to literally put a warning on the home page, saying this could be dangerous to your health. Studies have shown that Facebook can increase depression and feelings of isolation and it can decrease friendships and satisfaction. People are depositing themselves into an alternate reality where they're often lying about how happy they are. They get anxious about whether they're getting enough 'likes' for photos they post."

Then Dennis Miller was on to talk about Miley Cyrus of all things, which I do not report on because it is not news, it's tabloid garbage.

Then Martha MacCallum was on for did you see that, she reported on the trial of two teens who allegedly shot and killed a Georgia infant.

MacCallum said this: "The attorneys have tried to pick apart this woman's credibility. They say because she takes a couple of drugs for psychological issues her credibility is in question. They also say she misidentified one of the defendants, but the fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter whether this woman is a perfect mother or a monster. The mother's credibility is less at issue than the fact that this child was murdered."

And finally, the lame Factor Tip of the day called: The Value of Paternalism. Billy said this: "Every father, including Billy Ray Cyrus, has a duty to guide his steer away from harmful and foolish activities."

O'Reilly Disagrees With His Own Military Analyst's On Syria
By: Steve - August 29, 2013 - 10:00am

O’Reilly has expressed his adamant support for the United States getting involved in Syria, going so far as to call opponents of such measures "loons," but it appears that two of Fox News own military analysts fall squarely into O'Reilly's "loon" category.

And btw folks, the vast majority of the American people also oppose military action in Syria, so almost everyone disagrees with O'Reilly, but he still thinks he is right anyway.

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and Col. David Hunt both told O'Reilly there are still too many uncertainties, like whether the chemical weapons were really used by the Assad regime or if, in fact, they were used by the rebels.

Peters told O'Reilly the U.S. cannot be "helping al-Qaeda" in the name of responding to a brutal "murderer" in charge, saying there are two sides to pick from: a "despicable… monster" with an army behind him, or "the team that brought you 9/11." In other words, "our enemies are killing each other."

He claimed that President Obama only wants to send in missiles to redeem his "personal image," but O'Reilly insisted this is a humanitarian issue and letting Assad get away with using chemical weapons would be a dangerous precedent.

Hunt piped up to say it's not been one hundred percent confirmed that chemical weapons have been used, let alone which side used them. O'Reilly told the two men they sound like the people who argued against U.S. involvement in World War II.

Peters shot back that O'Reilly's "absolutely wrong," likening the present situation to Hitler fighting the Japanese and making the U.S. choose sides. When O'Reilly said the WMD threat makes Syria as big a threat now as Iraq was when the U.S. intervened, Peters asked, "You want to do that again?"

O'Reilly charged that the two men just don't trust the government. Hunt maintained it would be wrong for the U.S. to get involved in its "third war in twelve years," while Peters said he trusts the government, just not "Obama's military judgment."

The Tuesday 8-27-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 28, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: What President Obama should do about Syria. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad is a war criminal, a mass murderer, and a baby killer. By using poison gas on Syrian civilians, he is responsible for thousands of injuries and hundreds of deaths. If you believe in American exceptionalism, you know the USA must act against Assad, as it did against Saddam Hussein.

However, we can not make the same mistakes we made in Iraq. President Obama is now seen throughout the world as indecisive when it comes to righting international wrongs. Russia, China, and Iran do not fear him and do pretty much what they want to do, which in this case means supporting the mass killer Assad.

So Mr. Obama has a unique opportunity to show the world that we are the good guys and those helping Assad are the bad guys. To do that, he must be methodical. First, he must convince other countries to support military strikes against Syria. Then he should go to Congress and ask for a vote of affirmation on using military power.

Finally, in conjunction with NATO, the USA should devise a bombing campaign that will degrade Assad's forces without the mass killing of civilians. If the President does all those things he will gain a measure of respect throughout the world and perhaps bring down Assad. We can't allow a tyrant to violate international law by using chemical weapons. If Assad gets away with that, the world will devolve into a free-fire zone where anything goes.
Now remember this, that is all the OPINION of Bill O'Reilly, and most of it is wrong. We do not know for sure if al-Assad used gas yet, and Obama is already respected in the world, only right-wing idiots do not think he is respected. Not to mention, as I do, a lot of people think we should stay out of it and stop being police to the world. And on top of all that, if we do bomb them it will most likely bring more terrorism to the USA, then O'Reilly will blame that on Obama too.

Then Col. Ralph Peters was on, who opposes military action in Syria.

Peters said this: "I don't think American exceptionalism should extend to helping Al Qaeda. In Syria you have Assad on one side, but the other side is dominated by Al Qaeda and other Islamist extremists. Where in our Constitution does it say we should stop our enemies from killing each other? I want somebody to tell me what strategic or security benefit we get from intervening. Obama wants to launch cruise missiles to redeem his personal image."

Col. David Hunt also advised caution, saying this: "The USA, the British, and the French have not confirmed the use of chemical weapons. If it's confirmed, we're still not going to be sure who used the chemical weapons. A terrible thing has happened, but who did it is seriously in question."

So basically, everyone is telling O'Reilly he is wrong, I even agree with Peters and Hunt for once, but as usual he does not listen and calls for us to bang boom bomb them all, what an idiot.

Then Robert Woodson of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise was on to talk about what him and O'Reilly claim are black leaders who avoid talking about family breakdown and crime. Even though it's not true, O'Reilly basically found a black man to agree with his crazy ass and put him on the Factor.

Woodson said this: "The civil rights movement, has declined and morphed into a race grievance industry. Booker T. Washington once said there are groups of blacks who thrive off the grievance of their fellow blacks. Unfortunately, that's what we have today. The interest of the so-called 'leadership' has often been at odds with the rank-and-file. For instance, most low income blacks support vouchers for education but the civil rights leadership opposes it."

Then the insane John Stossel was on to talk about researchers at the University of Rochester who claim that religious Americans are just not as bright as atheists.

Stossel said this: "I assume that they are not religious, because in academia being religious is the exception. They looked at 63 studies and concluded that there is some scientific basis for saying that intelligent people are less likely to be religious. I couldn't find any real holes in it, but it's soft science. Lots of very smart people have been very religious."

O'Reilly cast doubt on the study and its conclusions, saying this: "This is a bunch of goo that they took from a whole bunch of other studies and then extrapolated what they wanted to extrapolate."

And here is the deal folks, when a study comes out that O'Reilly agrees with, he reports it and promotes it as a credible study that is true. But when a study comes out that he disagrees with, he says it's a gob of goo and worthless garbage. He had no proof the study was wrong, he just said it's wrong, that's his proof, which is no proof at all.

Then O'Reilly said the Catholic Church is urging congregants to support the immigration bill passed by the Senate. So he had Father Jonathan Morris n to rationalize his church's position.

Morris said this: "This is an unjust system, and we as a country have some responsibility. It does not mean it was right or ethical for people to have broken the law, and the bishops have been clear about that, but we have responsibility to the people who are here right now. This is about the dignity of every single human."

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to talk about the demands of convicted spy Bradley Manning, who now wants the military to fund his sex change therapy.

Wiehl said this: "The military has never done this, but Manning is going to argue that he/she is entitled to adequate medical treatment, which includes sex change."

Guilfoyle predicted that Manning's gender switch will go unfunded, saying this: "A spokesman at Fort Leavenworth says military prisons will not pay for sex reassignment or hormone therapy, and they shouldn't! He can use his own money."

Then they talked about a high school teacher who was sentenced to just 31 days in jail for raping a 14-year-old girl who later committed suicide. Guilfoyle accused Judge G. Todd Baugh of being soft on sex criminals, saying this: "If you go through the ruling, you will see that he was definitely more sympathetic to the defendant. He essentially said the victim was precocious and knew what she was doing."

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to assess President Obama's options in Syria, and of course the warmonger Krauthammer agreed with O'Reilly.

Krauthammer said this: "I'm concerned about the deliberate leaks from the White House that say there will be a very limited two- or three-day campaign. We'll drop a couple of bombs, we will make a point, and then we will retire from the field. The reports I have read explicitly say this is not intended to alter the strategic balance in Syria, and if that is the case we should do nothing! We should have a sustained air campaign that tilts the balance and alters the course of the war."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Bloviate at Your Peril. Billy said this: "When you're flummoxed by a question or comment, being honest about your confusion is far better than trying to pull off a verbal con job, which rarely works."

O'Reilly Says Only The Loons Would Oppose Bombing Syria
By: Steve - August 28, 2013 - 10:00am

Which is the exact opposite of what the majority of American people think, so that means O'Reilly is calling a majority of Americans loons. Because polls show that the majority of the country is opposed to the USA getting involved in Syria's civil war.

Who would possibly vote against a military strike on Syria in response to its government's use of nerve gas against rebels? Only "the loons," O'Reilly said Monday night on his lame cable news show.

Joined by Karl Rove, O'Dummy was confident in his belief that despite there not being a strong majority of Americans supporting military intervention in Syria, President Obama would have no trouble getting congressional approval to strike.

"Who's going to vote against that besides the loons?" O'Dummy asked. "What politician wants to be labeled, 'Well, go ahead and use poison gas, kill the children, and we're not going to do anything about it'?"

"There are a lot of people who said 'We don't care about Saddam Hussein,' and voted no," Rove added, speaking specifically about "isolationists" in Congress.

O'Reilly concluded the segment with his prescription for action in Syria: "It's got to be done quickly. Bang, boom. And then let the chips fall where they may. But no more dead kids breathing poison gas."

And now some reality for O'Reilly. Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria's government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says.

About 60 percent of respondents in a Reuters/Ipsos poll said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll, taken August 19-23, found that only 25 percent of Americans would support U.S. intervention if Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces used chemicals to attack civilians, while 46 percent would oppose it.

That represented a decline in backing for U.S. action since August 13, when Reuters/Ipsos tracking polls found that 30.2 percent of Americans supported intervention in Syria if chemicals had been used, while 41.6 percent did not.

Taken together, the polls suggest that so far, the growing crisis in Syria, and the emotionally wrenching pictures from an alleged chemical attack in a Damascus suburb this week, may actually be hardening many Americans' resolve not to get involved in another conflict in the Middle East.

The results - and Reuters/Ipsos polling on the use-of-chemicals question since early June - suggest that if Obama decides to undertake military action against Assad's regime, he will do so in the face of steady opposition from an American public wary after more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Several Americans surveyed in this week's poll, including Charles Kohls, 68, a former U.S. military officer from Maryland, praised Obama's caution.

"The United States has become too much of the world's policeman and we have become involved in too many places that should be a United Nations realm, not ours," Kohls said in an interview. "I don't think we ought to" intervene in Syria.

Kohls said the possibility of a chemical attack did not alter his belief that the United States should stay out of Syria, or any war for that matter.

Only 11 percent said Obama should do more to intervene in Syria than sending arms to the rebels, while 89 percent said he should not help the rebels. Obama is considering a range of options. The most popular option among Americans: not intervening in Syria at all. That option is backed by 37 percent of Americans, according to the poll.

So once again Bill O'Reilly wants to go against the will of the people and just bomb the hell out of them, bang boom. When we should just leave them alone and let them deal with their own problems, we should stop being police for the world.

Fox Ignores Texas Voter ID Already Found To Be Illegal
By: Steve - August 27, 2013 - 10:00am

And Bill O'Reilly said Monday night to Alan Colmes that all the Republican passed voter ID laws are legal, he also said there is nothing wrong with making people show an ID to vote, even though there is rarely any actual voting laws being broken.

Fox News downplayed Colin Powell's objections to strict voter ID laws and ignored the fact that Texas not only has a long history of illegal racial discrimination in its election practices, a federal court already found its voter ID measures to be impermissible voter suppression.

On the August 26th edition of America's Newsroom, Fox News host Martha MacCullum and correspondent Mike Emanuel reported on the Department of Justice's new legal challenge to the voter ID law Texas immediately enacted after the Supreme Court struck down a crucial provision of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in Shelby County v. Holder.

Fox News failed to mention, however, that Texas is being accused of illegally suppressing the vote through a voter ID law that has already been found to be racially discriminatory by a federal court. Writing for a three-judge panel in 2012, a circuit judge dismissed Texas evidence that its voter ID law was not impermissibly discriminatory as "unpersuasive, invalid, or both." As explained by the Constitutional Accountability Center's Doug Kendall:
In Texas v. Holder, a three-judge court unanimously blocked Texas new voter identification statute, the most stringent in the nation, finding that the statute would inevitably disenfranchise low-income Texas citizens, who are disproportionately African American and Hispanic.

The court explained that, unlike Indiana, whose voter identification law was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2008, Texas had gone to great lengths to suppress the vote in poor and minority communities, strictly limiting the types of photo identifications available - a license to carry a concealed firearm is a valid ID under the law, but not a student or Medicare ID card - and making it costly to obtain a so-called "free" election ID for use at the polls.

For those without one of the five permitted photo identifications, the court found that the law was tantamount to a poll tax, "imposing an implicit fee for the privilege of casting a ballot." The "very point" of the Voting Rights Act, the court explained, was to deny "states an end-run around the Fifteenth Amendment's prohibition on racial discrimination in voting."
Texas has proven to be one of the worst violators of the Voting Righta Act, having failed the now-gutted Section 5 review that ensured voting changes did not discriminate on the basis of race more than any other state in the nation. In fact, two days before its voter ID law was blocked due to its racially discriminatory effect, a different federal court found Texas had intentionally discriminated on the basis of race in recent redistricting as well, in flagrant violation of the VRA.

Fox News also mentioned that Powell has warned that the GOP insistence on strict voter ID may very well make voters of color more determined to exercise the franchise. Fox News did not sufficiently explain how Powell's concern about voter ID goes deeper than the political ramifications.

Since strict voter ID has become popular in his party, Powell has repeatedly pointed out that this policy is a "solution" for a virtually non-existent type of voter fraud and instead is an affront to the American right to vote.

Last year, Powell memorably reminded Bill O'Reilly of these facts. More recently, he publicly denounced the North Carolina voter ID law for the same flaws, explaining that "what it really says to the minority voters is. 'We really are sort-of punishing you.'"

On August 25, Powell brought this argument to Face the Nation on CBS in an episode that reflected on the 50th Anniversary of the famous civil rights March on Washington.

While Fox News aired a clip of this interview during the America's Newsroom segment, it did not include Powell's claim that he finds "a little bit suspicious" the recent rush of Republican-sponsored election law changes, especially because "they claim there is widespread abuse and voter fraud. But nothing documents, nothing substantiates that."

John Aronno Debnks The O'Reilly Spin On Alaska
By: Steve - August 26, 2013 - 11:00am

John Aronno (Managing editor of the Alaska Commons) who actually lives in Alaska wrote a piece about the O'Reilly trip to Alaska. And in it he slams O'Reilly, basically saying almost everything he said was wrong, and just his right-wing spin on it.

Apparently, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly came up to Alaska last week. He liked it so much that he wrote about us, penning an editorial in the Boston Herald that repurposed Alaska as his own, personal, intellectually monosyllabic prop to explain the definition of "Real America" that he made up.

Titling the piece "Alaska home to free thinkers," he then dedicated 500 words to explaining how we all universally think one way, presumably from behind a mustache and quite possibly with a presumptive eagle on our shoulders.
O'REILLY: Up here, many folks don't much like President Obama's vision of a big government colossus dictating health care, doling out entitlements and generally meddling in the affairs of the citizenry.
Up here, we also don't much like people using us to strengthen the narrative they made up inside their own head (especially when when it reads like a 5th grade book report).

Mr. O'Reilly didn't appear to look into health care in Alaska. In 2010, the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska Anchorage noted that health care came with the price tag of $7.5 billion -- "roughly equal to half the wages Alaskans collected" the same year.

The study projected this figure could double by 2020. Of the well-over $2.2 billion in funding for federal programs, the largest cost is Medicaid, constituting 18% of all health care spending. Medicare is close behind, followed by Indian Health Services, the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Denali Kid Care and other Community Health Centers.

"Mention Obamacare," O'Reilly quips, "and you'll likely get icy stares, even in the summer."

"Obamacare" rarely comes up at all. Whether it's at Providence hospital in Anchorage or a town hall in rural Alaska, you're much more likely to hear concerns about Medicare reimbursement rates. Those are not typically discussions demanding less federal funding.

We feel the high cost of living when it comes to medical care. A day in the hospital costs 50 percent more in Alaska, on average, than the lower forty eight. Costs for common procedures are 35 percent higher. But O'Reilly asserts that Joe Alaska -- his mythical approximation of all 731,449 of us -- shrugs this off with a tug of the bootstraps and a healthy paycheck.

After all, we have jobs!

The Fox News pundit boasts that our median household income is $16,000 higher than the national average, which is a bouquet of worthless numbers that, in no way, takes into account the regional paucity of jobs in all corners of a state large enough to house 62 states of Massachusetts.

The economic realities of the hundreds of small towns and villages populate every corner of Alaska are not easily reduced to "show up get a living wage." There is no Sheraton in Sand Point, and no Arby's in Nondalton (which has an annual median household income $3,400 below the poverty line).

Something tells me O'Reilly didn't stray too far outside city limits, save for secluded lodge stays, a boat ride, or a couple plane tours. Which is too bad. If he wanted to look at the most "tough, self-reliant" characters in Alaska, who elicit the "spirit of rugged individualism" he seems so taken with, those are places and people he should meet.

But that would muck up the all-American (circa nineteen-fifty-never) Joe Alaska caricature that O'Reilly wished to dangle in front of a Bostonian readership.

"This is an old-fashioned place that still embraces the Klon-dike mentality: Take chances, and maybe you'll hit it big. But if you don't, don't whine about it."

(I think he made up a hyphen there.)

"This is America the way it used to be. And the way things are going in the Lower 48, the way it used to be is likely gone forever."


And the kicker: "While poor people do receive entitlements, and the oil industry kicks in some money for the folks, few Alaskans are asking for handouts."

Our economy is often described as a three-legged stool. The job opportunities that O'Reilly heralded are generated, fairly evenly, by the federal government, the oil industry, and everything else.

The oil and gas industry funds state government (we don't have a state sales or income tax). Every year, Alaskans get a share of those oil revenues in the form of a dividend check from the state. It's a pretty sweet deal.

We're an ownership state. We believe that we collectively own all of our resources, which should be developed for the maximum benefit of all Alaskans.

Somehow, I doubt the looks of the Best Buy parking lot on the day Permanent Fund Dividend checks come out would fit neatly into O'Reilly's character profile of Joe Alaska.

But he likely doesn't vacation here in October and I doubt he gave it that much thought. He certainly didn't afford the rest of the article that courtesy.

"Most everybody has a gun -- there are big bears around -- and the majority of folks are happy not to be dealing with bureaucracies."

Guns? Check. Bears? Around. Happy not dealing with bureaucracies?

Did you even get out of the plane?

Alaska is a young state struggling to build infrastructure from a starting point which Boston hasn't seen since the 18th century. Disagree? Take a drive to our state capital and tell me where you end up. Hint: You'll need a towel. We're trying to catch up with America, and we're doing it while facing twenty-first century challenges.

You don't kill a bear with your gun and get a new university. You don't hate the government so hard it builds a highway. You do that stuff by working together. You do that through bureaucracies, like Denali Kid Care, Indian Health Services, the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, dozens of state departments, hundreds of community councils, hundreds more tribal councils -- we're barely skimming the surface.

Bill O'Reilly's Joe Alaska is a straw man for a bad argument against republican government. The poorly crafted ideological idol, created to represent a Hobbesian nature-state survivalist with an Ayn Rand guidebook and a cowboy hat, is offensive. When you try to reduce a citizenry as diverse as Alaska down to a hometown editorial-by-numbers (Alaska in 500 words!) you just look bad.

I thank Mr. O'Reilly for coming here. We appreciate the business and hope he'll come back soon. But do it as a tourist, as a student, as a wildlife enthusiast or sportsman. Alaska is here for people to enjoy, not haphazardly decode. Don't hang out for a day or two and then decide you're a state historian and demographer. Resist the urge to play armchair Tocqueville while on vacation at confirmation bias camp. It's dishonest and a bad read. We're not a prop.

Fox News Falsely Reports 3 Black Teens Killed Chris Lane
By: Steve - August 25, 2013 - 11:00am

Fox and Friends and The Daily Caller, falsely reported that Lane was shot by "three black teens," when one of the suspects is clearly a white male. A Duncan, Oklahoma police source confirms that 17 year-old suspect Michael Jones is a white male.

On Wednesday morning, Fox and Friends aired a segment in which they displayed a photo of the three suspects, which clearly showed that one of them is a white male, then they quoted an Allen West tweet that said "Three black teens shoot white jogger."

And that's not all, at Wednesday's White House daily briefing, Fox News Ed Henry asked Deputy White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest about the case, and he also misidentified the suspects as "three African American young men," when one of the suspects is, in fact, a 17 year-old white male.

WorldNetDaily.com also misidentified the suspects as "three African American young men," when the photo clearly shows that one of them is white. And of course neither Bill O'Reilly or his so-called media watchdog Bernie Goldberg have said a word about any of it. Now just imagine if people at MSNBC and people on the left did it, O'Reilly, Fox, and Goldberg would go insane and report it for a week, but when Fox and the right do it they say nothing.

The Friday 8-23-13 O'Reilly/Brown Factor Review
By: Steve - August 24, 2013 - 10:00am

The biased Former Republican Senator Scott Brown filled in for O'Reilly, and his TPM was called: The State of the Republican Party. Brown said this:
BROWN: Who remembers the famous stories about President Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neill? In public they would battle each other tooth and nail, but in private they would grab a drink, play cards, and negotiate a settlement or come up with an answer to a serious problem facing our country. How would President Reagan's actions be looked at now by the more conservative base of our party? Would he be called a 'RINO,' a Republican-In-Name-Only?

I'm not sure, but I can tell you that when people see the personal and political attacks between factions of the Republican Party, they're left scratching their heads. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is not a darling to our conservative base. Why? Because he hugged the President. Maybe that was a little much, but he has a 70% approval rating in a very blue state, doing the things that matter most to his state. How do the attacks by groups across the country against good Republicans like Christie and others move the party forward?

Are we not all concerned with the same core principles of lower taxes, strong defense, smaller government, liberty, freedom, and fiscal and military strength? Is there not room for good Republicans who don't all think and act the same way? I would argue that the GOP needs to be a larger tent party, more inclusive to respect the beliefs of good Republicans of all types.

When Barack Obama's presidency is over, we will have had eight years of division. I believe the people are fed up, they are tired of our elected officials putting their personal interests ahead of our country's interests. They are looking for us to band together and come up with a plan to rescue our country. We can't do it if we stay divided!
Then Brown asked liberal Cathy Areu about President Obama's tendency to blame conservative Republicans for inaction in Washington.

Areu said this: "It's not a blame game, it's a branding game and he is branding the Republican Party as what they are, which is the Tea Party, the Rush Limbaugh party, the fringe party, the 'no' party. I wish the Tea Party fanatics would step aside and let the adults handle the situation."

