The Thursday 1-31-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - February 1, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Senator Robert Menendez in big trouble. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: 59-year-old Democratic Senator Robert Menendez has been in the Senate for seven years and is now chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. Last April an anonymous source leveled allegations that Menendez took private trips to the Dominican Republic which he did not disclose as required by Senate rules.

The accused also stated that Menendez and his friend Dr. Salomon Melgen hired underage Dominican prostitutes, but Senator Menendez denies that. Menendez has reimbursed $58,500 for the private jets, but there is no question that he broke Senate rules and the whole story is beginning to unravel.

Menendez' office blames the allegations on a 'politically-motivated right wing blog,' referring to the Daily Caller website, which is run by Fox News contributor Tucker Carlson. All fair-minded Americans will presume that Senator Menendez is innocent until proven guilty of any criminal allegations.

The evidence clearly shows that Menendez was not upfront about the jet trips, but that's a trifle compared to the underage prostitution allegation. This is a tough story to cover and we held it back for some time, but now the story has advanced far beyond the rumor stage. As an American, I hope Menendez did not have anything to do with exploiting children. I hope!
Yeah right, if he was a Republican O'Reilly would not even report it now, and say we should not talk about it until he was charged with something. Which just shows the double standards O'Reilly has, when a Republican is accused of something wrong O'Reilly ignores it until they are found guilty, and somethimes even then he ignores the entire story.

When the Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham was charged with trading defense contracts for money and gifts O'Reilly ignored the entire story, even after he was charged, tried, convicted, and sent to prison. But when a Democrat is reported to maybe have done something wrong O'Reilly is all over it.

So then O'Reilly had the biased right-wing hack Laura Ingraham on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest for balance.

Ingraham said this: "If the allegations are true, he's going to have to step down. When you're a public official and elected by the people of your state, you have to hold yourself out as someone worthy of the trust of the public. The late payment for those jet trips notwithstanding, he violated Senate ethics rules by not reporting those as significant gifts."

O'Reilly speculated that Menendez, at minimum, appears to be guilty of financial malfeasance, saying this: "He took the trips in August and September of 2010 and reimbursed the government this month after the Daily Caller exposed the story."

Then Nihad Awad was on to talk about some Arab groups who are protesting a Coca-Cola Super Bowl ad that features a man with camels in the desert. And of course O'Reilly said he does not see anything wrong with the ad and told him to ignore it. Because O'Reilly never sees racism anywhere, ever.

Awad said this: "I look forward to the Super Bowl and I enjoy watching the commercials, but I am not looking forward to seeing a commercial that has been deemed offensive by members of our community. It uses stereotypical images that I thought were behind us, it associates Arabs with camels, it's an old-fashioned approach to selling a product. There is a subconscious message depicting Arabs as unsuccessful and inept."

O'Reilly suggested that Awad and others are overly sensitive, saying this: "There are camels in the desert, Arabs live in the desert, and it's just a dopey soda commercial. Why bother being offended by it?"

Then the 2 Republicans Gretchen Carlson and Jeanine Pirro were on to discuss a Republican Tennessee legislator, who is introducing a bill that would force public schools to tell parents if their children engage in homosexual activity.

Carlson said this: "This is discriminatory if you only tell the parents about gay activity, but schools have the right to report on all sexual activity and they should."

Pirro agreed that the law is unfair and discriminatory, saying this: "This legislator considers the act of homosexuality to be dangerous to a child's health and safety, but isn't the act of heterosexuality the same? What about pregnancy and STDs? Schools should be required to report what they consider to be child abuse and they should have to inform parents if they think a child is suicidal or depressed."

And as usual it's a crazy Republican trying to pass it, so much for not being the stupid party any more.

Then the Republican Megyn Kelly was on to talk about a 23-year-old Colorado math teacher (Carly McKinney) who is under investigation after tweeting salacious photos and posting comments about drugs.

Kelly said this: "She can share these photos with her boyfriend, but there's no reason to post them on line. And if she's an exhibitionist, she shouldn't become a teacher. The courts have held that teachers' First Amendment rights are somewhat limited if they reflect adversely on them or might cause a disruption in the class. She was tweeting about how she loves to be stoned or drunk, which is a private concern and gets the least amount of protection."

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about a video MSNBC aired that had been edited to make it appear that gun rights advocates heckled the father of one of the Newtown victims.

Goldberg said this: "In this case Martin Bashir was trying to make gun people look bad with this kind of editing. You also had Andrea Mitchell and her staff doctoring a tape to make Mitt Romney look like an idiot and NBC News doctored a 9-1-1 tape to make George Zimmerman look like a racist. You have young left-wing producers masquerading as journalists who think there is nothing wrong with using the media to further their political agendas." O'Reilly said he thinks that NBC news bosses are ultimately responsible, saying this: "The brass at NBC doesn't know what goes on in the editing room, but I blame them for fostering this climate of unbelievable left-wing fanaticism."

While saying nothing about the climate of unbelievable right-wing fanaticism at Fox. It is wrong for MSNBC to edit any videos, but notice that neither O'Reilly or Goldberg ever report on any videos that Fox News edits, and they get caught all the time, but Goldberg and O'Reilly ignore them all.

Then the Republican stooge Jesse Watters was on. He talked about Al Gore, who is in New York hyping his new book, Watters set out on the streets of Manhattan to try and track down the portly former VP. Along the way, he spoke with a few of Al's supporters and detractors: "I like his innovative ideas regarding climate change" ... "He should have been the President" ... "He helped raise awareness about climate change" ... "I don't agree with how he makes his money, but it doesn't take away from the good work he's trying to do."

Watters then described his very brief encounter with Gore at a book signing, saying this: "He tried to politely brush me off, but I told him we'd love to have him on and that he could sell a lot of books here. I don't think he's going to get back to us."

Al Gore will be on the Factor when hell freezes over, which means never, jerk. Why should he do the Factor when all O'Reilly does is make fun of him and lie about him.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: A riveting read. Which I will not report on, because it was not a tip of the day, it was O'Reilly simply promoting one of his biased columns on his own website. That is not a tip of any kind, and it's not even close.

The Wednesday 1-30-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 31, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Bad economic news doesn't seem to matter to the folks. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The economy fell back in the last quarter; in fact, it was the worst economic performance since the second quarter of 2009. The U.S. economy shrank from October through December, hurt partly by defense spending cuts. President Obama has spent approximately $5 trillion trying to stimulate the economy, taxpayer money we'll never see again.

He has added $5.8 trillion to the debt in just four years. So this is grim and America is in a bad place economically, but the folks don't seem to care! A new poll shows that 60% of Americans have a favorable opinion of President Obama, a three-year high.

Americans like Barack Obama and they're cutting him a tremendous amount of slack. It could be style over substance, the President's achievements have been few. So we are living in a very interesting time - we have a popular President, a bad economy, and everybody paying more in taxes. It simply doesn't add up.
O'Reilly is an idiot, of course it adds up to everyone except biased Republicans like him who can not understand why the people like Obama and why they approve of the job he is doing. Earth to O'Reilly, look where the economy was when Bush left office and look at it today, it's a hundred times better, fool.

Then Bob Beckel, a real Democrat was on and he disagreed with everything O'Reilly said, and even called it spin.

Beckel said this: "The economy, as compared to when he took office, is doing much better in people's minds. The other thing is that he's a winner and you get an advantage from being a winner. People still believe he inherited such a bad economy that he had to dig himself out of a much deeper hole than most predicted. People like the guy, they think he's done a good job in a bad situation, and they flat-out don't like the Republican Party!"

O'Reilly was still stunned, saying this: "This is crazyland, 60% of the people approve of Barack Obama even though the economy is bad!"

Which is exactly how you can prove O'Reilly is a Republican. Most people look at how bad the economy was when Bush left office and compare it to that. O'Reilly ignores the past and how it got there and slams Obama for what we have now. And that my friends is exactly what right-wing spin doctors like Rove, Hannity, and Limbaugh do. So you can add O'Reilly to the list, making him a Republican ideologue.

Then Kirsten Powers and Kate Obenshain were on to discuss the New York Times, who published a front-page story about the ongoing carnage in Chicago, despite its extremely tough gun laws.

Powers said this: "It's great that the New York Times reported on this, and they got into one of the most fundamental problems that is not discussed enough. Yes, the city has these gun laws, but the state and surrounding states don't. So you can go right outside the city limits and buy a gun."

The Republican Obenshain said this: "The article broke through the swirl of emotion and actually pointed out that these oppressive gun laws are not working, in part because criminals do not buy guns from licensed gun owners. They buy guns from other criminals and they don't care what the gun laws are."

O'Reilly said this: "You have to federalize all gun crimes so there is uniformity in punishment."

Which is hypocrisy from him, because on the drug laws O'Reilly screams states rights and says we should let each state decide what to do.

Then Carl Cameron and James Rosen were on to talk about this week's gun control hearings on Capitol Hill.

Cameron said this: "Gabby Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly spoke today. They have founded a political action committee to advocate gun control laws and combat the NRA, but the gun rights advocates have superior grass roots and a much better professional lobbying effort than the gun control crowd. A ban on semi-automatic rifles is going to be really tough to pass and even limiting high capacity ammunition magazines is going to meet a ton of resistance."

Rosen turned to the accusations swirling around New Jersey Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, saying this: "The FBI raided the Florida offices of an ophthalmologist named Dr. Salomon Melgen, a longtime friend and supporter of Senator Menendez. The two have traveled together on Melgen's plane to the Dominican Republic and there have been allegations that Senator Menendez engaged in sex with underage prostitutes."

Then Faraz Sanei was on to talk about the Christian pastor Saeed Abedini, a U.S. citizen, who has been convicted of 'insurrection' and sentenced to prison in Iran.

Faraz Sanei of Human Rights Watch said this: "Pressure has worked in some cases. Another Christian pastor was sentenced for apostasy after he converted from Islam to Christianity and sentenced to death. Because of international pressure, his conviction was changed."

Sanei laid out why Iran arrested Saeed Abedini, saying this: "They grabbed him because he is involved in the 'home church' movement in Iran, where many Christian converts and Protestants are not allowed to build churches. So they hold their ceremonies and services in homes."

O'Reilly voiced absolute frustration at the feeble U.S. response, saying this: "There's an American in jail for eight years for doing nothing and the American government, powerful as it is, can't get him out."

Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on because he is just a lame comedian who is only on to make fun of President Obama and other Democrats, with no liberal comedian on for balance.

Then Leslie Marshall was on to discuss Matt Lauer and David Letterman, who both interrogated Al Gore over his recent sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera. After viewing clips from the interviews, O'Reilly invited Leslie Marshall to address Gore directly.

Marshall said this: "Al, I have to say it is a bit hypocritical, to sell to Al Jazeera, which is based in Qatar, the land of oil and gas. However, I do commend you, especially after superstorm Sandy, for getting out in front of global warming. When you were pounding your chest and talking about 'An Inconvenient Truth,' we in America were deaf to your cries that we heed the warnings of global warming."

O'Reilly of course denounced Gore as a through-and-through hypocrite, saying this: "Letterman and Lauer rattled him, but they could have knocked him out by saying that Al Jazeera threw a party for a guy who bashed a little girl's head in with a rifle. That alone disqualifies any decent human being from doing business with Al Jazeera."

Now that's funny, the king of hypocrisy calling Gore a hypocrite, what a joke.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Powell poll. Billy said this: "Cast your vote in the new poll on and let us know what you thought of the interview with Colin Powell."

O'Reilly Lies That Economy Worse Since Obama Took Over
By: Steve - January 31, 2013 - 10:00am

My God O'Reilly is insane, because everyone knows the economy is better now since Obama took over 4 years ago, to even claim different is insane. And something only a right-wing loon would say, which is exactly what O'Reilly said to Bob Beckel.

O'Reilly is such a right-wing stooge he even laughed at Beckel when he said the economy is much better now than it was when Obama took over. In 2009 when Obama took over, the stock market was at 6,500 and we we on the edge of a depression. Now jobs are coming back and the stock market is about to break 14,000, which O'Reilly is ignoring.

Even though under Bush, when the market broke 14,000 O'Reilly gave Bush credit and reported on it all the time. O'Reilly also told Beckel the Obama stimulus did not work, when it clearly did, because it kept us from falling into a depression, and we got out of the recession Bush caused.

And finally, O'Reilly also said that Obama was to blame for $6 trillion of the debt, when it's actually about $3 trillion, because the other $3 trillion would have been added no matter who was President. When Beckel called O'Reilly out on his biased dishonesty, and called it spin, O'Reilly shrugged it off and changed the subject.

The Tuesday 1-29-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 30, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: A No Spin Interview with Colin Powell. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It is curious, to say the least, that General Colin Powell has become such an ardent supporter of President Obama. On paper it would seem that the General and the President are total opposites. Mr. Obama is the champion of the entitlement state; Colin Powell is a self-reliant guy who rose from poverty in the South Bronx.

Until 2008 he was always a staunch Republican, but now that has changed. The General voted for Barack Obama and has been very critical of the Republican Party. He has also accused Republicans of 'looking down on minorities.' I wanted to understand why his politics have changed, so the General and I spoke.
Here is some of that interview:

O'Reilly: What do you object to that caused you to vote for the President twice?
Powell: First and foremost, I didn't think the economic plans put forward by the Republicans in 2008 and 2012 were suited for the times we were in. Secondly, in the last several years I have been troubled by the rightward shift of the Republican Party.
O'Reilly: African American unemployment has gone up, black income has gone down under President Obama. But you still supported the guy whose economic policies didn't work for African Americans or anybody else.
Powell: Why are you only seeing me as an African American?
O'Reilly: Because in some of your criticisms you said the Republicans' disengagement from minorities troubled you.
Powell: The economic situation in the country has improved, but not enough. We have seen a doubling of the stock market, the financial system has stabilized, and the economy has improved. I want to see it improve in a broader sense so those at the lower end of the economic scale, including African Americans and Latino Americans, can come up.
O'Reilly: You seem to be voting on 'hope' because we haven't seen much of an economic improvement and the big-spending policies of the Democrats and the President have driven the debt to close to $17 trillion.

And once again O'Reilly is dishonest, because a lot of that debt is from President Bush and the Republicans, but O'Reilly still claims Obama did it all, and I wish Powell would have pointed that out.

Then they talked about voter ID laws:

Powell: One of the most terrible things that happened in the last election season was that we had a number of states that claimed there was voting fraud. There really wasn't any fraud, but we were making it very difficult for those people to vote.
O'Reilly: You object to showing an identification card when you vote?
Powell: No, of course not.
O'Reilly: That's all the Republican Party wants is a voter ID.
Powell: I object to putting in place additional levels of voter ID that disenfranchise our fellow citizens. I want to see a Republican Party that wants everybody to vote and says we're going to give you a reason to vote for us.

Once again, O'Reilly is lying. They do not just want people to show an ID to vote, they want to make it harder for blacks and minorities to vote because they mostly vote for Democrats, and that is a fact.

Then Powell talked about Romney adviser John Sununu, who referred to President Obama as "lazy."

Powell: He said President Obama was lazy a couple of times. It so shocked the person who was interviewing him that they asked him if he really wanted to use that word. John said other things that were troubling. He said the President wasn't a 'real American.' What is that supposed to mean?
O'Reilly: I'm not defending Sununu's choice of words, but I'm saying he's not a racist. Why even bring it up?
Powell: I would never call John a racist, but he used some very poorly chosen words. You have to understand the impact this has on minorities throughout our country. If you want to bring them to the Republican Party, you have to avoid this kind of language.

Then O'Reilly asked Powell about his values.

O'Reilly: You were born in the South Bronx and made it on your own. The entitlement culture now extends to 50% of Americans home and you're supporting the Democratic Party. It seems their values are different than yours.
Powell: Yes, I was raised in the South Bronx, but it was Social Security that kept my parents in respectable comfort after they had retired. But I think there are a lot of things we can do with entitlement reform, there are lots of areas in our government where we can take a hard look at ways to cut the budget.
O'Reilly: This is a rude question, but I have to ask it. People in Washington say you're angry with the Republicans because they made you look bad in the weapons of mass destruction deal during the Iraq war. I don't believe that, but this is going around.
Powell: That's a bunch of nonsense! I presented the information that we all had from the intelligence community, and when I went to the United Nations it was with the assurance of the CIA that the information I had was correct.
O'Reilly: General, I salute you, I think you're a patriot.

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to evaluate the O'Reilly interview with General Powell.

Colmes said this: "The Republican party needs a bigger tent, and he's an example of why it's necessary. He talked about working for Nixon and Reagan, and I don't know that those people could get nominated in today's Republican Party."

Crowley said this: "He really wasn't making Republican arguments about how the party can improve its position with minorities, he was making Democratic arguments. He could be using his voice to work within the Republican Party about outreach to minorities, but instead he's attacking from the outside."

Then John Stossel was on to talk about the New York City Council, who banned unemployment discrimination.

Stossel said this: "Unemployed people can sue a company if the company refuses to give them an interview. This is a full employment program for lawyers, and if you like extortion you should have more laws like this. We're stuck with one more dumb law that will hurt people."

O'Reilly agreed and described the law as totally insane. Then Stossel endorsed a Vermont proposal to legalize assisted suicide, saying this: "I really fear someday being in terrible pain, and being unable to end that pain. I would like to have the option, I should own my own body."

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about the Obama immigration plan.

Krauthammer said this: "What most people have not noticed is that the Senate bill is essentially instant legalization. The day it's signed everybody gets 'probationary' status, which means everyone comes out of the shadows and registers with the government. It is inconceivable that will be rolled back because a commission says the border isn't being sufficiently enforced. I've been for amnesty for years, but you have to close the border first!"

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to talk about a group of immigration agents who are suing the administration, claiming they are unable to perform their jobs.

Wiehl said this: "The agents are saying they've been put in a 'catch 22,' and that they have to either follow the new policies or follow the law. The President said that if you came here before you were 16 and you've been in school or you're a veteran, you can't be deported."

Guilfoyle thinks that the policy is tying the hands of immigration officials, saying this: "They're saying the presidential directive usurps the Constitution and that they're being asked to violate federal law. This goes to the issue of presidential authority."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Staking a claim. That btw O'Reilly has given before 2 or 3 times. Billy said this: "There is $42 billion of unclaimed money in the USA and two websites to check out to see if any of that largesse is yours. Visiting and could prove to be very valuable."

Gun Industry Trying To Market Guns To Young Kids
By: Steve - January 30, 2013 - 10:00am

They even put out a magazine called Junior Shooters, and a website Responding to Americans declining interest in shooting sports, gun manufacturers are developing programs to market their products to younger children.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation trade association and the industry-funded National Rifle Association spend millions of dollars annually to recruit kids as gun enthusiasts. And those efforts increasingly focus on pushing semi-automatic assault weapons, including the very model used by the shooter in the Newtown, Connecticut tragedy.

From the New York Times:
The pages of Junior Shooters, an industry-supported magazine that seeks to get children involved in the recreational use of firearms, once featured a smiling 15-year-old girl clutching a semiautomatic rifle.

At the end of an accompanying article that extolled target shooting with a Bushmaster AR-15 - an advertisement elsewhere in the magazine directed readers to a coupon for buying one - the author encouraged youngsters to share the article with a parent.

"Who knows?" it said. "Maybe you'll find a Bushmaster AR-15 under your tree some frosty Christmas morning!"

The industry's youth-marketing effort is backed by extensive social research and is carried out by an array of nonprofit groups financed by the gun industry. The campaign picked up steam about five years ago with the completion of a major study that urged a stronger emphasis on the recruitment and retention of new hunters and target shooters.
Federal law prohibits the sale of rifles to those under age 18. But through programs at Boy Scout camps and 4-H clubs, the NRA trains children on how to safely shoot single-shot rifles.

And, according to the report: "Newer initiatives by other organizations go further, seeking to introduce children to high-powered rifles and handguns while invoking the same rationale of those older, more traditional programs: that firearms can teach life skills like responsibility, ethics and citizenship."

The effort is very similar to the marketing strategy employed by the tobacco industry in the 1980s. Recognizing that the number of smokers in America was declining (and dying off) cigarette companies sought to addict underage children to ensure a continuing market for their product.

A now infamous 1981 Philip Morris corporate memo noted that "today's teenager is tomorrow's potential regular customer, and the overwhelming majority of smokers first begin to smoke while still in their teens."

In addition, the 10 years following the teenage years is the period during which average daily consumption per smoker increases to the average adult level. The smoking patterns of teenagers are particularly important to Philip Morris.

One gun-industry study noted a similar need to start them young, observing that stakeholders such as managers and manufacturers should target programs toward youth 12 years old and younger.

This is the time that youth are being targeted with competing activities. It is important to consider more hunting and target-shooting recruitment programs aimed at middle school level, or earlier.

The Monday 1-28-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 29, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton friends forever. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It was a disappointing interview on '60 Minutes' last night; I didn't learn very much, in fact I didn't learn anything. Summing up the interview, we live in a world that is incredibly complicated and dangerous. Good to know. I respect '60 Minutes' and Steve Kroft and I don't know why he didn't ask hard questions.

You don't have to be disrespectful, all you have to say is, 'Mr. President, why did your Secretary of State not go on the Sunday shows to explain what happened in Benghazi?' Here's another one: 'Mrs. Clinton, when did you learn about the assassination of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, and why didn't you hold a press conference when the intelligence community told you it was a terrorist attack?'

But I don't think Steve Kroft even cares about Libya, and most other national media don't care either. So we the people are not going to be told what happened over there. The truth is that the assassination of the Ambassador and three other Americans has not engaged the American people. The President and Hillary Clinton know that, and they also know that the national media adores them.
Earth to O'Reilly, polls show that nobody cares about Benghazi, so get a clue and move on to reporting some real news that people care about, like the economy, jobs, and the stock market that is about to break 14,000 and you are ignoring it.

Then the biased Republican Brit Hume was on to discuss it, Hume disputed President Obama's claim that Hillary Clinton has been a great Secretary of State. Which of course he did, because he is a Republican and he hates her.

Hume said this: "She has worked hard and has traveled all over, but the list of achievements that can be attributed to her is not long. How well has the 'reset' with Russia worked out? How are things between Arabs and Israelis? How about Iran and North Korea? I'm not saying she hasn't tried hard, but I don't think she's 'great.'"

Hume also expressed disappointment with the "60 Minutes" segment, saying this: "The whole interview seemed to be devoted to their relationship and, guess what, they have a great relationship. I've admired Steve Kroft but he's never been very tough on President Obama."

Then Sally Quinn from the Washington Post and Judith Miller of Fox News were on to discuss the "60 Minutes" interview.

Miller said this: "I just spoke with Steve Kroft, and he said the only constraint on that interview was one of time. He had 30 minutes and he knew he could either concentrate on their relationship or he could concentrate on foreign policy substance. She had just spent hours testifying on Capitol Hill and he didn't think he was going to be able to advance that story."

Quinn said this: "The worst-kept secret in Washington is that Hillary Clinton and the State Department do not make policy. She has gone around the world being the face of the United States and it's been frustrating for her. Partly this was a reward for doing this, and partly it was a thank you to Bill Clinton, who worked very hard for the President. I thought it was fascinating television to watch the two of them together."

Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to discuss the immigration reform debate. Williams said this: "Immigrants generate economic activity, they hike GDP and they create jobs. Something like 18% of American small business owners are immigrants and , in addition, they pay taxes."

Ham said this: "I don't think this is a magic pill for Republicans and I'm also a little curious about President Obama wanting to pass this, for four years he didn't raise a finger. Parts of the left may defect, including labor unions."

O'Reilly characterized immigration reform as a political winner, saying this: "66% of Americans in a Fox News poll support a 'pathway to citizenship,' so any sitting President, especially a liberal guy, is going to get on this train for political reasons."

Then Teddy Turner, a South Carolina Republican running for Congress was on. Turner explained how he became a man of the right when his father, billionaire Ted Turner, is a liberal Democrat.

Turner said this: "My dad asks me that all the time. If four years at The Citadel, a military college, and two years in the Soviet Union don't make you a conservative, nothing will."

Turner also said this: "My dad was pretty tough, he made us work hard and learn the value of a dollar. And our dinner conversations were pretty incredible, we were always talking about pretty heady issues. He was very conservative and his change came later in life. I'm very conservative and we don't agree on a lot of politics."

Then Karl Rove was on to talk about Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, who has urged his fellow Republicans to articulate ideas and "stop being the stupid party."

Rove said this: "I think he's right. He was talking about Todd Akin of Missouri and Richard Mourdock of Indiana and their terrible comments on abortion. The Republican Party can't simply be in mindless opposition to Barack Obama, it has to offer a vision of the future that is attractive and compelling for Americans. We are a growth and opportunity party, we believe in limited government and restraining spending and cutting the deficit because that increases the opportunity to spread prosperity more broadly."

Rove also slammed the 60 Minutes interview with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as "powder puff journalism."

Now here is what I see, O'Reilly had Rove back on the show as a non-partisan political analyst. Even though he was wrong about everything he said in the months leading up to the 2012 elections. And not only that, Rove has proven to be a biased right-wing hack who puts his spin on everything, in the so-called no spin zone. So he is biased and he has a conflict of interest in running the GOP SuperPAC's that raise millions for Republicans. But O'Reilly still has him on the show, which is just laughable.

Then the right-wing stooge Adam Carolla was on to talk about a bioethicist named Daniel Callahan who has suggested that Americans should use shame to pressure obese folks to shape up.

Carolla endorsed the idea, saying this: "I'd like to expand the shaming, to welfare moms and deadbeat dads and people who think it's a good idea to fly in flip-flops. I want shaming to keep society in order."

Even though it will not work, all it will do is make them mad at you. Not to mention this, America is a so-called free country, and if that is true should people not be allowed to get fat if they want to, I say yes, and I say leave them alone jerks.

O'Reilly even questioned the fairness of ridiculing people who are overweight, saying this: "An American who's overweight could have a health issue, and it's a personal choice to look the way you want. Should they be scorned for that?"

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Interview interruptus. Billy said this: "If you have a time limit while conducting an interview, don't hesitate to interrupt if it's necessary to keep the interview subject on point."

Hypocrisy Alert: In 2004 GOP Opposed Electoral Vote Rigging
By: Steve - January 29, 2013 - 10:00am

And btw folks, multiple stories about this issue have been out for over a week and O'Reilly has still not said one word about it. Because Republicans are talking about doing it, but when Democrats were talking about it in 2004 O'Reilly was all over it and called it an outrage.

Nearly a decade before the GOP responded to President Obama's re-election by proposing to rig the Electoral College in states like Pennsylvania and Virginia, Republicans opposed the plan and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting its implementation.

In 2004, when Colorado was still a red state and then-President Bush was locked in a tight race with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), the state had a ballot initiative that would have shifted its allocation of electoral votes from winner-take-all to proportional. Under the proposal, even if Bush had won 60 percent of the vote, he still would only get 5 of the state's 9 electoral votes instead of all 9.

But the proposed Electoral College system ended up getting trounced for one reason: Republicans strongly opposed the idea.

The push against Amendment 36, which failed by a 2-to-1 margin, was led by Republican Gov. Bill Owens, who lambasted the idea as a transparently partisan movement. Owens detailed his opposition in a USA Today op-ed:
OWENS: There's a transparently partisan movement afoot in Colorado to distribute our Electoral College votes proportionately. The goal? To give John Kerry a four-vote Electoral College boost, putting him ahead of President Bush in a close election.

But that in and of itself is not the reason proposed Amendment 36 on the Nov. 2 ballot is bad for Colorado. The fact is that if Amendment 36 passed, it would forever make it easy for presidential candidates to ignore Colorado, since our state would be an Electoral College lone ranger among states.

Here's why: Colorado is a state with a slight Republican majority, but which, nevertheless, has a longstanding tradition of electing Democrats to statewide and national office. If Colorado split its electoral votes, leaving just one or two electoral votes in play, future presidential candidates - and presidents - would ignore Colorado and its interests in favor of states with more electoral clout.
And if that sounds like the same argument Democrats and anyone opposed to the GOP's electoral rigging efforts they are currently making, that's because it is the very same argument.

