Bill Maher Slams The Supreme Court Voting Rights Ruling
By: Steve - June 30, 2013 - 10:00am

Bill Maher took the Supreme Court to task Friday night for overturning a crucial portion of the Voting Rights Act this week. He said that Chief Justice John Roberts justification was that racism is "not that big a deal anymore," and clearly "pulled the ruling out of his ass."

But Maher had much harsher words for Antonin Scalia, whom he said is far worse a racist than Paula Deen, and accused the conservative justice of using Fox News talking points in his rulings.

Maher found it ridiculous that Roberts would think it wrong that people in the South aren't more racist than people in the North. Wall Street Journal columnist Dan Neil said that Paula Deen's defense of her once using the n-word is "precisely the same mindset as the old Confederacy."

Maher added that while old racist practices like poll taxes are gone, the country is currently undergoing "racism 2.0" with voter ID laws and such.

Republican pollster Kristen Soltis noted that some parts of the Voting Rights Act are still standing, while conservative panelist Horace Cooper agreed with Roberts that it's not fair to judge who deserves scrutiny based on 40-year-old data. He specifically cited growing up in Texas, a state that Neil pointed out didn't even wait two hours before implementing its "very punitive voting restrictions."

Maher brought up Scalia saying that whey societies adopt racial entitlements, it's hard to get free of them. Maher found it mind-boggling that "he talks about black people voting as an entitlement," calling that comment so much more racist than anything Paula Deen ever said.

Cooper insisted the Department of Justice is "migrating away from actually enforcing" the law. Maher concluded that Roberts just pulled the ruling out of his ass, and slammed Scalia for using some oddly specific talking points in his written decisions.

Maher said this: "He quotes talking points from Fox News, the things he was saying about the Defense of Marriage Act were the exact same thing I've heard idiots say on Sean Hannity's show. 'We're not a bigot because we're against gay people getting married!' Yeah, kinda, you are!"

The Friday 6-28-13 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - June 29, 2013 - 11:00am

The far-right stooge Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly again, and her TPM was called: The Latest on the Zimmerman Trial. Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: You've probably heard some of the testimony of Rachel Jeantel, the friend of Trayvon Martin who was on the phone with him right before he was shot by George Zimmerman. She testified that Martin said he was being followed by a 'creepy-ass cracker,' then went on to say that she didn't think this was racist.

For many non-blacks, this was shocking to hear. But liberal defenders of Ms. Jeantel took to the Internet and cable TV to scold white America for failing to understand her point of view. She may not be sophisticated, but she's authentic in the black culture, the argument goes. This is insane!

Is it a cultural badge of honor to demean and degrade on skin color if you are a person of color? Or are those who are going out of their way to excuse Ms. Jeantel's comments just suffering from an overdose of white guilt? Left-wing elites fall all over themselves to avoid criticizing behavior among black youths that they would never tolerate from most upper-crust white kids.

Like the use of the 'n' word or the 'f' word or the 'c' word, or the kids who wear baggy pants around their thighs. This is an example of what Daniel Patrick Moynihan called 'the soft bigotry of low expectations.' When we set a low bar for people, they never rise above it.

Every young person, regardless of skin color, should have a family who teaches right from wrong, and an education that provides the basic skills necessary to communicate. Making excuses for poor performance and lousy manners because of skin color just keeps kids stuck in a cycle of underachievement and resentment. We're better than that.
Earth to Laura Ingraham, if you are shocked that blacks call white people crackers, you need to get out more, because everyone knows it happens. I bet you are also shocked that whites still call blacks the n-word too, give me a break, you are a fool.

Then attorneys Anahita Sedaghatfar and Jonna Spilbor were on to evaluate the Friday testimony of prosecution witness John Good.

Sedaghatfar said this: "Today was another disaster for the prosecution. After listening to Rachel Jeantel, I didn't think it could get any worse, but it did today. You have to question what the prosecution is doing, what is their strategy? This is their time to put on witnesses that support their theory of the case, but these witnesses are actually supporting the defense. John Good's testimony corroborates Zimmerman's version of events."

Spilbor generally agreed, but claimed that the prosecution did score a few points, saying this: "The prosecutor was able to get some nuggets from him, such as the fact that he did not witness George Zimmerman's head being slammed against the sidewalk. Some witnesses say they thought Zimmerman was on top, and now you have John Good saying Trayvon Martin was on top. So it's not a slam dunk for Zimmerman, even though today's testimony was damaging to the prosecution."

Then Geraldo was on to talk about New England Patriots football star Aaron Hernandez, who has been charged with killing an associate and is suspected in two other killings. Geraldo did not like the fact that some fans are still treating Hernandez like a hero.

Geraldo said this: "He is a deep disappointment to me. There's a clip of him in April extolling the virtue of being on the straight and narrow, but that was two months after he allegedly shot a Florida man in the eye. This guy's a thug, he was a member of the Bloods in Connecticut and he has gang tattoos everywhere. They took the thug out of the hood, but they didn't take the hood out of the thug. It's very possible that Aaron Hernandez is the first mass murderer in the NFL."

Geraldo also predicted that George Zimmerman will walk, saying this: "It is absolutely clear that self-defense applies here and Zimmerman will be acquitted."

And I also think he will walk, not because he is not guilty though, because they do not have enough evidence that it was murder. So I am also predicting Zimmerman will be found not guilty, even though he probably is guilty.

IRS official Lois Lerner invoked the Fifth Amendment last month at a Congressional hearing, but only after proclaiming her innocence in a prepared statement. Democratic strategist Julian Epstein was on to discuss it.

Epstein said this: "Lerner could find herself in a contempt proceeding. The reason she invoked the Fifth Amendment is at least in part because Republican Darrell Issa, the chairman of the committee, accused her of a crime and said she had given false statements. There's no evidence that attaches any of this to the White House or the President's political staff, but it's fair to say that the IRS should have given all the information when they knew it."

Ingraham said this: "She knew in June of 2011 that terms like 'Tea Party' and 'patriot' were going to be used to review tax-exempt status, but it wasn't until this year that she apologized for what happened under her watch."

One day after the Senate passed the immigration reform bill with a whopping 68 votes, Alfonso Aguilar, a supporter of the bill was on to discuss it.

Aguilar said this: "This doesn't threaten American workers at all. The current system is unfair to American low-skilled workers because American companies can hire undocumented workers at wages that are below the prevailing wage. If you actually legalize those workers, they won't have an unfair advantage over low-skilled American workers."

But of course the far-right loon Ingraham disagreed, accusing politicians from both parties of ignoring low-wage Americans: "We'll have 43-million new people wanting to work in this country. I don't blame them, I blame the politicians who say we need to do this for business and for the Latino vote. How about the American people? This is going to hurt people who work really hard."

Which is just laughable, because Ingraham and the right could care less about American workers, if they did they would support unions, which they don't, they would support raising the minimum wage, which they don't, and they would support Democratic policies to create more jobs, which they don't. They support corporations doing anything they want, which is pay their workers with the lowest wages possible.

Then Michael Skolnik and Jasmyne Cannick were on to talk about race and Zimmerman.

Skolnik said this: "Trayvon's mother has said very loud and clear, that this is not a black or white thing, this is a right or wrong thing. Certainly Trayvon Martin's death has brought up issues of race, but no one from the family or the prosecution team has ever said that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin because he was black."

But civil rights activist Jasmyne Cannick argued that race is inescapably intertwined with the case, saying this: "Whatever the opinions of the family and the prosecution, a lot of African Americans see this as a race issue. The media has a lot to do with that."

Cannick went on to praise Rachel Jeantel and her testimony, saying this: "She was a great, great witness. She stuck to her story and whether or not people understood what she was saying, she stuck with it and told the truth from her perspective."

Even as more companies sever their ties with celebrity chef Paula Deen, who has admitted to using racial slurs in the past, her books are flying off the shelves. Entertainment attorney Crystal McCrary was on with her take on the situation.

McCrary said this: "She already has her 'We Support Paula Deen' Facebook page with thousands and thousands of followers. She's an iconic, beloved figure who has spent years building a following and they're not going to jump ship because of this. I don't like her having used the n-word, but the issue is what is in her heart and none of us know what's in Paula Deen's heart. She shouldn't look at herself as a victim, but she can take this as an opportunity to begin a meaningful discussion about how words have power. This is a learning moment for us all."

And finally, Ingraham had Fox News anchor Bret Baier on to promote his biased hack job hour-long special investigation into the Benghazi attack. Which is ridiculous, especially when Fox has told so many lies about it and got caught being totally biased in their reporting of it.

Baier said this: "Our team has been going over hundreds and hundreds of newly-declassified documents, and talking with people in the know. We've learned that there are a lot of people out there saying that something went wrong. We also have a new interview with Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who made the YouTube video that was blamed for the attack."

Baier added that he and his Fox News staff have uncovered startling new information, saying this: "A number of people have told us that they know exactly who was responsible in Libya, but they are still on the lam. It is really amazing when you go minute-by-minute and there are new details that have come out in the past week about what the military could have done."

And if you believe any of it I feel sorry for you, there is no Benghazi scandal, just a few mistakes, which is not a scandal.

Tea Party Gun Insanity Gets 4th Of July Parade Canceled
By: Steve - June 29, 2013 - 10:00am

And of course neither Bill O'Reilly or his fill-in stooge Laura Ingraham said a word about it. Even though O'Reilly is on vacation, he could have called Ingraham and told her to report on it, and she could have reported on it without him telling her to do it.

A group of Tea Party members caused fear that a Colorado town's 4th of July parade won't be safe to attend because they'll be carrying weapons.

The town of Westcliffe normally has a 4th of July parade every year and is described as the busiest day for businesses. This year, however, citizens were afraid of what will happen with as many as 300 people marching with guns on their shoulders. The Southern Colorado Patriots Club sent a out a flier advertising the parade and instructing members to bring rifles, "especially the evil black ones."

The Custer County Chamber of Commerce, the event's sponsor, cancelled the parade after fearful citizens circulated a petition to stop the club. Donna Hood, president of the chamber, abstained from the vote to cancel the parade but told the Denver Post that the controversy has "polarized this community in a week."

According to the Post, members have carried concealed weapons in the past, but this year want to be more dramatic after two gun control laws passed the legislature that will take effect on Monday. The Colorado magazine bill, which limits gun magazines to 15 rounds, and the background-check bill, which requires background checks for all transfers and sales of firearms.

In May, a group of protesters signed up to march in Washington, D.C. with loaded rifles, even though it was against the law. The leader of the march compared himself to Gandhi for his efforts, but later abandoned the march to create a secessionist army.

The Thursday 6-27-13 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - June 28, 2013 - 11:00am

The biased right-wing hack Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly again, and she did not have a TPM, instead she went to her top story called: Trayvon Martin Case Update. Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: The prosecution's star witness in the George Zimmerman murder trial wrapped up her spellbinding testimony Thursday. Rachel Jeantel is the 19-year-old friend who was on the phone with Trayvon Martin moments before he was shot and killed. Her testimony elevated the racial component of the trial when she said that Trayvon described Zimmerman as a 'cracker.'

At another point today, the defense grilled Jeantel about a letter she had a friend write on her behalf to Trayvon Martin's parents. When asked to read the letter aloud in court, she said, 'I don't read cursive.' At times during her two days on the stand, Rachel Jeantel seemed visibly annoyed, and her appearance demonstrates just how difficult it is to predict how powerful any live witness is going to be. Jeantal is finished testifying for now, but the defense has reserved the right to call her back to the stand."
Then attorneys Stacy Schneider and Arthur Aidala were on to discuss it.

Schneider said this: "This witness poses a lot of credibility problems, and this is a big score for the defense. She had been grilled up and down by law enforcement and attorneys, she was deposed, but not once until now did she mention the 'cracker' comment. I think the jury can take that to mean she's fabricating her testimony. And if the jury believes that Trayvon Martin actually made that comment, that inserts a racial undertone and that could add to George Zimmerman's self-defense claim."

Aidala agreed that Jeantel did not help the prosecution's case, saying this: "I am somewhat disappointed in her performance. When the stakes are this high and she's your main witness, I expected more from her. So if you're the prosecutor, you tell the jury, 'I wish my star witness was a priest or a nun or a rabbi, but this is my star witness and I ask you to accept her for what she is."

Then Nancy Soderberg, who was Ambassador to the United Nations under Bill Clinton was on to talk about Obama and his comments about the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Soderberg said this: "President Obama has made it clear, that Snowden's actions are dangerous and reprehensible and that he'll be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But you have to step back and look at the bigger issue of President Obama's foreign policy, where he has done an enormous amount in the last four years. He needs to be engaging on the big issues and not getting sidetracked by the crisis of the day. Snowden is a 29-year-old who has a hero complex and who has put our national security at risk. He will end up in jail and Obama is right to let law enforcement go through their processes."

Then the Republican Senator Rand Paul was on to cry about the Senate passing an immigration reform bill that will now go to the House, where it will likely face staunch Republican opposition. Ingraham and Paul are both opposed to it, even though it got 68 votes in the Senate, which is a miracle these days.

Paul, who voted against the legislation said this: "I've always been in favor of doing something to fix immigration. We need to figure out how to secure our border and how to have more legal immigration, but I don't think this bill does that. Conservatives are open to immigration reform, but we want to see border security first."

Ingraham criticized the Republican Marco Rubio, who championed the reform bill, saying this: "Senator Rubio talked about 'hopelessness' among illegal immigrants, but there's a lot of hopelessness out there in middle America. We have 7.6% unemployment and people saying they can't get ahead. The concern is that we'll have an unending flow of cheap labor under this bill, which will keep wages low."

Which is just laughable, because Republicans want low wages, in fact, every time the Democrats try to raise the minimum wage all the Republicans vote no. Ingraham is just a fool, and anyone who is opposed to the new immigration bill is a far-right loon. Everyone else supports it, Republicans are also anti-union who want wages low because they are in the back pocket of the big corporations.

Then the former Republican Senator Norm Coleman was on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest on for any kind of balance.

Coleman said this: "A lot of folks are looking at this issue as perhaps saving the Republican Party. This has the toughest border security measure in history - under this bill you can place a border agent every 1,000 feet 24 hours a day across the entire Southern border. There are also conservative economists talking about the positive economic impact of immigration reform. We needed to do something about immigration reform, voters want us to do that, and if we work on this issue Republicans can grow some strength in the Hispanic community."

But Ingraham was not buying any of it, saying this: "This bill is 1,200 pages and it drives a wedge through the conservative movement at a time when people should be unified."

Then Democrat Mark Hannah & Republican Brooke Goldstein were on to talk about how President Obama is handling the Snowden Situation.

Goldstein said this: "It's quite demoralizing for the President to simply make light of this issue by simply calling Snowden a '29-year-old hacker.' This is an issue of massive importance and we shouldn't have national security leaks, but our system is broken and we've had leak after leak. It's shameful!"

Hannah disagreed saying this: "There are thousands of loyal and patriotic Americans working very hard for our national security. If there's any silver lining at all to this Snowden case, it's that we're going to need to re-imagine our national security apparatus and the role of secrecy and privacy."

I have not given my opinion about Snowden until now, I think what he did was a good thing, he let us know the Government is doing a lot more than we knew about, and we need whistleblowers like him to expose this stuff when it is needed. Now he may have done it the wrong way and that could get him some jail time, but overall I think what he did was a good thing.

And finally, Judge Alex Ferrer was on with more on Thursday's testimony by 19-year-old Rachel Jeantel, the prosecution's star witness in the George Zimmerman trial. Alex Ferrer, a former judge, pointed out another problem in the prosecution's reliance on Jeantel.

Ferrer said this: "The first time she ever talked to the police was more than a month after the incident occurred. She was picked up by the police, who brought along Trayvon Martin's mother and her lawyer. They all went to Trayvon's mother's house to interview her and find out what she knew. This is an 'ear-witness' to the crime and I've never heard of the police picking up a critical witness and sitting her down right next to the mother of the victim. It completely taints the investigation. More damaging to the prosecution's case was when she revealed the racial slurs that came out of Trayvon's mouth."

And I agree, I believe Zimmerman is probably guilty of murder, but I am also predicting he will be found not guilty because the prosecution has screwed up the case.

The Entire IRS Scandal Was A Right-Wing Scam
By: Steve - June 28, 2013 - 10:00am

And of course, after we found this out neither O'Reilly, Ingraham, Hannity, or anyone at Fox reported it, they just ignored the entire story. Here is what O'Reilly and Ingraham failed to report, proving once again that O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham are nothing but biased right-wing hacks.

Monday's revelation that progressive as well as conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status had been singled out for review by the Internal Revenue Service left one pressing question: Why did the inspector general's report detailing improper scrutiny only mention conservative groups?

The answer: The IG only reported on conservative groups because that's what Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the dishonest partisan chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told him to do. From The Hill:
The Treasury inspector general whose report helped drive the IRS targeting controversy says it limited its examination to conservative groups because of a request from House Republicans.

A spokesman for Russell George, the Treasury's inspector general for tax administration, said they were asked by House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) to narrowly focus on Tea Party organizations.
Now remember something, this explanation is inconsistent with the description of their investigation the IG gave in its May 14 report, which strongly suggested that they had reviewed IRS targeting of all groups that sought tax-exempt status.

What all of this means is that the Republican Darrell Issa dishonestly took the media and the American people for a ride, again!

Everyone agrees that it's a huge problem if the IRS is scrutinizing conservative groups and not progressive groups, which is what the IG report suggested. The right-wing media, with their typical tendency to vastly overreach, claimed absent evidence that the IRS targeting had been directed by the White House or initiated by officials in Washington, D.C. and demanded the appointment of a special prosecutor.

But now reports indicate that "terms including 'Israel,' 'Progressive' and 'Occupy' were used by agency workers to help pick groups for closer examination." And the reason we are only learning about this now is because a Republican member of Congress asked that an investigation only review the targeting of conservative groups, not progressive ones.

In other words, Issa had the IG only look at the targeting of conservative groups, so he could dishonestly use the report to make the IRS look bad, and to try and use it to link the targeting to President Obama, even though he knew it was not true, and he had no evidence.

This leaves a new question. The revelation of Issa's role in the slanting of the IG report follows months of the California congressman apparently leaking out-of-context statements to the media to drum up controversy over both the IRS story and the Obama administration's response to the September attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya. Will the media continue to take Issa seriously, or will they begin to treat him as a partisan actor who is using his position to attack the Obama administration rather than seeking legitimate investigations?

And we will find out soon. Because just a few hours after the news broke that the IRS had also targeted liberal groups for scrutiny, Issa's committee announced that it had subpoenaed four State Department witnesses as part of their Benghazi investigation.

The Wednesday 6-27-13 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - June 27, 2013 - 11:00am

The biased right-wing hack Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly, and there was no TPM, instead she went right to her top story about two Supreme Court rulings. Democratic strategist Bernard Whitman and Pastor Robert Jeffress were on to discuss it.

Whitman said this: "This is an extraordinary day for all Americans, because the Supreme Court has affirmed what a majority of Americans has come to realize - that a loving couple, be they gay or straight, should have the ability to love whomever they want and to enter into marriage. This strengthens our families, our communities, and America as a whole."

But Jeffress argued that the Supreme Court overturned common sense, saying this: "In 1885 the Supreme Court said that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman from which all good things in society come. What has changed since then? The Constitution hasn't changed, what has changed is the culture, and the Supreme Court caved to political correctness. I'll remind your other guest that neither he nor any of us would be here had it not been for a heterosexual union between a man and a woman."

Hey Jeffress, back in the 1800's people thought it was ok to own a slave, so using laws from the 1800's to excuse marriage discrimination is not smart.

Then Kate Obenshain & Kirsten Powers were on to talk about a new Fox News poll that says President Obama's approval rating has dipped to 43%. While ignoring the fact that Gallup has it at 50%, and even the conservative Rasmussen has it at 46%.

Powers said this: "There has been an explosion of scandals, and I don't know how anyone could hold up under that. I feel like the NSA scandal was the tipping point after people were already frustrated by the IRS situation and Benghazi. The President doesn't look great when somebody is on the run from the United States and exposing secrets."

Obenshain said this: "The President is not a victim of these controversies and scandals, he actually perpetrated them. He's always relied on his 'likeability' factor, but right now that is down and for the first time a majority of Americans don't even like the President."

Then Hilary Shelton was on to talk about the Supreme Court ruling against sections of the Voting Rights Act that required certain states to obtain federal approval for their voting procedures.

Hilary Shelton of the NAACP, who denounced the Court's decision said this: "This is a big setback because the Voting Rights Act has proven to be a very helpful tool in preventing discrimination, and so the question becomes, why would you change any of it? We're still seeing a lot of discrimination at the state and local level in voter participation, we've seen all kinds of deceptive actions."

But of course the conservative Ingraham disagreed, saying that parts of the Voting Rights Act had outlived their usefulness: "The Court has said that it's no longer 1965 and we've made great progress. We're not in the same place we were in 48 years ago when we had poll taxes and literacy tests."

Then Ingraham had another segment on the Paula Deen story, which I am no longer reporting on because this is not a real news story, it's tabloid journalism. I will say this about it, I do not think she should have been fired for using the n-word 30 years ago, especially in the south where it was common to use it. Back then it was almost accepted to use the n-word, especially in the south. Now if she had said it last month, that would be a different story.

Then Eric Schwartzreich & Anna-Sigga Nicolazzi were on to talk about the Zimmerman trial.

Jurors at the George Zimmerman murder trial heard testimony Wednesday from Rachel Jeantel, who was on the phone with Trayvon Martin just before he was shot to death. Former prosecutor Anna-Sigga Nicolazzi described the testimony as damning, saying this: "This was bone-chilling testimony. The jury could actually feel the rainy night, they could feel Trayvon Martin telling this young woman that this guy was following him. You have criminal liability starting to build very powerfully in this case."

But attorney Eric Schwartzreich pointed out that, in that same phone call, Trayvon Martin said he was being followed by a creepy-ass cracker: "This is a definite problem for the prosecution. This is an all-white female jury, and to hear the term 'cracker' being used by Trayvon Martin is definitely a problem for the prosecution. The jurors might wonder whether Martin was racist himself."

Then Alexis McGill Johnson was on to talk about Texas State Senator Wendy Davis who got national attention Wednesday night when she filibustered for 13 hours in an effort to block some crazy far-right anti-abortion legislation.

Johnson, who sits on the board of Planned Parenthood said this: "What we're talking about is protecting the legal right for a woman to make a personal and complex decision, so this wasn't just Planned Parenthood that had a victory last night, it was millions of women who stood with Wendy Davis. As long as abortion is safe and legal, we have the right to fight for it. Texas is just a small piece of this story, this year we've had some 700 bills that affect women's rights to their own bodies."