So Brown claimed Areu was wildly overstating the Tea Party's influence and that Democrats have a majority in the Senate, saying this: "Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer control the Senate, they can bring up anything they want. So blaming the Tea Party for holding up bills is just rhetoric."

Which is just ridiculous, because as Brown failed to point out you need 60 votes in the Senate to get a bill to the floor for a vote, and the Democrats do not have 60 votes. Not to mention, the Republicans have the majority in the House, so they block everything, meaning any bill the Senate does pass dies in the House anyway. So as usual, O'Reilly has a lying right-wing stooge on to host his show. In other words, Scott Brown is a dishonest right-wing idiot, just like his hero O'Reilly.

Then former Republican State Department official Ric Grenell and Democratic strategist Richard Fowler were on to talk about Syria and the USA's options.

Grenell said this: "President Obama is saying that our U.S. policy needs to be approved by the United Nations. He makes this argument that you must have multi-lateral support, and that's really problematic. He also views the situation as either 'war' or 'no war,' but there are other ways to use the full depth of the United States government."

But Fowler praised President Obama's measured approach, saying this: "What I hear from the President is a commitment to having all of our allies work together to solve this issue. The President was clear that we need to have a calculated response, that we don't want to put ourselves into another situation that we can't get out of. We need to create jobs here and putting us into another frivolous war is not the answer."

Then the biased right-winger Michael Tanner was on, he claims he has found that in many states welfare pays more than a low-wage job. Which is pretty sad, and shows that the minimum wage is too low, because welfare should never pay more than working a job. And yet, Republicans still oppose raising the minimum wage, even though nobody can live on it.

Tanner said this: "The welfare state has grown so large, that there is very little accountability. The federal government has 126 separate anti-poverty programs, 72 of which give cash or other benefits directly to individuals. This wide array of overlapping programs means that the benefits can add up and become a better way of life than a low-wage, low-skilled job. We're spending nearly a trillion dollars fighting poverty every year, yet the poverty rate is nearly the same as it was in 1965 when Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty."

Which is nothing but more right-wing propaganda, because if they would raise the minimum wage to $12.00 an hour not as many people would need walfare, and it would be a living wage so poverty would go down too.

Then Brown had Denise Cullen and Ginger Katz on to talk about some libertarians who argue that drug dealing is a victimless crime and that dealers are punished too harshly. Brown replayed Billy's recent interview with, both of whose sons died in drug overdoses.

Katz said this: "Loosening the drug laws would create more drug use, and that means more crime, more overdoses, more kids dropping out of school. It wreaks havoc on our country."

But Cullen, despite her personal loss, disagreed, saying this: "Our drug sentences are draconian and we incarcerate so many people. I don't blame the person for allowing my son to purchase the drugs from him, I blame him for leaving my son alone in the condition he was in. My son called the drug dealer, the guy didn't shove it down his throat. We've been doing this war on drugs for 40 years, it doesn't work."

O'Reilly Wrong About Chicago Crime & Policing
By: Steve - August 24, 2013 - 10:00am

For someone who's recently been presenting himself as an expert on the troubles facing black America, and as a sage with answers regarding violent crime, Bill O'Reilly continues to display an obvious ignorance about both.

Tuesday night, while claiming to provide the unvarnished truth, O'Reilly insisted the answer to Chicago's gun violence was to put more cops on the streets. O'Reilly said this: "Just look at Chicago. The violence there could be stopped by flooding the zone with police on literally every corner of dangerous neighborhoods."

He claimed that was not being done because local "racial hustlers" would object; because they "would rather see kids die" than admit "an acute social and criminal problem in many poor precincts."

According to O'Reilly, it is a "very tough statement, but it's true."

And now the facts: It is not true, and O'Reilly is a dishonest right-wing fool. They have Flooded dangerous neighborhoods with more cops, and it has been the cornerstone of the Chicago Police Department's effort to curb violence this year.

Anyone who spent five even minutes researching the city's crime-fighting efforts would know that. From the Associated Press:
Hundreds of Chicago police officers are hitting the streets on overtime every night in dangerous neighborhoods, the latest tactic by Mayor Rahm Emanuel's administration to reduce killings in a city dogged by its homicide rate and heartbreaking stories about honor students and small children caught in the crossfire.
O'Reilly also ignored this fact, that Chicago's crime rate is down sharply this year. In July, O'Reilly compared the city's murder rate to "many Holocausts." Tuesday night, he even said this: "The Windy City has turned into Afghanistan."

Which is also a lie, Fact: "Murders are down 26 percent compared with the same period last year, to the lowest number since 1965."

Despite the propaganda from O'Reilly that Chicago is some sort of killing capital, Chicago's murder rate ranked 21st in the nation last year. And as the Chicago Tribune's Eric Zorn wrote last month: "Chicago also wasn't even close to the most dangerous city in America last year, ranking 43rd in overall per capita violent crime in preliminary data."

And so much for Chicago being Afghanistan. In fact, here are the top 10 most dangerous cities in America, and Chicago is not one of them, but of course O'Reilly never mentions that fact:

1) St. Louis
2) Atlanta
3) Orlando
4) Birmingham
5) Detroit
6) Memphis
7) Miami
8) Baltimore
9) Kansas City
10) Minneapolis - Tie
10) Cleveland - Tie

So much for O'Reilly having the facts, he's not even close.

It is notoriously difficult to determine precisely why crime rises and falls, and the increased police presence may only be one factor for the decline in Chicago. But the fact is authorities in Chicago are already doing exactly what O'Reilly claims they should do; putting more cops on the streets.

Here is a reality check, O'Reilly propaganda is part of a larger conservative media movement to portray Chicago (which is President Obama's former hometown) as being driven under by murder and violence. They seem to want the city to become a symbol of doom and decay; a symbol of how local "racial hustlers" are more to blame for gang violence than the endless supply of illegal guns that stream into the city.

Facts don't back that up, so O'Reilly ignores the facts and promotes the right-wing propaganda about Chicago and crime in America. I just gave you a list of 11 cities that are more dangerous than Chicago, but O'Reilly never even reports on them, because Obama is not from any of them.

What this shows is that O'Reilly is a biased partisan right-wing hack, who ignores facts to spin out right-wing propaganda to try and make the President look bad. As he tells you that he has the facts that nobody else is giving you, while he ignores the actual facts.

The Thursday 8-22-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 23, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The State of our Economy. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: In order for more than 300-million Americans to have a chance at prosperity you need a vibrant economy. The USA does not have one and that is now on President Obama. The President's focus is on 'economic justice,' giving help to Americans who don't have much. Providing vast federal entitlements means big spending and taxation.

Also, the President doesn't seem to trust the capitalistic system and has instituted regulations that might be inhibiting business expansion. So the 'social justice' plan is failing and the US economy is stagnant, as are wages for working Americans. 7 out of 8 jobs created during the Obama administration have been part-time jobs and 54% of American workers make less than $30,000 a year.

When Mr. Obama took office the average duration of unemployment paid to an individual was 20 weeks, now it's 37 weeks. More than 8-million people have stopped looking for work and Americans receiving food stamps increased by 11,000 every single day during the President's first term.

Democrats blame income inequality and want even more federal intrusion into the economy; Republicans want the exact opposite, believing that helping private business expand is the key to a more competitive marketplace. Talking Points understands that wages rise when workers are in demand, but today competition for jobs is driving wages down. Only business expansion will turn that dire situation around, and why President Obama doesn't understand that I simply don't know.
And most of that is right-wing spin, because the economy is not doing great, but it's doing ok, and it's sure a lot better than how it was doing under Bush. O'Reilly claims it's all on Obama, when a lot of it was caused by Bush, so that's dishonest. We are still recovering from the mess Bush left us, and polls show that the people still blame Bush more than Obama.

David Callahan of the liberal think tank Demos was then on to tell O'Reilly the real truth.

Callahan said this: "Corporate profits are near record highs and we're having a bull market in stocks, so people at the top are doing great. But the people in the middle and the people at the bottom aren't doing so well. Job expansion is driven by economic demand, and you get demand by putting more money in the pockets of working people so they have more money to spend. Obama has lots of proposals for building skills, but Republicans kill every one of them."

But of course the biased hack O'Reilly disagreed, saying this: "You can't 'put money' into anybody's pocket. Wealth is created by private business, and when private business expands it means more work. If the President were a baseball manager he would have been fired, the economy has not improved in five years!"

Which is just a lie, because the economy has improved, and by a lot. the biased O'Reilly just will not admit it because it improved under a Democratic President with liberal policies. We are a lot better off than we were 5 years ago, and that is a fact.

Then Geraldo was on to talk about the 3 Oklahoma teens who have been charged in the murder of 22-year-old Australian Christopher Lane. One of the boys had previously tweeted this message: "90% of white people are nasty. #HATE THEM"

Geraldo said this: "The dysfunctional family is at the heart of this. James Edwards, the 15-year-old who wrote the racist message, was already in plenty of trouble. He is a wannabe Crip, a wolf who was running wild. There is a lack of values, these kids don't value human life."

O'Reilly said this: "I don't think this is a racial crime, this is three teenagers out of control. It comes down to the fact that this society will not condemn what is going on, and that is a de-emphasis of the traditional family. We have a sub-culture, and all colors are involved, with children from terrible families and parents who don't care."

Then Former Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich was on to talk about evidence that the Assad regime is using chemical weapons against Syrian rebels, and Billy asked Kucinich what the USA should do.

Kucinich said this: "There has to be an international tribunal, but one thing I would not do is have the U.S. invade militarily. It's a complex situation and I don't want to see the U.S. dragged into another war. We have such massive power that you have to think of the consequences. We intervened in Libya to disastrous consequences, we intervened in Iraq to disastrous consequences."

O'Reilly argued that chemical weapons are completely unacceptable, saying this: "If they are using gas I would definitely use air power in Syria."

Then Judge Jeanine Pirro was on to talk about Colorado passing a new law involving homeless sex offenders.

Pirro said this: "Sex offenders have to report where they're living, and then the authorities will monitor and make sure they're living at that address. But if you are a homeless sex offender without a fixed residence, the state says you can just come in and tell us where you're living - which bridge, which railroad track, which shelter. And they don't even then have to follow up. These guys are cunning, they are devious, and their mission is to molest another child, so you wonder what they're smoking in Colorado!"

Then Bernard McGuirk & Greg Gutfeld were on. They talked about how some cry baby conservatives are mad because Jane Fonda plays Nancy Reagan in "The Butler."

Gutfeld said this: "Jane Fonda makes Bradley Manning look like Gomer Pyle. While we were at war she put soldiers in danger and I don't think she really is sorry. But I don't believe in boycotts."

McGuirk added that his personal statute of limitations has run out on Fonda's anti-American radicalism, saying this: "We are a country of redemption and this was a long time ago. If she played the part respectfully and did a good job, it does not offend me."

They also talked about the new Al Jazeera America network. McGuirk said this: "The government of Qatar, which supports the Muslim Brotherhood, is the money behind this. This is just another liberal 'we report, you decide not to watch' network staffed by a bunch of modern-day Hanoi Janes. It's going to bomb, no pun intended."

Gutfeld added a surprising confession, saying this: "I can't comment because they offered me $10-million to do 'The Gutfeld Factor' against you. But I wasn't going to wear a hijab so I said no."

Then Jesse Watters was on, who recently took a trip to Telluride, Colorado, where a "mushroom festival" celebrated both regular and hallucinogenic 'shrooms. Here's what a few of the people told him: "I usually go out into the woods and I do it as a spiritual quest" ... "You actually see, like, sounds" ... "The chemicals in the mushrooms resemble the chemicals produced in the human brain already."

Back in the studio, Watters reported that psychedelic mushrooms have genuine medicinal value, saying this: "Psilocybin is illegal, but there are therapeutic uses. Scientists say it can have a healing effect on the psyche, it can reduce stress, and it can create a harmonious atmosphere in the brain."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Memory Upgrade. Billy said this: "Once you reach your mid-40's, start writing more stuff down because the memory inevitably fades."

Which is not 100% true, because I am in my 50's and my memory is perfect.

Dishonest Hack O'Reilly Caught Lying About President Obama
By: Steve - August 23, 2013 - 10:00am

Bill O'Reilly is a liar, and here is proof. Wednesday night the dishonest Bill O'Reilly cried about what he called the "corroding culture" and "derelict parenting" in America today and claimed that President Obama has "never addressed" the issue.

When in fact, the president has addressed the issue many many times -- including during the administration's push for gun control legislation and as recently as last month following the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial.

Back in February President Obama said this:
OBAMA: "There's No More Important Ingredient For Success, Nothing That Would Be More Important For Us Reducing Violence Than Strong, Stable Families."
That one statement alone proves that Bill O'Reilly is a liar, because he said Obama has never addressed the issue, or spoke out about it one time.

On the Wednesday show O'Reilly's Republican guest Kate Obenshain wondered why President Obama is not "jumping in right now to say 'we have a serious problem among our young people.'"

O'Reilly said this: "He doesn't believe we have a serious problem among our young people."

So Kirsten Powers challenged O'Reilly's ridiculous claim, but he continued with this: "Five years in office. He's never addressed it one time -- the culture, the coarse culture, the derelict parenting -- he's never made it a centerpiece. We've had healthy gardens. We've had 'let's do some exercise.' We've had a whole bunch of other outreach programs. Nothing about this."

Which is a lie, and Bill O'Reilly is a liar.

As recently as July 19th, President Obama spoke at length about issues young African Americans face while giving remarks on race and the death of Trayvon Martin. The president said, "We need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African-American boys," before continuing:
OBAMA: And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about. There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?
And during the Obama administration's recent push for new gun control legislation, Obama addressed a crowd in Chicago to stress the need for stronger families to help reduce crime and violence.

Obama said this:
OBAMA: "There's no more important ingredient for success, nothing that would be more important for us reducing violence than strong, stable families -- which means we should do more to promote marriage and encourage fatherhood."
These are the facts, the facts O'Reilly ignored to lie about President Obama. Obama speaks out about the problems with black kids and families all the time, it's a fact. And yet, O'Reilly still claims Obama has never said a word about it, not one time. When I just showed you 3 times he has spoke about those issues.

Let's face it, Bill O'Reilly is just a biased and dishonest Obama hating right-wing hack, who lies about Obama to make him look bad. O'Reilly just makes it up, and most of what he says is spin or a lie, and that spin and lie is always about a Democrat, he never spins and lies about any Republicans.

The Wednesday 8-21-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 22, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Senseless Violence. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: 22-year-old Australian baseball player Christopher Lane was shot dead in Oklahoma last Friday for no reason at all. He was out jogging when three teenage thugs allegedly murdered him. Based upon known evidence, 15-year-old James Edwards could be the instigator - information on social media indicates that he could be affiliated with the Crips gang and he posed on a website holding a rifle.

Police say Edwards was dancing and joking after he was arrested. The civil rights industry has been largely silent, with some liberals blaming America's lack of gun control. Talking Points believes there is a destructive culture in this country; it is apparent that the three boys have no regard for human life, but they have plenty of regard for social media, rap, and Xbox.

There will come a point when honest people will begin to see this problem for what it is - a cultural collapse among some very distinct groups. A violent subculture is now in place, fueled by derelict parents, a barbaric media, and apathy on the part of many politicians. Until we acknowledge the source of the chaos, we will not be able to solve the problem.
Basically, O'Reilly turned a random gang related murder into a political attack on President Obama, for no reason, except to try and make the President look bad, which is what only partisan right-wing idiots do.

Then Kirsten Powers and Kate Obenshain were on with their analysis of the Oklahoma murder.

Powers said this: "This is obviously a terrible tragedy, but I don't quite understand the expectation that the President or any other group would be speaking about it. Unlike the Trayvon Martin case, the attackers were immediately arrested. Our gun culture is what is behind this."

Obenshain said this: "The President and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton jumped at the chance to weigh in when a horror would further their political goals. When it served the President's agenda to stir up racial animosity, he compared Trayvon Martin to what his son would look like."

Then the moron O'Reilly said President Obama should address the widespread cultural morass, saying this: "The President of the United States doesn't believe we have a serious problem. In five years in office he has never addressed the coarse culture and the derelict parenting."

Which is a lie, and Obama has already addressed it many times, O'Reilly just ignored it and will not admit it, then lied about it.

Then James Carville was on to talk about Army Private Bradley Manning, who was sentenced to 35 years in military prison, although he could be released in as little as eight years.

Carville said this: "I was expecting more, and the judge didn't give a reason. My real outrage at this is how a private in the Army gets all these secrets that cause enormous embarrassment to the country. Maybe he thought he was saving the world, but that shouldn't matter."

O'Reilly said this: "I don't think he is a threat to society, but you have to send a message to everybody that if you steal secrets and give them to the enemy you're going to be punished harshly. I don't think this punishment was harsh enough."

Then James Rosen and Carl Cameron were on with the latest from Washington, beginning with the buzz surrounding Hillary Clinton.

Cameron said this: "She's getting a lot of attention, but it's not really the kind she wants. She's been way more public than she wanted to be at this stage and the headlines may have actually harmed more than helped. Some liberals are starting to dip their toes in the 2016 water, they're already beginning to come out against her."

Rosen talked about the Pakistani physician who was thrown in jail after helping U.S. intelligence agencies locate Osama bin Laden, saying this: "The Obama administration says it is raising this to the highest level, but what can they do? They can try to buy this guy's way out of prison or perhaps they can engage in a prisoner swap, which is very unlikely. So in all likelihood Afridi will remain where he is."

Then O'Reilly had Harrison Forbes & Joanna Bassinger on to talk about a new study that shows many Americans value the life of their pet more than that of another human being. Which I will not be reporting on, because it's not real news, for a so-called hard news show to be reporting on, it's tabloid garbage.

Then Dennis Miller was on, which I also will not report on, because it's just the conservative Miller on to make jokes about liberals, which is not news, and there is no liberal comedian on for balance.

In the last segment Heather Nauert was on to talk about excessive alcohol use that costs the U.S. hundreds of billion dollars a year, at least according to a study by the Centers for Disease Control.

Nauert said this: "Much of this is lost productivity, which means you show up to work and you're falling asleep at the computer because you're hung over. That's why so many large employers are now drug testing employees before they even sign them up."

Which makes no sense, because drug testing is for drugs not alcohol. Earth to Nauert, alcohol use has nothing to do with drug testing new employees, moron.

Nauert also examined the recent rash of bear attacks, saying this: "They will come after you when they are hungry and this is the time of year that they're starting to collect their food so they can hibernate. Part of the problem is that people are moving closer to the bears' domain. We're closer to them and they're coming closer to us."

Really? How is that news? And the really funny part is that during the segment O'Reilly said bear attacks are a big problem, then he listed about 5 attacks, out of 320 million people, which is nothing. Then about 2 minutes later O'Reilly said it is not a big problem, so in the very same segment O'Reilly said it is a big problem and it is not a big problem. Hey Billy, you are losing it pal.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Arab News Network. Billy said this: "A new news network is up and running - check out Al Jazeera America. Although we must say, insulting The Factor as we enter our 18th year might not have been the best start to the network."

Kirsten Powers Challenges O'Reilly Over Chris Lane Shooting
By: Steve - August 22, 2013 - 10:00am

The crazy O'Reilly opened his Wednesday show with his ridiculous take on the shooting death of Australian Chris Lane in Oklahoma, that is quickly beginning to dominate the cable news conversation. O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo was followed by a debate with Fox analyst Kirsten Powers and conservative commentator Kate Obenshain.

O'Reilly challenged the NAACP and the civil rights industry to speak out against the murder and even questioned why President Obama has not yet made a statement on the matter. O'Reilly then blamed the murder on a cultural collapse among some very distinct groups and warned against a violent subculture that is fueled by derelict parents, a barbaric media and apathy on the part of many politicians.

Calling the murder a terrible tragedy, Powers confronted O'Reilly about his opening monologue, saying this: "I don't quite understand the expectation that the president would be speaking about it or any other groups because, unlike the Trayvon Martin case, the attackers were immediately arrested."

In fact, it's a totally different situation from the Trayvon Martin shooting, and only the crazy old right-wing fools would expect the President to speak out about it.

O'Reilly even admitted that he does not think there is a racial overtone to the shooting, but he still thinks he asked a good question, saying this: "If you are going to weigh in on one, you weigh in on the other."

Which sounds like an argument a 5 year old kid would make, because the 2 shootings have nothing to do with each other, no racism, and they were arrested very quickly.

O'Reilly also said he thinks Obama's comments on the Martin case was a "political move and nothing more." Which is speculation on his part, the very speculation he says he never puts out or allows on his show, he says he only deals in facts, which is just laughable.

He then went into the discussion of gang culture and guns, which turned into a back and forth with Powers. O'Reilly suggested that Obama does not believe we have a serious problem with violence in this country. Which is more speculation. So Powers shot back with this: "On what planet does the president not believe we have a problem, Bill?"

She also said that just like the president, she believes our gun culture is what is behind this. "Trust me if those kids didn't have a gun, that guy would be alive."

O'Reilly just ignored all that and said it was time for Powers to accept the historical situation in the country that has led to 100 million guns on the street of America. He added this: "When the country was settled, everybody had a gun."

Which is so ridiculous it's insane, because 200 years ago when everyone had guns they were single shot muzzle loaders, and it was a totally different country back them, so the comparison is idiotic.

O'Reilly then returned to the so-called corruption of certain groups argument. And Powers called him out on his racial implications, saying this: "What do you mean certain groups? There are plenty of white people who use guns to go in and kill people, like children in elementary schools.

And btw, There are a few big differences. First, the shooters were arrested and charged immediately. In the Trayvon Martin case, it looked like Zimmerman would not be charged with anything, until massive public unrest forced the prosecutor to charge him. Second, one of the alleged perpetrators and the victim were of the same race. Third, the police chief had to resign over it, when you had none of that in the Chris Lane shooting. Fourth, there was no racism involved, and no profiling.

The Tuesday 8-20-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 21, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Stop & Frisk Debate. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The privacy of Americans is under siege; high-tech makes it easy to spy on us and intrusive policies like airport pat-downs are a tremendous inconvenience. And then there's stop-and-frisk. Nobody likes being a prisoner in their own neighborhoods, but in some places that's what's happening. But the police are not the guilty parties, criminals are. Last weekend in Chicago another six people were shot dead and 28 others wounded, including a 7-year-old boy. The violence is centered in poor black neighborhoods and it's the same in most other American cities.

Here in New York, under the very liberal mayor David Dinkins, murders were topping 2,000 a year. Then Rudy Giuliani took over and a new policing strategy was put into place. The cops flooded the high crime zones, arresting known thugs for just about anything. The plan worked and last year there were just 419 murders. One of the tactics is 'stop-and-frisk,' whereby officers search people they believe may be loitering or look suspicious. Most of those frisked are minorities and that is causing deep anger.