Owens was joined by all his fellow state GOP officials in opposing the plan. Republican consultant Katy Atkinson, who organized the anti-36 effort under the umbrella group "Coloradans Against a Really Stupid Idea," noted that it would undermine the state's clout.

"If Amendment 36 passes, Colorado will effectively have 1/3 of the power of Alaska, Delaware or Wyoming," Atkinson wrote. State newspapers roundly criticized the initiative; the Pueblo Chieftain even called the proposed electoral rig a "quest for pure, raw political power by the left."

National conservatives also criticized the idea. George Will wrote a scathing article in Newsweek, calling it a "pernicious proposal." Major GOP funders also rallied against the referendum; Sheldon Adelson alone contributed $100,000 against Amendment 36.

In 2004, Republicans strongly opposed manipulating the Electoral College when the Democratic candidate stood to benefit. A decade later, after Obama won his second term and pundits discuss a long-term electoral realignment, Republicans are abandoning that principled stand in an attempt to rig future presidential elections.

I am also opposed to any electoral vote rigging plan by either side, Democrats or Republicans, because if it happens it would be cheating and unfair to the American people. But I would support totally getting rid of the electoral vote system in all 50 states and go by the popular vote. Because the person that gets the most votes should win the elections.

Republicans Now Trying To Make Abortion After Rape Illegal
By: Steve - January 28, 2013 - 10:00am

My God these people are nuts. Stop the madness, leave abortion alone. The more you try this insane stuff, the more votes you are going to lose. Not to mention, how can you claim to support freedom when you are trying to pass laws that limit a womans freedom and infringe on her rights to have a legal abortion.

O'Reilly even denied that the Republicans have a war against women, so what the hell do you call this, I would call it a war against women.

A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico introduced a bill on Wednesday that would legally require victims of rape to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a sexual assault trial.

House Bill 206, introduced by state Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R), would charge a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for "tampering with evidence."

"Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime," the bill says.

Third-degree felonies in New Mexico carry a sentence of up to three years in prison.

Pat Davis of ProgressNow New Mexico, a progressive nonprofit opposing the bill, called it "blatantly unconstitutional" on Thursday.

"The bill turns victims of rape and incest into felons and forces them to become incubators of evidence for the state," he said. "According to Republican philosophy, victims who are 'legitimately raped' will now have to carry the fetus to term in order to prove their case."

The only good thing about this is that the bill is probably not going to pass, as Democrats have a majority in both chambers of New Mexico's state legislature.

Professor Krugman Gives O'Reilly A Deficit Smackdown
By: Steve - January 27, 2013 - 10:00am

He mostly talks about Republican deficit hawks, or deficit scolds as he calls them, but what he talks about with his boy that cried wolf comparisons also covers the very same things O'Reilly says almost every night.

He also says we will not end up like Greece, ever. Which O'Reilly also talks about every other day. The bottom line is this, Government spending cuts in during a recession or a down economy do not lower the deficit, they add to it, which is the exact opposite of what O'Reilly tells you every other night. Remember this, Paul Krugman is a nobel prize winning economics Professor, and Bill O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack of a pretend journalist.

Here is what Professor Krugman wrote:

Deficit Hawks Down
Published: January 24, 2013

President Obama's second Inaugural Address offered a lot for progressives to like. There was the spirited defense of gay rights; there was the equally spirited defense of the role of government, and, in particular, of the safety net provided by Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. But arguably the most encouraging thing of all was what he didn't say: He barely mentioned the budget deficit.

Mr. Obama's clearly deliberate neglect of Washington's favorite obsession was just the latest sign that the self-styled deficit hawks - better described as deficit scolds - are losing their hold over political discourse. And that's a very good thing.

Why have the deficit scolds lost their grip? I'd suggest four interrelated reasons.

First, they have cried wolf too many times. They've spent three years warning of imminent crisis - if we don't slash the deficit now now now, we'll turn into Greece, Greece, I tell you. It is, for example, almost two years since Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles declared that we should expect a fiscal crisis within, um, two years.

But that crisis keeps not happening. The still-depressed economy has kept interest rates at near-record lows despite large government borrowing, just as Keynesian economists predicted all along. So the credibility of the scolds has taken an understandable, and well-deserved, hit.

Second, both deficits and public spending as a share of G.D.P. have started to decline - again, just as those who never bought into the deficit hysteria predicted all along.

The truth is that the budget deficits of the past four years were mainly a temporary consequence of the financial crisis, which sent the economy into a tailspin - and which, therefore, led both to low tax receipts and to a rise in unemployment benefits and other government expenses. It should have been obvious that the deficit would come down as the economy recovered. But this point was hard to get across until deficit reduction started appearing in the data.

Now it has - and reasonable forecasts, like those of Jan Hatzius of Goldman Sachs, suggest that the federal deficit will be below 3 percent of G.D.P., a not very scary number, by 2015.

And it was, in fact, a good thing that the deficit was allowed to rise as the economy slumped. With private spending plunging as the housing bubble popped and cash-strapped families cut back, the willingness of the government to keep spending was one of the main reasons we didn't experience a full replay of the Great Depression. Which brings me to the third reason the deficit scolds have lost influence: the contrary doctrine, the claim that we need to practice fiscal austerity even in a depressed economy, has failed decisively in practice.

Consider, in particular, the case of Britain. In 2010, when the new government of Prime Minister David Cameron turned to austerity policies, it received fulsome praise from many people on this side of the Atlantic. For example, the late David Broder urged President Obama to "do a Cameron"; he particularly commended Mr. Cameron for "brushing aside the warnings of economists that the sudden, severe medicine could cut short Britain's economic recovery and throw the nation back into recession."

Sure enough, the sudden, severe medicine cut short Britain's economic recovery, and threw the nation back into recession.

At this point, then, it's clear that the deficit-scold movement was based on bad economic analysis. But that's not all: there was also clearly a lot of bad faith involved, as the scolds tried to exploit an economic (not fiscal) crisis on behalf of a political agenda that had nothing to do with deficits. And the growing transparency of that agenda is the fourth reason the deficit scolds have lost their clout.

What was it that finally pulled back the curtain here? Was it the way the election campaign revealed Representative Paul Ryan, who received a "fiscal responsibility" award from three leading deficit-scold organizations, as the con man he always was? Was it the decision of David Walker, alleged crusader for sound budgets, to endorse Mitt Romney and his budget-busting tax cuts for the rich? Or was it the brazenness of groups like Fix the Debt — basically corporate C.E.O.'s declaring that you should be forced to delay your retirement while they get to pay lower taxes?

The answer probably is, all of the above. In any case, an era has ended. Prominent deficit scolds can no longer count on being treated as if their wisdom, probity and public-spiritedness were beyond question. But what difference will that make?

Sad to say, G.O.P. control of the House means that we won't do what we should be doing: spend more, not less, until the recovery is complete. But the fading of deficit hysteria means that the president can turn his focus to real problems. And that's a move in the right direction.

The Friday 1-25-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 26, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Is Hillary Clinton the new Barack Obama in the eyes of the national media? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It is widely believed that Hillary Clinton will run for president in 2016, and it is also believed in conservative circles that she will receive very favorable press coverage.

This week she testified in front of Congress about the massive screw-up in Libya that led to the assassination of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

You would think press coverage of the testimony would have been tough, but it was not. There will come a point when the American people will walk away from the national media if that stuff continues. Surveys already show that most younger Americans think what they get on the internet is as credible as what they get in the press.

And you know what, those young people aren't far off! The national media is absolutely in the tank for liberal causes and we the people are not getting the straight story.
My God that is a load of right-wing bull. Let me explain it for O'Reilly, conservatives are just mad that the media does not attack her like they do conservatives, even though she has done nothing to deserve the attacks. O'Reilly is just mad the media does not slam her for Benghazi, even though most people do not care about the story.

Surveys show that young people are leaving all the media on tv, including Fox. Because the media is seen as being run by the corporations, so they get their news from the internet. And no young people watch Fox, their average viewers is over 70, so as usual O'Reilly had the facts wrong.

The national media is not in the tank for liberal causes, they are simply in line with the majority of the country. And O'Reilly forgets that for a long time during the election campaign Obama got more negative coverage than Romney did. The fact is the media have not had anything to attack Obama or Hillary for, so O'Reilly is mad.

Here is the truth, O'Reilly just does not like that the mainstream media is not as biased as Fox. And he thinks that if they are not as biased to the right as Fox, then that means they are biased to the left, when in reality they are mostly down the middle with no bias.

O'Reilly and Goldberg make a career out of attacking Obama over nonsense that is mostly made up by the right. And then they cry foul when the rest of the media does not do the same ridiculous attacks, when the attacks from O'Reilly are not valid. And it's just more proof O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to assess the media's apparent infatuation with Secretary Clinton. Who is a biased right-wing hack, just like O'Reilly. And of course no Democratic guest was on for balance, which was breaking journalism ethics rules, as they complain about journalism ethics by the rest of the media, what a joke.

Goldberg said this: "Let's put this into perspective. Four years ago the mainstream media fell in love with Barack Obama and they've been slobbering over him ever since. It was because he was a historic figure and a lot of journalists were not going to miss out on helping to shape history. Now we have Hillary Clinton, who is another potential historic figure and this week, after those hearings, the media began slobbering in earnest. This will ratchet up when she announces that she's running for president."

Now let me put this into perspective, the media likes President Obama because he was the first black President in the history of America, and because he has done a good job pulling the country out of a recession, bringing jobs back, and getting the stock market back to almost 14,000. And for that, all he gets from O'Reilly and Goldberg is complaints about him and about how the media is reporting on him.

Hey O'Reilly, here is some advice for you. Stop worrying about what the rest of the media is doing, and do your job, report some real news and stop being a biased jerk.

Then O'Reilly had the right-wing biased communications professor Jeff McCall on to talk about what O'Reilly claims are Hosts on CNN badgering gun advocates and sounding like anti-gun crusaders. When in reality all they were doing is stating the facts and not letting the gun advocates spin their lies out, which O'Reilly did not like.

McCall said this: "CNN has a serious ratings problem, and they also have some credibility problems. With that in mind, CNN brought in Jeff Zucker as the new president and his label will be put on this network. He says he wants the definition of news to 'evolve,' and here we're seeing news being defined as opinion. There's some crusader-ism going on and CNN might be trying to exploit the Newtown incident."

O'Reilly thinks that CNN's coverage is absolutely one-sided, saying this: "There has not been one CNN contributor or analyst or anchor giving the other side of the story. It looks like an anti-gun telethon!"

Which is just ridiculous, because they have guests on who are pro-gun, so they are giving both sides of the story. And here is my question, why does O'Reilly care what CNN is doing. If their ratings are so low and nobody is watching them why does he care what they do. Earth to O'Reilly, mind your own business and do your job, idiot.

Then Lou Dobbs was on to talk about why shares of Apple stock have plunged 37% in recent months, even though the company's profits remain healthy. While ignoring the fact that overall the DOW is up to almost 14,000 and may set a new record high. When the current DOW record happened in 2007 under Bush O'Reilly praised Bush and gave him and his policies credit for it.

Now that it could be broken under Obama O'Reilly does not give Obama credit or praise him, in fact, he ignores it and only reports on the market on down days.

Dobbs said this: "The man who is running Apple, Tim Cook, is not Steve Jobs. This is about his ability to communicate, to give a message and put it out there. Their products are still brilliant, but the problem is that so are Samsung's products. We have watched Apple drop from $702 a share to just over $400 today, which is incredible. I would urge caution because the leadership of Apple is now in question."

And I would urge you to not take your stock advice from Lou Dobbs or Bill O'Reilly.

Then the 2 Republican stooges Greg Gutfeld and Bernard McGuirk were on for their regular weekly segment, with no Democratic guests for balance of course.

They talked about Britain's Prince Harry, who may have stuck his royal foot in his mouth when he compared war in Afghanistan to playing video games. Which I do not care about because it did not happen in America, but they discussed it anyway.

Gutfeld said this: "Normally I make fun of royalty, but I like this guy and I commend him because he's fighting a war with America. He is actually paying back his country by killing the Taliban. I wish our royalty would do the same thing, but the Kardashians are too busy making sex tapes."

McGuirk said this: "Royalty is anachronistic and dumb, but at least Harry and William aren't total parasites. They're giving back."

Then they discussed female soldiers on the front lines. McGuirk said this: "Women deserve all the opportunities they can get and my daughter has been nominated for a military academy, but there's the matter of human sexuality. Can you imagine if we got into a war and you have Captain Bill Clinton in charge of PFC Kate Upton or Cpl. Kimberly Guilfoyle? Is he going to be looking out for his unit or is he going to be looking out for his unit?"

Gutfeld said this: "You can't sacrifice lives on the altar of equality. What wins war is not feelings, war wins war! There are women who are every bit as tough as men, but I go by the 'short guy in the NBA theory.' There's a Spud Webb, but that doesn't mean I'm going to be playing in the NBA."

Moving to the Manti Te'o phantom girlfriend story, Gutfeld gave him the benefit of the doubt, saying this: "He's a naive young religious kid who got pranked. He would believe anything, he got fooled, and now he's embarrassed and he's trying to cover up. But at least he finally made a sports story interesting - I thought Notre Dame is where you found hunchbacks."

McGuirk said this: "I think he has the brains of a catfish, he makes Sean Penn sound like Charles Krauthammer and it's scary that he's actually graduating from Notre Dame. He's not exactly breaking the stereotype of a dumb jock."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Must-See-TV. Billy said this: "We should all check in to see whether Steve Kroft does a thorough job of interviewing President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, who will sit down for a joint interview on 60 Minutes."

That is must-see-tv? Not in my world, I am a liberal and I will not watch it, and I predict not many other people will watch it either. Must-see-tv in my world is the Superbowl, not some boring political interview where politicians give spin answers.

Real News Alert: Unemployment Claims Drop To 5-Year Low
By: Steve - January 26, 2013 - 10:00am

Here is some real news for O'Reilly, which of course he totally ignored, because it shows the economy is improving, and it also shows his spin that Obama and his liberal policies are ruining the economy and the country are wrong.

WASHINGTON -- The number of Americans seeking unemployment aid fell last week to the lowest level in five years, evidence that employers are cutting fewer jobs and may step up hiring.

The Labor Department said Thursday that weekly unemployment benefit applications dropped 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 330,000. That's the fewest since January 2008.

The four-week average, a less volatile measure, fell to 351,750. That's also the lowest in nearly five years.

Fewer applications would suggest the job market is improving. "Encouraging news on the U.S. jobs front, even when you remove all of the noise," said Jennifer Lee, an economist at BMO Capital Markets.

Applications are a proxy for layoffs. They have fluctuated between 360,000 and 390,000 for most of last year. At the same time, employers added an average of 153,000 jobs a month. That's just been enough to slowly push down the unemployment rate, which fell 0.7 percentage points last year to 7.8 percent.

There have been other positive signs for the economy and job market.

The once-battered housing sector is recovering, which is boosting construction and home prices. Home builders started work in 2012 on the most new homes in four years. And sales of previously occupied homes reached their highest level in five years last year.

In December, the economy gained 30,000 construction jobs -- the most in 15 months. And economists expect construction firms to add more jobs this year as the housing recovery strengthens.

Patrick Newport, an economist at IHS Global Insight, forecasts that construction companies will add 140,000 jobs this year, up from a meager 18,000 in 2012.

The number of people continuing to claim benefits is also falling. There were nearly 5.7 million people receiving unemployment aid in the week ended Jan. 5, the latest data available. That's down from almost 5.9 million in the previous week.

But you will not know any of this if you watch the O'Reilly Factor for your news, because he ignores any good economic news that makes President Obama look good, just as he ignores all the good stock market news that makes President Obama look good.

Republican Idiot Once Again Claims Everyone Has Health Care
By: Steve - January 26, 2013 - 9:00am

And that health care he says they have is called, wait for it, drum roll: "The Emergency Room." Which is not health care, it's not even close. What's even worse is that this fool is a Governor.

In an interview with Kaiser Health News on Wednesday, Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant (R) explained he remains a staunch opponent of Obamacare because health care reform is unnecessary. According to Bryant, every single American already has the health care they need.

In order to justify his continued refusal to expand his state's Medicaid program (which would extend health coverage to an additional 200,000 low-income Mississippians) the governor explained that poor people don't need a "massive new program" when they can simply visit an emergency room to receive care:
BRYANT: There is no one who doesn't have health care in America. No one. Now, they may end up going to the emergency room. There are better ways to deal with people that need health care than this massive new program.
This is not a new train of thought in the Republican Party. During the presidential election, GOP candidate Mitt Romney claimed that "we do provide care for people who don't have insurance by picking them up in ambulance and taking them to the hospital."

But suggesting that uninsured Americans can simply get the care they need in the ER is insane. Emergency room and ambulatory care are some of the most expensive medical services in the industry, and the current health care safety net is not able to accommodate the strain of an influx of uninsured, low-income Americans who can't pay those bills.

And guess what fool, when they do not pay those emergency room bills the taxpayer does. Which are 4 times the normal health care rate, so Obamacare actually saves the people money in the long run, idiot.

And, of course, Bryant's ridiculous claim that there is no one who lacks health care in this country is false. The Census Bureau estimates that nearly 49 million people were uninsured in 2011. Over 20 percent of working Americans don't have health care, and 40 percent of the people living in poverty were unable to visit a doctor in 2010.

Some of the country's poorest residents are currently unable to qualify for Medicaid coverage, and even if they do, they still struggle to access the health services they need.

Obamacare made big strides to improve Americans access to care, particularly with its optional Medicaid expansion, which could extend coverage to 17 million previously uninsured low-income people across the country.

But if Republican leaders like Bryant (whose own state has a 19% uninsurance rate, one of the worst in the nation) continue to oppose health care reform by pretending uninsured Americans don't exist.

And what did O'Reilly say about this, nothing, he was too busy reporting on whether stupid Beyonce Lip-Synced at the Obama inauguration ceremony.

The Thursday 1-24-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 25, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: A travesty of justice in Norfolk, VA. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The Factor has been investigating a terrible crime in Norfolk, Virginia. On April 14, 2012 two reporters for the Virginian-Pilot newspaper were driving in a tough part of town. While stopped at a light, someone threw a rock at their car. The man in the car, David Forster, got out to confront the rock thrower.

He was then attacked by a group of African American teenagers; police say a crowd of approximately 30 surrounded the car and five thugs were involved in the assault on Mr. Forster. The woman in the car, Marjon Rostami, was also attacked but managed to call 911.

Authorities would not release that 911 call but finally gave it to The Factor yesterday after we filed a Freedom of Information Act request. A few weeks after the attack, police arrested four teens, but eventually charges were dropped against three of them.

Only a 17-year-old was convicted and his sentence was probation! While investigating this story, it became apparent that the city of Norfolk did not want to aggressively pursue the case. And even more troubling, the editor of the Virginian-Pilot said the story 'was blown out of proportion.'

Bull! There is no question this was a mob attack; whether it was based on race is debatable. For a group of assailants to beat up and terrorize two innocent Americans with dozens of witnesses watching and virtually nothing happens to them, this is a true travesty of justice.

The city of Norfolk depends on tourism and it's obvious they don't want this story in the public arena. But my job is to tell you the truth and expose wrongdoing. This whole case is shameful!
Then Megyn Kelly was on to discuss the Norfolk attack. Kelly said this: "The two victims filed a complaint against the police department, for the way in which they handled this investigation. And how could the editor of the Virginian-Pilot say this was not a mob? I've listened to all the 911 tapes and you hear the terrified victim and you hear other people describing it as a mob action. So why is the editor saying it was not a mob action?"

O'Reilly answered Kelly's rhetorical question, saying this: "The editor of the Virginian-Pilot isn't interested in the news, he's interested in protecting the image of the city because the money there is made in tourism. This is a huge stain on the city."

Wow, you are a genius, not. Earth to O'Reilly, if the city depends on tourism do you think they want people to think mobs of people will attack them if they visit, of course not. So can you blame them for not talking about the story, I sure don't. And btw, the guy is a fool for stopping and getting out of the car to fight them, especially when he had a woman in the car with him, if it was me I would have never stopped, unless I had a gun, and just reported it to my Insurance company at a later time, like most people would have done.

Then O'Reilly reported on the Obama administration lifting the ban that prevented women from filling direct combat roles in the military. O'Reilly (who took the right-wing position, and is of course opposed to it) discussed the wisdom of that decision with former fighter pilot Col. Martha McSally and Army veteran Capt. Pete Hegseth.

McSally said this: "This is long overdue, and women are already serving in combat operations. They've been out patrolling in Iraq and Afghanistan, engaging with the population, killing the bad guys, getting wounded, and coming home in body bags. This is about having the most effective fighting force."

But Hegseth worried that strength requirements will be relaxed to include more females, saying this: "Many women are not physically capable of doing what a man can do if you've got a wounded soldier on the battlefield who needs to be dragged off. If we look at women in combat, we have to make sure standards are not eroded. The combat role of sustained offensive combat operations is something that males together in the dirt are collectively qualified to do."

Then O'Reilly cried about what he called a shocking new internet ad put out by the pro-choice group (Center for Reproductive Rights) that has an actor uttering romantic phrases about the Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

The pro-life O'Reilly and the pro-life Laura Ingraham found the spot absolutely offensive. Ingraham said this: "Since Roe, there have been 55-million human lives terminated. These were children who never got a chance to live in America or to be part of this great system. When I first saw that ad I thought it was a twisted spoof."

O'Reilly agreed that the ad is thoroughly indecent, saying this: "No matter how you feel about the issue, this is celebrating the destruction of a fetus. This was way over the line, nobody should be celebrating this."

My God you two pro-life nuts are just stupid, the ad does not celebrate abortion, it celebrates the Supreme Court ruling that made abortion legal, which gave women the right to do what they want with their body. And aborting a gob of goo in a body in not killing a human life, because it is not a person, idiots. So much for the no spin zone, because what you two jerks did with this story was all spin, right-wing pro-life spin.

Then the right-wing stooge Adam Carolla was on with his weekly waste of time non-news segment. He talked about Phil Mickelson, who earns about $50 million a year through golf and endorsements, hinted that he might leave California because of the state's confiscatory taxes, then apologized for his comments the next day.

Carolla said this: "It's sad that successful people have to apologize for their success. And by the way, Phil, all your fans and the folks at the country club are rich, so don't worry about offending your core audience. Also, I want to tell people on the left that people who want to make money also want to keep their money, so they're going to move. That's whether you're producing movies, making cars, or being a professional athlete."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Dennis the non-menace. Billy said this: "It's really not productive to get angry at Dennis Miller, whose mocking is done in the spirit of humor and satire."

Now that's funny, because a few years back when the liberal comedian (Al Franken) was making jokes about O'Reilly and Republicans every day on his radio show, O'Reilly dismissed his argument that it was done in the spirit of humor and satire. But when Dennis Miller does the very same thing, somehow in O'Reillyworld it's now ok. What a hypocrite.

Hey O'Reilly Read This About Big Government Spending Cuts
By: Steve - January 25, 2013 - 10:00am

Since the onset of the financial crisis, European countries have attempted to deal with their economic problems by slashing government spending and laying off public workers. But, such measures have proved self-defeating, as they blunted economic growth and caused Europe's debt to actually grow:
The eurozone failed to reduce its government debt in the third quarter of last year, as meager growth offset efforts by several of the bloc's 17 nations to improve their finances by cutting spending and raising taxes, according to official data released Wednesday.

The countries total government debt relative to their annual economic output changed for the worse, it was at 90 percent of gross domestic product in the third quarter of 2012 compared with 89.9 percent for three months earlier, the EU's statistics office Eurostat reported. It was up from 86.8 percent of GDP a year earlier.
Did you read that O'Reilly you jerk, big Government spending cuts hurt the economy and actually caused the debt to increase, you fool.

Those cuts also pushed Eurozone unemployment to a record high and threatened Great Britain with a triple-dip recession. Both the International Monetary Fund and the International Labor Organization have warned against further fiscal consolidation, saying that it would quash economic growth even more, thereby doing nothing to reduce debt loads.

The National Institute for Economic and Social Research found that European debt loads will be higher, not lower, because of their spending cuts plan.

And of course O'Reilly never reported one word about this story, as usual, he ignores any news that shows he is wrong, and a fool.

O'Reilly Caught Lying About President Obama & Benghazi
By: Steve - January 25, 2013 - 9:00am

On the Wednesday O'Reilly Factor show, the insane O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Because President Obama was not forthcoming about the assassination of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is bearing the brunt of the public exposure.
Which is a lie, it's right-wing spin that only Republicans are putting out to try and hurt the President politically. And what's worse is that as early as last Tuesday O'Reilly denied being an ideologue in a segment with Bernie Goldberg. Then he does this, which is what an ideologue does, spin the story, proving that he is an ideologue.

The President did not mislead anyone on Benghazi, he talked about what he knew at the time, and he was totally forthcoming with the American people. Those are the facts, O'Reilly just will not admit it. Here are the facts that O'Reilly simply will not admit.

-- September 11, 2012: Protests take place at the U.S. embassy in Cairo. The anger was reportedly sparked by a video, purported to be the trailer of a full-length movie, called "The Innocence of Muslims," that portrayed Islam in a highly negative and derogatory light. This demonstration will soon spread to other cities throughout the Middle East, including Khartoum, Sanaa and Tunis.

-- September 11: Dozens of armed militants launch an attack on an American diplomatic outpost in the Libyan city Benghazi.

-- September 12: Initial reports surface that Ambassador Chris Stevens has been killed, along with other American citizens. The story of how continues to shift throughout day as details emerge.

-- September 12: The New York Times reports that "fighters involved in the assault said in interviews during the battle that they were moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video that depicted the Prophet Muhammad, Islam's founder, as a villainous, homosexual and child-molesting buffoon." And the Times continues to stand by its story.

-- September 12: President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton give remarks on the death of Ambassador Stevens and others. Both pledge justice against the perpetrators of the attacks.

In his speech, Obama refers to the attack as an act of terror:
OBAMA: No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
Now remember this, that was the day after the attack, Obama admitted it was an act of terror, so he was forthcoming with the American people, he did not try to mislead them in any way, as O'Reilly claimed.

-- September 13: President Obama, at a campaign rally in Denver, CO, reiterates the previous day's statement, referring to the events in Benghazi as an act of terror:
OBAMA: So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.
And those are the facts, they show the President was honest with the American people at all times. What happened is O'Reilly and the right decided to use the attack for political gain, so they put their insane spin on it to hurt Obama politically.

They did this because Obama was doing very well on foreign policy and they did not like that, so they made up all these bogus lies to hurt him and Hillary Clinton. It's all lies, from O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Rove, Drudge, etc. Who are all partisan political hacks that make a living lying about Obama and other Democrats.

O'Reilly is right there at the head of the pack with them, lying and spinning the facts to hurt Obama and Clinton, as he claims he is not an ideologue, which is just laughable.

The Wednesday 1-23-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 24, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Libya. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Because President Obama was not forthcoming about the assassination of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is bearing the brunt of the public exposure.

Today she testified in front of Senate and House committees and the overall tone was soft, but there were some intense moments. Ambassador Stevens was very worried about security and asked for help, but no help arrived, perhaps because Secretary Clinton didn't even read the Ambassador's cables.

It should be noted that not one Democrat asked Mrs. Clinton a tough question, which is appalling. Are you guys looking out for the folks? Secretary Clinton will leave her job as soon as John Kerry is confirmed as the new Secretary of State.

Many Americans believe that Hillary Clinton will run for 2016 and if she does she'll be formidable. She dodged bullets in various controversies while her husband was president. Summing up, if there is one politician in the country who should be advertising Teflon, it's Hillary Clinton.
To begin with, President Obama was forthcoming about the assassination of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, O'Reilly is lying about that. The President reported what he knew at the time, then very soon after reported all the facts as soon as he knew them. That is being forthcoming with what you know at the time, making O'Reilly a biased right-wing liar.

And btw, in all the Congressional hearings the Democrats never ask Democrats tough questions, and the Republicans never ask Republicans tough questions. But O'Reilly never complains when the Republicans do it, he only cries foul when Democrats do it.

Then 2 Republicans from Fox, Carl Cameron and James Rosen were on to discuss it, with no Democratic guests for balance.