And of course the far-right pro-life nut Ingraham argued that pro-choice organizations like Planned Parenthood were greatly damaged by abortionist and murderer Kermit Gosnell, saying this: "You are feeling the heat because of what happened with Gosnell, which shone a light on what abortion is. Late-term abortion is startling to a generation of Americans that has a new sense of what the inside of the womb looks like. People are becoming more pro-life."

Which is a lie from Ingraham, because 47% say they are pro-choice, and 50% say they are pro-life. But what Ingraham does not tell you is that only 20 percent of the people think abortion should be illegal across the board. 52% believe abortion should be legal in some circumstances, and 25 percent believe it should be legal in all cases. And when the polling questions are more nuanced than a simple pro-choice/pro-life identification, the answers people give tell a much different story.

Then Sgt. Jack Pierce & Sgt. John Rogers were on to talk about the Track Chairs for veterans.

Pierce said this: "The chair changed my life tremendously. I've always been an outdoor person and one of the things I missed was being able to get out on hiking trails or to the beach. The Track Chair opened that back up to me and now I can take my son out to go fishing."

Rogers said this: "The chair gets you off the pavement, you can maneuver the soft terrain. So I can go out for a walk with my wife." To get much more information about the Track Chairs go to the website

Texas Already Working On Voting Laws To Suppress The Vote
By: Steve - June 27, 2013 - 10:00am

Just two hours after the Supreme Court ruled that discrimination is not rampant enough in Southern states to warrant restrictions under the Voting Rights Act, Texas is already advancing a voter ID law and a redistricting map blocked last year for discriminating against black and Latino residents. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued a statement declaring that both measures may go into effect immediately, now that there is no law stopping them from discriminating against minorities.

In 2012, the Justice Department blocked these measures under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Federal courts agreed that both the strict voter ID law and the redistricting map would disproportionately target the state’s fast-growing minority communities. Still, Texas filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court over the Voting Rights Act case complaining that the DOJ had used “abusive and heavy-handed tactics” to thwart the state’s attempts at voter suppression.

In the case of the new electoral map, a panel of federal judges found that "substantial surgery" was done to predominantly black districts, cutting off representatives offices from their strongest fundraising bases. Meanwhile, white Congress members districts were either preserved or "redrawn to include particular country clubs and, in one case, the school belonging to the Republican incumbent's grandchildren."

The new map was also drawn in secret by white Republican representatives, without notifying their black and Latino peers. After the court blocked the map, the legislature approved small changes to appease Democratic lawmakers last week. Now that they are free to use the old maps, however, Gov. Rick Perry (R) could simply veto the new plan and use the more discriminatory maps.

The strict photo ID requirement blocked by the DOJ and a federal court would require Texans to show one of a very narrow list of acceptable photo IDs. Expired gun licenses from other states are considered valid, but Social Security cards and student IDs are not. If voters do not have an ID -- as many minorities, seniors, and poor people do not -- they must travel at their own expense, produce their birth certificate, and in many cases pay a fee to get an ID.

Thanks to the Supreme Court, the DOJ no longer has any power to block these laws, even with the backing of federal judges who found blatant discrimination. Under the remaining sections of the Voting Rights Act, individuals may sue to kill these measures, but only after they have gone into effect and disenfranchised countless Texans of color.

Projections show that the eligible voter pool will shift to roughly 44 percent white voters and 37 percent Hispanic voters by 2025. Faced with this demographic reality, conservatives have alternated between changing their messaging to appeal to Latino voters, who overwhelmingly supported Democrats in 2012, and making it harder for them to vote.

It is only a matter of time before other states with voter ID laws and other election law changes blocked by the DOJ last year follow Texas’ example. Besides Texas, the attorney generals of Alabama, Arizona, South Dakota, and South Carolina argued that the Voting Rights Act was getting in the way of their ability to enact discriminatory laws.

The Tuesday 6-25-13 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - June 26, 2013 - 11:00am

The far-right stooge Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly and her TPM was called: Is President Obama losing touch? Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: With all the problems facing America today, the President has announced a big new plan to tackle 'global warming.' He announced that the EPA will do what he couldn't get Congress to do - issue regulations that will make it more expensive for traditional energy companies to do business in the United States. At the same time, he'll give benefits and special breaks to solar and wind power companies, including another $8 billion in loan guarantees.

Remember how well that worked out last time? So who cares if the President's plan results in higher energy costs and kills thousands of jobs in the oil and gas industry? At least Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio will be happy. The President is wildly out of touch with the concerns of the American people - gun control, amnesty, and now this!

These issues don't rank in the top 20 of voter concerns, but they are at the top of the far left's wish list. As usual, the President wrapped his new plan around 'protecting the children.' This is the same President who thinks it's just hunky dory to give a half-billion dollars of taxpayer money to the biggest killer of the unborn, Planned Parenthood.

In the end, if we don't have a robust economy producing good jobs, and if we don't cut the deficit and long-term debt, our children's future will be bleak. So forgive me, Mr. President, if I am not warming up to your 'climate change' silliness when there are so many other pressing problems.
So Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were then on to discuss it.

Colmes said this: "You forgot about Tesla Motors, which is actually making money. As for immigration, it's not amnesty, it's a 13-year hoop-jumping contest before you can become a citizen. And the budget deficit is actually being reduced as we speak."

Crazy Crowley said this: "Last week Obama was in Europe giving a speech focusing on the reduction of America's nuclear arsenal, which nobody is talking about. This week it's climate change, which is not an issue. These things are planted by Barack Obama to distract from what's really going on."

Then Republican Senator Ted Cruz was on with his take on the President's climate initiative.

Cruz said this: "All Americans say that our priority right now, is jobs and the economy. And for the President to come out and say one of his top priorities is killing jobs and hurting the economy makes no sense! A national energy tax will hurt every hard-working taxpayer in this country, it's an example of his being out of touch with hard-working Americans. Gas bills are going to go up, electricity bills are going to go up, and this is just another burden on those who are struggling to make it every day in the Obama economy."

And let me point out one thing, our gas and light bills are not up, they actually went down. Our city signed a deal with a power company and we are paying 20% less now. So Cruz is lying when he said all the gas and light bills are going to go up. We have a 3 year contract so it will not happen for at least 3 years.

Cruz also took aim at the bipartisan Senate immigration reform proposal, saying this: "This is a shell game - the legalization happens immediately and the border security is promised some time in the future. I don't think the American people are going to fall for it."

Then Mark Zaid, a specialist in national security cases was on to talk more about Edward Snowden and Russia.

Zaid said this: "We don't have a lot of leverage against Russia, and let's be realistic - if we had a Russian of this caliber, we would not be sending them to Russia. This is now a political game and Snowden is a political international pawn. He is impacting the foreign relations of the United States, and this is not helping our relationship with Russia, China, Hong Kong, or wherever he might go. We have to assume that both China and Russia, with or without Snowden's permission, have taken every document that was on his laptop computers."

Then John Stossel, who has compiled a list of the things he hates most about government, was on to cry more about the Government, even though it does no good at all and is a total waste of our time.

Stossel said this: "There's Obamacare , the fact that the government now employs 22-million people, and the $17-trillion national debt. We've already given up a lot of our privacy and the NSA is just data mining, it's not getting individual information. The government does horrible things, but the jury is out on the spying."

Ingraham disputed Stossel's claim that surveillance is a relatively minor problem, saying this: "The Fourth Amendment is critical and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is one of the cornerstones of our overall freedom."

Which is so funny, because when Bush and Cheney were doing the very same thing (and worse) totally going around the FISA courts, Ingraham did not give a damn about the 4th amendment back then. Now she suddenly cares because a Democrat is in the White House.

Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle reported the latest from the murder trial of George Zimmerman.

Wiehl said this: "Today there was testimony about Trayvon Martin being flat on his back and shot through the chest, which really resonates with the jury. There were also people who testified that neighborhood watch volunteers were told to just report, don't go after anybody."

Guilfoyle theorized that the prosecution is trying to establish Zimmerman's recklessness, saying this: "These witnesses are laying the foundation to say that Zimmerman was very irritated to see people coming into the gated community and that he killed Trayvon Martin because he wanted to, not because he had to."

Then they turned to the Supreme Court's ruling on the Voting Rights Act, which requires some states to get federal approval of their voting laws. "The majority of the Court said the act was passed in 1965," Wiehl said, "and things have changed a lot since then. Racism is not as prevalent and we're not going to put that onus on the states. It's a very important decision."

Which ignores the fact that states are still trying to pass laws to make it harder for blacks and minorities to vote. Especially in the south, Wiehl, Guilfoyle, and Ingraham all ignored those facts, to just dismiss the ruling, because they are all right-wing stooges who like the ruling.

And finally, Sergeant Dillard Johnson, whose Bradley Fighting Vehicle unit is reported to have killed more than 2,000 enemy combatants in Iraq was on to promote his book.

Johnson said this: "My book is dedicated to our squadron and what we did. As far as the number of kills go, my gunner did over half of those and I was just present on the vehicle." Johnson also recounted his assignment as a "designated marksman" and the time he shot an enemy from more than 800 yards. "We had an M14 with a thermal optic that we could use to shoot targets at a distance and in this sniper battle I got this guy after taking 15 shots. He was a better shot than me, I just had better equipment. The people I shot were fathers and sons and brothers, but they had a job to do and I had a job to do. I wasn't brutal when I didn't need to be and I was compassionate when I needed to be."

Fox Applauds SCOTUS Decision On The Voting Rights Act
By: Steve - June 26, 2013 - 10:00am

And of course Fox supports it, they are biased Republicans that do not care if blacks have problems voting, because they mostly vote for Democrats, and the decision came down 5-4 with the 5 Republicans on the court voting yes to strike it down.

Fox's Andrew Napolitano ignored the Voting Rights Act's recent history of protecting voters from racially discriminatory measures to celebrate the Supreme Court's decision to strike down one of the Act's key provisions.

On the June 25th edition of Fox News America Live, Fox senior legal analyst Andrew Napolitano discussed a Supreme Court decision to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. The section established a flexible formula for demonstrating voter suppression among jurisdictions that then required those areas to "pre-clear" changes to voting laws with the Department of Justice.

Napolitano applauded the decision, citing the Court's opinion that the section "worked so well" that "the procedure is not necessary anymore. The conditions that caused Congress to create that procedure have been eradicated by the procedure." When host Megyn Kelly pointed out criticism from civil rights leaders to the decision, Napolitano responded, "It would have been a major setback had this been invalidated in 1965 when it was enacted, but no one is seriously complaining today." Which ignores the facts.

Despite their claims to the contrary, the Voting Rights Act has continued to protect voters from discriminatory voting changes. Legal analyst Andrew Cohen criticized the decision in a post at The Atlantic, noting that Section 4 was "invoked more than 700 times between 1982 and 2006 to block racially discriminatory voting measures." A Mother Jones article quoted Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who, in her dissent to the decision, pointed out "eight examples of race-based voter discrimination in recent history."

In remarks responding to the decision, Attorney General Eric Holder also pointed to recent cases in which voters were protected from voting law changes thanks to Section 4:
HOLDER: Last year, a federal court cited the value of the Voting Rights Act in blocking the Texas congressional redistricting map on the grounds that it discriminated against Latino voters. In that case, the court noted that the parties "provided more evidence of discriminatory intent than we have space, or need, to address here."

The federal court that reviewed South Carolina's photo ID law also noted the "vital function" that the Voting Rights Act played in prompting the state to change how it will implement the statute in future elections so that it would no longer disproportionately impact black voters. Without the Section 4 coverage formula, neither of these discriminatory voting changes would have been subject to review and both could have been implemented immediately.
An amicus brief filed by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) called the Voting Rights Act "one of the most successful civil rights statutes in American history." The brief explained that in a 2006 hearing on the VRA's reauthorization, the House Judiciary Committee "requested, received, and incorporated into its record eleven reports documenting the continuation of discrimination after 1982 in covered jurisdictions."

Here is the real truth that O'Reilly and Fox will not tell you. The conservatives on the Supreme Court did this to make it legal for Republicans to pass new voting laws that block and or make it a lot harder for blacks and minorities to vote, so Republicans can win more elections, because most blacks and minorities vote Democratic. In other words, if you cant win elections legally by getting the most votes, just change the laws so you can block the people who vote against you from voting.

The Monday 6-24-13 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - June 25, 2013 - 11:00am

The far-right stooge Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly, and her TPM was called: The future of the GOP. Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: In all my years of warning GOP moderates, I'm certain this Senate immigration deal is the worst thing they've ever done. It's not good for the country, it's not good for the poor, it's not good for any of the principles they claim to support.

The more time folks have to read this mess, the more we learn how it doesn't do what it claims. Like the fact that border agents don't really have to be hired until 2017, and it gives Janet Napolitano the discretion to nix any part of the border fence.

The bill is stuffed with pork to appease Senators who are last minute holdouts; it's totally shady and shameful. This week the GOP should have focused on the Edward Snowden debacle, which underscores Obama's complete inability to deal with China or Russia.

But instead, the GOP will continue infuriating its own base and hurting the wage earning prospects for Americans with this toxic immigration bill. I don't see how the GOP coalition can continue on this path because the priorities of working people are either ignored or openly dismissed. To all the Republicans who support this bill, you are writing your own political obituary!
Then Judge Alex Ferrer was on to talk about the trial of George Zimmerman, who is charged with murdering Trayvon Martin.

Ferrer said this: "It was a powerful beginning to the case. The prosecution got up there and made a really powerful opening statement, they took the jury right to the scene of the crime and used very strong language that they say came right from George Zimmerman's mouth. Then the defense got up and gave an opening statement that dragged on for three hours. Perhaps it was a strategy to hit on every single point to get the jury's attention, but it was a completely different feel between the prosecution's opening statement and the opening statement of the defense."

Then Former federal prosecutor Marc Mukasey was on to discuss Edward Snowden, who disclosed classified information about government surveillance, and reportedly left Hong Kong for Moscow over the weekend.

Mukasey said this: "The best laid extradition plans can go awry. I've extradited hundreds of people and this process can be laden with paperwork and jammed up for years. But in a case like this you would think they would streamline it because it's an urgent case - this guy has violated the Espionage Act."

Ingraham claimed that China and Russia are thumbing their noses at President Obama, saying this: "China and Russia know he's important to us but they have no interest in rushing this along, they want to find out what this guy knows. This says a lot about how other countries view us."

Then Juan Williams Mary Katharine were on to talk about the Snowden story.

Ham said this: "When it comes to Snowden himself, I'm sort of in the middle. The larger point is that it reveals an ineptitude that makes me concerned about what is going on at the NSA and how they're able to deal with all this information. Where's the payoff on all this 'smart power' we've been engaged in for all these years?"

Williams said this: "That high-tech surveillance information has been protecting us from terrorism. Edward Snowden is like a gnat at a summer picnic - he's irritating, but let's not confuse him with the fact that we have all this surveillance."

Then Steve Adubado & Bishop Harry Jackson were on to talk about celebrity chef Paula Deen, who has been fired by The Food Network after admitting that she had used racial slurs in the past.

Adubato said this: "Paula Deen didn't handle this well from a media point of view. She didn't show up for a scheduled interview on a major network and then she did 'hostage videos' in which she tried to defend herself. She looked terrible and didn't come across very well. The sponsors and the network said they don't want any part of this."

Jackson argued that this episode could provide a lesson in race relations, saying this: "I believe we could challenge Paula Deen to donate money to various programs and do shows on heritage. I think there's a redemptive side to this and the church could lead the way."

Then Frank Sherry, whose America's Voice organization is lobbying for immigration reform and wants some form of legalization for illegal immigrants already here was on to talk immigration.

Sherry said this: "The guts of this bill, is the most massive expansion of immigration enforcement in history. There's a doubling of the Border Patrol, a doubling of fencing, and a mandatory e-verify system. This is something you should be celebrating, it's designed to get Republican support and also provides a path to citizenship. What's not to like?"

Ingraham said this: "You know a lot of this stuff that we're hearing will never get done. And all this pork was inserted into the bill to get the support of Senators who were on the fence."

Then Ingraham played a re-run clip of O'Reilly, Kirsten Powers, and Kate Obenshain, that I will not report on because it's a re-run.

And finally, Dr. Keith Ablow was on to talk about tightrope walker Nik Wallenda. As millions watched on live TV Sunday evening, Wallenda crossed a portion of the Grand Canyon on a 2" thick cable. So Ingraham asked the biased Fox News psychologist Keith Ablow to analyze our fascination with death-defying stunts.

Ablow said this: "People are looking for real risk, which is why extreme fighting is crushing boxing as a sport. People want to see real courage and real possible peril. Why? Because we're all addicted to Facebook and the Internet and other things that make us less alive and less grounded in our own sense of self. This guy crossed the Grand Canyon for real, there was no faking it. He could really die!"

O'Reilly Ignored Fox Business Analyst Corruption Story
By: Steve - June 25, 2013 - 10:00am

And O'Reilly also ignored the recent contract termination of contributor Tobin Smith, for the very same thing Payne did.

Charles Payne, a contributor and frequent guest host for Fox News and Fox Business, was compensated to promote the stocks of at least three companies since joining Fox. The practice of compensated stock endorsements is currently prohibited by Fox rules, and resulted in the recent contract termination of contributor Tobin Smith.

Payne was paid $40,000 to promote The Brainy Brands Company, "$25,000 by a third party" to promote NXT Nutritionals Holdings, and an undisclosed amount for a "consulting arrangement" to promote Generex Biotechnology Corporate.

The share prices of the companies Payne was paid to tout are now essentially worthless.

Payne forecasted lofty gains for investors who bought those stocks. He projected in 2011 that Brainy Brands could hit $4.50 a share in three years. At the time of the pitch, Brainy Brands was trading at around $1.35 -- it's now below 1 cent. Payne claimed in 2009 that NXT could "turn $10,000 into $25,000." At the time, NXT was trading for $2.00 -- it's now below 1/10th of a cent. And Payne claimed in November 2007 that Generex, then at $1.58, was a long term "screaming buy" which could hit $7.00. It's now trading at roughly 4 cents.

Aside from rosy projections, Payne's sponsored stock pitches shared a common theme: using his cable news and Fox credentials to assure skeptical investors that his advice was trustworthy. A direct marketing company which worked with Payne stated it brandished Payne's Fox News connections "to build credibility" with his potential customers. The stock pitches were also used as a vehicle to entice readers to join Payne's subscription newsletter.

Fox policy prohibits contributors from receiving compensation to promote a stock. MarketWatch -- which, like Fox, is owned by News Corp. -- reported on June 18 that a spokesman said "no Contributor to FBN, nor his/her firm, and/or family members are allowed to accept financial consideration of any kind whatsoever to issue research, advertisements, or to otherwise promote individual stocks or securities."

As a result of the rule, Fox News fired contributor Tobin Smith, who regularly releases sponsored research reports.

MarketWatch quoted Smith claiming that the rule was instituted in "late" 2012, or after the three Payne stock promotions studied in this report first occurred. It's also not clear if Payne has been compensated for stock promotions after 2011. Regardless, even if Payne's actions occurred before an official Fox policy, he still used Fox's brand to engage in practices that the network now thinks is problematic enough to prohibit and fire an employee.

Fox and Payne did not respond to requests for comment.

Payne and his company, Wall Street Strategies, have a problematic history related to the disclosure of paid stock endorsements. In 1999, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that while not "admitting or denying" wrongdoings, Payne "agreed to pay a civil penalty of $25,000."

Payne's Fox News and Fox Business appearances are routinely filled with misinformation on topics like the unemployment rate, unemployment insurance, climate change, corporate tax breaks, disability benefits, and federal worker compensation.

He has attacked antipoverty programs by claiming "it gets a little comfortable to be in poverty"; said that "the good part about the stigma of food stamps is it actually does serve as an impetus to get people off" them; claimed poor people are "indebted servants" who believe society "owes" them; and said wealth disparity "really doesn't" bother me -- "in fact, it inspires me." He's also spoken at Tea Party rallies in recent years.

Payne's Wall Street Strategies offers "a complete suite of superior stock selection services that meet the needs of professional traders, active investors and long-term investors with horizons of one day to six months or more." The company's advertised services (account required) include a monthly newsletter ($159/year), "Hotline" Reports ($4,000/year) and "Swing Strategies" Reports ($4,800/year).

And O'Reilly ignored it all, but he sure has plenty of time to go after anyone at MSNBC who even jaywalks, proving once again that O'Reilly does selective reporting, depending on who you work for and what political party you favor. If someone at MSNBC had done this, O'Reilly would lead the show with it and spend most of the hour talking about it, but when someone at Fox does it, he says nothing.

Fox Idiot Claims Only Liberals Are Slamming Paula Deen
By: Steve - June 24, 2013 - 10:00am

Fox News correspondent Todd Starnes is attacking "the liberal, anti-South media" for unfairly "trying to crucify Paula Deen" over her admission in a court deposition that she's used racial epithets. Even though many conservatives are also going after Deen.

Todd Starnes, who also hosts a Fox News Radio segment, wrote on his Facebook page that the "liberal, anti-South media is trying to crucify Paula Deen. They accuse her of using a derogatory word to describe a black person. Paula admitted she used the word -- back in the 1980s - when a black guy walked into the bank, stuck a gun in her face and ordered her to hand over the cash. The national media failed to mention that part of the story. I'll give credit to the Associated Press for telling the full story."

Starnes also defended Deen via Twitter, writing: "The mainstream media hates Paula Deen. I think it's because most of them don't eat meat."

Starnes defense of Deen doesn't square with reports about Deen's deposition. The Huffington Post reported it "obtained a transcript of the deposition in question" and Deen is quoted as stating she probably used the word in telling my husband about the incident, and she is sure she's used it since then, but it's been a very long time. She went on to say "my children and my brother object to that word being used in any cruel or mean behavior. As well as I do."

To sum this up, everyone who is opposed to racism should be offended and upset when a white person uses the n-word. And the only people who defend it or try to explain it away, are white racists. I will also say this, there are some white Republicans in the media defending her, but that's about it. And to be honest, they are probably racists who have also used the n-word in the past and maybe even still use it.

Fox News MacCallum Calls Out Fox News & Hannity
By: Steve - June 23, 2013 - 10:00am

And Hannity will probably try to get her fired for it. Fox News Martha MacCallum criticized a Hannity segment for crossing the line of civil society after a frequent Hannity guest yelled for his female debate opponent to "know your role and shut your mouth."