A federal judge has ruled that the NYPD must modify its program and liberals are overjoyed, but the unintended consequence of a slowdown in stop-and-frisk could be death. 89% of the accused killers in New York City are minorities, which is why people of color are under more scrutiny. The program is based upon factual data and public safety. That being said, all of us should understand the intrusion that happens to people of color in this city.

The police should record why they stop an individual, but throwing out stop-and-frisk would be madness. Just look at Chicago, where the violence could be stopped by flooding the zone with police in dangerous neighborhoods. But if the city did that, you would hear howls of indignation from the racial hustlers who would rather see kids die than admit there is an acute social and criminal problem in many poor precincts. That's a very tough statement, but it's true.
And that my friends is what I call spin, because cities that do not have stop and frisk have also had crime rates drop. Crime is tied to the economic situation in a city, not stop and frisk. Let's just say O'Reilly is correct, even though he is not, what he is saying is that it's ok to violate the constitution if stop and frisk works. And btw, since NY started stop and frisk the murder rate has dropped at a slower rate than it was dropping before stop and frisk.

Basically, 90% of the people stopped are innocent, so what O'Reilly is saying is that it's ok to violate the rights of 90% of the people to catch 10% doing something wrong.

Then Nathaniel Pendleton was on to discuss it, he is black and his 15-year-old daughter Hadiya was shot dead in Chicago earlier this year.

Pendleton said this: "Stop-and-frisk against minorities is totally unfair, because this isn't just happening in black or Hispanic neighborhoods, it's happening everywhere. I think tougher gun laws is a much better deterrent than just criminalizing innocent young men."

But of course O'Reilly disagreed with Pendleton's analysis, saying this: "It isn't happening everywhere, the affluent white neighborhoods are protected from this kind of madness. The two guys who killed your daughter were gangsters looking to kill other gangsters. So I say you flood the zone with police, just as they did in New York City."

Which would be ok, as long as they do it without violating their rights, which the judge found they did, somehow O'Reilly does not seem to understand that. And btw folks, O'Reilly said he would let the cops keep doing stop and frisk, and that they just need to call it something different, like encounter and question.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on with their analysis of the stop-and-frisk controversy.

Colmes said this: "I would do what Mr. Pendleton said. I would get guns off the street and I would have a gun buy-back program. There should be more registration of guns and stricter gun control. I'm not against stop-and-frisk, but the way they do it in New York is racial profiling."

Crowley disagreed, saying this: "The evidence is that metropolitan areas that have the strictest gun control laws, cities like Chicago and Washington and Detroit, have the highest gun murder rates in the country. And in areas of the country where gun control is relatively lax, crime rates go down. An armed society is a safer society!"

Which is a lie, because states that have the death penalty have higher murder rates than states that do not have it. As usual Crowley spins the stats, and I could show you stats that prove her wrong.

Then Lou Dobbs was on with his biased opinion of the unintended consequences of Obamacare, the provisions of which are gradually going into effect.

Dobbs said this: "Businesses across the country, are reducing part time workers to below 30 hours a week in order to avoid the impact of the Affordable Care Act. It's happening in large businesses that are labor intensive, particularly fast food and restaurants and hospitality. Big companies don't have to worry about this because President Obama just gave them a kiss, they don't have to worry about this until 2015. We're seeing the creation of more part-time jobs than full-time jobs."

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about drinking and drugs.

Krauthammer said this: "Many of the indices of social dysfunction like teen pregnancy and crime have gone down over the last 20 years. But I agree with you that the culture has become more coarse and I agree with you that you don't want children stoned. The worst thing about a stoned child is that they're missing out on learning - social and moral and educational. They lose thousands of hours of their lives when they need to be developing."

Krauthammer also said drinking is far worse than smoking pot, in fact, he said smoking pot is harmless, and of course O'Reilly disagreed, even though Krauthammer is a doctor. O'Reilly was stunned that he said that, and disagreed big time, even though Krauthammer is right.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: The Path of Khan. Billy said this: "With school about to start, every parent and grandparent should be aware of the website KhanAcademy.org, which has a wealth of free help for students in pretty much every academic area."

Proof Republican Darrell Issa Lied About The IRS Scandal
By: Steve - August 21, 2013 - 10:00am

And the so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly has not said one word about this story.

The unredacted IRS treasury report was released Tuesday and it turns out we have all been lied to in a big way. Because the report says progressive groups were singled out for scrutiny just like conservative groups. But worse than that, the IRS Inspector General also lied to Congress about this fact during testimony and in letters, and the progressive terms were "redacted" in the original report.

It turns out that the Inspector General's May 2013 report left out critical information that skewed the audit's findings and set the stage for Republicans to make completely baseless accusations in an effort to tarnish the White House, according to the recipient of the bogus letter, Michigan Democrat Sandy Levin.

His full statement is worth a read: "Once again it is clear that the Inspector General's report left out critical information that skewed the audit's findings and set the stage for Republicans to make completely baseless accusations in an effort to tarnish the White House. These new documents make it clear the IRS scrutiny of the political activity of 501(c)(4) organizations covered a broad spectrum of political ideology and was not politically motivated."

Left out is slang for redacted on purpose, which is nice speak for lied, in this case.

Today we found out via an IRS training presentation that the IRS targeted ACORN successors in addition to Democratic-leaning Emerge groups -- the only groups to actually be denied non-profit status, by the way. They were on the Be On the Look Out BOLO lists that we have heard so much carping about.

Elijah Cummings (D-MD), who has been pressuring Issa to release the full documents for months now, said this: "This new information should put a nail in the coffin of the Republican claims that the IRS's actions were politically motivated or were targeted at only one side of the political spectrum."

And if Bill O'Reilly is a real journalist he will report this new information, but I will bet the farm O'Reilly never says a word about any of it. Because if he did, he would expose himself and everyone on the right as dishonest propagandists.

Russell George also needs to be investigated for obstructing a Congressional inquiry, and that investigation needs to dig into a possible conspiracy with House Republicans and other IRS employees to perpetrate a wholly inaccurate narrative about the IRS targeting conservatives for political reasons.

If you want a government that is remotely accountable, demand an inquiry. The Department of Justice should investigate the Inspector General's testimony.

The Monday 8-19-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 20, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Warfare breaks out in the MLB. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: In 2007 third baseman Alex Rodriguez signed an astounding $275-million, 10-year contract with the New York Yankees. Two years later Rodriguez admitted he had used steroids before baseball banned them. Now he has been suspended by Major League Baseball for allegedly using performance enhancing drugs again. A-Rod has appealed that suspension, which is for a whopping 211 games.

While the appeal is underway, Rodriguez can play and get paid, but if his appeal is denied he could lose many millions of dollars. Last night in Boston this story took another turn, as a Boston Red Sox pitcher hit Rodriguez with a pitch. The case of Alex Rodriguez concerns alleged cheating at the highest level of American business. When a man is paid $275-million, the team taking on that contract is entitled to honesty on every level, but Rodriguez denies that he has done anything wrong in this latest episode.

Talking Points does not know what Alex Rodriguez did or did not do, but after the Lance Armstrong debacle it is safe to assume that some very powerful American athletes cheat. Again, that's unacceptable because American businesses are paying them an incredible amount of money and have a right to expect honest behavior.

The bottom line on the story: Mr. Rodriguez will probably be suspended and it is an awful situation being played out in front of the nation. And as somebody who was once a pitcher, throwing a baseball at another player is a serious thing.
What a joke, who cares. It was nothing more than being hit by a pitch, it's no big deal and it happens every day. This is not real news, it's baseball news for ESPN to report on, not a so-called hard news show.

Then the right-wing stooge Bernie Goldberg was on to discuss it.

Goldberg said this: "Major League Baseball has every right to expect its players won't cheat. More importantly, it corrupts the game. Baseball extends over generations, so if a player who is using steroids breaks Hank Aaron's all-time home run record or another player on performance enhancing drugs breaks Roger Maris's single-season home run record, they're cheating all of us who love baseball. Alex Rodriguez is public enemy number not only because he cheated, but also because he lied."

Then Juan Williams was on, he talked about the idiots in the Republican Party who are angry over reports that both NBC and CNN are considering producing movies about Hillary Clinton. Even though it has not been confirmed they are going to do them.

Williams said this: "Basically we have a politician getting free advertising, because they are going to elevate her. NBC has the actress Diane Lane set to play Hillary Clinton - how can anybody say that won't elevate Mrs. Clinton in American life? I don't think this is about skewering Hillary Clinton."

O'Reilly agreed that the projects will most likely deify Mrs. Clinton, saying this: "Julianne Moore subtly mocked Sarah Palin in an HBO movie for which she won an Emmy, but if Diane Lane subtly mocked Hillary Clinton she'd never work again in Hollywood. But I'm going to predict that neither movie will be made prior to 2016."

Even though O'Reilly once said you can not slam a movie or a tv show until you have seen it, but that of course was when he was talking about a conservative movie that he was part of, with Mel Gibson. When it's not a conservative movie suddenly it's ok with O'Reilly to slam it. Even though we do not even know if they are going to do them yet.

Then Dan Springer was on to talk about marijuana smoking, which is now legal in Washington State, while Seattle cops may actually be encouraging pot use. Springer reported on Seattle's "HempFest," where city police took part by handing out bags of chips.

Springer said this: "There were hundreds of people there under the age of 21 smoking pot, which made it illegal. But we didn't see police even warning them that it's illegal for them to be possessing marijuana, let alone smoking it in public, which is illegal for everyone in Washington. People smoke marijuana out in the open in downtown Seattle and they have no worry that police will do anything. You see it in Seattle far more than in San Francisco or anywhere else."

And that's pure speculation, because he surely did not check their ID's, so he speculated they were under age, which O'Reilly claims to not allow. And btw, I see people all the time who look under 21, then it turns out they are 21 or older, so Springer was guessing they were not 21.

Then the right-wing dummy who was wrong about everything in the 2012 election Karl Rove was on to talk about Robert Gibbs and Hillary Clinton.

Democratic strategist Robert Gibbs expressed surprise that Hillary Clinton is already acting like a presidential candidate. So O'Dummy asked Karl Rove to evaluate the Clinton strategy.

Rove said this: "Robert Gibbs is right. She has already come out in favor of gay marriage, given a speech on immigration, and attacked voter ID laws. This is like she's in the final months of a primary campaign, not three years away from the election. You can not sustain that pace for three years, then pop up in 2016 and sound like you have something new to say. It's hard to be the front-runner from beginning to end without making a lot of mistakes along the way."

Rove also talked about the war of words between Republican presidential prospects Rand Paul and Chris Christie, saying this: "This is a fight that both of them want. For Rand Paul, this is a chance for him to change the Republican Party and promote his libertarian philosophy. On the other hand, Christie wants to be seen as a strong national defense conservative, so he's saying he's not willing to roll back those protections that have kept America safe since 9/11."

Earth to O'Reilly and Rove, it's too soon to talk about the 2016 election, and Rove is a fool anyway. Because nobody is going to remember anything Hillary Clinton said or did in 2013, three years from now, idiot.

Then the unfunny right-wing moron Adam Carolla was on to talk about a website that encourages Americans to save money, who has put up billboards with this message: "It Takes Courage, But Saving Money Is Worth It." Carolla said this: "This is like when President Obama said it takes courage to raise your kids, and I thought no, that's your responsibility. Saving money is your responsibility, it doesn't take courage. It takes courage to wrestle a bear, not to put twenty bucks in a mattress, you idiots! Where does it end? Will we be saying it takes courage to sit up? Where do we stop with this?"

What really takes courage is for O'Reilly to give this unfunny fool a segment every week on his so-called hard news show, it's garbage and a waste of tv time.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: No Good Deed Goes Punished. Billy said this: "When you do good deeds or contribute to charity, don't expect an immediate worldly return; your rewards will come in other ways and in another place."

In other words, O'Reilly is saying that just because he is a dishonest lying right-wing hack, and because he gives some money to charity he will be rewarded in heaven. Which may or may not be true, and it's possible there is a room in hell waiting for O'Reilly.

Stop & Frisk Facts O'Reilly Has Ignored
By: Steve - August 20, 2013 - 10:00am

The number one fact he has ignored is that stop and frisk is a failure. The truth is undeniable: these measures are invasive, embarrassing, racially biased, and counterproductive.

No research has ever proven the effectiveness of these policies. Guns have been found in less than 0.2% of all stops, while 88% of those searched have been innocent of any crime. In Park Slope Brooklyn alone, blacks and Latinos made up 24% of the population, but constituted 79% of all stop and frisks.

The stop-and-frisk policy was found to violate the rights of minorities in New York City. Mayor Bloomberg has since stated that he will appeal the decision by the judge.

Bloomberg asserted that the tactic is "an important part of the NYPD's record of success", which allows police officers to stop and search anyone regardless of whether they believe a crime has been committed.

In her ruling the judge found that in randomly stopping people on the street, the police frequently and systematically stopped innocent people in the street without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing. The judge also held the city liable for a myriad of constitutional violations. Stating that the police were comfortable in dismissing various allegations of racial profiling as a media myth.

We have a 4th amendment in the constitution that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Under the 4th Amendment, search and seizure (including arrest) should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer who has sworn by it.

So as you can see random stops of people on the street without a warrant clearly violates the 4th amendment. And yet, Bill O'Reilly and his right-wing friends still argue it's ok to do it. While they claim to support the constitution.

During the trial one officer even admitted they were stopping random people to meet a quota, a fact that Bill O'Reilly has never reported to you, and never will. Because it does not fit in with the spin he is putting out on the stop and frisk policy.

O'Reilly also claimed that the stop-and-frisk policy is necessary, and thanks its success for some decline in murders and violent crime in the city. But violent crime still appears to be quite prevalent in New York City despite what O'Reilly claims.

While the city's murders have declined "almost 19 percent in 2012, aggravated assaults, robberies and forcible rapes all rose slightly to nearly 53,000 violent crimes, up 3.5 percent from 2011, and about two-thirds of the statewide total." Which is another fact that Bill O'Reilly has never reported to you, and never will.

The New York Civil Liberties Union's Executive Director, Donna Lieberman, said this: "The NYPD last year subjected hundreds of thousands of innocent people to humiliating, intimidating and unjustified stop-and-frisk encounters. With a 90-percent failure rate, the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program remains a tremendous waste of resources, sows mistrust between police and the communities of color and routinely violates fundamental rights. The city’s next mayor must make a clean break from the Bloomberg administration's ineffective and abusive stop-and-frisk regime."

And btw, Donna is in New York City, but O'Reilly has not had her on the Factor one time to discuss the issue. Because he does not want you to her the facts, he wants to spin the story with his hand picked crew of Fox News stooges who will agree with him and make it look like he is right about the failed policy. Think about this, the food stamp program has a 2% fraud rate, and O'Reilly wants to shut it down, but the stop and frisk has a 90% failure rate, and yet he supports it, even though it's a violation of the 4th amendment of the constitution. That's how biased he is, and it's just laughable.

City Councilman Jumaane Williams said this about stop and frisk: "The NYPD's policy towards stop and frisk is still inordinately targeting young men of color and harassing an overwhelming majority of innocent New Yorkers."

It is clear that stopping people without probable cause or a warrant is a violation of their guaranteed 4th amendment Constitutional rights. Not to mention a violation of their natural rights to travel freely without being subject to cherry-picked harassment.

Without probable cause, I can not see how this policy ever got past the search and seizure requirement of the Constitution. Especially when we are supposed to be living in a free country with constitutional protections. This is not freedom, it's the opposite, because they do not have probable cause and they are not getting a warrant, they just grab you and frisk you, if that's not a violation of the constitution they should just burn it and let the police do whatever they want.

And anyone who supports stop and frisk is an un-American jerk, that means you O'Reilly. Why dont you have a constitutional attorney on to discuss it, fool.

Al Sharpton On O'Reilly's 25K Donation
By: Steve - August 19, 2013 - 10:00am

And btw, I owe an apology to Al Sharpton. Friday I wrote that he made a mistake with his quote of O'Reilly calling the surfer from Cali a parasite, saying he took it out of context. But after watching the segment O'Reilly had on the guy with the Fox editor I noticed O'Reilly called EVERYONE who collects ANYTHING from the Government parasites, so Al Sharpton was right, O'Reilly did refer to the poor as parasites, and he even plays a tape of O'Reilly saying it.

Friday, Sharpton offered some choice words for O'Reilly in an interview, and then on his show he really let the Fox host have it.

Sharpton pointed that like O'Reilly, he never mentioned the donation until now. "Bill doesn't realize it, but this story actually reveals what kind of person he is... Bill gave that money privately to someone he's publicly called, quote, a 'race hustler', working in what he calls the 'grievance industry.'" Sharpton then asked this: "What are we supposed to think about a man who privately is generous, but who says the most vile and divisive things in public?"

The MSNBC host then played a montage of some the worst things O'Reilly has said about him, asking, "Why would Bill quietly donate that money to my group while loudly telling his right-wing audience that this is what he thinks of me?... Why would Bill give a so-called race hustler $25,000 to help the poor at Christmas? And why would he write a check to help people that he's called parasites who just want stuff?"

"The sad truth," Sharpton concluded, "is that the good that Bill did with the check he wrote is far outweighed by the vile and hateful things he says on the air night after night."

Here is the video:

Gun Safety Instructor Shoots Ohio Student
By: Steve - August 18, 2013 - 11:00am

LANCASTER, Ohio -- Police say an instructor at a central Ohio gun safety class has accidentally shot a student.

The Columbus Dispatch reports 73-year-old Terry J. Dunlap Sr. was demonstrating a handgun at a training facility on Saturday when he fired a bullet that ricocheted off a desk and into the right arm of 26-year-old Michael Piemonte.

The student says the .38-caliber bullet hit him between his elbow and armpit. He says many of the students in the class were nurses who helped stabilize him before he was transported to a Columbus hospital.

Piemonte tells the newspaper it appears Dunlap didn't know the gun was loaded. Dunlap hasn't responded to requests for comment.

A police report lists the shooting as accidental.

Here is my question, gun safety 101 says check the gun to see if it's loaded as soon as you touch it, so how does a so-called gun safety instructor not check the gun to see if it's loaded, especially during a gun safety class.

Conservatives Dump Constitution To Defend Stop And Frisk
By: Steve - August 18, 2013 - 10:00am

Including Bill O'Reilly who defended it on Tuesday night, even after a federal judge said it violated the 4th and 14th amendments, and the jerk did it while claiming to support the constitution 100 percent.

People in the right-wing media incessantly trumpet their belief in the U.S. Constitution while simultaneously accusing progressives of ignoring it, a position that has been abandoned in their attacks on the court decision holding New York City stop and frisk policy is unconstitutional.

On August 12, a federal district court held that while case law has long allowed police to initiate street encounters that briefly detain and investigate persons suspected of wrongdoing, there are certain Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment parameters to the practice that the New York Police Department (NYPD) violated.

Specifically, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin held that the NYPD's version of stop and frisks unconstitutionally targeted New Yorkers of color because of their race and without reasonable suspicion.

So rather than engage the legal analysis, the right-wing media is instead defending the NYPD by downplaying or ignoring its current unconstitutionality and arguing its justification lies in its purported efficacy at reducing crime rates.

On August 13, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham appeared on Fox & Friends to dismiss the constitutional concerns over an inconvenience as ludicrous and accused the federal judge of "substituting her own view of the world, her own utopian view of how the world should be for the way the real life is, for the people who are trying to get by, not get killed, not get robbed, not get raped on the streets of New York."

The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal reiterated this concern for New Yorkers, particularly those of color, by lamenting "if the judge's ruling isn't overturned, the victims won't be in the tony precincts of liberal New York. They will be in the barrios and housing projects where stop-and-frisk has helped to protect the most vulnerable citizens, who are usually minorities."

Sean Hannity highlighted the alleged disproportionate criminality of African-American men in his sympathy for future victims at risk from a change in NYPD policy, arguing on his August 13 radio show "it's not racial profiling, or indirect racial profiling." He continued, "the disparity in stops and frisks mirrored the disproportionate percentage of crimes committed by young minority men, that's what the NYPD said."

Bill O'Reilly warned on the August 13th O'Reilly Factor, "if they do away with this program, that would be a disaster."

On CNN Newt Gingrich recycled all of these right-wing arguments and omissions, completely disregarding constitutional concerns about this "very, very useful" police practice to instead insist "what the police are trying to do...is establish a sense of order because establishing a sense of order clearly diminishes the amount of crime that occurs."

Gingrich also repeated the WSJ's concern about the disparate impact of ceasing an unconstitutional government practice on crime victims of color, a form of civil rights statistical analysis the right-wing media have previously and repeatedly condemned.

But the right-wing media, especially Fox News and the editorial board of the WSJ, previously had no problems condemning "disdain for the Constitution's checks and balances" and "contempt for the Constitution" when the defendant was President Barack Obama, as opposed to the NYPD. On August 14, a day after the WSJ belittled Scheindlin and urged her opinion's reversal, the editors lectured "the professors and pundits who fret about the Imperial Presidency who go into hibernation when the President is a Democrat, so it is crucial that the courts reject Mr. Obama's increasing contempt for constitutional limits."

Hannity perhaps had the most memorable full-throated and recent defense of constitutional rights when he completely reversed himself on government surveillance, now that it is overseen by the current president.

Beyond the hypocrisy of selectively eschewing the Constitution on stop and frisk because the ends supposedly justify the means, however, right-wing media also continue to make the statistical mistake of confusing causation with correlation. That is, just because homicides dropped at the same time stop and frisk was practiced by the NYPD doesn't necessarily mean disproportionately intercepting young men of color (nine out of ten who are completely innocent, according to NYPD records) was the reason.

In fact, not only did the crime rate sharply dip before Mayor Michael Bloomberg's NYPD policy was implemented, the recent decline in stop and frisks due to legal and public pressure has not led to a "corresponding rise in homicides."

Former federal prosecutor and law professor I. Bennett Capers wrote this about it:
But even if these practices were constitutional, they're still a bad idea. Of course, one wouldn't know that listening to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and other true believers, who insist that aggressive stop-and-frisks have reduced violent crime. But they're wrong.

The most obvious reason is the brute numbers. For every 100 individuals stopped and frisked, only about 6 are arrested, often for minor offenses like marijuana possession. The success rate for finding a gun borders on the nonexistent: 1 in every 1,000 stops. In fact, purely random stops have produced better results.

For another thing, the government's reasoning is empirically suspect, and conflates correlation with causation. The homicide rate has been dropping during the time that stop-and-frisk has been policy. By its defenders' logic, stop-and-frisk works -- even though there are many other reasons for the drop in homicides.

Moreover, when the number of stops dropped by 20 percent last year, there should have been a corresponding rise in homicides. There wasn't.
Ultimately, the right-wing media's refusal to recognize the constitutional violations of a police practice in New York City that is conducted properly in many other jurisdictions reveals their disturbing double standard of when constitutional rights are important and when they apparently can be ignored.

There are many dubious ways of reducing crime that would meet O'Reilly and Gingrich's criteria of "establishing a sense of order." City neighborhoods could be put under permanent curfews. A flat-out ban on firearms could be enforced state-wide. Every computer on Wall Street could be put under 24-7 warrantless surveillance.

The real question is what is constitutional and what is not. Currently, the NYPD's stop and frisks fail that test. But O'Reilly, Hannity, Gingrich, and all their right-wing friends defend it anyway, as they tell you how much they believe in the constitution, while they are stomping on it. Here is the real truth, they only support the constitution when it is something they agree with, if they disagree with something in it, then they could care less what it says.

The Friday 8-16-13 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - August 17, 2013 - 11:00am

The biased right-wing hack Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly and her TPM was called: Why Duck Dynasty is a Winner. Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: Unless you've been living under a rock, you've heard about A&E's reality show 'Duck Dynasty,' which follows a wildly successful family-run company in Louisiana that manufactures duck calls. What explains the success, what's the allure of watching a bunch of long-haired rednecks sitting around teasing each other? There's no nudity, pretty much no foul language, and no celebrity drop-bys.

First, the characters are genuinely funny. The Robertson family comes across as unrehearsed, no-nonsense, and warm. But there's another explanation for the mega-hit status - the show's focus on family, country, and faith. Each episode, in fact, ends with a prayer. This their way of life, and in fact family patriarch Phil Robertson was a preacher for decades and openly discusses Jesus in media interviews.

How often today do we see families in prayer on entertainment television? As families have disintegrated and as our culture has become hyper-sexualized, I think it's a welcome relief to many TV viewers. Duck Dynasty depicts a colorful, intact, traditional family and they're leading a happy and successful life. What a concept!

Wake up, Hollywood. There is a huge audience that is turning off and tuning out the garbage that passes as entertainment today. Sex might sell, but real love - love of family, neighbor, country, and God - that sells too. And in the end, it's a lot more fulfilling.
And I also think Duck Dynasty is a great show, but it has nothing to do with religion, I watch it because it's funny, and nothing more. So Ingraham is out of her mind trying to put religion into the show, it does well because it's f-u-n-n-y. People love to watch rednecks who are funny, which has nothing to do with religion, it's a show about a family of rednecks who make duck calls, and it's funny as hell.

Then Ingraham talked more about Oprah Winfrey's claim that racism is a major factor in modern America, a contention supported by professor Mark Sawyer, simply because it's true to everyone but the morons on the right who keep saying racism is gone.

Sawyer said this: "The idea that there are some successful black people who do very well, doesn't mean that racism doesn't exist and people don't still harbor those views. We see what people say on Twitter and what they say in comments, so we know racism exists. The success of some is in contradiction to our ugly history of racism."

Bingo, the internet is full of racism, because they can be a racist and nobody knows who they are. Just look at the KKK, they are still in business, and there are a lot of them that keep it a secret. I could go to 50 message boards right now and find racism on every one of them, and most of them are Republican forums. And anyone who claims because Obama is President or Oprah getting rich proves racism is gone are just stupid and fools. In fact, the number of hate groups in America has increased since Obama took office, and most of them are right-wing racist hate groups.

Horace Cooper, who writes for a conservative think tank, dismissed the idea that pervasive racism is a major problem, saying this: "The question isn't whether or not racism exists, the question is how relevant that is in affecting the real lives of most Americans, black and white. It's irrelevant! It's not the number one issue, it's not the number two issue, it's not even the number ten issue! Family formation and educational attainment have far more to do with what happens in the lives of every American."

As Egypt erupts in violence between the military-backed government and supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, Ingraham asked Democratic strategist Dick Harpootlian about President Obama's plans for a new and peaceful Middle East. The same middle east Bush did nothing about, except to make them mad by invading a Muslim country that did not attack us.

Harpootlian said this: "What's happening in Egypt, also happened in Libya and Syria and all these countries where we had this 'Arab Spring.' It's not about us, it's about what's going on internally on religious and political levels. It's a very complicated situation and there are no simple solutions. At this point, do we get more involved than we already are? No!"

Ingraham argued that President Obama's foreign policy has been a dismal failure, saying this: "We elected Barack Obama because he was going to turn the page, there was 'hope and change,' the world was going to like us more. He came in under a big promise of bolstering America's image around the world, but our approval around the world is going down."

Which is just ridiculous, because no President can make Egypt or Libya or Syria do anything, they are in control of their country. We can tell them what we want them to do, but they do not have to listen to us, and they can do whatever they want. And usually when we get involved we just make the situation worse, so unless Ingraham is calling for a military invasion to takeover their country, we can not do anything. And we should not do anything, I say leave them alone and stop being the police to the world.

The Washington Post is now reporting that the NSA breaks privacy rules thousands of times each year. Democratic strategist Julian Epstein and Matt Welch of libertarian Reason magazine were on to discuss the news. Which is the very same Washington Post that O'Reilly and Ingraham call a worthless liberal rag, and yet they cite them and use their reporting all the time.

Epstein said this: "There are serious problems that need to be addressed, but you have to step back and look at the big picture. Nobody is alleging that the NSA is spying on the personal communications of everyday Americans. This is something that the public still supports and it is interrupting terrorist plots."

And remember this, not only did the Republicans have no problem with this happening under Bush, they voted for it, so they voted it in, and now they are crying about it because it's happening under Obama, but when Bush was doing it they were silent, and even defended the very same program.

Welch portrayed President Obama as a flat-out liar, saying this: "Not only is the President looking you in the eye and lying to you, but two Senators say that what we're seeing in the Washington Post is just the tip of the iceberg. We've allowed national secrecy to run amok in this country and the more Americans realize what's happening, the less popular these programs are becoming."

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has been criticizing both President Obama and some of his GOP rivals. So Ingraham had radio talk show host Lars Larsen and Republican strategist Tony Sayegh on to discuss it.

Larsen said this: "We already know what Governor Christie's position is. He's a RINO, a 'Republican In Name Only.' He's liberal on just about everything, and while a lot of us applauded the way he took on the unions, I don't like him as a presidential candidate. When was the last time it worked for us to put up a moderate?"

Sayegh put forth a totally different assessment, saying this: "Governor Christie is a legitimate conservative. Just look at his record - the budget in New Jersey is smaller in real dollars than it was four years ago, which means there were real spending cuts."

Which is insane, and even Laura Ingraham agreed that Christie's a real conservative, saying this: "He's pro-life, he was incredibly effective against the unions, and he was the Tea Party favorite in New Jersey."

Then the pro-life right-wing loon Ingraham cried about the Obama administration giving Planned Parenthood more than a half-million dollars to help enlist people in Obamacare. She had Democratic strategist Bernard Whitman on to discuss it.

Whitman said this to the stupid and misinformed Ingraham: "Planned Parenthood is one of the most trusted providers of health care in this country. 90% of the care they provide is preventative care like wellness exams, pap smears, and mammograms that help save tens of thousands of lives a year. So using Planned Parenthood to ensure that millions of American women get access to health care makes perfect sense."

And finally, Grover Norquist, a very influential Republican who wants the GOP to help craft an immigration reform bill was on.

Norquist said this: "House Republicans have made it very clear that they won't even look at the Senate bill. They're doing their own bill and they're going to be focused on border security. Nobody's talking about citizenship for another thirteen years, but we are talking about people going through background checks and getting them to pay taxes. When people come to this country they become Americans and they become productive workers."

So Ingraham said this about her disagreement with Norquist and her distrust of the administration: "Obama can waive these fines, he can waive the taxes, he can waive a lot of these provisions. Why are you going to trust him?"

Al Sharpton Tells O'Reilly To Man Up & Grow Up
By: Steve - August 17, 2013 - 10:00am

Al Sharpton fired back at Bill O'Reilly in an interview with The Huffington Post on Friday, saying that the Fox News host needs to "man up and grow up."

Sharpton's comments came after O'Reilly revealed that he had once donated $25,000 to Sharpton's charity in Harlem. O'Reilly made the revelation while defending himself against Sharpton's charge that he was "attacking the poor" in a segment criticizing the food stamps program.

"I think it is really shows exactly what I've been saying all along," Sharpton said on Friday. "When Mr. O'Reilly started attacking me after my question of the Zimmerman verdict, he started talking about the grievance industry and that i was a racial huckster, never telling people he knew better and that he was a contributor of mine... If I was huckster, why would he contribute to me?"

He said that not only did O'Reilly donate to his charity, but also once spoke at a conference for the National Action Network. "Adults can disagree and work together on different things because they're adults," Sharpton added, citing his work with Newt Gingrich and others.

Sharpton continued, "O'Reilly needs to man up and grow up because he needs to understand that just because you make a donation does not mean that people cannot disagree."

He also denied that he had ever called the Fox News host "racist." O'Reilly alleged on Thursday that Sharpton was portraying him "as a racist and a brutalizer of the poor."

The Thursday 8-15-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 16, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: America's Tech Culture. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: In 2011 more than 3,000 people were killed in crashes involving distracted drivers, and an astounding 69% of all drivers admit they've talked on a cell phone while driving. Also, 70% of sex addicts report having a problem online and a study says that the more people use Facebook, the worse they feel about themselves. So there's no question technology is causing immense damage.

A few questions: Do you text while eating or while talking with another person? Do you spend more than two hours a day on the Internet? Do you use computers for purposes you don't want anyone else to know about? Are you thinking about the Internet when you're not using it? Do you talk with strangers on the 'net? If you answered yes to any of those, there might be a problem, and that problem is most severe among kids.

Millions of children don't want to do activities that separate them from cyberspace and the implications are staggering; if a citizen is not interested in the outside world, that person will not be able to make intelligent decisions. The 'net allows people to create their own worlds, they can lose themselves in a vast array of distractions.

They don't learn coping skills, they don't compete, and their curiosity is stifled. Talking Points believes cyberspace is as addictive as any narcotic. Human beings are becoming dependent on these machines and that is going to change the world forever.
Then two mental health experts (Catherine Steiner-Adair and Robyn Silverman) were on to discuss it.

Silverman said this: "When I'm speaking to parents and educators, they talk about kids 'sexting' or being on computers too much. So we know it's going on and we need to concentrate on parents' education. Parents need to engage and explain and be a powerful example."

Steiner-Adair reported on her interviews with thousands of children, saying this: "One of the most moving findings for me, was their perception that their parents are just as addicted as they are. They experience almost a sibling rivalry with screens for their parents' attention. When you're on line and somebody interrupts, most of us have had the experience of being cranky, and kids feel hurt."

And now a reality check for you three old gimmers, no kids are going to listen to what you say about it, in fact, almost no kids watch the Factor, so none of them are getting your message, and even if they do they will just ignore it.

Then the right-wing stooge Laura Ingraham was on to talk about the fact that less than a quarter of Americans are "satisfied" with the country's general direction. With no liberal on for balance, making it a one sided biased debate with 2 old, white, right-wing partisans.

Ingraham said this: "The dissatisfaction is not directed at one party, it's the whole process. More Americans feel like their concerns and worries and anxieties aren't really the main priorities of the leadership in either party. There's a cycle of anxiety and it's the strangest thing - we have a consensus on things like Obamacare, people don't want it! But we have a President who knows it's wildly unpopular, but this is just what we have to have. The bottom line is that most Americans don't see either party offering solutions and sticking to promises."

And that's because the people we elect do not watch out for the people, they watch out for the wealthy, the corporations, and the special interest groups that give them the money they need to win elections. Which is why Congress has an 11% approval rating. The problem is, no matter who you elect they all sell out for the money and the perks, which is why Congress is hated so much. And the Republicans are far worse than the Democrats, at least some of the Democrats try to watch out for some of the people, while none of the Republicans do.

Then the biased & dishonest Obama hating right-wing hack Col Ralph Peters was on to talk about the Muslim Brotherhood protests in Egypt. With no liberal on for balance, as usual.

Peters said this: "President Obama needs to stop lecturing the Egyptians about what's good for them. He has accomplished the remarkable feat of alienating every single faction in Egypt. He just needs to back off and accept the fact that Egyptians will have to resolve this and that all our do-gooding lectures won't change a thing. This is not our fight!"

Peters also characterized the fighting in Egypt as a battle between modernity and despotism, saying this: "This is a struggle between Arabs who desperately want a better future with somewhat more freedom and the extreme religious fanatics who want to turn back the clock and want a religious dictatorship."

And for once I agree with Peters, we should mind our own business and let them deal with their problems.

Then O'Reilly went after Al Sharpton, for saying this: "Bill O'Reilly has gone back to one of his favorite talking points, attacking the poor ... the poor are parasites."

O'Reilly then claimed to set the record straight with this: "Sharpton obviously took my comments completely out of context, not even mentioning Jason the surfer. He's been portraying me as a racist and a brutalizer of the poor. A few years ago Sharpton told me that his charity in New York was out of money and could not provide Christmas presents and dinners to hundreds of poor people in Harlem. So I gave Sharpton a $25,000 donation to provide the gifts and the food. I didn't mention it because it wasn't necessary, but now it is to prove exactly what kind of person Al Sharpton is."

What O'Reilly ignored is that Sharpton is right, just read my other blog post about this issue and you will see what I am talking about.

Then 2 more right-wing stooges were on, Bernard McGuirk and Greg Gutfeld, who talked about New York City's stop-and-frisk policy.

Gutfeld said this: "The transformation of the city can be shown through entertainment. In the '70's you had movies like 'Death Wish' and 'The Warriors,' but they no longer represent reality. This ruling is about political correctness making us less safe - how can you be for gun control and against a method that gets illegal handguns off the street?"

McGuirk said this: "96% of shooting victims and 97% of the shooters are black or Hispanic, so the cops go after those people. The cops are saving minority lives but are being vilified as 'racists.'"

Which still ignores the unconstitutional racial profiling, the fact that 90% of the people stopped are innocent and never arrested or charged with anything, and the fact that in less than 1% of the stops a gun is found, which does not lower the murder rate. They also ignore the fact that murder rates are down in cities that do not have stop and frisk, or the fact that the murder rates dropped more before stop and frisk was put in place.

They also talked about President Obama's criticism of excessive consumption as exemplified by Kim Kardashian and Kanye West.

Gutfeld said this: "I was married to Kim in the 90's, and I taught Kanye how to rap, so this is a direct attack on me. We know pop culture is vacuous, vain, and stupid, but at least Kim and Kanye made their own money, they didn't make it off government." But for once, O'Reilly agreed with President Obama.

Then the Republican fool Jesse Watters was on for his waste of time non-news segment, he went to a massive Star Trek convention in Las Vegas. And here are a few of the Trekkies' comments: "I like spaceships and aliens, but I also like the overall message of accepting diversity" ... "It gives us a very hopeful future where there is no poverty, where there's equality" ... "Science fiction is humanity's hope."

Watters then reported to Billy that Star Trek actor LeVar Burton, a recent Factor guest, is mad at him, saying this: "He said you were derisive, dismissive, insulting, patronizing, and condescending. You told him that young black males disproportionately commit crime and he was very insulted by that. And he told me I'm cut from the same cut cloth as my boss."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Judgment Day. Billy said this: "Only pass judgment on a situation or person when you have the facts to back up your assessment, and then put forth your opinion in a clear and fair way."

Which is laughable, because O'Reilly violates that rule every night, he does not have the facts, he spins it, and he is not fair, so the jerk does not even go by his own tips.

O'Reilly Slams Al Sharpton Over Racism & The Poor
By: Steve - August 16, 2013 - 10:30am

The war between Bill O'Reilly and Al Sharpton continued Thursday night. This time, O'Reilly slammed Sharpton for lying about a report he did on "food stamp fraud."

In a clip from PoliticsNation, Sharpton accused O'Reilly of "attacking the poor" and calling them "parasites," a word O'Reilly did use in his original piece.

O'Reilly said this: "Sharpton obviously taking my comments totally out of context. He's been portraying me as a racist and a brutalizer of the poor," O'Reilly said, before revealing that a few years ago Sharpton came to him asking for money for his charity in Harlem so that it could "provide Christmas presents and Christmas dinners to hundreds of poor people."

O'Reilly said he donated $25,000 to Sharpton's charity for the gifts and food. "I never mentioned it, because it wasn't necessary to mention it. But now it is. To prove exactly what kind of person Sharpton is."

And now the real truth, Al Sharpton is right, Bill O'Reilly does not care about the poor and he is a racist. The only mistake Sharpton made is using the parasite quote, because when O'Reilly said that he was only talking about one guy, the surfer in California who buys steak and lobster with his food stamp money.

Many many times O'Reilly has trashed the food stamp program, and said it is full of fraud, even though it has a 2% fraud rate. O'Reilly has had segment after segment with right-wing stooges who all come on and say the food stamp program is full of fraud so the money to it should be cut or the program should be shut down, and O'Reilly always agrees with them, and that is a fact.

So yes Sharpton was wrong to make the O'Reilly hates the poor claim based on O'Reilly using the word parasite in the food stamp segment, but if you look at everything O'Reilly has said about the poor, it is clear he is against food stamps and most programs that help the poor. O'Reilly thinks everyone is on their own and you should pull yourself up by the bootstraps and get a job. O'Reilly has also said if you are not working and making enough money to support yourself and your family you are just lazy and you want the Government to support you, and that is a fact.

So overall Sharpton is right, he just used the wrong quote to show it. And O'Reilly is also a racist, and has proven it many many times. If you look back at everything O'Reilly has said about blacks and racism, it is clear he is a racist, and I am just going by what he said on tv, imagine what he says in private when no cameras are on him.

And finally, let me get this right, because O'Reilly makes a $25,000 donation to the Sharpton charity years ago (which is like a dollar to a multi-millionaire who makes over $10 million a year) we are supposed to believe that proves he is not a racist and that he is not against helping the poor. Which is ridiculous, because it proves nothing.

In fact, I would bet he did it just so he could use it one day to argue he is not against the poor or a racist. O'Reilly is opposed to all the programs that help the poor, just as all Republicans are, and he is a proven racist by what he has said in the past, that were actual racist statements. And that is the real truth, the truth O'Reilly ignores why he is trying to make Al Sharpton look bad, which he did.

If you say racist things, you are a racist, and if you oppose all the Government programs that help the poor you do not care about the poor, that is a fact.

O'Reilly Ignores Important Information On NC Voter ID Law
By: Steve - August 16, 2013 - 10:00am

During the same show where O'Reilly complained about a journalist at the NY Times not reporting all the information on a story, O'Reilly did the very same thing in the segment he had about North Carolina passing a new voter ID law. And in fact, Fox News also lied that the people of North Carolina support the law, when they are actually opposed to it.

Fox News reported on the new North Carolina voting restrictions signed into law by Governor Pat McCrory, but misrepresented how North Carolinians actually feel about the legislation while dismissing critics charges of racial bias in the law.

On August 12, Gov. McCrory signed into law a controversial bill that "overhauls the state's election laws" by requiring government-issued photo ID's, reducing the early voting period by one week and ending same day registration.

On Happening Now, Rick Leventhal reported that the governor's signing the bill into law was a move supported by "an overwhelming majority" of North Carolina residents.

But according to Public Policy Polling, only 39% of voters in North Carolina support the bill, while 50% are opposed. Additionally, 59% oppose reducing the early voting period by a week, and 68% are opposed to eliminating straight-ticket voting.

Fox News also reported that the law shortens the early voting period from 17 to 10 days but failed to mention how this provision would reduce voter fraud. Critics say the shortened early voting period would reduce minority turnout and make voting more difficult in North Carolina.

CBS News reported that in 2012, Democrats cast 47% of early votes, while Republicans cast 32%. Additionally, 70 percent of blacks in North Carolina voted early in 2012. Critics of the law draw similarities to voting laws in Florida, where Governor Rick Scott cut the early voting period from 14 days to eight.

A study by the Orlando Sentinel found that at least 201,000 Floridians were deterred from voting because of hours-long lines at polling stations.

According to ABC News, the law contains less stringent requirements for absentee voters: as long as they are registered, absentee voters need not show a photo ID during the voting process. As reported by The Atlantic Wire, whites cast 86.4 percent of absentee ballots, while blacks cast only 8.7 percent.

Rev. William Barber, President of the North Carolina NAACP has said the law "is trampling on the blood, sweat and tears of the martyrs - black and white - who fought for voting rights in this country."

And btw folks, this was a law that was not needed, but the Republicans passed it anyway. Since 2004, only two cases of alleged voter impersonation fraud have been referred by the North Carolina State Board of Elections.

The Wednesday 8-14-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 15, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Was Oprah a Victim of Racism? The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Oprah Winfrey, one of the wealthiest women in the world, recently traveled to Switzerland. While in Zurich, Ms. Winfrey says she was humiliated by a shop clerk who refused to show her an expensive purse. I believe every American has been insulted in a store or restaurant at some point, and when that happens you do what Ms. Winfrey did - you walk out.

But Oprah was heavily implying that the disrespect shown her was racist; the clerk involved denies that. Ms. Winfrey also said that in board meetings people 'don't sense that I should be holding one of those seats.' Ms. Winfrey has gotten a lot of heat, but Talking Points believes her critics are misguided. There are racists and people who don't like women holding power.

But here's the most important part of the story: Oprah Winfrey and everybody else should ignore those troglodytes unless the situation is serious. You are not going to change the minds of the ignorant and it's not worth the effort; also, to internalize this kind of stuff is destructive to a human being. As we've been reporting, there is a huge grievance industry in America that peddles victimhood all day long.

What good does that do? Oprah is perhaps the best example of a talented person who made it on her own in America, her color certainly did not hold her back. So if some shop clerk insults her, that's wrong but it's no big deal. Summing up, the victimhood card is useless to Oprah and everybody else. There is racism in the world and it's not going away. If you can change it, go ahead and try, but most of the time ignore it and don't let it dampen your life.
To begin with, the title of the TPM is insulting to Oprah. Because O'Reilly is asking if she was a victim of racism, by using the question mark, when it was clearly racism. Then O'Reilly's message to her is just ignore it, which hides the problem so nobody would know about it. What I would have done if I was Oprah is go public with the store name and call for a boycott of the racists. In O'Reillyworld he says just keep it to yourself, which is ridiculous, and something only a right-wing idiot would say.

Then Arthel Neville and Lauren Green were on to discuss it.

Green said this: "We don't know what transpired between these two people, and I believe things like this happen all the time. It happened to me when I asked to look at a dress and the first thing the clerk said was how much it cost. I didn't make a big deal out of it, but things like that did happen."

Neville said this: "All Oprah did was send out a tweet and say she tried to get a bag and the lady thought she couldn't afford it. She didn't want to make a big deal out of it, I think she was just saying the elephant is in the room and we can't ignore it."

Then Kirsten Powers & Kate Obenshain were on to discuss a new Gallup poll that shows only 22% of Americans are "satisfied" with the country's overall direction. Which is a lot higher than it was when Bush was in office.

Powers said this: "The economy is a piece of it. We are in a recovery, but a lot of people still feel like their lives are not secure. People don't have pensions, they're not sure about their health insurance, they're not sure they're going to continue to have a job."