Rosen said this: "Probably the only salient fact that we didn't previously know, is that the one suspect in the Benghazi attacks who was arrested in Tunisia and later released remains under constant surveillance. Congressional hearings are a very poor vehicle for actual investigation because the witness is usually smarter than the questioners, who don't do their homework and don't grasp the fundamentals of cross-examination."

Cameron said this: "John McCain has been quick to praise Hillary Clinton over the years, but he was very tough on her today. So was Rand Paul, who is eyeing a presidential run of his own, and Marco Rubio. But the biggest problem with congressional hearings is that members use their question time to make speeches."

Then O'Reilly had another biased right-wing stooge, Col. Ralph Peters on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest for balance.

Peters said this: "Hillary mops floor with Congressmen and Senators. She was prepared, she had answers ready, but the Congressmen and Senators didn't do their homework. They needed to ask her why, when there was an attack, she did not immediately ask for urgent military help. I came away with more respect for Hillary Clinton's bureaucratic, lawyerly brilliance, and the Republicans looked like weenies."

Then O'Reilly had a totally stupid segment with Kirsten Powers and Kate Obenshain, who talked about a study that shows that left-leaning Internet users tend to be more belligerent than conservatives. Which is just ridiculous, and a biased study that is not worth the paper it was printed on.

Powers said this: "This actually jibes with my real-life experience, especially as I came into more contact with conservatives as I got older. I find that conservatives are much more open to hearing other viewpoints, while liberals, because they are so used to controlling the media and academia, get unsettled when they hear things that don't jibe with what they want to hear."

Powers thinks that because she is a moderate Democrat and liberals on the internet have slammed her for agreeing with O'Reilly too much, and they are right. In my 20 years of internet experience I have found it impossible to even have an intelligent debate with a conservative.

I even had to shut down my discussion forums on this website because all the conservatives did was call everyone names and spam the board. They would flood the board 24/7 with insults and profanity and never debate anyone, while posting subject lines like this: "You Mother Bangs Dead Horses" and many things worse. They did this 24/7 in shifts, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd shift, they even bragged about it at the right-wing forum they came from, No liberals I know ever do that, none.

Obenshain said this: "Liberals are less used to having to defend themselves. At universities, if you disagree with the liberal orthodoxy you get slapped with violating the campus speech codes. They don't have to defend their liberal orthodoxy and, frankly, they're not able to. When somebody attacks them, they pull out the name-calling and they try to shut down the speech."

And I would say it's equal, liberals think they are right and they disagree with conservatives, and the conservatives think they are right so they disagree with the liberals. I do know one thing, this whole segment was a total waste of time and not real news.

Then Jack Marshall was on to cry about some reports that Beyonce didn't actually sing the National Anthem at Monday's Inaugural. Jack Marshall, head of a firm that focuses on ethical behavior, compared lip-synching with doping in sports.

Marshall said this: "The best comparison, is to when we're told we're watching an impressive athletic feat when in fact it's been rigged. This is like cheating for a singer, the deceit is that she was introduced as Beyonce performing the National Anthem. The Inauguration is a great ritual of America, we are there to celebrate American values, but we're beginning it with a lie while ushering in a President who promised us that his administration would be the most transparent ever."

Hey Jack, guess what? Nobody cares if she didn't actually sing it, except maybe you and O'Reilly. So what, get over it and get a life pal.

Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on, because O'Reilly only has him on to make jokes about Obama and liberals, with no liberal comedian on for balance to make jokes about conservatives.

Then Juliet Huddy was on for did you see that, she watched Katie Couric's interview with Notre Dame football player Manti Te'o, whose "girlfriend" never actually existed.

Huddy said this: "He's incredibly naive and easily manipulated. I've been watching, and nothing in this story makes sense to me. People get caught up in the fantastic idea of romance."

While Huddy contended that Te'o was probably the victim of a hoax, O'Reilly disagreed, saying this: "He's obviously not a person of any sophistication, but you don't have a girlfriend who you never speak with on the phone. This is way beyond belief. I think they made it up, he got a lot of attention, and now he's backing away from it."

Which is pure speculation, the very same speculation O'Reilly claims he never does, or allows.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Mark it on your calendar. And that is all I am going to report, because it was not a tip of the day, O'Reilly simply used the tip of the day to promote his book being made into a movie.

And btw folks, this show was almost all right-wing spin, O'Reilly had 7 Republican guests to 1 Democratic guest. And she was a moderate who agreed with O'Reilly about liberals on the internet, not a real left-leaning Democrat. Not to mention, she had to be on with a conservative, so she had to split her time with the 2 conservatives O'Reilly and the other guest. Which means she barely got a word in, even though she is a moderate.

O'Reilly Proves He Is An Idiot Once Again
By: Steve - January 24, 2013 - 10:00am

This time the old right-wing fool said the Government doesn't help him succeed because the road he takes to work is a mess. Which makes no sense at all, because he still takes that Government paid for and built road to work every day, mess or not.

Not to mention all his employees also need to take that road, or they would not get to work, and he would not be able to make the millions a year he does not really earn.

Here is what the moron said:

It's amazing how many stupid things O'Reilly says, with a Harvard education you expect a little more intelligence, which is why I still think he cheated his way through Harvard. Because he is the dumbest Harvard graduate I have ever seen.

The Tuesday 1-22-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 23, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: President Obama and liberalism. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There is great joy in left wing precincts after President Obama's inauguration speech. No longer does the President seek to portray himself as a moderate; he is now an out-of-the-closet liberal. But the problem is not President Obama, the problem is us.

We the people have to decide whether we want a market-based economy or allow the federal government to control commerce, including health care and living expenses. The President believes in equality and that's nice, but it's impossible. You can not equate an American who holds a Ph.D. with a high school dropout.

No matter what President Obama tells us, the two will never be equal in the marketplace. Therefore, the President seems to want to change the marketplace, putting the federal government in charge of who gets what. He believes his view will bring the nation prosperity, but it has not and it will not.

Let me give you a stark example of the choice all of us must make. Years ago Rupert Murdoch started the News Corporation, which now employs 48,000 people worldwide. Those people, and I am one of them, are given opportunity. By contrast, the President has added more than 130,000 people to the federal payroll at a cost to the taxpayer of about $10 billion a year.

Most of those federal employees work hard, but their salaries and benefits are provided by the taxpayers in the private sector, the employees of the News Corporation. The struggle in America is not between Republicans and Democrats, it's between the people.

You either want freedom or you don't, and every time the government imposes a new tax or sets up new entitlements, it becomes stronger and we the people become weaker. That is what Inauguration Day 2013 was all about.
The problem is not us, the problem is O'Reilly. He just can not stand the fact that the people rejected Romney and the right-wing policies O'Reilly wants for the country. Get a clue O'Reilly, nobody cares what you are saying, so move on to some real news and stop whining about Obama and his policies, it's over, your side lost.

Then the far-right Charles Krauthammer was on, who disagreed with the idea that America has fundamentally shifted to the left, even though it has.

Krauthammer said this: "One theory is that we get the government we deserve, and that Obama reflects a change in the political ideology of the country. As the country has become more dependent, there are more people who want to suck on the teat of the state. That's certainly true of Europe and that's where we are headed."

Krauthammer also said this: "I don't think the 2012 election was a definitive test because President Obama did not have an opponent who presented a coherent and strong argument of the Reaganite perspective of smaller government, less taxes, less dependency. We'll get a good test of this in 2016 after four more years of Obama's hyper-liberalism, but Republicans need a candidate who can make the case."

Then the former Clinton adviser George Stephanopoulos was on to discuss it, who said this: "The country has decided that they basically like the government reforms that were put in place by Franklin Roosevelt. They like Social Security, they like Medicare, they think those programs have benefited the country. Ronald Reagan called for reforms in those programs, but he did not repudiate them. The country rejects any kind of radical transformation."

The broken record O'Reilly once again stressed that spending simply has to be reined in, saying this: "The GAO, the non-partisan investigative arm of Congress, came out with a report saying government can't sustain the spending. They're basically telling the Obama administration that you have to stop spending, but he wants to increase spending."

Stephanopoulos also talked about Tom Brokaw's suggestion that gun control is equal to the civil rights movement.

Stephanopoulos said this: "That's not the analogy I would use, but I think what he was talking about is the kind of passion a lot of people feel right now and the need that a lot of people feel to speak out. We can differ on exactly how to get a handle on the gun violence in this country right now, and I've been a long time supporter of gun control measures that are in accord with the Second Amendment. I personally believe it could reduce some violence to have a limit on the number of bullets that can be in a magazine."

O'Reilly claimed that the current debate is part of a larger culture war, saying this: "I think this is a battle between the elites like Brokaw and the folks, and the folks know that all these bans don't work. Chicago has a ban on handguns."

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to talk about New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a practicing Catholic, who wants to liberalize abortion in his state.

Wiehl said this: "A woman in New York who is in the third trimester, can only get an abortion if her life is in danger. This new law would enable a woman to get an abortion in the third trimester if her health is in danger, not just her life."

Guilfoyle pointed out another provision, saying this: "He also wants to broaden the number of medical professionals who are able to perform those abortions because it's becoming very difficult to find doctors who will do it."

And the pro-life right-wing O'Reilly said New Yorkers should oppose the law: "I appeal to all good people in New York State not to vote for this, this is just wrong. We're talking about human lives here."

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to talk about the Republican Colin Powell, who is siding with the President regarding voter ID laws.

Colmes said this: "He's not alone in making these critiques of the Republican Party. Other people in the party say the same thing - Senator Lindsey Graham said the Republicans can't be 'an old white guy party.' So why single out Colin Powell?"

Crowley said this: "Colin Powell was never a conservative, he was always a moderate Republican, but he now seems to be taking it one step further and bashing the Republican Party."

So what did O'Reilly do, he invited Powell to pay a visit to Fox News, saying this: "He goes on MSNBC, a very liberal network where he's not going to be challenged. I'd like to debate General Powell, but he doesn't come on."

And he probably never will, because you are not a real journalist, you are a right-wing hack who spins everything to the right.

Then the moron Jesse Watters was on, who attended the inaugural festivities Monday and asked some of the revelers exactly what they were celebrating.

Here are some of the replies: "To be an American and to be a female under him as our President" ... "I'm celebrating history in the making for the second time" ... "I'm actually a Republican but I'm just here to celebrate the inauguration."

Watters reported that he was warmly received in the capital, saying this: "The folks were friendly to me, there was no hostility, and most of the celebrities were just trying to get on camera. They want to come on The Factor."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Don't bet on it! Billy said this: "Avoid wagering on the Super Bowl because this year's Ravens-49er's matchup is totally unpredictable."

Now that's funny, because nobody is going to listen to you O'Reilly, there will be Billions bet on the game, no matter what you say.

O'Reilly Spins Doom & Gloom Because A Democrat Is President
By: Steve - January 23, 2013 - 10:00am

Here is the cold hard truth about Bill O'Reilly, he is a biased right-wing ideologue (hack) who hates President Obama, and he is spinning out right-wing propaganda to make him look bad almost every night.

This is what O'Reilly said Friday night:
O'REILLY: The folks are indeed responsible for the government they get, and Americans now are faced with a very serious economic situation. This week the Government Accountability Office released its annual audit of the U.S. government.

The conclusion: 'Absent policy changes, the federal government continues to face an unsustainable fiscal path.' If the feds do not stop the wild spending and do not reform Medicare and Social Security, the U.S. dollar will collapse. That means all of our savings and investments and everything else will blow up before our eyes.

Chances are that you will not hear about the GAO report except on this program because the liberal media will not tell you what is going on. President Obama does not want to cut federal spending or entitlements and the media loves President Obama, so the folks be damned! Many Americans are too lazy to pay attention to their country; they're selfish, caught up in individual pursuits.

Thus the federal government has been allowed by we the people to get out of control. So I have to play Paul Revere here, I have to continue to tell you the truth. But many Americans will not listen and many are not smart enough to even care. Disaster could be coming!
Now look around, do you see any of that happening, no. None of that is happening, and none of that will happen. It's a joke, O'Reilly is using scare tactics to try and get the people to oppose the economic policies Obama wants to put in place, simply because he does not like them, not because it would not be good for the majority.

Here are some economic news reports, and none of them agree with O'Reilly, in fact, they say the opposite.

1) New home starts jumped by 12.1 percent in November.

2) U.S. corporations after-tax profits have grown by 171 percent under President Obama, more than under any president since World War II, and are now at their highest level relative to the size of the economy since the government began keeping records in 1947.

3) Auto sales in November raced to a five-year high. Sales in November rose 15 percent to 1.14 million vehicles, the highest level for that month since 2007, before a recession caused a dramatic decline in demand and led to the bankruptcy filings of General Motors Co GM and Chrysler.

4) Gallup's U.S. Economic Confidence Index improved to -13 for the week ending Jan. 20, from -18 the week prior. Americans confidence in the economy has improved for three weeks in a row.

5) Since July of 2009 the economy has had a positive job growth every single month. Under Bush it was losing 750,000 jobs a month in his last month in office. So the Obama run economy has been in the black since his economic policies were put in place.

6) Then unemployment rate went to 10% in Obama's first year in office, but it has fallen gradually since then, landing at 7.8% as of December.

7) During the first three months of 2009 after Obama took over, the economy dropped at an annual rate of 5.3%. Since then GDP has been growing and slowly recovering every quarter. The last quarter of 2012 the GDP was up 3.1%, which is pretty good.

8) Gas and food prices have had a few small temporary growth spurts in the past few years, but overall, inflation has remained relatively low. Gas prices are currently $3.29 here in Peoria, which is pretty low.

9) The stock market is up big since Obama took office. From 8,000 under Bush, to 13,600 under Obama. Which btw, has made O'Reilly a lot of money because he is a big investor in the market.

10) Gallup -- U.S. Consumer Spending in December Highest in Four Years. Americans were in a generous mood when it came to spending this past December, as they reported spending an average $83 per day. That is up from $73 in November and the highest monthly figure Gallup has reported since December 2008.

Now look at that, then compare it to what O'Reilly is saying, it's night and day. In O'Reillyworld the world is coming to an end and the sky is falling. When all the economic and financial news show things are improving more all the time.

In fact, it's hard to find bad economic news, the only place you can find it is on biased right-wing websites, Fox News, and Bill O'Reilly.

And think about this, when Bush was the President and liberals complained about the economy, jobs, the Bush tax cuts, the debt, or the bad Bush economic policies, O'Reilly slammed them as biased liberal hacks who are not living in reality. He also called them America haters for talking bad about their country and their President.

O'Reilly called them the liberal America/Bush hating doom and gloomers. Now he is doing the very same thing, he is slamming the country, the President, and the people, by saying they are not smart enough to understand the country is going to fall apart and we will have a disaster.

And he is doing this as almost every economic measure of the economy is improving, now it is not improving as much as Obama and the Democrats would like, but it is improving. This is just more evidence that O'Reilly is a biased right-wing spin doctor, as one thing is happening with the economy and the market he ignores it and tells you the opposite.

Which is all political bias, O'Reilly is only saying this garbage to make people think Obama is ruining the country. He is doing it to try and get the people to oppose the Obama economic policies, that have worked so far. Proving that O'Reilly is a joke, and a pretend journalist.

The Monday 1-21-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 22, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: President Obama's Inaugural Address. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The first inaugural address was delivered on April 30, 1789 by George Washington. He invoked God and Heaven and spoke of 'the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.' George Washington appealed for justice, and President Obama made a similar appeal.

Rather than focusing on America's vexing problems like an exploding debt and a weak economy, Mr. Obama put forth that the nation's top priority must be imposing 'social justice.' Talking Points disagrees with President Obama's priority. Although social justice is a noble goal, it is simply impossible to do what the President wants to do, which is to ensure prosperity and fairness for every American.

It can't be done no matter how much money you spend. Far more effective is building a strong society based upon a robust free market and effective social programs that provide opportunity rather than charity. As the President should know by now, the federal government can not provide for 320-million people.

The danger is that President Obama's persistent attempts to redistribute prosperity will bankrupt the nation, causing pain to everyone and making it impossible for poorly educated or disadvantaged Americans to even make a living. The President's address was not an urgent call for Congress to reform entitlements, simplify the tax code, or even stimulate the economy.

So it is quite clear he is willing to go down in history as a crusader for social justice, no matter what happens to the economic fabric of the country. He does not want to cut government spending, he does not want to reform entitlements that are threatening the American treasury. Unless there is a radical change in the President's thinking, few problems will be solved over the next four years.
And that my friends is what you call right-wing spin, O'Reilly did not mention one good thing Obama has done over the last four years, even though everything has improved since Bush left office.

Then O'Reilly had the Republican Brit Hume on to slam Obama some more. Hume said this: "My sense about this President, is that he is concerned with social issues partly because these other issues, things like invigorating the economy and dealing with the burgeoning deficit and debt, don't particularly interest him. I'm not sure the economy ever really has."

Hume also said this: "When he first took office he got through this stimulus package, which was a grab bag of spending, and then he basically abandoned the issue to take on something that appealed to him much more, a reform of the health care system."

O'Reilly expressed bewilderment at President Obama's stated priorities, saying this: "He has to know that the track he's on may cause irreparable harm to the nation, but he doesn't seem to care. He's rolling the dice with the future of every single American!"

And of course the biased right-wing Bill O'Reilly expressed bewilderment, because he is a partisan hack who does not understand anything Democrats do, because it is not what he wants to do with the country.

Then Bob Woodward was on to talk about what President Obama wants to achieve in the next four years. Woodward said this: "He calls it equality, but the question is, how do you get there? I think he knows in his head that you get there by mobilizing the economy and getting the engine going. The greatest social injustice is being unable to get a job."

Woodward also said he thinks President Obama missed a great opportunity at Monday's inauguration, saying this: "Suppose he had turned around to Speaker Boehner and said we're going to work together on these things? If you talk to Republicans, they feel Obama doesn't like them, and he's hurting his own cause."

O'Reilly agreed that President Obama genuinely dislikes many Republicans and conservatives, saying this: "He feels they are the purveyors of 'white privilege.' The Republican agenda, in his mind, props up white privilege and he wants to tear that down."

My God O'Reilly, how can he not hate them after all the birther nonsense, and all the racism directed at him from the right, especially from the Tea Party.

Then Jon Meacham, who has written numerous books about U.S. presidents, tried to explain the nation's leftward shift from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama.

Meacham said this: "Ronald Reagan's rise was an answer to the excesses of the New Deal and the Great Society. I think what's happening now is that we know our future is mortgaged but we're apparently not ready to make hard choices. I think we're treading water in the United States and President Obama is in some ways a figure of a treading water era. What we haven't seen with President Obama yet is whether he's able to lead us to make hard choices."

Then the total right-wing biased stooge Bernard Goldberg was on to talk about the media and President Obama's inauguration. He began by ridiculing Newsweek magazine, whose cover story hails "The Second Coming" of Obama.

Goldberg said this: "The term 'the second coming' has religious connotations, and this is the same magazine that ran a cover that had Barack Obama with a halo. For four years many in the mainstream media have tried to turn Barack Obama into a messiah, and here it is!"

Goldberg explained why the fawning coverage of President Obama is dangerous, saying this: "The media have fallen in love, the adoration of Barack Obama is embarrassing. A free country needs a strong mainstream media, you can't have a free country forever without a fair press. That's why it's important to hold them accountable."

Which is just laughable, for two reasons. First, O'Reilly and Goldberg are biased right-wing hacks so they should not be slamming anyone for not being good journalists. Second, the media is pretty fair, they are just not biased to the right like Fox so they think everyone else is biased.

Finally, O'Reilly had Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams on to discuss President Obama's inauguration address.

Ham said this: "The speech was all right, and parts of it were very pretty, but it was markedly more liberal than he sounded last time around. When he runs for office he's good at couching things in a centrist way but there is less need for that now. He is frequently guilty of aggressively dismissing his opponents and mischaracterizing what they believe."

Williams praised President Obama for mentioning gays in his speech, saying this: "It did have holding power and especially for gay people. Today there was an intersection of history - you had the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, the second inauguration of our first black president, and here he is talking about 'our journey' as an American people. A lot of people believe he's on the right side of history."

Then O'Reilly cut away to live coverage of President and Mrs. Obama's first dance of his second term, and the show was over.

O'Reilly Once Again Ignoring Stock Market Increase Under Obama
By: Steve - January 22, 2013 - 10:00am

Here it is again, a perfect example of the right-wing bias from Bill O'Reilly. The day after President Obama was re-elected the stock market dropped 313 points. And O'Reilly blamed it on the re-election of President Obama.

Which is so ridiculous it's laughable, and only a total right-wing hack would even claim such a thing, for these reasons.

1) Since Obama took office in January of 2009 the stock market is up 35.5 percent to the current 13.649.70. It goes up, it goes down, and those are called daily fluctuations that nobody pays any attention to, except the idiot O'Reilly.

2) The stock market experts look at weekly, monthly, 3 month, 6 month, year to date, 1 year, 3 years, and 5 year stock market levels. Nobody in their right mind goes by 1 or 2 day daily ups and downs in the market, if they did a hundred people a day who work on wall street would be jumping out windows to their death.

3) Since that 313 point drop the day after President Obama was re-elected, the market has went up pretty much every week, and every month since then. But O'Reilly never says a word about any of it. He only blames the down market days on President Obama, but on the other 90% of the up market days O'Reilly says nothing.

4) This is as biased as a person can get. And O'Reilly does it all the time. If you go look at the stock market over the last 5 years, it's up 11.2 percent, and a year of that was under Bush, the 2008 year when the market had dropped.

5) In the last 5 days alone the market is up 1.2 percent, O'Reilly said nothing.

In the last month the market is up 3.0 percent, O'Reilly said nothing.

In the last 3 months the market is up 2.2 percent, O'Reilly said nothing.

In the last 6 months the market is up 7.3 percent, O'Reilly said nothing.

In the last year to date (YTD) the market is up 4.2 percent, O'Reilly said nothing.

In the last year the market is up 8.5 percent, O'Reilly said nothing.

In the last 3 years the market is up a STUNNING 35.5 percent, O'Reilly said nothing.

So in O'Reillyworld none of these stock market facts mean a thing, what only matters to him is a one day 313 point drop (in 4 years) that he could use to attack President Obama politically to make him look as if he is the reason the market dropped over 300 points on one day.

It's like have a financial advisor tell you to buy a stock, then it drops 20 points in one day, and you attack the advisor and slam him for the stock going down. Then over the next 3 months it goes up every week, and every month, and he makes you a fortune.

That's how biased and ridiculous O'Reilly is, when the market drops (for even one day) O'Reilly blames Obama and says the market dropped because wall street hates Obama, while ignoring the other 90% of days the market went up.

Not to mention, O'Reilly also said the corporations hate Obama, while ignoring the fact that over the last 3 years corporate profits have skyrocketed past their pre-recession levels to set new profit records.

So O'Reilly was wrong about all of it, he got everything wrong, but he never admits it and he never reports the facts. All he does is report right-wing spin and lies about it, while ignoring the facts and the truth.

The Legal Status Of Online Gambling In America Is Changing
By: Steve - January 21, 2013 - 11:00am

In August of 2012 A federal judge in New York concluded that skill plays the bigger role in determining who wins a poker game, in a ruling that could strengthen the hand of the companies seeking to get online poker legalized in the U.S.

U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein ruled that a New York electronics dealer had not violated a key federal gambling law by running Texas Hold 'Em poker games out of his Staten Island warehouse because, unlike roulette or slot machines, poker isn't "predominated by chance," a common legal definition of gambling.

The federal law still allows federal authorities, under certain circumstances, to prosecute violations of state gambling laws.

But the ruling marked the first time a federal court has directly considered poker's status, even though it is generally treated as a game of chance that is covered by gambling laws. State courts have been divided on the issue.

So until they make it legal under federal law, you can still gamble online if you want to, because many online gambling websites accept players from America, just go to this website and you can find a list of them.

And btw folks, Bill O'Reilly is against online gambling, even though he supports states rights in the gun control debate and he claims America is a free country. Proving once more what a right-wing hypocrite he is, for not supporting states rights on every issue.

If America is a free country, how can gambling be legal at a casino, a riverboat, and now bars with legal poker machine gaming, but not online, figure that out because I can't It makes no sense, and Congress needs to fix it and let the people gamble anywhere they want to, or stop saying we are a free country.

O'Reilly Says People Not Smart Enough To Care About Debt
By: Steve - January 21, 2013 - 10:00am

Now remember this, O'Reilly is the same guy who under Bush called Liberals who said the American people were stupid to vote for Bush un-American and America haters. Now he is doing the very same thing, by saying the people are not smart enough to care that Obama is leading us into a disaster, even though it will not happen.

O'Reilly said this: "Americans Are Not Smart Enough To Care About A Coming Disaster"

Here is the video:

O'Reilly also said you should not criticize the President during a time of war, when the Republican George W. Bush was in office, and yet he has spent the last 4 years slamming Obama almost every day.

It shows the right-wing O'Reilly bias, and it shows the double standards he has. If a Democrat does it to a Republican, it's wrong in O'Reillyworld, but if a Republican does it to a Democrat, it's ok in O'Reillyworld.

And btw folks, the debt and deficit problem will be fixed, when it has to be fixed, there will be no disaster, because eventually the President and Congress will agree to a debt reduction plan.

Not to mention this, it's all partisan politics from O'Reilly and the right. Because they know the debt problem will be taken care of eventually, and during the Bush years when liberals complained about the debt Bush was adding, O'Reilly and the right said the debt does not matter.

Now suddenly the debt does matter, simply because a Democrat is in the White House. Which shows that it's a bogus partisan political attack, notice that not once has O'Reilly called for defense spending cuts, or any cuts that hurt the wealthy or any corporations, all he wants to do is cut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Food Stamps.

Those are all the programs that help the little people, and programs they really need. O'Reilly does not want to cut anything from the budget that goes to the wealthy, or the corporations, which are the people who can afford the cuts. And yet, he claims to be looking out for the little guy, which is just laughable.

6 People Shot At 3 Gun Shows On Gun Appreciation Day
By: Steve - January 20, 2013 - 11:00am

If the gun advocates behind this year's inaugural Gun Appreciation Day had hoped to use the day's festivities to build support for their anti-regulation platform, they are going to have to wait another year.

Emergency personnel had to be called to the scene of the Dixie Gun and Knife Show in Raleigh, North Carolina after a gun accidentally discharged and shot two people at the show's safety check-in booth just after 1 pm. Both victims were transported to an area hospital, and the Raleigh Fire Department announced that the show would be closed for the rest of the day.

Gun Appreciation Day is the combined effort of dozens of far-right organizations who have been vocal opponents of gun control advocates efforts to reduce the number of dangerous weapons on our streets and prevent them from ending up in the hands of people with criminal backgrounds or a history of mental illness.

In response to a renewed push for sensible reforms of gun laws after the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, groups like the National Rifle Association and the founders of Gun Appreciation Day have instead advocated for an increase in the number of guns in public places like elementary schools, arguing that more guns will mean more protection for individuals.

But the unfortunate accident, which took place at a safety check surrounded by hundreds of people who presumably have at least some training on how to properly handle a dangerous weapon, undermines that case.

A representative from Political Media, the group responsible for organizing Gun Appreciation Day, was not immediately available for comment.

Two similar incidents occurred at entirely separate gun shows in the Midwest, one in the Cleveland suburb of Medina, Ohio and the other at the state fairgrounds in Indianapolis, Indiana. In Ohio, the local ABC affiliate reports that one individual was brought to a hospital by EMS, and in Indiana Channel 8 WISH says that an individual shot himself in the hand while trying to reload his gun in the show parking lot.

That brings the tally to 4 victims of gun violence so far at three different gun shows during the country's first Gun Appreciation Day.

CNN is reporting that three people were injured at the gun show in Raleigh, not two as originally reported. All were victims of a shotgun that fired while the owner was removing it from a case.

Notice that none of this story was reported by Bill O'Reilly, he simply ignored it.

Republicans Are Trying To Rig Future Presidential Elections
By: Steve - January 20, 2013 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly has not said one word about it, but if the Democratic party were trying to do this O'Reilly would report it every night, call it an outrage, and keep reporting it until laws were changed to stop it so they could not rig an election.