She wondered if this type of behavior -- not far from standard fare on Hannity and other Fox primetime programming -- damages the nation's ability to have serious discussions.

Frequent Hannity guest Bill Cunningham appeared on the June 20th Hannity show to debate Fox contributor Tamara Holder on the merits of claims that Attorney General Eric Holder mislead Congress while under oath. Cunningham told Tamara Holder she was "one of the stooges of the left," pointing his finger at her while loudly shouting, "Sign the petition, Tamara!

To call for the resignation of the chief law enforcement officer of this nation because he lied under oath when he criminalized journalism. And you know he did it but you refuse to do what's right." Holder replied that, "your finger does not prove your point," pointing back at Cunningham.
CUNNINGHAM: Whose finger's in my face right now?

HOLDER: Mine, because I'm telling you to shut up.

CUNNINGHAM: Wait a minute. You shut up. Know your role and shut your mouth.

HOLDER: My role as a woman?


HOLDER: What is your obsession with stooges? Aren't stooges like little elves?

CUNNINGHAM: I'm sitting next to you. I'm sitting next to you. And you're a liberal stooge and an excuse-monger for the Obama administration.
The next morning, America's Newsroom dedicated a segment to whether Cunningham's behavior "crossed the line," concluding that conduct like this on Hannity stifled important public debate on national issues. Host Martha MacCallum appeared speechless after playing an excerpt of Cunningham's comments, asking, "Is this what we've come to? Is this civil society?"

No it's not Martha, and of course it's on Fox on the Hannity show, and stuff like that happens all the time. Juan Williams and Mary Katherine Ham agreed that Cunningham's conduct was unacceptable, as Williams said: "He not only crossed the line, he obliterated the line ... I think it shut down the conversation. That doesn't help."

MacCallum shared the concern that personal attacks like Cunningham's damage the nation's ability to communicate, wondering, "What does this say, sort of, about our ability to communicate and you know, have a serious, respectful discussion on these things these days?" Williams replied, "What it does is, it makes it very difficult then to cross lines to have reasoned conversation."

Bill Cunningham has been crossing the line for years, and yet Fox continues to host him on during primetime. Among his most egregious claims, Cunningham has declared President Obama "to be the beast. Six-six-six," and said that under the Obama administration "women are going to sell their bodies for pennies."

He also claimed the poor are in poverty "because they lack values, ethics, and morals" and advocated "beating the hell outta the homeless." A Nexis transcript search finds Hannity has had Cunningham on his show eight times so far in 2013.

The Friday 6-21-13 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - June 22, 2013 - 11:00am

The far-right stooge Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly, her TPM was called: The immigration debate. Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: This immigration reform drama playing out on Capitol Hill really should have its own Playbill. This spectacle has been directed all along by the White House and brilliantly choreographed by liberal New York Senator Chuck Schumer. President Obama's staff has been drafting language for amendments and giving other amendments 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down.'

And let's not forget that the President's point person on immigration is none other than Cecilia Munoz, the former senior vice president of a militant open borders group. The dialogue in this off-off-off Broadway production is stale - clichés and generalities follow any time a tough question is asked. For instance, what is the economic impact of this legislation, especially on working class Americans?

Republican Senators supporting the bill are already starting to hear negative reviews; calls to their offices are overwhelmingly against the legislation. I hope House Speaker John Boehner is watching this drama carefully.

Since open-border groups are involved in this effort, he should announce that the House GOP is done with 'comprehensive' immigration reform this year and simply pass a resolution urging President Obama to start enforcing the border to protect American prosperity and national security. Republicans can then re-focus the debate on helping to increase the prosperity of all American workers.
Then former Bush adviser Brad Blakeman was on to discuss it.

Blakeman said this: "The process may be directed by the White House, but if the President finally wants to engage on an important topic, we should meet him halfway and create a bill that is open and honest and enforceable. This bill is not amnesty and we are securing the borders. The American people believe that immigration reform is necessary and they believe it should happen now."

Ingraham disputed Blakeman's analysis and pointed to a new report by the Congressional Budget Office, saying this: "The CBO predicts that wages and unemployment are going to be adversely affected by this legislation. How can Republican or Democratic Senators vote for legislation that is going to lower the wages of middle class workers?"

Then Mike Ghouse of the America Together Foundation was on to talk about Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott, who wants the FBI to take down an ad showing the faces of 16 men wanted for terrorism, claiming it is racist because most of the men are Muslims.

Ghouse said this: "I'm going to address Robert Mueller of the FBI. Take that poster down, Robert! The stupidity of this poster is that these terrorists are not in America, they are elsewhere in the world. This poster should be in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan, which is where these guys are. There are 16 terrorists in this picture and it shows exclusively Muslim guys, but there are terrorists of every religion and race and ethnicity. This poster needs to come down!"

And of course Ingraham disagreed, she told Ghouse that he is not helping his cause, saying this: "Good Muslims in the United States hurt themselves by calling something like this 'racist.' These are wanted terrorists and they happen to be mostly Islamic."

Then Scott Vernick, a specialist in privacy issues was on to talk about Ingraham saying the Obama administration has taken unprecedented steps to quash government leaks.

Vernick said this: "The Obama administration is encouraging government workers to be highly sensitive to things that could be a threat to national security. There are 5-million people who have access to classified material and a half-million contract workers who have top security clearances, so I think the administration wanted to put in place programs to make sure that national security secrets are kept within the government. The American public realizes that there are threats to national security and the programs that have recently come to light are meant to strike a balance between security and privacy. I think the President believes that he needs to encourage government workers to take a more active role in the security of classified material."

Then the far-right stooge Nile Gardiner was on to talk about President Obama giving a speech in Berlin. Five years ago, during his first presidential run, Barack Obama attracted a crowd of 200,000 in Berlin; this week he spoke at the same spot to about 5,000. Which makes sense, because 5 years ago Obama made history for being the first black President. Ingraham and Gardiner used the 5,000 number to make it look like they like Obama that much less, which is ridiculous.

Gardiner said this: "The speech was a bit of a disaster, and even Berlin's leading newspaper described it as an 'embarrassment.' The speech was pure, unadulterated mush with the usual laundry list of his favorite pet liberal causes. There was no substance whatsoever."

Gardiner also slammed President Obama's performance at the G8 summit in Northern Ireland, saying this: "His only policy was surrender and appeasement. President Putin views Barack Obama as an extraordinarily weak-kneed figure, he has become an embarrassment on the world stage."

And of course Ingraham never reported that this Nile Gardiner is an Obama hating partisan hack from the Heritage Foundation who never has anything good to say about the President, no matter what he does.

Then Geraldo was on to talk about the Taliban offering to return Army Sergeant Bowe Berghdal, who has been held captive since 2009, in exchange for five prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay.

Geraldo endorsed the deal, saying this: "The Israelis have given up 500 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for a single Israeli POW, so I am absolutely endorsing this deal. I want Sergeant Bergdahl home and we make peace with enemies, not with friends. These five detainees have been held for 12 long years and they have never been charged with anything. Let's get this deal done, let's get this poor man home!"

But of course Ingraham disagreed, warning that the proposed swap could establish a dangerous precedent, saying this: "Terrorists might target Americans for kidnapping so they can get other terrorists out, that is a possibility."

Then Jim Gray was on to talk about New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernendez, who is being questioned over the death of Odin Lloyd, which is not a real news story, so I am not going to report on it. This is a story for ESPN and the sports news shows, not a so-called real news show.

And finally, Ingraham had Dan Gainor of the conservative Media Research Center on to cry about Tom Brokaw saying something on the Comedy Network, and the so-called liberal media bias, while never ever saying a word about all the conservative media bias at Fox or on the internet, or the bias from Gainor himself at the Media Research center.

Gainor said this about Brokaw: "I couldn't decide whether this was ironic or moronic. He said this on a show that exists to bash conservatives and he said it to John Oliver, who famously joked about wanting to shoot Tim Tebow before he'd shoot Osama bin Laden. We did an analysis of The Daily Show and they bash conservatives 4 - 1 over liberals. This is 'vicious central.'"

Earth to right-wing idiots, it's a comedy show on the comedy network, so their bias is meaningless because they are not a news show, you morons.

Now of course Ingraham agreed that Brokaw picked an odd venue to voice his concerns, saying this: "It's ironic that he speaks about viciousness when he's on The Daily Show. It's not like The Daily Show is spending inordinate amounts of time bashing Nancy Pelosi."

One last time, it's a comedy show, not a news show. Nobody cares what bias they have or what they talk about, because it's not a news show.

Governor Signs Stand Your Ground Law At Shooting Range
By: Steve - June 22, 2013 - 10:00am

More than a year after the shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin on a Florida street drew national attention to Stand Your Ground laws, and with shooter George Zimmerman's trial set to begin next week, no state has successfully repealed its law authorizing the use of deadly force. Thursday, Alaska became the latest state to adopt a Stand Your Ground law, with Gov. Sean Parnell (R) signing the law at a shooting range.

"The resolutions, the legislation we sign today are our declaration that we are strong supporters here in the last frontier of our Second Amendment," Parnell said during the signing. Alaska Public Radio reports that Parnell wanted to send a message by signing this bill and several others that fight federal overreach at the shooting range.

Alaska joins at least 21 other states that have passed Stand Your Ground or similar laws that impose no duty to retreat when facing an attacker. The ALEC and NRA-backed laws have cleared those involved in fatal shootings of any criminal liability, and pave the way for arbitrary determinations of guilt and innocence.

Studies have shown that Stand Your Ground laws are discriminatory, associated with higher homicide rates, and don’t deter crime. The U.S. Civil Rights Commission announced earlier this month that it would undertake its first full-blown investigation in decades to examine racial bias associated with the laws.

The Thursday 6-20-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 21, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The immigration battle. The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: In order to persuade conservatives to support a new law, some Republican Senators including John McCain and Marco Rubio are hoping that tough new border proposals that will cost billions will be enough to pass legislation that would allow illegal aliens already here to work legally...The bill is extremely complicated and, if passed, would take years to implement...

Talking Points supports immigration reform, even though I well understand the new law will be somewhat chaotic and will be a magnet for even more people who come here illegally, which is why we need the stepped up security on the border...

For conservative Americans, the issue is a difficult one because immigration reform would reward bad behavior - the illegal entry into the USA...

Liberals on the other hand are generally soft on illegal immigration because it helps the Democrats as most new voters support the entitlement party. Also, the left likes to bill itself as the ideology of compassion...

It is time for the USA to pass immigration reform. For years I have called for a more secure southern border. It looks like that is in reach, at least somewhat.
As usual O'Reilly has it wrong about the Democrats, the Democrats are soft on immigration because they believe America is an actual free country and anyone who wants to come here should be able to, it has nothing to do with votes for the Democratic party. Republicans are opposed to immigration because they are mostly racists who do not like Mexicans, or anyone of color.

Then Republican Senator Jeff Flake was on to discuss it, he said that the new bill, which will double the border patrol and build 700 miles of new fencing, will be voted on early next week. He anticipated the tighter security will be enough to bring some new members on board. O'Reilly asked when immigration reform will get to the President's desk, and Flake predicted it will pass and get to the Oval Office in September.

Then Laura Ingraham was on, she voiced her strong opposition to the current immigration bill. Saying that if you actually read the amendment, you can drive a truck through the loopholes. She also claimed that while the bill puts more agents on the border, the bill's sponsors don't know how they're going to pay for that.

O'Reilly called for cooler heads, saying that instead of ripping up something we don't have in front of us, it is more productive to recognize that we need reform so this is a good thing. Ingraham insisted that if Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Janet Napolitano and Barack Obama are cheering on this bill, then it's not going to be good for shrinking government.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about 23-year-old New England Patriot tight end Aaron Hernandez, who will reportedly be arrested in connection with a murder case. Kelly said Hernandez was out at a bar with three associates, one of whom is now dead. ABC News is reporting that authorities have recovered the football player's destroyed home surveillance system and that he hired a team of cleaners to scrub his mansion following the murder.

O'Reilly pointed out that Hernandez has been previously considered a troublemaker, and was even passed over in the NFL draft by some teams who didn't like the fact that he allegedly associated with some gang members.

In the Zimmerman case, six Florida women - five white, one Hispanic - have been seated for the jury. Kelly said that the prosecution tried to strike two of the sitting six. Then she disputed the O'Reilly characterization of a NYC City Council proposal barring police from taking action against citizens solely based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, or homeless status.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about actor James Gandolfini, who died of a sudden heart attack while vacationing in Italy. The Sopranos received some criticism because Mr. Gandolfini was so charismatic he often made the mob boss seem sympathetic. O'Reilly theorized that Mr. Gandolfini humanized Soprano to the point that it may not have been a positive for the country.

Goldberg countered, saying that anyone who paid attention to the series knew that Soprano was a horrible human being who paid for his sins; he was tortured and never at peace. Goldberg also said that what made The Sopranos high art was that the producers looked at the human condition, and shined a light in a very dark place.

O'Reilly wondered if it was harmful to the country that people were drawn to the criminal lifestyle of Tony Soprano because of James Gandolfini's riveting performance. Goldberg said that the show did not change the culture for the worst and called it a television masterpiece.

Then Greg Gutfeld & Bernard McGuirk were on, they talked about the Sopranos, Gutfeld stressed that he's seen every episode of the series and nobody wants to be Tony Soprano because he's miserable. He disagreed with the Factor's premise, saying Gandolfini's performance was actually a deglorification of the mob. McGuirk, however, did look up to Tony Soprano - he referred to him as a refreshingly strong and charismatic male personality, likening him to a modern-day Father Knows Best.

They also talked about the rapper Lil Wayne, who was caught on cell phone video stomping on the flag during an impromptu performance in a New Orleans neighborhood. According to Gutfeld, this is evidence that patriotism is seen as hilariously outdated in some quarters. McGuirk said this guy should show some respect since he's living the American dream.

Then Jesse Watters was on, he talked about O'Reilly going on David Letterman's program, where the topic of the NSA leaker came up. Watters caught up with some Letterman audience members after the exchange, where the consensus seemed to be that both men were on their best behavior. Watters also told O'Reilly that about 60% of the audience seemed to be anti-Factor.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Have some fun this summer! Billy said this: "I am going to Ireland and Alaska this summer. I hope you can get some rest and relaxation as well."

What a moron, that's not a tip, it's just O'Reilly telling us he is going to Ireland and Alaska this summer.

O'Reilly Slams James Gandolfini For Being Tony Soprano
By: Steve - June 21, 2013 - 10:00am

My God O'Reilly is a low-life. James Gandolfini just died and O'Reilly is already slamming the guy for playing Tony Soprano in a way he did not like. Give me a break O'Reilly, how about you wait at least a week after his death before you trash the guy, so much for respect for the dead, you jerk.

James Gandolfini’s death Wednesday at the age of fifty-one prompted a unanimous, spontaneous, and genuine outpouring of homage. Unanimous until now. Because Bill O’Reilly wondered if Gandolfini’s sympathetic portrayal of mobster Tony Soprano was too good, in that it legitimized Soprano’s criminal acts for a nation of wannabe-gangsters.

O'Reilly said this: "I believe Gandolfini humanized the guy to the point where it might not have been a positive for the country. Because impressionable people, younger people in particular, look at this guy who murders people and he sells drugs and he does all kinds of terrible things, but you know, he’s really not all that bad."

And O'Reilly did not even get that right, Tony Soprano did not ever sell drugs, in fact, he was totally opposed to it. And the one guy in his crew who did sell drugs had to do it in secret, and when Tony found out he got mad and almost killed the guy who was selling the drugs.

Bernie Goldberg said this: "Well, Tony Soprano clearly was a horrible human being, but what made him interesting, he paid for his sins…This was a morality play. Anybody paying attention, maybe not the people you referred to, but anybody paying attention, would see that Tony Soprano lost in this morality play."

Goldberg also said this: "There were two minor groups who would want to emulate Soprano. Real-life gangsters who liked the show, and said, 'Oh yeah, he is a good guy, I like him, he's like me.' And, basically, guys who want to think that they are tough, so they think, 'Yeah, I want to be like Tony Soprano.' But in a big country, and show with a big audience, you are going to have losers that think that way. But there's not a shred of evidence that this affected the culture."

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, it was a tv show, it was not real, and everyone knew that. Tony Soprano was an actor who was playing a role on a tv show, moron.

O’Reilly went on to contrast Gandolfini's portrayal of Tony Soprano with Robert De Niro's Al Capone in The Untouchables. O'Reilly said this: "De Niro made Capone into a monster. And De Niro is a charasmatic actor. But he took a different way with Capone. He could have done it another way, because Capone was charming to a lot of people. But he made him a monster and I admired that portrayal."

Goldberg added this: "You know why Tony Soprano was not that kind of mobster? Because he was vulnerable. He was tortured. He was going to a psychiatrist. He was an empty soul, and there was nothing inside of him. I don’t expect kids to see that and those are the people we'll have to worry about. Grown ups who paid attention? No. This did not change the culture for the worse. It was a masterpiece."

If O'Reilly made this analysis while the Sopranos was still on the air, or soon after it went off the air, this might have been an interesting discussion. But making this analysis so soon after Mr. Gandolfini's death is just a creepy ratings trick.

The Wednesday 6-19-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 20, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: President Obama and national security. The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: No matter what you think about government snooping, the intent is to protect us from terrorism. So here's the question: Should the U.S. government be more open about what it is doing in the name of national security? Today President Obama spoke in Berlin, and he is not nearly as popular in Europe as he once was because of all the national security stuff.

It's clear that the USA is continuing to wage an aggressive war against terrorism and that strategy is a good one, it has saved thousands of lives. But you'll never convince the far-left loons. Former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers says that President Obama should be put on trial for 'war crimes' and 'acts of terror.'

I wonder what Barack Obama thinks about his old pal now! The question for all Americans is, are you willing to pay a privacy price to be safe? I am, but I definitely want to know what my government is doing regarding snooping around the private communications of Americans. We the people have a right to know that.
Then Carl Cameron was on, he reported that Google has lodged a complaint against the federal government, saying this: "Google says it wants to report more to the public about what they've been required to do by the government. Google says its reputation has been damaged and its business has been hurt because of false and misleading reports by the media. They want to report exactly how many times requests for information by the FISA court were approved and they want to be able to tell the public exactly how many users were affected. They want to explain what they've been doing."

Then James Rosen was on, who talked about new allegations of State Department dishonesty during Hillary Clinton's tenure.

Rosen said this: "We are starting to get a very clear and troubling picture of the State Department under the stewardship of Hillary Clinton, and some of these allegations go directly to her doorstep. We're hearing about State Department employees accused of sex crimes and using a drug ring in Baghdad. We're also hearing about whistleblowers at State being bullied into silence by personal visits to their homes. Some of Hillary Clinton's loyalists are alleged to have interfered in some of these cases."

Notice that Rosen said alleged, which means speculation and that they have no evidence. All of which O'Reilly says he does not do, speculate without the facts. Proving he is a biased right-wing hack who does not even follow his own rules. How do we know these are not just lies made up by partisan Republicans who are trying to smear Hillary, we don't, so it's pure speculation and garbage as of now.

Then O'Reilly asked the part time Moderate Democrat and Fox News analyst Kirsten Powers to explain why many on the far-left object to drone attacks on suspected terrorists.

Powers said this: "Where is the evidence that the drone war is protecting us from anything, and where is the evidence that us constantly droning Middle Eastern country makes us safe? I would say the drone attacks have badly damaged the United States, and every time we kill the number one person in Al Qaeda there's another number one person. We're creating more terrorists when people watch their families being blown up."

O'Reilly said this: "Are you going to submit that the drone attacks have not badly damaged our enemies? When you destroy the enemy you destroy civilians around the enemy, that happens in every war."

Which did not answer her question at all, the question is this? Are we creating more terrorists then we are killing with these drone attacks, and O'Reilly did not answer because if he did he would have to admit we are, and that the drone attacks are doing more harm than good. If you kill one terrorist with a drone strike, and 10 news ones are created you are making a big mistake and making terrorism worse.

Then Bob Beckel was on to talk about the Obama administration announcing its willingness to talk directly with the Taliban, which has incensed some conservatives.

Beckel said this: "Of course I would talk to the Taliban. What do these conservatives think we're going to do, commit another 500,000 troops to a country that has historically done away with big superpowers? Better to have talks with them than to have them shooting at us."

O'Reilly advised taking a tough stance with the Taliban, saying this: "I would look them in the eye and I would say we're going to keep some people there, and if you guys ever succeed in taking over Afghanistan we will blow you up with drones."

Then Dr. Daniel Bober was on to talk about physical confrontations between teachers and students in America's public schools.

Bober said this: "I think it's getting worse, and I think kids behave differently now than they did a generation ago. Teachers are under siege with smaller budgets, larger classroom sizes, and a lack of support from administrations. But the key to improving behavior in the classroom starts at home with the example parents set for these kids."

O'Reilly placed part of the blame on an unwillingness to discipline, saying this: "As somebody who taught school in a tough suburb of Miami, I can tell you that if those kids don't fear expulsion, the police or suspension, they're going to run wild. We need tough principals and school boards who will demand discipline in those classrooms."

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

Then Juliet Huddy was on for did you see that, she talked about some Hollywood celebrities appearing in a video expressing their opposition to nuclear weapons.

Huddy said this: "This is coming from 'Global Zero,' an organization that aims to eliminate nuclear weapons across the board. There's nothing wrong with this, this is a non-partisan organization and at least these people are passionate. They're trying to get out there and trying to do something."

And of course O'Reilly slammed the celebrities and their stated goal, saying this: "This is a total waste of time because there are bad people who are not going to eliminate nuclear weapons."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Altruism's eternal power. Billy said this: "Help other people as much as you possibly can; not only will it make your own life better here on earth, it may even pave the way to a heavenly afterlife."

O'Reilly & Fox Lied To You About O'Keefe Phone Story
By: Steve - June 19, 2013 - 11:30am

As usual, when O'Reilly reported on the federal program that helps low-income Americans obtain phone access and the story Conservative activist James O'Keefe put out, he left out a lot of important information, including lies and highly edited video with actors not real people who actually recieved the phones.

Here are some facts that real journalists reported:

O'Keefe released a new highly edited video that purports to show people inappropriately receiving free cell phones after announcing an intention to sell them to purchase drugs and to pay bills. The phones were being distributed as part of a federal program to provide low-income Americans with access to phones. The raw footage of the video, however, shows that none of O'Keefe's actors who claimed that they were going to sell the phones for unrelated purchases actually received phones.