Obenshain said this: "There is an economic component, but it's a lot broader than that. Special interests still control Washington and we have a President who is encouraging victimization and encouraging Americans to be divided. He's pitting us against one another and that translates into overriding despair and dissatisfaction."

Which was so ridiculous that even O'Reilly disagreed with her, saying this: "Americans are seeing their country change dramatically and they don't like it. They didn't like the Trayvon Martin case, they don't like the entertainment industry, they don't like the disrespect shown by younger Americans."

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing Former DEA Chief Peter Bensinger on to talk about the Democratic Attorney General Eric Holder, who implied that non-violent drug dealers are receiving prison terms that are too harsh.

Bensinger said this: "The Attorney General is wrong, back in 1979, about 11% of the population was using an illegal drug at least once a month, which is now down to 8%. Certainty of punishment is a factor. Drug selling is not a 'victimless crime,' people are dying!"

O'Reilly said this: "Holder and the left believe selling heroin, meth, and cocaine is a non-violent action, but I believe it's violent."

And you are wrong, violent actions are use of guns or knifes, or hitting someone with a baseball bat, etc. Selling drugs is a non-violent act, and if you disagree with that you are just a fool.

Then James Rosen & Carl Cameron were on to discuss politics.

Rosen talked about Eric Holder's pronouncement on drug sentences, saying this: "Some people think this meant to accomplish two short-term goals. One is to move the Attorney General past some high profile controversies, the other is to placate certain core constituencies of President Obama's by framing these issues as having to do with race."

Cameron talked about the latest on the IRS non-scandal with everyone but Fox News, saying this: "Republicans want some degree of accountability from the IRS for their screw-ups in the last couple of years. The IRS says it has stopped using those 'be on the lookout' lists to target conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, but an application screener said conservative groups are still being subjected to greater scrutiny."

Earth to O'Reilly and Fox, it's a non-scandal, get over it, move on idiots.

Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on.

In the last segment Juliet Huddy was on for did you see that, she talked about movie stars Jennifer Garner and Halle Berry, who are urging California to pass a new law restricting paparazzi who camp outside their homes.

Huddy said this: "The law would basically keep the paparazzi away from celebrities' children. They say that their children should be off limits and photographers should have to stay at least 25 feet away. But the media say this is a First Amendment issue."

O'Reilly sided with the actors, saying this: "It is despicable that these people do this to children."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Landing the Right Job. Billy said this: "If you're searching for a job, a great website to check out is Indeed.com."

O'Reilly Still Denying NYPD Is Targeting Black Males
By: Steve - August 15, 2013 - 10:00am

Now get this, even though a federal judge ruled the NYPD violated the 4th and 14th amendments to the Constitution, the great legal mind Bill O'Reilly still does not believe it is true, why? Because his grandfather was a NY cop. Which is one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard. Not to mention the facts and the stats (that O'Reilly claims to go by) prove he is wrong, and that 90% of the people stopped are innocent and most of them are black or minority that were racially profiled.

Tuesday night O'Reilly began his debate with guest Jeffrey Lichtman by calling the defense attorney desperately wrong for his belief that the ruling won't lead to rising crime in New York City.

Lichtman countered that all Scheindlin's ruling is trying to do is get police to comply with the Fourth Amendment. He said that hasn't been the case since the NYPD has admitted to conducting more than 200,000 stops without "reasonable suspicion."

Think about that folks, the NYPD has admitted to conducting more than 200,000 stops without "reasonable suspicion." And yet O'Reilly still does not believe it is true, which is just ridiculous.

O'Reilly flat out rejected the presumption that the NYPD is "going out every morning and targeting young black males," adding, "I don’t believe that for a second." Revealing that his grandfather was in the NYPD, O'Reilly said, "I know these guys as well as anybody... They know who the wise guys are they are not just walking around going 'hey you, come over here.' All right? They are trying to suppress violent crime and they are succeeding."

Ignoring the facts and the stats, that show they violated the 4th and 14th amendments, which O'Reilly seems to not care about, even though he claims to support the constitution 100 percent. And no matter what the evidence is O'Reilly will deny there is any racial profiling, anywhere. Even after a federal judge ruled that there was racial profiling, he still refuses to believe it. Which is just more proof O'Reilly is a right-wing hack that is in denial.

The Real Truth About Edward Young & The Shotgun Shells
By: Steve - August 15, 2013 - 9:00am

Here is the real story about Edward Young going to a federal prison for 15 years over 7 shotgun shells, the story O'Reilly did not tell you.

The Ex-Con who mostly turned his life around is now serving 15 years in a federal prison for keeping shotgun shells. When Edward Young became a suspect in a string of burglaries in Tennessee, the police searched his home. They found seven shot gun shells, and according to federal law, he must now spend 15 years behind bars.

Young admits he's done bad things, but he says he's never carried a weapon, never shed another person's blood. But because of what police found at his house that day -- seven shotgun shells -- his 15-year prison sentence now places him alongside lifelong killers, movie-style gangsters and drug kingpins.

There are homicide convictions that carry sentences half as long in Tennessee state courts. Laws designed for the worst of the worst, but written broadly enough to ensnare the less dangerous, subject Young to what even his sentencing judge called a Dickensian penalty.

Young confessed to the burglaries and faced state prison time, probably a few years with the likelihood of parole and probation. Not a proud moment but recoverable.The 43-year-old man soon discovered that the shotgun shells carried a heavier burden -- a 15-year mandatory federal prison sentence with no possibility of parole.

Months before police came to his home Young had helped a neighbor, a woman named Neva Mumpower. Her husband had died and she wanted to sell some of their older furniture. She told Young if he hauled it to the flea market she'd split whatever it sold for. He did, but kept a chest of drawers at his place. A short time later he went through it and found the shells. Young didn't think much of them. He put them away so the kids wouldn't come upon them and went on with his day.

Convicted felons are told they no longer can possess firearms. Having a gun, even if the felony was a white-collar crime such as wire fraud, means prison time. Young swears he did not know that possessing ammunition, say seven shotgun shells, is just as bad. There's nothing in Young's criminal record to show he's ever been accused of carrying a weapon, even in the 20-year-old burglary convictions. But those burglaries are counted as "violent crimes."

Young's criminal past classified him as an armed career criminal under federal law. That classification means he faces severe penalties for the rest of his life if he breaks any of the rules. Young's attorney is flabbergasted.

"I don't think there's anything like it at all," said Chris Varner. "Everything went wrong here."

As far as his legal research shows, it is only under the Armed Career Criminal Act that Young's distant convictions can count against him, Varner said. Other federal sentencing guidelines would not have considered the past convictions because they were so long ago.

Under the Armed Career Criminal Act, ex-felons can't posses guns or ammunition. Even though Young didn't own a shotgun (or any other weapon) to match the shells, U.S. attorney William Killian prosecuted him anyway. The judge called the case "Dickensian," but federal law tied his hands. And he gave Young 15 years in federal prison.

"This sentence is not so much a punishment for the present crime as it is a punishment for your history of crimes," Judge Curtis Collier said.

State authorities eventually dismissed the newest burglary charges that allowed police to search Young's home. Young, now 43, committed his past crimes (none of which involved a gun) as a young man. After his release in 1996, he married, worked 6 days a week, and raised four children in Texas.

"It wasn't my intent... I don't think I deserve to grow up without my family, and I don't think my family deserves to grow up with me," Young said. Regardless, the federal government will now spend about $415,000 keeping him in prison for the next 15 years.

Ohio State law professor Doug Berman, who blogs about sentencing, has written in support of the Justice Safety Valve Act. Congress wrote the mandatory minimum sentencing laws and the armed career criminal portion to deal with the perceived crack epidemic in the 1980s. But the language is so broad that seemingly innocuous offenses are interpreted as "violent crimes" and trigger stiff punishments.

There have been cases where failing to report to a halfway house on time was classified as a violent crime. "Unlike what we think happens too much -- defendants get off on a technicality -- the government is kind of throwing the book at this guy over a technicality," Bergman said.

His wife Stacy Young is now a single working mother with a house full of children. She'll haul them down to Atlanta every other week. Two of the children will visit the first day, then they'll stay overnight for the other two to see their father the second day.

Varner, his attorney, sees the sentence far outweighing the crime and worries what it says about justice.

"This is not who we are, we do not do this as a nation," he said.

Stacy, who is devastated by the outcome, sees it much more personally. "I don't think he should have 15 years for seven shotgun shells," she said. "I think it's crazy."

But according to Bill O'Reilly Nicholas Kristof from the NY Times got it all wrong, and was dishonest in his reporting on the case. When in fact, Kristof got it almost exactly right, and it was O'Reilly who was dishonest in his reporting. In fact, I bet 90% of the people you ask would say he should not have got the 15 years, and would say 5 years or less would have been good enough.

I am not saying he should get off with nothing, and neither is Kristof, we are just saying 15 years is ridiculous for simply having a few shotgun shells. I think 3 to 5 years would have been the right amount of time, not the 15 years he got.

The Tuesday 8-13-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 14, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Fair Coverage? The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Many on the left say police and prosecutors are going after black Americans and are putting non-violent offenders of all colors in prison in a cruel and unjust way. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote about a Tennessee man named Edward Young, who was recently sentenced to 15 years in a federal prison for violating the 'career criminal' statute. Kristof called the sentence an outrage, saying police found 'forgotten shotgun shells as well as some stolen goods' in Young's home.

But here's the truth about Edward Young: He has a rap sheet that includes 22 felony charges, 11 of which are classified as 'violent.' Young was facing three state counts of felony burglary for crimes committed in 2011, and authorities say Young brought his 14-year-old son with him while he was committing some of the crimes. Somehow Nicholas Kristof didn't mention any of that, so a reader is left to believe that the U.S. government put a caring father away for 15 years simply because he had a few shotgun shells in his possession.

That's totally bogus, and that kind of propaganda is all over the place. The left is hell-bent on portraying the system as corrupt and racist; it wants Americans to believe that the prisons are full of non-violent offenders. Talking Points understands that no justice system is perfect and there is some unfairness in the U.S. criminal code, but the truth is that crime in this country has dropped dramatically, partially because of harsh punishment for career criminals. Edward Young is a career criminal and, worse, he is corrupting his 14-year-old son. And Nicholas Kristof wants us to feel sorry for this guy? Good grief!
And now here is the real truth, Bill O'Reilly is an insane idiot. The Kristof article was accurate and he reported most of the important details. They got him for shotgun shells that did not even belong to him, and he had forgot they were even in the furniture he helped an old lady store in his garage. They never found a gun of any kind, and none of the crimes he ever did involved a gun. What happened is the prosecutor over-reached on the law and added a robbery as a violent crime, when there was no violence or any guns used.

So basically the guy got 15 years for having shotgun shells stored in his garage that were not even his, seven of them btw. He has been crime free since 1999, until 2011 when he robbed a couple places. So now he gets a mandatory 15 years because of some jerk prosecutor, even when the judge said he did not want to give him 15 years. So O'Reilly put his spin on it, when Kristof was more accurate on reporting the story then O'Reilly was.

And btw, he barely let the attorney get a word in, so the interview was biased, one sided, and unfair. At the most he should have got 5 years, or less, and now the taxpayers have to pay over $400,000 to house him in prison for 15 years, which is just ridiculous.

O'Reilly left a lot of the details out of his reporting, so he was less accurate than Kristof. And btw, the state dropped all the charges, and Young said he did not know it was illegal for him to have ammo, he thought it was only illegal for him to have a gun. O'Reilly never mentioned any of that.

Then Mr. Young's attorney Christopher Varner was on, who said this: "It is highly unlikely, that any of the state charges would have equaled the 15 years he received in the federal system. He pleaded guilty because all the government had to prove is that he had the shotgun shells and he knew he had the shotgun shells, not that he knew that was illegal. Very simply stated, the state prison time almost certainly would have been far less than the 15 years in federal prison. He's never even been accused of a firearms violation, he has never been armed."

Then Defense Attorney Jeffrey Lichtman was on to talk about Federal Judge Shira Sheindlin, who ruled that New York City's 'stop-and-frisk' policy is not constitutional.

Lichtman said this: "For every 69 times a police officer stops a target who he believes has a gun, he finds one gun. Only 5% of all the stops made result in an arrest, so it doesn't really impact the crime rate, and 80% of the people they are stopping are black or Hispanic."

Which O'Reilly totally ignored and told him he was wrong, then he talked about the crime rate in Chicago, which has nothing to do with stop and frisk laws in New York, because Chicago does not have stop and frisk. The facts show that only 5% of all the stops made result in an arrest, so it's crazy for O'Reilly to claim it has lowered the crime rate. Because most people stopped do not have a gun, and they are not doing any crimes. And yet, O'Reilly still claims it has lowered the crime rate, which is not only insane, it's impossible.

Not to mention, he totally ignored the fact that the judge ruled it violated the 4th and 14th amendment to the constitution, which O'Reilly claims to support.

Then Monica Crowley & Alan Colmes were on to talk about North Carolina passing a law requiring citizens to present a photo ID before voting, and other restrictions, which raised objections from many liberal groups, because it's a law that will suppress the vote among the poor and the minorities, who mostly vote Democratic.

Colmes said this: "North Carolina wants to narrow the kind of ID you can show. They are saying they will allow only one form of ID and they are addressing a problem that doesn't exist. This is being done to stop Democratic voters!"

Crowley, of course, argued that the new law makes perfect sense, saying this: "If it's okay to require photo ID to board an airplane or buy cigarettes, why is it not okay for the most sacred act of the republic, which is voting? States that have this voter ID law make it incredibly easy to get a free ID."

The Republican O'Reilly agreed with Crowley and slammed Colmes, saying this: "This is absurd, you're telling me that some people in North Carolina can't get to the Department of Motor Vehicles!"

Then the 2 Republicans Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to talk about the judge's ruling that New York City's "stop-and-frisk" policy violates the Constitution.

Wiehl said this: "It doesn't make any sense. The plaintiffs have not proven this is unconstitutional and the police say this judge has not liked cops for a long time."

Guilfoyle agreed, and then talked about California and a new law that affects transgendered students, saying this: "Kids from kindergarten through 12th grade, can go in and say that even though I'm listed as a boy, I want to be with the girls. Officials can't say, 'I don't believe you,' it's just how you self-identify."

Then the right-wing stooge Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about the claim that Hillary Clinton is a lock to succeed President Obama.

Krauthammer said this: "She's not exactly invincible, The Republicans have a strong argument by pointing out that the country hasn't really done very well under Obama. And they have very attractive Senators like Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, they've got dynamic governors like Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, and Bobby Jindal, and there's Congressman Paul Ryan. Imagine a field of people of that quality in debates and compare that to the debates last time around. There is no guarantee at all that Hillary Clinton is going to win."

Playing devil's advocate, O'Reilly reminded Krauthammer that Clinton will be a formidable candidate, saying this: "She'll solidify the party behind her and she'll have a ton of money."

And remember this, all these right-wing stooges like Krauthammer, Rove, Morris, etc. all predicted Romney would beat Obama, and then Romney was crushed like a bug. Which is exactly what Clinton will do to whoever the Republicans run in 2016, bet on it.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Ashton's Advice. Billy said this: "Your kids would do well to heed the words of actor Ashton Kutcher, who extolled the virtue of hard and honest work as the keys to success in America."

Fox News Food Stamp Report Is Dishonest & Biased
By: Steve - August 14, 2013 - 10:00am

Monday night Fox News had a show investigating the Department of Agriculture's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or "food stamps,"), with host Bret Baier. Everything about Baier's special, "The Great Food Stamp Binge" -- from the title to its absurd focus on a thoroughly unlikable surfer/musician named Jason Greenslate who proudly abuses SNAP benefits -- was designed to provoke hostility to the idea of nutritional assistance programs.

Greenslate, a California musician who refuses to work and spends his monthly SNAP benefits on sushi and lobsters, is an anomaly in a program that has proven to be both efficient and effective. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "fewer than 2 percent of SNAP benefits are issued to households that do not meet all of the program's eligibility requirements."

The USDA estimates that just one cent of every dollar of SNAP benefits is lost to "trafficking," a type of fraud. "About three out of four SNAP households included a child, a person age 60 or older, or a disabled person," according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Greenslate, who is in no way representative of the typical SNAP recipient, was the subject of two separate segments, totaling nearly nine minutes, of Fox News hour-long special. Baier proclaimed him "the new face of food stamps." Even though that is a lie. Bill O'Reilly also reported on it during the Factor and ignored the fact that most people on food stamps are old, disabled, or have children, instead the entire segment was about the surfer/musician from California, who O'Reilly called a dirtbag. With no counterpoint, only a Fox editor to comment on it.

Greenslate is "the new face of food stamps" for no other reason than Fox News wants him to be. Baier offered no data to back up this assertion, and no fact-driven justification for even including Greenslate in the report.

But this freeloading oaf is an easy-to-hate villain, someone the viewer can immediately dislike and a convenient punching bag for small-government agitators. It should also be pointed out that Greenslate's monthly benefit is $200, meaning that he is responsible for, at most, $2,400 of waste per year. The government spent $78 billion on SNAP in fiscal year 2011. That means Fox News spent almost 9 minutes investigating and exposing SNAP waste that totals (roughly) 0.000003 percent of the total SNAP budget.

You expect this sort of nonsense from Fox News stable of ignorant pundits and opinion hosts, but Baier is a so-called journalist. He's the anchor of Fox News flagship news show. With "The Great Food Stamp Binge" he created a deliberate caricature of SNAP recipients as lazy and parasitic while one of his news division colleagues called them all losers. Again, this is coming from the so-called "news" side that O'Reilly claims is separate from the opinion shows.

The propaganda aspect of Baier's special was balanced by its feather-light journalistic touch. It's not clear how someone "investigating" the rise of SNAP recipients could barely even mention the massive economic recession that was the primary driver of that increase, but Baier somehow managed to do exactly that, speaking of the spike in SNAP recipients from 2008-2009 as something that just sort of happened when Barack Obama came into office.

The recession only got a brief mention by Baier as he read the results of a Fox News poll asking respondents what they believe explains the "record number of people on food stamps." According to Baier, 40 percent said the "severity of recession simply means that more qualify for assistance today, however a larger number" -- 53 percent -- "believe the government has made it too easy to get assistance and people are taking advantage of that."

The data show that those 53 percent are mistaken, but that doesn't comport with the message Fox News is trying to push that SNAP recipients are freeloading losers. So Baier ignored the data.

What emerged was a twisted version of the American welfare state based on cherry-picked data points and, frankly, insulting stereotypes of the poor and disadvantaged. And the reason Fox News and other conservatives have to so badly distort programs like SNAP is because SNAP is actually quite an effective program.

Conservatives bemoan that there's not enough of a "stigma" attached to seeking help from the feds, but it seems to me that the stigma is already ingrained into our perception -- just think about John Roberts waxing nostalgic about the time we all sneered at the "losers" on "food stamps."

The near collapse of the economy and the ensuing catastrophic job losses drove a lot of people to seek government assistance. My guess is that in the last few years a great many of those people who signed up for SNAP weren't all that happy to do so, but grateful that the program was there.

For the special, Baier sat down with Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the biased Heritage Foundation who argues that the "poor" in America aren't really poor because they have air conditioning and cable TV. Rector dismissed out of hand the notion that anyone in America could possibly be underfed, and actually argued that "poor people are not malnourished; they in fact eat too much food."

Which is just idiotic, and I would like to see him tell that to a single mother of 2 who is trying to get by on food stamps.

The USDA, meanwhile, found that from 2010 to 2011 the number of households experiencing low food security -- "food intake of some household members was reduced and normal eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year due to limited resources" -- increased to 5.7 percent, or 6.8 million households.

But those people -- the ones SNAP is designed to assist -- didn't get a whole lot of attention from Fox News. Instead we had Bret Baier presenting the story of a dirtbag California surfer as "the new face of food stamps."

The Monday 8-12-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 13, 2013 - 11:30am

The TPM was called: Race & Violence in America. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Whether it's Obamacare, the Food Stamp explosion, the punishment of convicts, or a myriad of other social issues, the big chasm among Americans is between those like me who believe in personal responsibility and self-reliance, and those who will not make judgments and want the federal government to provide support and solace to those who will not or can not compete in the marketplace or obey the law.

One very brutal and stark example is 14-year-old Shaaliver Douse, who was a troubled teen living in a poor section of New York City. He was being raised by a single mother, had several arrests on his sheet, including attempted murder, and was allegedly part of a gang. Earlier this month police confronted the teenager, who was shooting at a man in the street. According to the NYPD, he turned his gun toward the officers and was then shot dead.

Sadly, this goes back to what we have been reporting. Shaaliver Douse was a victim of circumstances that are not being confronted by American leadership or the civil rights industry. No one forced his mother to birth him out of wedlock; no one forced his cowardly father to ignore the boy; no outside entity allowed the boy to roam the streets at 3 in the morning; and no one forced him to shoot a gun. Those were all personal decisions and society is not responsible for them.

No amount of hand-wringing by the left will solve the problem, it must be solved one person at a time. Until that message begins to get out, violence and hopelessness will continue to consume poor precincts. Many in the media and many politicians don't care enough about the issue enough to be honest about it.

The grievance industry is in it for the money and power, and the far left refuses to confront the basic problem because it does not fit their ideology. Thus nothing gets done and racial divisions grow wider. The power structure in America does not want to help solve the dissolution of the tradition family, which is the root from which violence and personal failure grow.
Then the biased right-wing stooge Bernie Goldberg was on to discuss it.

Goldberg said this: "I would add one word to the conversation, 'tolerance.' It's a very important word in the liberal vocabulary because it distinguishes them in their minds from conservatives, who they think of as 'intolerant.' The problem is that as liberals became more and more tolerant of the right things like equal rights, they became indiscriminately tolerant. By their silence, they became tolerant of 15-year-old girls having babies and tolerant of boys and young men who abandon their children. They even became tolerant of violence in inner city neighborhoods by ignoring it. Tolerance is usually a good thing, but not when we are tolerant of dysfunctional and destructive behavior."

Then James Carville was on to give his opinion.

Carville said this: "I'm a pretty good liberal and I have a lot of liberal friends, and I don't know a single one who would condone a 14-year-old being on the streets shooting up people at 3 o'clock in the morning. I wrote a book in 1996 talking about the decline of two-parent families and I certainly would like my grandchildren to grow up in two-parent families. The teen pregnancy rate is down and we have to acknowledge that we are making some progress."

O'Reilly then slammed liberals who he claims ignore disintegrating families and the chaos that ensues, saying this: "The problems will never be solved, no matter how many billions of dollars are thrown at them, unless attitudes change. You have to supervise and raise a child, and if you aren't willing to do that, don't have the child."

Then the fake Democrat Juan Williams was on to talk about Attorney General Eric Holder, who has suggested that "low level" drug dealers should receive lesser sentences than they do now.

Williams said this: "Drug dealing has tremendously violent consequences, because it kills people. The dealer isn't on the street with a gun threatening you or me, but it has such pernicious influence on us all that you can construe it as 'violence.' These people are criminals and I don't understand why the 'civil rights leaders' don't have marches against these criminal drug dealers."

Which is just ridiculous, because drug dealing does not kill anyone. As Republicans say about guns, they say guns do not kill people, people do. Then the same thing should apply for drug dealers, which is drug dealers do not kill people, people do.

O'Reilly said this: "These are scum who are selling poison. The person who sold Cory Monteith the heroin that killed him committed a violent act!"

Wrong, selling drugs is not a violent act, idiot.

Then the biased right-wing stooge from Fox Peter Boyer was on to talk about the dishonest special report Fox News did on food stamps, that was about as dishonest as it gets.

Fox News editor-at-large Peter Boyer said this: "When you have a federal program that has grown so huge that it costs $3 billion a year just to administer, a guy like Jason the surfer dude is almost an inevitable consequence. When President Obama signed the stimulus bill he wiped away the restrictions that required a recipient to be in a work-related program. The number of able-bodied adults like Jason enrolled in the food stamp program has doubled in the last four years."

O'Reilly laid the blame squarely on the White House, saying this: "This guy Jason is a parasite and my contention is that the Obama administration is encouraging parasites."

While ignoring the fact that the SNAP food stamp program has less than a 2% fraud rate, and the fact that 98% of the people getting food stamps are old, handicapped, disabled, or have kids, all of which O'Reilly and Boyer ignored. They cherry picked part of the 2% and implied the program is filled with people scamming them, which is just not true.

Then Karl Rove was on to talk about President Obama and Russian President Putin. President Obama recently described Russian President Putin this way: "He's got that kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the classroom."

Rove said this: "If you are dealing with a peer, you don't want to be insulting that peer unnecessarily. Vladimir Putin is a prickly personality and President Obama said something that is going to cause Putin to say, 'I'm going to get back at him.' What's useful is to focus on policy disagreements. If you're going to call him out, don't call him the slouch in the back of the room. Take a policy disagreement, do something substantive."

And even O'Reilly disagreed with Rove saying that President Obama took precisely the right stance: "Why would anyone respect Vladimir Putin, a human rights violator who has spit in the eye of America? So I like what President Obama said, I think it's accurate. There comes a point where you call out the schoolyard bully and you slap him around a little bit."

Then Wendell Goler was on to cry about the Obama vacation, even though they never said a word when Bush set the record for vacations as a President.

Goler said this: "The last two Democratic presidents, don't own their own vacation properties, so they come here and rent homes, and the place President Obama is staying at is awfully nice. The problem is that they've cut off access to the road for people who don't actually have houses on that road and forced them to make a detour. If that goes on for a while, that may wear out his welcome."

O'Reilly added to that nonsense by saying that President Obama could make do with a smaller entourage: "When the President goes to Martha's Vineyard, everybody goes with him. They stay in hotels and guest houses all over the island and it costs an enormous amount of taxpayer money."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: The Last Frontier. Billy said this: "If you're wondering about Bill's whereabouts last week, he was dogsledding and hiking in Alaska. Check out some photos here on BillOReilly.com and pay a visit to the 49th state if you ever get the chance."

Federal Judge Rules NY Stop And Frisk Unconstitutional
By: Steve - August 13, 2013 - 11:00am

And remember this, O'Reilly not only supports stop and frisk 100 percent, he has said it is not racial profiling and defended it many times.

A federal judge ruled on Monday that the program is unconstitutional and violates the Fourth Amendment and 14th Amendment. According to the ruling, the city adopted a policy of indirect racial profiling.

The controversial program has led to 5 million stops of mostly black and Latino men since 2004. People stopped by police were found innocent 90 percent of the time, a statistic that led Judge Shira Scheindlin to note "the policy encourages the targeting of young black and Hispanic men based on their prevalence in local crime complaints. This is a form of racial profiling."

In her ruling, Scheindlin ordered an independent monitor to ensure NYPD reforms its practices. The program's racial bias is staggering: Based on suspicion alone, police have stopped more young black men than the population of young black men in New York.

Even so, Mayor Bloomberg has defended the program for disproportionately targeting whites and stopping minorities "too little."

O'Reilly Ignores Fact That Australia Has $16 Minimum Wage
By: Steve - August 13, 2013 - 10:00am

Every single O'Reilly/Conservative argument against raising the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour in the USA is debunked in an interview with Salvatore Babones. Who is a senior lecturer in sociology and social policy at the University of Sydney in Sydney, Australia, associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C., and also writes for numerous publications.

Let me also point this out, Australia has twice the minimum wage as the US and Big Macs cost roughly the same.

NOOR: So, Salvatore, from your perspective, working in a country where the minimum wage is almost $15 an hour and for fast food workers it's over $16 an hour, what's your take on these demands by the fast food workers in the United States, which so far have not really been taken seriously by the media or policymakers?

BABONES: I think it's long past the time when Americans should wake up and see, you know, how far along the rest of the world has come. If a $15 minimum wage seems unrealistic, it's only because we're stuck in the 1950s or 1960s idea of how you should live as a worker in America. Ordinary workers, people who do, you know, grocery store checkout or fast food, simply do much better in the rest of the developed world than they do in the United States.

NOOR: And the idea of fast food and retail workers getting $15 an hour has been fiercely criticized by, especially, conservatives in the media and in the press. Charles Koch, who's worth $44 billion, recently said the best way to stimulate the U.S. economy is by eliminating the minimum wage altogether. What's your response?

BABONES: Well, research in the U.S. tends to focus only on the United States. And so when people study the minimum wage and they say the best way to increase employment is to cut the minimum wage, they don't really look overseas and see how it's done in other countries. When you look overseas, you see that minimum wages are much higher among our trading competitors, and these countries are doing very well.

Countries like France, Germany, Australia, you know, while they may have occasional recessions like the U.S. has right now, over the long haul, over a, you know, 30- or 40-year period, they do just as well as the United States, but they have much higher wages for their workers. And so while overall economic growth is about equal between the U.S. and other countries, conditions for ordinary working people are far better in places like Australia and Europe.

NOOR: And so Australia has avoided the brunt of the global recession altogether.

BABONES: Oh, right. Australia had no recession. There was not a single quarter in which GDP declined in Australia. There was a--you know, the recession just didn't happen. There was a mild slowdown in hiring in 2008, and then things picked right back up. And, you know, we have to remember that's in a context where ordinary workers don't just make, you know, $17, $18, $19 an hour, but in which those workers have, you know, vacation days, sick days, four weeks annual leave, and full health insurance.

NOOR: Can you talk more about your response to the conservative position that raising minimum wage will actually hurt the economy? You argue that in fact it actually benefits the economy. Talk more about why you believe so.

BABONES: There's a theory that make raising the minimum wage will result in fewer jobs. And that theory seems to make intuitive sense, that when wages are higher, you know, people hire fewer people. And in isolation that would be true. There's an assumption economists like to make called ceteris paribus, which means all other things remaining equal, this would happen.

But all other things are never equal. For example, if you raise the minimum wage, people make more money. That's the first thing that's not equal. As people make more money, they spend more, they pay more in taxes. The entire character of the economy changes.

And so what we really need to do is instead of arguing from theory that if you raise minimum wage it would cause problems for employers, you should argue from fact, that is, look at countries where the minimum wage is higher, see how well they're doing. And, in fact, those countries are doing quite well. Even in the United States, we recently raised the minimum wage from an extraordinarily low level of $5.15 an hour in 2007 up to--now it's $7.25 an hour--not a high level, but still that's an enormous increase in the minimum wage, you know, almost a 50 percent increase in just a few years.

And what have we seen? Even though there's been a big recession in the U.S., we've seen low-wage employment actually increase. So, you know, the idea that raising the minimum wage will hurt employment just has no basis in empirical fact. It's an interesting idea, and it's a very nice idea if you're an employer and you want to pay low wages, but the studies just don't bear out that raising the minimum wage has any impact on employment whatsoever.

NOOR: And Australia has in fact raised their minimum wage almost every year, while the U.S. has only seen three increases in the past 15.

BABONES: In Australia, as in most countries, minimum wages are set through some kind of automatic mechanism. In Australia, it's an organization called Fair Work Australia that every year sits down, reviews economic conditions, reviews productivity levels across the economy, and sets the minimum wage accordingly. So the Australian minimum wage just went up on July 1. The fast food rate went up from $17.03 an hour to $17.98 an hour on July 1. And every year there's a revision, and the revision is usually upward.

NOOR: So critics of raising the minimum wage in the United States often counter the example of Australia by noting the cost of living there is so much higher, the minimum wage is negated. Can you respond, especially in light of the recent study which compared the cost of Big Macs across the world?

BABONES: The cost of living in Australia is in fact slightly higher than in the United States. And if you want to make an adjustment for that, the Australian fast food wage of $17.98 an hour probably comes down to around $12 an hour if you adjust for cost of living.

On the other hand, if you adjust for the fact that that Australian $17.98, on top of that, Australian workers get four weeks' annual vacation, retirement benefits, and full health insurance, then of course you would have to revise the figures upward. So there is some truth in the argument that the cost of living is higher in Australia. But on the other hand, you get more for your tax money and you get more for your wages in Australia as well. So I think the two either balance out or in fact probably workers are better off in Australia.

Bill O'Reilly's Laughable Race Baiting
By: Steve - August 12, 2013 - 10:00am

O'Reilly's latest quest to heal the ills of the black community through his lame cable news show is a sorry spectacle. It takes a willfully dishonest mind to look at the George Zimmerman case and come away with the conclusion that it's solely indicative of something wrong within the black community.

Luckily, willful dishonesty is one of the prerequisites for an on-air job at Fox. It started with a lengthy, manic, spittle-filled opening monologue, arguing that it wasn't racial profiling that got Trayvon Martin killed, but wardrobe profiling:
O'REILLY: Trayvon Martin was killed because circumstances got out of control. He was scrutinized by a neighborhood watchman, George Zimmerman, because of the way he looked. Not necessarily his skin color -- there is no evidence of that -- but because he was a stranger to Zimmerman and was dressed in clothing sometimes used by street criminals.
Not a great way to start a debate that's supposed to establish your authority and demonstrate that you're in touch, declaring that a garment as innocuous and ubiquitous as the hooded sweatshirt is sometimes used by street criminals:
O'REILLY: It was wrong for Zimmerman to confront Martin based on his appearance. But the culture that we have in this country does lead to criminal profiling because young black American men are so often involved in crime, the statistics overwhelming.
Okay. So there was no EVIDENCE at the trial that George Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin, but if he did, it's totally understandable. Even though we all know he was racially profiled for being a black kid wearing a hoodie, Gotcha Billy.

O'Reilly went on to lay out a laundry list of dishonest right-wing lies about the problems facing African Americans, theories that were already tired and inaccurate when they first debuted in the early 1990s:
O'REILLY: The entertainment industry encourages the irresponsibility of young black men by marketing a gangster culture, hip hop, movies, trashy TV shows to impressionable children. In fact, President Obama has welcomed some of the worst offenders in that cesspool to the White House when he should be condemning what these weasels are doing. These so-called entertainers get rich while the kids who emulate their lyrics and attitude destroy themselves.
I don't even know who the hell he is talking about. Jay Z, maybe? Has Jay Z actually mentioned criminal activity in a lyric at any point in the past 15 years?

O'Reilly's efforts to diagnose the problems in the black community are both laughable and ridiculous. He's so out of touch with black America that he's barely speaking the same language. It's the equivalent of me attempting to give advice to a group of teen girls, and then acting surprised when they ignore me.

And if there is a cure for what ails the black community, it's highly doubtful that it's going to come from an old white, rage-addled Republican millionaire in his mid-60s, who likely hasn't spoken to a real live black person without a camera rolling since about 1960.

Despite working in the most diverse city in the United States, O'Reilly exists in a bubble of whiteness, whisked back and forth from his white Long Island suburb by his driver and attended to by an all-white staff of producers and executives. The only thing remotely black he comes into contact with on his daily routine is the paint job on his Town Car.

This is not just an O'Reilly problem, by the way. It's network-wide. Fox News is one of the most white workplaces on the Eastern seaboard.

Joe Muto, who used to work at Fox for O'Reilly, said this: "I worked with only a handful of black producers and video editors in my eight-year tenure at Fox, and every one of them was uncomfortable with (if not downright contemptuous of) Fox's on-air take on every racial issue."

Speaking of uncomfortable: The Reza Aslan incident is some of the best cringe-worthy television this side of Curb Your Enthusiasm. Aslan probably should have known what he was walking into, though. He's a Muslim academic; Muslims and academics might be the only two groups about which Fox personalities have even less of an understanding than blacks.

Muto also said this: "Roger Ailes likes his correspondents to be feisty, probably even more than he likes them to be blonde and leggy. Rather than running from the embarrassing fallout over the Aslan interview, currently the network is in the process of doubling down on the stupidity, painting critics of their anti-intellectualism as pearl-clutching liberal media scolds."

"It's a pretty standard Fox response to any controversy. Make the story not about the original comments, but about the whiny liberal response to the original comments. It's a process that O'Reilly is involved in right now, going after Al Sharpton and others who criticized his earlier remarks."

Fox News Coverage Of Obama Speeches Terrible
By: Steve - August 11, 2013 - 11:00am

President Obama has given three high-profile speeches in July and August outlining an economic policy agenda for his remaining term in office. And an analysis of live coverage found that these speeches received unbalanced coverage across cable news outlets, with Fox News devoting by far the least amount of time.

And polls show the people want to hear about the economy more than the so-called scandals, Quinnipiac Poll: Voters Name The Economy As a Higher Priority Than Alleged Controversies in Washington. An updated Quinnipiac University National Poll showed respondents prioritized dealing with the economy and unemployment over further investigations of so-called Washington "scandals" by a margin of 73-22 percent.

Even though 73% of the people want to hear about the economy, There has been a huge Coverage Gap Among the Cable Networks. The three largest cable news networks -- MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News -- all aired live footage of at least one of President Obama's economic policy speeches. MSNBC provided more than two hours of live, unbroken, and uninterrupted coverage of the president's remarks. CNN showed more than one hour of live airtime to the president.

But Fox News showed less than eight minutes total to the three speeches, which is less than 3 minutes per speech.

The three networks were distinct from one another in total coverage for the president's high-profile speeches. MSNBC covered the speeches more or less in their entirety, airing roughly 96 percent of the president's remarks live.

CNN, after airing the president's first and longest speech in full, provided less than 12 minutes of live coverage to the second and did not air the third. The network aired roughly 59 percent of the president's total remarks.

Fox News aired less than eight minutes of the president's first and most comprehensive speech, roughly 6 percent of his total remarks. The network did not cover his second or third speech at all, nothing.

Fox even cut away from the Obama policy speech for Royal baby news. On July 24th, eight minutes into President Obama's hour-long policy speech, Fox News left the president's live remarks for a commercial break. After returning from the break they led with an update of the name chosen by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge for their newborn son. Then the so-called news network did not return to live coverage for the remainder of President Obama's speech.

The Friday 8-9-13 O'Reilly/Gutfeld Factor Review
By: Steve - August 10, 2013 - 11:00am

The far-right tool Greg Gutfeld filled in for O'Reilly, and his TPM was called: The President and the Public. Gutfeld said this:
GUTFELD: To me, President Obama is an aloof salesman who's not even sold on his own product. He's selling used Pintos but he really wants to push Jaguars, and it's hard to lead when you dislike the very thing you lead and you're embarrassed.

We need to admit this sobering fact: He's just not that into us ... the U.S., that is. Let's face it, we're not cool enough, we aren't progressive enough, we don't like the same music, we hate Obamacare, we don't watch Frontline with Clooney.

We are the clumsy oaf responsible for all that's wrong with the world, and that's why he hates these press conferences. He's thinking, 'Do I really need to talk to these people?' He wants to roll with a better crowd and I'm perfectly fine with him seeing other people if it gets him out of the house more.
So Gutfeld had Dana Perino, former spokesperson for President Bush on to discuss it.

Perino said this: "I always loved press conference day, and today I would have said this to President Obama: You should do these more often, you dominate the room, you came across as confident and calm.' But the one thing that is unfortunate for him is that the headline that will come out of this is his partisan attack on Republicans over Obamacare."

Perino identified what she considered the President's best and worst moments, saying this: "The best thing was the way he was humble at the beginning when talking about the NSA program, which he had called a 'phony scandal.' His comments were measured and smart, but I don't know if that will be enough for people who are concerned about other people looking into their email. His worst moment was when he went straight for the partisan jugular over Obamacare, he has no problem with hyperbole when it comes to Republicans."

Which is ridiculous, because Republicans are fools over Obamacare, they have voted 41 times in the House to end it, even though they know it will never pass, and even if by some miracle it did, Obama would veto it. So not only is it a massive waste of time to have those votes, it's a massive waste of taxpayer money. Do you think the people elect them to vote on something 41 times that has no chance to pass. And if Democrats did it under a Republican President Perino would be outraged, but when Republicans do it she slams Obama for saying they are fools for doing it, when he is exactly right.

Then Democratic consultant Zerlina Maxwell and Republican strategist Brad Blakeman were on to grade President Obama, and what a shocker, the liberals likes him and the conservative does not.

Maxwell said this: "I would give the President a 'B,' I'm really happy with the immigration and Obamacare rhetoric, but not so great with the NSA Edward Snowden rhetoric. I'm not that interested in what he thinks about Snowden as a person, I care about government spying and I want to make sure there are checks and balances in place."

Blakeman said this: "I give him a solid 'D' because this was a news conference with no news. The fact that he had this on a Friday afternoon in August was more of an appeasement to the White House press corps, which felt disrespected by him going on Jay Leno and actually making news. He made news about terrorism on a comedy show! This President has led a charmed life with the people who created him, and that's the media. He gets a free pass."

The next ridiculous segment was about the President and his family, who have begun their summer vacation at Martha's Vineyard. Gutfled asked Fox News contributor Erick Erickson if Republicans who carp about the President's leisurely pursuits are actually harming their cause. Even after George W. Bush set the record for vacation time as a President.

Erickson said this: "The President going to Martha's Vineyard and his playing golf are small things, but consider that Washington seems out of touch. 70% of Americans feel the President and Washington in general are really out of touch with ordinary lives, so this does play a role and it paints a picture of an incompetent president. But I would say there are too many conservatives who have gotten very shrill over these small issues and then the media dismisses conservatives as being angry and bitter."

Because they are angry and bitter, and partisan hacks who waste most of their time slamming Obama for stuff every President does, instead of doing the people's business.

In the next segment Gutfeld talked about California, who is considering a bill that would allow public school students, whether they were born male or female, to use whichever bathroom they believe matches their sexual identity. Radio talk show hosts Eboni Williams and Mike Gallagher were on to discuss it.

Williams said this: "Whether or not you like the issue of transgendered people, they are a real part of the American fabric and they're not going anywhere. If we can make it safer for them to get through their classrooms and hallways, I think we should."

Gallagher of course disagreed, and warned that there could be unintended consequences, saying this: "I don't want to make light of these young people, but there should be counseling or therapy first. Having a girl go into the boys bathroom or having a boy going into the girls bathroom is going to cause a lot more problems than intended."

Then they talked about a new survey that identified Newark, New Jersey as America's unfriendliest city and Charleston, South Carolina as the friendliest.

Gallagher said this: "I've spent a lot of time in Charleston, and there is something about the Southern manners."

Williams lamented that her adopted city of Los Angeles is on the not-so-friendly list, saying this: "I've been here for three years and it did take some getting used to, they were not the most welcoming to outsiders. I got the sense that you need to be vetted out here in the West, but in the South there is no vetting necessary. They just welcome you with open arms."

And finally, Gutfeld had another non-real news waste of time segment with the right-wing stooge Wendy Murphy, about some restaurants, who are concerned that the presence of loud children can annoy other customers, are banning kids during their busiest hours.

Wendy Murphy, took issue with the policy, saying this: "I think this is mean-spirited. When kids are out of control it's not their fault, they can't help it when they're three! If you're going to punish anybody, you should punish the parents who aren't taking responsibility. Forget the sign, 'No Kids.' It should read, 'No Bad Parents Allowed.' Just because there are a few kids who are loud and annoying, you don't fix that problem by banning all kids."

Gutfeld said what he thinks is funny: "I enjoy eating with children and I often show up uninvited at their birthday parties dressed as a clown. So if I can't go to children's parties, why do they get to go to my restaurants?"

Now remember this folks, this is the guy O'Reilly let host his show. A guy that makes jokes about going to kids birthday parties dressed as a clown to molest the kids. Good job O'Reilly, Not!

The Facts About Women Making Less Money
By: Steve - August 9, 2013 - 10:00am

Some crazy Republicans argue that women earn less than men because of the choices they make in their lives - choosing to work in less lucrative careers, to work less hours, and to take more time out of the paid labor force to stay home with children or care for elderly relatives. But there is overwhelming evidence indicating that something more complicated is happening than just women voluntarily self-selecting into lower paying careers.

Women on average make only 77 cents to every dollar earned by men. Some of that wage gap is the result of women being more likely to work in certain industries or occupations, but about 40 percent of the difference in men's and women's wages cannot be explained by any measurable factor.

And the wage gap is even higher for women of color, pointing to social factors that go far beyond the choices that women make.

The fastest growing sectors of the economy are female dominated, but they are also jobs with low wages and large gender wage gaps. These are the occupations that are adding the most new jobs, so one can hardly blame women for taking them - especially as our economy continues to slowly recover. And while it is true that some women choose to take time out of the workforce to care for children or other relatives, the preexisting wage gap is often the reason they do so.

With a married couple it often makes the most economic sense for the parent with the lower salary to be the one to take time off, and if a woman’s wages barely (or do not) cover the extremely high costs of childcare it does not make economic sense for her to keep working. But taking time away from work lowers wages in the long run and helps some employers justify discriminating against women workers in terms of pay and promotions, contributing to the cycle that is the gender wage gap.

Regardless of what some idiot Republicans at Fox would like the public to believe, the gender wage gap is real and has significant impacts on women's lives in both the short and the long term.

Even women who do everything right still feel the impact in the end. While the wage gap is not as large as it once was, progress has stalled in recent years. Legislation like the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would protect workers who discuss their salaries and impose greater sanctions against employers who discriminate, and policies to provide paid family and medical leave and expand access to preschool and childcare would go a long way to help rectify this inequity.

The Wednesday 8-7-13 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - August 8, 2013 - 11:00am

The biased right-wing stooge Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly and her TPM was called: War on Terror. Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: The same week our government took the unprecedented action of shuttering 19 embassies in response to a threat of terrorism, President Obama sat down with funnyman Jay Leno. Bypassing the White House press corps, he used the late night show to make his first public comment on the new global terror threat, saying 'radical, violent extremism is still out there.'

But during the campaign the President said Al Qaeda was 'on the run.' The President also spoke about Russia's potential mistreatment of gays at the Olympics and about Edward Snowden, knowing he would not be asked about the failed 'reset' with Russia. If they weren't still so enamored with Mr. Obama, Washington journalists would be kicking up a huge fuss about this.

The President has submitted to fewer press conferences than every president since Reagan. President Obama has never stopped being in campaign mode, which is the only thing he's really done well. Anything he says in this type of forum, as entertaining as it might be, ends up being trivialized and insulates the President from proper journalistic inquiries.
Wrong, just because you say they are on the run does not mean he was saying the war on terror is over, and only right-wing hacks like Ingraham are making a big deal about it, move on to some real news fool.

Then Simon Rosenberg and Christian Whiton were on to discuss it, and of course the liberal disagreed with Ingraham and the conservative agreed with her.

Rosenburg said this: "He reached a lot of people last night on Leno, and I think there will be plenty of follow-up this week. There has been positive reaction from both Democrats and Republicans about the decision to close the 19 embassies, which was obviously an extreme move. The administration has been briefing reporters and we know a lot about what's going on."

But Christian Whiton, a State Department official in the Bush administration, ridiculed President Obama's policies, saying this: "The big theme of his re-election campaign was that Al Qaeda is on its heels, but he has had to walk that back because there was a serious enough threat to close all of these embassies. More broadly, I think you're seeing the collapse of the progressive doctrine that's gone into Obama's foreign policy. There was a notion that you could go and apologize for America and that would somehow make those threats go away."

Which is a lie, and Obama never implied or said that.

President Obama announced that he will not meet with Russian President Putin during next month's G20 summit in Moscow, largely because of Russia's decision to grant asylum to NSA leaker Edward Snowden. So Ingraham had Republican Congressman Justin Amash on, who said that Snowden actually provided a valuable service.

Amash said this: "One of the things Edward Snowden did was reveal an unconstitutional program that Congress did not know about. We did not get the briefings that were required, they put a stack of documents in front of us and said, 'Go ahead and read it.' If you don't know the terms and definitions they're using, you don't even know what it means. There was an effort to keep information from us."

So Ingraham then told Amash that he and his colleagues should have known more about the surveillance programs, saying this: "Isn't it incumbent upon Congress to ask the questions that need to be asked and ensure that the breadth of this program isn't beyond what was originally understood?"

Then Democrat Kirsten Powers and Republican Kate Obenshain were on to discuss the 2016 presidential campaign, which is 3.5 years away and nobody cares about it right now.

Powers said this: "Rasmussen did a poll showing that 63% of Democratic voters want Hillary Clinton to be the nominee, so she is the prohibitive favorite if she decides to run. I don't even know why anyone would bother to challenge her."

But Obenshain theorized that Clinton is not necessarily a sure bet, saying this: "The analysis we've had of Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State has come from the Democrats, but when there's an objective analysis you have the 'reset' with Russia and you have Benghazi. That's a very big deal and if the Republicans find their footing on this, she is in some serious trouble. I also think she may be concerned about that huge lead because she is the target. Obama is the real wild card because I don't think he's interested in a Hillary presidency."

Which is all right-wing nonsense, Hillary will win the primary, and then beat whatever lame Republican they run against her and become the first woman President.

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about Benghazi, which I will not report on because it's a non-story.

Then Dr. Bonny Forrest & Dr. Wendy Walsh were on to talk about 15-year-old James Wolcott who slaughtered his father, mother and sister, claiming he was insane and had been sniffing glue. Now, 46 years older and reincarnated as James St. James, the killer is a psychology professor at Millikin University in Illinois.

Forrest said this: "This is a good Presbyterian university, that is standing by him and exemplifying redemption and forgiveness. 12 men found him not guilty by reason of insanity and who are we to second guess a jury of his peers and the law? I don't understand the hysteria over this, although it was a horrific crime."

Walsh said that the killer-turned-professor should not be in a classroom, saying this: "While I have great compassion for this man and I am proud of what he did to turn his life around, mental health is not a perfect science. We can't say it will never happen again because he's on the right medication. Would I want my kid in his class? The answer is no! He can be doing research, he can be writing, but does he really have to be in charge of a bunch of young people?"

Then Animal Expert Donald Schultz was on to talk about a 100-pound python who escaped from its pen and killed two Canadian boys while they were asleep. Which I will not report on because it's more of a tabloid news story, and it did not even happen in America, so i do not even understnd why this is a story at all in America.

Stossel & Ingraham Claim Women Choose To Make Less Money
By: Steve - August 8, 2013 - 10:00am

Here is a great example of how biased and insane the right-wing stooges at Fox News are, Laura Ingraham (who is hosting for O'Reilly this week on the Factor) put the insane right-wing loon John Stossel on Tuesday night. During his segment he argued that women make less money then men because they want to, he said they make personal choices that cause them to make less money then a man doing the very same job.

And the lunatic Laura Ingraham, who is a woman, agreed with him. Which is so ridiculous, it's pathetic to watch such a ridiculous argument, especially on the #1 news show on cable, that claims to only deal in the facts. It's 100% pure lies, and not one woman in the country who makes less then a man for doing the same job would agree with Stossel or Ingraham, and they know that, which is why no women were on who disagreed with them.

John Stossel attempted to revive the myth that the gender pay gap is a result of personal choice. During an August 6 appearance on The O'Reilly Factor, Stossel responded to a statement by co-host Laura Ingraham about liberal criticism of the gender pay gap. Stossel said this:
You normal women make different choices, and that's why women are paid less. When it's the same job, they're paid about the same.
And Laura Ingraham dismissed those concerned with equal pay as "feminists and all the Lilly Ledbetter supporters."

The facts show a different story, and personal choice is not responsible for the gender wage gap.

In its 2013 Gender Pay Gap Report, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) found that women were paid 82 percent of what men were paid just one year out of college, and that lifetime gender wage disparities cannot be explained by personal choice.

And according to an April 2012 fact sheet from the Institute for Women's Policy Research, "Women's median earnings are lower than men's in nearly all occupations, whether they work in occupations predominantly done by women, occupations predominantly done by men, or occupations with a more even mix of men and women."

Stossel claimed that women make less because they take time off to have children, and that they work less overtime because they want to be home with their family more then men do. Which is not only laughable, it's a lie, and flat out dishonest. Because the studies on it look at hourly wages, based on gender. So they compare what they make by the hour, which would mean the time they take off is not added to their study.

And as a woman Laura Ingraham proves she tows the party line, because only a total right-wing sell out would agree with Stossel on the issue, and only the stooges at the right-wing media outlets have hyped the personal choice myth despite evidence to the contrary.

The Tuesday 8-6-13 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - August 7, 2013 - 11:00am

The far right stooge Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly and her TPM was called: Fear and Loathing at the Newsstand. Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: It was shock and awe for the Washington Post Monday when it was announced that Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos bought the paper for a mere $250 million. Two other former media giants - Newsweek and the Boston Globe - have also been sold in fire sales. These publications have been running enormous losses for years as advertisers and subscribers have fled in huge numbers.

The decline of these print outlets generally tracks the rise of the Internet and cable, but one of the driving factors in their decline was the fact that all of these publications reflected a single mindset. They were managed by secular progressives, edited by secular progressives, and written by secular progressives. For decades they used their monopoly power to push their agenda, regardless of what their customers wanted.

But now Americans can pick and choose from hundreds of publications that suit their sensibilities. Expect to see more newspapers get sold off or die out because of their rigid adherence to ideology and their selective reporting. As for Mr. Bezos, who is a liberal guy and a very generous Obama supporter, I'll give him his first scoop: Americans whose values are ignored or ridiculed by ideologically-driven news organizations aren't going to pay to keep the insults coming.
Then Republican Congressman Peter King was on to discuss the U.S. embassy closings and the threat of Al Qaeda terrorism.

King said this: "The President is doing what he has to do, because the fact is that there is a major attack being planned by Al Qaeda. The administration is doing with it can to protect our people. But I think one reason we're in this position is because of the schizophrenic policies the President has had - going after Al Qaeda leaders on the one hand, but on the other hand telling the American people and the world that Al Qaeda has been defeated. Al Qaeda is stronger now in many ways than it was on 9/11."

Then Michael Skolnik was on to talk about the rapper Jay Z, who has implied that income inequality "is going to be a problem that no amount of police can solve." And he is right btw.

Michael Skolnik, head of a pop culture website said this: "A lot of folks agree with Jay Z that there is a widening gap of income inequality, and his talking about how the streets might erupt is a bigger speech. But you can't say Jay Z is advocating for violence, and it is not Barack Obama's fault that the haves and the have-nots are separating."

Then Tom Fitton, from the conservative group Judicial Watch was on to cry about what he claims are lavish travel expenses racked up by Attorney General Eric Holder. Even though they never said a word about that kind of spending when Bush was in office.

Fitton said this: "To be fair, the Attorney General is required to use government aircraft to travel, and if he travels personally he has to reimburse the government only for the full coach fare. The personal trips he has made have cost about $700,000, so he should be more sensitive to what these personal junkets are costing the American taxpayer. The President promised that he would look at the budget line-by-line and these are lines to look at."

And as I pointed out, guys like Fitton and Ingraham (who claim to be fair) never say a word about Republican Attorney Generals spending money for travel, they only complain when Democratic Attorney Generals are doing it.

Then Anahita Sedaghatfar and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on with the latest on the trial of Fort Hood killer Nidal Hasan.

Guilfoyle said this: "He is saying he is the one who killed these people, so the prosecution's case is three-quarters over. What will be his defense? He hinting that in war there are friends and foes and casualties, and in his mind this was an act of war on behalf of Islam."

Sedaghatfar said this: "We really need to look at is why this has not been classified as terrorism. They're trying to say this was 'workplace violence,' but it is not workplace violence when a monster with ties to Al Qaeda murders 13 people while yelling 'Allahu Akbar.' By not classifying this as terrorism we are depriving the victims and their families the benefits that come along with Purple Heart status."

Then Alan Colmes & Monica Crowley were on to talk about the Republicans crying about CNN and NBC planning movies about Hillary Clinton.

Colmes said this: "This hasn't even been filmed yet, and you have Reince Priebus of the RNC objecting! Has he seen it yet, does anyone know what's in it? But you had no problem with a Mitt Romney documentary on CNN just before the last election."

Crowley dishonestly said this: "Given the leftist biases of all of these networks, you know what you're getting into. We know these will be gauzy propaganda pieces, so the Republican National Committee should use whatever leverage they can to put a stop to this. NBC can air whatever it wants, but the RNC can also do whatever it wants to try and influence these networks to be more fair and balanced."

Then the total right-wing idiot John Stossel was on to talk about why women are making less money then men, and as usual he is wrong.

Stossel said this: "What big government people don't talk about, is that research shows that men and women are not performing the same jobs. Most women make different choices and that is why they're paid less; when it's the same job they're paid about the same. Men are more willing to take more dangerous jobs, travel for the jobs, and work longer hours. You could say that we men are stupider because we don't have the good work/life balance and you women are probably happier because of it."

Even though the facts show that on average a woman only makes 77 cents for every dollar a man makes for doing the exact same job, proving once again that John Stossel is just a biased and dishonest idiot who denies the facts to spin out right-wing propaganda. And Laura Ingraham agreed with his dumb ass.

And finally, Dr. Steven Reisman was on to talk about former President George W. Bush, who underwent heart surgery Tuesday to have a stent implanted.

Reisman said this: "It seems that he went for his annual physical, and most likely a stress test showed that he had a heart blockage. They most likely found a severe blockage of one of the main coronary arteries and put a stent in to increase the blood flow to that area. You can live for a very long time with a stent, the only issue is that frequently you need certain types of blood clotting medication to make sure there is no further clotting."

Conservatives Playing Politics Over Embassy Closures
By: Steve - August 7, 2013 - 10:00am

Here is what the Former Congressman Patrick Murphy said about it on PoliticsNation:

The Monday 8-5-13 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - August 6, 2013 - 11:00am

The far-right stooge Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly and her TPM was called: Trouble Abroad. Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: According to a new poll, Chris Christie is the 'hottest' politician in America, narrowly besting Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But to the Hollywood and New York set, the former First Lady is still the hottest commodity out there.

NBC, whose cable network is a 24-hour commercial for the DNC, is planning a 4-hour mini-series titled 'Hillary.' Conveniently, it only addresses Mrs. Clinton's life from 1998 to present, so there won't be a lot on Monica, 'Travelgate,' Vince Foster, or the Rose Law Firm.

CNN is planning its own film, a feature-length documentary that will have a theatrical run in 2014. I have not even mentioned the film 'Rodham,' which focuses on Hillary Clinton's early professional years. What Republican candidate will get his or her own theatrical release or mini-series?

Today Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus sent letters to CNN and NBC asking them to cancel their projects about Hillary. He says that if the programs are not canceled, he'll recommend that the RNC not partner with NBC News or CNN for the 2016 primary debates.

It's about time the RNC does something that the grass roots can cheer. Republicans can't force the media to be more even-handed, but they aren't under the obligation to help them elect more Democrats.
Which is just laughable, because when Fox News ran positive movies and documentaries about George W. Bush to help him and make him look better, they refuse to cancel them.

Then the Former CIA official Chad Sweet was on to talk about the Al Qaeda terror threat that led to the temporary closing of United States embassies and consulates in many Muslim nations.

Sweet said this: "This is very serious and very unusual, especially the reports about surgically-implanted explosives, and this is clearly a reaction to what happened in Benghazi. The more disturbing aspect is the release of information showing that we had the phone numbers and got intelligence from the leaders of Al Qaeda. We have now burnt that source, we have cut off a major source of intelligence on two of the top leaders."

Then Mary K. Ham and Bernard Whitman were on to talk about President Obama saying in the past that "Al Qaeda is on the run." Ignoring the fact that O'Reilly and a lot of other conservatives have been saying the same thing. Ingraham and her stooges single out President Obama, even though many right-wingers said the very same thing.

Ham said this: "The American people rightly gave President Obama credit for Osama bin Ladel, but his message was that we're kind of done now, Al Qaeda is on the run. That was not the case, even though people wanted to hear that message and the press was happy to deliver that message."

Which is a lie, because Obama never said the war on terror is over, he just said we have hurt them a little. But he also said that they are replacing them almost as fast as we kill them, and liberals said you can not win by just killing them, which O'Reilly denied, so it looks like we were right.

Whitman argued that President Obama's message was absolutely accurate, saying this: "He was playing straight with the American people. The fact is that Al Qaeda remains a threat, but it's a loose collection without a unified structure. Through programs like NSA surveillance and drone strikes, we've been able to get rid of a lot of the senior leadership."

Then Jim Gray was on to talk about Major League Baseball suspending 13 players, including all-star Alex Rodriguez, for using banned performance enhancing drugs.

Gray said this: "Alex Rodriguez was suspended for 211 games, and he has 72 hours to decide whether he will appeal. His attorney says he will appeal and take all possible legal remedies, so this looks like it will be a long and protracted process." Then David Callahan was on to talk about Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison, who is urging the federal government to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to spend even more money.

Callahan of the left-leaning Demos think tank said this: "It's not just the fringe left that supports raising taxes on the rich. The vast majority of Americans thinks we should raise taxes on the rich, and even a majority of millionaires say they should be paying higher taxes. We have a large budget deficit and the way to deal with that is not just spending cuts. I think we should raise taxes on the middle class and upper middle class as well, which is exactly what Bill Clinton did in the 1990s when we had a budget surplus and economic growth and job creation."

Then Ed Rollins and radio talk show host Chris Plante were on to look ahead to the 2016 Presidential election. The one that Hillary Clinton is going to win, and we will go from the 1st black President to the 1st woman President. And there is nothing Ingraham and her dishonest right-wing loser friends can do about it.

Rollins said this: "I think the nominee could be Chris Christie or one of several other governors. The great strength of the party today is the 30 Republican governors across the country. We have people like Scott Walker in Wisconsin, who challenged the unions and changed that state dramatically, and people like John Kasich in Ohio and Bobby Jindal in Louisiana."

Plante made the case for Senator Rand Paul, saying this: "As a libertarian voice, I think Rand Paul is the stark contrast to Hillary Clinton. He's not the pale pastels, he's the bright colors while Chris Christie is the run-of-the-mill establishment big-government Republican."

Then the former Congressman Dennis Kucinich was on to discuss a new poll showing that only about a third of Americans consider NSA leaker Edward Snowden a "traitor," while most people describe him as a "whistleblower."

Kucinich said this: "There was very little resistance initially in Congress to the Patriot Act, but it's become a menace. The government has grown stronger, the executive branch has grown stronger and now is a threat to freedom. The Patriot Act has enabled the government to create a dragnet where they can gather all communications and look at them later. Everyone's a suspect, and what does that mean for our democracy? The Fourth Amendment makes it very clear that there should not be unreasonable searches and seizures unless there is probable cause, and this massive spying on Americans is fundamentally wrong!"

Ingraham pointed out that opposition to widespread surveillance has created strange bedfellows, saying this: "Liberals and libertarians are now meeting on this issue, all saying they don't trust this type of big-government spying."

But the stooges on the right Ingraham talks about only complained after Bush left office and Obama was elected. When Bush was the President they were fine with it, and they all voted for it. Something that Laura Ingraham fails to report to you.

Fox Lies That President Obama Said War On Terror Is Over
By: Steve - August 6, 2013 - 10:00am

And one of the O'Reilly Factor Producers (Jesse Watters) is at the head of the pack spreading that lie, proving he is a dishonest right-wing hack and that O'Reilly trained him well.

Fox News figures are using a possible al Qaeda plot to falsely claim that President Obama declared the war on terror over. The State Department has closed embassies and consulates in the Middle East and Africa in response to an intercepted communication between al Qaeda leaders about a potential terror attack.

During a segment on The Five about the threat, Factor producer Jesse Watters stated that in "the big speech he gave three months ago," Obama "said, technically the war on terror is over."

Except President Obama said no such thing, it is a 100% lie from Watters and a bunch of lying jerks at Fox.

On Your World, Fox News contributor Lisa Daftari told host Neil Cavuto, "We've been told by this administration that the war on terror is over."

As TIME magazine's Michael Crowley explained, Obama did not declare the war on terror over; he warned that the threat of al Qaeda has shifted:
After Obama's broad counter-terrorism address in May, which included modest new restrictions on U.S. drone strikes, conservatives were dismayed: "He has now declared the war on terrorism over," said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard McKeon.

No, he didn't. Obama warned that the al Qaeda threat "has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11."

He went on to warn of more localized threats," as he put it, "against Western diplomats, companies, and other soft targets." In other words, exactly the kind of threat we are facing today.
In fact, in his May speech on terrorism, President Obama admitted that the U.S. "is still threatened by terrorists":

OBAMA: "Now, make no mistake, our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. But we have to recognize that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11. With a decade of experience now to draw from, this is the moment to ask ourselves hard questions -- about the nature of today's threats and how we should confront them."

Some of these right-wing idiots are also dishonestly slamming President Obama for closing the embassies, saying it makes American look weak, but as Bob Beckel pointed out on Monday, if Obama did not close the embassies because of the threat and an American was killed (just like what happened in Benghazi) those same dishonest right-wing jerks would rip Obama to pieces for not closing the embassies.

John Oliver Slams Fox News For Saying Stupid Stuff On TV
By: Steve - August 5, 2013 - 11:00am

John Oliver spotlighted the plight of American fast food workers on Thursday night's Daily Show and the plight of Fox News anchors who are very angry at them. Oliver tore into a number of Fox hosts and pundits criticizing fast food workers for striking to demand they get slightly higher wages, declaring the network to be really good for the "saying stupid stuff on television industry."

Oliver broke down the objections these workers are raising, noting how McDonalds is so profitable, their golden arches are "literally 24-karat gold," before mercilessly mocking everyone on Fox voicing an issue with what the strikers are saying. Oliver likened cable news to the fast food industry, in that "they sell you something that looks appetizing but leaves you feeling nauseous for hours afterwards."

He mentioned that Bill O'Reilly said minimum wage jobs are entry level and temporary so it's ok for them to only make $7.25 an hour, even though it's not a livable wage, and some people never move on from minimum wage jobs.

He shot down Andrea Tantaros's claim that workers would be getting more if only the Obama economy wasn't so bad, mockingly agreeing, "Companies always pass on higher profits to their lower-level workers, that's a fact!"

He took down Neil Cavuto and his past as a fast food worker ("the last job Neil Cavuto was actually qualified for"), and offered this bit of advice to anyone in the fast food industry.

Oliver: "If any of these people happen to come into your restaurant, I'm not saying you should give them the special sauce, I'm just saying it's pretty clear they deserve it."

Corrupt Republican Takes Gifts He Said He Would Ban
By: Steve - August 5, 2013 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly never said a word about it, because he is a Republican who never reports this kind of news. Even though he is a massive hypocrite and corrupt, and if a Democrat did it O'Reilly would report it for a week, with follow up segments.

Gov. Tom Corbett (R-PA) campaigned for his office pledging to prohibit gifts to government officials from those seeking state contracts. But his own financial disclosures show he accepted thousands of dollars worth of gifts from friends who could benefit from his position.

Last week, Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA) apologized for bringing embarrassment to Virginia as a result of tens of thousands of dollars worth of gifts and loans he and his family took from a tobacco executive. Like McDonnell and others, Corbett received gifts from several benefactors in recent years:
NHL Winter Classic hockey tickets. Robert "Bob" Kennedy is the vice president of government affairs at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) and lobbies the government on behalf of his employer. He provided Corbett with two tickets to the National Hockey League's Winter Classic and the pre-game brunch ($472).

Ten months later, Gov. Corbett backed the UPMC hospital chain in a major dispute with a top regional insurance company. Corbett also appointed Kennedy to the public safety committee for his 2011 transition team.

NFL playoff tickets. John Barbour is CEO at Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, one of Pennsylvania's largest lobbying and legal firms. He twice gave Corbett tickets to see the Pittsburgh Steelers in their National Football League playoff games ($140 and $185). The firm, which receives millions in state contracts, also represents UPMC, as well as energy companies EQT and the Williams Companies, and numerous medical and pharmaceutical outfits.

Barbour has long served as outside counsel to the Steelers and its owners. Corbett appointed Barbour as a co-chair of his 2011 transition team and to his committee on privatization. When asked whether this contribution violated the state's Code of Conduct, a Corbett spokesman said that because Barbour and Corbett are friends, the gift was not prohibited.

Private jet travel to Pittsburgh. Frank Schoeneman is CEO of Empire Education Group, a for-profit beauty-school chain. He provided private jet travel for Gov. Corbett for an event in Pittsburgh ($1406.80). Ten months later, Corbett signed a bill making it easier for cosmetology students who attend schools like Empire's to obtain state licensure.

Rhode Island yachting vacation. John D. Moran Jr. is president and CEO of Moran Industries, a warehousing and transportation company with an oil and gas subsidiary. He provided for Gov. Corbett with private jet travel to a Rhode Island and a yachting vacation ($1,423) and private jet travel to events in Pittsburgh and Williamsport, PA ($902).