Last week, RNC Chair Reince Priebus endorsed a Republican Party plan to rig future presidential elections by changing the way electoral votes are assigned. Under the Republican plan, GOP lawmakers in several states that supported the Democratic candidate for president in recent elections would stop awarding all of their electoral votes to the winner of the state as a whole, and instead award most of them one-by-one to the winners of individual congressional districts.

In part because of widespread Republican gerrymandering, if Republicans had implemented this election rigging plan in six key states where they currently control the state government - Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin - Mitt Romney would have won the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote by nearly four points.

Efforts are already underway in several of these six key states to enact this election rigging plan and all but ensure that the next President of the United States is a Republican - regardless of how the American people cast their votes.

Seven Pennsylvania state house members introduced a bill implementing the GOP election rigging plan last week, and the plan already enjoys the support of Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) and state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R).

A bill backed by Virginia State Senator Charles Carrico Sr. (R) would implement the election rigging plan in Virginia. Wisconsin Republican state Rep. Dan LeMahieu is behind an election rigging bill in his state. And the Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted (R) expressed support for the Republican election rigging plan.

Now, the election-rigging plan is being considered in another one of the six key states, Michigan:
Republican Gov. Rick Snyder told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he could go either way on the change and doesn't plan to push it. But he said it's a reasonable issue to debate and that he prefers leaders discuss it well before the next presidential election.

"It could be done in a thoughtful way over the next couple years and people can have a thoughtful discussion," Snyder said.

Republican leaders in the Michigan Statehouse have yet to decide whether to embrace the change there. But state Rep. Peter Lund, a Republican who introduced a bill to change the allocation system two years ago, said some Republicans might be more receptive to his bill this year following the election.
And btw, Michigan is a blue state. It supported the Democratic candidate for president in every single election for the last two decades. President Obama won the state by nearly 10 points last November. And yet, if the Republican election-rigging plan had been in effect last year, Romney would have likely won a majority of the state's electoral votes.

Folks, this is the Republican plan to win future elections, cheat. Instead of changing their policies to favor the majority and the changing demographics in the country, they want to just change the rules on how electoral votes are awarded so a Republican can win the White House again.

And if O'Reilly were an actual non-partisan Independent journalist (as he claims to be) he would be all over this story and not let up until the Republicans were shamed into leaving the electoral vote rules we have now in place.

GOP Admits They Won The House Using Gerrymandering
By: Steve - January 19, 2013 - 2:00pm

Now this is a real scandal and a real news story, so where is O'Reilly on this, silent as a mouse. But if the Democrats had done it O'Reilly would report it, scream bloody murder and call for the Feds to investigate. The Republicans basically admit to cheating to gain a majority in the house and O'Reilly ignores the entire story.

In a classic Kinsley gaffe, the Republican State Leadership Committee released a report boasting that the only reason the GOP controls the House of Representatives is because they gerrymandered congressional districts in blue states.

The RSLC's admission came in a shockingly candid report entitled, "How a Strategy of Targeting State Legislative Races in 2010 Led to a Republican U.S. House Majority in 2013."

It details how the group spent $30 million in the 2010 election cycle to sweep up low-cost state legislature races in blue states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Their efforts were so successful, in fact, that Republicans went from controlling both legislative chambers in 14 states before Election Day to 25 states afterward.

In turn, the new Republican majorities would be tasked with redrawing congressional districts for the 2012 election. "The rationale was straightforward," the report reads. "Controlling the redistricting process in these states would have the greatest impact on determining how both state legislative and congressional district boundaries would be drawn."

This effort paid off in spades. As the RSLC's report concedes, a majority of Americans voted for Democratic congressional candidates on Election Day, but only through the miracle of gerrymandering did Republicans wind up controlling the House. From the report:
Farther down-ballot, aggregated numbers show voters pulled the lever for Republicans only 49 percent of the time in congressional races, suggesting that 2012 could have been a repeat of 2008, when voters gave control of the White House and both chambers of Congress to Democrats.

But, as we see today, that was not the case. Instead, Republicans enjoy a 33-seat margin in the U.S. House seated yesterday in the 113th Congress, having endured Democratic successes atop the ticket and over one million more votes cast for Democratic House candidates than Republicans.

The only analogous election in recent political history in which this aberration has taken place was immediately after reapportionment in 1972, when Democrats held a 50 seat majority in the U.S. House of Representatives while losing the presidency and the popular congressional vote by 2.6 million votes.
The report credits gerrymandered maps in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin with allowing Republicans to overcome a 1.1 million popular-vote deficit. In Ohio, for instance, Republicans won 12 out of 16 House races "despite voters casting only 52 percent of their vote for Republican congressional candidates."

The situation was even more egregious to the north. "Michiganders cast over 240,000 more votes for Democratic congressional candidates than Republicans, but still elected a 9-5 Republican delegation to Congress."

Though party officials typically dance around the unseemly issue of gerrymandering, this report is surprisingly candid and unabashed. The RSLC, after all, is tasked with winning control of state legislatures in large part so they can redraw congressional maps to the GOP's benefit after redistricting.

Because most states allow partisan redistricting, it is understandable that the RSLC would release a report boasting of its gerrymandering success that "paved the way to Republicans retaining a U.S. House majority in 2012."

And if O'Reilly was a real non-partisan Independent journalist (as he claims to be) he would report this story and demand the gerrymandering be stopped. But he is not a real journalist, he is a partisan hack who likes the way Republicans cheat to get more House seats, because he is one of them and he hates all the Democrats in Congress.

The Friday 1-18-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 19, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Are we the people responsible for the chaos that is enveloping America? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The folks are indeed responsible for the government they get, and Americans now are faced with a very serious economic situation. This week the Government Accountability Office released its annual audit of the U.S. government. The conclusion: 'Absent policy changes, the federal government continues to face an unsustainable fiscal path.'

If the feds do not stop the wild spending and do not reform Medicare and Social Security, the U.S. dollar will collapse. That means all of our savings and investments and everything else will blow up before our eyes. Chances are that you will not hear about the GAO report except on this program because the liberal media will not tell you what is going on.

President Obama does not want to cut federal spending or entitlements and the media loves President Obama, so the folks be damned! Many Americans are too lazy to pay attention to their country; they're selfish, caught up in individual pursuits. Thus the federal government has been allowed by we the people to get out of control.

So I have to play Paul Revere here, I have to continue to tell you the truth. But many Americans will not listen and many are not smart enough to even care. Disaster could be coming!
And that my friends is right-wing garbage, there is no chaos, the stock market is doing fine, jobs are coming back, and the economy is doing better. What O'Reilly spewed out in his TPM was nonsense meant to scare you away from supporting President Obama and the Democrats in the policies they want to put in place. No disaster is coming, they will figure out how to cut back on the debt, and things will be just fine.

So what did O'Reilly do then, have a balanced debate with 2 non-partisan economic policy experts, haha, of course not. He had the biased right-wing hack from Fox News Lou Dobbs on to agree with his nonsense, and answer why President Obama's approval rating is still around 50%.

Dobbs said this: "It's inexplicable. Here's a man who has raised taxes on nearly everybody and who has run up four consecutive trillion-dollar deficits. He has an economy that is not being returned to prosperity; 23-million people are still unemployed. I think people are smart enough to know there's a problem, but we have a national media that is part of this coalition of dependence on the Democratic Party. There's no aggressive watchdog that would normally be attacking the misadventures of those in power, we're in a new era."

Then O'Reilly had the king of liars on for more right-wing propaganda, Karl Rove was on to spin and lie about President Obama, because that is what he is paid to do, even though he is always wrong, Fox signed him for 4 more years, proving they do not care about reporting the truth.

Rove said this: "Most presidents in their second term seem liberated from partisanship, but President Obama seems to be more confrontational, more partisan, more willing to fight Republicans and conservatives. Most second-term presidents try to achieve big things for the country by bringing people together, but not this guy!"

And that is just laughable, because Bush was more partisan in his 2nd term than his 1st, and Rove was with him doing it. Not to mention, Obama can not be less partisan because the Republicans refuse to deal with him.

Rove also talked about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who blasted the NRA for mentioning President Obama's children in a TV spot, saying this: "Remember that Governor Christie is from a blue state and he has to get reelected this year. He has a legitimate beef with the ad, but I think the underlying point of the NRA ad is a valid one. There is an elite in America which is comfortable with having guards in private schools but is dismissive of the idea that we ought to have law enforcement officials with guns in other schools as well."

Then O'Reilly cried about some so-called liberal hypocrisy, he claimed that some liberal Americans were ecstatic when a New York newspaper printed the names and addresses of gun owners, but object when suspected illegal aliens are asked to provide identification.

Democrats Zerlina Maxwell and Emily Tisch Sussman were on to straighten him out. Sussman said this: "Rights come with responsibility, and that is the crux of the argument here. Gun owners understand that there limitations to the Second Amendment. There's always a balance between individual rights and the public good."

Maxwell dismissed the notion that she and her fellow liberals are being hypocritical, saying this: "I do not see the hypocrisy here. An 11-year-old can find the names of gun owners with a Google search, it's part of the public record. So while I question the judgment of the newspaper, they didn't do something illegal. We on the left prioritize people's privacy."

Then Andrew Seidel was on, whose atheist organization wants to end the tradition of having presidents sworn in with one hand on the Bible.

Seidel said this: "The Constitution does not say anything about the words 'so help me God,' it says 'I will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.' George Washington did not say 'so help me God' at the end of his oath. Neither our laws nor our morality are founded upon the Bible; religion gets its morality from us, not the other way around. The Bible exhibits a Bronze Age morality that treats women as chattel and human beings as property."

O'Reilly reminded Seidel that America is based on a religious tradition, saying this: "Washington peppered his inaugural address with the word 'God' because the Founding Fathers based the Constitution on inherent rights from God. When you get to Heaven you can debate George Washington."

And I would say they are both sort of right. I do not care if they use the bible to be sworn in, but I also do not buy this stuff about the Constitution being based on rights from God.

Then 2 more right-wing stooges were on to give their opinion on the news, with no liberals for balance. Greg Gutfeld and Bernard McGuirk started with Lance Armstrong's admission that he was doping all along.

Gutfeld said this: "He realizes his career is over, which is good because there's nothing more embarrassing than a man who is closing in on 50 and still wearing spandex. But he's also very smart, he understands that in America shame is dead! You can get away with anything and still have a second career. He will get a reality show, he will get a book deal, he will get a fragrance called 'I'm Sorry.'"

McGuirk claimed that Armstrong had financial reasons for coming clean, saying this: "He's doing it because the whole thing reached critical mass and all he wants to do is salvage some of the many millions of dollars that he made. Otherwise he'd wind up as a bicycle messenger on the streets of Manhattan."

McGuirk also speculated that Armstrong was less than truthful in his interview with Oprah Winfrey, saying this: "He denied coercing his teammates, he denied bribing people, and he denied doing steroids after 2005. He was lying all over the place and I don't think he helped himself at all."

In a 2nd segment McGuirk and Gutfeld discussed the story of Notre Dame football player Manti Te'o and his late but non-existent girlfriend.

McGuirk said this: "Anyone who has an imaginary girlfriend for three years boggles the mind. Gutfeld probably has had imaginary girlfriends on the Internet for 20 minutes at a clip, but that's understandable."

Gutfeld said this: "Either he was hoaxed or he was in on the hoax and we still don't know. But any journalist could have figured this out, Notre Dame could have figured out that this was not a dame."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Winning the debate. Billy said this: "When you're confronted by people who don't see things the same way as you, stand your ground, but keep your cool and rely on your wit."

Kelly Debunks O'Reilly & Napolitano On Doctors & Guns
By: Steve - January 19, 2013 - 10:00am

Here we go again, O'Reilly and Judge Napolitano from Fox News were both caught spewing out right-wing talking point lies from the loons at the NRA, and for once Megyn Kelly stopped them by debunking their lies about doctors and guns.

Kelly debunked the right-wing media myth that President Obama will require doctors to ask their patients if they have guns -- a myth pushed by her Fox colleague Andrew Napolitano and Bill O'Reilly. In fact, as Kelly noted, Obama's provision simply reiterates that doctors may legally ask patients about a potential lack of gun safety in their homes.

On The O'Reilly Factor Thursday, Bill O'Reilly discussed Obama's recent executive orders on guns, claiming that the "most controversial part of the president's vision" is a directive clarifying that doctors are not prohibited from asking patients about firearms.

After airing clips of Obama and NRA president David Keene speaking about the directive, O'Reilly said that "if it's true that doctors and nurses are being directed by the federal government to make inquiries about guns in some cases, that's troubling."

Megyn Kelly agreed that such a requirement would be troubling if it existed, but explained that "it's not true."

Kelly went on to say that Obama's executive order only clarifies that "Obamacare does not prohibit the doctors from asking patients about guns" "if they want to ask."

She went on to report that during the passage of health care reform, the NRA successfully lobbied to ensure the bill contained a provision "saying patients do not have to answer if they are asked by their doctor whether they have a gun."

So it's real simple, there is nothing to the story, it's all lies and right-wing propaganda put out by the NRA, Andrew Napolitano, and Bill O'Reilly. Because the NRA made sure the Obamacare bill had a provision that said you do not have to tell your doctor if you have a gun or not.

And yet, the NRA, Napolitano, and O'Reilly, put those lies out anyway. What makes it even worse for O'Reilly is that he claims to be a non-partisan Independent who has no bias, and who never uses right-wing talking points.

Then (for about the millionth time) he was caught putting out known lies and right-wing talking points. When a simple google search could have found the truth about the story from any personal or business computer with internet access.

Fox's senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano fearmongered over this executive action on Fox & Friends, claiming that the provision will lead to physicians' being required to report patients' gun ownership to the government.

Other right-wing media figures pushed similar distortions: Rush Limbaugh claimed that doctors are "being ordered, instructed to talk to patients and get information from them about gun ownership, where they are in their house, who has access to them, where the ammunition is kept."

The Drudge Report also reported on it with a misleading headline that said this: "War On Crazy: Obama Deputizes Doctors."

So O'Reilly is right in line with all the far-right loons (Limbaugh & Drudge) in the country who do nothing but put out right-wing lies and talking points, even as he claims he is not one of them, and that he never uses right-wing talking points.

The Thursday 1-17-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 18, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Manti Te'o and evil on the Internet. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: All of us are being influenced by the Internet, which has changed everything. And as you know, if you use the Internet, there's tremendous evil available at your fingertips. Pedophilia, sadism, drug dealing, and even rape can all be accessed on sick Internet sites.

Chat rooms can promote discourse that is crude and malevolent. In addition, millions of people are developing emotional relationships over the 'net with strangers, which can lead to disaster. Enter 21-year-old Manti Te'o, captain of the Notre Dame football team. Last October he told the world that his grandmother and the girlfriend he met on the 'net both died in the same week.

The nation sympathized with Manti Te'o and he became even more famous. But there's one problem: There was no girlfriend, she never even existed. Te'o and Notre Dame claim he is the victim of an Internet fraud called 'catfishing,' which is when a person develops a romantic relationship with another person using fake credentials.

But that's hard to believe; if the 'love of your life' dies, don't you go to the funeral? So once again the Internet is at the center of a national controversy and that should be a cautionary tale for all of us. Do not allow the machines to take control of your life! Evil operates best when it's hidden, and the Internet is a great place to hide.
The TPM was called Manti Te'o and evil on the Internet, but this could have been done by Te'o himself, so we do not know if it was evil on the internet yet. The internet is not evil, but there are people who use the internet to do evil things, and yet, O'Reilly claims the internet is evil, which is just ridiculous, and more right-wing spin from a so-called Independent.

Then the Fox News sports analyst Jim Gray was on, who covered Notre Dame football for six years.

Gray said this: "There are an awful lot of holes in this story, and everything indicates that, yes, Manti Te'o is a fraud. His 'girlfriend' was in a car accident and almost died and he didn't visit her? Then she had leukemia and he didn't visit her or go to the funeral? You can't make this stuff up, but somebody just did. One teammate has come out and said that Te'o played up this entire story and they all knew this wasn't his girlfriend."

So O'Reilly provided one possible reason for Te'o's alleged deceit, saying this: "Being the object of sympathy, his commercial appeal obviously rose. He's in a lot of trouble if it's proven that he is the perpetrator of the fraud, and I suspect this is not going to turn out well for the young man."

Then O'Reilly promoted a dishonest right-wing talking point by the NRA that says Obama is going to have doctors ask everyone if they have a gun in their home. Here is the name of the segment from his website: "President Obama asks doctors to help with gun violence."

And before Megyn Kelly talked about it and debunked the lies from O'Reilly, he implied it was true and that Obama was doing it. Then Kelly shut him down with the facts.

Kelly said this: "What President Obama said is that Obamacare does not prohibit doctors from asking about guns, but patients don't have to answer if their doctor asks whether they have a gun. Doctors can ask anything, but they can not make you disclose your private security choices. I don't see this as an issue."

But the crazy O'Reilly would not let it die and claimed that gun owners should still have a reason to be concerned, saying this: "The President specifically pointed out that he is giving authority to school officials and health officials to get into this area, which raises red flags."

Then former Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a lifelong liberal was on. And he expressed total support for President Obama's gun control initiatives, saying this: "We have a crisis of security, and people don't feel safe. Maybe none of the laws we pass are going to make Americans safer, but the President has to act and Congress should consider the proposals he extended."

O'Reilly then advised Kucinich that many members of his own party will never support gun bans, saying this: "Many Democrats are caught because the people in their state don't want limitations on certain weapons. Al Franken is about as left wing as you can get, but he is from Minnesota and he won't answer whether he'll support a ban on assault rifles."

Then O'Reilly had the far-right loon Laura Ingraham on to speculate about Colin Powell and his comments about racism on the right, with no proof at all that what she claims is true. O'Reilly claims to have a no speculation zone and to never allow speculation, then he lets the crazy Ingraham speculate her ass off.

After former Secretary of State Colin Powell implied that many Republicans are racially bigoted, radio talk show host Laura Ingraham speculated that Powell coordinated his attack with the White House. O'Reilly actually said she "theorized" instead of speculated when it's the same damn thing.

Ingraham said this: "He said there's a 'dark vein of intolerance' running through the Republican Party, with the obvious implication that Republicans are xenophobic and uncomfortable with minorities. That set up the President for the next day when he attacked Republicans on the debt ceiling. Colin Powell is a very sophisticated player and I don't think he does anything without thinking it through. What he said is in line with what liberal commentators say - every time you criticize Barack Obama there is someone saying you just don't like the fact that a black man is in power. It's ridiculous!"

And Colin Powell is right, the dirty little secret that's not so secret is that a hell of a lot of the Republican base are racist, and they do not like gay people either. O'Reilly and Ingraham just refuse to admit it, when it's everywhere on the internet, they ignore it and pretend it's not there. In fact, I monitor some big right-wing discussion boards like and the racism and gay hate is all over the place in their postings.

Then 2 psychologists Bonny Forrest and Wendy Walsh were on to analyze the disturbing trend of children sending sexually explicit photos and text messages.

Walsh said this: "It's child pornography, and these pictures wind up on websites where they are downloaded by pedophiles. Children need to be taught that they are creating pornography when they send these photographs of themselves. We live in a highly-sexualized culture where sex is used to sell every product, even to children and teens, and we have the access to technology. The final piece is that young people today do not have the relationship skills to actually relate so they start texting relationships."

Despite the many perils of sexting, Forrest ridiculed the notion that kids should be threatened with arrest, saying this: "Kids in middle school used to send love letters or pass notes, but this is just a love letter on a text. This is a time in adolescent brain development when emotions rule and reasoning hasn't come in yet. The only solution is parenting!"

And I would go by the Republican policy on this, keep the Government out of it, and let the Parents deal with their own kids. Earth to O'Reilly, it's also a little creepy for an old guy like you to even be reporting on it. And if two 15 year old kids want to send a text or pics to each other they should be allowed to, in a so-called free country.

Then Jesse Watters was on for his lame non-news segment, he asked a few folks to name the best movie of all time. Here are some of the replies: "One of my favorites is Fight Club, one of those twisted kind of movies" ... "Shawshank Redemption, who didn't cry when they saw it?" ... "Anchorman, because Will Ferrell is a legend" ... "Bridesmaids is nonstop laughter" ... "Pulp Fiction really revolutionized story telling."

Back in the studio, O'Reilly cried that the respondents displayed a disturbing lack of perspective, saying this: "Most of those people were younger, but Will Ferrell!! They don't have the history and they don't know, but American film is part of our culture."

Billy was shocked nobody said Marlon Brando. Earth to O'Reilly, they do not even know who Marlon Brando is, you old fool.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Web of deceit. Billy said this: "Be wary of the Internet and always remember that there are no standards in cyberspace."

To which I would add this: Be wary of Bill O'Reilly and Fox News, because they have no journalistic standards.

Another Right-Wing Nut Says God Wants You To Use Guns
By: Steve - January 18, 2013 - 10:30am

Now I have heard everything, this far-right loon said God wants you to use guns, even though guns were not even around in the days of the bible. And I would bet that if God was here now he would say turn your guns in and do not use those guns for anything. Because God was a man of peace.

Guns were not around in the days of the bible, but that isn't stopping one California assemblyman from making the assertion that firearms are "essential to living the way God intended."

Republican Assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R) floated the theory that God wants Americans to own weapons (and added his heated criticism of President Obama's gun violence prevention proposals) during an appearance on a Christian talk show.

Assemblyman Tim Donnelly told a Christian talk radio show The Bottom Line on Wednesday, saying this:
DONNELLY: Guns are used an average of 3 million times a year according to the Clinton Justice Department. That's like 6,900 times a day. That's the high end of the statistics, other people say it's only 200 times a day.

Whatever that number is, they are used to defend human life. They are used to defend our property and our families and our faith and our freedom, and they are absolutely essential to living the way God intended for us to live.

All Obama's plan will do is make it more costly and more difficult for law-abiding citizens to exercise their Constitutional right. We must hold criminals, not inanimate steel objects, accountable for their actions.
Except Donnelly's insane argument is disputed by other religious Christians, who point to a biblical quote against guns: -- Isaiah 2:4, says "They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

Rubio Claims Obama Does Not Believe In 2nd Amendment
By: Steve - January 18, 2013 - 10:00am

Florida Senator Marco Rubio was the first person to criticize President Obama's violence prevention plan on Wednesday, issuing a statement claiming that "Guns are not the problem; criminals with evil in their hearts and mentally ill people prone to violence are."

In the hours that followed, Rubio appeared on a slate of conservative TV and radio shows to articulate his opposition to any efforts to limit access to assault weapons or high-capacity magazine, arguing that the policies "don't work" and wouldn't have prevented massacres like the shooting in Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Rubio argued that any gun restrictions would be ignored by criminals. "The only people who follow the law are people who follow the law," Rubio told Fox News Bill O'Reilly. "Criminals don't care what the law is. They ignore the law. That's why they are criminals."

He went further, suggesting that Obama was exploiting the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut to infringe on the Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens:
RUBIO: I actually think the president just doesn't have the guts to admit it, he is not a believer in the Second Amendment although he states that he is. And that's what I'm saying. The Second Amendment is in the Constitution.

I didn't write the Constitution. Neither did you, neither did he. If he doesn't want the Second Amendment to be in the Constitution or he wants to reform the Second Amendment, then have the guts to admit that.
"I have questions whether or not he's truly committed to the Second Amendment," Rubio said during an interview with Laura Ingraham, adding that the administration is testing how they can infringe on it.

But the Constitution permits a broad range of gun safety measures. As conservative Justice Antonin Scalia concluded in Heller v. DC, "the government can restrict ownership of dangerous and unusual weapons and that nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

The Wednesday 1-16-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 17, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Guns and the federal government. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Because I am a simple man, I am going to frame a very complex issue in the clearest way possible. First, gun control will not stop crazy people from committing murders; there are more than 300-million guns in the USA right now, so thugs are going to get them.

Talking Points has no problem with background checks or gun registration, but these things should be decided by the individual states, not the federal government.

What President Obama can do is make all gun crimes federal crimes, and Congress can forbid individuals from crossing state lines with certain kinds of weapons. Take a look at Chicago, which has banned handguns. More people were murdered with guns last year than were killed among coalition forces in Afghanistan, so obviously the gun ban in Chicago doesn't work.

What would work is a ten-year mandatory federal prison term for anyone convicted of any gun crime in America. That's how you keep guns off the street, and if you don't believe me, just take a look at how drastically the violent crime rate has fallen in the USA over the past decade because of strict mandatory prison terms for chronic criminals."
Then O'Reilly had the Republican Senator Marco Rubio on, who assessed the President's proposals.

Rubio said this: "By the admission of the White House, what they proposed today would have done nothing to prevent what happened in Connecticut or Colorado. The issue America faces is not guns, it's violence, and the fundamental question is what's happening in our culture and our society that is leading people to commit these atrocities."

Which is nothing but a giant load of right-wing spin, the issue is guns, and the size of ammo clips, moron.

The crazy Rubio also said this: "In Florida we have something called '10-20-Life.' If a crime is committed and you're in possession of a gun, it's a mandatory 10 years; if you pull out that gun, it's a mandatory 20 years; and if you use that gun, you are going away for life. So criminals who use guns are in jail."

The insane Rubio even said this: "I actually think the President is not a believer in the Second Amendment."

So after all that right-wing propaganda O'Reilly had him back for a second segment, where Rubio outlined his vision for immigration reform, saying this: "The headline is that we need legal immigration, but we also have a right to have immigration laws. We have a problem in that our legal immigration system is antiquated and needs to be modernized. We also need real enforcement, which includes improving the infrastructure at the border and tracking people when they come into the country and when they leave."

Rubio went on to explain how his plan would deal with the millions of illegal immigrants already in the country, saying this: "If you've committed a serious crime you're going to be deported. If you haven't, you have to come forward and pay back taxes and fines and you have to know English. If you do those things, you get a work permit that allows you to be in this country legally."

Then Kirsten Powers and Margie Omero were on to continue the gun discussion. Powers said this: "I thought Marco Rubio was demagoguing and it was disappointing. He said the President doesn't believe in the Second Amendment and I don't think there's any evidence of that. Background checks should be federal - there are 32 states that still have this 'gun show loophole' where you don't have to get a background check."

In fact, President Obama has even said he does believe and support the 2nd amendment, so basically Rubio was lying and not once did O'Reilly say that's speculation I do not allow, and where is your proof.

Omero also called for a greater federal role in gun control, saying this: "You're right that there should be increased penalties for people who commit gun crimes. Background checks and registration should be national, not up to the states, and even 50% of Republicans support a ban on high-capacity magazines."

O'Reilly also said the states should have the right to decide their own gun laws, which makes him a massive hypocrite, because when states decide to make marijuana legal O'Reilly says it is wrong and that the Feds should keep it illegal. Not to mention this, the police do not want 50 different gun laws, they want 1 federal gun law that covers all 50 states, so O'Reilly is going against the will of the police and the people.

Then James Rosen and Carl Cameron were on with some inside information on President Obama's second inaugural speech. Rosen said this: "We're always told that the President is principally writing this himself, with some input from his speechwriters, and that's the fiction that was conveyed to me this week. I'm told he will address our seemingly broken politics, and Democrats tell me they want to make sure that no one seems to be spiking the football."

Which is just more speculation with no proof, and O'Reilly allowed it. This right-wing moron James Rosen has no proof at all that Obama did not write the speech.

Cameron predicted that President Obama is preparing to take the gun issue directly to the American people, saying this: "He's going to go right back to the campaign trail, with lots of the same pomp and circumstance. We'll see rallies and town halls and lots of big gun control money on TV screens. On the other side, the NRA is planning a big ad blitz of its own."

Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on because he is just a lame has-been comedian that should not be on a so-called hard news show.

Then Juliet Huddy was on to discuss a conservative organization that invited some outspoken gun control supporters to put a sign reading "Gun Free Home" on their property, the anti-gun folks almost unanimously declined.

Which makes sense, why would you want to tell any possible criminals that you do not have a gun in your house, that would be just stupid.