O'Reilly interviewed James O'Keefe to promote his highly edited video Tuesday night. Throughout the segment, O'Reilly pushed falsehoods about the Lifeline program's finances, saying that "the government gives tax money" to companies that provide free cell phones to eligible Americans, and that the program is "ripping off the American taxpayer." O'Reilly also presented the cost of the program in the context of the country's national debt.

Sean Hannity also promoted O'Keefe's video and claimed that the Lifeline program was funded by taxes, saying that "your hard-earned tax dollars are paying for" the program and that "you spent $2.2 billion on this program just last year alone. Pretty unbelievable."

Now there is one big problem with those claims, it's all lies. Because the Lifeline Program Is Funded By Telecommunication Companies, Not Taxpayers. Lifeline Is Not A "Taxpayer-Funded Program."

The Lifeline phone program, which according to the Federal Communications Commission "provides discounts on monthly telephone service for eligible low-income consumers to help ensure they have the opportunities and security that telephone service affords, including being able to connect to jobs, family, and 911 services," has existed for decades and was expanded to include cell phones during the Bush administration. Conservatives have criticized the program repeatedly, which they have called the "Obama phone" for years.

Even though the program was started under George W. Bush, dishonest Republicans like O'Reilly and Hannity still call it the Obama phone. And we're not talking iPhones or Androids here. They are bare-bones cell phones that just make phone calls. They are locked to particular phone providers and accounts, so someone not registered to the account couldn't use them without unlocking them. And the buyer would have to know how to do that, because the service providers aren't doing it any more.

They quote a clerk on the video saying to take the phone to a pawn shop to see what they are worth, but you don’t see O'Keefe actually doing that. My bet is that pawnbrokers won't take them. I called one and they say they will not take them and do not want them, and that they are not even worth the time to deal with. And btw, I looked around and I can not find any person or company who would buy one.

O'Keefe's video, which coincides with the launch of his new book, purports to show O'Keefe's actors receiving free cell phones after telling employees of a wireless phone company that they plan to sell the phones to pay for drugs, other purchases, or bills. The edited video includes a narration by O'Keefe asking if the employees would tell his actors "to sell the phones and break the law."

The raw footage that O'Keefe also released doesn't show any of the featured employees telling the actors to sell their free phones, despite the actors repeatedly saying that they intend to do so and asking about their resale value. As New York magazine's Jonathan Chait explained, the employees only acknowledged that personal property, in the form of these cell phones, can be sold by their owners to buy other things.

The raw footage also shows that none of the actors actually received a free phone -- only information about how they could apply for a free phone and the eligibility requirements to receive one, with the actors walking away saying they'd bring their documentation later.

O'Keefe hired actors to say they were going to get the phones and sell them for drugs and to pay bills, and none of them ever got a phone. But O'Reilly did not tell you that, so he lied to you, because he is a partisan right-wing hack, just like James O'Keefe.

And remember this, O'Keefe is the guy who paid a $100,000 settlement for being dishonest in his reporting, so you can not ever believe what he says again. But O'Reilly put him on his show anyway, to put out more dishonesty with edited video and paid actors.

P.S. I actually have one of those phones, it's called a tracphone, and I got it through the safelink website. It's free, but you have to qualify to get it, they just do not give them to anyone. I got it because anyone on food stamps is qualified, but I still had to apply to get it. It's a piece of crap, you can not text with it and half the time when I try to use it I can not get a signal.

I basically use it in case of an emergency, like if I have a medical problem and I need to call 911, or if the car has a breakdown. I actually had to use it for an emergency once before my Father passed away, our home phone line went dead one day and my Father had a medical emergency so I had to use it to call 911. If I did not have it he might have died before I could get to a phone somehwere to call 911.

The Tuesday 6-18-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 19, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Do you believe President Obama? The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There is no question that President Obama is in trouble and his job approval rating is plummeting. With all the controversies taking a toll on the President, he gave an interview to Charlie Rose and said this: 'If you are a U.S. person the NSA can not listen to your telephone calls and the NSA can not target your emails.'

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden says the NSA is listening to phone calls and reading emails, but he has provided no hard evidence. Mr. Obama is now on the record, and if evidence is produced that any U.S. intelligence is reading emails without a specific warrant, he could be impeached. Today the same question was asked of NSA Director Keith Alexander, who said the NSA does not have the authority to listen to Americans' phone calls or read their emails.

Without Snowden or another whistleblower providing hard evidence to contradict that, the snooping story will likely fade away in the coming months. But the IRS story will not fade away because that scandal is getting worse. I'm not saying President Obama did anything wrong, but we don't know who the bad guys are.

Summing up, Talking Points is giving President Obama the benefit of the doubt on the NSA deal because this Snowden guy looks shady to me.
What a joke, O'Reilly says he is giving President Obama the benefit of the doubt on the NSA deal, but then he reports on it every night as if it's a big scandal, when even the far-right Charles Krauthammer and John Stossel say it is not a scandal at all.

Charles Krauthammer, who agreed that widespread NSA data gathering is not a major scandal, was on to discuss it.

Krauthammer said this: "I was never shocked or upset by the revelations of the mapping of the phone calls.We had that debate a decade ago, this is old news, and there is no reason to doubt that they are not listening in on phone calls without a court order. We have had billions of calls, but has there been one case of unauthorized listening in? The fact that we have not heard anything of that sort in a decade is evidence on the side of the President and the NSA."

But O'Reilly keeps beating that dead horse every night with segment after segment about it, while ignoring other news that is important to know about.

Then John Stossel was on to talk about it, he expressed a total lack of outrage at the NSA surveillance, saying this: "I figure my privacy is already blown. My employer can already read my emails, Amazon and Facebook know all kind of things about me, while Google knows every site I have checked out. The one difference is that I don't have to use Google or Facebook and they can't lock me up or kill me. I've been called a traitor to the libertarian cause, but I'm so angry at so much of what my government does and this is not one of those things."

Then Leslie Marshall was on to talk about something that was said during a discussion on MSNBC, University of Pennsylvania professor Salamisha Tillet claimed that opposition to late-term abortion is a form of white supremacy.

Marshall said this: "Why didn't anybody else on the panel react to that? There wasn't another African American on the panel and some people fear touching that when they are not part of that racial group. I've heard crazy people, but I have never heard this theory. My understanding from pro-life individuals is that they consider abortion to be murder, it has nothing to do with the color of anyone's skin."

And of course O'Reilly denounced the MSNBC people who did not say anything when Tillet made her outrageous statement: "As long as you are demonizing people who are conservative or pro-life, you can say anything you want over there, it will never be challenged."

Which is just laughable, because racist things are said on Fox every day, even by O'Reilly sometimes, and it is never challenged by anyone at Fox, so they basically do the very same thing MSNBC does, making O'Reilly a massive hypocrite. Hey O'Reilly, stop worrying about what is said at MSNBC and do your job, report the news, jerk.

Then O'Reilly had the biased and dishonest James O'Keefe on to talk about, what he claims is an outrage with his hidden camera, he has a new video documenting abuse of the federal government's program to supply poor people with cell phones. But we do not know if he edited the video, or if the people he talked to were not part of his group, so you can not believe any of it. But O'Reilly sure did, even though O'Keefe has been proven to be a dishonest partisan hack.

O'Keefe said this: "There's a federal program called 'Lifeline,' which gives subsidies to companies that give out the phones. It's intended to help poor people but we found that it benefits wealthy individuals, the CEOs who receive money from this program. Every single person we visited advised us that we could sell the phones for drugs."

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl began their segment with the latest on the same-sex marriage issue.

Wiehl said this: "The Supreme Court is going to rule on the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed in 1996 under President Clinton. They're going to strike that down because it violates equal protection. They'll say you can't discriminate against homosexuals."

Guilfoyle talk about George Zimmerman, who is accused of murdering Trayvon Martin, saying this: "This was day 7 of jury selection and so far 32 jurors have been selected in the 'pre-trial' round. Once they get to 40 potential jurors they will do the more specific process. They need to find six jurors and four alternates."

They also talked about the New Jersey police, who want to confiscate the cell phone of any driver involved in an accident to determine whether he or she was on the phone at the time of the crash. "They can't do this," Wiehl said, "because this is too broad. They can get a warrant or a grand jury subpoena."

Then Monica Crowley & Alan Colmes were on to talk about a conservative organization who invited college students to sign a fictitious petition asking President Obama to spy on Fox News, many of the young people actually endorsed the idea.

Crowley said this: "I am not surprised at all. The left controls academia, the media, and the culture, and these college kids are so far left that most of them were ready to throw the First Amendment out the window. That's a dangerous place for America."

Even though they have no proof that if they asked college kids to sign a fictitious petition asking President Obama to spy on MSNBC they would not also sign it. So the whole thing was a joke.

Colmes disputed Crowley's assertion that the anti-Fox students are most likely liberals, saying this: "We don't know that all those students are liberal, who knows what they are? But the fact is that you fight speech with additional speech, you don't try to silence anybody, so this petition would not be the liberal position."

Colmes is also an idiot, but he did make a good point, we do not know if everyone they asked were liberals. And we also do not know if they would sign a petition to spy on MSNBC, because they never asked.

And finally, the lame and worthless Factor tip of the day called: Cultivating detente. Billy said this: "Some people, even those who disagree with you politically or otherwise, can be worth the time and effort required to build mutual trust and respect."

Republican Governor Vetoes Background Check Bill
By: Steve - June 19, 2013 - 10:00am

Defying 87 percent of the state's voters, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) vetoed a universal background check bill for gun purchases on Thursday -- one day before the six-month anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings.

The bill, passed by Nevada's Democratically controlled state legislature, would have required a background check prior to all gun sales and would have increased reporting of mental illness data. The National Rifle Association's lobbying arm called the proposal misguided gun control legislation being forced on law-abiding citizens of Nevada.

But far from being forced upon the people, the state legislature was acting on their clear will. An April poll found 87 percent of Nevada voters think a background check should be required on all gun sales -- including 75 percent of Nevadans who said they strongly favor such a law.

Only nine percent of Nevadans strongly opposed the idea. And a February poll had shown 86 percent support in Nevada for universal background checks. After voting against the Manchin-Toomey background check compromise in the U.S. Senate, Nevada Sen. Dean Heller (R) was one of several opponents to see their approval ratings drop.

But Sandoval said his decision was in part due to the loud voices of that small minority that does not believe criminal background checks should be required prior to gun purchases. He told a local TV station that he had received 28,000 calls from opponents, and only about 7,000 from supporters.

While indicating support for the mental health data reporting provisions, he wrote in his veto message that requiring an instant background check would have been an erosion of Nevadans Second Amendment Rights under the United States Constitution that might subject otherwise law-abiding citizens to criminal prosecution.

Sandoval's veto came on the of the six-month anniversary of the tragic shootings in Newtown, Connecticut. At the time, he released a statement lamenting the shootings and ordering that the state's flags be flown at half-staff in memory of the victims.

The Monday 6-17-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 18, 2013 - 11:00am

Before I start the review, let me say this. The O'Reilly Factor has become a total 100% partisan right-wing joke. It used to be somewhat of a news show, now it's just a pure arm of the Republican party who is trying to smear President Obama non-stop. O'Reilly does not even report the news anymore, all he does is cry about media bias and have segment after segment on the so-called Obama scandals.

And he does it with 95% Republican guests, while ignoring real news, like the Supreme Court striking down the Arizona voter ID law Monday, that O'Reilly supported and reported on a hundred times. He did not even mention it, even though it was the #1 story in the country.

Now on the the review: The TPM was called: Does the Obama administration really want to solve all these controversies? The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The Obama administration does not want to tell us what happened in Benghazi, how the IRS got so far out of control, and what exactly the feds are doing snooping around private communications. We are being stonewalled! Director of Intelligence James Clapper misled us when he denied that the NSA collects data on millions of Americans. Then FBI Director Robert Mueller was unable to name the lead investigator on the IRS investigation. Are you kidding me?

If Mueller doesn't know specifics about the IRS investigation, it's because he doesn't want to know. Also, Attorney General Eric Holder doesn't know anything about snooping on reporters! This is an insult to the intelligence of all Americans and it is clear that the Obama administration is not going to aggressively investigate the controversies.

Therefore, Congress must do it and there will have to be special prosecutors appointed in nearly all of the cases. By the time we know what really happened, President Obama will be finishing up his second term. Is this the way the United States government should be running? You make the call.
My God man you are insane. They are doing the investigations, so you are a liar, and of course they take time. Now it's funny that you and your right-wing friends hated special prosecutors under Bush, which is why they voted to stop using them, but suddenly under Obama you now want special prosecutors, good luck with that you right-wing hack.

Then Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy was on to discuss it in a biased segment with no Democratic guests.

Gowdy said this: "One place we ought to be looking, is the Obama-Biden reelection team. I can't prove to you that this goes to the White House, but I don't believe two rogue agents in Cincinnati concocted this scheme on their own. The Obama administration won't get to the bottom of this because they don't have to."

Which is all speculation, so what happened to you only deal in the facts O'Reilly, what a joke.

Gowdy also predicted that special prosecutors will eventually be named, saying this: "In our system oversight is supposed to be provided by Congress and the voters and the media. But with a couple of exceptions, the media is not providing oversight. We need special prosecutors, and one thing we should have done weeks ago is cut the funding to the IRS. Hopefully our fellow citizens will be so disgusted that they demand criminal accountability for these actions."

Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on with their thoughts on the Washington controversies.

Williams said this: "Republicans and Democrats think the world of Mueller, and I don't know why you think he's willing to sacrifice his credibility for Barack Obama. The FBI is a massive organization, he doesn't know! And Congressman Gowdy doesn't have any evidence linking anybody in the White House or the administration to anything."

Ham said this: "It's an indication of how seriously they're taking this investigation. The bottom line is that it's politically advantageous for the administration not to talk about this stuff for a long time." O'Reilly urged a thorough investigation into the IRS scandal, saying this: "The people who leaked out stuff against individuals should be in prison."

Then the biased stooge Karl Rove was on to talk about former Vice President Dick Cheney, who labeled NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden "a traitor" who has "committed crimes."

Rove said this: "We can all agree, that Mr. Snowden has betrayed the trust of the American people. But whether or not he is guilty of treason, which is punishable by death, can be left to the lawyers. He's more likely to be charged with violating the Espionage Act, which could lead to as much as 100 years in jail if he's found guilty on all charges. If he were truly protecting the Constitution, he should have gone to members of Congress that are sympathetic to his viewpoint. He did not do that - he flew to Hong Kong, gave a bunch of interviews, and is living the high life in a territory of the People's Republic of China."

Dick Cheney is an idiot, treason is the betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies. And Snowden has not done that, at least not that we know of yet.

Then Sharyl Attkisson was on to talk about her computers being hacked. For which O'Reilly speculated it was someone in the Obama administration, even though he has no evidence of that, none.

Attkisson said this: "Last fall there were so many things happening in the Attkisson household, so many strange electronic-related things. Computers were coming on by themselves, sometimes there was a cacophony of computer noise in the middle of the night. At the time I was looking into 'Fast and Furious' and some of the 'green energy' stimulus spending debacles, then the Benghazi story. I think I know who is behind this, but I can't go into that. To come into a private citizen's home and look in my family and work computers? It's outrageous!"

And for the record, my computer at my home has also come on by itself. And btw, it's a common problem with computers, if you google it you get 750,000 results. So it does not mean your computer was hacked, here is a partial answer to that very question from

The ghost machine that turns itself on and off is a fairly common problem. When a computer mysteriously does this, it's a BIOS issue. You typically enter BIOS by restarting your computer and immediately pressing the Delete key repeatedly until you enter the BIOS Utility Screen (usually in blue). The fix is fairly easy.

Then Bernard Goldberg was on to cry about some close ties between TV network executives and Obama administration officials. As just two examples, ABC News President Ben Sherwood's sister is an advisor to President Obama and CBS News President David Rhodes brother is also an advisor to the President.

Goldberg said this: "There are a lot of critics who say there are too many reporters in bed with the administration, and it's literally true in some cases. If you're a reporter and your wife works at the White House, you're in bed with this administration. Reporters are always lecturing politicians about how they have to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, but apparently these rules don't apply to journalists themselves. What troubles me is that if you're married to somebody who works for Barack Obama, there's a good chance that you like him and his politics. So you have the media bubble that is filled with media people and political operatives."

That is a joke, report some real news and have a Democratic guest on for balance. James Carville is married to a Republican, you fools, does that mean his wife is a biased liberal, of course not. Not to mention, it does not prove any bias, provide some evidence of bias, or shut up you cry baby losers.

Then the biased stooge Adam Carolla was on to cry with O'Reilly about a new study that shows attorneys working for the IRS gave twenty times more in political contributions to President Obama than to Mitt Romney.

Carolla said this: "What do you expect? It's job security for these guys - they love big government, they want bigger government, they want more IRS and more taxes. So who are they going to vote for? How many vegetarians work at a slaughterhouse? But these are the people who take our money and then decide what is a charitable organization. You don't want people whose fingers are on the triggers and switches being political one way or the other."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: A major announcement. Billy said this: "All five living Presidents have personally signed eight copies of a photograph that was taken when they were together at the Bush Library dedication. The eight signed photographs will be awarded to those folks who make the biggest donations to the Independence Fund, which is purchasing Trackchairs for severely wounded veterans. Those of you who aren't quite so flush can obtain a facsimile of the signed photo for a donation of $25 or more."

Once again, that is not a tip, and btw, O'Reilly is favoring the rich. Why not have random drawings with everyone who donated to get the signed photos, so everyone has an equal chance, instead of getting them to the 8 rich people who donate. So much for looking out for the folks.

Republican Rick Perry Vetoes Equal Pay For Women Bill
By: Steve - June 18, 2013 - 10:00am

Here is more proof the Republican party is in a war on women, the war O'Reilly claims is not real.

Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) vetoed a bill on Friday that would have allowed women suffering wage discrimination to take legal action, alleging that the measure duplicates federal law, which already allows employees to file a claim with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

On average, women earn 77 cents of every dollar a man makes, though the disparity is even greater for African American and Hispanic women.

HB 950 builds on the federal Lilly Ledbetter Act, which strengthened women's ability to challenge pay discrimination. Supporters argued that the state legislation would provide uniformity between state and federal anti-discrimination laws and allow parties to proceed in a nearby state court, while at the same time avoid the increased expense of having to proceed in a federal court which may be far away.

Lilly Ledbetter protections also do not apply to state cases absent action by the legislature. Forty-two states have passed sate-based equal pay laws, recognizing that Lilly Ledbetter was not enough.

OSHA Workplace Inspections Only Happen Every 99 Years
By: Steve - June 17, 2013 - 10:00am

A petrochemical plant in Geismar, Louisiana that exploded on Thursday, killing one person and injuring 73, has not been inspected by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in the past two decades, according to an analysis by ThinkProgress.

The Williams Olefins plant, which produces about 1.3 billion pounds of ethylene and 90 million pounds of polymer grade propylene, according to the company's website, does not have any recorded inspections for plants producing either substance in OSHA's database since 1993.

The explosion, fueled by propylene, started at 8:37 a.m. and burned for more than three hours. Three hundred workers were evacuated and residents within a two-mile radius were told by authorities to remain in their homes.

The same plant also had an accident in 2009. At that time, 60 pounds of flammable mixture was released, causing a fire that did not lead to injuries. Louisiana has experienced at least two other explosions in petrochemical facilities in the last two years: an explosion at the Westlake Chemicals vinyl plant in Geismar that "sent a cloud of toxic vinyl chloride and hydrochloric acid over the town" in 2012 and another at a Multi-Chem Group plan in New Iberia in 2011.

Thursday's blast comes just months after about 30 tons of ammonium nitrate exploded at a fertilizer plant in West, Texas in April. That accident killed 15 people and injured more than 160. The West plant hadn't been inspected by OSHA since 1985 and also slipped by six other regulatory agencies.

While the surrounding population near the Williams plant seems to be small, thousands of chemical plants across the country pose risks to large populations. Nearly 7,000 have reported that a worst-case scenario would impact populations greater than 1,000 people, and 90 plants would impact more than 1 million people.

Due to low funding and staffing issues, OSHA inspections have become very rare. The average workplace only gets a visit from an inspector every 99 years. Yet budget cuts may make things even worse: sequestration will force the agency to cut its budget by 8.2 percent, which could mean 1,200 fewer workplace inspections.

Which is what the Republicans have done, and it is what they want. They are in the back pocket of the Corporations, they give them money to get elected and re-elected, and the Republicans vote to cut the funding for OSHA so their businesses are not inspected very often.

Pressure has been mounting on the petrochemical industry to improve safety after a blast in 2005 at BP refinery in Texas killed 15 people and injured 170, one of the worst industrial accidents in decades. Reuters reports that these plants operate massive equipment under intense pressure and high heat, which makes them prone to fires and explosions.

Notice that O'Reilly has not reported any of this, because he does not want to make the Republicans look bad, and expose what they do. He ignores the story to cover for them, while complaining that the liberal media ignores Obama scandals to cover for the President. As he does the very same thing for the Republican party. In other words, O'Reilly is too busy trying to make Obama look bad to report some real news.

Proof O'Reilly Is A Partisan Hack Over NSA Spying
By: Steve - June 16, 2013 - 10:00am

A recent Pew poll about the NSA surveillance program revealed overall public support-but the real story was the partisan numbers: Republicans who were less concerned about government overreach in 2006 have changed their minds in 2013.

You can see this shift in the views of some pundits; Fox host Sean Hannity has essentially flipped his take on this entirely, what was fine during the Bush years is an outrage in the Obama era. But he's not the only one who's shifted. Take Fox News host Bill O'Reilly. He has spent the past decade voicing basically unqualified support for the Bush-era terrorism policies, and has commended Obama for continuing or even expanding them.

It was interesting to see how O'Reilly has come down on the current NSA controversy. On June 6th, O'Reilly told his viewers that the NSA program to build a database of phone records was being criticized by some liberals, and that he agreed:
O'REILLY: Now Talking Points usually supports war on terror strategies but this one, a major intrusion on the privacy of all Americans. This one is dangerous to us.
The danger, to O'Reilly, seemed to be the idea that the government would use this information to attack its enemies:
O'REILLY: So, for example, some conservative senator calls Trixie at the Hot Licks massage parlor, all right, guess who knows it? And guess who can put it out any time they want.
The revelations around the NSA PRISM program, which involves storing of electronic communication like e-mail, were a real problem. On 6-10-13 O'Reilly declared the program "clearly unconstitutional, saying this: "You have to have probable cause to violate the privacy of an American. This PRISM program should be shut down immediately."

To make matters more confusing, O'Reilly backed away from his first reaction to the phone records, telling viewers that "in the name of national security that might be acceptable."