He accepted this travel as state regulators were investigating whether his company was shipping waste without a necessary permit. Moran traveled with Corbett on a six-day European trade mission touting the benefits of fracking and a 10-day trade mission to South America. Corbett also appointed Moran to his committee on privatization. Corbett's initial filings omitted the Rhode Island yachting trip, a mistake his press secretary called a clerical error.
On his campaign website, Corbett promised to "bring honesty, accountability and transparency to Harrisburg, and restore public trust in state government."

A Corbett spokeswoman told the Philadelphia Daily News in March, "Governor Corbett has been clear that he makes all decisions based on what is in the best interests of Pennsylvanians. He has always fully complied with both the letter and the spirit of our state's financial-reporting laws.

His campaign-finance report and his state ethics reports are both public documents, placed on a state website for all to see. The governor's actions have always been, and will continue to be, transparent and free of any conflict of interest."

But the non-partisan watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ranked Corbett among the "Worst Governors in America," claiming he turned Pennsylvania's state government into a favor mill for campaign supporters."

And in March, the Pennsylvania Democratic Party filed an ethics complaint against Corbett over the gifts. Spokesmen for the Ethics Commission and the party said that no further information about the complaint has thus far been made public.

More Proof O'Reilly Is Wrong About The Economy & Jobs
By: Steve - August 4, 2013 - 10:00am

A few weeks ago the biased right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said the Obama economic policies are not working, and the economy is moribund, which means dying, at the point of death, and in terminal decline. So in O'Reillyworld the economy is dying and at the point of death. Even though the facts show he is 100% wrong, and the economy is doing fine. Not only that, the stock market keeps going up and setting new record highs, which O'Reilly never reports on.

Friday the July jobs report came out and it was more good news, yes it was a little lower than estimates, but it was still pretty good to have 162,000 new jobs in July with the unemployment rate dropping to 7.4 percent. Which is hardly a moribund economy, as the dishonest O'Reilly claimed.

The number of people filing for unemployment benefits for the first time fell last week to 326,000 — the lowest point in five years. And remember this, all that is happening while the Republicans in the House and Senate are doing everything they can to black any new Obama jobs bills.

They are basically refusing to pass any bills that would add jobs to the economy, because it would make Obama look good. So in my opinion they are traitors, and yet O'Reilly never says a word about what they are doing, because he is a traitor too.

Just imagine if we had some honest Republicans in Congress who actually cared about creating some jobs for the American people, instead of pulling out the partisan political games to vote no on every jobs bill and keep jobs at as low a level as possible so it does not make Obama look good.

If Democrats were doing this with a Republican President, O'Reilly would hammer them every night and call them un-American traitors. But when Republicans do it O'Reilly says nothing, because he likes what they are doing, and he is helping them by ignoring all the good economic and stock market news, and lying about the state of the economy by saying it is moribund, even though it's a total lie.

The Friday 8-2-13 O'Reilly/Gutfeld Factor Review
By: Steve - August 3, 2013 - 11:00am

O'Reilly had the insane and biased right-wing stooge Greg Gutfeld fill in for him, and his TPM was called: Benghazi Cover-Up? Gutfeld said this:
GUTFELD: Greg began Friday's show with this Talking Points Memo: "Fox News has learned that at least five CIA employees were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements following the attack in Benghazi. CNN also reports that dozens of CIA personnel were in Benghazi during the attack and some are being intimidated into staying silent. The operatives have reportedly been forced to take lie detector tests to dissuade them from saying what really went on that awful night.

So I guess leaking about Bin Laden's death was okay, but Benghazi, not so much. In my opinion the wrong people are getting the polygraphs. Why not Susan Rice or Hillary Clinton or the President himself. I would have only one question - why was America told that an anti-Islam video was to blame for a spontaneous attack that was not spontaneous at all.

We know the answer: A planned terror attack right before an election doesn't help win that election. Pushing the video took the onus off Al Qaeda and put it on us, which is why there is still a film maker in jail and terrorists on the loose."
You answered your own question, moron. We all know that any President running for re-election would have done the same thing, it was political, and nobody cares but the stooges at Fox News. Benghazi is over, and nothing can be done to change that, so move on to some other news.

Then Gutfeld had two Obama hating right-wing stooges on to slam the President for closing 21 embassies in Muslim countries. Col. David Hunt and Col. Tony Shaffer were on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest for balance.

Hunt said this: "We get threats every day, but in this case our intelligence agencies, in collaboration with other intelligence agencies, have said there is a likelihood of something happening. You could have every embassy in the Middle East closed every day based on threats, so the question is why do they have to be closed now? I think there is some politics being played here."

Shaffer called this a victory for terrorists, saying this: "We haven't closed embassies like this since 9/11 and this sends the wrong signal. We've spent billions of dollars on security for these embassies, and now you're telling me that we're worried about a couple of guys with a crude device! I think we should be going at them, penetrating these groups and getting ahead of them."

Now that's funny, and the ultimate hypocrisy. Because after Benghazi all these Republicans were saying we should not have our people at embassies in these dangerous places, especially the Muslim countries. So Obama does what they called for a year ago, and they slam him for doing what they wanted him to do, what a joke.

Then the right-wing stooge Dana Perino was on with Gutfeld to cry about the mainstream media, including the New York Times, who they claim has been consistently supportive of President Obama.

Perino said this: "Just two months ago the media was furious, at the idea that the administration dared to investigate a reporter who was doing his job. But now the New York Times does an interview with the President and they just ask him all sorts of nice things. It seems they are afraid of President Obama's notorious thin skin for bad news coverage. When I was press secretary we expected bad coverage."

Earth to Perino, you got bad coverage because George W. Bush was a bad President who did a lot of bad things, and it all started 8 months after Bush was elected and 9-11 happened. That is why you got bad coverage, because you deserved it.

Gutfeld mocked reporters who give the President a free pass, saying this: "It's beautiful to see how they can keep a relationship so fresh for so long, it's a beautiful marriage. It's hard for journalists to ask President Obama tough questions because they want so desperately for him to like them."

Then Leslie Marshall and Mike Gallagher were on, they talked about the news that the Rolling Stone issue with bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover sold double the usual number of copies.

Marshall said this: "I'm really upset about this, and perhaps this magazine could have sold the same number of copies if they hadn't used the same photograph. It is just so offensive to all the victims."

Gallagher complained about all the attention paid to the attention-grabbing cover, saying this: "This is the problem when we get outraged at something that deserves outrage. All we do is fuel the fire and sell product for these people. We should learn to walk away and ignore the story."

Bingo, the media covered the hell out of the cover photo, which increased their sales, then they wonder why it sold so many copies, give me a break. If the media had ignored the story almost nobody would have even cared or known about it.

Gutfeld then talked about Seattle, where a bureaucrat is asking public workers to avoid the term "brown bag lunch," which supposedly has negative racial connotations.

Marshall said this: "If people are offended by words like this, we need to be sensitive to people who are offended. I'm serious about this."

Gallagher mocked Marshall's perspective, saying this: "This reminds me of the crazy liberal who told me she was offended at the term 'manhole cover' because it is sexist and should be 'personhole cover.' Leslie, you don't even realize how crazy this is."

Then the right-wing stooge Deneen Borelli was on to slam Charles Rangel and praise the Tea Party.

Congressman Charles Rangel has described Tea Party members as "white crackers." Borelli, in turn, pointed out that Rangel is a veteran verbal bomb-thrower, saying this: "It is outrageous what Charlie Rangel has said. He is comparing Tea Party activists to segregationists, but segregationists like Bull Connor, George Wallace, and Robert Byrd were Democrats! Tea Party activists are freedom-loving Americans who oppose big government, so how dare Charlie Rangel make these kind of statements!"

Earth to Borelli, a lot of the Tea Party are racist right-wing fools, just like Ten Nugent and Ann Coulter, who they worship as Gods, and that is a fact pal. Yes Rangel was wrong to call them white crackers, but it is true that a lot of them are racists.

Borelli went on to theorize why black conservatives are treated by such disdain by many on the left, saying this: "We are a threat because we stand for empowerment, personal responsibility and smaller government. I went to the NAACP convention and was denied when I tried to get a speaking slot or booth space. They don't want our message of liberty and empowerment to be communicated to the black community because it blows away their narrative that there is rampant racism in America."

News O'Reilly Ignored: Vast Majority Support Higher Minimum Wage
By: Steve - August 3, 2013 - 10:00am

Here is some news that neither O'Reilly or anyone at Fox News will tell you about, because they are all biased right-wing hacks that do not want you to know what the people support, unless of course it's an issue the majority agree with them on.

The vast majority of Americans support increasing the national minimum wage, according to a recent poll commissioned by the National Employment Law Project Action Fund, a non-profit group that supports increasing the minimum wage.

The poll, which was conducted by the public opinion research firm Hart Research Associates, found 80 percent of the respondents agree that the minimum wage should be raised to $10.10 an hour and increased periodically to account for rising costs.

Support for the measure among registered Democrats was especially high, with 92 percent in favor of the proposal. Among Republicans, 62 percent supported the wage increase. About three quarters of the respondents said that raising the minimum wage should be a top Congressional priority.

A recent study from Restaurant Opportunities Centers United found that raising the minimum wage would have significant economic benefits. The report estimates that 58 percent Americans living below the poverty line would no longer struggle with hunger if the minimum wage were raised to $10.10 an hour.

The NELP poll was released as the minimum wage debate plays out on the national stage and in cities around the country.

President Obama has called on Congress to increase the minimum wage to $9 an hour, a proposal Republican lawmakers oppose. The poll of 1,010 U.S. adults was conducted between July 15 and July 17.

The Thursday 8-1-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - August 2, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Violent Crime & The Black Community. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As we reported last night, the New Haven Register newspaper ran an editorial that compared Fox News to the Ku Klux Klan. Talking Points demanded an apology from the Register and now we have it. The paper said, 'There's no comparing Fox News and the Republican Party to the KKK, and we were wrong in making that connection.'

Now, on to the core problem we've been dealing with - helping poor black Americans. There are reports that President Obama might finally get involved now that the issue is center stage.

Mr. President, here are some very specific things I hope you do: First, poor children can not afford private education, so please endorse school vouchers; second, any school district receiving federal funds should require students to wear uniforms; third, you should begin calling out entertainment companies that peddle garbage to kids; fourth, have the Department of Education launch a massive campaign to discourage girls and women from becoming pregnant outside of marriage.

Unless you take steps to counter the destruction of the traditional black family, all the other programs will amount to little. If you, Mr. President, disagree with my suggestions I'd like to know why, because those thing I've laid out will help the situation immediately.
Notice that O'Reilly did not mention that editor Matt DeRienzo also wrote this: "We stand by our criticism and call for Fox News to challenge and condemn the hatred and racism advocated by guests such as Ted Nugent and Ann Coulter instead of continuing to give them a platform." Which is something an honest journalist should have reported, O'Reilly only reported part of their statement, not all of it, he ignored the parts he did not like.

Then Illinois State Representative Monique Davis was on, she represents a district in Chicago, and she recently told an interviewer that some of her constituents suspect that "the police are killing some of these kids."

Davis said this: "I repeated what members of my community have said to me. It is crucially important that people realize that was not a Monique Davis statement, I was repeating what community members have said to me. 70% of the murders in Chicago are unsolved and people are wondering what is going on."

Then O'Reilly slammed Davis for not refuting those rumors, even though she does not know if they are true or not, so how and why would she refute them, O'Reilly said this: "You didn't say that's crazy and they shouldn't even think this. That is destructive to the discourse, you know that Chicago police are not gunning down black children."

Then James Carville was on to evaluate the O'Reilly Talking Points suggestions, beginning with school vouchers.

Carville said this: "I'm pretty warm on the idea of charter schools, and the administration has been very supportive. But the record on school vouchers is not very good."

Carville generally endorsed the idea of fighting family disintegration, saying this: "The President sets an extraordinarily good example for all Americans who think two-parent families are the way to raise children. I would get behind a campaign if it had comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraception, but the idea that the federal government is going to tell a 17-year-old to not have sex won't be effective. So let's really fund Planned Parenthood and comprehensive sex education."

Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about Russia and President Putin, who have granted temporary asylum to NSA leaker Edward Snowden.

Ingraham then gave her opinion on the limited U.S. options, saying this: "We can ratchet up the rhetoric, which won't accomplish anything. We can threaten to boycott the Olympics, which may not accomplish much. We could also say that President Obama will not meet as planned with President Putin in St. Petersburg during the G-20 meeting. Do I think that really matters to Putin? I really don't. There are very few things we can do given how bungled this relationship with Russia has been going back to the George W. Bush years."

O'Reilly suggested another solution, saying this: "We should send John Kerry over there to say we want Snowden back, and if Russia continues to spit in our eye we'll cancel some contracts."

Then Lou Dobbs was on to talk about the economy, with no Democratic guest, just the biased right-wing stooge Lou Dobbs.

Dobbs said this about what President Obama said: "There are vast differences in wealth and income by race and by education and by circumstance, and you outlined one of those circumstances, single-parent households. The left refuses to acknowledge the impact that one condition has on poverty, incarceration, crime, and mental illness. It is so pervasive and so profound that there has to be a conspiracy of ignorance to avoid the conclusion."

O'Reilly said this: "They can't speak English, they can barely read, they're covered with tattoos, they're disrespectful, and they can't do any jobs!"

Then Bernard McGuirk and Greg Gutfeld were on with their observations of the fight between Republicans Rand Paul and Chris Christie.

Gutfeld said this: "This is like watching your parents fight, because I like both these guys. But I have a solution - a cop show called 'Curly and Tubbs.' One is a renegade with a perm, the other a wise-cracking guy with no patience. They solve crimes but they are also married."

McGuirk said this: "Rand Paul threw the first cheap shot by saying Governor Christie was exploiting 9/11 victims. Christie pointed out that New Jersey gives more than it gets from the federal government while Kentucky gets a lot more than it gives. I'm with Team Christie."

The stooges then turned to Gitmo, where some inmates are requesting permission to read the semi-pornographic novel "Fifty Shades of Gray."

Gutfeld said this: "It's a beautiful book, Bill, it touched me. Playboy and Penthouse are no longer sold on Army bases, but suspected terrorists can read this stuff. That's kind of strange." McGuirk added, "This fits their worldview, with women tied up and gagged."

Then Jesse Watters was on, he visited some severely wounded vets who have received high-tech Track Chairs, thanks in part to auctions and fundraising. "My wife was three months pregnant when I was injured," recalled Sgt. Drew Mullee of Ohio, "and I definitely wanted to be able to help out." "I have shifted from patient mode," said Capt. Edward Klein of Arkansas, "back into husband mode. I don't want my life to be about the injury, I want my life to be about how I became better. The chair is absolutely liberating."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Un-Sinfully Delicious. Billy said this: "If you're searching for some delicious sweets that are gluten-free and not too caloric, pay a visit to the website www.soulfullysweettreats.com."

Boehner Makes Stupid Obama Job Approval Statement
By: Steve - August 2, 2013 - 10:00am

The Republican speaker of the House John Boehner is a moron. Because when the Speaker was asked on Wednesday about the president's speeches around the country to promote his economic plan, he replied by citing Obama's job approval ratings.

Boehner said this: "I'm not going to speak to what the president is doing or why he's doing it. If I had poll numbers as low as his, I'd probably be out doing the same thing if I were him."

There is one problem with that, Speaker Boehner's poll numbers are way lower than the president's. A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll gave Obama a 45 percent job approval rating and found that 48 percent of respondents had a positive or very positive opinion of him.

For Boehner, just 18 percent of respondents had a positive or very positive opinion of him.

When a reporter said that the Speaker's numbers were actually worse than Obama's, Boehner repeated, "If I were him," and went on to the next question. As if that makes it ok, when it's not. If you slam someone who has a 45% job approval rating, when your job approval is 18% you are not only a fool, you are a hypocrite too.

New Haven Register Issues Statement To Bill O'Reilly
By: Steve - August 2, 2013 - 9:00am

The New Haven Register issued a lengthy statement on Thursday afternoon in response to Bill O’Reilly's calls for the paper to apologize for likening his network's rhetoric on race to that of the Klu Klux Klan.

Monday's edition of the Register included an editorial titled "The KKK, Ted Nugent and mainstream racism," which lambasted Fox News and some of its more famous guests for promoting "the same basic message" as the KKK's: "black people being an inferior race, a fear of and opposition to immigration and expressions of disgust and hatred toward gay people."

In a Talking Points Memo on Wednesday evening, O'Reilly demanded the cowardly newspaper apologize for the vile, libelous piece of garbage editorial by the end of this week. Thursday morning's response from the newspaper didn't go as far as outright apologize, but instead issued regrets and further clarifications:
We did not intend to compare Fox News specifically to the KKK and we should have done a better job clarifying that when we said that the same basic message that the KKK has promoted for 148 years is embraced by the likes of Ted Nugent, Fox News, Ann Coulter, a burgeoning array of fringe conservative media.

It was a poor choice of words that created an unfortunate comparison between Fox News and the KKK. We're sorry for that. We did not intend to make any such comparison. This comparison should have been more specific to Nugent's and Coulter's views and statements about people of color, immigrants and gay people, and to be clear, was relating that to the ideology of the KKK, not its abhorrent history of violence.
Despite the comparison, editor Matt DeRienzo wrote this: "We stand by our criticism and call for Fox News to challenge and condemn the hatred and racism advocated by guests such as Ted Nugent and Ann Coulter instead of continuing to give them a platform."

Something O'Reilly failed to mention Thursday night when he reported the New Haven Register issued a statement saying they were sorry.

Much of the piece quoted readers who took issue with the Fox-KKK comparison, but DeRienzo maintained that the editorial's criticism was specifically meant for Nugent, whose "bile is as blatantly racist, xenophobic and homophobic as KKK speeches of yesteryear."

Notice that not once did O'Reilly quote Ted Nugent or Ann Coulter, and discuss the racist things they have said. Because he knows what they said are racist, and he does not want to give it any publicity because he mostly agrees with things they say.

DeRienzo also said this: "There's no comparing Fox News and the Republican Party to the KKK, and we were wrong in making that connection," DeRienzo's statement concluded with this: "But it is mind-boggling that they would help legitimize and give voice to people who are reading from their syllabus."

O'Reilly Left Out Important Fact in Slamming New Haven Register
By: Steve - August 1, 2013 - 11:30am

Wednesday night the dishonest Bill O'Reilly took the New Haven Register to task for comparing the KKK's message to rhetoric being thrown out by Ted Nugent, Fox News, and Ann Coulter. Even though they all have said some of the same things the KKK have put out.

O'Reilly put up the names and faces of the people in charge of the paper, saying they declined to talk with him about it because they are cowards. He called the Register a "vile, libelous piece of garbage that has lost all credibility."

Now some people could argue that O'Reilly has a valid point, if it was true that the New Haven Register actually compared Ted Nugent, Fox News, and Ann Coulter to what the KKK is putting out. The problem is this: it's a lie, and the New Haven Register never said it, which is why they refused to go on the Factor and discuss it.

Here are the facts: The statement comparing Ted Nugent, Fox News, and Ann Coulter to the KKK was written in an op-ed piece, it was an opinion piece on the opinion page. At the top of the page in big red letters it says OPINION. And next to the headline it has a photo of an open notebook with the word OPINION in big black letters.

The New Haven Register did not write it, an OPINION writer did, and here is exactly what they wrote:
Meanwhile, though, the same basic message that the KKK has promoted for 148 years is embraced by the likes of Ted Nugent, Fox News, Ann Coulter, a burgeoning array of fringe "conservative" media and members of our own community commenting on stories on the New Haven Register's website.

Nugent will be in New Haven Aug. 6 with prominent billing for a concert at respected local music institution Toad's Place. He has brought the KKK's traditional message to the mainstream -- to the point of being embraced by the leaders of the Republican Party during the last presidential election campaign (against the re-election of a black president, it should be pointed out).

That message includes black people being an inferior race (note Nugent's blanket statements that black people don't work as hard as white people, are criminals, etc.), a fear of and opposition to immigration and expressions of disgust and hatred toward gay people.

The KKK has historically billed itself as a vigilante group, a concept that the gun-glorifying Nugent and supporters of George Zimmerman, "stand your ground" laws and the profiling of young black men in hoodies embrace as well.

We'd like to say the tactics are different - that they are absent of the KKK violence of the 1920s and 1960s. But a young black man was killed by a gun-toting vigilante in Florida, and Nugent and company are cheering.

Nugent has made threats of violence against our president, and has advocated "shooting illegal immigrants on sight."

Nugent and like-minded people aren't openly aligning themselves with the Klan, but their message isn't much less hateful.
Notice that O'Reilly also quoted the op-ed writer out of context, and did not report the full quote. Which is the very same thing he screams bloody murder about when someone does it to him. In the past O'Reilly has also made the point that OPINION journalists are separate from the hard news division at a news network or newspaper.

O'Reilly even uses that argument when he is attacked for something he said. Recently someone slammed Fox for something O'Reilly said and used it to claim it's proof they are not fair and balanced. O'Reilly answered that by saying he is an OPINION journalist so you can not link what he says to the Fox News Network.

Then he not only links an op-ed on the actual OPINION page to the New Haven Register, when they are separate from the real news the paper reports, he quoted the op-ed writer out of context with a partial quote. Which is biased and dishonest, and a violation of the rules of journalism.

Earl Hutchinson Slams O'Reilly Hannity & Don Lemon
By: Steve - August 1, 2013 - 10:00am

Earl Ofari Hutchinson, journalist, radio host, and frequent MSNBC guest, appeared on Rev. Al Sharpton's radio show on Monday where he weighed in on the controversy surrounding Fox News Channel hosts Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and CNN anchor Don Lemon's criticisms of some aspects of African-American culture. Hutchinson told guest host Bob Slade that people like O'Reilly and Lemon are paid, professional assassins of African-Americans and they should be ignored.

"We're wasting our time with the, you know, the Hannitys. We’re wasting our time with the Bill O'Reillys and now the Don Lemon's," Hutchinson began. "You know I stay away from these guys. I don't talk about them. They have an agenda, Bob, as you well know, and once again -- at the risk of sounding like a broken record -- the agenda it to make a show, to get ratings."

"They will do whatever anything and everything to get ratings. So, you know, a Don Lemon comes along -- I mean they don't have to have a program," the radio host and frequent MSNBC guest continued. "They don't need to have a program they're not gonna have a program for change in our community. They're not going to be involved in anything, that's not their role."

"They are professional hit men, they are professional in the case of Lemon and O'Reilly -- O'Reilly and Hannity -- they're professional assassins of African-Americans."

Hutchinson continued, saying this: "The image of all the things that we fight for that we struggle for and all of the challenges that we are faced, that's their job. They're paid assassins and they're paid quite well. So, it is -- and I happen to agree -- it is in some ways almost ridiculous you know to trade barbs with these guys, you know they have an agenda."

Lemon ignited a firestorm of controversy last week when he said he agreed with O'Reilly's claim that crime among blacks is more prevalent due to the "disintegration of the African American family."