Huddy elaborated on the ploy, which was designed to expose anti-gun fanatics as hypocrites, saying this: "None of the people would put the sign up, and these are people who have been very vocal in favor of stronger gun control. This is one of those YouTube videos that everyone starts talking about. A lot of people thought the video was successful and clever and well-executed."

And those people are called right-wing gun nuts.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Truck for sale. Billy said this: "If you're well-heeled and looking to help a great cause, consider bidding on President George W. Bush's pickup truck, which will be auctioned off this weekend. Proceeds from the auction will help the families of wounded veterans."

Republican Joe Scarborough Slams New NRA Political Ad
By: Steve - January 17, 2013 - 10:00am

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough strongly criticized a recent NRA advertisement that politicized the security of President Obama's children.

The NRA ad called Obama an "elitist hypocrite" for allowing for his children to be guarded by armed Secret Service agents while not immediately endorsing the NRA's call for armed guards in every school.

Scarborough, who as a Congressman was a strong supporter of the NRA, responded to the ad saying this: "what's wrong with these people?"

He continued, pointing out that once Obama decided to run for president, his children "have targets on their backs." Scarborough also said that the NRA is now a "fringe organization with millions of mainstream members." He concluded by saying the ad was "frightening and over the line."

What did O'Reilly say about the ad, nothing, he totally ignored it. But if a liberal group had run an ad attacking the children of a Republican President O'Reilly would have been all over it like stink on you know what. In fact, when Bush was the President any time the Bush children were mentioned O'Reilly reported it and said they should be left alone.

The Tuesday 1-15-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 16, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The Culture War goes world wide. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: I have been reporting that America is moving to the left very quickly; President Obama's reelection has emboldened many committed liberals and they are pressing their advantage in areas like taxpayer-funded abortion, legal narcotics, and gay marriage. Overseas, the same thing is going on.

In Rome on Sunday, a group of gay activists stripped off their shirts to reveal the words 'in gay we trust.' The Pope was in the middle of a public prayer as the protesters tried to shout him down.

In France, the new socialist president has vowed to enact gay marriage. That has angered some traditional French citizens, including the sizeable Muslim population, and French protesters took to the streets saying they want traditional marriage upheld.

Here in the USA, traditional forces are scattered while the left is better financed, better organized, and more motivated. If traditional Americans want to stop the trend, they have to do it at the ballot box and they have to convince younger Americans, minorities, and apathetic people that the country is heading for disaster.

If you look at American history, some of our greatest accomplishments were driven by liberal leaders, but now we're looking at an emerging nanny state, libertine social policies, the decline of religion, and incredible selfishness. If traditional people don't begin standing up, we will become Sweden, No question about it.
Hey O'Reilly, the people did stand up, in the last 2 elections. And they told you they do not want your right-wing policies running the country. And you are dreaming about getting younger Americans, minorities, and apathetic people to vote Republican, it's never going to happen.

Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to evaluate the state of traditional America. Crowley said this: "There are some leaders in the churches, and there are individual leaders, but we don't have any national leadership, either culturally or on the religious side. The left has been much more organized and well-financed and they've been chipping away at traditional America."

Colmes told them that traditional Americans are literally dying out, saying this: "A lot of this is generational because people are aging out of traditions. The younger generation doesn't dislike the idea that gays can get married. And there is no central figure on the right."

So Billy cried about the lack of leadership among conservatives, saying this: "Traditional Americans outnumber liberal Americans in every poll, but there's no go-to guy, no organization, while liberals have centralized under Barack Obama."

And that's a lie, because Democrats are the majority in America, O'Reilly just will not admit it. Not to mention, the Democratic majority will only increase in the future.

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to talk about Lance Armstrong, who has finally admitted that he used performance-enhancing drugs, and what legal issues cloud his future?

Wiehl said this: "He stands to lose tens of millions of dollars, Several lawsuits have already been filed, including one by his former teammate Floyd Landis, who he defamed. And that's just one of the suits."

Guilfoyle agreed that Armstrong faces years of expensive litigation and other financial woes, saying this: "There are allegations that he threatened people who tried to expose him, and that he pressured his teammates to take these blood-boosting drugs to enhance their performance. Armstrong may have to pay back $35 million because he defrauded his sponsor, the U.S. Postal Service, and it's estimated that he has already lost $150 million in future earnings."

Then John Stossel was on to talk about how President Obama may use his executive authority to enact gun legislation, a tactic that doesn't sit well with Stossel.

Stossel said this: "This executive order idea can be really abused. Think what prior presidents have done - Nixon enacted wage and price controls and JFK started the Peace Corps with executive orders."

Stossel also claimed that gun bans, which tend to be popular among liberals, are totally ineffectual, saying this: "Nothing tells the left that banning things won't work, they say, 'Congress must do something!' But the Centers for Disease Control looked at 51 studies of gun laws and could not find anything that worked."

Billy agreed that bans don't work, but added this: "I favor background checks and the government knowing who has certain rifles."

Then the biased right-wing hack Charles Krauthammer was on, who theorized that the President is hoping to permanently damage the GOP.

Krauthammer said this: "He's been doing this ever since Election Day. His entire strategy for the 'fiscal cliff' was to split the Republicans, his offers had nothing to do with solving the fiscal issues. He's shown no interest in reducing the debt since the day he was elected in 2008, he's never talked about any structural cuts in entitlements. His strategy is to split, fracture, and neuter Republicans in the House because they are all that stand between him and total dominance of Washington in his second term."

O'Reilly concluded that President Obama has two tremendous advantages, saying this: "The media will generally support everything he does, and there is a lack of anyone in the Republican Party who can stand up to him."

Then 2 more biased right-wing hacks were on, Col. Ralph Peters and Col. David Hunt. They claim France has dispatched fighting troops to its former colony Mali, whose government is under attack from Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels.

Peters said this: "While we bogged ourselves down in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has been spreading around the world. And nowhere have they had more success than Mali, where they control an area larger than Texas."

Hunt added that the French need and deserve American assistance, saying this: "We were in there training Mali special forces for a couple of years and we are there helping with communications and logistics. The French can not do this operation in an area that large without our help."

And finally, the lame and worthless Factor tip of the day called: Nature's power. Billy said this: "When you're out enjoying our natural surroundings, whether on the water or in the woods, be ultra-aware of what's going on around you because Mother Nature can be a powerful force. "

Crazy Lou Dobbs Claims Obama Will Take Your Guns Away
By: Steve - January 16, 2013 - 10:00am

And this right-wing nut Lou Dobbs is a Factor regular, which makes O'Reilly as bad as he is for giving him a platform to spew out his right-wing propaganda.

Monday Lou Dobbs pushed the extreme conspiracy theory that President Obama wants to destroy the Second Amendment as a first step in eliminating the entire Bill of Rights. Even though President Obama has consistently voiced his support for the Second Amendment, including during the Monday press conference that Dobbs referenced on his show.

During his program, Dobbs aired a partial clip of Obama saying at the press conference, "The issue here is not whether or not we believe in the Second Amendment. The issue is: Are there some sensible steps that we can take to make sure that somebody like the individual in Newtown can't walk into a school and kill innocent people."

Dobbs responded by claiming that Obama is "so committed to constraining or dismissing outright our Second Amendment rights, it makes you wonder why he's not ridding the Constitution of the First Amendment as well."

He later said this: "You've got to wonder why the president doesn't double down in his assault on the Constitution, taking on not only the Second, but the First Amendment, the Fourth, the Fourteenth."

Dobbs then speculated that the reason Obama has "begun with the Second Amendment" is because "without our rights under the Second Amendment, removing the rest of our Bill of Rights would be a lot easier."

But if you look at the context of Obama's comments it clearly shows that Obama was not "dismissing outright" Second Amendment rights.

In response to a reporter's question about potential government actions to reduce gun violence, Obama said this: "I think that those of us who look at this problem have repeatedly said that responsible gun owners, people who have a gun for protection, for hunting, for sportsmanship, they don't have anything to worry about." He also said that he believes we can reduce gun violence "in a sensible way that comports with the Second Amendment."

And while Obama has not yet outlined specific executive actions he will take to strengthen gun laws, none of the possible executive actions reportedly offered by the Justice Department involve restrictions on weapons that law-abiding Americans may purchase.

Earlier in his show, Dobbs responded to Obama's press conference by claiming that "left-wing advocacy groups, Democratic politicians, and the liberal national media are clearly coordinated and committed to accomplishing precisely what President Obama says they are not doing: that is, taking away our guns."

Which is just laughable, and a 100% lie from Dobbs.

The Monday 1-14-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 15, 2013 - 11:00am

O'Reilly started the show with his Top Story called: President Obama tackles debt ceiling and gun control at presser. And of course O'Reilly had the Republican Brit Hume on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest for balance.

Hume said this: "He'd be perfectly happy to get the gun control measures and the debt limit raised without Republican opposition, but if Republicans resist him, he gets an issue he can use against them. We're less than two years away from a mid-term election and I believe he thinks it's possible for him to win back the House for his party."

O'Reilly then portrayed the strategy as Machiavellian, saying this: "The President says he won't compromise on the debt ceiling, and that if Republicans don't raise it he'll do it by executive order. So if the Republicans pass the debt ceiling, they're weakened, and if they oppose it, he can demonize them. It's a really smart political strategy."

And what neither Hume or O'Reilly never point out is that Obama has the majority of the people on his side, which is the way it is supposed to work. The President is supposed to represent the people, so that is what he is doing, and if he has to go around all the Republican a-holes to do it, I say more power to you. O'Reilly calls it a power grab, when in fact, he is just doing what the will of the people want, which is what an honest President should do.

Then O'Reilly had his TPM called: Media largely ignores the Al Gore-Al Jazeera deal. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The network news pretty much ignored Al Gore selling his far-left cable network to Al Jazeera; MSNBC in prime time didn't mention it at all. But what if Mitt Romney had sold one of his companies to Al Jazeera? Do you think the national news media would have ignored it?

They would have been hysterical, proving again how corrupt the national media really is. The same standards of reportage are not applied to Republicans and Democrats. Al Gore sold out his principles to people who are unfriendly to human rights, who make massive money trafficking in oil, and who couldn't care less about Gore's big passion, global warming.

Al Gore is an unbelievable hypocrite, but you would not know that by watching the network news. The implication of that is huge: No longer are we getting fair news coverage from many broadcast operations. We are living in a complicated age where the federal government is amassing enormous power over all our lives.

The harsh truth is that the American press, which is supposed to look out for all the folks, often ignore stories that go against their guys. And since the national media is overwhelmingly liberal, conservative Americans are getting hammered.
And the reason the media has mostly ignored the Al Gore story is because it's a non-story. Nobody cares who he sold his network to, except partisan right-wing loons that are making a big deal of it. Earth to O'Reilly, nobody cares about this story but you.

Then the far-right spin doctor Bernie Goldberg was on to discuss it, with no guest to provide an opposing point of view.

Goldberg said this: "Isn't it interesting, that the mainstream media that hyperventilated over Mitt Romney's comment that he had 'women in binders' shows virtually no interest in anything you just talked about. Al Gore said he wanted to sell to an organization that shared his journalistic values, but in 2008 Al Jazeera threw an on-air party for a Palestinian terrorist who had kidnapped an Israeli family and bashed in the head of a 4-year-old girl."

O'Reilly said that Al Gore has been hiding under his desk, saying this: "He has not provided any statement or defended himself in any way."

Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to talk about two left-leaning New York Times editorial writers who disagreed with the newspaper that published the names and addresses of gun permit holders.

Ham said this: "These are journalist ethics that are so basic that even the New York Times has them. There's a difference between information that is public and information that is newsworthy. Most people would agree that it wouldn't be a good idea to print maps with addresses and names of people on food stamps."

Williams said this: "I love the Constitution and I'm a First Amendment guy, which means that I think people who are publishing public records have a right to do so. This is America and you have a right to publish that information."

O'Reilly then accused Williams of setting up and knocking down a straw man, saying this: "No one is debating whether they have the right, they're debating the wisdom and ethics of this."

What a joke, O'Reilly once called it a violation of privacy, now he is arguing about the journalist ethics of it, of which he has none. All they did was publish some public information about gun owners, get over it and move on.

Then O'Reilly had the former Marine Cpl. Jon Hammar on, who spent four months in a Mexico prison on trumped-up gun charges before being released just before Christmas. He recounted his ordeal, which began in August as he was heading to a hunting trip in Costa Rica.

Hammar said this: "We told U.S. authorities that we had a hunting shotgun and we were trying to go through Mexico legally. They gave us some paperwork to fill out, we crossed the border, declared the weapon, and a short time after that things started going wrong and the decision came down that we were going to jail. They tried to extort money by calling my family and threatening me."

Okay, so if you do not like that, speak with your wallet and do not go to Mexico for a vacation, or buy any products made in Mexico.

Hammar added that he harbors no bitterness toward Mexico and concluded with a word of thanks, saying this: "Bill, I'd like to thank you for everything you did for me in this situation. I'd also like to thank Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Bill Nelson and all the Congress people who helped."

Then John Podhoretz was on to discuss the makers of the movie "Zero Dark Thirty" who claims they might be paying a price for the film's implication that waterboarding helped track down Osama Bin Laden. Podhoretz insisted that director Kathryn Bigelow was snubbed by the Academy Awards for political reasons.

Podhoretz said this: "They snubbed her because she is viewed as the movie's author, and the movie does not punish the characters shown doing harsh interrogation techniques. The movie is awash in ambiguity about the virtues of harsh techniques in the war on terror, but it's not tough enough for liberals. Kathryn Bigelow is the first female Oscar winner ever and this is a universally-praised movie, but the academy voters wanted to punish somebody involved with the movie."

For a no-spin zone there is sure a lot of spin. Because Podhoretz and O'Dummy have no proof of what they claim, it's all speculation, the same speculation O'Reilly claims to not allow. If she was snubbed, it's her own fault for being dishonest in the movie.

Then Adam Carolla was on to comment on a photo showing Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa with his arm draped around troubled actor Charlie Sheen at a Mexico hotel.

Carolla said this: "First of all. I don't know what the Mayor is doing in Mexico, it's kind of redundant and a waste of travel money. He could just go to the San Fernando Valley, which is essentially Tijuana. The Mayor says he just stopped and took a picture with Charlie Sheen, but Sheen says they partied for two or three hours. So who's lying? The drug-addled, prostitute shepherd Charlie Sheen? Or the guy who failed the bar exam four times and then changed his name? The city has been better since the Mayor has been gone, I wish he'd move to Mexico."

And I would say to that, who fricking cares. How is this news? And why should anyone care?

Finally, O'Reilly had the lame as ever Factor tip of the day called: Winning with grace. Billy said this: "When things are going your way, it's always a good idea to be generous and magnanimous."

Right-Wing Gun Nut Says Background Checks Are Waste Of Time
By: Steve - January 15, 2013 - 10:00am

Which is so crazy that even the Fox News host Chris Wallace was shocked he said it, not to mention, the vast majority of Americans, and about 75% of NRA members even support background checks.

Gun advocate Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners Of America, spoke out against expanding background checks for gun purchases during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, arguing that the proposal would provide Americans with a "false sense of security" and waste time. Instead, Pratt encouraged lawmakers to eliminate gun-free zones in schools and self defense.

The claim shocked host Chris Wallace, who pointed out that at least 40 percent of American gun sales occur without any screening. "What is wrong with the idea, if you get a gun whether you buy from a registered dealer or a private sale, that you have to go through background checks just in case, to find out whether somebody has one or has a mental health problem," he asked:
WALLACE: So, let's talk about universal background checks, because, I was surprised to find out, that in 40% of the sales there is no such screen on the person buying the gun. What is wrong with universal background checks?

PRATT: It is false security to think somehow we'll spot problems when there's really no way to spot these problems. Some of the most horrendous of the mass murders that have occurred recently including the one in Newtown would not have been stopped by a background check. And, so, to assume that this is going to be our firewall against...

WALLACE: I don't think anybody is saying that it is a firewall. What is wrong with the idea, if you get a gun whether you buy from a registered dealer or a private sale, that you have to go through background checks just in case, to find out whether somebody has a mental health problem?

PRATT: We are wasting our time and going in that direction when we should be talking about doing away with the gun-free zones which have been so convenient, such a magnet to those who would come and slaughter lots of people knowing no one will be legally able to defend themselves in these zones.
Under current federal law, licensed federal firearms dealers conduct background checks on gun purchasers to prevent dangerous individuals such as violent criminals or the mentally ill from obtaining weapons. Gun transfers, "private sellers" or transactions at gun shows or online are exempt from the requirement and as a result more than 6 million gun transfers every year that are unscreened.

An overwhelming majority of the public and most gun owners support requiring a criminal background check of every individual seeking to purchase a gun.

Colin Powell Calls Out GOP For Their Racism
By: Steve - January 14, 2013 - 11:00am

And btw, this is the racism O'Reilly claims they do not have, he has even said his crack staff looked and could not find any racism in the Republican party. Even though it's everywhere, and basically they did not find any because they did not want to, and O'Reilly will not admit it is out there.

On Sunday, during an appearance on Meet The Press, Colin Powell condemned the GOP's dark vein of intolerance and the party's repeated use of racial code words to oppose President Obama and rally white conservative voters.

Powell singled out former Mitt Romney surrogate and New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu for calling Obama lazy and Sarah Palin, who used slavery-era terms to describe Obama:
POWELL: There's also a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the party. What do I mean by that? I mean that they still sort of look down on minorities.

When I see a former governor say that the President is shuckin and jivin, that's A racial era slave term. When I see another former governor after the president's first debate where he didn't do very well, says that the president was lazy. He didn't say he was slow. He was tired. He didn't do well. He said he was lazy.

Now, it may not mean anything to most Americans, but to those of us who are African American, the second word is shiftless and then there's a third word that goes along with that.

The whole birther movement. Why do senior Republican leaders tolerate this kind of discussion within the party?
Powell added that the Republican Party is "having an identity problem," noting that its significant shift to the right has produced "two losing presidential campaigns."

"I think what the Republican Party needs to do now is a very hard look at itself and understand that the country is changed," he said. "If the Republican Party does not change along with that demographic, they are going to be in trouble."

Powell also called on Republicans to focus on a more equitable and progressive economic policies that help middle and lower income Americans, as well as immigration reform.

"Everybody wants to talk about who is going to be the candidate," Powell said. "You better think first about what the party is actually going to represent."

Judge Approves $1 Million Settlement In Pepper Spray Lawsuit
By: Steve - January 14, 2013 - 10:00am

And of course O'Reilly never reported it, even though he does a weekly legal segment on his show, because he defended the pepper spraying at the time it happened.

A federal judge on January 9th approved and finalized the $1 million settlement of a lawsuit filed by UC Davis students and recent alumni who were pepper sprayed during a protest at the University in November 2011.

The federal class-action lawsuit resulted from the shocking and widely publicized incident in which the campus police repeatedly doused seated, non-violent student demonstrators with military grade pepper spray at close range during demonstrations on November 18, 2011.

Photos and videos of UC Davis Police Lieutenant John Pike pepper spraying the students became viral, drawing attention to the repression of the Occupy movement in the U.S. and to the outrageous tactics used to repress Occupy UC Davis in particular.

"Police should never have been called out to disperse the lawful protest against steep tuition increases, police brutality against UC Berkeley protesters, and privatization of the university," said Mark E. Merin, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs.

"The University never should have used police against peaceful protesters. Perhaps the economic costs of violating students First Amendment rights to free speech and free assembly will discourage similar abuse in the future," Merin added.

"If the First Amendment means anything, it's that students should be able to exercise their free speech-rights on their college campus without being afraid of police violence," said Michael Risher, staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

"What happened on November 18 was among the worst examples of police violence against student demonstrators that we've seen in a generation. The early resolution to this lawsuit means that the students can begin the process of moving on and we can work with the University to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again at the University of California."

The lawsuit by 21 UC Davis students and alumni charged that the police violated state and federal constitutional protections, including the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, when they arrested and used excessive force against these non-violent demonstrators. The UC Regents approved the settlement in a September 13 meeting, and the settlement documents were filed with the court on September 26, 2012.

The task force that the University created to investigate and analyze the response to the protestors concluded in an extensive report that "The pepper spraying incident that took place on November 18, 2011 should and could have been prevented," and found culpability at all levels of the University administration and police force.

The terms of the settlement approved by U.S. District Court Judge John Mendez included the following:

-- The University will pay $1 million as part of the settlement. This includes a total of $730,000 to the named plaintiffs and others who were arrested or pepper-sprayed on November 18. It will also include up to $250,000 in costs and attorney fees.

-- UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi will issue a formal written apology to each of the students and recent alumni who was pepper sprayed or arrested.

-- The University will work with the ACLU as it develops new policies on student demonstrations, crowd management, and use of force to prevent anything like the November 18 pepper spray incident from ever happening again. $20,000 of the settlement will go to the ACLU for its future work with the University on these policies to protect free speech and free expression on campus.

-- The case was expanded to a class action lawsuit to make sure that anyone who was pepper-sprayed or arrested that day can be part of the settlement, even if they are not a named plaintiff. $100,000 of the total award will be set aside to compensate other individuals who were pepper-sprayed or wrongfully arrested on November 18, 2011.

-- The University will also assist students whose academic performance was adversely affected by the incident in applying for academic records adjustment.

Joe Scarborough Slams The NRA & The Gun Makers
By: Steve - January 13, 2013 - 11:00am

Last Friday Joe Scarborough accused the NRA and gun manufacturers of making "millions of dollars" off of the "slaughter" in Newtown. Gun sales have surged in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre and the White House's stated plan to tighten gun laws.

Scarborough, who is a former Republican Congressman, changed his views on guns after the killings, said that Republicans were wrong to try to block the new measures, and that they were beholden to gun manufacturers and the gun lobby.

Scarborough said this:

"This is not about protecting the Second Amendment. This is about gun manufacturers making millions and millions and millions of dollars. This is about retailers making millions and millions and millions of dollars.

Do you know how much money these people have made over the slaughter of 20 innocents in Newtown?

Do you know how much richer these rich gun manufacturers have gotten over the past month and how the NRA uses that tragedy to gin up fears and websites use that tragedy to gin up fears that they're coming to take your guns away?

Hey, got a message for you. They can't take your guns away."

And of course O'Reilly never says a word about any of it, because he does not want you to know a lot of Republicans also oppose the NRA. O'Reilly wants you to think only liberals support stricter gun laws, so he can claim Obama and the Democrats are trying a power grab. When in fact, about 75% of NRA members support background checks to buy a gun, and many Republicans also support it.

Bill O'Reilly's Fact-Free War on Planned Parenthood
By: Steve - January 13, 2013 - 10:00am

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly welcomed viewers to last night's show (1/8/13) with this: "Aborting babies at taxpayers' expense." Billy said this:
O'REILLY: "We have been taking a very hard look at a disturbing situation that may be a major violation–may be–of federal law."
He even told his viewers that the Hyde Amendment "forbids federal tax dollars from being used for abortions."

Billy said this:
O'REILLY: "Planned Parenthood says it doesn't use that money for abortion purposes, but that's hard to believe. In 2011, Planned Parenthood performed 334,000 abortions–close to half of all the abortions performed in the USA."
But that's not even close to half of the abortions performed in the United States: In 2007, the latest year the Census Department has figures for, 1.2 million pregnancies were terminated in the U.S., so Planned Parenthood performs about 25% of U.S. abortions.

O'Reilly seems to be relying on figures from the Center for Disease Control, whose voluntarily reported figures do not include four states, including California, the most populous one.

Billy also said this:
O'REILLY: "Now, Planned Parenthood will tell you that they perform prenatal services. Yet in 2011, it's estimated that fewer than 30,000 women received prenatal care from the organization. So who is kidding who here? Planned Parenthood is an abortion mill."
And now for the facts, what Planned Parenthood will actually tell you is that 3% of the services they provide are abortions, which would not qualify as an "abortion mill" at all.

More facts, most of their work has nothing to do with prenatal care. But O'Reilly must think he's doing a good job of crafting a convincing argument by choosing a big number (334,000) and putting that next to a much smaller number–30,000.

O'Reilly could have compared the number of abortions Planned Parenthood provides to the services it performs involving STDs (4.5 million), contraception (3.4 million) or cancer screening and prevention (1.3 million).

And O'Reilly has put out this right-wing propaganda before, claiming just last year that Planned Parenthood is "primarily in business to provide abortions." When only 3% of what they do is abortions.

And this isn't just about doing O'Reilly-style journalism, he wants government action to result from his misinformation, saying this: "We need a congressional investigation into the funding of Planned Parenthood."

So he puts out a bunch of lies about the number of abortions they do, then calls for a congressional investigation, when only 3% of what they do are abortions. As he claims he is not a right-wing ideologue, now that's funny. Because this is what right-wing ideologues do, spin and lie about liberal groups, if O'Reilly was not an ideologue, he would have never done this biased fact-free smear job on Planned Parenthood, for simply doing LEGAL abortions.

The Friday 1-11-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 12, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The unintended consequences of a more liberal America. Crazy O'Reilly (the right-wing ideologue) said this:
O'REILLY: I am not an ideologue; in fact, some of the people who attack me the most are far right people on talk radio. If there is a solution on the left, we'll endorse it. But now we're seeing a move to the left that does not bode well.

Nearly 50% of American households have someone receiving some kind of social assistance. In order to pay for the entitlements, the nation's yearly deficit is now more than $1-trillion. We simply can not sustain that kind of government spending, yet President Obama and his liberal allies don't seem very concerned.

On the social front, the latest stats available show there were 1.2 million abortions performed in the USA in 2008. Should the country be proud of that? Yet we see wild applause when pro-abortion zealots speak at the Democratic Convention.

On the drug front, it's a fait accompli that marijuana will be accepted, yet we have a tremendous substance abuse problem here and some people are happy that another intoxicant will be widely available.

As far as children are concerned, they can now see and hear the lowest forms of depravity on the Internet, yet public schools are virtually mandated to ignore religion. Should we be celebrating this move to the left? You make the call.
Now that's funny, if O'Reilly is not a right-wing ideologue I'm Donald Trump. Almost nobody on the right attacks O'Reilly for anything, because they agree with 99% of what he says. On the other hand, the left disagrees with O'Reilly 99% of the time. Which means he is not only a right-wing ideologue, he is a dishonest one who will not even admit it.

Just look at his guests and his fill-in hosts, they are almost all Republicans that he mostly agrees with, and the 2 fill-in hosts are both far-right stooges, Laura Ingraham and Greg Gutfeld. Not to mention O'Reilly is pro-life, and he spends 80% of his time slamming Obama and all the liberals in America, while almost never slamming any Republicans or any conservatives for anything.

Then the right-wing ideologue O'Reilly said this: "Aloha to liberalism. In an ever more liberal nation, Hawaii may rank as the most liberal state of all, with high taxation, unsustainable debt, declining religious influence, and widespread prostitution and drug use. Hawaii Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa entered the No Spin Zone and objected to The Factor's characterization of her state."

Hanabusa said this: "A major part of our Asian and Pacific Islander culture, is that we cherish our elders and we move together. We are a culture that really cares about each other, but if you want to pick on certain things in Hawaii, I'm sure you can find them."

O'Reilly then claimed that Hawaii's liberalism has fostered a culture of dependence, saying this: "I know Hawaii as well as any journalist and I love Hawaii, but you have the highest food stamp rate and the highest homeless rate in the country. You've set up an entitlement system that encourages people to get food stamps and be homeless."

So Mr. (I'm not an ideologue just slammed another liberal state) for being too liberal, while never slamming any right-wing states for being too conservative, which makes you a right-wing ideologue. Not to mention, making racist comments about asians, and insulting the people of Hawaii.

Then the right-wing ideologue O'Reilly said this: "President Obama's recent cabinet picks have been uniformly white and male, angering some of his supporters."

So what does he do, he has the far-right Radio talk show host Laura Ingraham on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest, which is something only a right-wing ideologue would do.

Ingraham said this: "We're in this perpetual mode of bean-counting in Washington, and the President brought this criticism on himself because he is in bed with all these far-left groups that use bean-counting to make themselves invulnerable to criticism. He makes such a big deal of diversity, but how about just having excellence? At least Mitt Romney had a 'binder' and he wanted to hire more women."