So what was he saying back in 2006, when very similar revelations about Bush's NSA surveillance programs surfaced? Here's what he had to say back on 5-11-2006:
O'REILLY: Just in time to embarrass Gen. Michael Hayden, a proposed new CIA chief, somebody leaked information about Hayden's NSA collecting information about the phone calls of Americans.

Now, the NSA is not listening to or taping the calls. It is compiling data about who is being called and running it through computers to see if any terrorist link can be found.

Now, I have no problem with this personally. If the government was listening to my calls or secretly taping them, then I'd have a big problem. But simply trying to ascertain where the calls are going is no big deal to me.

I'm sure others disagree, because others disagree with just about every anti-terror method the USA uses, including coerced interrogation, military tribunals for terrorists who are charged, Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, no-fly list, on and on and on.

If it were up to the ACLU, all terrorists would be given civilian lawyers, Geneva Convention protections, and would have no surveillance whatsoever worldwide with a U.S. criminal warrant.
So the story then was really an opportunity for him to go after Bush critics on the left. And that was still the point when a judge struck down the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program, which allowed warantless surveillance of some telephone and internet communication.

On 8-21-2006 O'Reilly was furious at the judge. As he said to one guest:
O'REILLY: See, I don't understand Judge Taylor. Maybe you can help me. Does she want Americans to die? There isn't any criminal proceeding in this case. This is an overarch to try to get intelligence information from calls to suspected Al-Qaeda overseas, not domestic. Does she want people to die?

Does she want dead people in the street here in America? Because I'm sure that she would not only oppose the NSA program, she would oppose a course of interrogation, profiling at the airports. She would oppose every anti-terror measure the Bush administration has put in just because they are the Bush administration. But the unintended consequences of the opposition is death.
O'Reilly's passionate defense of Bush and his muddled reaction to the recent revelations constitute a rather noticeable shift. As he told viewers on 6-12-13, "Talking Points respects differing opinions on this issue."

Well, he should, he's had different opinions himself, depending on what the political party of the President is, when it's a Republican he supports and defends it, but when it's a Democrat he is opposed to it and calls for it to be shut down.

The Friday 6-14-13 O'Reilly/Crowley Factor Review
By: Steve - June 15, 2013 - 11:00am

There was no TPM because O'Reilly had the far-right stooge Monica Crowley fill in or him. Her biased Top Story was called: President Obama's scandals. Crowley said this:
CROWLEY: "There is still no word from President Obama about what's really going on with our unraveling federal government. As scandals at the IRS, DOJ, NSA, and the State Department continue to spiral out of control, we the people still do not have answers from the man in charge. According to a new Fox News survey, only 48% of voters think the President is 'honest and trustworthy.' If the President wants to change that, he should take control of the chaos and give the people some answers."
Then Democratic Party official Dick Harpootlian was on to discuss it.

Harpootlian said this: "I'm in Columbia, South Carolina, and when you go to Main Street here nobody is talking about the NSA or Benghazi or the IRS. They're talking about the inability of Congress to pass a budget or to create jobs and improve lives. This is all not that important compared to what are we going to do in Syria, what are we going to do about jobs, what are we going to do about things that really matter."

Crowley said this: "We have very severe abuses of power in the IRS and the Department of Justice, we also have four dead Americans in Benghazi and no answers. The President has shown no anger, no availability. If I were a president who was innocent of all the allegations, I would be shouting from the rooftops that no one in my administration is guilty."

Then Mark Everson, who ran the IRS during the Bush administration was on to talk about a new report that alleges more than 1,000 IRS employees misused their government credit cards.

Everson said this: "This targeting is very unfortunate and totally wrong, but I am actually reassured by Director Mueller's testimony because when something is handed over to the FBI you want it to go through normal channels, you don't want it to be a political brouhaha. He has a lot of other things to worry about, terrorism investigations and other things, so I think it's right that this has gone into the normal process."

Then Crowley talked about the 2016 presidential election, even though it's 3 fricking years away. She claimed it is shaping up as a duel between Hillary Clinton and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

Republican strategist Tony Sayegh said this: "Benghazi is not going away. Democrats have tried to marginalize it as a political issue, but 72% of Americans want a continued investigation into what truly happened in Benghazi. Hillary Clinton is going to be a part of this, no matter what happens."

Democratic strategist Tara Dowdell downplayed new allegations that some State Department officials were involved in criminal wrongdoing during Clinton's tenure at State, saying this: "These are just allegations, they have not been proven true. But if something did happen under her tenure, running any large department is messy. Every President and every Secretary of State has had some controversy."

Then the biased right-wing stooge Lou Dobbs was on, who cried about America's welfare state.

Dobbs said this: "It's frustrating to think that one in five households is on food stamps, and just about half of the population receives some sort of federal assistance. What is most alarming is that we are in the fifth year of a so-called 'recovery' and we are still not creating jobs, we are not discussing how to restore prosperity. The fiscal policy of the country is in absolute shreds, there is no accountability, and the leadership seems to have forgotten that this country is all about prosperity for every American."

What a jerk, the jobs are not coming back very fast because your right-wing friends are blocking every jobs bill Obama and the Democrats want to pass. And they are doing it because if the economy improves a lot Obama will look good and Hillary Clinton win win the 2016 election and be the next President. Republicans are putting politics ahead of the good of the people, which is treason in my book.

Then immigration attorney Francisco Hernandez was on to talk about the immigration bill, he urged both parties to compromise.

Hernandez said this: "We have been clamoring for the federal government to act on this issue for the last ten years, and why are we now getting afraid to do so? Republicans need to embrace this - let's negotiate and debate, and when both sides come away from the negotiating table unhappy, you'll know it's a good bill."

Crowley insisted that any immigration bill must be demonstrably good for America and the economy, saying this: "U.S. immigration laws should serve only one purpose, and that is to advance our national interest. They should not be there to advance anybody's political agendas, but the Democrats are trying to lock in their advantage among Hispanic voters while Republicans are running around trying to make up ground with Hispanic voters."

And finally, Crowley ran a re-run of O'Reilly's interview with Willie Robertson from Duck Dynasty, which I will not report on because it's a re-run.

Let me add something, Monica Crowley is the biggest Obama hating right-wing hack on the planet, and yet, O'Reilly let her host his show. This shows one thing, that O'Reilly is also a biased right-wing hack, and not the Independent he claims to be. Because no Independent in their right mind would let Monica Crowley host his show.

The other fill-ins are Laura Ingraham and Greg Gutfeld, who are also partisan right-wing hacks. So ask yourself what that says about O'Reilly. Basically he is lying when he says he is a non-partisan Independent who has been fair to President Obama. And if he is lying about that, how can you believe anything else he says about anything.

Larry Flynt Says All Republicans Are Mean-Spirited Racists
By: Steve - June 15, 2013 - 10:00am

This week Larry Flynt explained why he tends to be so critical of Republicans. "I've never met a Republican that wasn't mean-spirited," Flynt said, "and in his heart, a racist."

"I'm sure there are some that are probably not," he admitted. "But I'm just telling you what my experience has been and my exposure to conservative Republicans: they're a nightmare."

Later in the interview, Flynt called the fact that women get paid 25% less for doing the same jobs as men. "the biggest travesty that we have in this country," a problem he also blamed on the GOP. "The reason why women don't have equal pay, it's Republicans, it's not the Democrats." He said it's also Republicans who are trying to block immigration reform and "control women's reproductive cycles."

Flynt predicted that no matter who runs on the Democratic side for president, "I do not see the Republicans ever winning another national campaign in the next three to five decades." If he had anything nice to say about conservatives it was that "you can never accuse a Republican of not having a spine-they've got one."

The Thursday 6-13-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 14, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Can President Obama get a handle on all the controversies? The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama's job approval rating is falling faster than Eric Holder's credibility. The latest Fox News poll has the President's job approval at 44%, a 3-point drop since the beginning of the year. Mr. Obama has not been aggressive in defining Benghazi, the IRS, snooping on reporters, and snooping on Americans.

He has put forth no specific strategies to stop the bleeding in his administration. Attorney General Holder is a lightning rod, but he's still there; there have been no firings at the IRS; there has been no further definition about who screwed up in Libya. Throughout his life Barack Obama has been patient, he is not a confrontational man or a problem-solver.

Press conferences are simply an opportunity for Mr. Obama to give mini-speeches and his trips around the country are primarily to raise money. You may have noticed that Mr. Obama rarely gives interviews any more, and when he does they are mostly orchestrated. So we have an executive branch that is largely unaccountable. President Obama knows he doesn't have to run again and that he can very possibly ride all this stuff out.
Notice that O'Reilly used a Fox News poll, while Gallup has Obama at 47% approval. Which is only a 2% drop since March of 2013. Proving that O'Reilly is cherry picking a poll to make you see what he wants you to see. Notice that the entire show is nothing but Republicans, so much for fair and balanced, it's all right-wing bias.

The far-right Charles Krauthammer was on, who said this: "You have staggered upon the truth, and there are two things happening here. Number one, when there's trouble out there, you insulate the President and make sure that the focus is on the people beneath him. That's nothing new, but what is new is President Obama's leadership style, which doesn't exist. The man is a bystander to his own presidency, he acts like he just stumbled upon the scene of an accident and he's catching up. The lack of leadership from this President is quite unique."

Then Mark Zaid was on to talk about the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old former NSA contractor, has been lionized by some, vilified by others.

Zaid said this: "At this time Snowden is a criminal, and we'll see as time goes by whether he's a hero or a villain. He's not helping himself by revealing to the Chinese and the world that the United States was engaged in cyber-operations against the Chinese. That puts him towards the villain category, and he is the leaker of classified information for which he had no authorization, so he's a criminal! An individual does not make a determination as to what's in the best national security interests of the United States."

Then 2 far-right stooges Tim Graham & Erick Erickson were on to help O'Reilly slam Chris Matthews. Wit no guest to give the other side, so it was 3 Republicans slamming the liberal Matthews.

On his MSNBC show Chris Matthews called Billy a "hard right-wing guy" who has a "black Irish" look. And one part of that is true for sure, O'Reilly is a hard right-wing guy.

Erickson said this: "As ratings go down and as people get more disenchanted with liberalism, they're becoming more shrill and trying to keep the core audience. There's not a lot of entertainment on MSNBC, there's a lot of anger and they don't relate to people in the heartland."

Graham said this: "They don't have any substance to offer, they're terrible shows without anything to say. Chris Matthews is just unglued these days."

O'Reilly reported that MSNBC's ratings have taken a nosedive, saying this: "This is a desperate attempt by Matthews to get attention. In the last six months things have fallen apart for MSNBC. The core liberal audience is disenchanted with President Obama and now Matthews has to call me names because he doesn't have anything else."

Notice they did not even discuss what Matthews said, all they did was slam him for low ratings. Because they know what Matthews said is true, that O'Reilly is a hard right-wing guy.

Then Laura Ingraham was on for some real insanity, her and O'Reilly claimed that the morning after pill will lead to more rape, and std's.

Ingraham reacted to a judge's decision that the the 'Plan B' morning-after pill should be available to girls of all ages, saying this: "Some girls as young as 9 or 10 or 11 have reproductive capacity, and the studies on this drug are non-existent for girls of that age. We need long-term studies on the effects on young girls' future fertility and hormonal development. For most girls that report sexual activity at that young age, it's coerced sexual activity, so this helps people who want to take advantage of young women. Anybody who abuses a young girl can take her into a pharmacy and get the pill without her parents being involved on any level."

Then Jim Gaffigan was on to talk about his book "Dad is Fat" that is filled with observations about his large family.

Gaffigan said this: "The title came from my son, whose first sentence was, 'Dad is fat.' He showed it to me and then I put him up for adoption. Dads are the vice president of the executive branch of the family. The mom is Bill Clinton, feeling the pain, and we're Al Gore, telling them to turn out the lights."

The 46-year-old Gaffigan also said this: "My dad essentially just brought home the bacon - he didn't shop for the bacon or cook it, he ate the bacon! It's not that my father and his generation didn't do anything, it's that they didn't feel guilty!"

And finally, the lame waste of time Factor tip of the day called: A helping hand. Billy said this: "When someone asks you to help out a charitable enterprise, try to find some way to do it if you possibly can."

What a joke, thank you Mr. obvious. That tip is just stupid, it's like saying if you get robbed call the police.

O'Reilly Ignoring Issa Refusing To Release Transcripts Story
By: Steve - June 14, 2013 - 10:00am

O'Reilly is still saying he does not know if the White House ordered the IRS to target conservative groups, even though the Cincinnati IRS manager of the screening group, a career veteran at the agency who identified himself as Republican, told investigators that Washington did not direct the targeting.

Issa even called the White House spokesman Jay Carney a paid liar, but O'Reilly has ignored that too. Because he is a partisan right-wing hack who does not want you to know these facts. He wants you to continue to think the White House ordered the IRS to target the conservative groups, when the man who was in charge of the IRS where it happened, and who is a Republican, said the White House DID NOT order it.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) is refusing to release transcripts of interviews with Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agents that allegedly prove how political officials in the Obama administration directed the IRS to target conservative groups applying for 501 (c)(4) status.

Issa, the biased Republican whose committee is conducting an investigation into the agency's behavior, provided CNN excerpts of interviews with IRS agents on June 2nd and assured host Candy Crowley that "the whole transcript will be put out."

But in a letter to the top Democrat on the Committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Issa backed away from his ppomise, arguing that releasing the transcripts would needlessly jeopardize the integrity of the investigation and hamper the Committee's ability to get to the truth.

During his appearance on CNN, Issa called White House Press Secretary Jay Carney a paid liar and claimed that the spokesperson is making up things about what happens in calling this local rogue, leading several Republicans to speak out against his tactics.

A week later, Cummings appeared on CNN to challenge the Chairman. "I want those transcripts to be released," Cummings said. "I'm willing to come on your show next week with the Chairman with the transcripts if he agrees to do that. If he doesn't, I'll release them by the end of the week."

And O'Reilly has said nothing about it, not one word, he has ignored the entire story to do what James Carville said, put out right-wing propaganda for the Republican party instead of reporting all the facts.

Cummings insisted that the full interviews will demonstrate that the White House was not involved in this, pointing out that the Cincinnati IRS manager of the screening group, a career veteran at the agency who identified himself as Republican, told investigators that Washington did not direct the targeting.

"I do not believe that the screening of these cases had anything to do other than consistency and identifying issues that needed to have further development," the individual told investigators according to a portion of the transcripts released by the Democratic staff on the House Oversight Committee.

Cummings condemned Issa's refusal to release the full transcripts in a statement on Tuesday. "Chairman Issa changes his mind so fast that even when I agree with him, we're not on the same page," he said. "I fully support responsible oversight, but cherry picking transcript excerpts to fuel partisan and unsubstantiated claims is not a credible or effective way to investigate."

An Inspector General's report into the matter concluded that the IRS relied on inappropriate criteria while vetting groups applying for nonprofit status by using a BOLO-Be on the Look Out-list and blamed IRS officials in Washington, DC, for insufficient oversight of lower-level staffers.

However, it specifically concluded that "All of these officials stated that the criteria were not influenced by any individual or organization outside the IRS."

The Wednesday 6-12-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 13, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: How do Americans feel about government spying? The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A whistleblower says the National Security Agency is logging phone calls made by Americans and storing them for possible scrutiny in the war on terror. Also, there are unproven allegations that some emails may be in the hands of American intelligence as well.

As Talking Points said last night, the accumulation of phone data without anyone listening to the calls is most likely constitutional. But gathering up emails, actual words, without a specific warrant, is definitely unconstitutional.

A CBS News poll shows that Americans disapprove of the government collecting phone records by a 58% to 38% margin, and 60% of Americans are not concerned that that government may be monitoring their internet use.

It used to be that liberal Americans strongly objected to this kind of government snooping, but President Obama believes phone call surveillance is absolutely vital to the war on terror.

The President has an obligation to tell all Americans exactly what the NSA, CIA and other intel agencies are doing. Are they really accumulating emails from Americans? It's not going to hurt the war on terror if we know that.

Finally, it's very interesting to see liberals battle liberals and conservatives versus conservatives on this situation. This is one issue that has crossed party lines, big time.
And of course O'Reilly does not say a word about his hypocrisy and double standards, because under Bush he supported it, but under Obama he does not. O'Reilly even called people who opposed the Patriot act under Bush un-American, and said they wanted Americans to die.

Then the biased right-wing stooge from Fox James Rosen was on with the latest on allegations that the State Department covered up misconduct during Hillary Clinton's tenure. Which is a nothing/unproven story nobody cares about except O'Reilly and people at Fox news.

Rosen said this: "I've been reporting on the case of U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman, who was investigated for pedophilia and prostitution charges. My reporter's gut tells me that this is headed toward disclosures that will almost certainly prove problematic for former and current top State Department officials, including individuals close to Hillary Clinton."

Which is just laughable, how is it the fault of Hillary Clinton if some Ambassador in fricking Belgium was investigated for pedophilia and prostitution. And notice he "speculates" that it "might" be a problem for people "close" to Hillary. Even if Hillary knew about it, who cares, and how is this a big news story.

This is just another made up scandal by the biased idiots at Fox to try and hurt Hillary politically when she runs for President in 2016. And O'Reilly is helping them by allowing idiots like Rosen to report it on his show.

Then Carl Cameron, who recapped Wednesday's congressional testimony by NSA Director Keith Alexander was on.

Cameron said this: "The NSA chief defended the program and the personnel. He said they are trying to do what is right, that they work lawfully, and that the billions of records have been 'critical' to disrupting dozens of terrorist actions. We do know that the programs can reveal a lot of information, but the ACLU is suing the Obama administration to end collection of all the data. Remember that the phone and internet service providers were granted immunity from lawsuits five years ago. If collecting these records isn't a violation of civil liberties, why would they need immunity?"

Then Republican Senator Marco Rubio, who has been generally supportive of the surveillance programs was on.

Rubio said this: "I think there is information in the press that is not accurate, and I think there is information that could be declassified that would allow people to have more confidence in how these very important programs are run. This is a tough issue because on one hand we have programs we know are effective, but on the other hand people have an expectation of privacy."

Rubio also laid out the odds of immigration reform passing Congress, saying this: "It all depends on border security and on insuring that it doesn't cost the taxpayer. The bottom line is that if we can secure the border and ensure that this doesn't happen again, I think it will pass."

And then after 20 minutes of non-stop right-wing spin a Democrat was on, Bob Beckel, put out his thoughts on the government surveillance programs.

Beckel said this: "They're snooping around and they are invading our civil liberties. Ever since 9/11 and the Patriot Act, we have passed more legislation creating more of these investigative units. Every time they do something they invade our civil liberties and what they're doing now is clearly unconstitutional. I give them credit for trying to protect us, but what's new is the wholesale collection of information about average Americans. They are harming civil liberties, which is harming the nation!"

Then the part-time Fox news Democrat Kirsten Powers and Republican Kate Obenshain were on to discuss it.

Powers said this: "I am comfortable to a point, with the idea of a computer going through phone data and looking for connections and then getting a warrant if they need to go further. I am not comfortable with them storing that data in perpetuity. I think once they've sifted through it, if there is nothing there they should get rid of it."

Obenshain said this: "I have a problem with all of this. Though the administration might say that it is handling this legally, this is an administration that said it would never target conservative groups and that there is no data collection program for millions of Americans. The administration has a pattern of lying about targeting its political adversaries."

Then Adam Carolla was on to talk about the 33-year-old Tennessean Orlando Shaw, who has fathered 22 children with 14 different women.

Carolla said this: "Orlando, get over your latex allergy, and if it were up to me, I would put a boot on your junk. I don't trust you and you should never be able to have sex again. I would also like to parade you around as the world's worst father. We stopped judging people like you a long time ago because some idiot told us we couldn't judge. We judge smokers more harshly than we judge deadbeat dads."

O'Reilly recommended a specific sentence for Shaw, saying this: "I think Orlando should go to jail for ten years. He's a menace, he doesn't care, he thinks it's a joke, so let's put him away for abusing these children."

Are you guys for real, how is that news and what business is it to you. If this guy wants to have 22 kids or 222 kids, he can. It is none of your business, and you two should shut up about it and report some real news.

Then Juliet Huddy was on for did you see that, she talked about authorities in Britain, who have banned a TV ad that features a suggestively writhing Pamela Anderson.

Huddy said this: "This ad is for a website, but you never figured that out. They felt this is sexist and objectifies women, justifiably so. The ad has nothing to do with the product they're selling, which is this web domain. The same ad was also banned in Australia back in 2010."

Earth to Huddy and O'Reilly, who cares! This is not news, and nobody cares what they are doing on tv in England. Report some real news that happened in America, idiots.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: A patriotic display. That I will not report on, because it's not a tip of the day, it's a thank you to some millionaire who donated money to a veterans trackchair charity.

Even Brit Hume Disagrees With O'Reilly Over NSA Story
By: Steve - June 13, 2013 - 10:00am

Appearing on Tuesday afternoon, Fox senior political analyst Brit Hume dismissed the uproar over the National Security Agency's snooping revelations as misplaced hysteria, adding that he sees no abuse whatsoever in what has been revealed.

And btw folks, O'Reilly has said a million times that he never speculates and that he only deals in the facts. But he is speculating that the NSA has done something wrong, with no facts to back up his claims.

"Of the abuses that Snowden claims exist in this program," Hume continued, "his explanation has been vague to the point of non-existent."

Hume then told host Chris Stirewalt he doesn't see anything wrong with what has been revealed about the NSA's surveillance programs:
HUME: To tell you the truth, now that I know about the NSA, I don’t think there have been any abuses, frankly. I think that this guy’s disclosure of the program was an abuse of a sort.
Remember this too, when the Republican George W. Bush was the President O'Reilly supported all this stuff, including the warrantless wiretapping that the Bush administration said they could do without the FISA court or Congress having oversight. This NSA data collection has the FISA court and the Congress to monitor it, and yet O'Reilly is suddenly opposed to it, even when there is no evidence they have violated any privacy rights.

Now here is a cold hard truth, O'Reilly is only making a big deal about it to try and claim it's another Obama scandal to hurt him politically. When there is no scandal, and O'Reilly supported it under Bush. He even called people who opposed it un-American and said they want Americans to die. If that's not being a biased partisan hack, I'm Elvis.

Despite Stirewalt countering that there is clear abuse in what the NSA has been doing, Hume suggested that it is no difference than the surveillance utilized by government agencies like the Social Security Administration, which keeps record of individual income over a lifetime.

"Think of all the information these agencies possess," Hume said, "but the record of abuse by most government agencies has been pretty good."