Then O'Reilly had Robert Corry, co-owner of one of the largest pot clubs in Colorado on to talk about the clubs.

Corry said this: "The voters of Colorado have spoken, and we want to treat marijuana like alcohol. It is much safer to treat it that way and regulate it. There are hundreds of thousands of 'alcohol clubs,' and we are just like those except we're a marijuana club. Science would say that alcohol is more detrimental to your health and your functioning. This is about freedom and we as Americans have the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness."

And of course the right-wing ideologue O'Reilly disagreed, saying he was worried that Colorado's legalization will inevitably lead to more traffic deaths, saying this: "Everybody in Denver has a car. People go to your club and then they have to drive home stoned."

Except there is one flaw in that statement from O'Dummy, most people drive just fine when they are high on pot, in fact, when I smoked pot 20 years ago I could drive as good if not better when I was high. Unlike drinking, that leads to far worse driving when drunk. So Mr. I'm not an ideologue does not even have the facts about driving while high on pot, he just made it up.

Then O'Reilly continued the discussion of intoxicants with psychologists Wendy Walsh and Bonny Forest.

Walsh said this: "I've seen CAT scans of both, and the red wine that you and I like to drink is far worse on our brains than marijuana. But you're right, they shouldn't be getting into cars until we have breathalyzers that can detect that there's marijuana in their systems."

Forest said this: "We are becoming too permissive in our society and too many people are doing that. But should adults be able to go out and have a joint if they want to? I say absolutely yes!"

Then the ideologue O'Reilly said he was worried about the effects of legalization on children, saying this: "Marijuana is an intoxicant and now children are being told it's just like a beer, it's okay. But if a child smokes marijuana, their childhood vanishes and they're altered forever."

Which is just laughable, and one of the dumbest things O'Reilly has ever said. Your childhood does not vanish from smoking a little weed. I remember more from my childhood when I smoked weed then I remember from the days when I was a drinker. So O'Reilly is just insane, and wrong about the effects of smoking weed and drinking on you. O'Reilly is a clueless right-wing idiot.

Then the right-wing ideologue O'Reilly had the 2 right-wing ideologues Bernard McGuirk and John Gibson on, with no left-wing ideologue on for balance. They scrutinized Time magazine's cover illustration of a menacing-looking Chris Christie.

McGuirk said this: "Time Magazine is a dead mag walking, it's about as relevant as Mother Jones magazine or Phil Donohue. But as far as the picture goes, it's amusing. He looks like he's sitting in a small room with Al Roker getting gastric bypass advice."

Gibson thinks Time's editors are trying to boost Christie, saying this: "This is part of the East Coast Christie love-fest that's going on. Everybody loves Tony Soprano, so why wouldn't they love Chris Christie looking like Tony Soprano? This is all part of making him even more popular as he runs for reelection."

Then they turned to Lance Armstrong, who is expected to come clean about his drug use in an upcoming interview with Oprah Winfrey. Gibson said this: "There's no reason to go on Oprah except to admit, apologize, and ask for forgiveness. He's going to say, 'It was my drive to win and I had cancer and I'm so sorry.' Oprah's going to forgive him."

McGuirk joked that Armstrong may try flattery, saying this: "He's going to tell Oprah how thin she looks and tell her that Katie Couric, Ellen DeGeneres, and Anderson Cooper together couldn't carry her jock."

Returning for a second worthless non-news segment, McGuirk and Gibson talked about ESPN sportscaster Brent Musberger, who lusted over a beauty queen in the stands during last week's BCS championship game.

Gibson said this: "This is vastly overblown, and there was no reason for ESPN for apologize. This is 'age-ism,' an old guy like Musberger shouldn't be seen lech-ing out about young girls."

McGuirk cited it as another example of media hypocrisy, saying this: "The culture is so hyper-sexualized, vulgarity is celebrated and embraced, and these thumb-sucking, spineless ESPN executives should be ashamed of themselves."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: From the feet of babes. Billy said this: "If you need a dose of laughter and good cheer, take a look at the Internet video showing a 17-month-old toddler joining his father on stage and dancing up a storm."

Which is not even a tip, it's just promoting a stupid baby dancing video. O'Reilly should dump this stupid tip of the day garbage and report some real news in it's place.

Right-Wing Media Lying That Obama Going To Take Guns Away
By: Steve - January 12, 2013 - 10:00am

This is how biased and messed up the right-wing media is, because before President Obama has even done anything about the gun death problem, the right-wingers are speculating that he is going to violate the 2nd amendment and take people's guns away from them, which is just ridiculous.

Right-wing media outlets are feverishly spinning a remark by Vice President Joe Biden that the administration is considering executive action as well as other options for curbing gun violence in order to suggest that the Obama administration plans to gut the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

Though Biden did not specify what executive action the administration is considering, the Justice Department has offered possible executive actions that could be taken, none of which involve restrictions on weapons that law-abiding Americans may purchase.

After meeting with gun violence prevention advocates on Wednesday, Biden -- who is leading a White House task force on gun violence prevention following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre -- said that the administration is "reaching out to all parties on whatever side of this debate you fall."

He promised that "the president is going to act" and added: "There is executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet."

So of course Fox News and Hannity, etc. went nuts and responded to Biden's comments by comparing President Obama to Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler and suggesting that Obama is planning to confiscate guns and gut the Second Amendment.

Even though these claims are baseless at best. Biden said the administration has not decided what executive action to take, but the Justice Department has reportedly considered executive action to ensure that more records of mental illness are included in the FBI's background check system, in addition to similar measures.

The New York Times reported that the Justice Department "did not focus on new restrictions on the kinds of weapons that most law-abiding Americans may purchase."

And btw, even if he bans assault weapons, it still does not violate or gut the 2nd amendment, because it does not say you have the right to an assault weapon or a 30 round magazine, it says you have the right to a gun, which at the time it was put in the Constitution, guns were single shot cap and ball pistols and rifles.

Not to mention, there is already precedent for presidents to take executive action for the purpose of gun violence prevention.

-- President Lyndon Johnson signed the Gun Control Act of 1968 and simultaneously signed an executive order, which regulated arms imports into the United States.

-- President George H.W. Bush used his authority under the Gun Control Act of 1968 to permanently ban the import of 43 types of weapons, including versions of the AK-47 and the Uzi.

-- President Clinton also took executive action to ban more than 50 types of assault weapons in 1998.

And none of that took guns away from anyone, it just banned future sales or ownership, they did not go to a persons house and take their guns away as the right-wing loons are speculating about.

The Thursday 1-10-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 11, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Are we seeing President Obama's big power grab? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Have you noticed a subtle change in the President's demeanor? He's always been a cocky guy, but now he's got an edge, he's almost dismissive of opposing points of view. Vice President Biden is saying the President is willing to use an executive order on a constitutional issue like guns.

In fact, the left in America has embarked on a ferocious anti-gun campaign, basically telling every Democrat to support gun control or else. Once again, the driving philosophy behind this is that America is a bad country. President Obama does believe that America is flawed and it is his duty to correct those flaws.

That's why we're not seeing much give in the President's position on government spending. He doesn't seem to care that he's run up nearly $6 trillion in four years. Congress will be asked again to raise the debt ceiling next month. Most Republicans will oppose that, asking for definite spending cuts before okaying more borrowing.

President Obama could use an executive order to ignore the debt ceiling, and I will not be surprised if he does. So what we have here is a President who believes he can do what he wants with little accountability. If this continues, there will be a constitutional crisis in America. President Obama is hell bent on changing the USA, and in his mind no one is going to stop him!
How the hell is it a power grab, all he wants to do is fix the loopholes in gun laws to make it harder for crazy people to get guns, and kill mass amounts of people with assault rifles and 30 round clips. To call that a power grab is not only ridiculous, it's insane right-wing propaganda.

O'Reilly also keeps saying Obama and the left think America is a bad country, which is a lie and totally ridiculous. Obama and the left do not think America is a bad country, and anyone who says that is an insane right-wing idiot. Just because he wants to fix a few things he thinks are wrong with the country, does not mean he hates America, that is just ridiculous. When Republicans try to fix things O'Reilly never says they hate America, he only pulls that right-wing nonsense when a liberal President does it.

Then in a shocking turn of events O'Reilly actually had a constitutional law professor (Adam Winkler) on to discuss his crazy TPM. Who of course disagreed with everything O'Reilly said.

Winkler said this: "To portray what President Obama is doing as a power grab ignores the long history of executive orders. The Constitution says the President has executive power and every single President since George Washington has used those powers to issue executive orders. Any executive order can be challenged in court, but the courts have generally found them to be consistent with the Constitution."

So even after the Constitutional Law Professor gave O'Reilly a smackdown he still claimed that President Obama is overreaching, saying this: "He's using his executive power to circumvent Congress in the gun control issue and probably in the debt ceiling issue."

Before Al Gore sold his Current TV cable network to Al Jazeera, Glenn Beck made an inquiry about buying the network. So O'Reilly had Beck on to discuss it.

Beck said this: "We thought that if we could get that number of households it would be worth it, so we called them and said we want to make an offer. Within fifteen minutes they called us back and said, 'The Vice President has a reputation and under no circumstance will he ever entertain an offer from Glenn Beck.' We never got to the table, we weren't allowed at the table. So he sold it to Al Jazeera!"

O'Reilly said this about it: "You're more loathsome to Al Gore than guys who glorify Osama Bin Laden."

Then the biased right-wing hack Lou Dobbs was on to talk more about some New York welfare recipients who obtained cash from ATMs in strip clubs and casinos.

Dobbs said this: "The number used to talk about Medicare fraud is $200 billion, and when you move to food stamps, over $2 billion is fraud. This is a government that is out of control - it doesn't have a standard of conduct and there are no benchmarks. It's because whenever anyone says we've got to do things the right way, somebody's accusing them of racism or xenophobia."

O'Reilly complained that some government officials turn a blind eye to the problem, saying this: "There's a certain segment on Capitol Hill that doesn't want to solve the welfare fraud program, they just want to open the spigots."

And of course that is nothing but the right-wing spin on it, with no Democratic guest for any balance. Making it an unbalanced worthless segment with two right-wing stooges spinning out propaganda. For the record, CBS reported that medicare fraud is $60 Billion a year, not $200 as Dobbs reported. As for food stamps fraud, Since we started using the electronic cards, the fraud rate is about 1%.

Then Jeanine Pirro was on, who was among those outed as a legal gun owner by the Journal News of Westchester County. Pirro said this: "What's amazing about this, is that the Journal News, whose business is to peddle information, has gone into a hole. We went there this morning and our crew was told to get off the property by a security guard who looked like he was armed. Then we went to the publisher's house and she slammed the door in my crew's face. These people who have spent their lives prying into your life and harassing you won't even defend themselves."

Then O'Reilly speculated about the Journal News, saying this: "I think this newspaper is through. The publicity is so bad that a lot of people aren't going to read it and advertisers are going to pull out."

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about a judge who has ordered Massachusetts to pay $700,000 in legal fees to a convicted killer who has demanded a sex change operation in prison.

Kelly elaborated on the case, saying this: "This guy murdered his wife, and was sentenced to prison. Then he decided that he is really a 'she,' and Robert wanted to become Michelle while in prison. He sued because the department of corrections denied him treatment for his gender disorder and he won the case. He then said he needed a sex change operation, and a judge has found that it is a 'necessary' procedure."

Kelly placed part of the blame on Massachusetts voters, saying this: "Scott Brown introduced legislation a couple of years ago to prevent any taxpayer money being used for gender reassignment surgery and the taxpayers voted it down!"

So the will of the people has spoken, move on O'Reilly, you jerk.

Then Jesse Watters was on to recap a few of the dumber things he saw and heard on New Year's Eve. With nothing from Fox News or any Republican of course. The hands-down winner in as most outrageous was comedienne Kathy Griffin, who pretended to engage in a sexual act with her co-host Anderson Cooper.

Watters said this: "It's ironic that ESPN had to apologize for a broadcaster calling a beauty queen pretty, but they can simulate a sex act on CNN and no one says anything. No one apologized."

Watters added that ABC destroyed its competition in the TV ratings race on the big night, saying this: "Ryan Seacrest took the torch from Dick Clark and they had 22-million viewers at the stroke of midnight, which beat all the other networks combined."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day, that are so bad I am thinking about not reporting them any more. It was called: Dinner for two. Billy said this: "Select the person, dead or alive, you would most like to dine with, and send your choice to The Factor."

Wendy's Cuts Employee Hours To Avoid Health Care
By: Steve - January 11, 2013 - 10:00am

The owner of a Wendy's franchise in Omaha Nebraska plans to cut 300 employees hours to part-time to avoid providing them health care coverage.

By moving workers to part-time status in order to avoid paying for their health benefits, the Wendy's franchise would shift the costs of insurance coverage onto hundreds of employees:
The company has announced that all non-management positions will have their hours reduced to 28 hours a week.

Gary Burdette, vice president of operations for the local franchise, says the cuts are coming because the new Obama Health Care Act requires employers to offer health insurance to employees working 32-38 hours a week.
Even though the evidence suggests this strategy may backfire on the Omaha Wendy's operations. Because last fall, Denny's quickly distanced itself from a franchisee's similar ploy, while Darden Restaurants saw a sharp 37 percent drop in business after threatening to cut workers to part-time.

Blaming Obamacare may be a popular tactic among the fast food industry, but it is a misleading one. According to the Urban Institute, Obamacare has a negligible impact on business costs, leaving large companies virtually unaffected while actually reducing costs for small businesses.

And if I lived in Omaha Nebraska I would boycott that Wendy's, even though I love their chilli.

The Wednesday 1-9-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 10, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: These are high days for liberal America and we are watching President Obama very closely to see if he will be a leader for all Americans or just left-wing folks. So far the evidence is that Mr. Obama is moving further to the left. There is no question that some kind of gun control will be embraced by the administration.

Talking Points believes that legislation will have a tough time getting through the House, but there is danger for Republicans because most Americans do want some reasonable restrictions on powerful weapons. In the same vein, immigration reform will most likely happen because the Republican Party understands it must get more Hispanic Americans to support it.

Therefore, we can expect a quasi-amnesty for law-abiding illegal aliens already in the country. On the gay marriage front, it's likely the Supreme Court will rule that individual states can decide the issue, and as for legalized marijuana, it will again depend on the state. Individual users will most likely be able to toke their lives away should they want to.

So we are becoming a very liberal nation, but that can change quickly if left-wing policies begin to create problems. Believe me when I tell you Franklin Roosevelt never envisioned the day when a guy like Richard Nixon would be elected President.
Then Geraldo was on to slam Al Gore, he recounted his own encounter with Gore, saying this: "It was around 2006 when I ran into Al Gore here in the lobby at Fox News. He looked me up and down and said, 'Look where you ended up!' It was as if he was saying to me, how could you possibly sell out to go to work for Fox News. The Vice President basically accused me of hypocrisy, saying, 'I guess you'll never bite the hand that feeds you.' He insulted me and accused me of hypocrisy."

O'Reilly added that Al Jazeera once celebrated an Islamic terrorist who had slaughtered an Israeli infant, saying this: "Al Jazeera threw a big birthday party for this guy and then Al Gore sells his network to Al Jazeera. Can you believe this guy was almost President? He's totally devoid of any moral outlook at all!"

Then Gregory Angelo was on to talk about some gay organizations that are unhappy with President Obama's decision to name former Senator Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense because Hagel once made derogatory remarks about a gay ambassador.

Angelo, of the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay conservative group, said this: "It's incumbent upon us, to hold Hagel accountable for his record on gay issues, which has not been good. We're not just looking at one instance, we're looking at the totality of his record. He supported the Defense of Marriage Act and opposed the repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell.' His record speaks for itself and this is not the time to roll the dice on his nomination."

Kirsten Powers and Cheri Jacobus were on to talk about how ESPN has apologized after sportscaster Brent Musberger gushed over beauty queen Katherine Webb during Monday night's national college football championship game.

Powers and Jacobus both defended Musberger's on-air observations. Powers said this: "ESPN should apologize for apologizing, because he did nothing wrong. There is nothing wrong with calling a woman beautiful and lovely. This is just feminism completely out of control and off the rails, a lot of liberal feminists are very shrill about this."

Jacobus agreed that Musberger was not out of line in the least, saying this: "We're talking about a woman who's a beauty queen and there was nothing inappropriate, it was purely a compliment. The apology was a result of political correctness run amok."

And for the first time ever, I agree with every word they all said, Musberger did nothing wrong and he was a punk for saying he was sorry.

Then Carl Cameron and James Rosen were on to discuss Vice President Joe Biden, who has been conferring with gun control advocates at the White House.

Cameron said this: "The Vice President has said that the President may use executive action. There's some speculation that it might be some kind of tracking database to keep track of weapons over time. The administration wants a ban on military-style assault weapons, new restrictions on high-capacity magazines, and loophole-free background checks. Gun rights groups want more emphasis on mental illness and the culture of violence, but it is clear the White House is less interested in culture than gun control."

Rosen analyzed Senator Lindsey Graham's fierce objection to President Obama's nomination of John Brennan to be CIA director, saying this: "Graham has threatened to put a block on the nomination, unless he gets better answers on the administration's response to the Benghazi attack. On Capitol Hill John Brennan is not a popular guy; they call him aloof and arrogant and they say he makes Obama look humble."

Then Dennis Miller was on for his regular weekly segment, which I do not report on because he is nothing but a lame has-been right-wing comedian, who is simply on to make jokes about liberals and Democrats, because O'Reilly likes it.

In the last segment, did you see that, Juliet Huddy was on, she investigated reports that Current TV employees are upset because their network has been sold to Al Jazeera.

Huddy said this: "I actually spoke with some insiders at Current, and a lot of them say they knew this was coming. They say it's better that Al Jazeera is coming in than CBS because Al Jazeera is likely to keep them around."

Huddy also commented on the live giant squid that has been caught on video, saying this: "We knew there were giant squid because their bodies float to the surface when they're dead, but we never actually saw one. I spoke with a scientist today and she says this is the holy grail of nature cinematography. It's a one-ton squid about the size of a bus and it's about 3,000 feet under the sea."

So how is this news? What a joke.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Grow up, guys! Billy said this: "Men over 40 should assiduously avoid a few things: pony tails, earrings, bandanas, facial tattoos, and shirts that aren't tucked in."

Greg Gutfeld Thinks Sweatshops Are Great
By: Steve - January 10, 2013 - 10:00am

This is a weekly Factor regular, and the guy that O'Reilly lets fill in for him sometimes when he is gone. He said sweatshops are not bad, and that "Sweatshops For Emerging Economies Are For Workers With No Skills"

Think about this folks, O'Reilly has said many times that you can judge a person based on who they deal with, so O'Reilly is dealing with Gutfeld on 2 levels, he has him on his show as a weekly regular guest, and he has him fill in for him sometimes when he is on vacation.

The Tuesday 1-8-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 9, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Aborting babies at taxpayers' expense. So says Bill O'Reilly, with no proof at all. The biased right-wing lunatic Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: We have been taking a hard look at a disturbing situation that may be a major violation of federal law. The Hyde Amendment forbids federal tax dollars from being used for abortion, but now it looks like pro-choice zealots have found a way to get around the law by using Planned Parenthood.

In 2001 Planned Parenthood received about $203 million taxpayer dollars; ten years later the organization received a whopping $542 million. Planned Parenthood says it doesn't use that money for abortions, but that's hard to believe.

In 2011 Planned Parenthood performed 334,000 abortions, but referred just .08% of the women who came through their doors to adoption agencies. Planned Parenthood is an abortion mill and is receiving more than a half-billion dollars from American taxpayers. Talking Points believes this is a blatant ruse, a con on the taxpayers.

President Obama well knows what Planned Parenthood does and he also knows what the Hyde Amendment says. So we have a problem, Mr. President, with all due respect, and we are asking members of the House to take a hard look at what could be a gross violation of federal law.
And that is just ridiculous, because O'Reilly claims to have a no spin zone where he only reports the facts and never speculates on anything. Then with no proof, he speculated that Planned Parenthood is using Federal money to do abortions, which is 100% speculation. So he calls for the Feds to investigate and waste taxpayer money anyway, with no evidence, that makes it a witch hunt, which O'Reilly also claims to oppose.

Hey O'Reilly, what happened to your no speculation rule, and btw, how can it be a gross violation of federal law when you can not even prove it is happening, answer that fool.

Then O'Reilly had the pro-choice author Cristina Page on to talk about the insane TPM from Billy.

Page said this: "You're wrong on the assumptions of where this money is being spent. Planned Parenthood is a leading health care provider and provides primary health care service to millions of Americans. 90% of the services are in prevention, things like STD treatment and contraception. I would find it offensive to have an audit, I know it would be a witch hunt that would waste a lot of money."

But O'Reilly once again urged Congress to investigate just how Planned Parenthood spends its federal largesse, even though he has no proof, Billy said this:: "If you are performing 334,000 abortions, that costs a lot of money, and I find it hard to believe that you would object to an honest accounting. Millions of people don't want our taxpayer dollars used for abortions."

In the next never ending segment O'Reilly asked a dozen prominent liberals to comment on the controversy in Westchester County, New York, where a local newspaper revealed the names and addresses of legal gun permit holders. The "progressives," among them Bill Moyers, Ted Turner, Barbra Streisand, Michael Moore, Dan Rather, and Jane Fonda, all refused to issue a statement.

So Monica Crowley and Leslie Marshall evaluated the liberals' sudden shyness. Crowley said this: "Most of them are on the record supporting stricter gun control laws, so the idea that they wouldn't respond to this is interesting. I think they really fear some hypocrisy being exposed. Maybe some of these people who have railed against guns actually own guns or have armed security guards."

Marshall defended the left-wingers who refused comment, saying this: "I don't think they need to give a statement because what the newspaper did doesn't change where they stand. And I'm assuming they may be a bit torn, as I am. The paper has the right to do this, but it does not prevent any future attacks and does not point out any illegal gun owners."

Then in the next segment O'Reilly speculated again, saying that New York welfare recipients are using taxpayer money at strip clubs, with no proof.

The New York Post has reported that some welfare recipients cashed their welfare benefits at ATM machines inside strip clubs. But they have no evidence they spent that money at the strip club, all they have is that they cashed some benefits there.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the conservative Manhattan Institute was asked whether the welfare abuse is widespread. When she has no clue, and what she said is 100% speculation.

Roth said this: "Even if this is a little thing, withdrawing these funds at casinos and liquor stores gives a lot of temptation to spend it right there. The cash is supposed to be spent on rent and household necessities, but the government doesn't keep data on where people withdraw their cash benefits."

Jimmy McMillian, who made a Quixotic run for mayor of New York City, downplayed the significance of the newspaper expose, saying this: "If there's an ATM machine at a strip club, you can't assume that a person withdrawing money from the machine is spending it there. Other ATMs could be temporarily out of service."

Earth to idiots, if you do not like it pass a law saying it is illegal to spend that money at strip clubs, or make the strip clubs block them from spending it there, of course that may be unconstitutional, jerks.

Then the far-right loon John Stossel was on to talk about California Governor Jerry Brown, who signed 876 new laws that went into effect on January 1st, an orgy of legislation that raised the ire of Fox Business host John Stossel.

Stossel said this: "Nobody can keep track of these laws any more, but they keep passing more so they can micro-manage life. The law that's been getting headlines is that you can no longer use a trained dog to hunt bears. What galls me is that last year Governor Brown rejected a bill that said kids had to wear helmets for skiing, he said you can't have a law for everything. But this year he signed 876 laws, they infringe on our freedom all the time."

O'Reilly pointed to another new California law, saying this: "If you're a therapist, you can't try to convince somebody they're not gay, even if they want you to. California leads the league in craziness."

Are you for real O'Reilly? Why would anyone want to even try and convince someone they are not gay, that is insane, if they are gay they are gay, and if they claim to be gay nobody should be allowed to tell them they are not gay, you right-wing a-hole.

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to discuss the State of Kansas suing 46-year-old William Marotta, who answered a Craigslist ad and donated sperm so a lesbian couple could have a child.

Wiehl said this: "He did this out of the kindness of his heart. He didn't charge anything and he wanted to help this couple. But where he went wrong under Kansas law is that he took his donation to their house, he did not go through a licensed physician."

Guilfoyle added that Marotta's problems began after the couple broke up, saying this: "Because they were unable to provide financial support for the child, they petitioned the state, which is legally obligated to determine who the biological father is so they can seek financial compensation. Marotta has to pay back the state and make future child support payments."

Then the far-right Charles Krauthammer was on to speculate about what Chuck Hagel will do if he is the Secretary of Defense.

President Obama nominated Hagel, a Vietnam veteran and former Republican Senator, to run the Pentagon. Krauthammer said he is conspicuously displeased by the nomination.

Krauthammer said this: "In his second term, President Obama is going to show who he really is. Number one on his agenda is to cut defense and Hagel has said the Defense Department is bloated and needs to be pared down. So he is prepared to do the dismantling that Obama wants."

And btw folks, the Defense Department is bloated and needs to be pared down, so Obama and Hagel are right.

Krauthammer also complained that Hagel is soft on Iran, saying this: "We have had very legitimate arguments between patriots on both sides over a military option in Iran. But nobody argues for not using sanctions except Chuck Hagel. He says we should rely on diplomacy only, and that puts him way out of the mainstream."

No fool, it puts you and the right-wing neo-cons out of the mainstream, because almost nobody agrees with you.

And finally, the totally ridiculous Factor tip of the day called: Steer clear of sadists, that is just nuts, Billy said this: "If you know someone who frequents sadistic movies like the "Chainsaw Massacre" series, you'd be wise to keep your distance."

So now if you watch a scary movie you are a sadist? Give me a break, that is just pure insanity. And if anyone listens to these Factor tip of the day nonsense, you need help, they are lame, ridiculous, useless, and mostly untrue.

Republican Hypocrisy Over Hurricane Sandy Aid Bill
By: Steve - January 9, 2013 - 10:00am

After Republicans from Rep. Peter King (R-NY) to Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) slammed Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) for cancelling a promised end-of-session vote on Hurricane Sandy relief, the House overwhelmingly approved a small portion of the needed funds on Friday.

While the first vote provided just $9 billion in funds - compared to the $60 billion total requested - 67 Republicans still voted against even this bare-bones package. The majority of those Representatives had, however, supported emergency aid efforts following disasters in their own states.

The House is set to vote on the remaining $50 billion requested for the Sandy relief next week.

Eighteen of the 67 dissenters are first-term members, sworn in just a day earlier. But of the 49 Representatives with a prior House record who opposed Sandy aid, at least 37 had previously advocated for or touted emergency aid services following other disasters that affected their own districts.

The hypocrite list:

1) Rep. Dan Benishek (R-MI): Endorsed emergency crop relief assistance after spring freezes.
2) Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): Asked for disaster relief after flooding.
3) Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL): Promoted relief funds after a tornado.
4) Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA): applauded FEMA flooding relief.
5) Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH): Asked for disaster relief after storms.
6) Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX): Asked President George W. Bush to approve disaster relief after storms caused flooding.
7) Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN): Endorsed disaster funding after storms.
8) Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI): Backed disaster funding after storms.
9) Rep. John Duncan (R-TN): Asked for a disaster declaration after storms caused flooding.
10) Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-TN): Endorsed disaster tax relief and touted available disaster relief funds.
11) Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC): Endorsed President George W. Bush's disaster declaration and its resulting USDA crop freezing relief.
12) Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX): Pushed for a Bush administration disaster declaration to include more counties after Hurricane Ike.
13) Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA): Endorsed drought relief emergency crop assistance.
14) Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ): Asked the Forest Service for immediate relief after floods.
15) Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO): Begged for a disaster declaration after flooding.
16) Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD): Backed USDA emergency relief during a drought.
17) Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-IL): Requested emergency drought relief from the USDA.
18) Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS): Supported disaster declaration after storms.
19) Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): Asked for a disaster declaration after storms.
20) Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO): Asked for disaster support amid wildfires.
21) Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-TX): Asked for disaster declaration after Tropical Storm Hermine.
22) Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC): Personally took an SBA loan as part of a disaster relief program.
23) Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX): Blasted FEMA for denying a disaster relief request after wildfires and pushed for USDA disaster relief for farmers.
24) Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS): Backed emergency funds for Katrina cleanup.
25) Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM): Pushed the Bush administration to declare a disaster after Hurricane Dolly.
26) Rep. Tom Petri (R-WI): Applauded disaster declaration during a drought.
27) Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS): Encouraged constituents to apply for USDA assistance during drought.
28) Rep. Tom Price (R-GA): Called for FEMA disaster relief after tornadoes.
29) Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN): Urged a disaster declaration after tornadoes.
30) Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN): Backed a request for disaster relief after flooding.
31) Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA): Called for USDA and SBA relief after fires.
32) Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI): Backed a disaster declaration after flooding.
33) Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI): Backed disaster relief after flooding.
34) Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN):Backed a request for disaster relief after flooding. 35) Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX): Blasted the denial of a disaster declaration amid Texas wildfires.
36) Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC): Endorsed USDA drought relief.
37) Rep. Robert Woodall (R-GA): Requested a disaster declaration from USDA amid drought.

Former U.S. Senator Al D'Amato (R-NY) blasted the opponents, telling the New York Daily News, "They're a bunch of jackasses. Every one of the 67 who voted no are nothing more than pawns of a philosophy that is not backed up by facts."

The Monday 1-7-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 8, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: A gross violation of your privacy by the press. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: By printing the names and addresses of Americans who can legally possess firearms, the Journal News of Westchester County in New York has put some people in danger.

Fox News host Jeanine Pirro, a former prosecutor, specified 'the battered woman hiding from her abuser, the police officer whose family is now in jeopardy, the witness who testified against the bad guy, judges and district attorneys like me.'

And what does the publisher of the Journal News, Janet Hasson, think of all this? She won't address the issue; she's hiding under her desk. Since 2005 the circulation of the Journal News has dropped nearly 50%. It is a committed left wing paper; in the recent election it endorsed 36 candidates, all Democrats.

It's clear Ms. Hasson is running an ideological operation that wants to punish legal gun owners. There is no question that Janet Hasson should be dismissed by the Gannett Corporation but, in the meantime, loons on the other side are issuing death threats and publishing personal information about Journal News personnel.

That is also unacceptable. The Journal News violated the privacy of law-abiding Americans and it will never recover in the minds of fair-minded people. However, by issuing threats and trying to bring personal harm to those at that newspaper, you lose the debate. If your position is solid, don't act like a thug!
My God O'Reilly, you have already done 3 segments on this story, get over it, you are wrong and a fool. Move on to some real news that people care about. It's not a violation of privacy, so stop saying that.

O'Reilly then talked about the Journal News controversy with two journalism professors, Ralph Begleiter and Beth Knobel.

Begleiter said this: "Asking a news organization to keep public information covered up, is asking a news organization to do something they just don't do. The information was already public - gun permit applicants gave their information when they applied for a permit. I think the newspaper was within its right to publish this information."

Beth Knobel argued that the Journal News, while within its rights, provided too much personal information, saying this: "I would have done it without exact addresses and without names. You could do it on a block-by-block basis without giving names, which would have proven the point that there are a lot of guns out there."

Then Brit Hume was on to talk about how some leading Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, are saying they might push for more tax hikes.

Hume dismissed the possibility of higher taxes, saying this: "I'm not surprised, but the idea is going nowhere. It all comes down to this - Republicans would like to reduce the cost of entitlement programs, the big drivers of our deficits and debts. But President Obama would like to finance the cost of those programs."

Hume also said this: "Every American who pays Social Security taxes is seeing a tax increase, their checks are lighter. That's an advantage to the Republicans in this forthcoming struggle over raising the debt ceiling and whether there should be spending cuts. We're going to have a very bloody fight here."

Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to speculate if President Obama will govern from the far left during his second term. Speculation O'Reilly says he does not allow btw.

Williams said this: "I don't think he's an ideologue. I don't think he's any far left winger. He's a pragmatist who won majorities of the American people twice, and you don't do that if you are far left or far right."

But of course the biased Republican Mary K. Ham depicted the President as a progressive in moderate clothing, saying this: "He's a very liberal guy who's good at sounding like he's more of a centrist. And as a liberal, he is committed to pretty much desperately avoiding the idea of reforming entitlements."

O'Reilly said President Obama should keep America solvent and avoid going the way of Greece, saying this: "It comes down to whether he wants to be a good President or whether he wants to have blood in the streets."

And that is so ridiculous it's laughable, because there will never be blood in the streets, unless crazy Republicans get their guns and riot, and we will never be like Greece, so stop saying we can be like Greece, because we will never be like Greece.

Then Christopher Kennedy Lawford, the son of actor Peter Lawford, who was addicted to various substances for 17 years, his cousin Patrick Kennedy, who also endured years of drug and alcohol problems were on to talk about it.

Lawford said this: "I tried to overcome this illness for ten years. I tried everything humanly possible, I had the desire and I had resources, but it still took me that long. The evidence shows that the earlier you intervene in someone's life, the better the chance you have of changing their trajectory."

Kennedy, who served eight terms in the House, also spoke about his personal struggle, saying this: "I had a lot of problems managing my life, and if you're an addict you manage your life by consuming drugs and alcohol. There is a physical compulsion that makes it impossible for you to put them down once you ingested them. I retired from Congress because of a realization that I couldn't live the life I wanted to live in that stressful environment."

Then the biased right-wing hack Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about the New York newspaper's decision to publish the names and addresses of gun permit holders.

Goldberg said this: "Newspapers have the right to publish public documents, but that doesn't mean you should do it. If they want to editorialize against guns or even call for the repeal of the Second Amendment, no problem. But to publish the names of gun owners who have committed no crime is irresponsible. It amounts to nothing more than a cheap anti-gun stunt and this has done real damage to this newspaper's reputation."

So there you go O'Reilly, even Goldberg said the Newspaper had the right to publish public documents, so it is not a privacy violation, jerk. Get over it and move on with your life.

Then the right-wing Adam Carolla was on to talk about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who is a man of considerable girth, and has been asked whether his obesity would be a barrier if he decided to run for President.

Carolla said this: "Isn't President the ultimate 'fat job?' You don't fly coach, you host a bunch of dinners, and even your office is oval-shaped. It's not like the President has to get up on an extension ladder and clean the gutters, so you can be fat and be the President. And let's take a look at the voters, they're fat!"

Carolla then talked about another issue, President Obama's desire to tax the wealthy, saying this: "I hate it, I think it is un-American. We should look at this country as a team with the coach as the President. Let's focus on the people who aren't being productive instead of putting a higher burden on the guy who's already shooting the lights out."

Talk about un-American, what about the corporations and the wealthy who hide a lot of their money in foreign banks, etc, now that is un-American and you two morons never say a word about that. Pay your taxes and shut the hell up.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "Whenever someone does something especially kind to you, dash off a short, handwritten note and send it to them ... the old-fashioned way."

Are you for real O'Reilly? Nobody sends people notes anymore, they text them, call them on a cell phone, or e-mail them, the note went out with the typewriter, fool.

Dick Armey Slams Freedomworks Rush Limbaugh & Glenn Beck
By: Steve - January 8, 2013 - 10:00am

The former FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey says the conservative outlet that helped launch the Tea Party paid Glenn Beck at least $1 million last year to fundraise for the organization, an arrangement he said provided "too little value" for the money.

And where is Bill O'Reilly on this story, what has he said about it? Oh yeah, he totally ignored it because it makes all his friends look bad, Freedomworks, the Tea Party, and Glenn Beck.

"The arrangement was simply FreedomWorks paid Glenn Beck money and Glenn Beck said nice things about FreedomWorks on the air," Armey, the former House majority leader, told Media Matters Friday. "I saw that a million dollars went to Beck this past year, that was the annual expenditure."

Armey, who left the organization this past fall after a dispute over its internal operations, said a similar arrangement was also in place with Rush Limbaugh, but did not know the exact financial details.

"I put it down now as basically as paid advertising for FreedomWorks by Beck," Armey said, calling it a mistake.

Mother Jones also reported that the organization "plans to continue its financial support for Glenn Beck's media enterprise, including sharing a TV studio with and leasing office space to the Washington bureau of TheBlaze, Beck's website and TV network."

Armey said he was told of the Beck arrangement when it first began, but that it would only cost the organization about $250,000 a year. "Once that was approved by the trustees, it then took on a life of its own, it got bigger than we understood it to be. All of a sudden it was we are paying Limbaugh as well as Beck."

Beck has been reading on-air appeals for FreedomWorks since at least April 2010. In June of that year, Media Matters reported that the organization was using Beck's endorsement to raise money. Politico highlighted the relationship as an example of a conservative group "paying hefty sponsorship fees to the popular talk show hosts" in exchange for "regular on-air plugs."

According to Armey, such programs are ineffective. "If Limbaugh and Beck were using those resources to recruit activists and inform activists and to encourage and enthuse activists, that's one thing," Armey explained.

"If we are using these things to raise money; one, it's a damned expensive way to raise money; and two, it makes raising money an end on to itself not an instrumental activity to support the foundation work that our organization does."

Armey also said the relationship with Beck expanded to include rallies that were co-sponsored by Beck and FreedomWorks, and included appearances by FreedomWorks President and CEO Matt Kibbe.

Armey said he objected to these events, dubbed FreePACs, because they often charged admission to FreedomWorks activists.

A review of promotional information for the events found $20 was a standard donation requested at some of the locations, while a Dallas, TX., FreePAC last summer charged prices as high as $971.

"You don't charge activists to attend rallies. I would consider that wholly inappropriate behavior," Armey said. "There was a lot of resentment on the part of the activists. They would naturally expect that they are providing the activist power and think that they have a right to attend."

"The principal value to anyone from the relationship with Beck was Matt Kibbe, who got to share Beck's stage with him," Armey said, adding that he found out about the July 2012 Dallas rally after his name was already being used to promote it.

"They put out an email under my name that had more information than I had," he recalled. "That is why when I resigned I had them cease and desist using my name."

Armey said he began looking into the specifics of the Beck and Limbaugh arrangements last year after hearing from others in the organization that such activities were being done without his knowledge.

"I had come to the point where I don't know how much we are spending on Beck and Limbaugh, but we are spending too damn much and we are getting too little value out of it," Armey said. "It was something I only found out about after inquiring into the affairs in September or October.

"Starting in January of last year, in that general neighborhood, what we had was a pattern that Kibbe got into a pattern of consistently working out arrangements with people without telling me what he was doing," Armey added.

"They had people issue directives, 'don't tell Armey about this.' I had people close to me saying there is something fishy here, you better look into it."

Armey pointed out that any reports of revenue raised through the Beck and Limbaugh arrangements does not take into account the money paid to them in the deal.

"It is like federal budgeting," he said. "We count the receipts we get from people who have sent in money, and we, meaning they, I am not a part of it anymore, do not count what the funds that are laying out are. They don't say, we paid Beck a million dollars and we had this program where we raised $300,000, you had a net cost of $600,000, or whatever the numbers are."

But don't expect those payments to end: FreedomWorks' leaked 2013 budget plan includes "Glenn Beck Radio Ads," "Blenn Beck TV," "TheBlaze Action Center," and the "Rush Limbaugh Contract."

More Gun Control Insanity From A Republican Congressman
By: Steve - January 7, 2013 - 11:00am

A few days ago a Republican Congressman said a gun in a holster is not a deadly weapon, but a credit card is, because you could use it to cut someone's throat.

Now we have another insane Republican saying if they pass an assault weapons ban, hammers and machetes would also be covered. Which is just insane and totally ridiculous. Because a hammer and a machete are not guns, and the bill would only cover assault rifles.

A Republican congressman slammed the push for gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, stating on Friday that if lawmakers wanted to ban assault weapons, they would have to outlaw hammers and machetes as well.

Appearing on the Dennis Miller Show, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) told guest host Larry O’Connor that he "refuses to play the game of 'assault weapon.' That's any weapon," said the Texas congressman. It's a hammer. It's the machetes.

Partial transcript:
O'CONNOR: I want to ask you a question about one of your colleagues, Rep. Peter King in New York. He's a very passionate guy, a great defender, he's a great patriot. But he's on board with this assault weapons ban. He was actually on MSNBC yesterday, openly saying, "I don't understand why anybody would need an assault weapon."

I personally get nervous whenever a politician is asking me as a citizen why I need my right, but can you answer that question for your colleague? He might need some help here. Why would anyone need an assault weapon as they're defining it?

GOHMERT: I refuse to play the game of assault weapon. That's any weapon. It's a hammer. It's the machetes. In Rwanda that killed 800,000 people, an article that came out this week, the massive number that are killed with hammers.
And now the facts: According to the FBI, in 2010, there were 8,775 people who were murdered with guns, compared to 540 people who were killed with blunt objects, a small minority of which were people armed with hammers.

The exponentially-higher number of people killed by guns also includes many innocent people killed by indiscriminate gunfire, such as drive-by shootings. After all, there are no drive-by hammerings.

GOP Gerrymandering Has Rigged The Congress
By: Steve - January 7, 2013 - 10:00am

Every single state except Hawaii has finalized its vote totals for the 2012 House elections, and Democrats currently lead Republicans by 1,362,351 votes in the overall popular vote total.

Democratic House candidates earned 49.15 percent of the popular vote, while Republicans earned only 48.03 percent, meaning that the American people preferred a unified Democratic Congress over the divided Congress it actually got by more than a full percentage point.

Nevertheless, thanks to partisan Republican gerrymandering, Republicans have a solid House majority in the incoming 113th Congress.

Think about this, if Democrats across the country had performed six percentage points better than they actually did last November, they still would have barely missed capturing a majority in the House of Representatives.

In order to take control of the House, Democrats would have needed to win the 2012 election by 7.25 percentage points. That's significantly more than the Republican margin of victory in the 2010 GOP wave election (6.6 percent), and only slightly less than the margin of victory in the 2006 Democratic wave election (7.9 percent).

If Democrats had won in 2012 by the same commanding 7.9 percent margin they achieved in 2006, they would still only have a bare 220-215 seat majority in the incoming House, assuming that these additional votes were distributed evenly throughout the country. That's how powerful the GOP's gerrymandered maps are; Democrats can win a Congressional election by nearly 8 points and still barely capture the House.

For two months, the nation has suffered through a fiscal cliff argument that threatened to plunge the nation into another recession. If the incoming Congress bore any resemblance to the one the American people voted for, however, this threat would have disappeared on Election Day because Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi would have no problem rounding up the votes to eliminate this so-called cliff and set America back on the path to economic growth.

Worse yet, top Republicans are already threatening to use the looming debt ceiling fight to torpedo the entire U.S. economy unless Congress agrees to slash Social Security or Medicare benefits for seniors.

They will have the leverage to attempt this because the incoming House bears no resemblance to the one America actually voted for. And individual Republican House members will be able to engage in this political dangerous game of chicken comfortable in the knowledge that partisan gerrymandering makes many of them untouchable in a general election.

Partisan gerrymanders, like the one that now all but locks the GOP majority in place, have been the subject of repeated court challenges. America can thank the five conservative justices on the Supreme Court for allowing these gerrymanders to continue.

And of course O'Reilly never says a word about any of this, as he claims America is a center-right country, while all the evidence says the opposite. If not for State Republicans rigging the Congressional districts to get more seats, the Democrats would also have control of the House, because they got over a million more votes than House Republicans did, and yet they are still in the minority.

Now if State Democrats were rigging districts to get more seats in Congress to have and hold a majority for the Democratic party, O'Reilly would lose his mind and call for the Supreme Court to stop the gerrymandering. He would report on it all the time and call it an outrage, but when Republicans do it and the conservative leaning Supreme Court allows it, O'Reilly says nothing.

Insane Republican Claims Credit Card A Deadly Weapon
By: Steve - January 6, 2013 - 11:00am

And not only did the right-wing lunatic say a credit card is a deadly weapon, he said a holstered gun is not a deadly weapon. Which is not only ridiculous, it's laughable.

Republicans in the New Hampshire House of Representatives are fuming after Democrats passed a bill to ban lawmakers from carrying concealed weapons into the chamber, and are arguing that items like pens and credit cards could be considered deadly as well.

For decades state law forbid guns from entering the state house, but when Republicans took control of the house in 2010, they were quick to lift the ban. On the first say of the new legislative session, the Democratic majority that swept back into power last November quickly passed a similar ban again.

Republicans attacked the new ban as an encroachment of their Second Amendment rights, but according to the Concord-Monitor also sought to derail the bill by warning of a slippery slope:
"A holstered gun is not a deadly weapon....But anything can be used as a deadly weapon. A credit card can be used to cut somebody's throat," said Rep. Dan Dumaine, an Auburn Republican.
New Hampshire Republicans also argued that access to guns on the house floor is a safety measure in the event that a shooter were to ever enter the chambers, but media investigations of mass shootings have found that in "not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun."

Hawaii Congresswoman Calls For O'Reilly Apology
By: Steve - January 6, 2013 - 10:00am

Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa (D-HI) condemned Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, describing his recent comments on Asian-Americans as "insulting" and called for an apology.

On Thursday, O'Reilly devoted a segment of The O'Reilly Factor to Hawaii. After playing a pre-recorded video of producer Jesse Watters doing man-on-the-street interviews in Hawaii, O'Reilly said that the state is one of his "favorite places in the world," but that it has "a lot of social problems."

He went on to say that "35 percent of the Hawaiian population is Asian," and this: "Asian people are not liberal, you know, by nature. They're usually more industrious and hard-working."

In response, Hanabusa criticized O'Reilly for "thoughtlessly insulting 1.3 million people with one sweeping misstatement," and said that "O'Reilly's attempt to characterize Hawaii's Asian-American population is most insulting of all."

She characterized his comments as "the kind of one dimensional and paternalistic attitude that we should have gotten past decades ago."

From the Honolulu Star-Advertiser:
"Leave it to Bill O'Reilly to thoughtlessly insult 1.3 million people with one sweeping misstatement," Hanabusa said in a statement.

"However, I think O'Reilly's attempt to characterize Hawaii's Asian-American population is most insulting of all," she said. "Claiming that Asian-Americans are not liberal by nature because they are 'hard working and industrious' is the kind of one dimensional and paternalistic attitude that we should have gotten past decades ago.

"Hawaii's -- and America's -- Asian-American communities are as rich and diverse as any in our nation. Attributing any broad set of characteristics to any large group only serves to encourage attitudes that 'they' are somehow different from 'us.'"

She said there was "absolutely no justification" to his claim that being hard working and industrious is incompatible with holding liberal political views.
And if you think O'Reilly is going to say he is sorry, good luck with that, he has not even said he was sorry for making jokes about Hillary and her medical problems, so he is sure not going to say he is sorry for what he said about Asians in Hawaii.

If he does anything he will conform what he said, slam the Congresswoman for calling him out, and claim what he said was true.

The Friday 1-4-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 5, 2013 - 11:00am

There was no TPM, instead O'Reilly had the Top Story called: Update on Marine Jon Hammar. Billy started the show by reporting that Cpl. Jon Hammar begged off a scheduled interview at the last minute. Hammer spent four months in a Mexican prison on a trumped-up gun charge until finally being released just before Christmas. The former Marine's father, Jon Hammar Sr., was on to discuss it.

Hammar Sr. said this: "This afternoon the pressure got to Jon a little bit. He's physically great, but he is definitely apprehensive about what he can say publicly, he doesn't want to bring any danger onto his family or himself. He wants to thank you and he wants to thank the American public for helping him get out, but he wants to do it in a way that makes sense for everyone."

Hammar also explained why he chose to drive his son home from Texas to Florida, saying this: "I wanted some time with him to figure out what he needed, but then it became clear that he was very sick. We made it to Lafayette, Louisiana before we had to go to an emergency room. We didn't realize how bad off he was."

O'Reilly expressed his understanding with Cpl. Hammar's decision to stay out of the spotlight, saying this: "He was threatened in prison with decapitation by fellow prisoners and the prison is infested with a drug-dealing gang who murder people with impunity. He's a tough Marine but anybody incarcerated for four months in a Mexican prison would be fragile."

Then Geraldo was on to talk about the former politician Mark Green, who compared legal gun owners to convicted sex offenders. Geraldo said this: "That's a grotesque comparison, and Mark Green should know better. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Putting aside that comparison, I don't have a problem with the newspaper that published the names and addresses of gun permit owners. I'm a parent of a 7-year-old and I'd like to know what families own guns before I let my kid go to play or sleep over."

But of course the right-wing O'Reilly said that the newspaper was absolutely wrong when it printed the information about gun owners, saying this: "This is a privacy situation and I disagree with you, this newspaper is obtrusive and wrong. You can't be trying to embarrass people for a legal activity."

After a jobs report showing that December's unemployment rate held steady at 7.8%, Fox Business host Lou Dobbs provided his outlook for the U.S. economy. And of course it was all right-wing spin, with no Democratic guest on for balance.

Dobbs said this: "I think we're going to see things improve enough, so that we'll at least be able to say we're on the way to prosperity again. That's because I believe we're going to see an awareness descend in Washington. The Republicans have surely learned a lesson about the limits of power, and this President has surely learned a lesson about what he can get away with and what he can not."

And of course O'Reilly was less sanguine about the economic outlook and President Obama's intentions, saying this: "I think he's going to go pedal to the metal on the left-wing business. He doesn't care about public opinion any more and he's going to take as much money from Lou Dobbs as he can possibly get. All the job creators are getting hammered by regulations and taxes, so I'm very worried about a reversal."

And the only reason O'Reilly is worried is because if the economy does take a dowturn the stock market will go down, and he will lose money on his investments. But I saw predictions that the economy will do fine, and the market will go up 12 percent over the next couple years. So don't worry O'Reilly, your investments will be ok, jerk.

Then O'Reilly had Boston University student and newly-crowned Miss Universe Olivia Culpo on, who has spoken out against marijuana legalization. Why? Who knows, because why should anyone care what this bimbo says about it, I know I sure don't.

Culpo said this: "I think the legalization of marijuana, tells people that it's okay, that it's harmless. For medicinal purposes it can help and it can help terminally ill people, but everybody has a different reaction. Some people get paranoid and marijuana has even been shown to increase schizophrenia. There's so much about it that we don't know and legalizing it would be telling people that it's acceptable."

Billy warned Culpo that she has made herself an inviting target, saying this: "You're going to be criticized, people will call you a 'square.' The mentality on the other side is that there's nothing wrong with this, let's be stoned all the time."

Because there is nothing wrong with it, and people who get drunk are worse off than people who smoke pot. Only right-wing idiots oppose legal marijuana, because they are fools who are stuck in the past who can not admit reality.

Then Greg Gutfeld and Bernard McGuirk were on for their regular Friday nonsense. First on their agenda - demands that conservatives who doubted the severity of Hillary Clinton's illness step up and apologize.

Gutfeld said this: "If you want to apologize to her it's okay, but never apologize to people who are criticizing you over being skeptical. These people don't really care about her health, all they want is a scalp of contrition. And you'd have to be an idiot not to be skeptical of anything that's going on related to Benghazi."

And of course neither O'Reilly or Laura Ingraham said they were sorry, because they are both right-wing jerks.

McGuirk theorized that even Secretary Clinton's supporters probably questioned the timing of her illness, saying this: "They didn't really speak out until Hillary Clinton was hospitalized with a blood clot because they were skeptical themselves. If you were not skeptical of the Clintons, you were either a sucker or a sycophant."

Returning for a second segment, Gutfeld and McGuirk turned to Al Gore's sale of his left-wing cable network to Al Jazeera.

McGuirk said this: "Al Gore spent eight years as a lookout for Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton got the girls and the glory, Gore thought he was going to take over and he didn't, and he's bitter. But this takes it to a new level, he is a selfish, greedy quisling."

Gutfeld then remarked on the news that FBI files indicate that Marilyn Monroe was investigated for having close ties to communists, saying this: "She's now going to officially be a heroine, because it's cool to be a commie in the 50's. You're the rebel even though the ideology you ascribed to killed tens of millions of people."

And finally the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "Keep an eye out for the movie version of "Killing Lincoln," which will be on the National Geographic Channel later this year."

Hey folks, here is my tip of the day: I was told by a friend that went to see Killing Lincoln that it was the most boring movie she has ever seen. She also said her boyfriend wants her to go see it with him and she refused, saying it was so boring she will not watch it again.

House Republicans Reintroduce Obamacare Repeal (Again)
By: Steve - January 5, 2013 - 10:00am

With Millions Still Waiting For Sandy Relief, Republicans Reintroduce Obamacare Repeal again for the 33rd time, even though it will never pass in the Democratic Senate and President Obama has said even if it ever does pass the House and Senate he will veto it.

The 112th Congress gaveled to a close on Thursday afternoon without passing a relief package for victims of Hurricane Sandy or reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, but Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) isn't too concerned about finishing what Republicans had left undone.

Instead, at 12:00PM she once again introduced legislation to repeal the Obama health care bill, which states are now busily implementing.

House Republicans have unsuccessfully voted 33 times in the last two years to eliminate health care reform and wasted at least 88 hours and $50 million dollars, while failing to pass a single piece of job creation legislation in the last session of Congress.

And of course O'Reilly does not say a single word about this total waste of time and taxpayer money, as he cries about the Government wasting his money on things like food stamps, medicaid, etc. He says nothing because he is a Republican and he does not want to make them look bad, plus he would get hate mail from his right-wing viewers if he slams the Republicans for it.

Dozens of Republicans, including 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney, ran against Obamacare, yet the party suffered losses every step along the way. The conservative leaning Supreme Court even upheld the law, House repeal efforts went nowhere in the Democratically-controlled Senate, and President Obama has pledged to veto any effort to rescind the measure.

Even newly reelected Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) was compelled to admit in November that Obamacare is now the law of the land (though he later backed away from his own comments and pledged to do everything in his power to undermine it).

But House Republicans are apparently not quite ready to give up the fight. At this rate, they are on track to becoming even less productive than the last Congress, that was on record as the least productive Congress in the history of America.

Hannity & O'Reilly Ratings Dropped After The Election
By: Steve - January 5, 2013 - 9:00am

In a fitting end to 2012, we learned that the ratings for the dishonest conservative Sean Hannity crashed after Barack Obama won his second term, with viewers tuning out the Fox News Channel talk-show host in droves.

According to Nielsen numbers, Hannity lost around half of his audience in the weeks after the election, while his Fox News colleague Bill O'Reilly (who still refuses to identify himself politically as a conservative) retained about 70% of his audience.

So what happened to Hannity?

The going wisdom is that viewers who basked in his preelection anti-Obama rhetoric tuned him out when they were stunned to wake up on Nov. 7 and discover that the President had won a second term - a scenario that Hannity had all but promised could never happen.

Before the election, Hannity was riding high in the ratings and topped thought leaders on the right, like Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, Peggy Noonan and talk radio bulldog Mark Levin, who predicted Obama would lose in a landslide.

Those voices (and many others like them) all but drove the political coverage on Fox News, talk radio and conservative blogs.

But as Conor Friedersdorf wrote in The Atlantic just after the election, "Outside the conservative media, the narrative was completely different."

Because in reality, statistics proved the presidential race was in fact never even close - despite the lopsided picture delivered to faithful viewers by Hannity and those who shared his opinions.

Friedersdorf said this: "The right-leaning outlets like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's show are far more intellectually closed than CNN or public radio. If you're a rank-and-file conservative, you're probably ready to acknowledge that ideologically friendly media didn't accurately inform you about Election 2012. Some pundits engaged in wishful thinking; others feigned confidence in hopes that it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy; still others decided it was smart to keep telling right-leaning audiences what they wanted to hear."

And when the dust settled, it turns out that a lot of Hannity's viewers opted to vote again - with their remotes.

Adding insult to injury, two of Hannity's rivals on MSNBC, Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow, held onto huge chunks of their audiences, while at CNN, far less politically polarizing host Anderson Cooper lost almost none of his viewers postelection.

It got even worse for Hannity in the money demo of viewers 25-54, who are prized by advertisers. With this group, Hannity held onto less than half his preelection audience. O'Reilly, on the other hand, kept almost 70%.

And through the early part of December, Maddow actually beat Hannity in the coveted group - a shocking turn, because until the election, Hannity was unbeatable by any of his rivals, at least in terms of ratings.

The Thursday 1-3-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 4, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Is Al Gore a hypocrite? Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Back in 1948 Al Gore was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. His father, an oilman and U.S. Senator, raised Al in privilege and comfort. He became a champion of the left as an adult, cashing in big time on the 'global warming' issue. The former Vice President used some of that money to invest in a far-left cable network that has been a colossal failure.

And so Al and his merry men decided to sell that network and, according to the New York Times, they wanted to close the deal last week to avoid the higher capital gains tax this year. It sounds like good business sense, but just two months ago Al said we should 'ask the most fortunate in our society to do our fair share.'

So, what is our fair share? I guess that means selling assets at the lower capital gains rate. And it even gets worse: Al Gore sold his network to Al Jazeera, the anti-American network out of Qatar, which recently ran a documentary sympathetic to Osama Bin Laden. This is really stunning, a former Vice President of the United States selling his far-left cable operation to anti-Americans and trying to avoid taxes.

Talking Points believes Al Gore has shamed himself by selling to Al Jazeera, which will now have access to 40-million more American homes. I'm not for censoring Al Jazeera, that's what they do in the Islamic world, but this is just sleazy, Al.
Funny how O'Reilly loves rich people and everything they do, except when liberals do it, then suddenly it's wrong. Hey O'Reilly, Gore just did what you and most of the Republicans do, try to get as rich as possible when he can.

Then Bob Beckel was on, who disagreed with O'Reilly and defended Al Gore's wheeling and dealing. Beckel said this: "Of course they're going to try to make more money, and I don't think it's hypocritical. Should Al Gore have said, 'let me wait until January 2nd so I can pay more taxes?' I don't know many people who would do that. He'll wind up paying his fair share."

Beckel also spoke out on Gore's decision to sell to Al Jazerra, saying this: "Do you think for a second they're going to run anti-American programming here? Would anybody watch that? I don't mind him selling to Al Jazeera or to anyone."

Beckel also predicted that President Obama will soon take on immigration reform and gun control, saying this: "People will be able to stay here, get to the back of the line, and pay a fine. It'll pass because if it doesn't the Republican Party will cease to exist. And he's going to bring back the assault weapons ban."

Then the far-right stooge Laura Ingraham was on to talk about Gore, saying this: "Big Al Gore is now 'Big Oil Gore,' Ingraham joked. "After all the hot air he has emitted about the oil and gas industry, he ends up making a boatload of cash off of a Qatar-based company. The dirty money that is oil money is now fueling his 10,000 square foot home in Tennessee and his home in Virginia."

Ingraham also speculated that President Obama will propose immigration reform that resembles outright amnesty for illegal aliens, saying this: "He just tweaked the rules regarding illegal immigrants who are here, they don't have to go home and reapply for visas. So he's already done a lot and he now thinks he has Republicans on the defensive, so he'll go for as much as he can go for on the amnesty front."

Following the school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, some people have suggested that armed guards would help prevent school violence. So O'Reilly had his two right-wing Culture Warriors Uma Pemmaraju and Jeanine Pirro on to discuss the idea.

Pirro said this: "There absolutely should be armed guards. When I was a district attorney I worked with the state police to bring officers into the schools. They deal with gang violence and they become friends with the kids. A lot of kids have no problem with it, it doesn't affect them at all."

Pemmaraju agreed that heightened security, including armed guards, could save lives, saying this: "After being a journalist covering these stories for so many years, I have really seen this thing become so big and out of control. I have a daughter in school where there are armed guards and they are now training teachers to better protect themselves."

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about the controversy surrounding the suburban New York newspaper that published the names and addresses of local citizens who have handgun permits.

Kelly said this: "This paper is way to the left of the New York Times, and they have the legal right to this information. But when this happened in Tennessee, the effect was that burglaries increased at homes without guns. Burglars are not stupid! And what about people who are domestic violence victims or who have another security issue? The person who is targeting them need only consult the map provided by the newspaper to find out whether they have a gun."

And of course O'Reilly condemned the newspaper's action, saying this: "This is an invasion of privacy and everyone is upset at this except the far-left loons who want to terrorize law-abiding people who have guns."

Which is ridiculous, because it is public information, so they broke no laws and they did not invade anyone's privacy. In fact, I support the 2nd amendment 100% and if they published that I had guns I would not even care, this is only an issue with right-wing gun nuts. And btw, I am a left-wing gun nut, and I could care less if someone knows I own a gun, it's a non-issue to me.

Then the stupid Jesse Watters was on to talk about his visit to Hawaii, where President Obama is vacationing. When he asked some residents why their state is so ultra-liberal, he elicited these explanations: "I don't really realize it's so liberal" ... "You have to explain what 'liberal' means first" ... "It has a history of government dependence" ... "Everybody's stoned and drunk and they don't work" ... "People are saying they want things given to them rather than earning things."

Now think about this, how come O'Reilly never sends Watters to conservative states to ask them why they are so conservative.

Watters returned to the studio with his own conclusions, saying this: "Native Hawaiians and Hispanics outnumber whites by two-to-one, and then you have all the rich liberals from California rolling into Hawaii. It's just a perfect storm for liberalism, it's like Amsterdam."

And I say so what, it's a free country and who cares if they are liberals or not, if you do not like it do not go there, jerks.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day, Billy said this: "Whenever someone says or does something dumb, find a mechanism that will enable you to avoid an immediate and angry reaction."

Republican Peter King Mad At House Speaker Boehner
By: Steve - January 4, 2013 - 10:00am

A top House Republican lashed out at party leaders Wednesday over a decision to end the session without a vote on aid for Superstorm Sandy victims, going so far as to urge constituents to stop donating to congressional Republicans.

"I'm saying anyone from New York and New Jersey who contributes one penny to congressional Republicans is out of their minds," Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Fox News. "What they did last night was put a knife in the back of New Yorkers and New Jerseyans."

In the waning hours of the session, New York and New Jersey lawmakers from both parties were appealing to House leaders to reconsider the move and bring the bill to a vote.

Lawmakers in the hard-hit region were expecting an aid bill to reach the floor before the new Congress is seated Thursday -- at that point, Congress would have to start all over on a Sandy package. But House Speaker John Boehner decided to put off the vote until later in the month.

King called the decision a "disgrace" and "immoral" -- and accused fellow Republicans of turning away from New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. "What did they do? They knifed him in the back," he said.

Hillary Haters Slammed For Mocking Her Medical Problems
By: Steve - January 4, 2013 - 9:00am

Hey Fox, I guess it's not the Benghazi flu after all. Turns out that Hillary, you know, the woman many of you love to hate, has a blood clot near her brain.

What we heard from some on the right after Hillary Clinton said she suffered a concussion last month, following a bout with the stomach flu, was that she could be faking it, since it happened just days before she was scheduled to testify about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

Faking an illness is an accusation you would expect from a third grader who wants to stay home from school. No matter what your politics, here's a woman who has served her country as a first lady, senator, and secretary of state. What does it take to presume that someone is acting in good faith?

And in case you have not heard jerks, attacking someone who's ill speaks more to the character of the person doing the mocking.

Charles Krauthammer said Clinton was suffering from "acute Benghazi allergy." Greg Gutfeld, co-host of Fox's The Five, said this: "How can she get a concussion when she has been ducking everything?"

On The O'Reilly Factor, Laura Ingraham joked that this appeared to be an "immaculate concussion." Bill O'Reilly laughed and then chimed in, saying he thought Clinton could at least make a phone call.

Never mind that State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland had already ripped the remarks by Bolton, a Fox contributor, labeling them "wild speculation based on no information."

Not to mention O'Reilly said he never speculates, and that he only reports on things based on the facts. But then O'Reilly and Ingraham speculated on Hillary's medical condition, and even made jokes about it without knowing anything about her situation.

And Fox News was not the only organization to make fun of Clinton's medical problems. The Benghazi flu was coined by outgoing Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.).

"I'm not a doctor, but it seems as though the secretary of state has come down with a case of 'Benghazi flu,'" he said.

The New York Post—which, like Fox, is owned by Rupert Murdoch-ran a headline that said this: "Hillary Clinton's Head Fake."

But the tabloid later lambasted "cynics in the media and in Congress who sneered that Clinton was faking the concussion to avoid testimony about the attack for not believing her."

Which is the ultimate hypocrisy, and a double standard, not to mention, bad journalism. Now that the news of the blood clot has surfaced, the Twitterverse has turned on the haters, demanding apologies from the skeptics who had rallied against her.

Politico compiled a robust list, including one from Ingraham: "My 12/24 Tweet: Heard from some1 v.close to Sec.Clinton-she did take a bad fall, she was instructed 2rest. Her testimony WILL happen. #Heal."

Doctors now say the location of the clot-between Clinton's skull and brain-should mean she's out of the woods and will make a full recovery.

I don't mind criticism for performance. A cabinet member is fair game. The attack in Libya was deeply troubling. Those protected by the First Amendment can and should shine a bright light on politicians who make mistakes, or cheat the system. And Clinton's illness does not mean she should get a pass if she wades back into presidential politics.

But for God's sake, give the woman a break. And all you amateur physicians and Hillary haters, try acting like adults and say you're sorry. That means you O'Reilly, and Laura Ingraham. But instead, O'Reilly totally ignored it and never said a word about it on his Wednesday night show.

The Wednesday 1-2-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - January 3, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: President Obama's true agenda emerges. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The Factor has not covered the fiscal debate very much because it was a fake crisis. The deal Congress struck could have been done last August, but the politicians in both parties wanted to posture and set up phony scenarios for their own personal aggrandizement.

So here's what's really going on: President Obama has succeeded in raising taxes on every working American. Those who are doing well will now pay close to 50% of their income to the feds; those making below $400,000 a year will pay a variety of new Obamacare taxes and will see a two percentage point rise in their Social Security payments.

So everybody gets hit! But President Obama is not finished, he wants more from the affluent. The American people have voted for a President who wants to redistribute income, with a central government that takes and gives as it pleases. That will have many unintended consequences, beginning with the economy.

If the higher tax rates slow business, President Obama's second term will be a disaster. Also, it's now clear that Mr. Obama doesn't much care about federal spending. He has not offered any meaningful spending cuts or entitlement reform and he has not offered any solution to the crushing $16-trillion debt.

So now we're all in the same lifeboat; President Obama is going to take as much money as he can from successful people and dole it out. I believe this will lead to economic disaster for the country, but, as always, I could be wrong.
And you will be wrong, for one thing O'Reilly put out his right-wing spin on it, because half of that is a lie and the other half is his opinion. Then on top of that, including O'Reilly it was 8 Republicans to 1 Democrat, so the new year has not changed him at all, he is still as biased as ever and the show is not even close to being fair and balanced.

His claim that everyone had a tax increase is garbage, and based on right-wing spin that because people will be paying for Obamacare that's a tax increase, which it's not. And the higher tax rates will not hurt the economy, because the same rates were in place under Bill Clinton and the economy boomed. If the economy does not improve very much it will be because the big corporations have shipped half our jobs to Mexico and China, a fact that O'Reilly never reports.

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to agree with O'Reilly so it would look like he is right, with no Democratic guest for balance and to tell O'Reilly he is wrong, which he is.

Krauthammer said this: "You are absolutely right, that there is not a shred of evidence that Obama has any interest in cutting spending. In fact, he audaciously said last night that we have to increase our 'investments,' the word Democrats use for spending. So he's talking about increasing spending while he's pretending to be interested in the debt. This is a man who is so ideological, so committed to undoing the injustices he sees in the country. He sees Europe and Scandinavia as far more just and good societies than ours. That's the ideal to which he wants to move the United States."

Then O'Reilly once again claimed that President Obama won reelection partly by fomenting class envy, saying this: "He convinced the majority of American voters that class warfare is good, he demonized the wealthy, and he turned achievement into an insult."

Then Democrat Kirsten Powers and Republican Dee Dee Benkie picked up the discussion on President Obama's tax-and-spend philosophy.

Powers said this: "Some taxes are going up, and I'm willing to pay my fair share. But I am very disappointed that President Obama hasn't offered spending cuts. This is unsustainable and I am hopeful that he will tackle this in the second term."

Benkie said this: "This was like in high school when the popular guy won because he gave away free junk food from the vending machines. He is very likeable and he was able to connect emotionally with the American public."

Powers disagreed that Obama voters simply wanted free stuff, saying this: "This is why the Republican Party is so irrelevant right now. They keep telling themselves lies about who the electorate is. There are thinking people who like the President for a lot of different reasons, not because they're getting free things or because he's likeable."

Then the two Republicans Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on for is it legal. They talked about attorney Irving Pinsky, who has threatened to sue Connecticut, alleging that state officials didn't do enough to protect students at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Wiehl said this: "Here's a so-called lawyer, who lost his license to practice law from 2000 to 2006. He filed this lawsuit because he can earn up to 40% of the amount. He probably reveled in the attention he got."

Guilfoyle portrayed Pinsky as a low-life bottom-feeder, saying this: "We're still mourning these children and this guy is looking to make a quick buck off their backs. He got death threats and he got a lot of publicity."

O'Reilly complained that Pinsky is just the latest example of a worrisome trend, saying this: "There is a growing field of sleazy extortionists and nobody holds them accountable."

Then the Republican James Rosen was on, with no Democratic guest for balance. They talked about Speaker John Boehner telling Senator Harry Reid to "go f*** yourself" during the fiscal cliff debates.

Rosen said this: "Boehner took some statements by Reid very personally. Senator Reid said, for example, that Speaker Boehner was running the House like a 'dictatorship' and putting retaining the Speakership ahead of the nation. So when the two met at the White House, Speaker Boehner did indeed urge Senator Reid to perform upon himself a quaint anatomical impossibility."

Rosen predicted that Boehner will again be elected Speaker by his fellow Republicans, saying this: "He will almost undoubtedly keep his Speakership, but what's 50-50 is whether the vote will be forced into a second ballot, which hasn't happened since 1923."

Then the biased right-wing idiot Bernie Goldberg was on, O'Reilly asked him why most folks don't seem to care much about the recently-concluded negotiations.

Goldberg said this: "In fairness to the American people and their cluelessness on this subject. President Obama portrayed this as a tax issue and not a spending crisis. His stenographers in the so-called mainstream media went along with that story line, so I don't think most Americans understand that these new taxes won't begin to put a dent in Mr. Obama's trillion-dollar deficits or the $16-trillion national debt. I also don't think people have a clue as to how bad things will get if we don't get spending under control."

Then of course the biased and insane Bill O'Reilly blamed both parties, saying this: "Nobody really wanted to do what was good for the folks."

Then O'Reilly called the next segment a hypocrite alert with Juliet Huddy, even though it is not hypocrisy to do violent movies tht are not real, and support gun control in the real world.

Huddy reported on a new video that features celebrities demanding action on gun control; in response, a pro-gun video maker juxtaposed the stars' pleas with footage from their ultra-violent movies.

Huddy even defended the celebrities against charges of hypocrisy, saying this: "Hollywood and the video industry are filled with violence, but this is the American culture. So I don't have a problem with this because they are playing a role in the movies. But the parody was pretty good and it makes you think."

O'Reilly also agreed with Huddy's analysis, saying this: "A lot of these Hollywood pinheads are phonies, but as an actor you can have material on the screen and it doesn't mean that your personal beliefs are reflected by that."

Which is ridiculous, if you say it is not hypocrisy then why did you name the segment this on your website, from the O'Reilly website summary: "Hypocrite alert: Celebs who star in violent movies are now promoting gun control."

Now that is being an idiot, you call it a hypocrite alert then you both agree it is not hypocrisy, what a joke.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Stay the course in '13 - Billy said this: "Factor viewers are extremely well-informed and concerned about this country, so please keep doing what you're doing because you are a force for good in America."

Which is laughable, because Factor viewers and Fox News viewers are the most un-informed people in America. Even people that watch no news at all know more than Fox viewers, but of course O'Reilly will never admit that or report it.

Christie Slams GOP For Blocking Hurricane Sandy Aid Package
By: Steve - January 3, 2013 - 10:00am

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) tore into the Republican-controlled House of Representatives for failing to vote on a Hurricane Sandy aid package before the end of the 112th Congress on Tuesday night. "Our people were played last night as a pawn," Christie said, adding that residents of New Jersey and New York have been treated as second-class citizens.

Noting that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle provided relief for victims of past national disaster at a greatly expedited pace, Christie charged that Republicans put politics before their oaths to serve our citizens.

"Last night, the House of Representatives failed that most basic test of public service and they did so with callous indifference to the suffering of the people of my state," he said.

"There is only one group to blame for the continued suffering of these innocent victims: the House majority and their Speaker John Boehner (R-OH)," Christie declared.

Historically, "disaster relief was something that you didn't play games with, but now in this current atmosphere everything is a subject of one-upmanship," he continued. "It is why the American people hate Congress."

Christie said that he called Boehner four times after 11:20 PM "and he did not take my calls" or explain why he pulled a vote on the measure, which had passed the Senate earlier in a bipartisan vote. 62 Senators supported the $60 billion relief measure and a House Appropriations Committee had approved a $27 billion bill.

"Sixty-six days and counting. Shame on you, shame on Congress," Christie said. "My hope is that the good people in Congress will prevail upon their colleagues to finally put aside the politics and help our people now."

The New Jersey governor explained that he was given assurances that some version of the relief package would come to the floor as late as 9:00 PM last night and claimed that nobody has given him a credible reason as to why the bill wasn't voted on. GOP House members from New York like Reps. Peter King and Michael Grimm are also publicly questioned the reason behind Boehner's decision.

Responding to Republican criticism that the relief bill wall full of wasteful projects, Christie explained that he and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) thoroughly substantiated the size of the package.

"Those guys should spend a little more time reading the information we sent them and a little less time reading political talking points put together by their staff," he said. Christie also left the door open to campaigning against certain House Republicans.

"We'll see," he said. "Primaries are an ugly thing."

In the last few years, House Republicans have embraced the practice of holding disaster relief hostage in exchange for Democratic concessions on spending cuts, but in each instance they have ultimately backed down and passed relief aid.

And btw folks, The New York Daily News reports that Boehner "yanked the bill to provide $60 billion in emergency aid to states ravaged by Hurricane Sandy to get back at a top lieutenant who defied him over the Fiscal Cliff fix."

Krauthammer Calls Fiscal Cliff Deal A Democratic Rout
By: Steve - January 3, 2013 - 9:00am

Charles Krauthammer is another conservative who is very unhappy with the fiscal cliff deal just passed by the House of Representatives.

He lashed out at congressional Republicans in the hours just before the House finally passed the fiscal cliff compromise, capping an evening in which House GOP leadership threatened to amend the bill approved last night by the Senate -- comprised largely of tax cuts -- with matching spending cuts, which would almost certainly have imploded negotiations.

Krauthammer said this about the final bill:
KRAUTHAMMER: Look, there are a lot of conservatives in the Republican caucus in the House who hate the bill, and for good reason. This is a complete surrender on everything.

The ratio of tax cuts, of tax hikes to spending cuts is 40-to-one, rather than one-to-one or one-to-two, or one-to-three. So, I mean, it's a complete rout by the Democrats, so it's understandable.
And those comments are in keeping with Krauthammer's earlier position on the fiscal cliff talks. Last Friday, he commented that Obama was negotiating with "great skill, and ruthless skill -- to fracture and basically shatter the Republican opposition."

GOP Implies Republicans Who Voted For Bill Were Drunk
By: Steve - January 2, 2013 - 11:00am

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), who is joining a growing number of Republicans trying to add more spending cuts to the last-minute fiscal cliff deal and send it back to the Senate, joked that Senators may have been drunk when they passed the measure in the early hours of Jan 1.

Responding to a question on The Situation Room about why fiscal hawks like Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) supported the measure in the Senate, Issa implied that the 89 senators voted for the compromise because of the late night partying in celebration of the New Year. Pressed by host Wolf Blitzer for clarification, Issa said that he was just "having a little fun" with his answer.

Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH) made a similar comment to reporters, saying this" "Our sense...was that a number of the Senate Republicans who voted for it must have been drunk."

Following a Tuesday afternoon GOP conference meeting, House Republicans, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), are publicly opposing the Senate-passed measure. But it passed anyway, because just enough Republicans in the House were smart enough to vote for it.

House Passes Senate Fiscal Cliff Bill
By: Steve - January 2, 2013 - 10:00am

After threatening to amend the Senate's fiscal cliff bill to include spending reductions, the House passed the measure Tuesday evening by a vote of 257-167, with 85 Republican votes. 151 Republicans, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), and 16 Democrats voted against the bill. The "American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012" now goes to President Obama for his signature.

During the debate, Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) urged Republicans to support the bill, arguing that it "settles the level of revenue Washington should bring in." The GOP had indicated that it would not support revenue increases in the upcoming battles to raise the debt ceiling, turn off the sequester cuts, and keep the government running through a continuing budget resolution. Instead, conservative lawmakers in both the House and the Senate have said that they will take advantage of these critical debates to extract deep cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

"I just don’t want the gentleman's statement that this settles permanently how much revenue will be made available," Rep. Sandy Levin (D-MI) said in response to Camp. "The President has made clear there has to be a balanced approach and no one should be misled into thinking otherwise. No one."

The decision to allow the vote came despite widespread scorn among House Republicans for the bill - passed overwhelmingly by the Senate in the early hours of New Year's Day - because it does not include significant spending cuts in health and social programs. They say cuts are essential to any long-term solution to the nation's debt.

But with options shrinking just two days before the beginning of a new Congress, House leaders made one of the biggest concessions of the party's rebellious past two years and let the measure move forward. They wanted to avoid being seen as the chief obstacle to legislation that President Obama and a bipartisan Senate majority say is necessary to prevent the nation from slipping back into a recession.

As the House began voting on the measure, Grover Norquist gave his blessing, tweeting that since the vote took place in the new year - after the Bush tax cuts have technically expired - "Every R voting for Senate bill is cutting taxes and keeping his/her pledge."

The dynamic with the House was a near replay of a fight at the end of 2011 over a payroll tax break extension. In that showdown, Senate Democrats and Republicans passed legislation and House Republicans fulminated, but they were eventually forced to swallow it.

Senate Votes To Pass Fiscal Cliff Deal 89-8
By: Steve - January 1, 2013 - 10:30am

A little after 2 am, the Senate endorsed the bipartisan compromise negotiated Monday to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff.

The agreement allows the Bush-era tax cuts for family incomes beyond $450,000 annually to expire, slightly increases the estate tax rate (but also indexes the exemption to inflation), postpones the sequestration budget cuts for two months, and extends unemployment benefits for a year.

The agreement does not address the debt limit. And the House is expected to take up the compromise bill Today, in a rare New Year's Day session.

The Real Agenda Of Liberals & Progressives
By: Steve - January 1, 2013 - 10:00am

Almost every night the dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly tells his braindead viewers what he thinks liberals and progressives want for America, and it's mostly all lies. So (as a liberal progressive myself) I am here to tell you some of the important issues liberals and progressives will be working on in 2013.

1) Reform the broken immigration system.

President Obama is preparing to begin an all out drive for immigration reform in January, so 2013 needs to be the year that Congress passes a comprehensive plan that includes a path to citizenship. Which liberals and progressives support 100 percent.

2) Pass sensible gun safety laws.

Tens of thousands of Americans signed a petition calling on the White House to introduce legislation to address the weak gun laws in the United States, members of Congress pledged to introduce bills regulating assault weapons, and President Obama has formed a task force to address gun violence.

3) Secure higher wages and benefits for workers.

Unions built America's middle class, and in the face of continued attacks on workers, they're an important piece in the fight to strengthen it again.

4) More oversight of the drones program.

Even though the Obama administration's policy of killing al-Qaeda and affiliated groups from afar may be weakening terrorist organizations, it is almost certainly killing innocent civilians as well. Given the level of secrecy surrounding the program, it's almost impossible for the public to know whether the program is doing more good than harm.

5) Pass a more effective federal drug policy.

In 2012, two states for the first time voted to legalize and regulate the marijuana industry. The move has prompted nationwide discussion and increasing support for a move away from the failed War on Drugs. In 2012, members of Congress and the administration should divert federal resources away from minor drug crimes, and clear the way for states to experiment with an alternative to the failed War on Drugs.

6) Promote a progressive monetary policy.

The latest announcement from the Federal Reserve that it will continue monetary stimulus until unemployment is below 6.5 percent or inflation rises above 2.5 percent was a historic shift in how the Fed strategizes and conceptualizes its role. It reorders the Fed's priorities towards emphasizing employment.

And this lays the foundation for eventually establishing even more worker-friendly Fed policies, such as NGDP targeting and a hike in the NAIRU - the level of employment the Fed believes the economy can tolerate before the danger of inflation becomes too great.

7) Reform the insane Senate filibuster Rules.

For President Obama's entire term, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been the king of the Senate. And he's wielded this power to more interested in sabotaging Obama than in actually governing. The solution is a robust filibuster reform package, including major confirmations reforms.

8) Regulate risky bank transactions more.

The Volcker Rule, meant to rein in the sort of risky bank trading that helped fuel the 2008 financial crisis, is supposed to be implemented in early 2013. Wall Street lobbyists - and their Republican counterparts in Congress - are trying to water it down, even though it is necessary to safeguard the financial system.

9) Repeal the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act.

With the Supreme Court set to consider a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 2013 could prove to be a historic year for same-sex couples. Regardless of how the Court rules, the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation to repeal DOMA, enjoys record support in Congress.

10) Pass national standards for federal elections.

Americans had to overcome major obstacles and long lines to vote in 2012 due to Republican voter supppression efforts. To keep this from happening again, Congress needs to pass minimum standards for election procedures that states must abide by during federal elections.

11) Promote paid sick and parental leave.

The U.S. is one of the only developed countries in the world that doesn't guarantee paid maternity leave for expecting mothers. Federal policy should encourage employers to provide parents with time off to adjust to life with a newborn and additional time off to take care of their children in times of need.

12) Invest more money in our infrastructure.

Our roads and bridges are literally crumbling, and analysts say the nation will need to make $2 trillion in immediate investments to update infrastructure. Hurricane Sandy underlined the problem, when 8.1 million people -– in homes, businesses, and hospitals - lost power.

And now you know a few things liberals and progressives really want, not all that nonsense O'Reilly puts out.

Fiscal Cliff Deal Reached
By: Steve - January 1, 2012 - 9:00am

Three hours short of the midnight deadline, the White House and congressional leaders reached a deal to avert the so-called fiscal cliff.

Under the deal brokered by Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Congress would permanently extend the Bush income tax cuts at $400,000 and below, keep the estate tax threshold at $5 million and extend unemployment benefits for one year.

It would also temporarily delay the billions of dollars in across-the-board spending cuts for another two months. The cost of continuing current spending levels will be paid for through an even mix of tax revenue increases and later spending cuts. Half of those cuts will come from defense spending; half will come from nondefense spending.

The deal includes other tax provisions as well: It extends the child tax credit and the college tuition credit for five years, individual and business tax extenders for two years, and the Medicare "doc fix" for one year. The Alternative Minimum Tax will be permanently fixed. The agreement also extends the farm bill for one year.

The fiscal package does nothing to address the debt ceiling, which the government just hit Monday. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner sent a letter to congressional leaders earlier in the day outlining emergency measures he can take to prevent the government from defaulting on the debt, but those measures will only delay default for a matter of weeks.

The deal still requires buy-in from members of both parties, and Biden was set to meet with Senate Democrats Monday night to try to sell them on the package. That could prove challenging given that key progressive groups, including the AFL-CIO, made it clear earlier Monday that they would oppose any deal that raised the income limit for extending the Bush tax cuts above $250,000.

Still, both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave the deal their blessing Monday night in a phone call with President Barack Obama.

A Pelosi aide suggested that while the House Democratic leader backs the proposal on the table, she isn't completely wedded to it. "She's been supportive all along," said the aide. "Though if House Dems have serious problems, that could move her."

Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson said Senate Democrats would have preferred to push off the sequester for longer than two months, but Republicans wouldn't agree to that. The deal on the table is "what we could get," he said.

Jentleson lamented that the sequester and the debt ceiling will now need to be addressed at the same time, in a matter of months. "It's a lot to deal with," he said. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has been silent since the deal was announced. His spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.