Hume concluded with this: "The hysteria about this is misplaced."

The Tuesday 6-11-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 12, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Another Day, Another Scandal. The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: A whistleblower with credibility is now saying that Hillary Clinton's State Department covered up misbehavior by an American ambassador and other State Department officials; prostitution and drugs are allegedly involved. We now add this sordid situation to Benghazi, the IRS, spying on reporters, and the possible spying on calls and emails made by American citizens.

It's clear the Obama administration is under siege with all these allegations and the President himself must step up and stop the chaos. Surely he knows what happened in Libya by now, so he should tell us who ordered Susan Rice to mislead the world.

Also, the President should have asked Attorney General Eric Holder to resign last week; the top law enforcement officer in the country can not sign off on a document calling a reporter like James Rosen a 'co-conspirator' and a flight risk.

In addition, the President must explain in full the PRISM program - is the federal government collecting the emails of Americans and storing them? Finally, the President must order any IRS official involved in targeting conservatives to testify fully in front of Congress.

It is Barack Obama's obligation to run this country honestly and we need presidential leadership on these serious situations. If Mr. Obama doesn't clarify all of the controversies, he'll go down in history as Ulysses S. Grant - a scandal-ridden President who lost control of the office.
Then James Carville was on, who dismissed the notion that scandals fill the air in Washington, saying this: "Some of these things merit looking into, but there is a difference between something going wrong and being a 'scandal.'"

Carville also said this: "In the case of the NSA spying, the executive branch, Congress, and the judicial branch all authorized it. It may be bad policy, but it's not a scandal."

Carville then ridiculed the accusation that there was a cover-up after the Benghazi attack, saying this: "All of the emails have been made public, and there's nothing left to know. It's not a scandal!"

Then the Republican Senator Rand Paul was on with his take on the NSA surveillance program.

Paul said this: "I don't think I have an absolute understanding of it because they won't tell us. What's most important is the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment and the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. So this does rise to a very high level to me."

Paul also said this about NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: "He is practicing civil disobedience and many times in our history we have honored people who have done that, so I'm reserving judgment. I think he released information to say the Bill of Rights is being ignored, and I think that is in many ways a noble gesture. We shouldn't be going through the records of billions of calls!"

O'Reilly said Edward Snowden should return to the U.S. and back up his allegations of widespread government spying, saying this: "We can't have anarchy and everybody deciding what national security secrets to leak. He's got to come in and explain it."

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to discuss it.

Colmes said this: "I would like to see the President hold a prime-time news conference, to answer all the questions and set the record straight. He needs to be very clear and he needs to communicate with the American people."

Crowley said this: "He has not shown one iota of righteous anger about the IRS, the DOJ, the NSA or Benghazi. We still don't know where he was on the night of Benghazi, we have no idea who gave the stand down order. I'm waiting for President Obama to lay out the facts."

Then Leah Durant of the conservative Black American Leadership Alliance was on, they are an organization that is wary of liberal immigration policies.

Durant said this: "There's so much evidence out there, showing that any kind of amnesty would have profound consequences on the African American community. It impacts their ability to find work and it impacts their wages when they do find work. So we are urging the President and the Senate to listen to us because the evidence shows that this will have negative consequences for African American workers."

O'Reilly summarized Durant's biased and dishonest position this way, saying this: "You're saying African Americans are being inhibited from rising because of competition from people who shouldn't be in the USA, and you're saying the President is throwing African Americans under the bus in exchange for a political gain for his party."

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to talk about the trial of George Zimmerman, who is charged with killing Trayvon Martin.

Wiehl said this: "They have already dismissed 40 jurors from the pool. Jury selection will take a long time because everyone has heard about this case and because of the racial element. The racial element of the jury will be very important to the outcome."

Guilfoyle said this: "Both sides will use their preemptory challenges to try to get an impartial jury. But at some point this must come to an end and they're going to have to put six people in the jury box. I hope the media can cover this fairly, but they haven't done that so far."

Then the right-wing stooge Jesse Watters was on for his man on the street nonsense. He went to Manhattan and asked people about the government's penchant for collecting data on all of us.

Here's what some folks had to say: "It makes you a little nervous" ... "It seems almost necessary" ... "It is almost like living in a communist country" ... "Orwell's prediction has come true, Big Brother is controlling our lives."

Ignoring the fact that the polls show the majority support it, and that it's been done since Bush was in office.

Watters summarized his findings, saying this: "I talked with about a dozen people, and only one or two had a clue about what's going on. I don't think people understand the story that well, but when I told them what's going on, they were shocked. A lot of young people only care about Facebook and their iPhones, and if you come between that they're going to march on Washington."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Instant hiccup relief. Billy said this: "If you want to get rid of a persistent case of the hiccups, just take a spoonful of peanut butter and put it under your tongue for about a minute."

My God, what a joke. How often does a person get hiccups, once a year, if that. If this is the best you can do O'Reilly just stop the tip of the day, it's worthless.

James Carville Slams O'Reilly For Obama Scandal Fever
By: Steve - June 12, 2013 - 10:00am

James Carville disagreed with Bill O'Reilly Tuesday night over what he said were scandals plaguing the Obama administration, including a new revelation that the State Department allegedly covered up prostitution and drug use.

Carville told O'Reilly that a lot of what people are calling scandals are not scandals, just failures and bad policies. When O'Reilly further pressed him, Carville dismissed the rampant scandal fever as coming from "people with fantasies that are trying to get them to play out."

Carville pushed back when O'Reilly brought up the Benghazi scandal, insisting that every e-mail has been released. O'Reilly confronted Carville with the public denials of former CIA director David Petraeus that he was the one who told Susan Rice to mislead the world, but Carville stated, "It's not a scandal."

Carville did admit the State Department allegations were serious, and they should be looked into. O'Reilly then mocked the idea of just looking into all of these big scandals but not actually doing anything in the public interest about it.

O'Reilly described this wave as a scandal du jour, which prompted Carville to say this: "I've seen people with fantasies that are trying to get them to play out."

Finally, O'Reilly wanted to know if Carville thinks Eric Holder should resign. Carville admitted he's not a big fan of how lax Holder has been in prosecuting the financial crisis, but deferred by saying he's not the president and doesn't get to make that call.

O'Reilly ended the segment by telling Carville that all these scandals add up to not a good situation for the Democratic party, but Carville hit back that it can't be any worse than what the Republicans are doing.

The Monday 6-10-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 11, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Data Mining and You. The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The surveillance situation is very confusing, but vitally important for every American. Here is the headline: The U.S. government is building a 1,000,000 square foot complex in Utah that will house phone call and email data taken from Americans and foreigners alike.

Also, a leaker named Edward Snowden gave information to a London newspaper saying the U.S. is taking information from tech companies in order to fight the war on terror. We really don't know exactly what the government is doing. Phone calls and emails to and from American citizens are being scrutinized; it's a massive intrusion and it affects all of us.

What could happen, and what has happened, is that corrupt government officials have put out private data illegally. We saw that in the IRS hearings last week - a pro-traditional marriage organization had data leaked to its enemies, allegedly by an IRS official. In the case of emails, you have actual words on paper that people have said in private.

If that information is being stored in Utah, that's flat-out unconstitutional. So this is one big mess, and ideologically it's absolutely chaos. Supporters of the NSA surveillance program include Senator John McCain, Senator Diane Feinstein, Republican Karl Rove and Democrat Kirsten Powers.

Opposed are Glenn Beck, Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, and Al Gore. Some liberals are surprised that President Obama is behind the program, but the President wants a powerful federal government that runs nearly everything, so this is consistent. Here's what I think: The war on terror requires aggressive federal surveillance.

Storing phone call data is questionable, but I think it's permissible under the Constitution. But seizing actual words of Americans said in private, unless there's probable cause, is clearly unconstitutional. I'm very tough on national security, but this is dangerous. One more thing: All this government intrusion didn't stop those Boston bombers, did it?
Now remember this folks, when Bush was the President O'Reilly supported all this stuff, all of it. Now that the Democrat Obama is in office suddenly O'Reilly is against it all. Which shows just how much of a biased right-wing stooge he is.

Then Karl Rove, a supporter of the NSA's surveillance program, was on to discuss it, and for once he had some facts on the issue, without a bunch of right-wing bias and propaganda.

Rove said this: "The phone record program keeps a data base of phone calls, which records what number was called on what day and for how long. This data base can not be accessed unless there is evidence of a tie to terrorism that justifies a warrant from a federal judge."

Rove also said this: "The other program is called PRISM and it involves the communications of someone who is not a U.S. citizen. In essence, this is a way for us to look at the electronic communication of bad guys that flows through U.S. networks. There is no confiscation of emails or video chats from U.S. citizens. The law prohibits the targeting of U.S. citizens or anyone in the U.S."

And even after that detailed report O'Reilly insisted that "we the people are owed a very specific explanation and we are going to demand that."

Which is ridiculous, because if they give a specific explanation then the terrorists will know what they are doing and figure out a way around it. And that is what O'Reilly opposed under Bush, now he wants an explanation, when under Bush he was opposed to any explanation and said if they do they hate America because Americans will die.

Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on with their thoughts on government data collection. Williams tried to tell O'Reilly how insane he was over this, but of course he would not listen.

Ham said this: "Even if these rules are in place, how confident can we be that they are not being violated, especially when this is all secret? If there are 5-million 'secret' or 'top secret' clearances, what are the chances that every single person is operating exactly according to the law?"

Williams contended that the program has many safeguards to protect ordinary citizens, saying this: "You don't trust government and this is an extension of the conservative line that this is more government overreach. You're saying that not only do you not trust President Obama, but you don't trust the Republicans and Democrats who run the intelligence committees and you don't trust the federal judges on the FISA court. You don't trust anybody!"

In response, O'Reilly said this: "You had federal officials working for the IRS illegally mining information about conservative groups and giving it to their opponents, and you're telling me I should trust the federal government! What are you, Bambi?"

Which is also ridiculous, because the IRS scandal has nothing to do with the NSA program, there is no comparison, and it's crazy for O'Reilly to compare the two. Williams even slammed O'Reilly for it, but of course he dismissed him and called him a fool.

Then the right-wing stooge Brit Hume was on to talk about it.

Hume said this: "As far as we know, if the program is used legally we are all pretty safe in terms of the privacy of our communication. But the worrisome thing is that when the government has this much data there is the possibility that it could be illegally accessed and used for improper purposes."

Hume also said this: "The leaker of this information suggests that this can happen and that he was able to access all this information, but I'm skeptical of him. The most alarming thing about this program is that this guy got a security clearance! He's a guy with limited education and he doesn't seem like the kind of person who would qualify for a high security clearance."

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about testimony last week from conservative groups who claim they were targeted by the IRS.

Goldberg said this: "There are some things we should all be able to agree upon, and one of them is that the role of the press is to keep an eye on the abuses of government. When Americans testify before Congress about the abuses of the IRS, that's a legitimate news story, but television news either ignored the story entirely or gave it only a few minutes. It's a safe bet that if we had a Republican in the White House, the networks would have been all over the story. If the networks were covering this story and Benghazi honestly, President Obama's approval ratings would be at least 20 points lower!"

Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on, because what he does is not news. He is only on to make jokes about liberals, with no liberal comedian on for balance.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: The "Killing" Fields. Billy said this: "The movie version of "Killing Lincoln" is now out on DVD and Blu-ray, as is "Kennedy's Last Days," an adaptation of "Killing Kennedy" aimed at kids."

Which is not a tip, just a cheap promotion for the movie Killing Lincoln and Kennedy's Last Days.

O'Reilly Now Claims NSA Surveillance Unconstitutional
By: Steve - June 11, 2013 - 10:00am

Monday night O'Reilly admitted he is conflicted about the revelations of widespread NSA surveillance, and while he does support the collection of cell phone metadata, he drew the line at the NSA's internet monitoring and collection of private e-mails.

O'Reilly said that "seizing actual words of Americans is clearly unconstitutional, saying that there's too much danger in the government potentially abusing its power and declaring that the program should be shut down immediately."

O'Reilly also said that Edward Snowden should be arrested, even if what he did ends up being a good thing, because it would set a bad precedent for people who leak secret government information.

He explained the specifics of the program for viewers, warning that like in the IRS case, corrupt government officials could potentially exploit the information collected.

Which is a little strange because Judge Napolitano told Shepard Smith that the NSA Leaker is an American Hero who Exposed Extraordinary Violations.

O'Reilly pointed out that while the feds say they won't go after individuals without probable cause, they can't find probable cause unless they're already looking through e-mails.

O'Reilly noted how this story has made some very strange bedfellows, and told liberals who are surprised that President Obama is behind this that his entire administration is about accumulating power for the feds.

O'Reilly called the storage of phone metadata questionable but permissible, while seizing actual words of Americans is clearly unconstitutional.

O'Reilly cited the Fourth Amendment and declared, "You can't just seize everything and say you're doing so to try to root out terrorism."

While O'Reilly does generally support the Patriot Act and aggressively fighting the war on terror, he warned there is too much risk of government abuse and called on the NSA program to be shut down immediately.

Which is funny, because they could care less what Bill O'Reilly wants. And the really funny part is that all this was done by Bush and the Republicans, but O'Reilly supported it all then, because a Republican President was doing it.

Under the Bush administration. O'Reilly voiced strong support for the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, which collected the telephone records of millions of Americans. In 2006, after a judge ruled the program was unconstitutional, O'Reilly speculated that she didn't care if Americans were killed by terrorists.

"Does she want dead people in the street here in America?" he said on his show. "Because I'm sure that she would not only oppose the NSA program, she would oppose coercive interrogation, profiling at the airports. She would oppose every anti-terror measure the Bush administration has put in just because they're the Bush administration. But the unintended consequences of the opposition is death.

He made similar comments regarding the ACLU, which had attempted to prevent the NSA from collecting phone calls and emails without a warrant. He suggested the civil liberties organization wanted "the terrorists to win."

But now suddenly O'Reilly believes the NSA's massive collection of data under the Obama administration is an unconstitutional government overreach. Proving once again what a biased right-wing hack he is, who has double standards, depending on what political party is in power.

Wealthy Businessman Admits Rich Do Not Create Jobs
By: Steve - June 10, 2013 - 11:00am

Last week entrepreneur and self-described one percenter Nick Hanauer warned Congress that rich people like him are not the engines of the economy. In a testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, he explained why, in fact, middle-class workers are the economy's real job creators:
HANAUER: In the same way that it's a fact that the sun, not earth is the center of the solar system, it's also a fact that the middle class, not rich business people like me are the center of America's economy.

As an entrepreneur and investor, I have started or helped start, dozens of businesses and initially hired lots of people. But if no one could have afforded to buy what we had to sell, my businesses would all would have failed and all those jobs would have evaporated.
Which is just more proof that the propaganda O'Reilly and his right-wing friends put out that giving the wealthy big tax cuts creates jobs is a lie.

He described what he calls a virtuous cycle in which middle class consumers have money to buy goods, which increases demand and therefore hiring. The rich, on the other hand, don't fuel the economy with their consumption in the same way. "I earn 1,000 times the median wage, but I do not buy 1,000 times as much stuff," he said.

But the country's policies pretend otherwise. He included facts that display how skewed America's policy priorities really are:
-- Corporate profits and unemployment are simultaneously at 50-year highs.

-- The share of income for the richest 1 percent has tripled since 1980 while their taxes have only risen by 50 percent.

-- The rich enjoy a 15-20 percent tax rate on capital gains, dividends, and carried interest while the top marginal rate on middle class Americans is 39 percent.
He concluded with this: "Tax the wealthy and corporations (as we once did in this country) and invest that money in the middle class-as we once did in this country."

And this is not just his opinion, the facts back up his proposal that taxing the rich and investing the revenues can spur economic growth. The years following the Bush tax cuts were the worst for job creation since record keeping began. Meanwhile, job growth in the post-war period has been stronger when the top income tax rate is higher.

Yet wages just fell to an all-time low. Corporate profits, on the other hand, have outpaced wages by 20 percent since 2008.

Notice that O'Reilly never tells you any of that information, all he does is spin out the right-wing propaganda that if you give tax cuts to the wealthy they will create jobs, with no facts to back it up. And in fact, the opposite is true, and O'Reilly ignores that fact.

Obamacare Financial Story O'Reilly Has Totally Ignored
By: Steve - June 9, 2013 - 11:00am

Here is a story about the Obamacare bill forcing insurance companies to give rebates back to small businesses. And of course O'Reilly ignored it, because it disputes his dishonest and biased reporting that Obamacare will cost small businesses and the people more money not less.

On Tuesday, Golden State small businesses and their employees got some great news: two of the state's largest insurers will have to give them over $36 million in insurance rebates because of an Obamacare consumer protection.

The health law forces insurers to spend at least 80 percent of the premiums they charge on paying for actual medical services, rather than administrative overhead or profits. That means more money for ordinary consumers - and less for profitable insurance companies.

The "80/20 rule" put $1.5 billion back into Americans pockets in 2011 alone. The average rebate was $151 per family across all insurance markets, and in states where insurers blatantly gouged prices, average rebates topped a whopping $500 per family.

Now, the benefits for Californians with small business health plans are beginning to materialize. Blue Shield of California will be forced to pay back $24.5 million in rebates. Anthem Blue Cross will have to pay back another $12 million.

While cheering the latest numbers as a victory for California small businesses and their employees, consumer advocates argue that the insurance industry should try harder to proactively lower costs for companies and individuals.

"Health insurers should work to cut upfront premiums rather than reimburse consumers afterward," said Jon Fox, consumer advocate at the California Public Interest Research Group Education Fund, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. "Millions of dollars in rebates are a clear sign that health insurers are overcharging consumers."

Large insurers like Anthem Blue Cross have tried their best to circumvent Obamacare protections like the 80/20 rule by threatening outlandish premium rate hikes. The health law requires state insurance regulators to review any premium hike request above 10 percent, but it leaves the decision of whether or not reject those rates with the states.

Although 37 states can negotiate or reject insurers rates, some large-population states - including California - can't.

Still, any rate hikes imposed by insurers will be held accountable to the 80/20 rule. Financial gimmicks may give insurers a short turn profit - but it's one they'll have to give right back to consumers.

Last September, the Republican-led House Energy and Commerce Committee's Health Subcommittee passed H.R. 1206, which would have repealed the 80/20 rule and amounted to a massive premium hike for over 13 million Americans. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the bill would also increase the federal deficit by $531 million in the next four years.

Which is just another reason you should never vote Republican, because even when the Democrats get you cheaper health insurance and rebates, the Republicans are still trying to pass a bill to stop it. Because they are in the back pocket of the insurance companies. And they could care less about saving small businesses and the American people money.

The Friday 6-7-13 O'Reilly/Gutfeld Factor Review
By: Steve - June 8, 2013 - 11:00am

The far-right loon Greg Gutfled filled in for O'Reilly and his TPM was called: "The Idiot's Guide" to the NSA spying situation. Gutfeld said this:
GUTFELD: If someone asked you whether you wish 9/11 had never happened, you obviously would say yes. If you were then asked whether you wish there had been a system to catch those terrorists before they attacked, you would say yes to that, too. Which is why the NSA data scoop is a tricky thing.

If that program had existed twelve years ago, 9/11 might have been stopped. The White House claims this mass grab of phone records did stop one attack, which makes me wonder: If a security program like this wasn't present and that attack hit, would we not clamor for one? Whatever this snooping amounts to, it didn't stop the Boston bombing or Fort Hood, the strangest case of 'workplace violence' ever.

Fort Hood happened not because of lack of intel, but lack of will. We were scared to call terror what terror is for fear of appearing bigoted, so that opened the door to the devil. So it's not about surveillance, but about an administration that cannot use it properly. Sorry, I just can't trust a progressive government, given their nature to defend America's critics rather than our own values.

And you can't feel safe when one arm of the government, the IRS, is already targeting decent Americans. We've had the DOJ, the IRS, and now the NSA - any more scandals and we'll have to move on to the Greek alphabet
Hey Gutfeld, the NSA spying is not an Obama scandal, it's a Bush scandal, because he started it and allowed it, and the Republicans all voted for the Patriot act, jerk.

Then a Washington Post investigative reporter Robert O'Harrow was on.

O'Harrow said this: "The program is called PRISM, and it involves a partnership between the government and private sector data collectors. In this case we're talking about Microsoft, America Online, Apple, and others. The National Security Agency has what appears to be direct access to their servers in an effort to find foreign nationals that may be involved in nefarious activities. There are people trying to protect the country and they're operating behind a cloak of secrecy."

Then civil rights attorney Jennifer Bonjean and former Bush adviser Brad Blakeman were on to discuss it.

Bonjean said this: "I do not agree with President Obama, and I believe Pandora's Box was opened when the Patriot Act passed under the Bush administration. We are still stuck back there and it's actually gotten worse. President Obama campaigned on the idea that there would be more transparency, but we haven't seen that at all. Even the author of the Patriot Act says we have gone too far!"

Blakeman said this: "In 2007, then-Senator Obama was against the Patriot Act and FISA, but then he got sworn in as President and he had an epiphany. He was given the Presidential daily briefing and the hair probably stood up on the back of his neck when he understood the threats and understood that President Bush did the right thing."

In an editorial Thursday, the New York Times said that the Obama administration "has now lost all credibility." Then the Times added a few words to say the administration "has now lost all credibility on this issue."

Geraldo was on to discuss it, he said this: "It's fascinating that there was this moderation in tone, and maybe they thought better of it or maybe somebody got to them. The Times is constantly being surprised that Barack Obama is not really a liberal. He may have campaigned as a liberal and he may have been a liberal as a community organizer, but he's really a middle-of-the-road guy. He has waged this drone war and now he has sanctioned this widespread snooping under the Patriot Act."

Then Gutfeld had a ridiculous segment about organizers of the Miss World competition, who have jettisoned the bikini competition for this year's pageant in majority-Muslim Indonesia. Which I will not report on because it's not real news, it's just a reason for Gutfled to run video of girls in bikinis for ratings.

And finally, Gutfled ended the show with the far-right jerk Fox News military analyst Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, who actually defended the Obama administration's data-collection tactics.

Peters said this: "This is a non-scandal, and it deflects from the real scandals the Obama administration is facing. The intelligence community can't get a break - if they do everything they can to prevent a terrorist attack, people say 'big brother' is watching; if they slack off and there's a terrorist attack, then it's an intelligence failure. I've worked in that world and the people at NSA are wonk patriots who do a good job. They're not out to take over the government and they're not looking over the shoulders of 40-year-old losers who are trolling at porn sites. This is focused on terrorists, not on you and me. The NSA is just doing its job."

O'Reilly Refuses To Face The Facts About Stop-And-Frisk
By: Steve - June 8, 2013 - 10:00am

While highlighting violent crime among minority groups, Bill O'Reilly promoted the controversial practice of "stop-and-frisk," a policy that has not stopped crime but has raised significant constitutional concerns.

O'Reilly argued that violence among minorities has decreased thanks to "stop-and-frisk." The policy, which has been featured most prominently in New York City, allows law enforcement officers to stop and search anyone they want.

The New York Times reported that "the approach led to close to 700,000 stops in 2011 alone." O'Reilly described the program by saying "the police take the guns and they pat down people," adding, "Stats aside, it's a fact that if you take stop-and-frisk away, more black Americans and more Hispanic Americans are going to die."

But as Alan Colmes pointed out, there is no evidence that stop-and-frisk has decreased crime. New York magazine pointed out that shootings have actually increased in New York City as incidents of stop-and-frisk soared:
When looking at gun violence in which people don't die, shootings have remained steady while the number of stop-and-frisks skyrocketed.

While the NYPD was stopping and frisking a record 685,724 people last year, 1,821 people were victims of gunfire. That's virtually the same number as in 2002, Bloomberg's first year in office, when 1,892 people were shot, but just 97,296 people were frisked.

Between 2009 and 2011, the number of people shot in New York climbed from 1,727 to 1,821 even as the NYPD was ratcheting up the number of people it rousted from 510,742 in 2009 to the record 685,724, the statistics showed.

A similar pattern of rising shootings and escalating stop-and-frisks occurred from 2004 through 2006. During those years, the NYPD stop-and-frisks jumped 70 percent, from 313,523 to 506,491, but the number of shooting victims actually rose 7 percent, from 1,777 to 1,880.
Proving that O'Reilly is a liar when he says he only deals in the facts, the truth is when the facts disagree with him he just ignores it and puts his spin on it anyway.

The program also has raised constitutional concerns. In May 2012, a federal judge granted class-action status to a lawsuit filed against stop-and-frisk, calling the program evidence of a "deeply disturbing apathy towards New Yorkers' most fundamental constitutional rights." In January, a part of the program was ruled unconstitutional. The New York Daily News reported this:
Manhattan Federal Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ordered police to refrain from making some trespass stops outside private residential buildings -- even though the landlord has given officers permission to do so as part of the NYPD's "Clean Halls" program.

"While it may be difficult to say when precisely to draw the line between constitutional and unconstitutional police encounters such a line exists, and the NYPD has systematically crossed it when making trespass stops outside buildings," Scheindlin wrote in a 157-page ruling.
And O'Reilly has promoted stop-and-frisk before. On the June Fox & Friends, O'Reilly defended the program, saying "it is not racial profiling, it's criminal profiling."

In fact, it is racist and the NY police have even admitted it, which O'Reilly totally ignored. New York police officers testifying before a federal court in March of 2013 said that racist quotas imposed by ranking officers are behind the police department's controversial stop-and-frisk program, confirming years of accusations made by civil rights and community advocates that the department's tactics disproportionately target minorities.

According to department data, the NYPD has made roughly 5 million street stops in the past decade, the vast majority of those stopped being young African American or Latino men.

Nearly nine out of 10 of those stopped by police have walked away without a summons or arrest.

"The NYPD has laid siege to black and Latino communities" through "arbitrary, unnecessary and unconstitutional harassment," said attorney Darius Charney.

"At the end of the day, it's about quotas," added Jonathan Moore. "That's why there is such an epidemic in these communities of people getting stopped and frisked—because the police are told to get numbers. They are interested in arrests, summons and 250s," he said, referring to the code for 'stop, question and frisk'.

Eight-year NYPD veteran, Adhyl Polanco, said that in 2009 his precinct supervisors insisted on 20 summons, five street stops and one arrest per month. Those who didn't make the quota were penalized by poor evaluations and denial of overtime.

Occasionally, Polanco said, officers would be forced to "drive the sargeant" which meant driving around with a senior officer who would make them give out summons and make street stops, at times for infractions the junior officer did not observe.

A second officer from a different Bronx precinct, Pedro Serrano, played before the court a taped discussion with his commanding officer, Deputy Inspector Christopher McCormack, during which he orders Serrano to perform more stop and frisks.

O'Reilly Mainstreams British Anti-Muslim Hate Group Leader
By: Steve - June 7, 2013 - 11:30am

Bill O'Reilly provided a platform for Tommy Robinson, head of the English Defence League, a violent, extremist anti-Muslim hate group in Great Britain.

O'Reilly hosted Robinson on The O'Reilly Factor to discuss the EDL's efforts to, as Robinson described, "fight for Christianity, fight for our children's future, fight for our culture, and fight for our country's identity, which is completely under attack."

Robinson went on to claim that British politicians aren't doing enough to suppress the growth of Muslim communities in the United Kingdom, adding "actions speak a lot louder than words."

Although O'Reilly mentioned press reports describing the EDL as fascist and racist and described the group's views as militant at the beginning of the segment, he failed to note the EDL's history of incendiary and often violent actions. A 2010 undercover investigation by The Guardian found that the organization planned protests against Muslim communities in a blatant attempt to provoke mayhem and disorder.

The English Defence League, which started in Luton last year, has become the most significant far-right street movement in the UK since the National Front in the 1970s. A Guardian investigation has identified a number of known right-wing extremists who are taking an interest in the movement - from convicted football hooligans to members of violent right-wing splinter groups.

Thousands of people have attended its protests - many of which have descended into violence and racist and Islamophobic chanting. Supporters are split into "divisions" spread across the UK and as many as 3,000 people are attracted to its protests.

A post on the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch blog described the video that accompanied the Guardian post as revealing "the group's defining features: street intimidation and violent rhetoric."

In the video, EDL activists are heard issuing targeted threats and speaking of upcoming "murders" and "stampings". Among the British groups that have attached themselves to the EDL are violent neo-Nazi outfits such as Combat 18 and far-right racist parties like the National Front.

Because of the increasingly ominous atmosphere surrounding its public gatherings, the EDL's founder and leader Tommy Robinson was stopped last week by authorities at JFK Airport on a tip from British police and sent back to England.

And yet, even after knowing all that Bill O'Reilly still let him on the Factor to spin out his anti-muslim hate speech.

Robinson even promoted the EDL's "Jewish division" on The O'Reilly Factor, but made no mention of Roberta Moore, who resigned as head of the EDL's Jewish division in 2011 because of what she claimed were Nazi elements within the group.

And Bill O'Reilly is not the first right-wing media figure to highlight the EDL or its leader. Ann Coulter defended the organization from critics after a protest against the slaying of a British soldier by two Muslim men in Woolwich turned violent last month.

Pamela Geller, an Islamophobic right-wing blogger and activist, has repeatedly expressed her support for the EDL in the past. She wrote at the conservative American Thinker that "Free people should support the English Defence League in its efforts to stand for England and the West against the belligerent invaders and Islamic imperialists."

This past January, she defended Robinson after he was arrested for illegally entering the United States. Geller and Robinson sit together on the President's Council of Stop Islamization of Nations, which claims to be "the first activist leadership team uniting counter-jihadists in Europe, the U.S., and Australia."

And Bill O'Reilly never reported any of this information to his viewers, all he did was say that some people in England have called them fascist and racist, and that they have also called the group's views militant. Which downplayed what they really are and what they actually do.

The Thursday 6-6-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 7, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The federal government out of control. The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It seems like every night I'm telling you about another horror story in Washington. Today we learned that Americans who have Verizon telephone services are being spied upon by the National Security Agency. The NSA and Verizon know who you called, when you called, and how long you stayed on the phone.

The Obama administration says this is necessary to fight the war on terror, but even liberal Americans are openly criticizing the President. Talking Points usually supports war on terror strategies, but this one is a major intrusion on privacy.

Also today, there was another IRS hearing and we're learning that the agency spent about $50 million on parties and conferences that were totally unnecessary. This embarrassment comes on the heels of the agency's admission that it unfairly targeted conservative Americans.

The IRS people in Cincinnati, who were originally blamed, say they were ordered to do what they did by their superiors in Washington. The federal government is out of control because of President Obama's management style - he's simply not interested in many of the mundane things that go on in Washington.

The President delegates, but does oversee, so ideological federal employees and corrupt people working for the government know they can do pretty much what they want. And even when screw-ups happen, nothing happens to those who are responsible. So it's clear there is chaos in Washington; I wonder what I'll be telling you tomorrow.
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, the liberals tried to fight all this stuff in the Patriot act when Bush was in office, but you and your right-wing friends all supported it and said it would not be an invasion of our privacy. So don't cry about it now, you supported it. And btw folks, not one Democrtic guest was on the entire show to discuss it, or anything else either.

Then the right-wing hack Laura Ingraham was on to discuss it.

Ingraham said this: "This is a 'swag bag' of scandals, so it's hard to pick. There's lots of disturbing stuff from the NSA today, but I would still have to go with the IRS scandal because it goes to the heart of what we're supposed to be able to believe about our federal government, that it doesn't operate with concern for what you believe. At the IRS hearings today there were more examples of this lack of accountability."

O'Reilly said this: "This is like a banana republic, where the government does what it wants. Everybody knows the IRS abused conservative Americans and wasted our money."

Then Megyn Kelly was on to discuss the NSA collecting phone records.

Kelly said this: "We have not known that our records are being collected, and you can bet it's not just Verizon. Since 2006 the NSA has been getting these phone records from various phone companies - they know the numbers we've called, where we were when we made the calls, and how long the calls lasted. I'm being told by some sources that the feds are doing this because phone companies purge the records after a certain amount of time."

Kelly also analyzed a new study that identifies states where unborn children are most vulnerable. One state on the list is New York, where Governor Andrew Cuomo wants to make abortions even easier to obtain. Which the pro-life O'Reilly and Kelly disagree with.

Kelly said this: "He is trying to change the law, so that you can get a third-term abortion in New York State if it is 'to preserve the mother's health.' But I don't know how they're going to define 'health of the mother,' that's the problem. It puts a lot of discretion in the hands of doctors and mothers."

Then O'Reilly had the leader of an anti-muslim hate group on from London, Tommy Robinson was given a forum to spew out his garbage by O'Reilly. Robinson said this: "We're a protest movement designed to put pressure on our politicians. Islamism and terrorism and Sharia Law are out of control and if we bury our heads in the sand we are sleepwalking into oblivion. But the government is constantly pandering to Islam and worrying about what the Islamic community will do. We're trying to fight for Christianity, fight for our children, and fight for our culture. Islam is not a religion of peace, it never has been and never will be."

O'Reilly pointed out that Robinson is an extremely polarizing figure in the UK, saying this: "When you say you want to protect Great Britain as a Christian nation, you come across as somebody who has an anti-Muslim agenda because of religious reasons. You've been called a fascist and a racist."

But he still gave the fascist racist a segment on his show, go figure.

Then Greg Gutfeld and Bernard McGuirk were on for their weekly garbage segment.

Gutfeld said this: "We have the FBI, the DOJ, the NSA, and the IRS, so we need a 'scandal czar.' I can't keep up with the scandals. Regarding the phone records, I am on the fence, where I like to be. If you believed in the Patriot Act, you can't be a hypocrite now. But you are lucky, Bill, because this scandal validates your choice to hold on to that rotary phone."

McGuirk ridiculed the woman who is suing United Airlines for $170,000 because hot coffee was spilled on her, saying this: "This is clearly frivolous and outrageous, and this is how sleazeballs like John Edwards got rich. If somebody spills a cup of coffee on your lap and you have to leave the plane looking like Al Roker leaving the White House, the airline could just give her free tickets or bump her up to first class."

Hey McGuirk, it's called Democracy. And btw, after legal fees and taxes she will not be getting rich, if she wins.

Gutfeld concluded with a deep philosophical question, saying this: "What ever happened to 'whoops?' When accidents happened, you said 'whoops' and moved on, but now you sue."

What's funny is how all these rich people oppose lawsuits, but if they are poor person who was hurt they would be singing a different tune. If it's a frivolous lawsuit the judge will throw it out, if it goes through to a jury then it's not a frivolous lawsuit, jerks.

Then Jesse Watters was on, he talked to some young people and asked them to name some people they admire. Here are a few of their responses: "Andy Warhol, I think the stuff he does is great" ... "I look up to Derek Jeter" ... "One of my role models is Lady Gaga because she thinks about making an impact on the world" ... "I would have to say Tyler Perry."

Back in the studio Watters summarized his waste of time man on the street nonsense, saying this: "A lot of these kids are really sophisticated. I tried to stop one kid who was in 6th grade and had a tie on, but he looked down at his $400 watch and said, 'Sorry, I'm going to be late for a meeting.'"

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Best of enemies. Billy said this: "Ignore your enemies if you can, but if they do you harm, find a legal way to exact revenge."

O'Reilly Insults Gay People Once Again
By: Steve - June 7, 2013 - 10:00am

Now remember this, O'Reilly claims to not have anything against gay people. He has said he has nothing against gay people, and that they should remain in the closet and not go public with being gay. Then he says insulting and stupid things like this.

O'Reilly reinforced the bogus stereotype about gender and masculinity, telling a guest on his show that, if your son likes the color pink, "you might have to send him to camp."

During the June 3rd O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly discussed a Wisconsin elementary school that offered its students the chance to voluntarily dress up as the opposite gender as a part of the school's Spirit Week celebrations. O'Reilly and his guest, right-wing comedian Adam Carolla, criticized the event, calling the school's teachers pinheads.

Here is a partial transcript:
O'REILLY: You know why they're doing this, though, right?


O'REILLY: Well, it's all about anti-bullying and putting the children in other people's positions so they don't make fun of girls and boys. It's a politically correct tactic that's far too sophisticated for the children to understand and that's why it's stupid, and that's why these educators are pinheads.

CAROLLA: It's interesting.

O'REILLY: Because while they may have a noble intent, they have no idea how children process things. You don't dress up like a little girl when you're five and you're a boy. That's just stupid. Go ahead.

CAROLLA: Putting a boy in a poodle skirt and saddle shoes-

O'REILLY: Yeah, I mean it's insane.

CAROLLA: Is bullying. I mean, listen, I have a six-year-old son, I have twins. He had to ride in his sister's pink car seat the other day for a mile and he screamed like a stuck pig the entire time.

O'REILLY: That's a good sign. That's a good sign because, if he had liked that, you might have to send him to camp.
In addition to being factually wrong, the gender-swap day was proposed by the school's student council and had nothing to do with bullying.

While the school's gender-swap day may have just been a playful celebration, the issue of allowing transgender children to dress how they prefer is a serious one. Allowing children to dress in the clothing that corresponds to their gender identity isn't "stupid" and "insane," as O'Reilly put it, it's a critical part of creating a healthy and supportive environment for gender-variant children.

The most chilling part of O'Reilly's comments, though, is his recommendation that any boy who likes pink should be sent to camp, to either punish the child or correct such behavior.

Such adherence to strict gender norms is problematic for a number of reasons, but it's especially damaging for LGBT children who don't fit expectations of how boys and girls are supposed to act. Parents who try to force their LGBT kids to abide by strict gender norms (rather than merely accepting their children as they are) end up doing emotional damage to them.

This is especially true for parents who may be considering sending their child to "ex-gay" or "reparative" therapy, a practice that relies heavily on the false belief that men become gay because they have a "weak" masculine identity (and vice versa). Such was the case for Kirk Andrew Murphy, a man who took his own life after his parents put him through years of "ex-gay" therapy because they noticed him "playing with dolls."

When O'Reilly instructs parents to send their gender-variant children to a camp, he's not just adding to his long line of terrible parenting advice; he's encouraging hostility towards vulnerable LGBT youth by the very people who should be supporting them the most.

In other words, O'Reilly is a right-wing nut who does not like gay people, and he thinks that if you have a son that shows signs of being gay you should send them to camp to get the gay out of them, which is impossible. And only anti-gay right-wing idiots think that way, or that it is possible to get the gay out of a child by sending them to a camp.

O'Reilly Slams GOP Study About The Youth Vote
By: Steve - June 6, 2013 - 11:30am

A report released by the College Republican National Committee found that the GOP lost young voters because many young people view the Republican party as "closed-minded, racist, rigid, and old-fashioned."

O'Reilly had CRNC Chairwoman Alex Smith and research analyst Kristen Soltis on, who helped write the CRNC report, to explain their findings. O'Reilly questioned the reasons young people don't like the GOP, and wondered why the Republicans should even bother listening to "a bunch of kids who don't know anything."

Soltis told O'Reilly that most young people believe that "Republicans don't have an answer to the problems that are facing them," particularly when it comes to their personal financial issues. O'Reilly asked how they could possibly think Obama's better on the economy. Soltis explained that while young people understand how bad the economy is, they believe Obama is trying to fix things and so they give him an A for effort.

Not to mention, it was Bush and the Republicans who crashed the economy, so most people do not blame Obama for it, a fact that O'Reilly still refuses to report.

O'Reilly rolled his eyes and asked why he, let alone the national Republican party, should care about the opinions of "a bunch of kids who don't know anything."

Because it is a study on those kids who vote and why they did not vote for Romney, moron.

He challenged Smith's claim that the GOP appeared to ignore young voters, saying that while Barack Obama was definitely younger and hipper than Mitt Romney, he didn't see a big difference in the two presentations in how both appealed to young people.

Which is ridiculous and just laughable, because if you did not see a big difference in the two presentations from Obama and Romney in how both appealed to young people, you are either deaf and blind, or just ignoring the facts.

Smith pointed out that young people ranked coolness a lower priority than being hard-working and responsible. O'Reilly said these are GOP tenets, and so concluded that it must be social views that are coloring how young people view the GOP.

Soltis pointed out that while young people are overwhelmingly pro-gay marriage, they are split down the middle on abortion, so it's not impossible to imagine them winning over young people on social issues, but it's still economics where they have to win the battle.

Let's get real, most young voters do not vote Republican because a big part of the party is racist, anti-gay, pro-life, and on and on. Positions which most young people support.

The Wednesday 6-5-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 6, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: President Obama does an amazing thing. The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As alert Americans know, former UN Ambassador Susan Rice misled the world about the assassination of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens. So you would think that the Ambassador would keep a low profile, but today President Obama announced that she is his new National Security Adviser.

Some pundits say this is an insult to the Republican Party, but it is not; it is defiance to all Americans who care about protecting diplomats abroad. Talking Points doesn't believe Susan Rice lied, I believe she was told what to say and said it. But she knows who gave her the misleading talking points and will not testify to that.

Therefore, Susan Rice is the face of the Benghazi case and now she's been rewarded, promoted by a President who also refuses to explain what happened in Libya. The President will also not explain the IRS situation, where former IRS chief Douglas Shulman was cleared into the White House 157 times.

The White House could clear all this up very easily, but the President chooses not to. So what we have here is a defiant President. If he wants to promote Ambassador Rice, he's going to do it; if he wants to stonewall about the IRS commissioner, he'll do that, too.
Notice that O'Reilly is still lying about the 157 visits to the White House, it was not 157, it was 11, and he will not report it. Now he reports Shulman was cleared 157 times, but fails to report he only went 11 times, this is done by dishonest right-wing hacks only. Real journalists are reporting the truth, and not lying about the 157 number anymore.

Then Bob Beckel, who defended Susan Rice's promotion, was on.

Beckel said this: "I agree with it, and I think she's highly qualified. Yes, there is a bit of defiance by Obama because I don't think the American people care much about Benghazi. Do you really believe that Benghazi was some big complicated conspiracy? The only thing we don't know is who ordered the stand-down."

But of course the biased right-winger O'Reilly portrayed Rice's promotion as an evasion of accountability, saying this: "Ambassador Rice gets appointed National Security Adviser, a position where she doesn't have to testify before the Senate. She's very loyal, but she has a big black mark on her resume. This is shady!"

Then Kate Obenshain and Kirsten Powers were on to discuss a hearing on the IRS, where Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott disparaged conservative groups who were targeted for special scrutiny.

Powers said this: "I thought his behavior was appalling. If anyone watched what these people were saying, there was some pretty unbelievable behavior by the IRS. There are a lot of groups that do things much more political than these groups."

Obenshain said this: "Liberals have found three groups that were audited for things that were said and done that verged on that political line. But this is a desperate attempt by liberals. Of all the scandals, this one is truly resonating and so the Obama administration is going on the attack mode."

Then Dennis Kucinich was on to talk about some entertainers, among them Oliver Stone and Phil Donahue, who are defending Army Private Bradley Manning, who leaked classified information to WikiLeaks.

Kucinich said this: "There is no proof that Bradley Manning had any direct communication with the enemy, or that he passed information directly. And there's no indication that the information resulted in any American soldier being hurt. I believe in the First Amendment, which is under attack by this administration. Our highest duty should be to the truth."

But of course O'Reilly denounced Bradley Manning as a "weasel" who betrayed his country, saying this: "This private took classified information and made his own personal decision to put it out to a far-left website while we have military people in the field. That is a crime!"

Then Taya Kyle, whose late husband Chris gained fame as one of the greatest snipers in U.S. military history, was on to talk about a new book, which Chris co-wrote prior to his death. And I am not going to report on, because it's not news, it's just O'Reilly trying to help her sell books.

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

Then Juliet Huddy was on for did you see that, she talked about First Lady Michelle Obama, who was interrupted and heckled this week at an event in Washington.

Huddy said this: "The heckler was a woman named Ellen Sturtz, who is a gay rights activist and was one of the organizers of this event, which was held at a private home. She wanted to bring attention to an executive order sitting on the President's desk dealing with sexual discrimination in the workplace. Michelle Obama got down off the podium and walked over to her and threatened to leave. Sturtz was then escorted out of the event."

O'Reilly denounced the heckling as "totally inappropriate, totally outrageous."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Out with the urchins. Billy said this: "For the sake of their well-being and yours, force your kids to get out of the house and away from their computers and cell phones and video games as much as possible this summer."

Maddow Proves O'Reilly Lied Over 157 WH Visit Story
By: Steve - June 6, 2013 - 10:00am

Viewers of Tuesday night's Rachel Maddow Show were treated to a great debunking of the Bill O'Reilly report that former IRS head Doug Shulman visited the White House 157 times over a four year period, even though we now know that there were only 11 confirmed visits by Shulman.

As Maddow prepped the episode in which she called O'Reilly out for mentioning the story on Monday night's Factor. Bill O'Reilly was again repeating the debunked story, and in a neat bit of unintentional satire, calling himself a fact guy in the process.

The 157 visits story has been touted as a smoking gun that's supposed to link the IRS targeting of conservative groups directly to the White House, even though, at face value, it proves nothing.

Shulman himself has already testified to the reasons for his White House visits, reasons which conservatives have edited out of the story. As it turns out, the 157 figure is the number of times Shulman was cleared, by Secret Service, to go to the White House, not the number of times he actually went.

As Maddow reminded viewers, only 11 of those visitor records actually record an arrival by Shulman, and the Atlantic report she cited was published Friday morning.

That didn't stop Fox News personalities from mentioning the story 58 times since last week, on 17 different shows (including hard news shows), and it didn't stop Bill O'Reilly mentioning it again Monday night. He played clips from a Jon Stewart bit that included the 157 visits story, and Stewart's sarcastic suggestion that "having the President tell you to use the power of the IRS to destroy his political enemies on the right should only take about one meeting, two tops."

O'Reilly added that "As a satire guy, Stewart can say that. As a fact guy, I can't."

The so-called Fact Guy then proceeded to demand that the White House explain all those visits that have already been explained, and whose alleged frequency has been definitively debunked.

In other words, even though it has been reported that Shulman only went to the White House 11 times in 4 years, the dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly is still reporting the 157 times lie. Proving he is a partisan fool, who is a joke to claim he is a fact guy.

Phone Interview Of Me From 2008
By: Steve - June 5, 2013 - 11:30am

Hey folks, I was looking around youtube and I found an old interview I did with a guy from Canada who does an internet radio show. Here it is, I thought some of you might like to hear what I said back in 2008 before Obama was elected.

O'Reilly DOES Suck w/ Steve Senti:

The Tuesday 6-4-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 5, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Things getting even worse for the IRS. The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There was devastating testimony today by Americans who say they were unfairly treated by the IRS. Those telling the House Ways and Means Committee their stories were all members of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.

Among the allegations: The IRS stalled their applications, asked them inappropriate questions about their beliefs, and gave their private information to liberal groups that opposed them.

It was interesting to watch liberal Congressman Jim McDermott try to defend the IRS conduct, but many honest liberal people clearly see the danger of having a powerful public agency treating people unfairly based on political beliefs.

That's what fascist and communist governments do! The White House still has not told the nation what former IRS boss Douglas Shulman was doing in the White House 157 times. What's the holdup, Mr. President? How about that 'transparency' deal?

Finally, here's a piece of information you should know: Shulman's wife Susan Anderson, a big-time left wing person, supported the Occupy Wall Street movement. So when you hear Democrats say Shulman is a non-ideological guy, please keep that in mind.
It was not devastating news, it was news we already knew about. But of course O'Reilly and Fox want to blow up up to equal watergate to make Obama look bad, when so far he is not linked to the IRS scandal, and it's not even close to watergate, unless they can prove the President told them to do it.

Then Charles Krauthammer was on to evaluate Monday's testimony about the IRS harassment.

Krauthammer said this: "Today put a face on the abstraction of what it means when the government abuses you. These folks, who look like ordinary Americans, were trying to do the quintessential American thing - organize and express themselves. Precisely because they were doing that they are being harassed. Remember that the Tea Party arose out of nowhere, it was spontaneous and un-led, it was the classic example of Americans expressing themselves. But because of the content of their beliefs they were harassed and abused by the government!"

Which is a bunch of bull, they were trying to get the tax-exempt 501 c-3 deal, even though they are a partisan group, so they should have been investigated and they should not get the 501 c-3 deal. Something O'Reilly and Krauthammer ignore and will not talk about.

Then the Republican Congressman Tom Price was on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest on for balance. Proving once again that O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack who does one sided interviews with Republicans only, in direct violation of the rules of ethics of journalism, as he complains about bias from the rest of the media, which is just laughable.

Price said this: "These were small groups and there was no reason for anybody to be targeting them for anything. Another really troubling thing was that donors to one of the groups were leaked to an adversarial political group and those donors were then harassed by folks. We've heard from the folks at the top level of the IRS, we've heard from the folks who were victims, and the next step is to hear from the IRS agents who were on the ground. We'll get to the bottom of this." Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to talk about the ABC News special report documenting the epidemic of violence in many U.S. schools.

Crowley said this: "I think there are a couple of things going on. First is a breakdown of the family, with fewer intact families with fathers present. So you have families that are not instilling values and discipline and respect for authority."

Colmes said this: "This could be because of poverty, and before I jump and say it's a racial issue I want to see research. Sadly, there has not been a lot of research on why this is happening. It could have to do with economic stress and divorce."

O'Reilly reminded Colmes that there seems to be a racial component, saying this: "It is largely an African American and Hispanic American problem, that's where the violence is."

Then two researchers Alex Smith and Kristen Soltis were on, they are the authors of a new report analyzing why young people tend to lean Democratic. They were hired by the Republican party to do this study, and they are both Republicans.

Soltis said this: "Republicans are in big trouble with young voters, but there are a lot of opportunities for the GOP to win them back. There's a sense among young people that Republicans don't have an answer to the problems that are affecting their pocketbooks and their lives. But young people give Obama an 'A' for effort."

Smith said this: "If the Republican Party ignores younger voters we risk losing every national election in the future. Younger voters felt they weren't reached by the Romney campaign or the Republican Party. We have to meet younger voters where they are on Facebook."

O'Reilly said this: "It comes down to a charismatic candidate who can reach young people and use words they understand."

Which is just stupid and wrong, you can not just fool people by using the right words, you have to support economic and cultural issues they support. O'Reilly is insane if he thinks Romney did not get the youth vote because he did not use the right words.

And the study does not even say that, it says the Republican party has a problem with the issues they oppose and support to get votes from the youth, proving O'Reilly is a moron.

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to talk about the trial of George Zimmerman, who is charged with murdering Trayvon Martin last year in Florida.

Wiehl said this: "The racial aspect should have no place in the courtroom. The only issue is whether Zimmerman acted in self-defense that night and whether the prosecution can make the case that he didn't. This is a really hard case for the prosecution."

Guilfoyle said this: "The key to this whole case is going to be jury selection and we can't be naive and say race isn't going to be an issue. The case is about race when it comes right down to it, but it should be about self-defense."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: The value of discretion. Billy said this: "It is generally not a good idea to speak in public about your personal habits and proclivities."

O'Reilly Used Bob Woodward To Speculate About IRS Story
By: Steve - June 5, 2013 - 10:00am

And btw, what you are about to read about is not something any Independent and unbiased journalist would do. Which O'Reilly claims to be, and has even claimed to be neutral towards President Obama, so when you are done laughing, it's true that O'Reilly actually said he was neutral towards President Obama.

The right-wing scandal-mongering crowd has an ally in Bob Woodward. The Washington Post associate editor has been hyping -- or outright manufacturing -- White House "scandals," inviting observers to draw unfounded comparisons to Watergate.

Pundits and journalists are eager to take Woodward at his word, which is unfortunate since he's all too often wrong on the facts. Such was the case when Woodward appeared on The O'Reilly Factor on June 3rd and lent credence to the idea that former IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman's visits to the White House were somehow linked to the IRS's inappropriate scrutiny of conservative non-profit groups.

After the dishonest and biased Bill O'Reilly introduced Woodward as one of the men who "drove the Watergate story for the Washington Post," Woodward told O'Reilly that the IRS controversy "needs to be investigated."

He said this: "But you know who should lead the investigation? President Obama. And the White House put out his version of all of these things. I have found in recent weeks they still respond to questions. You say they aren't answering this question about the 157 visits by the IRS commissioner. They should. They should get on top of this story."

Even though they have already answered many questions about it, and it's all public information. Here are a few facts O'Reilly and Woodward could have (and should have) mentioned.

-- The 157 number itself does not accurately reflect the number of times Shulman actually visited the president or other top White House officials.

-- The vast majority of the former commissioner's visits were not to the actual White House but to office buildings that are part of the White House complex.

-- Those visits were mostly meetings with administration staffers charged with implementing the Affordable Care Act, which the IRS plays an important role in administering.

All of this information was available, and it goes a long way toward deflating O'Reilly's scandal narrative, but Woodward didn't care to bring it up. Because O'Reilly wants you to think all the visits were to the White House, to make it look like he was talking to President Obama or some of his top level staffers, which is not true.

Later in the segment, Woodward said this to O'Reilly: "I agree this is not Watergate at all. But the road to Watergate is concealment. If the Obama administration does that they will dig themselves in a hole. And I think they have the moral and intellectual capacity to stop that."

Saying "this is not Watergate" is well and good, since the idea behind O'Reilly's segment was to explicitly link the IRS controversy to Watergate in spite of the evidence. The title of the segment was even called: "Is the IRS scandal the same as Watergate" when both O'Reilly and Woodward both said it was not. So why name the segment that way, to put that thought in people's minds.

Woodward should have laid out the reasons why O'Reilly was off base. Instead, he laid out the conditions under which the IRS controversy could become a new Watergate, which is pretty much what O'Reilly wanted in the first place.

It's called biased speculation, and trying to get people to think it's as bad as Watergate. While not actually saying it's as bad as Watergate. Why even do the segment or name it that if you do not want people to link it to Watergate. Which is exactly what O'Reilly did, and only a right-wing hack would do it.

The Monday 6-3-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - June 4, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Is the IRS scandal like Watergate? The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Talking Points is not linking the IRS scandal to the White House, all we are doing is reporting the facts. Last week we told you that former IRS chief Douglas Shulman visited the Obama White House 157 times, far more than any other department head.

Before my analysis last Thursday, there were no mentions last week of Mr. Shulman's abundant visits to the White House on CNN, NBC, CBS, or ABC. That is what is called a news blackout - if the IRS boss visits the White House 157 times, that's a big story. It would be wrong for any honest reporter to lay the IRS scandal at the feet of President Obama, but there is evidence that his deputies are involved.

Again, I'm not saying the current IRS scandal is Watergate, but I am saying we should aggressively investigate the story. The sad truth is that some of President Obama's supporters don't want to know the truth, and it was the same way back in 1972. It all comes back to honest reporting, and in 2013 the situation is much bleaker than it was in 1972. Back then the press reviled President Nixon; today much of the press reveres President Obama.
Then Bob Woodward was asked if there are similarities between th watergate scandal and the current IRS situation.

Woodward said this: "I agree that this needs to be investigated, and the White House needs to answer questions about the 157 visits by the head of the IRS. I'll put in a request and I have found them to be responsive to these things. Much hangs in the balance here - not just the reputation of the news media for some form of neutrality, but the whole relationship that the White House and the government have with the public. This is not Watergate, but the road to Watergate is concealment."

O'Reilly agreed that President Obama should aggressively seek the truth, saying this: "He could easily come out through his spokesperson and say this is where Mr. Shulman was, here is who me met with. The fact that he doesn't do it should raise the curiosity of every reporter."

Then Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham were on to talk about the IRS spending tens of millions of dollars on conferences and videos.

Williams said this: "It's excessive spending, but the acting IRS Commissioner has testified that things are now under control. It's not a glamorous job to be IRS agents and they were trying to build up morale. Lots of companies have retreats."

Ham said this: "Having things 'under control' now doesn't get all of us our $50 million back. This is just indicative of the larger problem, which is that when you have these gigantic agencies without a lot of accountability you can't get rid of people."

Williams also said this about former IRS boss Douglas Shulman visiting the White House 157 times: "They talked about health care legislation and the tax implications. You don't want to impugn somebody's reputation just because they visited the White House."

And think about this, O'Reilly said he never speculates and that he only deals in the facts. But in this case he is speculating and not dealing in the facts. Because he is a Republican and he is trying to make it into a scandal to hurt President Obama politically.

Then Karl Rove was on to speculate why the former IRS director Douglas Shulman had so many visits to the White House.

The biased right-wing hack Karl Rove said this: "I'm just shocked. Mark Everson used to come to the Bush White House when he was at Treasury, but then when he went to the IRS we never saw him again. Douglas Shulman shouldn't have been there that many times, the IRS is an independent agency and being too close to the White House is a problem."

Ignoring the fact that Shulman had a reason to be there, to discuss the IRS running Obamacare, which is very complicated and a massive job.

Then Chris West and Joe Bastardi were on to talk about the three storm chasers who were killed last week while taping the vicious tornadoes in Oklahoma.

Sheriff West said this: "I've been to the scene and I saw the debris from their vehicle, and I believe they were trying to drive parallel to the storm. Either the storm turned on them or this massive tornado system spun off an additional vortex that may have got them. The storm grabbed the vehicle and probably turned it end-over-end for a half mile."

Bastardi said this: "I think they were trying to travel a safe path but the tornado intensified on top of them. Nature is infinite in its power but sometimes man thinks he can control nature."

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about the Republican Congressman Darrell Issa, who has led the House investigation into various White House scandals, accused administration spokesman Jay Carney of being a "paid liar" who is "making up things." Even though he has no evidence and can not prove it.

Goldberg said this: "Whether Jay Carney is a liar or whether he is simply a public relations man who puts the best spin on things, this is not a smart thing for Congressman Issa to say. It's a distraction because here we are talking about what he said and not about the scandals he was referring to. It feeds into the image of what kind of people some Republicans are."

O'Reilly concurred, saying that Jay Carney has simply been doing his job: "You can not throw your boss under the bus, even if the boss did something wrong. That's why I don't think this was fair to Carney."

Then the right-wing stooge Adam Carolla was on to talk about the Wisconsin elementary school that asked girls and boys to switch genders for a day.

Carolla said this: "Imagine if you went to that principal, and said, 'Let's do Cowboys and Indians Day or Pilgrims Day?' Putting a boy in a poodle skirt and saddle shoes is bullying. I have a 6-year-old son who had to ride in his sister's pink car seat the other day for a mile and he squealed like a stuck pig the entire time."

O'Reilly said this: "These educators are pinheads because they don't know how children process things."

And you and Carolla do? What a joke. I agree it was a dumb idea, but neither one of you biased right-wing fools are qualified to debate it. Not to mention, nobody cares what you think about it anyway, report some real news jerks.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Four aces. Billy said this: "If you're seeking out terrific live concerts this summer, consider Fleetwood Mac, Eagles, Huey Lewis and the News, and the Beach Boys."

Megyn Kelly Slams Fox Men For Crazy Views Of Working Moms
By: Steve - June 4, 2013 - 10:00am

Megyn Kelly took two of her Fox colleagues to the woodshed Friday afternoon.

In response to Erick Erickson and Lou Dobbs making controversial comments last week about a Pew study finding that 40% of American households have a mother as breadwinner, Kelly brought the two of them onto her show and proceeded to tear into them.

Kelly debunked Erickson's Red State op-ed, point by point. "I will start with you Erick. What makes you dominant and me submissive and who died and made you scientist-in-chief?"

Comparing Erickson to the people who used pseudo-science to argue against interracial marriage a half-century ago, Kelly asked, "Why are we supposed to take your word for it, Erick Erickson's science, instead of all these experts?":
KELLY: In this country in the '50s and '60s there were huge numbers of people that believed that the children of interracial marriages were biologically inferior and that is why it was illegal for blacks and whites to marry in some states in the country up until 1967.

And they said it was science and in fact if you were the child of a black father and white mother or vice versa you were inferior and not set up for success. Tell that to Barack Obama.
Erickson responded before reiterating his point that, in nature, male animals tend to be the dominant one and that feminists have taken society to the point where male and female roles are completely interchangeable. He then claimed: "No one is saying women can't be a breadwinner or even the primary breadwinner."

Kelly was not convinced, calling Erickson out for his backpedaling: "That is not what you you have been saying for the last couple of days." After reading aloud from Erickson's blog post responding to the controversy, in which he railed against homosexual parents and mothers in a dominant breadwinner position, Kelly presented him with the counterfactual points:
KELLY: There is data in the scientific community to suggest that children of homosexual couples, who are happily married and are good parents, fare no worse than children of heterosexual couples. And there is plenty of data to suggest that children of working moms, as opposed to stay-at-home moms, wind up just as healthy and able to thrive in society than the children of stay-at-home mothers.
Erickson waved away those findings as self-selective and then hedged his comments as simply suggesting women cannot have it all and are making compromises by trying to be a mother working 12 hours per day and attempting to balance that with being a good parent.

"I'm not judging them; and no one should. It is just the reality," he said.

"You are judging them," Kelly fired back. "You come out clearly and say women who choose to work instead of staying at home to nurture the children, are imposing a worse future on their children."

"I view it as a statement of fact when you have a mom working full-time and coming home to be a full-time mom as well, it is very difficult and three quarters of the public agree," Erickson responded.

"Just because you have people that agree with you doesn't mean that it is not offensive," Kelly replied. She then pointed again to Erickson's blog, calling him out for laughing off his critics (including herself) by labeling them feminists and emo liberals.

She then tore into him once more:
KELLY: I was offended by the piece nonetheless. I don't like what you wrote one bit. I think you are judging people. You sound like somebody who is judging but wants to come out and said 'I'm not, I'm not, I'm not but let me judge, judge, judge. And by the way, it's science and facts, facts, facts.' But this is a list of studies saying your science is wrong and your facts are wrong.
She later pointed to more than 50 studies over 59 years of research to dispel Erickson's science, asking him: "Why are we supposed to take your word for it, Eric Erickson's science instead of all of the experts?"

His dismissive response: "I think the experts can be as politically motivated as any one else."

The rest of the conversation was also very tense, with lots of dismissive laughing coming from Erickson and, at one point, Dobbs calling Kelly "Oh Dominant One" with a sarcastic tone.

Alex Jones Still Slamming Giant Ferret O'Reilly
By: Steve - June 3, 2013 - 11:00am

And so far O'Reilly has not said one word about what Jones has said about him. Even though he promised to respond to anyone who attacks him, and he does respond to all the liberals who attack him.

Alex Jones went after Bill O'Reilly's sexual history and looks on his radio show this week, saying O'Reilly looks like a giant ferret, and recalling O'Reilly's 2004 case for sexual harassment.

The segment was in response to a montage O'Reilly aired of a screaming Jones juxtaposed with other varieties of what the show termed hate speech.

"Now O'Reilly, like something out of 1984, went past the deception of Maddow," Jones said. "He does this incredibly deceptive piece, where he just flashes me up there ranting out of context, in between sexual hate speech, whatever that means. Like I'm doing sexual stuff, when he's the guy who's settled cases out of court."

"I mean, look at what a perv this guy looks like," Jones said. "No wonder he can't get women." Jones put up an unflattering picture of O'Reilly. "If you were a woman, would you want to get anywhere near this guy? It's like a giant ferret or something."

O'Reilly was sued by a Factor producer in 2004 for sexual harassment, a saga during which we all learned more than we wanted to about O'Reilly's sexual terminology (that little loofah thing).

And as I predicted, O'Reilly has ignored what Jones is saying about him. Because Jones is liked by the far right and most of the Factor viewers are also on the far-right, so O'Reilly does not want to go after Jones because it might make a lot of his viewers mad.

Fox Idiots Say Female Breadwinners End Of Society
By: Steve - June 2, 2013 - 11:00am

And even Juan Williams, the pretend Fox news Democrat joined in on this sexist nonsense.

Lou Dobbs and several other Fox contributors -- all men -- lamented the news that a record number of women are now the economic breadwinners of their families. The Fox figures worried about the dissolution of American society and nature.

Pew Research released a study on May 29 which found mothers are the primary or sole breadwinner in a record 40 percent of all American households with minor children. Pew's report considered both single mothers and married mothers who earned a higher income than their husbands.

On his Fox business show, Dobbs described the Pew study as "showing that women have become the breadwinners in this country, and a lot of other concerning and troubling statistics." He went on to call the report suggestive of "society dissolving around us."

Fox contributor Juan Williams agreed, calling record female breadwinners indicative of something going terribly wrong in American society:
WILLIAMS: What we're seeing with four out of 10 families, now the woman is the primary breadwinner. You're seeing the disintegration of marriage, you're seeing men who were hard hit by the economic recession in ways that women weren't.

But you're seeing, I think, systemically, larger than the political stories that we follow every day, something going terribly wrong in American society, and it's hurting our children, and it's going to have impact for generations to come.
Which is just ridiculous, and only ignorant right-wing sexist fools think that way. What it actually shows is that women are no longer just staying at home cooking, cleaning, having babies and taking care of the kids, they are going to work and getting paid well to do their jobs, and that's a good thing.

Erick Erickson, one of Fox's newest contributors, was troubled by female breadwinners and even claimed that people who defend them are "anti-science." Erickson said this:
ERICKSON: When you look at biology, look at the natural world, the roles of a male and female in society, and the other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it's not antithesis, or it's not competing, it's a complimentary role.

We as people in a smart society have lost the ability to have complimentary relationships in nuclear families, and it's tearing us apart.
That is nonsense, and O'Reilly says nothing about it, because he agrees with them. It's the typical Republican view of women, that women should be at home barefoot and pregnant. O'Reilly even denies there is a war on women by the GOP, when this is more evidence there is, he just ignores it and dismisses it.

Alex Jones Called O'Reilly A Coward Punk Rat Bastard
By: Steve - June 1, 2013 - 10:00am

When Bill O'Reilly put Alex Jones face next to the words "HATE SPEECH" in the opening of his show last night, he had to be expecting an impassioned response from the radio host. And Jones did not disappoint, calling O'Reilly a bully punk and challenging him to a pay-per-view boxing match.

"I'd like to get in a boxing ring with Bill O'Reilly," Jones said, after accusing him of taking his words out of context on his show Wednesday night. "I challenge you to a pay-per-view boxing match. You think you're so tough?"

Jones accused O'Reilly of trying to intimidate his guests by turning their microphones off and pointing his finger in their faces. "You big, fat bully!"

"You're scared to have me on your show,' Jones said, predicting that if he was a guest, O'Reilly would draw 10 million viewers. "You're jealous. Your radio show failed, you're a failure."

Jones insisted that he represents the "independent wave of the future" while O'Reilly is stuck in the past. Increasing his intensity and volume, Jones screamed, "you want to start a fight with me, punk? Huh? You think you can shove me around? You're a coward, punk, rat bastard!"

Jones then brought Rachel Maddow, who has also recently gone after Jones on the air, into his rant, equating the MSNBC host with O'Reilly in a way she probably never anticipated.

"I've had enough of these cowards, up there–both of these guys–Rachel Maddow and him. I'm sick of them! I'm tired of them! They don't have the will to actually debate me. Come on my show punk!"

Too bad that neither O'Reilly or Maddow will ever be on Alex Jones radio show any time soon, we can look forward to seeing if and how O'Reilly responds. I am guessing O'Reilly will just ignore what Jones said about him.

Here is the video, which has a lot more than I report on above: