Jim Carrey Slams Fox & Calls Them A Giant Culture Fart By: Steve - March 31, 2013 - 11:00am
In response to several of Fox News commentators having harsh words for his anti-gun Funny or Die video, actor Jim Carrey has lashed out at the network, claiming he was slandered for his views by the network's bullies, and that the cable network is nothing more than a "giant culture fart."
In a statement issued Friday afternoon, Carrey repeatedly referred to the network as "Fux News" and suggested that the criticism from commentators like Greg Gutfeld was tantamount to slander. "If I felt they were worth my time or that anyone with a brain in their head could actually fall for such irresponsible buffoonery," he said, suggesting he's thought about pursuing legal action.
Gutfeld was the most vocal critic of Carrey's video this past week, calling Carrey a "pathetic tool" and a "coward" for his music video that mocked pro-gun advocates like the late Charlton Heston and stereotypical hillbillies.
Since I released my "Cold Dead Hand" video on Funny or Die this week, I have watched Fux News rant, rave, bare its fangs and viciously slander me because of my stand against large magazines and assault rifles. I would take them to task legally if I felt they were worth my time or that anyone with a brain in their head could actually fall for such irresponsible buffoonery. That would gain them far too much attention which is all they really care about.
I'll just say this: in my opinion Fux News is a last resort for kinda-sorta-almost-journalists whose options have been severely limited by their extreme and intolerant views; a media colostomy bag that has begun to burst at the seams and should be emptied before it becomes a public health issue.
I sincerely believe that in time, good people will lose patience with the petty and poisonous behavior of these bullies and Fux News will be remembered as nothing more than a giant culture fart that no amount of Garlique could cure.
I wish them all the luck that accompanies such malevolence.
More Proof O'Reilly Is A Biased Right-Wing Fool About Economics By: Steve - March 31, 2013 - 10:00am
Bill O'Reilly has a long and documented history of pushing right-wing economic misinformation on his biased Fox News show, reinforced recently by economist Richard Wolff who said O'Reilly's claims about the economy are false. Basically, Wolff showed what an idiot O'Reilly is.
The former University of Massachusetts, Amherst economics professor Richard Wolff recently responded to O'Reilly's claim that European countries are going bankrupt because they are "nanny states," saying this:
WOLFF: You know, he gets away with saying things which no undergraduate in the United States with a responsible economics professor could ever get away with.
If you want to refer to things as "nanny states" then the place you go in Europe is not the southern tier -- Portugal, Spain, and Italy -- the place you go are Germany and Scandinavia because they provide more social services to their people than anybody else.
And guess what? Not only are they not in trouble economically, they are the winners of the current situation.
O'Reilly's just making it up as he goes along to conform to an ideological position that is harder and harder for folks like him to sustain, so he has to reach further and further into fantasy.
And btw folks, everything O'Reilly has said is a dishonest Republican party talking point, even though O'Reilly claims to not be a Republican and that he never uses any Republican talking points.
O'Reilly's misinformation on economic issues, is not just contained to commenting on the European experience. Here are 10 examples of O'Reilly's failure to accurately understand economics:
1) O'Reilly has consistently stated that the Obama administration's policies are hurting the economy, even going so far as to claim that it is worse off than it was prior to Obama's first inauguration. However, by almost every measure of economic health, including unemployment, net job creation, and GDP, the economy has improved greatly since 2009.
2) O'Reilly has repeatedly stated that President Obama's stimulus package was a failure, ignoring the fact that, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, it increased employment by over 1 million jobs and raised GDP by between 0.8 and 2.5 percent.
3) In a segment discussing sequestration, O'Reilly called for a rollback in spending to 2008 levels, claiming that the economy "would be fine" if spending was cut to that level. However, this proposal that has been repeatedly criticized by economists as economically dangerous, costing as many as 590,000 jobs.
4) O'Reilly Repeatedly Suggested That "Irresponsible Behavior And Laziness" Cause Poverty. O'Reilly has consistently characterized the poor as "lazy" and "irresponsible," ignoring the consequences of the recent economic downturn and the rise in income inequality in recent decades.
5) In a segment on California's budgetary problems, O'Reilly claimed that an "enormous amount of money" was being spent on the "illegal alien problem." However, O'Reilly ignored that fact that a majority of undocumented immigrants pay taxes, and that granting them legal status could have a positive impact on the economy.
6) In a discussion with Kirsten Powers, O'Reilly brushed aside income inequality, claiming, "Income inequality is bull. Nobody gives you anything, you earn it." However, O'Reilly's statements ignored the fact that, at the time he said them, taxes on top income earners are at historic lows, and that, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "typical middle-class households face higher rates than some high-income households."
7) O'Reilly Suggested The Bush Tax Cuts Increased Revenue. In an interview with former President Clinton, O'Reilly claimed that because of "the tax cuts under Bush, more money flowed into the federal government." However, when tax revenues are expressed as a share of the economy, the Bush tax cuts resulted in the lowest level in any decade since the 1950s, a fact noted by many economists.
8) O'Reilly Claimed That Food Stamps Have No Economic Value. In a discussion about President Obama's stimulus bill, O'Reilly claimed that increasing spending on food stamps has "nothing to do with stimulating the economy." However, economists disagree, and studies have indicated that food stamps are among the most stimulative of government programs.
9) O'Reilly expressed doubt over the economic downturn's effect on gas prices, claiming that President Obama's explanation for low gas prices was "totally bogus." In reality, gas prices dropped precipitously during the recession, a fact that many news outlets -- including Fox -- reported at the time.
10) O'Reilly Falsely Compared The U.S. Debt Situation With Greece. In an effort to force Congress to enact deep spending cuts, O'Reilly claimed that "like Greece, Ireland, and Spain...the USA has bankrupted itself." However, economists agree that the U.S.-Greece comparison is misguided and ignores the structure of the countries' economies.
And all that proves O'Reilly is a dishonest right-wing hack that does not have a clue how the economy works, and that he is just a biased fool that spins out right-wing talking points that are not true.
Proof State Tax Cuts Do Not Increase Job Growth By: Steve - March 30, 2013 - 11:00am
And of course O'Reilly ignored the entire story, because it kills his right-wing spin that lowering State taxes will help the economy and create more jobs.
Many Republican governors have proposed massive tax cuts that they say will help generate job growth in their states, with some pushing for the abolition of income taxes altogether. That is a misguided approach, though, according to an analysis of past tax cuts from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
The five states that implemented deep tax cuts during the 1990's experienced slower job growth over the next economic cycle than states that did not, and none of those states experienced income growth that exceeded inflation:
The five states that enacted the deepest tax cuts during the boom years of the middle and late 1990s saw job growth over the next full economic cycle (2000-2007) of less than 0.3 percent per year, on average, compared to 1.0 percent for the other states.
They also had slower income growth than the rest of the nation on average.
The report also shows that of eight major reports that studied the effects of state-level tax cuts on economic growth, six found that the cuts did not spur growth. Another found inconsistent results and only one supported the idea.
Even with that information, O'Reilly and his Republican friendss in Kansas, Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Louisiana, and Nebraska are pushing massive tax cuts that largely benefit corporations and the wealthy under the banner of boosting economic growth.
Those tax cuts (if passed) will leave lower and middle class families with higher tax rates and fewer services on which they depend. What they won't deliver, however, is a stronger economy.
O'Reilly Lies & Fearmongers About California & Cyprus Debt By: Steve - March 30, 2013 - 10:00am
Wednesday night the insane Bill O'Reilly endorsed the idea that the state confiscation of money from private bank accounts currently underway in Cyprus is likely to come to America, agreeing with a viewer's suggestion that "California will be America's Cyprus."
Even though that is nonsense that will never happen, O'Reilly agreed with the lunatic and said California will go broke then start taking property from everyone to pay for it.
His fearmongering is based on misrepresentations about how debt works in general, and about California's budgeting realities.
According to the fool O'Reilly, California will default on its debt, then the state will simply start taking private property from Californians to settle up what it owes.
Except debt does not work the way O'Reilly suggests. California can continue to service its debt, avoiding default even without reducing the principal amount owed, provided it stabilizes its debt levels. And it's doing exactly that, with a projected surplus in the current fiscal year after a combination of steep spending cuts and significant tax increases.
Standard & Poor's upgraded the state's debt as a result, which should help further reduce the state's cost of borrowing (which is already half of what it was when Gov. Jerry Brown took office in 2011).
According to CNNMoney, "California should have enough money next year to increase funding for education and pay down debt, while setting aside $1 billion in a reserve fund."
O'Reilly failed to mention the state's recent, hard-won fiscal discipline, which proves his portrayal of the state's fiscal outlook is a lie and wrong.
The Cyprus comparison would still be insane and ridiculous even if California were not exhibiting increased fiscal health, as former Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation chair Sheila Bair has explained that such an arrangement "would never happen in the U.S. because we respect the rule of law and we have a strong agency called the [FDIC] that stands up for insured depositors and protects them."
O'Reilly's factual errors served an additional purpose that's common in the right-wing media.
O'Reilly used the Cyprus fearmongering as right-wing propaganda, as he spewed out falsehoods about the origins of California's debt. The state's debt is not from union greed, it's mostly from budget laws that tie legislators hands and ballot measures that simultaneously depressed tax revenue and increased the state's obligations.
The conservative media's misdirection of blame for fiscal issues almost always ignores the cyclical, recession-driven nature of those balance sheet problems. But O'Reilly went even farther, ignoring the widely-reported end of Californian deficits to advance the same old right-wing lies about public finances.
The Thursday 3-28-13 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review By: Steve - March 29, 2013 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Should The GOP Risk Offending Social Conservatives? The biased and crazy right-wing hack Laura Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: On the New York Times web page, veteran political Tom Edsall argues that the Republican Party can afford to marginalize Christian right leaders because evangelical social conservatives are not going to vote Democratic. Thus, as he puts it, Republicans can 'concede defeat in the culture war' in the hope of picking up some more socially liberal voters.
Edsall might want to check with Governor Mike Huckabee, who suggested that evangelicals will 'take a walk' from the GOP if the party ends up supporting gay marriage. In both 2008 and 2012 the GOP did nominate presidential candidates who were not really popular with social conservatives, and those candidates fared poorly.
But of course the question of what sort of culture our children are going to inherit is a lot more important than the results of any one election. Social issues aren't a political football to be used by grasping politicians seeking to win power; they really do establish the framework for many aspects of American life.
These are very serious matters that should be taken seriously. So instead of worrying so much about political tactics, Republicans might want to focus on what they truly believe in and what type of country they want to have.
And I would say this, if social conservatives leave the Republican party over gay marriage, who cares, they are idiots. Because in America everyone is supposed to have equal rights, and if you do not support that you are a fool that nobody should care about. And frankly, the Republican party would be better off without them, because they are bigots and they make the party look bad.
Then Sandy Rios and Cathy Areu were on to talk about the editors of Time magazine, who said the battle is over and same-sex marriage has emerged victorious.
Areu said this: "Time Magazine is right. Gay marriage has won in so many ways, it's an organic movement. This is something that even gay activists did not think was possible twenty years ago. Young Americans are for gay marriage by a ratio of four-to-one."
But of course the far-right stooge Rios disagreed, saying that the ascendency of same-sex marriage may be short-lived.
Rios said this: "I'm old enough to remember when abortion was really popular and the media said it was inevitable. But pro-life people stayed with it and the truth about abortion came out. The majority of Americans don't like abortion and the same thing will happen with same-sex marriage."
Ingraham reminded Areu that same-sex marriage is still against the law in most of America, saying this: "There are 41 states that have either banned same-sex marriage or provide for domestic partnerships."
Then Cristina Page was on to talk about some students at Jesuit-run Boston College who are handing out condoms on campus.
Page, who endorsed the condom giveaway said this: "It doesn't seem to me, that the students are violating the code of ethics at Boston College. A very small percentage of Catholics oppose contraception and 98% of Catholics, in violation of church teaching, practice family planning. So we see this as a faction of the church that is way out of step with the way Catholic Americans live their lives."
Then Ingraham had the far-right loon Dr. Keith Ablow on, who urged the government to simply stop defining marriage.
Ablow said this: "I don't think the states or the federal government should be involved in marriage at all. The government shouldn't be expressing a preference for whether two people of any gender get together and call themselves married. The government should never have been involved in these personal matters and it's highly prejudicial that a state or the federal government can say two men can marry, but not two women and a man. Three people can be in love!"
Proving he is an idiot, because it's about equal rights for all, so the Government has to get involved. And of course the crazy Ingraham agreed with the fool Ablow.
Then Michelle Fields and Laura Ries were on to talk about a new Nike commercial that features Tiger Woods and this tagline: "Winning Takes Care of Everything."
Fields, a correspondent for Next Generation TV said this: "I absolutely think this is taking things too far. By saying 'winning takes care of everything,' they're saying winning takes care of the fact that he cheated on his wife with multiple women and that his children are now living with divorced parents. That's sending an awful message to young men - you can disrespect a woman and cheat on her, but all you have to do is win and that takes care of everything."
Marketing expert Laura Ries applauded Nike's advertising savvy, saying this: "Winning does change everything for Tiger Woods, it has changed his whole world. Everyone said he was a has-been, but winning has brought him back. Nike didn't say he's husband of the year, they're celebrating the fact that he has dedicated himself to working harder than ever and they're saying he is a winner on the golf course."
O'Donnell Nails O'Reilly For Hypocrisy & Double Standards By: Steve - March 29, 2013 - 10:00am
O'Reilly was busted for hypocrisy and double standards for his position in the past and now on gay marriage. The best part is when O'Donnell points out that O'Reilly did the very same thing he slammed Bill Clinton for doing, changing his mind on gay marriage.
Even Rush Limbaugh slammed O'Reilly for it, and they are on the same side.
O'Reilly Hypocrisy & Lies About Marriage Equality By: Steve - March 29, 2013 - 9:00am
Bill O'Reilly is now accusing progressives of hypocrisy over marriage equality while claiming not to have strong feelings about the subject. Even though the dishonest O'Reilly has spent years attacking marriage equality, claiming that it would lead to people marrying animals.
During his Tuesday March 26th show, O'Reilly attacked Bill Clinton and President Obama for recently stating that they support marriage equality after previously opposing it.
O'Reilly even later admitted that "the compelling argument is on the side of marriage equality," adding, "the gay marriage thing, I don't feel that strongly about it one way or the other."
Which is a lie, and O'Reilly is in no position to throw out accusations of hypocrisy with regard to someone's position on marriage equality. While O'Reilly has often said that he has no strong opinion about marriage equality, he has repeatedly fearmongered about what he claims are its natural consequences.
O'Reilly has claimed that marriage equality would lead to this:
In 2005, O'Reilly slammed the Massachusetts Supreme Court for ruling that it was unconstitutional under the state constitution to allow only heterosexual couples to marry, warning that within ten years the decision would lead to a "totally different country" in which you'll be able to marry a goat:
O'REILLY: The judges in Massachusetts knew they weren't going to be impeached when they said to the state legislature, "Gay marriage is now legal in Massachusetts because we say it is. We the judges" -- they knew they weren't gonna be impeached.
They knew the legislature didn't care. You get the government you deserve. In California, the prevailing wisdom is marijuana is no big deal, let's legalize it. And since we can't get that through the legislature, we'll do it this way. And they did it! You see?
And 10 years, this is gonna be a totally different country than it is right now. Laws that you think are in stone -- they're gonna evaporate, man. You'll be able to marry a goat -- you mark my words!
O'Reilly has repeatedly warned that legalizing same-sex marriages will lead to the legalization of "triads" or other plural marriages. As recently as October 2011 he interviewed a polygamist family to promote his theory that "if the country eventually permits gay marriage everywhere, then other groups will want the same treatment."
In 2009, O'Reilly said that if marriage equality had been allowed in California, "then anybody could have gotten married. You could have married a duck."
Even though the laws say you can only marry a person, not animals.
In 2009, O'Reilly told a supporter of marriage equality, "You would let everybody get married who want to get married. You want to marry a turtle, you can."
In 2006, O'Reilly linked marriage equality to the story of a British woman who "married" a dolphin in Israel.
In 2005, O'Reilly said that "the secular progressive movement would like to have marriage abolished, in my opinion. They don't want it, because it is not diverse enough. You know, that's what this gay marriage thing is all about."
Which is not only ridiculous, it's a lie, because secular progressives do not want to have marriage abolished, they just want equal rights for all, even gay people, because all men are created equal and they have equal rights. Something O'Reilly and his bible thumping right-wing friends do not understand and ignore.
The Wednesday 3-27-13 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - March 28, 2013 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: More financial madness in the USA. The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: California currently owes a whopping $164 billion that it can never repay without selling San Francisco to Beijing. The folks who live in California are paying the highest taxes in the nation, and the financial madness is epitomized by the case of 63-year-old Susan Muranishi, the highest paid county administrator in the state.
She makes an astounding $424,000 a year, and when she retires she'll get a pension worth more than $470,000 a year! Susan has a big job but she did not find a cure for cancer; this is all about political corruption. In Alameda County and many other American counties, the power structure and the unions take care of themselves.
Craven politicians often sell out to the unions and give them huge pension benefits so they don't strike or cause trouble. As a result, the USA is in huge trouble financially, but Susan Muranishi is not. She'll be living large in California for the rest of her life, and I hope she sends thank you cards to each and every taxpayer in Alameda County.
Note: I found two sources for state debt, and they both disagree with O'Reilly. Reuters reported that California is $617 billion in debt, and the state by state debt clock has California at $407 billion in debt. At $617.6 billion, California had by far the biggest total debt, more than twice the total of No. 2, New York, with $300.1 billion owed, according to State Budget Solutions, a research and non-partisan advocacy group. So I have no clue where O'Reilly got the $164 billion number, because it looks to be wrong.
And what O'Reilly failed to mention is that every state in America is in debt, and most of them are run by Republicans. O'Reilly does not mention that because he wants you to believe that only liberal states like California have a debt problem, which is just not true. O'Reilly also did not tell you that one of the reasons California has a lot of debt is because it is the biggest state in America.
In fact, the Republican state of Texas is $287 billion in debt, and the Republican state of New Jersey is $284 billion in debt, but O'Reilly never says a word about them. Texas, with $287 billion owed, New Jersey, with $282.4 billion, and Illinois, with $271.1 billion, ranked next among states with the biggest total debt.
Then Bob Beckel was on to discuss it, who said he is ok with Susan Muranishi's retirement package. And for once I disagree with Beckel, Muranishi does not deserve a pension that big, not when taxpayers are paying for it.
Beckel said this: "What's the big deal? She negotiated a contract with someone who signed it and she got the best deal she could, just like you get what you want when you negotiate. And running Alameda County is bigger than running IBM! There are hundreds of agencies to run. Your Talking Points fall flat because this is America and you have the right to negotiate."
O'Reilly said this: "You don't see the difference between the taxpayers paying her salary and private industry paying my salary, and do you mean to tell me that you're okay with a county administrator getting $500,000 in pension for the rest of her life?"
Then Kirsten Powers and Republican Kate Obenshain were on to talk about the Florida Atlantic University Jesus incident and the school's apology.
Powers said this: "This was just stupid, and it's a really bad advertisement for liberalism. I consider myself a liberal, but this is not the kind of behavior most liberals would endorse. It wasn't just insensitive, it was intolerant."
And I would not call Powers a liberal, I would say she is a moderate Democrat who agrees with O'Reilly and the right way more than she should.
Obenshain said this: "The problem is more institutional-wide in our colleges, and this sort of liberal activism is protected by the university structure and these absurd campus speech codes and diversity policies."
Then the Republican Pastor Robert Jeffress was on to cry with O'Reilly about the fake war on Easter he has dreamed up.
Jeffress said this: "People are not standing up and fighting back, because Christians think it's un-Christian to fight for your rights. I've reminded thousands of pastors that the apostle Paul spent two years fighting against the Roman legal system to preserve his right to speak freely, and we need to do the same thing. All of your viewers need to start pushing back against this kind of stuff, even on the local level."
O'Dummy pointed out that only Christians seem to turn the other cheek, saying this: "If you do something anti-Semitic there are organizations that will get in your face, and if you insult Mohammed you'll be threatened with death."
Nobody is fighting back because there is no war on Easter, you fools.
Then James Rosen and Carl Cameron were on to speculate about the possibility that Joe Biden will run for the presidency. Even though it's 3 years away, and O'Reilly claims to have a no speculation zone. Not to mention, if Hillary runs in 2016 Biden will have no chance of beating her in the Democratic primary.
Cameron said this: "He has presidential ambitions, and he has taken every opportunity available to make it look like he is going to run. During the inaugural Biden invited a lot of powerful visitors from Iowa and New Hampshire to his Vice Presidential mansion, and since then he's spoken in early voting states. He will turn 74 years old three weeks after the 2016 election."
Rosen said this: "President Obama has 'evolved' on this question, and that confusion on the subject has extended to the official administration policy. Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that the administration will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, but will enforce the law."
Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on because it is not news, and he is only on to make jokes about liberals, with no liberal comedian on for balance.
Then Juliet Huddy was on to talk about the Jim Carrey cold dead hand video he did, that everyone but O'Reilly and his right-wing friends think is great.
O'Reilly said this: "Former funny guy Jim Carrey, perhaps trying to resurrect his faltering career, has created an Internet video in which he mocks gun owners and the late Charlton Heston."
Huddy watched the ad and was mightily unimpressed, saying this: "He was mocking a dead guy and doing the country bumpkin routine. Folks like Ann Coulter and our own Greg Gutfeld are mad at him and saying it is not funny. This is getting a lot of views, but it's not funny and that's the problem."
O'Reilly concluded that Jim Carrey picked on the wrong man, saying this: "Carrey has never done anything for the country that I can see, while Heston marched with Martin Luther King."
And I have concluded that only Republicans do not like it, because they have no sense of humor about gun control. When Republicans do videos like this O'Reilly and the right love them.
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: The art of cell-ing. Billy said this: "If you're talking with someone and your phone rings, politely excuse yourself for a moment if you must take the call. Turn off the darned phone while eating and never talk in a public place."
O'Reilly Lied About Student Suspension At Florida Atlantic University By: Steve - March 28, 2013 - 10:00am
And even after the school put out the statement saying no student was suspended, O'Reilly continued the lie and had Glenn Beck on Tuesday night to lie about it some more.
Bill O'Reilly was fired up Tuesday over a Florida college student getting suspended after refusing to stomp on the word Jesus in one of his classes. O'Reilly said this was blatantly attacking Christianity, and brought on Glenn Beck to discuss the university's mea culpa.
Beck said that Florida Atlantic University is only apologizing because the spotlight was on them, and they don't actually intend to do anything serious about the situation or discipline the professor involved.
And now the facts O'Reilly and Beck totally ignored:
Florida Atlantic University is in trouble with right-wing bible thumpers after a student was instructed to write the word Jesus on a piece of paper and stomp on it. ONE Mormon student refused to participate in the classroom activity, citing his Christian faith, and now he is rallying opposition with Republicans nationwide.
The intent of the FAU classroom exercise was to promote critical thinking and draw attention to the sensitivity surrounding symbols in religion and politics. The best colleges encourage their students to question authority and challenge institutions - be it government, in business or in matters of religious faith.
The teacher got the idea for the class exercise from a textbook on intercultural communication. According to the book, the exercise is intended to show students the power of symbols. But the ONE student took the class activity as an assault on his religious beliefs.
Stepping on a piece of paper, burning a flag or an effigy amount to symbolic acts. And the Supreme Court has ruled that even in the case of the flag, our national symbol, there is Constitutional protection.
The university is embarrassed by the episode and has now issued an apology. It is posted on the front page of their main website: "This exercise will not be used again. The University holds dear its core values. We sincerely apologize for any offense this caused. Florida Atlantic University respects all religions and welcomes people of all faiths, backgrounds and beliefs."
The course is taught by a non-tenured teacher on an annual appointment. From the statement: "Contrary to some media reports, no students were forced to take part in the exercise; the instructor told all of the students in the class that they could choose whether or not to participate."
The university denies that the student was suspended because of this episode:
In a statement, they said: "While we do not comment on personnel matters, and while student privacy laws prevent us from commenting on any specific student at the University, we can confirm that no student has been expelled, suspended or disciplined by the University as a result of any activity that took place during this class."
Proving once again that Bill O'Reilly is a biased right-wing liar, and even after it is proven he is a liar he does not do a correction, in fact, he even puts the lie out again, after knowing he was lying.
O'Reilly Ignores Stock Market Hitting Another Record High By: Steve - March 28, 2013 - 9:00am
Tuesday the stock market hit another record high, and O'Reilly totally ignored it, not a word, nothing. Because it makes Obama and his policies look good, and because O'Reilly is trying to make his viewers believe the country is in chaos.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Stocks rallied on Tuesday, with the Dow climbing more than 100 points to another record close and the S&P 500 coming within striking distance of its all-time closing high, as strong data on home prices and manufacturing fed optimism about the economy.
The Dow Jones industrial average initially surpassed its 2007 record closing high on March 5. Since then, the Dow has reached a series of subsequent nominal record highs.
Data showed U.S. single-family home prices rose in January at the fastest pace in more than six years, while long-lasting U.S. manufactured goods, also known as durable goods orders, shot up in February.
"I think the batch of data was enough to convince investors that the U.S. economy is on the right track," said Andrew Wilkinson, chief economic strategist at Miller Tabak & Co, in New York.
"At this point, it's hard to argue that anything will derail the U.S. economy, and that is boosting investors' confidence as they continue to load up on equities."
The rally has lifted the benchmark index near its all-time closing high, which it nearly reached on Monday.
The Dow Jones industrial average rose 111.90 points, to end at 14,559.65, a record closing high. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index gained 12.08 points, to finish at 1,563.77.
Now remember this, when Bush was in office O'Reilly reported every stock market increase, praised Bush for it, and even gave Bush credit for the increases.
O'Reilly also argued that the stock market was a measure of the health of the economy, and every time a liberal said the country was going down the drain under Bush, O'Reilly countered with saying look at how high the market is, saying they were wrong because the market shows the country is doing good.
But now that Obama is in the White House, O'Reilly ignores any market increases, while not giving Obama any credit or praise for it. In fact, O'Reilly only reports on the market if it has a big down day, and he blames Obama for it. But on the majority of days when the market goes up, O'Reilly says nothing.
The Tuesday 3-26-13 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - March 27, 2013 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Protecting your hard-earned money. The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As you may know, Cyprus is bankrupt, and to keep that nation from completely falling apart, the European Union has okayed a seizure of private money deposited in banks on the Mediterranean island. A member of the European Parliament says more private money could be seized in Italy, Spain, Portugal or other countries.
It's a dire warning for everybody, including Americans, as the global economy begins to totter. The rise of the nanny state, where politicians buy votes by promising to support people, has damaged capitalism all over the world. We're seeing it here in the USA where about half of American households receive some kind of government assistance.
The Democratic Party has established a firm hold on the entitlement culture and we are engaged in an economic civil war that the Democrats are winning. Every day the USA adds $3.2 billion in more debt, but President Obama doesn't seem to care. He says the debt is 'sustainable,' but it is not.
If America collapses economically there will be violence in this country and all over the world. You know I'm not the kind of person who would hype a situation like this, but what is happening in Cyprus and Europe is a contagion.
The simple truth is that the world cannot support massive socialism. President Obama and liberal America need to wise up fast and the rest of us who do see the danger should begin to speak with some urgency. The U.S. debt is a crisis and these pinheads in Washington better do something about it.
What O'Reilly said is so ridiculous even the far-right Charles Krauthammer disagreed with O'Reilly and gave him a reality check. Cyprus did not go bankrupt because of social programs, their banks went bankrupt by making bad investments in Greek bonds. And btw, the debt is sustainable, all the economists and even most of the Republicans admit it, O'Reilly just refuses to admit it or report it, because he is a total right-wing fool.
Then Charles Krauthammer was on to tell O'Reilly how wrong he is.
Krauthammer said this: "What happened in Cyprus is not that the government is insolvent, it's that the banks are insolvent. They invested in Greek bonds and got wiped out. You have to make a distinction between governments and banks. Our banks are in pretty good shape, but the government is headed towards insolvency. We have several years between now and then, and if we would start to rein in the government we could achieve solvency."
And even after hearing that info from Krauthammer O'Reilly ignored it and took President Obama to task for failing to deal with the debt situation, saying this: "We are seeing our future in Europe and this is what troubles me about Barack Obama. He and his guys know what's happening in Greece and Spain and Italy and Cyprus, yet they are encouraging the same scenario in the United States."
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, you are a clueless fool. What is happening in some foreign countries will never happen here, and once the economy gets going better we will cut some of our debt and everything will be ok, so shut up about these foreign countries and the debt.
Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about the U.S. Supreme Court hearing arguments about same-sex marriage.
Kelly said this: "The Court is hearing two cases, but I don't think these are going to be the cases where the Supremes will say yes or no to gay marriage. The first case they're hearing is about California's ban on gay marriage passed by the voters. I think the Supreme Court will dodge this on procedural grounds and the people who like gay marriage will be happy with that."
The other case revolves around the Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. O'Reilly then slammed Clinton's about-face, saying this: "You're a phony, Bill Clinton. You signed the law because you thought it would be popular, but now you're against it. This is what sleazy politicians do, they don't care about gays!"
My God O'Reilly you are just a biased idiot, way back in 1996 the majority opposed gay marriage so Clinton went with the majority. Now the majority support gay marriage, so now Clinton is going with the majority, it's called going by the will of the people, jerk. There was a time when people supported slavery too, but now they don't, would you also slam them now for changing their mind about slavery. You are just stupid, and your bias against Democrats and the Clintons is laughable.
O'Reilly reported Monday, that Florida Atlantic University professor Deandre Poole, a Democratic Party activist, told his students to write 'Jesus' on a piece of paper, put it on the floor, and stomp on it. Meanwhile, Texas 5th graders were shown a video that blames America for many of the world's ills.
So what does O'Reilly do, have a fair and balanced segment on it, haha, of course not, he had the insane right-wing fool Glenn Beck on to discuss it.
Beck said this: "What kills me here, is that this is in Texas, which is the last real stronghold of the republic. If we lose Texas, we lose the entire country, and this has been in the classroom since 2002. The indoctrination of our children has been going on for a very long time and it is much worse than any of us think."
Beck also said this: "The university says they are super-sorry that anyone was offended, but what are they doing with the professor? Why aren't they removing him?"
Then the far-right stooge John Stossel was on to argue that while environmentalists have much of which to be proud, many 'greens' are now going overboard.
Stossel said this: "They spent several hundred million dollars cleaning up the Hudson River, which was worth it, and every time somebody buys a new car now the air gets cleaner. But government only grows, so now they're spending billions of dollars when the problem is largely solved. If you buy an electric car you get $7,500 back on your taxes. If an electric car is going to work, we have something called the free market."
Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to talk about Amanda Knox, the American who was acquitted of murder in Italy, will be re-tried after an Italian court nullified the acquittal.
Wiehl said this: "The U.S. government would have to grant extradition to the Italians to send her back, but we're not going to do that. A treaty says that if someone has been acquitted, we're not sending them back."
Guilfoyle said this: "She'll be tried in absentia and if she's convicted there could be a warrant out for her arrest. So if she steps outside the United States and visits a country that honors an extradition treaty with Italy, she could be in trouble. If I were her I'd get really comfy at the Starbucks in Seattle and stay there."
Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to talk about the animal rights group PETA, who after hearing that a 14-year-old Louisiana boy was raffling off a cow to raise money for a school trip, sent a letter to the young man.
Crowley said this: "This boy was selected to go abroad and be a student ambassador, but his family couldn't afford to send him. So he came up with this great entrepreneurial idea to raffle off this cow. PETA went crazy on this poor kid and sent him a long email taking him apart."
Colmes said this: "With all due respect to PETA, which I normally support, they should leave kids out of this. It's not proper to do this to a 14-year-old boy."
I agree, PETA should leave kids alone and go after corporations that abuse animals, or real animal abusers.
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Ending "at the end of the day" Billy said this: "If you want to make a good impression, avoid cliches such as the vastly-overused at the end of the day."
The Top 50 Most Annoying Celebs Who Should Go Away By: Steve - March 27, 2013 - 10:00am
To begin with, I normally do not report this kind of list because it's tabloid garbage, but when I looked at it I decided to report on it because of all the media and political figures who are on the list.
These are people who were voted by entertainment fans themselves to just go away. Coming in at #1 is Paris Hilton. But #2 was Sarah Palin.
Glenn Beck was at #10, and Ann Coulter came in at #13.
Donald Trump was #19, and Rush Limbaugh was #20.
Now guess who came in at #22, that's right, Big Bad Bill O'Reilly, and he was right ahead of Elisabeth Hasselbeck who was #23.
Sean Hannity was #26, and Tucker Carlson was right behind him at #27.
Bristol Palin also made the list at #30. Newt Gingrich was #41 and Karl Rove came in at #48.
Fox Ignores Truth About Senator Menendez Smear Story By: Steve - March 27, 2013 - 9:00am
Fox News continues to ignore reports that undermine the Daily Caller smear story -- promoted by Fox News -- that Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) patronized prostitutes on a trip to the Dominican Republic.
On March 22nd, most media outlets reported that the Daily Caller's original named source, Melanio Figueroa, alleged that the Daily Caller and other media outlets paid and pressured him to fabricate the accusations -- an allegation that Fox News has not covered.
Here is the most recent information from the Washington Post:
A top Dominican law enforcement official said Friday that a local lawyer has reported being paid by someone claiming to work for the conservative Web site the Daily Caller to find prostitutes who would lie and say they had sex for money with Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.).
The lawyer told Dominican investigators that a foreign man, who identified himself as "Carlos," had offered him $5,000 to find and pay women in the Caribbean nation willing to make the claims about Menendez, according to Jose Antonio Polanco, district attorney for the La Romana region, where the investigation is being conducted.
The Daily Caller issued a statement Friday saying that the information allegedly provided by the Dominican lawyer, Melanio Figueroa, was false.
These revelations demonstrate Figueroa's lack of credibility and cast even more doubt on the Daily Caller's already-shaky story, as Figueroa was the only named source in their original story outlining the allegations.
Responding to this latest WP story, along with other reports from the Post throwing doubt on the Caller's reporting, CNN media critic Howard Kurtz called the story "discredited" and said that the Daily Caller "owes the senators and its readers an apology."
A transcript search, including a search of the Nexis database, of Fox News programming on March 22nd and of Fox's media criticism show Fox News Watch on March 23rd shows no mention of Menendez.
Which continues a pattern of Fox covering the Daily Caller's allegations less and less as the credibility of the story continues to implode, even though the network covered the allegations in at least 20 segments after the initial report was made in November.
Tucker Carlson, who is a Fox contributor and editor-in-chief of the Daily Caller, has not defended his publication's smear of Menendez on the network since March 5th, when he appeared on The O'Reilly Factor and called the Daily Caller reporting "straightforward, traditional journalism."
O'Reilly has also not reported on the story since the March 5th show where he let Tucker spin his ass off about their reporting.
He also said that his website's sources "received no money from anyone." Carlson has appeared on Fox News at least three times in the past two weeks -- as a guest on Special Report on March 11th and on America's Newsroom on March 13th, and as guest host of Hannity on March 15th.
The Daily Caller's discredited allegations against Sen. Menendez were never mentioned during any of those appearances.
The Monday 3-25-13 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - March 26, 2013 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Political corruption on college campuses. The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: One of the reasons America is moving to the left and becoming a more secular society is that colleges are overwhelming teaching liberal tenets. A study shows that 51% of professors are Democrats, 35% Independent, and just 14% Republican, and some of the top donors to President Obama last year were colleges.
So students are caught in a liberal environment, whether they like it or not. Enter Ryan Rotela, a student at Florida Atlantic University and a Mormon enrolled in a class taught by Deandre Poole, a Democratic activist. As part of his class, Poole told his students to write 'Jesus' on a piece of paper, put it on the floor, and stomp on it.
After Rotela made his displeasure known, he was removed from the class and faces disciplinary action. Talking Points is not going to try the case on television, but there is no question that many college campuses are becoming radicalized.
Many Americans were stunned that President Obama won the election despite all the economic chaos, but when you understand the liberal indoctrination on college campuses, you can see how that is contributing to the move left.
My God man, you are a giant idiot. Having some liberal teachers in college does not equal political corruption. You are stupid, and biased, and there is nothing wrong with having some liberal teachers in college. Not to mention, they were there when Bush was elected and re-elected for 8 years, so how do you explain that.
The reason people are more liberal is because all the old Republicans are dying off, and the younger kids are not biased homophobes, it has nothing to do with liberal teachers. And the only people who were shocked Obama won re-election were right-wing fools like you. There is no economic chaos, it's all in your head, the economy is doing good, and it is getting better.
Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to discuss the so-called left-wing college environment.
Williams said this: "I don't think you're right, Bill. I think back to the 60's when college campuses were afire with liberal madness and Richard Nixon won the White House. In the 80's college campuses were again very liberal but Ronald Reagan won two terms. Right now I don't see any crazy liberal campuses on fire."
Wow, for once Juan Williams told O'Reilly he was wrong, it's a miracle.
But of course Ham agreed with O'Reilly, saying this: "Former terrorist Bill Ayers was recently named "visiting scholar" at Minnesota State University. The analogue to that is that an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber was teaching a humanities course. Would we not think that was insane? It would never happen!"
Then Karl Rove was on to talk about Rand Paul and politics.
Rove said this: "He could be part of our future, and there is a lot of libertarianism in the Republican Party. Libertarians and economic conservatives are in favor of reforming Social Security and Medicare and balancing the budget. But he is also co-sponsor of a bill to decriminalize the possession of drugs and last year he led an effort to stop a ban on synthetic drugs."
Rove also said this: "Senator Paul also believes we should not have struck Anwar al-Awalki, a U.S. citizen who joined the Al Qaeda network. He said al-Awalki should have been brought back and tried in a U.S. court. So there are some things where he is not in synch with the Republican Party."
Then O'Reilly has a segment with Brit Hume called: Can anyone stop Hillary Clinton from becoming the next president of the United States?
Now here is my question, why is O'Reilly doing a segment asking if anyone can stop Hillary Clinton from becoming the next President. Because only a biased right-wing hack would ask such a question, and only have a Republican guest on to discuss it.
Hume said this: "Five years ago nobody thought she could be stopped, but a freshman Senator came out of nowhere and beat her. Now, as his former Secretary of State, she has the outcome of his foreign policy around her neck. All kinds of things can happen and it's way to early to declare her a sure thing."
O'Reilly said this: "Two-thirds of Americans have a favorable view of her, which includes some Republicans. So if I had to bet, I'd put heavy money that she'll be the Democratic nominee."
And she is going to win, which will make O'Reilly and the right even more mad, then O'Reilly will cry every night about her policies for 4 to 8 more years.
Then the lead prosecutor in the Spector murder case (Alan Jackson) was on to talk about a new HBO movie that focuses on legendary music producer Phil Spector, who is now in prison for murdering an actress in his Hollywood home. Now there is some balanced debate, not.
Jackson said this: "I can name a half-dozen things that the movie completely ignored or got completely wrong. The writer David Mamet was not as interested in the truth as he was interested in Phil Spector. Nobody knows this case better than I do, and when I saw the movie I just about dropped my teeth. If you're going to produce what is sold as a 'biopic,' you owe a responsibility to the viewing public to at least try and get it right."
Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about the media, Jay Leno and Matt Lauer.
Goldberg said this: "There are a lot of people who like gossip, and people wonder whether Matt Lauer was the reason Ann Curry got pushed out. And one of the reasons the media is not enamored with Jay Leno is that a lot of his audience is in middle America. Elites, whether they're in the media or not, look down their long elitist noses at middle America. The bigger point is that there are more and more 'journalists' who like to bring down people in the media who have achieved success and make money."
And all that is right-wing nonsense, if NBC dumps Leno and Lauer it will be for one reason, ratings, and nothing more.
Then the right-wing moron Adam Carolla was on to cry about a new TV ad in which a store encourages welfare moms to come in and spend their food stamp vouchers.
Carolla said this: "My beef is the free beef she's getting that I'm paying for, and there's the fact that she doesn't even have to shop herself and they'll bring it out to the car for her. We give you the food, we get you the food, and then we bring it out to the family truck for you? How about you get off your ass, get a job, earn some money, and buy your own food!"
The insane Carolla also said this: "It's not that certain people don't need help from us and the government, it's that when you give too many people help they start to atrophy. My mom waited for her food stamps to come twice a month instead of going out and looking for a job. I understand what it's like to be on the dole and it doesn't make these people any stronger, it hobbles them."
What a joke, just because mom got food stamps does not mean other people who get them can just go get a job, idiot.
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: What a croc! Billy said this: "Even though Anderson Cooper of "60 Minutes" confronted a crocodile and came away in one piece, you'd be well advised to not mess around with Mother Nature's predators."
Thank you Mr. O'Reilly, if you had not told me to not mess with a crocodile I would have never known to stay away from them, not. What a joke, you are a fool and this tip of the day is stupid.
George Schlatter Jokes That He Will Meet O'Reilly In Hell By: Steve - March 26, 2013 - 10:00am
And he said it on Fox on the lame Neil Cavuto show. Schlatter also joked that O'Reilly is Catholic so he may not get in.
While appearing on Fox News Your World with Neil Cavuto Monday afternoon, legendary comedy producer George Schlatter got in a few zingers about Fox hosts Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, in addition to frequent Fox guest Ann Coulter, making Cavuto more than slightly uncomfortable.
After several minutes discussing what Schlatter believed to be the unfair way NBC is treating the reportedly outgoing Tonight Show host Jay Leno, the creator of Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In noted that "The conservatives think Leno is too liberal. The liberals think he is too conservative. And he's right there in the middle and doing comedy."
"It's tough to do conservative comedy, you know," he added with a laugh, seemingly poking fun at the stereotype that conservatives are generally less inclined to be funny.
"That's fine. We're four minutes in and you finally had your hit," Cavuto pushed back in jest.
"I didn't say anything," Schlatter replied. "I didn't say the only conservative comics are Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter."
"That's fine. Enough," Cavuto said, visibly uncomfortable but enjoying the laughs nevertheless.
After changing the subject towards the end of the segment, it was Cavuto who managed to bring up his Fox colleagues again, telling Schlatter that "Sean Hannity hopes you go to Hell."
"I'll meet Bill O'Reilly there," Schlatter said to laughs all around. "O'Reilly's Catholic so he may not get in."
Once again made uncomfortable by the level to which Schlatter took it, Cavuto said, "That's fine. okay. Let me blessedly finish this."
He ended with a joke of his own: "That was George Schlatter making his final appearance here at Fox."
Except, that is most likely true and not a joke, because Fox will probably ban Schlatter from ever doing any Fox show again. O'Reilly can dish it out and makes jokes about a ton of liberals, but he can not take it and when you do jokes about him he calls foul.
O'Reilly Will Be Feature Speaker At Christian University By: Steve - March 26, 2013 - 9:00am
Here is even more proof O'Reilly is a bible-thumping far-right stooge, Faulkner University announced over the weekend that Bill O'Reilly will be the guest speaker at the school's benefit dinner scheduled for Sept. 26.
They say O'Reilly is expected to deliver his frank commentary on our nation's issues, politics and culture.
The event will be held at the Montgomery Renaissance Convention Center with a reception at 5:30 p.m. and dinner at 7 p.m. There are sponsorship and photo opportunities available.
General admission tickets are selling for $150.
Yes I said $150.00, wow I would not pay $1.50 to see the biased O'Reilly give a speech, let alone $150.00.
O’Reilly follows a list of conservative speakers for Faulkner's benefit dinner including former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, former President George W. Bush and former first lady Laura Bush last October.
The university raised more than $1 million from the event for Palin and close to $1 million for George W. Bush and an expected $750,000 for Laura Bush. Nearly 2,000 people attended Laura Bush's speech.
Now remember O'Reilly says he is not a conservative, and yet, he does these events where only conservatives speak to raise money for a christian right university.
The annual dinner is used to boost funding for scholarships for the university’s 3,000 students of which more than 80 percent of which receive some form of financial assistance.
What does Faulkner University do, it's simple, here are some quotes from their mission statement:
-- The mission of Faulkner University is to glorify God through education of the whole person, emphasizing integrity of character in a caring, Christian environment where every individual matters every day.
-- Faulkner also provides a myriad of opportunities for our students' spiritual and personal growth. Daily chapel and a Biblically-based core curriculum provide a basis for spiritual development.
-- Undergirding all our offerings, both academic and extracurricular, is Faulkner's commitment to instill within our students the tenets of Godly intellect, character and service for the education of the whole person. We believe that all truth comes from God. With that knowledge, we instruct all courses through the lens of Christianity, emphasizing integrity of character and a Godly attitude in all phases of life.
So remember this when you hear O'Reilly say he is not a conservative, and when he does a segment on God or abortion remember he a is biased right-wing bible thumper.
Fox News Thinks We Need Assault Rifles For Iranian Invasion By: Steve - March 25, 2013 - 10:00am
Now this may be the dumbest reason yet for having assault rifles. During a roundtable discussion on Friday, Fox News Lou Dobbs agreed with a network contributor who argued that Americans need military-style assault weapons to protect themselves from an Iranian invasion.
"What scares the hell out of me we have a president, as we were discussing during break, that wants to take away our guns, but yet he wants to attack Iran and Syria. So if they come and attack us here, we don’t have the right to bear arms under this Obama administration," Angela McGlowan, a former lobbyist for News Corp., said in the middle of a conversation about violence in Syria.
Dobbs agreed, saying this: "we're told by Homeland Security that there are already agents of Al Qaeda here working in this country. Why in the world would you not want to make certain that all American citizens were armed and prepared?"
The insane right-wing panel also dishonestly argued that widespread gun ownership in Israel has helped prevent terrorist attacks, even though access to firearms is strictly limited to people who can prove their professions or places of residence put them in danger.
The facts: only 170,000 guns are licensed for private use in Israel, while assault weapons are banned for private ownership.
Fox News Reported The Iraq War Less Than Anyone By: Steve - March 25, 2013 - 9:00am
What a shocker, not. The network that wanted the war the most, the same network that was banging the war drums 24/7 leading up to the war, the same network that wanted the war to start as fast as possible, is now the network that covered the war the least.
Fox News covered the tenth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq the least of the three major cable networks. MSNBC provided more coverage than Fox and CNN combined.
MSNBC devoted more than four and a half hours of coverage to the Iraq anniversary. CNN spent 2 hours and five minutes on the story, while Fox News covered it for only an hour and twenty one minutes.
Bill O'Reilly only covered it for about 3 minutes, in one lousy segment. And of course in that segment he spent most of the time praising Bush and spinning the real reason Bush said he was starting the war.
For example, Fox News segments included in the study include one in which an anchor questioned criticism of the media's coverage of the Bush administration's case for war, and another in which a Fox host declared the invasion "the smartest thing George Bush did."
While much of MSNBC's coverage was focused on the heavy toll of the war, segments like Morning Joe's report falsely claiming Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) originally supported the invasion (and co-host Joe Scarborough's subsequent apology for doing so) were also counted.
After being sold on faulty pretenses, according to a recent Brown University study, the war in Iraq cost the lives of 4,488 U.S. service members, at least 3,400 U.S. contractors, and an estimated 134,000 Iraqi civilians.
The study clarifies that the estimate for civilian deaths "does not account for indirect deaths due to increased vulnerability to disease or injury as a result of war-degraded conditions. That number is estimated to be several times higher."
The Brown University study estimates the war "will cost the U.S. $2.2 trillion, including substantial costs for veterans care through 2053, far exceeding the Bush administration estimate of $50 to $60 billion."
And btw, O'Reilly also lied about the cost of the Iraq war, he said it cost us almost $1 trillion, so he has it costing less than $1 trillion. When the actual cost is over $2 trillion. O'Reilly also never said one word about the Bush administration saying it would only cost $50 to $60 billion, as he praised Bush for toughing it out.
Fox News Ignored The Obama Israel Medal Ceremony By: Steve - March 24, 2013 - 10:00am
Hey O'Reilly, how come you do not talk about this. Fox news was the only cable network to not cover the Obama medal ceremony in Israel. Which is about as biased as it gets, and proof Fox is nothing but a biased right-wing news network.
Last week, in the Jerusalem residence of Israeli President Shimon Peres, President Barack Obama received the Medal of Distinction, the highest honor that Israel's government can award a civilian. But only some cable news viewers got to see the medal ceremony, the viewers watching CNN and MSNBC, because Fox news ignored it.
And since Fox ignored it they sure never told you this information: Republican and former President Ronald Reagan never visited Israel, neither did George H.W. Bush, and you also did not hear Fox report that George W. Bush didn't make the trip until late in his second term, because they never said a word about any of it.
And if you only watch Fox news you would think Israel hates Obama, when nothing could be further from the truth. Because the Medal of Distinction Battle Shield was the highest honor the Israeli government can give to a civilian, and President Obama is the only U.S. President to ever receive it.
This was real news, one of the ways that news programs inform viewers is by bringing them live video of newsworthy events, such as the first American president to be awarded the Medal of Distinction by Israel. It was the middle of the afternoon in the U.S., and both CNN and MSNBC carried the event live, Fox ignored it totally.
When I turned Fox on to see what they were showing I saw a commercial about how Sean Hannity thinks President Obama is strengthening Israel's enemies. Which is odd, because of Israel is giving Obama a medal of distinction they clearly do not think he is strengthening Israel's enemies.
O'Reilly Ignores Right-Wing Propaganda In Schools By: Steve - March 24, 2013 - 9:00am
O'Reilly freaks out when the Obama administration or anyone on the left try to put a program or policy in place in schools. O'Reilly even freaked out when kids at a school sang a song about President Obama. O'Reilly calls it indoctrination and totalitarianism.
O'Reilly said this on 12-3-12 -- "It's Almost Totalitarianism That Publicly Funded Schools Have Left-Wing Academic Agendas."
But when someone on the right uses the schools and kids to put out right-wing propaganda O'Reilly says nothing, not one segment on it.
Earth Day is April 22nd, and wednesday was the last day children in Utah could send in their submissions for the state-sponsored Earth Day poster contest lauding fossil fuel production.
This year's theme is "Where Would We Be Without Oil, Gas & Mining?"
Last year's theme was "How Do You Use Oil, Gas, and Mining?"
The contest is literally made possible by fossil fuel interests. This year's sponsors include the Salt Lake Petroleum Section of the Society of Petroleum Engineers and the Utah Division of Oil, Gas & Mining. Last year's sponsor list was longer, including Arch Coal, Anadarko Petroleum, and Rio Tinto/Kennecott Utah Copper.
Any child in Utah between Kindergarten and sixth grade is eligible. "The contest's primary objective is to improve students and the public's awareness of the important role that oil, gas, and mining play in our everyday lives."
Last year's contest winners made posters that detailed how dependent we have become on fossil fuels. The children were not asked to make posters about the climate impacts caused by those same fossil fuels: drought, wildfires, and warmer winters.
Some parents are not happy, as this letter to the editor by Colby Poulson makes clear:
Why is the state backing an "Earth Day" contest that celebrates fossil fuels, while completely ignoring the adverse effects that their use and extraction can too often have on our air quality, water quality, public lands and the other organisms we share the world with?
Shouldn't Earth Day be about championing things that can help reverse the negative impact of our dependence on fossil fuels?
Frankly, I'm disgusted that the state is backing propaganda like this in our schools.
Why allow a contest like this to run two years in a row? The state could be taking its cues from its Congressional delegation, one of whom runs the House Science subcommittee and denies the reality of human-caused climate change. Or its state legislature, which in 2010 adopted a resolution doubting the reality of climate change.
It's pure right-wing propaganda, in the schools, using the kids, and O'Reilly has not said a word about it, nothing, nada, zip. But when a liberal does something similar, he screams bloody murder, calls it liberal indoctrination, socialism, and does a week of shows on it.
The Friday 3-22-13 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - March 23, 2013 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: The political rhetoric gets crazier. The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Earlier this week we chastised Michele Bachmann for not being accurate about her lifestyle criticisms of President Obama. Her general point was correct, but valid points are much stronger if you have the facts to back them up. Enter our pal Congressman Charles Rangel, one of the oldest members of the House at age 82.
This week he claimed that 'millions of kids' are being shot down by assault weapons. The fact is that in 2011, 8,500 Americans were killed by gunfire, 565 of them children. So Rangel weakens his own argument by being irresponsible.
He well knows that millions of children have not been killed by assault weapons, and another far-left zealot, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, knows that 170,000 jobs will not be lost because of the sequester, despite her assertion. Want to win the debate? Wise up, be honest!
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, yes it was an exaggeration by Rangel, but his point was correct, that a lot of kids are being killed by assault rifles. And my God, the man is 82 years old so he is probably suffering from Alzheimers and possibly dementia. And btw, only Republicans are slamming him for saying it, including O'Reilly, who claims he is not a Republican. Then O'Reilly says be honest, when he can not even spell honest.
Then O'Reilly had another waste of time segment crying about the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who is calling for a 49% marginal tax rate on ultra-wealthy Americans. David Callahan of the liberal think tank Demos was on and he endorsed the CPC's proposal.
Callahan said this: "The idea here is that Donald Trump and his dermatologist shouldn't be paying the same tax rate. Right now, everybody who makes more than $400,000 a year pays the same rate. It doesn't make sense that somebody making $425,000 pays the same rate as somebody making $400 million. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is only suggesting that we go back to the top tax bracket of the 1980's, which was a pretty good period."
And of course O'Reilly disagreed saying this: "Does the federal government in a free nation have the moral right to take half your stuff, no matter how much money you make?"
Yes they do, it's called taxation, and it is very unfair to cap the top tax rate at $200,000 a year, which means a person making $100 million a year (or more) pays the same rate as someone making $200,000 a year. The top rate should go to at least $1 million a year, if not $100 million. And anyone who disagrees with that is a fool.
Then O'Reilly had the right-wing stooge Lou Dobbs on, who of course agreed with O'Reilly because he is also a Republican millionaire who cries about paying too much in taxes. And here is what I say, if you make a million dollars a year (or more) and you cry about taxes, you should have to pay a cry baby penalty/fine of $100,000 every time you do it.
Dobbs said this: "David Callahan is a smart guy, but he is really saying, 'I'm entitled to your damned money!' The top 25% of taxpayers are now paying 90% of taxes in this country, which is screwed up. I keep asking the administration and Democrats in Congress what is the percentage they want. They won't answer."
Then Horace Cooper of the conservative organization 'Project 21' was on to talk about the Philadelphia abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who is charged with murdering seven babies after they had been born alive.
Cooper said this: "He is accused of taking babies late in their term, and taking sharp instruments and cutting their spines and their throats. This was something worse than 'Silence of the Lambs' - he kept body parts as trophies. We were just outstandingly offended that any person would be this depraved and dark of heart."
Cooper also said this: "This is another example of how the media is disserving the country. If this were the Trayvon Martin case, we would be given every single aspect, but the media consistently says abortion is good and there are never any problems."
And for the record, Cooper is a liar. I did a google search on the man and I got 136,000 results that show almost every media outlet in America reported it, from the NY Times to ABC news, to philly.com to CBS news, to nbcphiladelphia.com, the liberal huffingtonpost.com even reported it, and on and on, they all reported it.
Then Geraldo was on for an update on Jodie Arias, which I will not report on because it's tabloid garbage and not real news.
Then Greg Gutfeld and Bernard McGuirk were on for what the heck just happened.
They began with the news that Jay Leno is being fired from The Tonight Show, to be replaced by Jimmy Fallon. Gutfeld said this: "Leno is 62, which is 134 in TV years, so they're trying to look for a younger demo. They should even go for a 13-year-old host or perhaps Honey Boo Boo because that's the way our culture is going."
McGuirk said this: "Leno is about the only thing I like on NBC, which harbors this nexus of smug and sneaky liberals. That includes the news division with Brian Williams and David Gregory and entertainment with Alec Baldwin and Tina Fey. So I don't like these people and this is a disaster in the making and it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch."
O'Reilly criticized NBC for turning this episode into an embarrassing debacle, saying this: "I like Leno, who has always been fair to us, and I don't think they're handling it well. Gutfeld is right that they don't care about ratings anymore - they want little kids to watch and Fallon gets the younger demo."
Then O'Reilly had them both do another segment called pinheads of the week. McGuirk chose Hillary Clinton for her backflip on the issue of same-sex marriage, saying this: "This looked like she was making a hostage tape, and Anderson Cooper and Ellen DeGeneres were off to the side pointing shotguns at her. It just looked so phony and cheesy."
Gutfeld went with Bobby Brown, former husband of late Whitney Houston, saying this: "He's a washed-up singer, a drunk, a druggie, and a loser. He got his third DUI and was supposed to serve 55 days but got out in 9 hours! They claimed it was because of overcrowding, but this only happens to celebrities."
And O'Reilly picked the convicted murderer and former music producer Phil Spector, who is now the subject of an HBO movie: "This guy was guilty and he's serving 19 years to life. I haven't seen the movie, but I understand that it doesn't really criticize Spector that much. C'mon!"
I pick you three, for all being biased right-wing hacks that do not have a clue.
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Speakin' to the former Speaker. Billy said this: "O'Reilly offered some personal advice to Nancy Pelosi: When the press asks you a question that you don't have any idea about, just say that. Don't do what you did this week when you were asked about college basketball and seemed confused."
O'Reilly & Ingraham Kick Off Their Yearly War On Easter By: Steve - March 23, 2013 - 10:00am
Because Christmas is a long time away, Bill O'Reilly has taken up the job of leading the army of traditionalists (Republicans) in another religious conflict: the War on Easter. A number of school districts are holding Easter events that have banned the word Easter, which led O'Reilly to claim it would all end with free abortions and pot everywhere.
And of course the far-right loon Laura Ingraham agreed with O'Reilly about the growing secular influence in the United States, saying that there could be a "new era of persecution" in the United States.
O’Reilly mocked the spring egg events moderated by a spring bunny, calling the whole thing stupid, but arguing that it is just the first step of how secular-progressives are trying to impose their will on the rest of society.
He said that if the secular-progressives had their way, anyone could get an abortion for any reason, you could be arrested for saying negative things about minorities, and pot would be legal. And O'Reilly got all that nonsense from not being able to say the word easter, now that's a miracle.
Ingraham again agreed with O'Reilly that society has become a lot more secular, adding that religious people probably recognize this and worry about a "new era of persecution" in the United States.
O'Reilly then claimed that 50 years ago, there would have been marches on those schools, faulting traditionalists (Republicans) for being afraid of attacks from secular-progressives.
Ingraham finished with a warning that if traditionally religious people start receding from public life, the United States would become poorer and weaker and less influential in the world.
The Thursday 3-21-13 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - March 22, 2013 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: More evidence that Judeo-Christian tradition is under attack in America. The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: If you watch The Factor, you know that we won the 'war on Christmas' battle. But the war on Judeo-Christian tradition continues in some public school districts, where you are not allowed to say the word 'Easter.' I know it's stupid, you know it's stupid, but it's happening.
Secular progressives are running wild with President Obama in the White house and they're trying to diminish any form of religion. The goal is to marginalize religious opposition to secular programs. For example, in China and Canada a woman can have an abortion for any reason at any time. Secular progressives want that here, but traditional forces are in opposition and SPs hate that.
In Scandinavia there are laws that say you can not criticize minorities and secular progressives want laws like that here. Also, the legalization of drugs is well underway in many places and that is a secular cause.
So if the far left can marginalize Santa and the Easter Bunny, if they can tell the children those symbols are obsolete and unnecessary, they set the stage for a totally secular society in the future. That's why the Easter Bunny is on the run.
To begin with, O'Reilly did not win any war on Christmas, because there was no war on Christmas, O'Reilly made it up. And as far as easter and abortion, O'Reilly is lying, because I am a progressive liberal and I do not care if they use the word Christmas or easter. I am also pro-choice, but I do not support abortion, I support the womans choice to do what she wants with her body. Abortion is legal, get over it O'Reilly.
Then the far-right stooge Laura Ingraham was on to spin and lie about the issue, to make O'Reilly like like he is right.
Ingraham said this: "People who are traditionally faithful, understand that society has become more secular and a lot of them are fearful. There is a lot of demonization of Christians by the secular progressives, so they feel somewhat ostracized. They may even think there is a new era of persecution toward traditional faith that we have never seen before."
And that's a lie, because most liberals do not hate christians or any religious people, they just do not want it forced on them.
O'Reilly then said this: "East Meadow on Long Island, where I grew up, is largely Christian, but the school district says you can't say 'Easter' and insults every Christian. Fifty years ago there would have been marches on that school and town meetings, but now there is nothing. People are afraid because they see traditional people like you and me get attacked."
How is that attacking you, it's not you fool. O'Reilly is just a right-wing idiot.
Then O'Reilly had Brianna Rader and Jacob Clark on to talk about the University of Tennessee's upcoming Sex Week. Which I will not report on because it is not news, it's tabloid garbage.
Then Christopher Ruddy and Rabbi Aryeh Spero were on to talk about "The Bible" tv show on The History Channel, which includes an actor playing Satan, O'Reilly asked them if the devil actually exists.
Ruddy said this: "There is an active God and there is also an active evil principal that we might call the devil. This is an angel who was created good but fell through his own free will and is now a presence of evil in the world. We are free to resist evil and in that sense we're responsible."
Rabbi Aryeh Spero said this: "We don't believe in an actual devil, but we believe that at the time of creation God unleashed a force of evil and within people there is a constant struggle between our good inclinations and some of our unsavory inclinations. I believe that people who choose tremendous evil do end up in a Hell."
Then again, some people do not believe in God or the Devil, so it's all a matter of opinion and nobody can be proven right, so why even discuss it O'Reilly. Report some real news for a change.
Then Dr. Wendy Walsh, Dr. Bonny Forrest were on to talk about a woman in New York State who has been arrested for encouraging her 15-year-old daughter to give another girl a beatdown.
Forrest said this: "Parents are stressed, and they resort to strategies to try to fix the situation in the moment instead of thinking about the long term. It takes time to develop social skills and problem-solving, but we don't have that time and we resort to hitting and doing these terrible things."
Walsh said this: "There is a lot of 'jellyfish parenting' with really loose boundaries, but at the other end there are 'brick wall parents' who are very strict. We've come to the conclusion that corporal punishment doesn't work, but when parents take away the spanking they have no other tools or parenting skills."
Then Mr. I never speculate (O'Reilly) said he thinks bad parenting is getting worse: "I know parents who use drugs in front of their children, who take their children to terrible movies. I think a lot of parents are trying to buy the affection and cooperation of their children."
Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about conservatives who are upset because President Obama has nominated Tom Perez to be Secretary of Labor.
Kelly said this: "President Obama's critics say this is unnecessarily divisive, because it would be hard to get somebody farther to the left than Mr. Perez. Some Senators are threatening to block his nomination because he's been 'a radical's radical.'"
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Getting what you want. Billy said this: "Whenever you need help from someone, open with the statement, I need your advice. That empowers them and they'll respond positively."
O'Reilly Got Catholic Church Involved In His Divorce By: Steve - March 22, 2013 - 10:00am
Bill O'Reilly's divorce from his ex-wife Maureen McPhilmy got so ugly, he tried to have her booted from the Catholic Church.
O'Reilly and McPhilmy split on April 2, 2010 and divorced on Sept. 1, 2011. The couple agreed to share custody of their two children, but only a month after they divorced, they were back in court after McPhilmy learned O'Reilly had hired the neutral therapist as part of his household staff.
O'Reilly and McPhilmy have been formally divorced, she has since married the detective, and O'Reilly is in the midst of a scorched-earth custody battle-dubbed, appropriately enough, Anonymous v. Anonymous-over the ex-couple's two children.
It involves an attempt by O'Reilly to undermine his custody arrangement by hiring, as a member of his household staff, the woman he and his ex had agreed on as a neutral arbiter of their disputes.
It also involves O'Reilly's attempts to annul his marriage and have McPhilmy potentially booted from the Catholic Church.
"The mother claimed that the father had repeatedly violated conditions of the agreement," reads a docket entry that Gawker identifies as O'Reilly and McPhilmy's case.
"The mother further alleged that, after the execution of the agreement, the father had hired the children's therapist as a full-time employee to perform virtually all of his parental duties. The mother's affidavit contained specific allegations concerning the father's repeated violations of the custody provisions of the agreement since its inception.
Moreover, the full-time employment of the children's therapist, the person designated in the agreement as a neutral third-party 'arbitrator' of custodial disputes, by the father, constitutes a significant change of circumstance which could undermine the integrity of the agreement's custodial provisions."
The website also claims that, at the pressure of O'Reilly, McPhilmy has been formally reprimanded by the Catholic church she attends for continuing to take communion, despite having been divorced and remarried. The reprimand tells McPhilmy to stop telling her children her second marriage is valid in the eyes of God.
This reprimand might be the first step to excommunication if McPhilmy doesn't comply with its demands. O'Reilly donated over $65,000 to New York Catholic parishes and schools in 2011 and "carries considerable weight in the archdiocese."
This wouldn't be the first time that O'Reilly went after his ex. When McPhilmy began dating the detective to whom she is now married, O'Reilly had New York's Nassau County Police Department launch an internal affairs investigation into him. After donating a lot of money to a nonprofit affiliated with the Police department.
The couple's separation agreement included provisions allowing for shared custody-they each got the children on alternating weeks. And it also appointed a "neutral therapist" to, according to the opinion, "act as a neutral mediator to help them resolve any parenting disputes."
And here's where it gets interesting. In October 2011, McPhilmy took O'Reilly to court after learning that the woman she thought had been a neutral therapist serving the needs of her children was in fact a member of her ex-husband's household staff.
The therapist, a Long Island licensed social worker named Lynne Kulakowski, was working long days and some evenings in O'Reilly's house, on his payroll, and basically acting as the children's nanny.
At a Second Department hearing in October, McPhilmy's attorney claimed-and O'Reilly's attorney did not dispute-that Kulakowski was earning a six-figure salary from O'Reilly. All of this, of course, made a mockery of the custody agreement's appointment of Kulakowski as a neutral arbiter of disputes-O'Reilly rigged the game against his ex-wife.
A lower court initially denied McPhilmy's request for a hearing about O'Reilly's co-optation of the therapist, but the appellate court agreed with McPhilmy and sent the case back for a hearing. In a highly unusual step for an appellate court, it also ordered the appointment of an independent attorney for the children, an indication that the dispute has become particularly poisonous.
Another indication that it has become poisonous: the Catholic Church has gotten involved. McPhilmy has been formally reprimanded in writing by her church for continuing to take communion in her Long Island parish despite having been divorced and remarried-a no-no according to the Pope.
The reprimand also instructed her to stop telling her children that her second marriage, to the Nassau County detective O'Reilly tried to destroy, is valid in the eyes of God. It warned her that if she didn't comply, harsher measures may be in order.
What a nice guy O'Reilly is, NOT. He is just what I say he is, a low-life piece of right-wing garbage.
The Wednesday 3-20-13 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - March 21, 2013 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: The Iraq War -- 10 Years Later. The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Ten years ago President Bush launched an attack on Iraq. That began nearly eight long years of conflict in Iraq; almost 4,500 Americans are dead, more than 32,000 wounded, and almost $1 trillion spent. Was it worth it? Many liberals say 'no,' some conservatives say 'yes.' No matter what you think, the Iraq war has changed America.
We now have a $17 trillion debt, thousands of wounded warriors, and an ideological battle over how to deal with villains. I supported the war based on weapons of mass destruction intelligence; subsequently, I believe we could have removed Saddam Hussein in another way that would not be so damaging to America.
My opinion ten years ago was based on reality, not ideology or party politics. But the reality for America has changed. As we are seeing in Afghanistan, we can not impose democracy and human rights on nations that have no real desire for those things.
America and the coalition won the Iraq war because of our brave military and because President Bush finally wised up and used both brains and brawn.
Give Bush credit for toughing it out, but criticize him for not anticipating the difficulties of that campaign. The bottom line: let's not do that kind of thing again.
Now that is ridiculous, give Bush credit for toughing it out, when it was his fault we went into Iraq in the 1st place, what a joke. And O'Reilly ignores the fact that we went in to Iraq based on lies about WMD's, lies that many liberals knew were lies, but O'Reilly refuses to admit. Scott Ritter told the world Iraq did not have any WMD's, but O'Reilly and his neo-con right-wing friends ignored him, as they called him a traitor, when he was right.
Then O'Reilly had Democrat Kirsten Powers and Republican Kate Obenshain on to evaluate the Talking Points Memo and the Iraq war.
Powers said this: "I agree with 'let's not do it again,' and I opposed the war at the time because I didn't think we faced any serious threat from Saddam Hussein. The claim that he had a relationship with Al Qaeda was absurd. We had been attacked by Al Qaeda and going into Iraq didn't make any sense to me. Too many people died, too many people are suffering, and we spent too much money."
Obenshain insisted that the war was absolutely justified, saying this: "Saddam was a supporter of terrorist organizations and a genocidal maniac. The short-term goal was to rid the world of Saddam Hussein, the long-term goal was that we wanted a reliable ally in the region. But because Obama could not stick it out, we left before the reforms we made had a chance to solidify."
Except Bush, Cheney, and Rice never said that, all they did was scream about WMD's and mushroom clouds. So Obenshain is a liar and a spin doctor.
Then Bob Beckel was on to talk about Senator Harry Reid, who spoke on the Senate floor after a training accident in Nevada killed seven Marines, Reid seemed to imply that budget cuts were to blame.
Beckel defended the Senator, saying this: "Harry Reid has the unique ability to use the wrong words at the wrong time, but he never associated the Marine deaths with the sequester cuts. For somebody who's as well-prepared as you usually are, you're really not on this one."
And of course O'Reilly disputed Beckel's interpretation of Reid's statement, saying this: "He said it's because we don't have the funds to properly train the military, he is exploiting it and he is making the sequester the issue."
Then O'Reilly talked about the crazy Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who has accused President Obama and the First Family of living very large at taxpayer expense. After she refused to defend those accusations on the Factor, Billy said this:
"This is a trivial pursuit and Michele Bachmann made a mistake pursuing it. With the nation owing close to $17 trillion, I wish the President were more like Pope Francis, who as a cardinal rejected all the lavish perks. But Mr. Obama is entitled to protection, convenience, and comfort."
O'Reilly also said this: "Michele Bachmann and all the President's opponents should zero in on what's really important - his failure to deal with out-of-control spending and his belief that America's not a fair country. It's long past time for partisans on both the right and the left to cut the nonsense and look at things clearly."
WOW, for once O'Reilly slammed a Republican for saying stupid things that are wrong, and for once I agree with O'Reilly.
Then Carl Cameron and James Rosen were on with some inside political info, beginning with the President's trip to Israel.
Rosen said this: "When the President touched down, his first remark to the Israeli Prime Minister was, 'It's good to get away from the Congress.' President Obama later said there is not a lot of daylight between the U.S. and Israel on Iran and its nuclear program, but Prime Minister Netanyahu stated that Israel has the right to defend itself and would never defer in that right, even to the United States."
Cameron turned to the immigration reform plans put forward by Republicans Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, saying this: "It's been amazing to watch them dance through immigration reform, positioning for 2016. Both would not require illegal immigrants to go back to Mexico. Rand Paul is staking out a slightly more conservative approach to border security, but both of these Tea Party conservatives are pushing for the very reforms that Republicans in the House and Senate have been killing."
Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on, because he is simply a lame right-wing comedian who is on to make jokes about liberals, with no liberal comedian on for balance.
Then Uma Pemmaraju was on for did you see that, she watched footage of Immigration and Customs Enforcement boss John Morton admitting that his department has freed illegal aliens who had been convicted of drunk driving.
Pemmaraju said this: "This was a House hearing, that was looking at the fallout from the 2,000-plus detainees who were released because of sequestration concerns. According to ICE, eight aggravated felons have also been released."
Pemmaraju also analyzed a poll showing that Pakistan leads the world when it comes to hating America, with Greece also near the top of the list: "Greece has a problem with us for a variety of reasons, some going back to the '60's when there was a concern that the CIA was running the country. A lot of young Greeks hate the United States and feel like we dominate smaller countries."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Dining out on the cheap. Billy said this: "Keep the cost of a restaurant meal down by drinking tap water, skipping dessert, and ensuring that side dishes are included with the entree."
RNC Report Says Voters See GOP As Scary & Narrow Minded By: Steve - March 21, 2013 - 10:00am
Open your eyes O'Reilly, this is why Mitt Romney lost, not because people want stuff, here are some facts for you. The Republican National Committee (RNC) released its wide-ranging "autopsy" report on Monday, admitting some of its shortcomings after losing the 2012 presidential election.
Coined the Growth and Opportunity Project, the document includes market research from voter focus groups around the country.
"Asked to describe Republicans, they said that the Party is 'scary,' 'narrow minded,' and 'out of touch' and that they are a Party of 'stuffy old men.' And this is consistent with the findings of other post-election surveys."
Hours before the report was live, RNC Chair Reince Priebus leveled about the GOP's struggles in an interview on "Face The Nation," telling host Bob Schieffer that the party did a "lousy job" of marketing itself.
"This is not short term view, Bob, I know everything isn't going to change in one year. If we don't start now we're not going to have anymore success in four years, eight years, or twelve years," he said. Hey Dummy, it's not just marketing, you need to change your positions on some of the issues to reflect how America is today. A change in marketing strategy will fail and only cost you more elections, because the people will not fall for it.
Within the same CBS interview, Priebus revealed several proposed changes for the next election cycle. Among the possibilities being considered: a shorter presidential nominating calendar, fewer primary debates and a $10 million minority outreach program to promote the GOP brand in local communities.
So basically you want the people to know less about your candidates and you think you can bribe minorities to vote Republican with a lousy $10 million dollars, good luck with that sparky.
This Reince Priebus is a fool, just like O'Reilly, they think if they just do a better job of getting their message out the people will vote for them, which is insane. They got their message out, that's why the people did not vote for them.
The Tuesday 3-19-13 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - March 20, 2013 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Will the federal government begin stealing our money? The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The small country of Cyprus, which is totally broke, proposed to forcibly take money out of personal bank accounts. The outcry was immediate and it will not happen, but the lesson is important for Americans. Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Cyprus are broke and other European nations are close.
Why? Because they're 'nanny states' and there are not enough workers to support all the entitlements. Enter the Congressional Progressive Caucus here in the USA, which wants a 49% federal income tax rate on top earners and even more government spending. I don't believe the President believes that crew is fanatical because they want what he wants.
As Talking Points has said, Americans are going to have to decide what kind of country they want. Even by taking half of what affluent Americans earn, the feds couldn't possibly afford what the far left wants to provide. Some conservatives believe the far left wants a collapse of the entire capitalistic system and that President Obama is actively working towards that.
Certainly Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont wants socialism in this country, and so do most of his compatriots on the crazy Caucus. Yet Americans continue to elect them.
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, you are a biased right-wing fool and the Government is not going to steal your money. And btw, 49% is not an outrage, because in the past the top rate was as high as 70%, and if they did tax them at a rate of 49% nobody cares, so shut the hell up jerk.
Then Professor Marc Lamont Hill was on, who said it will never happen.
Hill said this: "That is a template for a kind of progressive vision, but it's not really going to happen, so I wouldn't freak out about the CPC budget."
Then the insane O'Reilly asked Professor Hill what gives any government the moral authority to confiscate money from its citizens, and Hill said this: "I don't think the government is stealing money from people, and for the wealthiest 1% or 2% it's reasonable for them to pay more. I'm not saying 49% is reasonable, but I do think more taxation is okay."
It's not stealing money from them you moron, it's called paying taxes.
Then O'Reilly talked about how some people have noted a striking resemblance between President Obama and character of Satan in The History Channel's mini-series "The Bible."
TV critic Linda Stasi said this about it: "I think he absolutely looks like Barack Obama, and all the good guys in the series are very white. My first impression was that at least they have one black person, but now I find out he's not even a black person, they put him in blackface."
Entertainment reporter Paul Bond thinks the resemblance is totally accidental, saying this: "I don't think it was purposeful because both the producers are supporters of President Obama. They've given him money and they've praised him, so I don't think there is any way The History Channel or the producers wanted to make the devil look like Obama."
And I have to say that it is a little strange, because the man is white, they put make up on him to look black and just like President Obama. They had to know he looks like Obama, and yet they did it anyway. So something is fishy about it if you ask me.
Then Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley were on to talk about Hillary Clinton suddenly supporting same-sex marriage.
Crowley said this: "It is very clear she is running for president, because if she were not running there would be no reason for her to make this dramatic announcement. The Clintons have been rather opportunistic for decades, so I would err on the side of opportunism on her part."
Colmes said this: "Why must we impute the worst and most cynical motives to anyone we don't agree with politically? The fact is that most Americans are evolving on gay marriage and the culture is changing."
O'Reilly of course agreed with the conservative Crowley and reminded Colmes that true marriage equality could include polygamy, saying this: "The word 'equality' extends to every human being and if you're going to be a good liberal, Colmes, you have to extend that to everyone."
Then the right-wing stooge John Stossel was on to discuss the U.S. Department of Agriculture, who has listed some foods, among them Rice Krispies and Doritos, it wants to keep out of schools.
Stossel said this: "This is one instance where I think the government has a point, because if they're going to fund a big nutrition program and spend $10 billion of your dollars they need to have some rules. But why do they take the money from localities, ship it to Washington, lose some and waste some, then ship it back with all these rules? Just let local schools make their own decisions."
Then is it legal with Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl, they talked about the accusations that Senator Robert Menendez flew to the Dominican Republic to hook up with prostitutes.
Wiehl said this: "According to Dominican police, three prostitutes came forward to say they lied about the Senator and that they were paid by two Dominican lawyers to lie. No matter what these women say now, no one is going to believe them."
Guilfoyle added that the story began with an allegation put forth by a conservative website, saying this: "This started with The Daily Caller, which interviewed one of the women who said she was paid to have sex with the Senator."
O'Reilly said this: "As it stands now, the fair thing is to give Senator Menendez the benefit of the doubt."
And none of them mentioned the fact that the FBI has found no evidence that the claims are true. And they also ignored the fact that O'Reilly did multiple segments on the bogus story when a lot of real news outlets refused to air the story.
Then Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about a Pew Research poll that has determined MSNBC features far more opinion than other cable news outlets. As if we did not already know it, just as we know Fox is mostly a right-wing biased cable news network.
Krauthammer said this: "This study tells me that the sun rises in the east. Everybody knows that MSNBC is all opinion, even their slogan 'lean forward' is just a way of saying 'lean left.' They are basically an ideological entity while Fox and CNN are roughly half news and half opinion."
Krauthammer also said this: "Local news always seemed to be 80% crime and the rest trivia, I don't remember it being something that moved national opinion. Local TV has lost influence and the networks have lost because of the growth of cable."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: A novel proposal. Billy said this: "If you want a riveting read, pick up the novel "Six Years" by Harlan Coben."
Earth To O'Reilly: Boehner Agrees Debt Crisis Not Immediate By: Steve - March 20, 2013 - 10:00am
Every night the biased right-wing partisan hack Bill O'Reilly screams about the debt crisis, and says if we do not cut spending now the country will fall apart and go into a depression, even though most economists say that is not true, and now even the Republican House speaker John Boehner is saying the same thing.
The arrival of budget season has brought debt panic back to the Beltway. But President Obama threw cold water on the matter last week, telling George Stephanopoulos that the United States does not face "immediate crisis in terms of debt."
And Sunday morning, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) essentially told Martha Raddatz he agrees with Obama, "calling the debt crisis looming, but not immediate."
"We do not have an immediate debt crisis," Boehner said on ABC News's This Week With George Stephanopoulos. "But we all know that we have one looming. And we have - one looming - because we have entitlement programs that are not sustainable in their current form. They're gonna go bankrupt."
"President Obama's point, as he went on to say in that interview, is that we don't - we don't really need to do anything at this point."
Debt is already projected to remain at or below its current share of the economy for the next decade, and it's good that Boehner is standing in agreement with the president on that point.
Unfortunately, the budget the House Republicans just released does not reflect this realization. It cuts all spending that isn't Medicare, Social Security, or the military down to near-historic lows over the next ten years.
If everyone agrees the debt crisis is not immediate, then job growth and economic revival should be topping deficit reduction on the country's list of priorities.
Nor is there a great deal of evidence to back up Boehner's distinction between an immediate and looming debt crisis. The long-term projections of mounting debt he and other D.C. lawmakers rely on are in fact riddled with dramatic assumptions and uncertainties about the future behavior of both Congress and the economy.
Conservatives Tell Karl Rove To Go Jump Off A Bridge By: Steve - March 20, 2013 - 9:00am
Now think about this, conservatives are telling people to not give money to Rove and his new PAC, because it's a waste of money and Rove is a failure as a political operative. And yet, O'Reilly still has him on the Factor every week as a political analysis, even though he was wrong about every prediction he made in the last election, and all the money he spent for Republicans did them no good at all.
Even Sarah palin told Rove to go back to Texas and get out of the way of the real conservatives.
Conservatives continue to wage war over the future of the Republican Party, with Media Research Center president Brent Bozell and several other activists penning a letter discouraging donors from giving money to Karl Rove's new political group.
Rove has been the focus of conservative anger for weeks following the announcement of Conservative Victory Project, a new group he is launching with the help of the allies behind his Crossroads political groups. According to the New York Times, the group will seek to "recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts."
The letter is signed by Bozell, Tea Party Express chairman Amy Kremer, Citizens United president David Bossie, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, and a handful of other conservative activists who claim to represent "millions of grassroots conservatives."
Now think about this too, these people are so far to the right they do not think Karl Rove is a real conservative, which is ridiculous, because he is a conservative.
Addressed to "Top Crossroads Donors," the letter rips Rove's Crossroads political groups for supporting moderate candidates and having "squandered hundreds of millions of dollars in what were arguably the most inept campaign advertising efforts ever."
Mr. Rove and his allies must stop blaming conservatives for his disastrous results. It is time for him to take ownership of his record. He must also stop posturing himself as a conservative: his record supporting wasteful government spending and moderate candidates over conservatives spans decades.
No matter how he positions himself in this attempt at damage control, Mr. Rove's efforts will not elect the type of leaders who will come to Washington to fight for conservative principles.
In fact, they are likely to stifle the emergence of candidates like Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, and Rand Paul. Further, the model that will be employed by the Conservative Victory Project has proven to be ineffective and a waste of political resources.
In recent weeks, Rove has been labeled by conservative media figures as (among other pejoratives) a "propagandist" and "a total loser." Conservatives have also branded his new group "absolutely repulsive," and "an incumbency protection racket."
Last month, after a spokesman for one of Rove's Crossroads groups labeled Bozell a "hater" for his criticism of Republican leaders, Bozell's allies -- including several of the same people who signed the latest letter -- wrote a letter demanding the aide's firing.
In the letter, the activists lauded Bozell for being the nephew of conservative luminaries like William F. Buckley and called him "a beloved and critically important player in American history."
And this Bozell is a guy who runs a so-called media watchdog group, that O'Reilly claims has no bias, which is just laughable. Bozell is as biased as it gets and his media watchdog group the Media Research Center is as partisan as it gets. But O'Reilly still claims they are a non-partisan group, and O'Reilly has even quoted from their biased reports, saying they have no bias.
The Monday 3-18-13 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - March 19, 2013 - 11:30am
The TPM was called: Two Visions of America. The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: As alert Americans know, President Obama is trying to fundamentally change the USA; he sees our system as basically unfair and wants to provide more to those who don't have very much. The Republican Party says the President's social justice outlook is damaging the country and that he's creating a nation at war with itself, with the affluent versus the non-affluent.
Over the weekend, conservative Senator Ted Cruz of Texas delivered a very emotional speech, saying his father came from Cuba 'with $100 and didn't speak a word of English.' Cruz says his dad made it on his own without government assistance and that's the way this country is supposed to work.
But President Obama has a very compelling story himself; his father abandoned him, he was raised primarily by his maternal grandparents in Hawaii, he had few resources, yet he rose up to become the most powerful man in the world. How much the system helped Mr. Obama is unknown as his college records have been kept private.
We don't know the extent of affirmative action, we don't know how much the government subsidized his climb to the top. It would be very helpful to have that information, simply to be fair to the President and his vision. There is no question that President Obama believes his success is partly due to government, which goes to his famous line, 'You didn't build that.'
So the battle lines are now drawn between two very different visions for this nation. In the end, one side or the other is going to have to prevail.
As alert Americans know, Bill O'Reilly is a partisan right-wing hack who spins out that GOP propaganda every night. Do not believe any of it, go check it out for yourself, and you will see O'Reilly is spinning or lying 99% of the time. Of course O'Reilly loves Senator Ted Cruz, because he is a Republican, just like him. And Obama did not say you didn't build that, he said you didn't build that alone without Government help.
Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to talk about the optimal size of government.
Williams said this: "I'm on the side of big government, because activist government recently got this country out of recession. They bailed out Wall Street, which is doing very well for a lot of people, and activist government is helping out our seniors."
Ham said this: "When you have an activist government that is doing too many things, they become corrupt and wasteful and pretty bad at helping people. It doesn't allow for innovation or new ideas because the government is a pretty clumsy instrument for that."
Then Brit Hume was on to talk about the Rove/Palin war, with no Democratic guest for balance.
After Republicans Sarah Palin and Karl Rove took some shots at each other over the weekend, Hume was asked if the feud is more evidence of a major problem in the GOP, and of course he said no, even though he is wrong, because it's a war between the far-right and the moderate right.
Hume said this: "I think this is much ado about not much. These are the kinds of skirmishes that can happen in a party after a disappointing loss in a big election."
Hume added that Republican infighting is nothing new, saying this: "The party has always had a segment for whom no one was conservative enough. When Ronald Reagan was president, some people complained about him, saying even he wasn't conservative enough."
But they never had the far right telling Rove to go away, and telling Republicans not to give Rove any money.
Then Monica Lindstrom was on to talk about 32-year-old Jodi Arias, who is on trial for murder in Arizona, charged with shooting her former boyfriend and stabbing him 27 times.
Lindstrom theorized why the case has garnered national attention, saying this: "This is a death penalty case, and it also has all the craziness of a horror movie. We've got young people who had a sexual relationship and there is a pretty defendant charged with a heinous, brutal murder."
Lindstrom also said this: "She was on the stand for 18 days testifying and the jury had over 220 questions for her. They asked her things like, why should we believe you now and why didn't you call the cops? It sounded to me like they had no sympathy for her and they weren't believing what she had been saying."
Then Jesse Watters was on, he went into the frequently-drunk, green-clad revelers at New York City's St. Patrick's Day parade.
"Life's too short," one young man told him, "so you have to have a good time" Another teen said, "I'm a distinguished honor roll student and I've been smoking marijuana for three years."
Watters then went to the studio and recapped his adventure among the inebriated, saying this: "It was eleven o'clock in the morning, but people were already absolutely soused - it was pure debauchery with people throwing up. One side of the street was all families, but other blocks were filled with high school and college kids who had Gatorade bottles filled with vodka. But most people were pretty well-behaved."
Then the far-right stooge Bernie Goldberg was on, he tried to explain why the Colorado media have largely ignored the state legislature's refusal to pass a version of Jessica's Law.
Goldberg said this: "If Colorado local TV is typical, only 20% of the stories on local television are longer than one minute in length. 40% of the entire newscast is filled with sports, weather, and traffic, and only 3% of the newscast is taken up by local government. We don't know that there's collusion between the Denver Post and the Democratic Party, but it certainly looks suspicious."
O'Reilly complained that the Denver media is basically in bed with Democratic politicians, saying this: "The press is not reporting the news anymore, it's in business to promote a certain candidate, and the Denver Post is propping up the Democratic Party."
Now replace Denver with Fox and Democratic with Republican and you have Fox News, jerk.
Then Adam Carolla was on to cry about being called a racist. He recently conducted a contentious (and racist) interview with California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom about minorities, education and welfare, after which the Huffington Post accused Carolla of racism. Because it was racist, and if you do not want to be called a racist do not say racist things.
Carolla said this: "There's a problem and I'd like to look at the problem honestly, but we can't solve it if you're calling everyone attempting to solve it a 'racist.' Liberal politicians should stop saying 'the system is broken' when they're in charge of the system! The first thing you need to do is admit there's a problem and the problem is a lack of parenting, single-family parents, and the perpetuation of poverty because of this."
And of course O'Reilly agreed with Carolla that much of America has become a judgment-free zone, saying this: "No judgments are made about fathers abandoning their children or the girls who are getting pregnant. We know the left is never going to confront the problem."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: When "sorry" is not enough. Billy said this: "If you harm another person, saying "I'm sorry" is not always enough; you should accompany that apology with some form of restitution."
CPAC (We Are Not Racist) Meeting Turns Racist By: Steve - March 19, 2013 - 11:00am
Now this is something crazy, at CPAC panel session called "Trump The Race Card: Are You Sick And Tired Of Being Called A Racist When You Know You're Not One?" turned racist, even though it was about racism and how they are called racist when they are not racist. Even though they could not make it to the end of the session without someone making a racist statement.
And of course O'Reilly never reported a word about it, even though he constantly denies the Republican party is racist.
A panel hosted by "Frederick Douglass Republicans" at CPAC was supposed to be about how Republicans can overcome their issues with race and tolerance, but it spun out of control when an attendee suggested that Douglas should have been grateful to his slave owners "for giving him shelter and food."
And another person at the meeting expressed frustration with what he termed the disenfranchisement of "young southern white males."
During the session called "Trump The Race Card: Are You Sick And Tired Of Being Called A Racist When You Know You're Not One?" which was led by K. Carl Smith, a black conservative activist that committed to the movement full time in 2009, a young man from North Carolina, Scott Terry, asked him about the problems facing white people and segregation.
"It seems to me that you're reaching out to voters at the expense of young white Southern males," said Terry, who told the crowd that he had come "to love my people and culture."
Smith told him that after Douglass became a freeman he wrote a letter to his slavemaster and forgave him.
"For giving him shelter? And food?" Terry said. And btw, Terry was accompanied by a man with a Confederate flag on his t-shirt, Matthew Heimbach.
So who are Scott Terry and Matthew Heimbach, they are both White Nationalists. Terry was also wearing a sticker identifying him as a supporter of Rick Santorum.
In an interview with Think Progress following the panel, Terry claimed that white people have been "systematically disenfranchised" by federal legislation; that he would be happy to live in a society where African-Americans were permanently subservient to whites; and that African Americans should vote in Africa rather than in the United States.
And that my friends is about as racist as it gets, and he was at a we are not racist meeting, which is just laughable. Especially when O'Reilly claims the right is not racist.
Mr. Terry's companion at CPAC was identified as Matthew Heimbach, founder of the White Students Union at Towson University in Maryland and described as a "white nationalist" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Heimbach's activities at Towson and his association with neo-Confederate hate groups are detailed by SPLC. Heimbach was at CPAC with his Patriot Voices badge, Confederate flag, and George Wallace campaign button, which also identifies Scott Terry as a member of the White Students Union at Towson.
Hey O'Reilly, this is racism, from your friends on the right, the same friends you claim are not racist, what say you?
Fox News Proves Their Conservative Bias Once Again By: Steve - March 19, 2013 - 10:00am
And of course you never heard a word about this bias from O'Reilly, because he is also a conservative, even though he does a weekly media bias segment with Bernie Goldberg he never mentioned it.
Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) -- who was considered a frontrunner for the GOP vice presidential nomination in 2012, came out in support of marriage equality on Friday morning, becoming the only sitting Republican senator to support same-sex marriage. But you wouldn't know that from watching Fox News, since they pretty much ignored the entire story.
A cable news show analysis by TV Eyes found that Fox news only mentioned the word "Portman" 3 times, while their competitors MSNBC and CNN (which broke the story early that morning) covered the story 27 and 40 times.
CNN, who is down the middle in their reporting mentioned it 40 times, and the left-leaning MSNBC mentioned it 27 times. O'Reilly mentioned it 0 times, even though he had a media bias segment during the Friday night show where O'Reilly and 2 other Republicans cried about bias for President Obama by the media.
And this is nothing new, Fox News has a habit of ignoring pro-gay news that does not appeal to their conservative base. For example, Fox had almost no reporting on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the passage of New York's historic same-sex marriage law, and failed to report that former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman (who had orchestrated President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign) had come out as gay.
Another O'Reilly Fan Sends Me Hate Mail By: Steve - March 19, 2013 - 9:00am
WHEN THE HELL WILL YOU FIGURE OUT THAT YOU'RE THE IDIOT??????? THAT YOU SUCK DONKEY DICKS, AND THAT YOU ARE A LIBERAL CLUELESS BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'D LOVE TO BITCH SLAP THE SHIT OUT OF YOU UNTIL YOU RECOGNIZED REALITY. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People At CPAC Slam Republican Senator Over Gay Marriage By: Steve - March 18, 2013 - 11:00am
Sen. Rob Portman's (R-OH) decision to support marriage equality was not warmly received at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Friday.
ThinkProgress spoke with 10 attendees about the Ohio Senator's announcement this week that he was reversing course and backing marriage equality after his own son came out of the closet. Every person they spoke with opposed same-sex marriage, and almost all of them had some harsh words for Portman.
"Horrible!" said Tony Mele, an 88-year-old woman from New Jersey, of Portman's decision. When told he did so because of his gay son, she responded, "That's his fault! He gets no sympathy from me."
And that is how your average Republican truly thinks, if your son is gay it's your fault. Proving that most Republicans are not very smart, because your parents do not decide if you are gay or not, and they can not make you gay or not gay.
A pastor from Georgia, William Temple, told Portman to "Quit being so selfish as to only think about his son, and if he won't reverse himself, to step down and go home."
Another pastor, Rev. Robert Lancia, dismissed Portman's point that we should treat each other according to the Golden Rule: "That doesn't cover it."
One man, David Kern, even said Portman's son's choice of college turned him gay. "Well what did Sen. Portman expect when he sent his son to Yale?"
And btw, Gay and Lesbian rights have been a hot topic at CPAC after conference organizers barred two conservative groups, GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans, from attending because of their pro-tolerance views.
House Republicans Vote Down Increase In Minimum Wage By: Steve - March 18, 2013 - 10:00am
And this is the new Republican party who lost the election, not hardly, just the same old Republican party who votes to protect their masters, the Corporations.
Friday House Republicans unanimously voted down a bill that would have raised the minimum wage.
The vote came after a surprise move by Democrats, who tacked onto a jobs training program bill an amendment that would have brought the national $7.25 minimum wage to $10.10 by 2015. But Republicans managed to defeat the effort while approving the bill overall.
A few weeks back, House Minority Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) came out in support of raising the minimum wage, responding to President Obama's State of the Union call for a wage increase. Pelosi's effort, and the effort proposed Friday, would actually bring the minimum wage up higher than Obama's suggestion of $9.00 an hour.
If the minimum wage were brought up to $10.10 an hour, it would not be a revolutionary hike; rather, it would be indexed to inflation and consistent with historical borrowing power. Had the minimum wage been indexed to inflation in 1968, it would be $10.40.
And here is the kicker, Republicans complain about the working poor who take Government money, then they vote against a minimum wage increase that would give a lot of them enough money to stop getting the Government money.
It's the same thing with Republicans on jobs and the economy, they vote down everything that would help the economy and create more jobs, then they blame Obama for not creating more jobs and improving the economy more than it has so far. When they are at fault, for voting against everything that would help, it's ridiculous.
Some Facts About Hate Groups & The SPLC Ingraham Ignored By: Steve - March 17, 2013 - 11:00am
Last Friday Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly and during the show she had the spokesman for a hate group called FAIR on to slam the Southern Poverty Law Center. The two of them said the SPLC are lying about FIAR, and that they are not a hate group, even though there is a ton of evidence to prove they are, and I provided a small sample of it here in this blog.
But neither Ingraham or her guest mentioned any of it, they just ignored all the hate speech, as they were smearing the SPLC. They also ignored who the SPLC are, and what they do, and the fact that hate groups have exploded in American since President Obama took office.
So I am going to give you some information Laura Ingraham did not tell you, because if she did it would make her claims about the hate group FAIR and the SPLC look foolish. Here are some facts about the hate groups in America, and some facts about the SPLC.
The Southern Poverty Law Center monitors hate groups and other extremists throughout the United States and exposes their activities to law enforcement agencies, the media and the public. They publish those investigative findings online, on their Hatewatch blog, and in their Intelligence Report, their award-winning quarterly journal.
They have also crippled some of the country’s most notorious hate groups by suing them for murders and other violent acts committed by their members. So they are doing a good thing for the American people. Which Ingraham failed to mention.
Currently, there are 1,018 known hate groups operating across the country, including neo-Nazis, Klansmen, white nationalists, neo-Confederates, racist skinheads, black separatists, border vigilantes and others. And their numbers are growing.
Since the year 2000, the number of hate groups has increased by 69 percent. This surge has been fueled by anger and fear over the nation's ailing economy, an influx of non-white immigrants, and the diminishing white majority, as symbolized by the election of the nation's first African-American president.
These factors also are feeding a powerful resurgence of the antigovernment so-called "Patriot" movement, which in the 1990s led to a string of domestic terrorist plots, including the Oklahoma City bombing.
The number of Patriot groups, including armed militias, grew by 755 percent in the first three years of the Obama administration - from 149 at the end of 2008 to 1,274 in 2011.
Yes you read that right, the number of Patriot groups went from 149 in 2008 (when Bush was in office) to 1,274 in 2011 (while Obama was in office) and the great so-called journalist Laura Ingraham never said a word about that, and for that matter, neither has O'Reilly. In fact, where is O'Reilly on this issue, silent. He says nothing about it, as he denies there is any hate or racism against Obama from the right.
This growth in extremism has been aided by mainstream media figures and politicians who have used their platforms to legitimize false propaganda about immigrants and other minorities and spread the kind of paranoid conspiracy theories on which militia groups thrive.
And it all comes from conservatives, including O'Reilly himself. Just recently it was reported that the O'Reilly Factor used more negative terms to describe undocumented foreigns than any other news show on television. And in the past O'Reilly has even been caught using the term wetback, along with other insulting and negative words.
The number of antigovernment "Patriot" groups on the radical right hit an all-time high in 2012, the fourth straight year of explosive growth. As the new year began, serious talk of gun control, prompted by a Connecticut school massacre in December, fueled even more rage on the right, and the threat of violence loomed.
The resurgence of militias and other Patriot groups and an uptick over recent years in non-Islamic domestic terrorism caused SPLC President Richard Cohen today to write U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to request the creation of a new interagency task force to assess the adequacy of federal resources devoted to the threat.
"As in the period before the  Oklahoma City bombing," Cohen wrote, "we are now seeing ominous threats from those who believe that the government is poised to take their guns."
The resurgence of the Patriot movement, which first rose and fell in the 1990s, has largely been a reaction to the election of the nation's first black president in 2008 - and the demographic change, including the loss of the country's white majority predicted for 2043, that he represents - as well as the difficult economy.
The recent talk of gun control, which has sparked state legislative efforts to nullify any federal legislation and also a movement of rural sheriffs who promise to resist, is now adding fuel to a fire that was already burning at white-hot temperatures.
As the year 2013 began, the first serious talk of gun control since the early 1990s, a reaction to the slaying of 26 people in a Connecticut elementary school, set off a comparable furor. Along with enraged howls from the radical right, even some more or less in the political mainstream, like ConservativeDaily.com's Tony Adkins, took a page from the Patriot movement as they warned that "martial law" and a suspension of the U.S. constitution could be coming at any moment.
Patriot leaders like Chuck Baldwin vowed to refuse to register or surrender their weapons, calling on other pastors to do likewise. The Oath Keepers, a Patriot group composed of present and former members of law enforcement and the military, said its people would never succumb to such unconstitutional filth.
Other so-called Patriots warned furiously of secession, nullification, even civil war. And Laura Ingraham ignored it all, as she claimed the SPLC is just a biased lying group of liberals, when these facts about hate groups are staring her in the face.
Eighteen years ago, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote then-Attorney General Janet Reno to warn about extremists in the militia movement, saying that the "mixture of armed groups and those who hate was a recipe for disaster."
Just six months later, the Oklahoma City federal building was bombed. Today, with our country's political polarization at historic levels and government officials being furiously demonized by Patriots, we may be approaching a comparable moment.
And I would not be shocked if some right-wing group did something similar (or worse) to the Oklahoma City bombing one day because we have a black President. Then what will Laura Ingraham say, most likely spin it and maybe even deny they are a right-wing hate group. Because that is what she does, lie and spin the American people in Bill O'Reilly's name, using his very own show, which makes him just as bad as she is.
CPAC Gives Dishonest Blogger Accuracy In Media Award By: Steve - March 17, 2013 - 10:00am
The Right-wing blogger Jim Hoft will receive an award from Accuracy in Media at the Conservative Political Action Conference, despite his track record of dishonesty and incompetence.
At the annual CPAC gathering, Hoft, who founded the Gateway Pundit blog, will receive the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award.
According to the press release from Accuracy in Media, Hoft is being recognized for his "groundbreaking contributions to New Media," and the fact that his blog has become "one of the country's top resources for right-of-center news and commentary."
Which is ridiculous, because this guy is wrong more than he's right, he is more wrong than Karl Rove or Dick Morris, and that's pretty bad.
What makes the choice of Hoft for an award presented by a group billing itself "Accuracy in Media" so surprising is the consistent lack of accuracy, fact-checking and the general incompetence displayed in his writings.
Here is a partial list of what he was wrong about:
-- In May 2010 Hoft smeared former Department of Education official Kevin Jennings, claiming seminars meant to adjust freshmen to high school, sponsored by Jennings' former organization, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, were "secret GLSEN gay sex classes" that were a part of President Obama's "teen sex indoctrination."
-- In June 2010 Hoft warned his readers that Obama was planning to give a "Major Swath of Arizona Back to Mexico." In fact, the five-mile square area was part of a refuge, had been closed since 2006, and was never going to be given to Mexico.
-- In December 2011, Hoft cited a Swedish Tabloid to suggest that Obama was actually photoshopped into the now-famous war room photo from the day of the Bin Laden raid based on the tabloid assertion that he looked "way too small" in the image.
-- Following the 2011 Tucson shooting Hoft claimed shooter Jared Loughner "idolized Barack Obama" on his Facebook page. The page turned out to be one of many fake Facebook profiles created in the wake of the tragedy.
-- Hoft also attacked Obama following the Tucson shooting by claiming the White House tried to get applause for the president's memorial speech by "asking for it" on the Jumbotron. The word "applause" that appeared on the screen, however, was part of the live captioning for the event.
-- Hoft claimed the logo for the Nuclear Security Summit looked like an Islamic crescent, using the resemblance to question Obama's faith. After the claim was picked up by the right-wing media, The Daily Show reported that "the inspiration for the logo is actually the Rutherford-Bohr Model of the atom."
-- In February 2011, Hoft blamed CBS reporter Lara Logan for sexual assault that she experienced while covering the Egyptian protests.
And that's just a partial list of things he got wrong, I could go on forever. But he gets and accuracy in media award from a biased right-wing media watchdog group, and O'Reilly never said a word about it.
In fact, O'Reilly has pretty much ignored CPAC, because it makes Republicans look bad, but when the same type of event was held by Democrats O'Reilly did a week of shows slamming the liberals who were there.
The Friday 3-15-13 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - March 16, 2013 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: What happens to democracy when the press actively supports a political party? The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It is widely believed that the national media is in the tank for President Obama; they generally support his policies, and when he does something wrong the media don't make a big deal out of it. A great example is the national debt. Most economists believe that a nation owing $17 trillion is in trouble, but how many times have you heard the national press speak passionately about the debt?
That means many Americans have no clue about this troubling issue, and that is what happens when the press acts in concert with a political party. For another example, the Democratic Party in Colorado will not put Jessica's Law up for a vote, but the press in Colorado is covering for the Democrats.
The Founding Fathers gave the press special privileges to challenge the political powers that be, but now we have some media in bed with politicians. To pretend that $17 trillion in debt is not a problem is dangerous; to say that Jessica's Law is not necessary puts children in danger. Yet the media is doing both of those things. Very troubling!
What O'Reilly just said is right-wing garbage, because the only people who believe the media supports Obama are Republicans. Yes MSNBC leans left, but Fox leans right, and CNN is right down the middle. NBC news, ABC news, and CBS news have little to no bias at all. The rest of the media on the internet is about half right-wing and half left-wing, so it is mostly balanced.
And most truthful economists will tell you the debt is not a big problem right now, polls also show that most people do not care about the debt. The honest experts will tell you running up a debt during an economic recovery is ok, and that you can work of fixing it at a later time after the economy has recovered. So all that nonsense O'Reilly put out is nothing but right-wing propaganda, and his opinion, not facts.
Then O'Reilly cried some more about Denver Post editorial Curtis Hubbard who said that 'no one in Colorado law enforcement supported' Jessica's Law. The Factor spoke with two Colorado lawmen (Sheriff Terry Maketa and Mike McIntosh) who begged to differ.
And of course O'Reilly lied about what Hubbard said, he did not say that, he said law enforcment groups, not persons.
Maketa said this: "We do need that law, and I spoke with two other sheriffs this morning who feel it would be a good thing for Colorado, that it would bring more clarity to existing laws. We need more truth in sentencing."
McIntosh said this: "This is all about safety for our children and our communities, we need to ensure that there are laws that protect our kids, and in states that have Jessica's Law the recidivism rate has come down. I take offense when anyone comes out and makes a statement for law enforcement but hasn't contacted us."
Which is just laughable, because of course if you try hard enough you can find a couple people in law enforcement who support Jessica's Law. But the vast majority of law enforcement oppose it, including all the major groups and prosecutors. As usual O'Reilly cherry picked a couple guys who agree with him to make a point, which is just sad and dishonest. What do the majority support O'Reilly, you hack.
Then O'Reilly had two Republicans (columnist Joe Concha and communications professor Jeff McCall) on to agree with him that the media is covering for President Obama.
McCall said this: "Journalists are products of the culture in which they work, and studies show that newsrooms are filled with reporters who lean left. Also, we have reporters who are coming from journalism schools that have ideological bents, so it's not surprising to me that many reporters would be sympathetic to a narrative coming from the Obama White House."
Concha said this: "In December four MSNBC prime-time hosts were invited to the White House, a visit that was not on the President's schedule. Nothing was ever talked about as far as what went on in that meeting. I don't hear 'journalism' there, I hear 'infomercial.'"
O'Reilly said this: "There are powerful national media advancing the cause of one political party, and I think the Founding Fathers would be stunned."
Now that's funny, because the Founding Fathers would be stunned that Fox news is even allowed to operate in America. And all this ignores the fact that a media study taken during the election showed that Obama got more negative coverage than Romney, proving O'Reilly and his right-wing friends wrong.
Then the biased hack Lou Dobbs was on to cry about Bill Gates. Gates recently praised President Obama's performance and wished the President had "more power."
Dobbs said this: "I think the President has more than his share of power right now. Bill Gates said he prefers the parliamentary system, but then, in a massive contradiction, he acknowledged that our system is far better than the system in the United Kingdom. There's no better example of the elites in this country than Bill Gates and his $61 billion net worth."
O'Reilly suggested that Gates is obviously a man of the left, saying this: "I don't think he would have said the same thing about presidential power if George W. Bush were still president, I think he's a liberal partisan."
Then Greg Gutfeld and Bernard McGuirk were on to talk about a proposal to banish "In God We Trust" from our currency. Which comes up every yeah by some atheist group, that most people ignore because it will never happen, and yet O'Reilly wasted our time with it anyway.
Gutfeld said this: "I think 'In God We Trust' is too judgmental. We need something nicer like, 'Don't Spend It All In One Place' or '40% Goes To Obama.'"
McGuirk said this: "This is total idiocy and stupidity. Throughout the ages the cultural elders have seen a need to convey the idea that there's a higher power because most people are stupid, selfish, SOBs who need the notion that there's somebody up there watching you."
Then they talked about a Massachusetts high school that is putting on a play based on the Bible, with the exception that all the characters are gay.
Gutfeld said this: "This type of event, is designed to upset people. My response to stuff like this is do this with the Koran, you wimps, and then we'll talk. But they won't because they're wimps."
Then O'Reilly had a New Friday Factor Feature: Biggest Pinheads of the Week. And of course he only has two Republicans on to name those pinheads.
McGuirk said choosing former NBA star Dennis Rodman was a slam dunk: "He called John Paul II, one of the most vaunted Popes in recent history, 'a pimp.' Rodman's IQ matches his rebounding average when he played in the NBA, but he's a harmless dummy."
Gutfeld singled out New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, saying this: "Whenever you say you're starting a 'national conversation,' that means you lost. A court overturned his soda ban, so now he's saying at least we got the conversation started. Shut up with your conversation!"
O'Reilly picked Denver Post editor Gregory Moore, who "has turned the paper into a house organ for the Democratic Party."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: St. Patrick's Day sobriety. Billy said this: "Avoid getting drunk to celebrate St. Patrick, who would almost certainly not approve."
Great tip O'Reilly, now nobody is going to drink on St. Patricks Day, NOT! You are clueless.
Republican Admits He Does Not Care About Poor People By: Steve - March 16, 2013 - 10:00am
Basically he said he does not care how much the Republican budget cuts hurt the poor, saying all that matters is that they get a balanced budget. So they have no problem cutting money to the poor, while giving more to the wealthy. I wonder how this guy sleeps at night.
Congressman Tom Price (R-GA) made a startling admission on CNN Wednesday morning, telling Soledad O'Brien that Republicans are not concerned about how they cut spending (or the millions of people who suffer as a result) so long as they achieve a balanced budget.
O'BREIN: The President said he doesn't want balance for the sake of balance, that actually the wrong kinds of cuts that would be hurtful to people would be a problem. What do make of what he told George Stephanopoulos?
PRICE: We believe it's important to balance not the how of how you balance, but the why, why is it important to balance. Well it's important to get our budget in balance, so that means that Washington doesn't spend more money than it takes in, just like families can't, just like businesses across this country can't.
The lack of concern over how Republicans want to cut $5 trillion in spending is evident in the cuts they are planning to hand down to low-income families, young people, women and seniors, all of whom stand to lose significant protections under the Republicans balanced budget.
Meanwhile, the Ryan budget maintains billions in tax savings for millionaires, Big Oil and financial conglomerates that will benefit from the proposed repeal of regulations imposed on Wall Street.
The comment provides a sharp contrast to President Obama's competing vision for the federal budget. During an interview with Geroge Stephanopoulos, Obama argued that rushing to balance the budget during a recovery could undermine growth and significantly hurt the most vulnerable populations.
"If we've controlled spending and we've got a smart entitlement package, then potentially what you have is balance. But it's not balance on the backs of, you know, the poor, the elderly, students who need student loans, families who've got disabled kids. That's not the right way to balance our budget."
In other words, Obama wants to cut spending and raise revenue in a balanced way that does not hurt the poor and minorities. The Republicans want to cut everything the poor and minorities get as they give the wealthy and the corporations even more tax breaks, which is just insane.
O'Reilly Calls His Guest A Smear Merchant & A Charlatan By: Steve - March 16, 2013 - 9:00am
Which is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. And why did O'Reilly call Mr. Hubbard a smear merchant and a charlatan, simply because he told the truth about O'Reilly.
On the March 13th O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly hosted Denver Post editorial page editor Curtis Hubbard to discuss Hubbard's column criticizing O'Reilly's ongoing attacks against openly gay Colorado lawmaker Rep. Mark Ferrandino (D-2).
O'Reilly berated him, calling him a "smear merchant" and a "charlatan," for accurately accusing him of attempting to depict a gay Colorado lawmaker as being lenient towards child molesters.
In his March 10th column, Hubbard condemned O'Reilly for repeatedly citing Ferrandino's sexual orientation while discussing the lawmaker's opposition to Jessica's Law, a measure deemed unnecessary by law enforcement experts and victims advocates that would impose a 25-year minimum sentence on those found guilty of sexually assaulting children.
Hubbard accused O'Reilly of attempting to conflate homosexuality and pedophilia, writing this:
HUBBARD: O'Reilly's fear-mongering should offend all Coloradans. He was saying "gay," but what he wanted his listeners to hear was "pervert-pedophile."
Disagree? Then you try explaining what Ferrandino's sexual orientation and stance on civil unions has to do with Jessica's Law.
Here is a partial transcript from the Hubbard interview:
O'REILLY: I described Ferrandino to the audience because the audience doesn't know who the heck he is and I did it in the context of what his priorities are. His priorities are civil unions, alright, which you guys are going to have pretty soon out there, and legalizing marijuana, which you already have out there.
O'REILLY: And he's a gay marriage proponent, as you know. So I said he are Ferrandino's priorities, here's what he spends his time on, alright? And Jessica's Law he doesn't want.
HUBBARD: If you had simply said 'Democrats in Colorado oppose Jessica's law, here's why,' I probably never would have brought it up.
HUBBARD: But the fact of the matter is that you used his sexuality to impugn his character and to imply to your viewers that it was his sexuality -
O'REILLY: I didn't impugn his character at all. I said what his priorities are as Speaker of the House. Look, I'm going to post this on BillOReilly.com, the whole thing, so people can see what a charlatan you are.
And now the truth: On February 22nd when O'Reilly first mentioned Ferrandino's sexuality on his show, it was not in the context of the speaker's legislative "priorities."
O'Reilly mentioned Ferrandino's sexuality while asking Colorado Rep. Libby Szabo (R-27) what reason Ferrandino might have for opposing Jessica's Law. When Szabo suggested that Ferrandino might be "protecting somebody" because child molesters "hold more credence" with him than victims do, O'Reilly didn't push back against that ridiculous accusation.
On March 4th, the next time O'Reilly targeted Ferrandino, he cited the lawmaker's support for LGBT equality as evidence that he was trying to "impose a secular paradise" in Colorado - a "paradise" which ostensibly includes lax sentencing for child molesters.
And to top it all off, even his own regular right-wing guest Bernie Sanders expressed concern about O'Reilly's description of Ferrandino, asking O'Reilly "what does Ferrandino's sexuality have anything to do" with his position on Jessica's Law?
Hubbard's criticism is appropriate, given that O'Reilly has previously expressed support for the myth that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia.
The Thursday 3-14-13 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - March 15, 2013 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Protecting America's children: why won't liberals join in? The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: I have to apologize to some left-wing Americans who are actively trying to protect children and babies. I have to speak generally this evening, but I am aware that there are many liberal Americans who are outraged about what's going on. Last night we brought you the editorial director of the Denver Post, who opposes Jessica's Law.
But in Colorado, 41-year-old Delbert Stiewert raped a 13-year-old girl for months and was sentenced to just two years in prison. Also in Colorado, 47-year-old Jeffrey Bigham sexually abused an 11-year-old boy almost 1,000 times! He got one year in prison.
So it is simply outrageous that seven Democrats in the Colorado House killed Jessica's Law, saying that state already has enough sanctions against child predators. It does not! Colorado Speaker Mark Ferrandino refused to put Jessica's Law up for a full vote but the Denver Post is speaking up for him.
There are similar situations in Vermont, Illinois, New York, and Hawaii. In addition, it is the left that is pushing late-term abortion on demand for pretty much any reason, under the guise of 'protecting a woman's health.' That's simply barbaric, as some babies are actually birthed and then their spines snapped. Other babies have holes drilled into their skulls inside the womb.
It's hard to believe that any American would support that, but some on the left do. Why? My theory is that many secular progressives don't want to make judgments on behavior and many secular progressives do not believe in God and make up all kinds of excuses why viable babies can be murdered. It's very, very disturbing.
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, it's called being pro-choice and actually believing in a free America where a woman has a right to do whatever is legal with her body. No liberal likes abortion, we just believe in real freedom, and since abortion is legal we support a woman's right to choose. If you can not understand that then you are an idiot.
Then the biased hack O'Reilly had Sam Slom, the only Republican in the Hawaii State Senate on to tell us why his Democratic colleagues refuse to pass a tough law against child predators. Yeah that's fair, have the only Republican on with no Democrat to discuss it, what a joke.
Slom said this: "This is a case of misplaced compassion for perpetrators, and there's an underlying cultural problem where some of our diverse cultures actually don't see a problem in having sexual relations with young children. Early in this session I asked the chairman of our judiciary committee to consider my bill, which is modeled after Jessica's Law. But instead, a bill came forth that provided a minimum of sentence for sex offenders, but it only applies to offenses against children eleven years of age and younger."
Then Marc Lamont Hill was on to discuss the debt and President Obama. O'Reilly pointed out that when he was running for President in 2008, Barack Obama described the $9 trillion national debt as "unpatriotic," but now that the debt is approaching $17 trillion he refers to it as "sustainable."
Professor Hill said this: "People often say a balanced budget is the goal, but most economists will tell you that a balanced budget isn't necessarily what we need. Obama's mistake in 2008 was in knowing that voters think of the budget like their checkbooks. Either he had no idea how the economy works or he was doing a cheap political trick that all people do to win votes. Right now the President is saying we're not in a crisis because the budget isn't balanced and he's absolutely right."
O'Reilly said this: "President Obama doesn't understand the economy and he doesn't understand what's coming, just like Herbert Hoover didn't see a depression coming."
Remember that folks, O'Reilly is predicting we will go into a depression.
Then the right-wing hack Laura Ingraham was on. She talked about critics who complained that the new Pope is "too conservative" and that he didn't stand up to a brutal government in Argentina.
Ingraham said this: "I would have been stunned, if the secular progressives had come out lauding this man for his career of service and his humility. They're saying he didn't do enough to unseat the junta in Argentina, but he was no friend to the dictators, he did not in any way work with them. He actually stood up against the left-wing guerillas and the dictatorship when it went wrong."
Then O'Reilly asked two mental health experts (Wendy Walsh and Bonny Forrest) about a study indicating that obese folks are more likely to lose weight if they're bribed to do it.
Walsh said this: "This was a year-long study, where they took people trying to lose weight and gave them lots of good education. They also told half of the people that if they met their monthly goal they'd get 20 bucks, and if they didn't they'd have to pay 20 bucks. That group lost weight at four times the rate of the other people because a positive reward system tends to shape human behavior."
Forrest objected, saying the study was far too short-lived: "I think this is yet another example of short-term gratification. If you look at rewards in general, it doesn't work in the long term. People don't keep the weight off if you don't keep paying them, but if I do something because it makes me feel better about myself, those are the rewards that last a lifetime."
Then Megyn Kelly was on to spin for O'Reilly about the Colorado sex offender laws.
Kelly said this: "In my opinion the laws are not tough, they're nowhere near as tough as Jessica's Law. They have decided in Colorado that they don't need a mandatory minimum sentence like Jessica's Law would impose, so they have minimums of two years, four years, and eight years, depending on the crime. One guy sexually abused a boy 873 times and got one year in prison!"
O'Reilly said this: "The Colorado Speaker of the House and the editorial director of the Denver Post both said the laws are tough enough, but it's not true. They have a chaotic system in Colorado, but they don't want to fix it."
Now here are the facts, they do have tough laws in Colorado, but it's up to the judges to look at each case and decide what sentence to give them.
Then the moron Jesse Watters was on, he went to south Florida and baseball spring training, where he quizzed some fans and players about the state of the union.
Here are a few of the responses he got: "The country is very divided" ... "We're still reaping the fruits of what our forefathers have sewn, but we're slipping away from that, unfortunately" ... "I think we're starting to move in the right direction" ... "I don't think the President cares about anything but golf."
One player stepped up to the plate with this advice, saying this: "Tell O'Reilly to chill a little bit. Chill, O'Reilly!"
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Billy said this: "Being late is a sign of disrespect because you are inconveniencing another person, and if you are habitually late you're a certified pinhead."
Respect, now that's funny, because O'Reilly is disrespectful to every Democrat in America almost every night, including the President.
O'Reilly Defends Linking Gay People To Pedophiles By: Steve - March 15, 2013 - 10:00am
Bill O'Reilly has led a campaign of smear and harassment in recent weeks against Colorado House Speaker Mark Ferrandino (D) because of his belief that Ferrandino is protecting child molesters by opposing Jessica's Law.
Jessica's Laws impose mandatory sentences for child sexual abuse, but Colorado already has tough laws and neither the law enforcement community nor victims advocate groups support the proposed change. After suggesting Ferrandino was protecting somebody because he was gay, O'Reilly then sent his Producer Jesse Watters to harass him on the street while he was walking his dog.
Numerous mainstream outlets, including the Denver Post, have criticized O'Reilly for saying gay with the expectation that his audience understand that to mean pervert-pedophile. On Monday, after once again laughing that Ferrandino looked like a complete fool when he was ambushed on the street, O'Reilly explained that referencing the Speaker's sexual orientation was important context because people don't know who he is:
O'REILLY: We described the speaker as openly gay because Americans don't know who he is and that description is used in almost every article ever written about him. And the reason we brought up civil unions is because Ferrandino objected to that vote being sabotaged by Republicans a few years ago, then he turned around and used the same technique to table Jessica's Law.
It matters that he is openly gay because he did the same thing to Jessica's Law that he objected to on the civil unions situation. You have to basically get behind the motivation of the man, and his motivation is very narrow. He's got only a couple of things he wants to do in there that he feels passionate about, but the kids apparently he doesn't feel passionately about because he sabotaged it.
And that my friends is a total load of BS, because there is no explanation for constantly inferring that Ferrandino's sexual orientation is relevant to his other actions except to reinforce mythical right-wing associations between homosexuality and pedophilia. And this is not a new tactic for O'Reilly, last summer he blatantly defended making such connections in defense of hate groups that do the same thing.
In other words, there is no reason to report that the man is gay, except to imply he is a pedophile. O'Reilly has even said that gay people should not make it public that they are gay, he said they should keep quiet about it, then he reports the man is gay when it had nothing to do with the issue of not passing Jessica's Law.
The comparison between the two bills lacks intellectual merit even without the offensive gay context. Civil unions were widely supported and the bill had already passed through three committees but was killed in a fourth committee only to prevent it from passing a floor vote, which it likely would have.
None of the relevant constituent groups support the proposed Jessica's Law and there was no indication that it had anywhere close to the necessary votes to advance. As the Denver Post noted, the bill is only introduced when Republicans are in the minority and then used in political attack ads against Democrats.
Something O'Reilly failed to report. And nothing about O'Reilly's smear campaign against Ferrandino is justifiable.
O'Reilly Caught Lying About President Obama Again By: Steve - March 15, 2013 - 9:00am
The dishonest Bill O'Reilly once again argued against another accurate statement about President Obama, calling the claim that spending growth has decreased under Obama's administration "crazy."
After screaming "BS" at Alan Colmes for accurately pointing out that President Obama has proposed some spending cuts, O'Reilly again dismissed Colmes when he pointed out that President Obama has slowed the growth of federal spending more than any president since Eisenhower.
O'Reilly called Colmes statement "crazy" and claimed that "President Obama is the biggest spending president ever, and has spent more than all other presidents combined."
Even though Colmes is right -- under Obama's administration, federal spending has grown at the slowest rate since 1956. As Bloomberg pointed out:
Federal outlays over the past three years grew at their slowest pace since 1953-56, when Dwight D. Eisenhower was president. Expenditures as a share of the economy sank last year to 22.8 percent, their lowest level since 2008, according to Congressional Budget Office data.
That's down from 24.1 percent in 2011 and a 64-year high of 25.2 percent in 2009, when Obama pushed through an $831 billion stimulus package.
Spending grew just 0.6 percent from 2009 to 2012, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
O'Reilly's claim about Obama adding more debt than all other presidents combined is also a lie, because that propaganda only works by erasing the majority of the federal debt growth under President George W. Bush.
O'Reilly chose to exclude the majority of Bush's presidency to avoid acknowledging that the national debt nearly doubled during Bush's two terms. According to the Treasury Department's daily debt calculator, when Bush took office on January 20, 2001, total debt stood at $5.728 trillion. The national debt on January 20, 2009, Bush's last day in office, was $10.627 trillion.
O'Reilly claims Obama borrowed more money than every other president combined; if this were true, Obama would have added more than $10.627 trillion to the debt during his tenure.
But as of today, the Treasury Department calculator states the debt is $16.338 trillion -- which means it increased less than six trillion dollars under Obama. Bush increased the debt by almost $5 trillion, so Obama has only increased it by less than $1 trillion more than Bush, and yet O'Reilly claims Obama added $10 trillion.
That's because O'Reilly is a liar who adds $4 trillion of the debt from Bush to Obama, proving once again that O'Reilly is a dishonest right-wing hack.
The Wednesday 3-13-13 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - March 14, 2013 - 11:00am
O'Reilly opened the show with news about the new Pope, 76-year-old Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina is now Pope Francis, head of the Catholic Church. Fox News analyst Father Jonathan Morris, reporting from the Vatican, described the new Pope as an extremely humble man.
Morris said this: "He regularly took the bus when he was in Argentina, and people would swarm him, calling him 'Father Jorge.' He was a man of the people, but at the same time he was very strong in his statements taking on what he believed was corruption in the Argentine government. The cardinals realize that the corruption and dysfunction within the Vatican needs a strong hand, and that's why they looked to Jorge Bergoglio."
O'Reilly said this: "He is a champion of the poor and he is a social conservative who doesn't want gay nuptials or birth control."
The TPM was called: The president and the Democrats weigh in on budget chaos. The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: For the first time in four years the Senate has put forth a budget proposal. President Obama and the Democratic Party claim they are cutting almost $3 trillion out of the federal deficit, but they don't tell you that is over a ten-year period.
In fact, there have been no real cuts and Democrats are just slowing down the rate of spending growth. The Democratic budget calls for $1 trillion in tax increases over the next ten years. How are you going to grow an economy with that, when every American is going to pay some of those taxes?
Are you not already paying taxes through the roof? And the Democrats want to add another $1 trillion in taxes! U.S. corporate taxes are already the highest in the world, but there is no doubt the President wants to raise them even higher.
The President and the Democratic Party have failed to tell the American people exactly what programs they'll cut in the future. This is really irresponsible, is it not?
Then the Republican Carl Cameron was on to discuss the Republican and Democratic budget proposals.
Cameron said this: "For the first time in almost a century. Congress has come up with their spending plans before the President. And the two parties are approaching this from totally different directions. Paul Ryan's Republican budget leans heavily on entitlement reform, which includes Medicare and Medicaid and the repeal of Obamacare. The Democrats call that draconian and say the math is phony. In contrast, Republicans say the Democratic proposal to increase taxes by $975 billion over the next ten years will make an economic recovery much harder."
O'Reilly said this: "You have a Democratic Party that is all in on taking as much money from working Americans as they can get, and on the other side you have a Republican Party living in a fantasy land saying it's going to repeal Obamacare."
Then Bob Beckel was on to talk about a national debt that is approaching $17 trillion, President Obama says there is no immediate fiscal crisis. Beckel, who wholeheartedly endorsed the President's claim said this: "I agree with him completely, and there has been enough fear mongering about this deficit by you and other people. A simple question to the American people: When you woke up this morning, what was it about the federal budget that hurt you in any way?"
O'Reilly said this: "It's kind of like a coming tsunami when people are standing on the beach and wondering why the ocean is going out like that."
Then Curtis Hubbard from the Denver Post was on, he wrote that "O'Reilly's fear-mongering should offend all Coloradans ... (it was) a fact-challenged, bigoted line of attack."
Hubbard said this: "This was my column, so it's my opinion and not the opinion of the editorial board. I didn't call you a 'homophobe,' but I did call into question what Representative Ferrandino's sexuality had to do with his opposition to Jessica's Law. You used his sexuality and his support for gay marriage as rationales for why he would oppose Jessica's Law, you used his sexuality to impugn his character."
O'Reilly said this: "I described Ferrandino to the audience because they doesn't know who the heck he is, and I did it in the context of what his priorities are. His priorities are civil unions and legalizing marijuana, he doesn't want Jessica's Law, but I made no correlation between him being openly gay and Jessica's Law. You are a smear merchant!"
Now that's funny, because O'Reilly is the smear merchant who mentioned the man was gay when it had nothing to do with the issue of Jessica's Law. All Hubbard did was tell the truth about O'Reilly, so he is not the smear merchant, O'Reilly is.
Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on because he is simply on to make jokes about liberals, with no liberal on to make jokes about conservatives for balance.
Then Juliet Huddy was on, she analyzed a new study showing that West Virginia, Mississippi, and Arkansas are, respectively, the fattest states in America.
Huddy said this: "The bottom line, is that if you live in one of the worst states as far as poverty goes then you are most likely to be fat. Low income neighborhoods just don't have as many healthy choices and that's where you see all the fast-food places. Rich people are four times more likely to have supermarkets, and supermarkets are where you get the wide variety of healthy choices."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Lookin' good! Billy said this: "If you guys want to look sharp, which is critical to your success, buy a few jackets in different colors, a few dress shirts, and a couple of nice ties. Getting the good stuff will pay off."
Fox Anchor Screams Out Right-Wing Talking Points By: Steve - March 14, 2013 - 10:00am
And remember this is one of the guys at Fox O'Reilly claims is a straight anchor who has no bias.
Fox News host Bill Hemmer tried to shout down Rep. Chris Van Hollen's (D-MD) criticism of the GOP budget on Tuesday morning by loudly reading from Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) editorial promoting the newly-released Republican plan.
Hemmer dismissed Van Hollen's claims that Ryan's proposal would benefit the richest Americans while severely underfunding programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps as "talking points" and claimed that the plan would make the government healthier. Even though the Ryan budget cuts Medicaid over the next 10 years by 50 percent, at a time when seniors will need it the most to pay for nursing homes etc.
Then, as Van Hollen explained that steep cuts in spending would undermine job growth, Hemmer proceeded to angrily read from Ryan's Wall Street Journal opinion piece.
The Ryan budget is a joke, and the same plan the people voted against when they voted no for him and Mitt Romney. It does balance the budget in 10 years, which is insane, because everyone knows things change in a 10 year period. Not to mention, almost all of the spending cuts are on the poor and middle class, with nothing on the wealthy.
At the end of the right-wing propaganda segment by Hemmer, Van Hollen criticized Hemmer, saying this: "Reading a Wall Street Journal article by Paul Ryan on the air, I mean, I don't see how that is a fair and balanced approach."
It's not, it's just another example of a so-called straight news anchor at Fox promoting and defending a ridiculous Republican party budget plan. It will never happen, mostly because the Democrats have the White House and the Senate, and could even take the House back in a couple years.
O'Reilly Ignores O'Keefe ACORN Settlement Story By: Steve - March 14, 2013 - 9:00am
Conservative media fixture James O'Keefe rose to stardom in 2009 after posting an undercover video supposedly showing employees of the now-defunct Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) agreeing to help him smuggle underage prostitutes into the US.
The video circulated widely in the conservative blogosphere (and on the O'Reilly Factor where Bill O'Reilly called him a hero and a great American) where right-wing activists saw the clip as proof that ACORN was corrupt. An ACORN employee, Juan Carlos Vera, was eventually fired.
Even though later it came to light that Vera called the police to report O'Keefe after he left. Four years after the video went viral, O'Keefe has agreed to pay a $100,000 settlement to Vera.
And the great so-called journalist Bill O'Reilly has ignored the entire story, because it shows the man he praised and called an American hero is a corrupt criminal.
By filming Vera, O'Keefe violated a state law against secret recordings of an individual's voice and image. Though he was granted immunity from criminal prosecution after turning over the raw videos to the California attorney general's office, Vera and other ACORN employees sued O'Keefe privately:
In the settlement, O'Keefe says that before the video was shown on TV or posted on the Web, he was unaware of Vera's claim that he had called the police to report O'Keefe and Giles for proposing an illegal act.
The lawsuit was filed on the assertion that O'Keefe broke a state law prohibiting the surreptitious recording of someone's voice and image.
And btw folks, O'Keefe's other videos have been exposed as either complete lies or deceptively edited. ThinkProgress reported last year that O'Keefe's attempt to expose voter fraud by non-citizens actually featured US citizens.
The conservative activist was also arrested for trying to bug a Senator's phone. In his ACORN pimp sting, O'Keefe deceptively edited in the famous pimp costume later, though he actually wore a regular suit and tie at the ACORN office.
O'Keefe's settlement is the latest blow to the credibility of Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the conservative media. Breitbart.com made a stir by accusing now-confirmed Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel of taking money from a shadowy organization with the outlandish name Friends of Hamas, a group that turned out to be fictional.
Soon after, allegations by the Daily Caller that Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) had hired a prostitute turned out to be entirely fabricated. The fake scandal had also been shopped around to the New York Post and the Star-Ledger Time, but neither could find any evidence to publish the story.
O'Reilly sure reported it though, because it was about a Democratic Senator. And other conservative media outlets like the Drudge Report, enthusiastically amplified these false stories with little or no scrutiny.
And Despite the $100,000 payment, O'Keefe is refusing to back down. In a statement, he absolves himself of any liability, saying, "The settlement admits no liability and there is no benefit from extending this ridiculous lawsuit."
So the dishonest O'Keefe is just like his right-wing hero Bill O'Reilly, get caught in a fraud and refuse to admit it.
The Tuesday 3-12-13 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - March 13, 2013 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Stupid Government Spending. The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama does not want to cut one government program. Right now the federal government is spending close to $10 billion a day; this year's deficit will be $900 billion, which will be added to the nearly $17 trillion debt. The Democratic Party doesn't seem to care and liberal Americans are putting all of us in danger with their inflexibility.
Please consider these facts: The National Institutes of Health recently awarded $1.5 million to study why many lesbians are overweight. Why am I paying for that?
NASA will spend close to $1 million researching recipes for food that could someday be eaten on Mars, and another government agency is spending $27 million to improve Morocco's competitiveness by teaching 'pottery and other skills.' Very little pottery will be designed, the money will likely be stolen.
This is madness and it's why the federal government under President Obama is totally out of control. Yet the President doesn't want to cut any federal programs. Shameful!
And once again Bill O'Reilly is lying to you, because I am a liberal progressive and I am also against stupid Government spending, I don't care why lesbians are overweight, I don't care about recipes for Mars, and I don't care about improving Morocco's competitiveness. I agree that it is wasted money, but when Republicans were in office they never stopped it either. It's called pork, and nobody stops it.
Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to discuss it. Colmes said this: "Federal spending has gone up under every president going back to Eisenhower, and the rate of spending increase is lower under Obama than under every president since Eisenhower. I am for the money being spent on the Mars mission that includes feeding our astronauts because we know that these space missions have created all kinds of jobs."
And O'Reilly denied what Colmes said is true, saying Obama is a big spender, even though Colmes is right.
Crowley said this: "This is precisely why we are coming up against $17 trillion in debt. We're paying for gang tattoo removal in L.A., a musical about 'climate change,' and robotic squirrels. This shows how far away we have gotten from the limited government the founders envisioned."
O'Reilly said this: "I'm worried about Colmes because he sincerely believes, despite the fact that we're heading to bankruptcy, that we need a Mars menu."
Then Kirsten Powers was on. She talked about a town hall meeting, where Democratic Congressman Jim Moran was confronted by a woman demanding to know why he is pro-choice on abortion but not when it comes to women defending themselves by owning firearms.
Powers said this: "I think he should have answered the question, but I'm probably in the same place as the Congressman on gun control. We should ask what is the best thing for society and we have to have laws that restrict guns a little bit. I just don't think you need an assault weapon to protect yourself."
O'Reilly claimed that some women in violent neighborhoods are endangered by gun control laws, saying this: "Women will be put in a deficit in some places like Chicago if there are no handguns."
Then O'Reilly had the totally dishonest right-wing stooge Stuart Varney on to spin out the lie that fast food prices are going up because of Obamacare. But if that is true how come Pizza Hut just started selling large 2 topping pizzas for $7.99 when they used to be $10.00, explain that jerks.
Varney claimed it was true based on some unknown person who owns eight hamburger restaurants, and said he is the latest business owner to say he will raise prices because of added costs associated with Obamacare.
Varney said this: "The consequences of Obamacare are entirely negative for businesses and individuals. A business with more than 50 employees has to cover their workers and that's going to be expensive. This guy decided he will raise prices to pass along the extra cost rather than reducing the hours of his employees. As for individuals, they may be pushed into these subsidized exchanges or they may have to pay a fine if they refuse to get coverage. Everybody loses here."
Which is just laughable, and nothing but right-wing propaganda. O'Reilly even said everyone will now pay more for pizzas, when I just showed you that pizza hut actually lowered their prices.
Then the right-wing fool John Stossel was on to talk about how one day before New York City's ban on large sodas was set to go into effect, a state judge temporarily invalidated the law. And btw, as a liberal I agree with the judge, I think the law is unconstitutional, especially in a so-called free country.
Stossel said this: "How is it a free country, if they can rule on what you can eat? I'm annoyed because Mayor Bloomberg doesn't get the distinction - he says they're not banning anything, they're just giving people more choices. But they are banning something, and when government bans things, that's force! It's the conceit of the self-anointed, and who's to decide what's healthy? Orange juice has more sugar than Coke."
O'Reilly differentiated between children and adults, saying this: "Public schools should have healthy cafeteria food, but you should be able to buy a Big Gulp and 18 Big Macs in the private sector."
Then Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on for is it legal. They talked about some young children who are being suspended from school for "shooting" classmates with imaginary guns.
Wiehl said this: "This makes no sense at all, it's absolutely insane, and the problem with a lot of these cases is that it's on the kid's record, even if it's expulsion for a day or two. There's now a bill in Baltimore to change this, to tell principals they can allow this kind of expression."
And as a liberal I agree it's insane, it was an imaginary gun, not a real one.
Guilfoyle turned to celebrities, among them Michelle Obama and Sarah Palin, being hacked.
Guilfoyle said this: "This appears to be 'doxxing,' which means finding personal information about you and then resetting your password. They get this new password and then they can get onto your accounts and view your contacts and addresses and pictures."
O'Reilly reported that hackers can pay a heavy price when they're caught, saying this: "We got hacked at BillOReilly.com a few years ago and the guy who did it got four or five years in prison."
Then Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about some of the outrageous government spending outlined in the Talking Points Memo.
Krauthammer said this: "When the Senate presents a budget Wednesday, we will see whether there are any real spending cuts. The President says he's put things on the table with the Speaker, but we haven't gotten anywhere on this because the President is not interested in cutting spending, that's not how he sees the mission of his presidency."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Bath, bed and beyond. Billy said this: "If you have a hard time falling asleep, try the Japanese technique of taking a very hot bath just before you hit the sack."
Facts About The Ryan Budget For Bill Hemmer & O'Reilly By: Steve - March 13, 2013 - 10:00am
Here are some facts about the Ryan budget plan that neither Bill Hemmer or Bill O'Reilly will tell you about.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) released the third version of his budget on Tuesday morning. The document achieves balance in 10 years by maintaining the high revenue levels and health care savings that Republicans have opposed and slashing the health and safety net programs that middle and lower income Americans need to live on.
Top-income earners and corporations, would benefit from huge tax breaks. Here are some details:
-- The Ryan budget gives massive tax breaks to the wealthy and the corporations.
Ryan's plan would reduce both top income and corporate tax rates to 25 percent, resulting in trillions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. The government would lose roughly $7 trillion in revenues compared to Ryan's projections, and raising enough revenue from the elimination of tax expenditures would prove politically difficult, if not impossible.
In other words, the plan will never do what he says it will do. Ryan would also convert the corporate tax code to an international plan, resulting in an even bigger giveaway to American companies that are already paying historically low tax rates.
-- The Ryan budget forces seniors to pay more for health care.
Beginning in 2024, the guaranteed Medicare benefit would be transformed into a government-financed premium support system. Seniors currently under the age of 55 could use their government contribution to purchase insurance from an exchange of private plans or traditional fee-for-service Medicare.
But the budget does not take sufficient precautions to prevent insurers from cherry-picking the the healthiest beneficiaries from traditional Medicare and leaving sicker applicants to the government. As a result, traditional Medicare costs would skyrocket, forcing even more seniors out of the government program.
-- The Ryan budget would destroy Medicaid.
The budget would eliminate the exiting matching-grant financing structure of Medicaid and would instead give each state a pre-determined block grant that does not keep up with actual health care spending.
This would shift some of the burden of Medicaid's growing costs to the states, forcing them to (in the words of the CBO) make cutbacks that involve reduced eligibility for Medicaid and CHIP, coverage of fewer services, lower payments to providers, or increased cost sharing by beneficiaries—all of which would reduce access to care.
-- The Ryan budget would actually take health care coverage away from 30 million people who have it now.
The budget repeals the Affordable Care Act's requirement to purchase health insurance coverage, the establishment of health insurance exchanges, the provision of subsidies for lower-income Americans, the expansion of the Medicaid program, and tax credits for small businesses that provide insurance coverage.
As a result, more than 30 million Americans would lose coverage and the budget would eliminate the new law's consumer protections, which have already benefited tens of millions of Americans. States across the country are already implementing the law and a growing number of Republican governors have finally agreed to expand their Medicaid programs.
-- The Ryan budget would cut money for food stamps.
The budget seeks to turn most social safety net programs into block grants to the states that are modeled after the 1996 welfare reform law. That would result in devastating cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps), women, infant, and children programs, and other parts of the social safety net that keep millions of people out of poverty each year.
Since welfare reform occurred 16 years ago, it has failed to reach many families with children in poverty, particularly during the latest economic recession. Ryan's budget would make most safety programs equally as impotent.
So not only did Bill Hemmer deny all that, he promoted and defended it, while he claims to be an impartial and non-partisan news anchor. And O'Reilly said nothing, because he has also ignored it. Not to mention, O'Reilly does a weekly media bias segment with Bernie Goldberg where they complain any time a so-called liberal news anchor shows some bias, yet when Hemmer does it they are silent.
Kurtz: Someone Decided To "Use The Media" To Smear Menendez By: Steve - March 13, 2013 - 9:00am
On the Sunday Reliable Sources show on CNN Howard Kurtz said it's clear that someone decided to use the media to smear Senator Menendez.
Notice that O'Reilly is not investigating this story himself, as he does when Republicans are accused of stuff like this. He has pretty much ignored it this part of the story, except for letting that dishonest right-wing fool Tucker Carlson go on his show to spin his story and defend himself.
And that's because O'Reilly does not want the truth, so he is not touching the story now. But when it was first reported, O'Reilly was all over it, hosting numerous right-wing guests to discuss the rumors. Even though most of the real journalists decided not to report it due to a lack of valid evidence.
But not O'Reilly, he loved it because it involved a Democrat, and then after it was reported something was fishy instead of investigating it and doing some real journalism to get to the truth, what does O'Reilly do, he puts the biased hack Tucker Carlson on and let's him spin and lie about his reporting.
That's not journalism, it's being a partisan hack by letting the liar who reported the rumors go on your #1 cable news show to defend the lies and spin the story even more. Which proves once again that O'Reilly is a right-wing hack, because a real journalist would have done what Howard Kurtz did, expose Carlson as a fraud and report the story is bogus. Which O'Reilly did not do, and never will.
The Monday 3-11-13 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - March 12, 2013 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Righteous Anger. The biased and crazy Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There are some things you can not change without over-the-top action and that's where the concept of 'righteous anger' comes in. It's interesting watching the anti-Fox media try to exploit the shootout I had with Alan Colmes last week; these hacks flailed around trying to diminish me and this network.
The reason I got angry with Colmes is that he refused to acknowledge President Obama's refusal to cut federal programs. As Alan well knows, the U.S. debt is heading towards $20 trillion, which could very well lead to a depression. So in order to get everybody's attention, I got angry with Colmes, and I believe my anger was absolutely justified.
A couple of other examples: Congressman Barney Frank denied screwing up the federal mortgage agencies Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, so I let him have it, and Geraldo and I got into it over the subject of criminal illegal aliens. All Factor viewers should know one thing about me - I'm not in business to make money or to accumulate fame, I'm here to look out for you.
Right now the President is not solving the budget chaos because he does not want to cut federal spending, that's the truth. The spinners are lying to you and that makes me angry, so you saw that and you will most likely see it again in the future.
And that my friends is total nonsense, O'Reilly said this: "All Factor viewers should know one thing about me - I'm not in business to make money or to accumulate fame, I'm here to look out for you."
Now that is the funniest thing O'Reilly has ever said, because that is exactly what he is in business to do, get famous, spin out right-wing talking points, make money, and get ratings. He does not look out for you, he looks out for the Republican party, his money, his fame, his ratings, and the other wealthy people, not you.
In fact, name one issue O'Reilly has looked out for the little guy, just one, you can't. And O'Reilly should know about hacks because he is one.
Then Juan Williams and Mary K. Ham were on to talk about the O'Reilly anger spin. Williams said this: "I don't think it helps you when you yell, 'Liar,' or when you call people B.S. agents. That diminishes attention from the substance."
And of course the O'Reilly butt kisser Ham agreed that outbursts of anger have a legitimate role in political discourse, saying this: "I think it's healthy now and then and it's hilariously hypocritical for those on the left to get all up in arms about righteous indignation. That is their stock in trade for every issue, it's used as a tool to bully people into ignoring the facts."
Now that's funny, a Republican talking about ignoring the facts, when that is all they do. Ham is just a fool, and if O'Reilly did not use her as an analyst she would not even be on tv because nobody else would hire her. She is just a yes girl who is on to agree with O'Reilly.
Then the biased hack Karl Rove (who was wrong about everything in the election) was on to talk about former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has claimed that President Obama has always been "very respectful" of the opposition, a notion that Fox News analyst Karl Rove eagerly slapped down.
Rove said this: "She's living in an alternative universe. The President came into office and in one of the first meetings he had with House Republicans, he cut off Eric Cantor by saying, 'I won.' The following month he told Republicans he wanted to work with them on health care reform; his next meeting with them was 51 weeks later when he tried to bludgeon them into supporting a bill they had no input on. He attributes ill motives to his opponents, saying they either want to protect tax breaks for gazillionaires or ruin the economy."
Obama has been respectful to them you jerk, he tried to work with them and they told him to jump off a bridge. All the Republicans care about is political games to make Obama look bad. They do not want to fix the country, they just want to hurt Obama and the Democratic party so they can win some elections.
Then Brit Hume was on to slam the newly-confirmed Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's visit to Afghanistan, that was marred by bombings and anti-American remarks by Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
Hume said this: "The worry that a lot of people have about this, is that this behavior by Karzai will only hasten President Obama's rush for the exits. Karzai's comments infuriate Americans and make it easier for the President to abandon the effort."
And none of it had anything to do with President Obama or Chuck Hagel, you right-wing stooge.
O'Reilly worried that Afghanistan could wind up being another Vietnam, saying this: "About 2,200 U.S. troops have died in Afghanistan and we've spent a half-trillion dollars. We're trying to do two things - deny the Taliban sanctuary and bring a semblance of civility and democracy to this backward nation. I think we're going to fail on both of those."
What a joke, O'Reilly supported all these wars and even defended Bush getting us into them. Now he is saying we should get out because of the cost, the lives lost and because it's a failure, talk about hypocrite, O'Reilly is the king of hypocrites.
Then Lanny Davis was on to talk about how the church can recover from the child abuse scandals.
Davis said this: "People want more openness and more facts about what happened, and I have a feeling that the conclave is addressing that very issue as they select a new Pope."
O'Reilly lamented that fewer Americans identify themselves as religious, saying this: "Secular progressives are overjoyed because once you have a declining church attendance you have a more secular nation."
Which is just ridiculous, I am a secular progressive and I could care less if there is a declining church attendance, it does not matter one bit to me. If people want to be religious and go to church I am fine with it. I just do not want that religion pushed on me or schools, etc. So once again O'Reilly is caught lying, because most progressives could care less if less people are going to church.
Then O'Reilly had Bernie Goldberg on to cry about the Denver Post slamming O'Reilly for his biased and dishonest comments on the Jessica's Law story in Colorado.
The Denver Post slammed O'Reilly for describing Ferrandino as "openly gay." And they should have, because O'Reilly brought up the fact that he is gay, when it has nothing to do with the issue, which was why Colorado did not pass Jessica's Law.
Goldberg said this: "You were not attacking Mark Ferrandino's sexuality, you were saying that this powerful politician supports civil unions and marijuana legalization, but he's against Jessica's Law! But here's where I think you were wrong - I don't think you should have mentioned that he's openly gay. What does his sexuality have to do with it?"
Bingo, for once Goldberg actually stood up to O'Reilly and told the truth, which is shocking.
O'Reilly answered Goldberg's question by pointing out that Ferrandino has been passionately promoting pro-gay legislation while blocking Jessica's Law, saying this: "You have to get behind the motivation of the man, and his motivation is very narrow. There are only a couple of things he feels passionate about, but he apparently doesn't feel passionate about the kids."
Which is also ridiculous, so what if he is promoting pro-gay legislation, what does that have to do with Jessica's Law, you biased hack of a jerk. Goldberg was right, you should have never mentioned he is gay, because it has nothing to do with anything, and it proves you are an anti-gay bigot.
Then for some strange reason O'Reilly had the insane right-wing fool Glenn Beck on to critique the shootout with Alan Colmes over the budget deficit. Why? Nobody cares what Beck has to say about anything, he was so bad and so insane that he got kicked off Fox News, which is bad beyond bad.
Beck said this: "I was shocked, and I thought this is a broadcaster who is not in control of his feelings, I was a little disappointed in you. Some might say I was in the other room cheering, but nobody you can trust. I like Alan, but he's wrong on this. Everybody is in such denial, we have this overwhelming debt and we are printing money."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Claiming what's yours. Billy said this: "The Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, a federal agency, is sitting on more than $200 million in unclaimed benefits. Check in at PBGC.GOV to see if you have some dough you don't know about."
Denver Post Slams O'Reilly Over Jessica's Law Reporting By: Steve - March 12, 2013 - 10:00am
Here are some quotes from two articles in the Denver Post that slams O'Reilly for his biased and fact-free reporting on Jessica's law in Colorado.
Smear and loathing on Fox News
by Curtis Hubbard:
It was a bill proposing mandatory 25-year minimum sentences for sex offenders whose victims are children that drew the sexual orientation of House Speaker Mark Ferrandino - who is gay - into the debate for the first time.
It may not surprise you to learn that a fact-challenged, bigoted line of attack came courtesy of a Fox News Channel talking head - specifically Bill O'Reilly.
O'Reilly wants to see a version of "Jessica's Law" passed in every state. As The Denver Post's Lynn Bartels reported last week, the law is named after Jessica Lunsford, a 9-year-old from Florida who was sexually assaulted and buried alive by a convicted sex offender who had served his sentence.
O'Reilly explored the issue in a Feb. 22 interview with Colo. Rep. Libby Szabo, R-Arvada, who sponsored the legislation in Colorado this year.
The measure was defeated on a party-line vote of the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee - where unpopular bills often go to die - on Feb. 13.
Its death at the hands of the majority party was not surprising given the bill was not supported by police, prosecutors or defense attorneys. Add in the fact that previous votes on the issue have been used in political attack ads against Democrats and that the measure has only been introduced in the state when Republicans are in the minority, and you get a sense of the politics.
But O'Reilly was miffed and decided to make Ferrandino - who sent the bill to the so-called "kill committee" - his villain.
In the interview with Szabo, O'Reilly pondered the reasoning behind the bill's demise. His only hypothesis was an error-filled declaration that showed all that is wrong with cable punditry.
"Now this Ferrandino" (he pronounced it Fair-nan-dino), "I understand he is the, what, the first openly gay House speaker in Colorado? He was a fervent gay-marriage person. He objected when gay marriage was first tabled because they sent it into the same committee to kill it that he sent Jessica's law in. All of that true so far of this guy?"
"So far you're correct," Szabo responded.
Is there a rule somewhere that says Republicans who appear on Fox have to agree with every softball thrown their way by the talent? You'd think so, given that, in fact, O'Reilly was confusing gay marriage with civil unions. But when the pitchforks are out and the camera is rolling, why bother with the facts?
O'Reilly's fear-mongering should offend all Coloradans. He was saying "gay," but what he wanted his listeners to hear was "pervert-pedophile."
Disagree? Then you try explaining what Ferrandino's sexual orientation and stance on civil unions has to do with Jessica's Law.
What's not fair - and, in fact, is deplorable - is dragging sexual orientation into the debate.
Lynn Bartels from the same Denver Post wrote this:
The death of a bill dealing with sexual predators who target kids has become a rallying cry for Republicans, who say their legislation would do more to make Colorado safe than gun bills passed by the Democrat-controlled legislature.
But the Colorado District Attorneys Council, the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault and the Colorado Office of the Public Defender all agree Jessica's Law isn't necessary.
So Republicans have turned to social media and conservative talk shows to lament its assignment to the House's so-called "kill committee."
"You're not crazy there. Why aren't folks getting more upset about this?" Fox News' Bill O'Reilly asked the bill sponsor, Rep. Libby Szabo, R-Arvada, during his show Friday.
House Speaker Mark Ferrandino - described by O'Reilly as a "villain" - said not a single Coloradan testified in favor of Jessica's Law.
"What shocks me is for the two years Republicans had the majority, they didn't introduce this bill," said Ferrandino, a Denver Democrat who took over the speaker's post after Republicans lost the majority in the 2012 election. "This is all about politics and not good policy."
Ferrandino added that after the O'Reilly show aired, he received nasty e-mails, including one that he said was from a viewer telling him he hoped Ferrandino's 14-month-old foster daughter gets raped.
House Bill 1149 would have imposed a mandatory sentence of at least 25 years before parole on an offender who commits a sexual assault against a child. But Laurie Rose Kepros, the director of Sexual Offense Defense for the public defenders office, said Colorado's complicated and nuanced sentencing laws "already go beyond what Jessica's Law mandates."
"Jessica's Law is a 25-year sentence, and we have life sentences for all of the crimes covered under the bill," she said.
Carlson Once Thought Senator Soliciting Prostitutes None Of Our Business By: Steve - March 11, 2013 - 11:00am
When a Republican Senator was accused of soliciting a prostitute Tucker Carlson defended him and said it was none of our Business. In fact, he even said this at the time: "I wish David Vitter were a Democrat...because then I would defend him every bit as zealously."
And then he got the chance to report on a Democratic Senator who was accused of using prostitutes, and oh what a difference a day makes. Because not only did Carlson not defend him, he also did not say it was none of our business. He even reported the bogus story and helped to smear the Senator.
Tucker Carlson has defended The Daily Caller's reporting on Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) patronizing prostitutes in the Dominican Republic as "traditional, straightforward journalism" as that story has come under fire.
But when Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) was accused of patronizing prostitutes in 2007, Carlson defended Vitter and slammed the media for digging into what he described as private matters that were no business of theirs.
In their initial much-hyped pre-election bombshell, the Caller reported on allegations from two Dominican prostitutes that Menendez had paid them for sex. Menendez has repeatedly denied the allegations, and the FBI has found no evidence of their veracity.
Last week the story unraveled after the Washington Post and ABC News reported that one of the prostitutes who alleged that she had sex with Menendez has recanted her story in an affidavit and claimed that she was paid to lie about the senator. ABC news reported that they also looked into the story last year but decided not to run it because they doubted the women that they and the Caller had spoken to were telling the truth.
As Carlson comes forward to defend the journalistic value of his publication's deteriorating story, it must be pointed out that after Vitter was linked to prostitution and admitted to a "very serious sin", he had no more strident defender in the media than Tucker Carlson, who dismissed Vitter's personal life as immaterial to his performance as a senator and attacked the media for invading Vitter's private affairs and "destroying his life."
On the July 11, 2007, edition of his now canceled MSNBC program Tucker, Carlson attacked Michael Rectenwald of Citizens for Legitimate Government, the group that first published the phone records linking Vitter to Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the so-called "DC Madam," demanding of Rectenwald: "How could you justify doing something like this? Why is it your business?"
Carlson said Rectenwald was taking a "sleazy shortcut" and insisted that if it were then-Senator Russ Feingold in Vitter's place, he would be "making the same argument that Russ Feingold`s personal life ought to be off limits from creeps and scandal mongers like you who profit from digging into other people's sex lives. You ought to be ashamed of yourself."
And now Tucker is doing the very same thing himself, proving what a right-wing hack he is, and what a dishonest so-called journalist he is.
Now get this, he not only defended Vitter once, he did it twice. Two days later, on the July 13, 2007, edition of Tucker, Carlson again insisted he'd defend a Democratic senator in the same position as Vitter, saying this: "I wish David Vitter were a Democrat, because then I would defend him every bit as zealously as I am defending not what David Vitter did, but his right to be unbothered by the rest of us for something that's none of our business."
Carlson also specifically targeted the media for hyping the Vitter story:
CARLSON: It's not really the Democrats who are doing it; it's the press. It's us. It's the media. After humiliating David Vitter, putting his wife's picture on television, as many of us have, which is almost indefensible in my opinion, because she did not do anything -- the guy has four kids. We have helped destroy his life. We publicized this thing he did.
As for the criminal aspect of what Vitter is alleged to have done, Carlson dismissed it as not that significant: "It's against the law in the sense that double-parking is against the law. Let's be real here."
That's Tucker Carlson folks, a dishonest and biased right-wing hypocrite with double standards, depending if it's a Democrat or a Republican. And O'Reilly is just as bad for giving him air time to spin out more lies. While not saying a word about any of what I just reported Tucker said in 2007 about Senator Vitter.
More Proof O'Reilly Was Wrong & Alan Colmes Was Right By: Steve - March 11, 2013 - 10:00am
As I previously reported many times in this blog, Bill O'Reilly argued that the President has not made any specific proposals about spending cuts. When Alan Colmes countered saying that the President wanted to make cuts to entitlement programs and Medicare, O'Reilly accused him of lying.
O'Reilly apologized to Colmes for calling him a liar and admitted he should not have done that, but he still insists that he is right, and that President Obama does not have an alternative plan for sequester spending cuts:
O'REILLY: Lots of folks talking about my shootout with Alan Colmes where I asked him what specific budget cuts President Obama has proposed. Colmes hemmed and hawed saying the President is promising to cut Medicare or something. But the truth is Mr. Obama has not put forth any specific federal spending cuts. It's all a bunch of general nonsense and so Colmes and I got into it.
O'Reilly is lying that President Obama does not have plan at all. You can find the Obama plan yourself on the White House home page by clicking the prominent button that says "SEE THE PLAN."
It leads to a page titled "A Balanced Plan to Avert the Sequester and Reduce the Deficit."
The Obama alternative plan to the sequester consider entitlement programs and Medicare, which would save $400 billion. Another $400 billion would come from eliminating some agriculture subsidies and reforming the postal service, among other proposals. On the revenue side, the plan calls for closing tax loopholes and limiting deductions to 28 percent for the wealthiest Americans.
The Obama plan is comprised of both tax increases and spending cuts, with the new deficit reductions totaling $1.3 trillion over 10 years on top of what's already been enacted. The House Republican plan, which was shot down by the Democrat controlled Senate, was comprised entirely of $1.4 trillion in spending cuts. And some parts of the Obama plan even include ideas agreed on with Republicans.
The $680 billion in tax increases are very specific and targeted to the wealthy. $100 billion in spending cuts would come from non-defense discretionary spending, but it does not specify exactly where those cuts would take place. The other $100 billion would be specific to defense spending and the Pentagon would be given control on how it's proportioned.
The health savings part calls for $170 billion in savings from paying less for drugs and hospital payments. The remaining $230 billion in savings come from encouraging efficient care, asking rich people to pay more, program integrity, and other health savings.
The Non-Health Mandatory Savings section also includes reform and further program integrity. So Bill O'Reilly is wrong about President Obama's alternative plan to sequester spending cuts. Because there are specific cuts, O'Reilly just will not admit it because he is a dishonest Republican hack.
And btw folks, only Republicans are making those claims about the Obama plan, and O'Reilly is at the head of the list, even though he claims he is not a partisan Republican. As he makes the dishonest partisan claims that Obama has not proposed any spending cuts.
Bill Maher Slams Conservatives For Hating Michelle Obama By: Steve - March 10, 2013 - 11:00am
Bill Maher Asks Why Everything Has To Be Political.
Bill Maher closed Friday's episode of "Real Time" with a fundamental question: "Since when does everything in America have to be political?"
He broached the topic by first addressing the outrage many conservatives (including O'Reilly) seem to feel every time Michelle Obama appears on television: "If seeing this nice lady on TV saying she likes the movies or nutrition or exercise fills you with rage, get help."
But Maher made it clear he wasn't making a point about just the first lady, but about the increasing need Americans feel to draw a line in the sand... any sand, any time.
"Eating a corn dog used to be just a guilty pleasure, now it's a blow for freedom against the radical Obama nutrition agenda," Maher explained. He went on to cite numerous examples of over-politicizing, finally landing on the media: "There's Fox for conservatives, MSNBC for liberals and CNN for airports."
And btw folks, Bill O'Reilly was on the list of people who hated it when Michelle Obama was on tv at the Oscars. I saw the clip of Obama at the Oscars on a news show and I did not think it was political at all, I also did not think anyone would have a problem with what she did, it never even entered my mind.
But O'Reilly and a bunch of idiots on the right hated it, O'Reilly even called it left-wing propaganda, when there was no propaganda involved at all. It shows who the conservatives are, because nobody else had a problem with it.
O'Reilly flat out denies being a conservative, then he agrees with everything they say, he does a conservative TPM every night, he puts out conservative talking points as his opinion, his fill-in host is a conservative, and he has 95% conservative guests on his show. So the old saying applies here, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a fricking duck, and O'Reilly is a duck a conservative duck.
The fact that he denies it is laughable, and it shows he is either in denial or nuts, or maybe both. Because if you just watch the Factor for 30 minutes you can see that O'Reilly is a conservative, and a spin doctor. His show is 95% right-wing spin, even though it's called a no spin zone. And 95% of what O'Reilly says is the same thing the Republican party spin machine puts out.
And yet, he has the nerve to say he is not a Republican, which is ridiculous, because he is as Republican as Hannity, Limbaugh, Gingrich, Ingraham, or any other conservative in America. To deny it is dishonest, and a lie, which means O'Reilly can not be trusted, because if he will lie about that (when everyone knows he is a conservative) he will lie about anything.
More Information That Shows Tucker Carlson Is A Fraud By: Steve - March 10, 2013 - 10:00am
More questions about the Daily Caller's role in publicizing prostitution allegations against Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) have arisen after it was revealed that two newspapers declined to report the story after expressing concerns about the accusers credibility.
On March 4th, the Washington Post reported that one of the prostitutes who alleged that she had sex with Menendez had recanted her story and claimed in an affidavit that she was paid to lie about the senator.
According to Michael Calderone, reporters from the Star Ledger (Newark, New Jersey) and The New York Post "were approached by operatives with prostitution allegations against" Menendez, but declined to write about them.
Calderone wrote that both reporters (who have previous experience writing about political corruption in New Jersey) failed to find "enough credible evidence to publish a story based on the claims."
In an editorial, the Star Ledger said the claims "failed the smell test" and that the evidence that had been presented to them "was way too flimsy."
But not for Tucker, he jumped all over it because it was about a Democratic Senator, even though a year ago when a Republican Senator had rumors come out he was cheating on his wife, Tucker refused to report that story and said it was a personal matter that was not news.
ABC News also investigated the allegations and "did not broadcast or initially report on the claims because of doubts about the women's veracity and identity."
Daily Caller editor-in-chief Tucker Carlson has defended publishing the story, despite reports that the women his publication interviewed were paid by a third party to smear Menendez, who has stridently denied the allegations. And btw, the FBI has also found no evidence to corroborate the prostitution allegations.
When pressed by Bill O'Reilly, Carlson would only say that the source who brought the story to the Daily Caller "received no money from anyone."
As more holes continue to be poked in the initial story, neither Carlson nor the Daily Caller have revealed who brought it to them, or what role members of the conservative movement played in creating the story.
O'Reilly Let Ingraham Host Hate-Group Spokesman By: Steve - March 10, 2013 - 9:00am
Ingraham even called them a Patriot group, and said the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) finds hate groups under every rock. Implying that they are great Americans and that the SPLC is not an honest hate-group monitor. Even though they are non-partisan, and they also list left-wing hate groups on their website and in their reports.
The fact is that most of the hate groups in America are on the right, so Ingraham thinks that means they are biased to the left. When all it does is show they simply tell the truth by documenting who and how many hate groups there are in the country. It's not bias to list more right-wing hate groups than left-wing hate groups, when there are more hate groups on the right.
Bob Dane, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), was on the Factor to attack the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and rebut SPLC's identification of FAIR as a "hate group."
Ingraham and her guests ignored the fact that the SPLC is a non-profit/non-partisan organization that monitors hate groups, attached the label to FAIR in part as a result of the group's anti-immigrant advocacy, ties to white supremacists and the racist rhetoric of the group's founder John Tanton.
Dane attempted to discredit the SPLC as a "far-left political attack machine" and compared the SPLC's activism to McCarthyism. Before the segment was over, Dane denied the very existence of hate groups, claiming that while hate crimes are real, "a hate group is a concoction, an invention of the politically-left Southern Poverty Law Center."
And now some facts about FAIR that Ingraham and Dane failed to report. FAIR has a history of holding rallies where immigrants are smeared as "disease-ridden" criminals. One FAIR event featured a guest who had threatened illegals, "We should hang you and send your body back to where you came from."
FAIR also has close ties to the White Nationalist Council of Conservative Citizens, and has received over $1 million in funding from a white supremacist group. FAIR is also "the most important organization" in a network of 13 hate groups founded by John Tanton, who once warned of a coming "Latin onslaught."
In 2011 FAIR had a speaker at a rally they held, his name is Jeff Katz. This is a man who was fired from a radio station after he made a "joke" suggesting that drivers who run down illegal immigrants at the border should win food from Taco Bell. Katz was also fired from a separate radio station after The Islamic Center of Charlotte called for a boycott of advertisers.
Katz also Claimed That Police Officers "Would Have Been Justified In Shooting" Rodney King.
Another speaker at a FAIR event was Phil Valentine. He held a "Demagnetize America Illegal Immigration Town Hall Meeting" in Franklin, Tennessee. More than 1,000 people attended.
Sharing the stage with Valentine were TN State Senator Bill Ketron (R-13), State Representative Tom DuBois (R-64), and State Representative Glen Casada (R-63). During the town hall meeting, Valentine conducted a question-and-answer session with Susan Tully, the National Field Director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
At one point, Tully described how Border Patrol agents repeatedly would apprehend certain Latino immigrants, returning them to Mexico each time only to later detain them again. Tully claimed that a Border Patrol agent in Laredo, Texas, told her that they would sometimes apprehend the same individual as many as seven times.
Tully then said she asked the agent, 'What do you do on the eighth time?" Valentine screamed out, "Shoot him!"
In 2012 FAIR Had A Hold Their Feet To The Fire Event. One speaker was Joyce Kaufman who said "If Ballots Don't Work, Bullets Will."
KAUFMAN: I don't care how this gets painted by the mainstream media, I don't care if this shows up on YouTube, because I am convinced that the most important thing the founding fathers did to ensure me my First Amendment rights, was they gave me a Second Amendment. And if ballots don't work, bullets will.
And that's not all, the Miami New Times reported that Kaufman said this about illegals on her radio show in 2007: "If you commit a crime while you're here, we should hang you and send your body back to where you came from, and your family should pay for it."
I could go on and on and on and on with examples of hate at FAIR rallies and events, but Ingraham would just ignore it anyway. FAIR is a hate group, and that is a fact. Just do a google search on them and you can see it for yourself. Then you will see the truth, and you will also see how dishonest Laura Ingraham is, and how biased O'Reilly is for letting her do it in his name on his show.
The Friday 3-8-13 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review By: Steve - March 9, 2013 - 11:00am
The biased right-wing stooge Laura Ingraham filled in for O'Reilly, and her TPM was called: Filibuster envy. Crazy Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: It's been fascinating to see the reaction to Senator Rand Paul's filibuster of the John Brennan nomination. With a principled and persuasive argument against the use of drones on American soil, he drew support from people across the political spectrum. But of course not everybody was happy; the usual snarksters on MSNBC bared their fangs, calling Paul's stance weird and crazy.
But what's surprising is that two GOP senators - John McCain and Lindsey Graham - launched their own drone strikes against Rand Paul. They have the right to disagree, but why didn't either of them have the moxie to debate their colleague face-to-face on the Senate floor?
Were they jealous that a junior Senator dominated the headlines and managed to galvanize left and right? Are they worried that they are becoming increasingly irrelevant? Or do they really favor giving unlimited power to the President to order targeted killings?
If anyone is on the fringe here, it's McCain and Graham. Both men made a big mistake with their drive-by hits on Rand Paul.
Earth to Laura Ingraham, what Rand Paul did was ok and not ok, to do a filibuster is ok under Senate rules, and almost nobody had a problem with that. The problem is that he started saying crazy things, like implying Obama was going to drop a drone hellfire missile on Jane Fonda, which was ridiculous and even the Republican John McCain said so when he was on the floor.
A lot of people also think it was a publicity stunt to delay the vote on John Brennan's nomination as CIA director, which is a waste of taxpayer money, because when the filibuster was over he was voted in at the CIA. Not to mention the hypocrisy, because when Bush was in office Republicans cried that every persons nomination should get an up or down vote, they even started a website called upordownvote.com.
Then Mark Hannah, former campaign advisor to Secretary of State John Kerry was on to talk about the State Department's aborted plan to honor an Egyptian activist named Samira Ibrahim.
Hannah said this: "There's no doubt that Ms. Ibrahim is an effective activist and a pro-democracy proponent in Egypt, but in that part of the world you can be pro-democracy and still hold very reprehensible views. Once this evidence came to light, the State Department did the right thing."
But Ingraham accused government officials of negligence and incomptence, saying this: "The State Department just finished with Benghazi, which was not handled right. And this is a smaller issue, but at least do a Google search!"
Then Ingraham had Bob Hamer and Bob Dane, whose organization opposes illegal immigration, and is on the SPLC hate group list was on to discuss their recent report on hate groups. Now that is some fair and balanced journalism, not. Have someone from the hate group on, but nobody from the SPLC to debate him. Ingraham even called them a patriot group, which is just laughable.
Dane said this: "The Southern Poverty Law Center, masquerades as a civil rights group but is really a far-left political attack machine. They would label a ham and cheese sandwich as an extremist threat if it helped their fund-raising. This is a well-funded operation that acts as judge and jury and bars anyone who disagrees with them politically from the public process."
Former FBI agent Bob Hamer agreed that the SPLC unfairly smears legitimate organizations, saying this: "I've seen real hatred in my 26 years as an FBI agent, I've seen NAMBLA and the Aryan Brotherhood. Some of the groups mentioned by the SPLC are not 'hate groups,' they are just passionate about defending their positions, which are legal."
Then Ingraham had the biased right-wing stooge Lou Dobbs on to talk about the jobs report, the stock market, and unemployment, that was all good news. With markets at an all-time high and unemployment down to 7.7%, Ingraham asked Dobbs for his analysis.
Dobbs said this: "The labor participation rate is at an all time low, and we saw 300,000 more people leave the labor force. But there has been some real job creation in construction and services and that looks like confirmation of a real recovery that we ought to hail. It's a time to be in the stock market - earnings continue to grow and corporate America is in pretty good shape, so finding good companies doing good business is a way to make money."
But Ingraham was not buying it, saying Friday's dip in unemployment is masking some serious problems: "There is still stagnating income, people don't feel like they have the purchasing power they had five years ago, and they have enormous anxiety about the future."
Then Ingraham had Alexandra Brodsky and Gloria Malone on to talk about the New York City ad campaign designed to discourage single parenthood, especially among teens.
Malone said this: "I had my daughter at 15, and these ads make me feel stigmatized and ashamed. I've had other teen mothers contact me and say these ads make them feel like they should just give up, New York City is telling them that their child isn't going to graduate from high school."
Brodsky denounced the campaign as insulting and counterproductive, saying this: "These ads are condescending, they treat young mothers as if they can't tell the difference between a doll and a baby. It's also really bad policy because it's discouraging teen moms from getting the services they need. Whether we like it or not, teens are having sex."
And of course Ingraham disagreed suggesting that discouraging teen pregnancy is a valuable message, saying this: "We have all kinds of public service announcements about drinking and smoking and texting while driving because they're bad for society. But you're saying we can't talk to people frankly about the effects of promiscuity on young women."
Wrong again Ingraham you jerk, what they are saying is do it in a different way, fool.
Then Republican strategist Chip Saltsman and Democratic strategist Tara Dowdell were on to talk about Al Qadea spokesman Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, who married one of Osama bin Laden's daughters, and has been charged with conspiracy to kill Americans. Ingraham did not like that they are trying him in a U.S. court.
Dowdell said this: "We should be celebrating the fact that this guy was captured by our government. And we've been trying terrorists in civilian courts for three decades, so I find it fascinating that everyone is acting like this is the first time this has ever happened."
But Saltsman claimed that terrorists like Ghaith do not deserve a criminal trial, saying this: "This is a very bad person who plotted to kill Americans and he's very close to Osama bin Laden. When you catch these very bad guys they should go directly to Gitmo. If they want to give him a blindfold and a cigarette when he gets there, I'm fine with that, as are a lot of Americans."
Then Ingraham talked about the former FBI agent Bob Levinson who vanished six years ago when he went to the Iranian island of Kish. Ingraham spoke with Levinson's daughter, Sarah Moriarty, who believes her father is being held by Iran's government.
Moriarty said this: "He is an American hostage, and it will never be enough until he's home. He had been retired from the FBI for ten years and he was investigating cigarette smuggling for his own firm. The last time he was seen was March 9th, 2007 when he signed into the hotel, and the Iranian government won't even publicly admit that he was ever in Iran. We just want him home."
Ingraham said this: "I'm sure there is not a day that goes by that your heart doesn't ache for him, yet very few people know about this case."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Weekend reading. Ingraham said this: "Take a look at the Wall Street Journal editorial "Obama's Not-So-Grand Offer," which buttresses Bill's contention that President Obama has offered little in the way of specific budget cuts."
Which is a smokescreen, because that is not what O'Reilly said, he said Obama has not proposed ANY spending cuts at all, none, then he changed it to SPECIFIC cuts, not that he has offered little in the way of budget cuts, O'Reilly said none. And we all know that is a lie, because Obama has proposed spending cuts, to go along with tax increases on the wealthy. Ingraham and the wall street journal are just covering for O'Reilly.
O'Reilly Ignores February Jobs Report & Unemployment Drop By: Steve - March 9, 2013 - 10:00am
Despite constant budget fights in Washington, the U.S. economy managed one of the best months for job gains in the past year in February, driving the unemployment rate to its lowest level in more than four years.
But the job market would be even better, and the unemployment rate even lower, had the government not spent most of the recovery cutting spending and jobs.
U.S. employers added 236,000 jobs to non-farm payrolls in February, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Friday, up from 119,000 in January. That was the best payroll growth since 247,000 jobs last November and the second-best month for job growth of the past 12 months.
The unemployment rate dropped to 7.7 percent from 7.9 percent in January, with 12 million people looking for work. That is the lowest unemployment rate since December 2008, when the rate was 7.3 percent.
"The recovery is gathering momentum," Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics, wrote in a note.
And O'Reilly ignored it all, because he is too busy putting out doom and gloom propaganda for the Republican party. Not to mention the stock market set new record highs two days in a row and O'Reilly never said a word about that either. Proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is nothing but a partisan right-wing hack.
The rest of Fox News also pretty much ignored the news, Fox News spent less than 11 minutes highlighting the February jobs report that showed the unemployment rate dropped to 7.7 percent, which was about half the time the network spent covering the August 2011 jobs report that indicated no net addition of jobs.
The unemployment report for the month of February revealed that 236,000 jobs were added, causing the unemployment rate to fall from 7.9 to 7.7 percent. This marks the first time the unemployment rate has been below 7.8 percent since 2008, and the lowest unemployment rate during the entirety of the Obama presidency.
Despite the significance of this development in the labor market, Fox News has been noticeably quiet on the subject in their morning programs, especially when contrasted with how they have covered previous negative economic news.
On September 2, 2011 when initial reports showed no net addition of jobs for the month of August, Fox discussed this negative news for roughly twice the amount of time as the positive news on March 8, when the February jobs report was released.
In fact, the majority of Fox's coverage discussing the drop in unemployment used the news as a foil to bring up unrelated indicators or downplay its significance. The fact that Fox spent very little time discussing the drop in unemployment continues their documented history of downplaying positive economic news.
Corporate Profits Hit Record Highs In 2nd Half Of 2012 By: Steve - March 8, 2013 - 11:30am
Just a few days ago O'Reilly had a segment with the biased right-wing stooge Lou Dobbs, where the two of them claimed it is a bad time to start a business in America because of President Obama and all the regulations he has put on businesses.
And despite the fact that argument is ridiculous, they still did it, even though all the facts show they are wrong. Because if you look at it, corporate profits are setting records, and the stock market went over 14,000, on the way to a new record high.
Corporate profits hit record highs in the second half of 2012, but that prosperity hasn't led to the creation of jobs, since America's biggest firms are sitting on piles of cash instead of investing them back into the economy.
At the same time, wages hit record lows, and corporate earnings are rising nearly 20 times faster than disposable incomes, from the NY Times:
As a percentage of national income, corporate profits stood at 14.2% in the third quarter of 2012, the largest share at any time since 1950, while the portion of income that went to employees was 61.7%, near its lowest point since 1966.
In recent years, the shift has accelerated during the slow recovery that followed the financial crisis and ensuing recession of 2008 and 2009, said Dean Maki, chief United States economist at Barclays.
Corporate earnings have risen at an annualized rate of 20.1% since the end of 2008, he said, but disposable income inched ahead by 1.4% annually over the same period, after adjusting for inflation.
From 2009 to 2011, 88% of national income growth went to corporate profits while just one percent went to workers wages, and hourly earnings for workers actually fell over that time.
And while they aren't investing in job growth, corporations are also paying taxes at a rate that hit a 40-year low in 2011. So O'Reilly and Dobbs ignored all that, to spin out that right-wing propaganda that anyone who wants to start a business would have a hard time now, which is just insane, and nothing but right-wing lies.
The Thursday 3-7-13 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - March 8, 2013 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: A disturbing situation involving John Kerry and Michelle Obama. The biased and crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: An Egyptian woman named Samira Ibrahim was supposed to be honored by the State Department Friday, receiving the International Women of Courage Award. Secretary of State John Kerry and First Lady Michelle Obama were set to laud her for challenging Egypt's 'virginity test.'
There's no question Ms. Ibrahim has shown bravery, but she has also shown anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. After an attack in Bulgaria that killed five Jews, Ms. Ibrahim tweeted, 'Today is a very sweet day with a lot of very sweet news.' And when a mob attacked the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, she tweeted, 'May every year come with America burning.'
It's amazing that this woman is chosen to be honored, and today the State Department surrendered and 'deferred' the award. For the record, Ms. Ibrahim says her Twitter account was hacked, but that's hokum.
This exposition speaks to the chaos at the Department of State. We saw it in Benghazi and we are seeing it again now. John Kerry better reorganize this department quickly, it is an acute embarrassment to America
What a joke, it does not involve John Kerry or Michelle Obama, because they did not decide to pick Samira Ibrahim to be honored, and they had no idea what she said on twitter. So once again you have the partisan hack O'Reilly attacking Kerry and Obama for something they had nothing to do with.
Then Bob Beckel was on, who defended the overall performance of the State Department, saying this: "This is another case of bureaucracy not doing the job, because somebody didn't do a background check. But the State Department under Hillary Clinton has done a good job in a lot of ways. She strengthened the NATO alliance and she promoted women's rights in China and around the world. so I don't think you can just take Benghazi and this and indict the entire department."
Beckel also praised New York City's ad campaign that tries to discourage single parenthood, saying this: "70% of black babies are born to unwed mothers, and if this can embarrass a few people into not having babies it will save their lives and it will save society a lot of money. We've bred three generations of children born to unwed mothers who have virtually no chance of success."
Then the far-right Laura Ingraham was on to talk about New York City's anti-teen pregnancy ads.
Ingraham said this: "The ads are unpleasant and awkward, and you could say the ads might encourage abortion because the kids look annoying and they look like they're a penalty. On the other hand, if we're going to have anti-bullying ads and anti-smoking ads, why wouldn't adults want to start a conversation with young people about the perils of teen sex? Teen sex has been validated by the culture for decades and it's about time that there's an opposing point of view."
Then the Republican Senator Pat Toomey was on to talk about President Obama breaking bread with some Republican Senators Wednesday evening and how he may be seeking a compromise on spending.
Toomey, who was at the dinner said this: "There were a dozen Republican Senators, and the President was there with his Chief of Staff. He was very cordial and we had a pretty candid conversation around fiscal issues. The President listened to every one of the Republican Senators and he was engaged. Nothing like this has happened since I've been in the Senate."
O'Reilly said this: "This is a vital issue that Americans don't seem to understand, we're heading for a depression if the spending doesn't stop."
Then mental health experts Bonny Forrest and Wendy Walsh were on to talk about how sex offenses committed by teens are up, which I will not report on because this is not real news, it's garbage.
Megyn Kelly was on to talk about the trial of George Zimmerman, who was charged with killing Trayvon Martin a year ago in Florida, and is set to begin in June.
Kelly said this: "One of the key witnesses for the prosecution is Trayvon Martin's girlfriend. She claims that she heard Trayvon on the phone saying someone was following him moments before he was confronted by George Zimmerman. But she has been caught in a significant lie - she testified under oath that she didn't attend Trayvon's funeral because she was in the hospital, but that was not true. The defense will make this into a big deal because she told a lie under oath."
Then Clive Davis, longtime music producer and record executive, whose new book recounts his storied career was on. The conversation focused on one of his best friends, Whitney Houston, who destroyed her life and career with drugs.
Davis said this: "I discovered her when she was 19, and she was full of energy and spirit. She loved music and she was a workhorse, and there's no question she was clean. Later I confronted her when she became skeletal and at first she was in denial. She said it's not a serious problem and she was not ready to do anything about it."
The Factor put Davis on the spot, asking him to single out the most talented rock musician of all time, Davis said this: "I would say Bruce Springsteen and Bob Dylan are two of the great poet laureates of America coming out of the music world. Springsteen also became the greatest rock-and-roll live performer, and that combination is spectacular."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Dealing with guttersnipes. Billy said this: "It's painful to be attacked personally, but it's usually best to ignore the guttersnipes. However, if someone is harming you or your family, a lawyer should put that villain on notice in writing."
O'Reilly should know about guttersnipes, because he is one, and he personally attacks people all the time, breaking his own rules and going against his own advice.
O'Reilly Accuses Gay Lawmaker Of Protecting Child Molesters By: Steve - March 8, 2013 - 10:00am
Now remember this, O'Reilly is the guy who says gay people should stay anonymous, then he outs the guy on his tv news show, which goes against what he says gay people should do. Not to mention, there is no need to go with the gay angle, and yet O'Reilly brought it up anyway when it had nothing to do with the story.
Bill O'Reilly used his national platform to launch a crusade against openly gay Colorado lawmaker Rep. Mark Ferrandino over his opposition to a law that would institute mandatory minimum sentences for sexual predators who target children, repeatedly suggesting that Ferrandino's opposition to the measure might be linked to his support for gay marriage.
During the February 22nd O'Reilly Factor, Billy criticized Ferrandino for opposing "Jessica's Law," a measure that would impose a 25-year sentence on those found guilty of sexually assaulting children. Even though law enforcement experts and victims advocates in Colorado have deemed Jessica's Law unnecessary, noting that current Colorado laws "already go beyond what Jessica's law mandates."
During the segment, O'Reilly joined Colorado Rep. Libby Szabo (R) in attempting to link Ferrandino's opposition to the bill to his homosexuality and support for civil unions. O'Reilly also promised to hold Ferrandino "personally responsible," threatening that his life would soon "take a turn for the worse."
O'Reilly continued his campaign on the March 4th edition of his show, which opened with a tease once again linking Ferrandino's support for civil unions to his alleged unwillingness to protect kids "from sexual predators."
Later in the show, O'Reilly accused Ferrandino of attempting to usher in a "secular paradise" in Colorado, citing his support for LGBT equality. And he did it with the Republican guest Michael Brown who worked for the Bush administration, and was fired for being the worst FEMA director in the history of America.
As Zack Ford noted, O'Reilly's insistence on linking Ferrandino's support for LGBT equality to his opposition to Jessica's Law is a transparent attempt to prey upon fears that gay men are more inclined to engage in, or at least endorse, pedophilia - a position that O'Reilly has previously supported:
It's hard to justify anything about this "campaign" of O'Reilly's as journalism. It seems increasingly apparent that he is simply manipulating the fact that Ferrandino is gay to prey on viewers fears that the Speaker is thus somehow more likely to be endangering children.
And according to The Denver Post, O'Reilly's campaign against Ferrandino is already bearing fruit. Following O'Reilly's first segment on the topic, Ferrandino received a number of angry e-mails about his position, including one from a viewer hoping that Ferrandino's 14-month-old foster daughter is raped.
The Wednesday 3-6-13 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - March 7, 2013 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: Enough is enough with Washington's out-of-control spending. The biased and crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Lots of folks are talking about my shootout with Alan Colmes, which began when I asked him what specific budget cuts President Obama has proposed. Even though I'm sorry I said Alan was 'lying,' I'm glad the exposition occurred. We the people need to wake up because the President is not looking out for the country right now.
He's hell-bent on destroying the Republican Party and he does not seem to care if the nation collapses as a result. This is economic madness and liberal America is defending the insanity because they don't want to criticize their standard-bearer. Back in 2010 the President's own debt commission urged him to begin significant cuts in federal spending, but Mr. Obama ignored it.
He is calling for more tax hikes, but the USA already has the highest corporate tax in the world. This year the feds are expected to get the highest amount of income tax revenue in history, yet Mr. Obama wants more money flowing to Washington and no spending cuts. There's another problem - because the right wing has demonized Barack Obama so much, many independent Americans are tuning out.
All this birth certificate and Muslim stuff has actually helped Barack Obama because when there's a legitimate criticism that he's mismanaging the economy, many people don't even pay attention. But this spending issue is vital for all of us, and that's why I'm raising my voice!
Listen up O'Reilly, nobody cares what you think about Government spending, because you are just a lame and biased right-wing cable news hack. So shut the hell up about it, you are just wasting everyone's time. Report some real news, like the stock market setting new record highs 2 days in a row, you fraud of a so-called journalist.
Then Kirsten Powers was on to talk about the O'Reilly/Colmes screamfest on Tuesday night where O'Reilly made a fool of himself lying about what President Obama plans to do to cut spending.
Powers said this: "I'm shocked that you're doubling down on these claims that President Obama has not proposed any spending cuts. You can go to the WhiteHouse.gov website and there are plenty of cuts. You told Alan that he has not made any specific suggestions on Medicare, but that's completely untrue. There are $400 billion of cuts to federal health care laid out very clearly."
Powers also said this: "They want savings in drug prices for Medicare and they want to raise the eligibility age and use means-testing. I'm giving you specifics, the President has proposed these, and you need to admit you're wrong."
But the biased loon O'Reilly was not about to concede the point, saying this: "The President has proposed generalities, you don't understand the word 'specific.' He hasn't proposed one specific cut, he has not named one federal program he wants to cut back."
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, she named two, so did Colmes, they are federal programs, they are specific, and they are called Medicare and Medicaid, jerk.
Then O'Reilly had the idiot Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert on to talk about his crazy amendment to stop Obama from playing golf. To which O'Reilly should be ashamed for giving this fool air time to talk about it.
After the administration announced it is suspending White House tours because of spending cuts, Republican Congressman Louis Gohmert proposed legislation to prevent the President from playing golf on the government's dime.
Gohmert said this: "There are thousands of schoolchildren coming to the 'house of the people,' and it is important for people to connect with their government. President Bush gave up golf in 2003 because soldiers were in harm's way, but this President has doubled down with 115 golf outings. This is bringing attention to the fact that this President is not willing to give up even a golf outing to let thousands of kids take a self-guided tour through the White House."
And what a shocker, Not. O'Reilly agreed with this fools budget priorities, but questioned his tactics, saying this: "You're diverting attention by saying he can't play golf, which turns off independents. It could have a backlash."
Then O'Reilly had Craig Silverman and Dan Caplis on to slam Colorado some more because he does not like the fact that they will not pass Jessica's Law.
Caplis said this: "Colorado has not turned to the left, but the left has become a lot better at winning elections and the state capital has been turned into this liberal 'animal house.' They don't reflect this state and what they're doing with Jessica's Law ties into the overall liberal agenda."
Which is funny, because Republicans say they go with the will of the people, except when they vote for Democrats. And btw folks, Colorado has laws in place already that are even tougher than Jessica's Law. So this is nothing but a personal and biased crusade by O'Reilly against Colorado and gay people.
Silverman declared that Colorado is no haven for sex offenders, saying this: "I made my name as a prosecutor giving tough sentences to convicted rapists, so I don't object to Jessica's Law. But we have a tough sentencing scheme for sex offenders in Colorado."
Then O'Dummy had Pastor Robert Jeffress on to discuss the History Channel series based on a literal interpretation of Bible. O'Reilly asked Pastor Robert Jeffress whether the story of Adam and Eve, as one example, should be taken literally.
Jeffress said this: "They were actual human beings, and Jesus affirmed that in the book of Matthew when he said God created man and female in the Garden. If you start labeling these stories as fictitious or fables, where do you stop? The virgin birth and the resurrection also seem to defy reason."
But O'Reilly claimed that many fantastic Biblical tales were written to teach lessons, saying this: "A lot of stories in the Bible are allegorical and a lot of believers like myself don't take them literally. You don't have to take them literally to get the theological message."
Hey O'Reilly, shut up and report some real news. If I want a religious speech I will go to church, idiot.
Then Dennis Miller was on, which I do not report on because it's not news, it's just a has-been right-wing so-called comedian on to make jokes about liberals, with no liberal comedian on for balance.
Then Juliet Huddy was on for the did you see that segment. She watched a video called "Never Again," produced by a conservative organization, that suggests gun control was a way to keep blacks subservient in the old South. The video even showed old images of the KKK and a black man being hanged from a tree at the end, and of course the two right-wingers O'Reilly and Huddy had no problem with it.
Huddy said this: "It's very effective. The group that created this was founded by an African American woman named Star Parker. She feels African Americans need to take self responsibility and she wanted to remind people what happened during the darkest days of this country when blacks were not allowed to own guns."
Yeah, back in the time when slavery was legal.
O'Reilly added that there is a divide among black Americans, saying this: "There are urban blacks who see the destruction caused by guns, and there are conservative blacks who say your ability to defend yourself goes way down if you don't have the right to carry a gun."
No tip of the day because of the extended e-mail segment, which is a good thing because the tip of the day is worthless and usually ridiculous.
O'Reilly Ignoring Record Market Highs For 2nd Straight Day By: Steve - March 7, 2013 - 10:30am
The Dow hit another intraday record high on Wednesday on signs of improvement in the U.S. labor market.
The stock market's rally this year has been fueled by signs of a strengthening U.S. economy, continued support from the Federal Reserve and fairly attractive equity valuations compared with other assets.
"There is still a lot more cash to be put into equities," said JJ Kinahan, chief derivatives strategist at TD Ameritrade, in Chicago.
"We are seeing investors moving out of the bond market, but their money is not in the stock market yet. They are still not full believers (of equities) but they are having cash in hand because the rally seems to be continuing, and the valuations are still attractive."
The S&P 500 index is trading at 13.6 times estimated 12-month earnings, compared with around 14.9 times in October 2007 when the index hit its intraday high, according to Thomson Reuters data. This suggests that stocks are still about 9 percent cheaper than they were at the 2007 peak.
And O'Reilly has ignored it all, to push his doom and gloom right-wing propaganda that the country is in trouble and everything is going to hell. O'Reilly has not said one word about the market setting record highs for two straight days.
Because he is a biased right-wing partisan hack of a pretend journalist. If this were happening with a Republican in the White House O'Reilly would report it every night and praise the President for being such a good leader the market went up to record highs, which he did when it happened under Bush.
But when it happens under Obama he not only does not praise him and give him credit for it, he does not report it at all, nothing, not a word. Even though a google search on "market hits record highs" got 244 million results and every media outlet in the country reported it, except for O'Reilly of course.
Kirsten Powers Tells O'Reilly He Is 100% Wrong By: Steve - March 7, 2013 - 10:00am
Kirsten Powers sat down with Bill O'Reilly Wednesday night prepared to rebut him over allegations he made during his shouting match with Alan Colmes Tuesday night over whether or not President Obama has offered any specific spending cuts.
Powers had in her hand a PDF document from the White House website showing Obama had proposed specific Medicare cuts, and despite O'Reilly's INSANE protestations, she told him, "Bill, you are a hundred percent wrong."
Powers told O'Reilly she was shocked he is doubling down on his claims, referring to a document she printed out detailing $400 billion in cuts President Obama proposed for federal health care spending.
O'Reilly told her to slow down, referred to himself as a simple man, and asked her specifically what Obama would cut, to which Powers called O'Reilly out for trying to change his argument.
This is what you do, you change the discussion. What you said last night was the president did not propose anything. The president proposed this to the Republicans. The Republicans circulated this plan. They know about the plan. There was also chained CPI in there, which I know you're not too simple to not know about chained CPI.
Finally someone called O'Reilly out for his spin, one night he says the President has not proposed ANY spending cuts, and the next night he said he only said he was not specific, then he wants the cuts named, and finally someone called him on his dishonesty.
Powers told O'Reilly he is "a hundred percent wrong" and told him he needs to admit it instead of digging himself in a deeper hole. They continued to clash over the particulars, with Powers insisting that Obama has offered spending cuts.
When O'Reilly said, "this is where you and I will never agree," Powers shot back, "Because I use facts."
O'Reilly ended the interview insisting Powers had provided zero new specifics. Following her appearance, Powers tweeted out a link to the PDF she held up on the air.
Basically O'Reilly can just never admit when he is wrong, so he doubles down as Powers said and continues the lie, even though everyone knows he was busted, he keeps digging the hole deeper anyway. And he has the nerve to call other people pinheads, when that is being a total pinhead for not admitting you were wrong.
Stossel Calls O'Reilly Obnoxious And Out Of Line By: Steve - March 7, 2013 - 9:00am
Even the far-right stooge John Stossel said the O'Reilly screamfest at Alan Colmes was obnoxious and out of line. Immediately following O'Reilly's Tuesday night outburst against Alan Colmes, John Stossel weighed in by bluntly telling the Fox host that his actions were "out of line and obnoxious."
"I'm still feeling bad about Colmes," O'Reilly said after introducing Stossel for a segment on environmentalism. "Good. You were out of line," Stossel said.
But O'Reilly was still in denial, saying this: "I wasn't out of line." Then he said this: "I was maybe out of line with my tone, but not with the facts of the matter."
In the previous segment, the insane O'Reilly blew up on Colmes when O'Reilly claimed he was unable to name any of Obama's specific cuts, even though Colmes gave him some specific cuts.
Then the crazy and biased right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this: "The truth is on my side. It's just that I probably didn't frame it with Colmes."
"You were obnoxious," Stossel said. To which you could hear the off-camera stage crew laughing in the background.
O'Reilly said he is willing to accept that he was over the top, prompting Stossel to joke that he's glad O'Reilly used up his anger on Colmes, as opposed to taking it out him.
Here are the facts, Obama does want to cut federal spending, the Republicans just will not agree to a deal, that's not the fault of Obama, it's the Republicans in the House and Senate who are to blame. O'Reilly is lying, and he uses the specific nonsense to claim Obama does not want to cut anything, which is a lie from O'Reilly.
Obama has proposed $600 billion in cuts, if the Republicans agree to raise some taxes on the rich and close some tax loopholes they use. O'Reilly ignores that and will not admit it, then he uses this be specific on programs he would cut garbage to claim Obama will not cut anything, which is just flat out dishonest and it shows that O'Reilly is a fraud of a journalist.
The Tuesday 3-5-13 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - March 6, 2013 - 11:30am
The TPM was called: The real reason President Obama is not trying to solve the fiscal crisis. The Biased And Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: I am getting very frustrated with President Obama. It has nothing to do with ideology, it has to do with performance. Mr. Obama is not trying to solve the fiscal mess and he does not want to cut spending. He will also not give his vision on things like Medicare and Medicare, which are draining the treasury.
The question is why Mr. Obama is not trying to solve complex problems. According to a recent article in the Washington Post, 'the goal is to flip the Republican-held House back to Democratic control, allowing Obama to push forward with a progressive agenda.'
So what we have is a reelected President not trying to reach consensus on important issues; rather, he's hoping that the messy stalemate will tee off voters, who will then throw out Republicans and give him full control in 2014.
It's almost like Mr. Obama is sabotaging the country so he can re-shape it. Rome, Japan, Germany, and Russia were all destroyed by venal leaders exploiting an apathetic population. I pray that doesn't happen to us.
O'Reilly is a sad and biased right-wing joke. He claims President Obama is not trying to solve the fiscal crisis, which is ridiculous and nothing but right-wing propaganda. He is trying to get the economy going, get jobs back, and lower the debt, the Republicans will just not let him do it. So if anyone is to blame for not solving the debt problem it's the Republicans who refuse to raise taxes on anyone.
And the claim that President Obama is sabotaging the country so he can re-shape it, is insanity, and if a Democrat said that with a Republican in office O'Reilly would call them an un-American traitor, which he did when it happened under Bush. Now he is doing the very same thing, and that makes O'Reilly an un-American traitor in my book.
Then O'Reilly had Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley on to discuss it. And O'Reilly made a fool of himself screaming and cursing at Colmes.
Crowley said this: "When Barack Obama was campaigning in '08' he talked about 'fundamental transformation' of the nation and we now have four years of evidence as to exactly what he meant. He wants the last two years of his presidency to have a Democratic-controlled Congress."
But Colmes took offense at the notion that President Obama is focused only on politics, saying this: "I don't think he's not trying to do what's best for the country. It's one thing to say he wants to flip the House, it's another thing to say he purposely wants the American people to suffer. I don't believe that for a second."
Then O'Reilly went nuts, here is a partial transcript:
O'Reilly: "Give me one damned program he said he'd cut."
Colmes: "He's offered cuts in Medicare and entitlements."
O'Reilly: "You are lying here!"
Colmes: "Don't call me a liar! We can have a disagreement without you calling me a liar."
O'Reilly: "This is why I'm calling you a liar - give me one program he said he'd cut."
Colmes: "He would cut Medicare and Medicaid."
O'Reilly: "That's not a specific program, you can't give me one example of any federal program he said he would cut. This is bull-blank! I apologize to you, Colmes, I shouldn't have used the word 'liar.' But you haven't put forth anything he would do. The guy you revere refuses to say anything specific, but you're buying the con."
Earth to Bill O'Reilly, Medicare and Medicaid are specific programs you jack ass. Go to the White House blog and read his deficit reduction plan, jerk.
Then Tucker Carlson was on to lie about getting caught reporting lies about New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez, who has been accused of hiring prostitutes in the Dominican Republic. The Washington Post reported that one woman was bribed to make false charges against Menendez, but Tucker Carlson, whose conservative publication broke the hooker angle, downplayed that allegation.
The biased and dishonest Carlson said this: "The Washington Post story is ludicrous. It was an attempt to take down our story but it doesn't achieve that. It's not at all clear that the woman they're talking about is the same woman we interviewed. If we're wrong, I will admit it, but we went and re-checked every fact."
Which was laughable, and even his friend O'Reilly was not buying it, O'Reilly advised Carlson to tread with caution, saying this: "I have a lot of trouble with the prostitution angle of this story because you put forth some allegations but you don't have names attached. I want to give all Americans the benefit of the doubt."
Then Bobby Samuels was on to talk about the Harvard Crimson school paper that slammed O'Reilly, who earned a master's degree at the school, for "implying that the Harvard community is morally suspect." O'Reilly actually said a lot of the Professors at Harvard are liberal pinheads.
Samuels said this: "An important point to keep in mind about the editorial, is that there certainly was a tongue-in-cheek component to it. But we were commenting seriously on the hypocrisy of coming to a school and utilizing its educational resources, then turning around a few years later and criticizing the school in a blanket way. You referred to professors as 'pinheads.'"
Then O'Reilly countered that Harvard deserves criticism because of its blatant bias, saying this: "The Kennedy School of Government has taken a sharp turn to the left. When I was there the deans were fair, but the dean is now a committed leftist."
Then the insane far-right loon John Stossel was on to trash Daryl Hannah and her ideas for clean energy. On Monday's show Daryl Hannah advised people on how they can heat their homes and fuel their cars in a cleaner and greener way.
The crazy Stossel said this: "She's right that you can heat your home with alternative fuel, but it's awful that you can! It means people like her have gotten politicians to pass these horrible subsidies, which hurt poor people. I use solar panels because it's cheaper because of all these idiot subsidies, and to think this is going to stop global warming is like believing in mermaids. Oil and gas are wonderful, they produce so much energy for so little money and that lets us prosper."
Now that is ridiculous, Stossel says it's awful that you can heat your home with alternative fuel, and that oil and gas are wonderful, and this guy has his own show at Fox, which is beyond ridiculous, he's a nut.
Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl were on to talk about the state of Florida that wants to give drug tests to welfare applicants, but a federal court says that is unconstitutional.
Guilfoyle said this: "The court ruled that this is illegal, and that it violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The state and Governor Rick Scott want to appeal this."
Wiehl turned to the case of Pennsylvania abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who is accused of infanticide, saying this: "They charged him with seven counts of murdering children who were born alive during the abortion. The state is alleging that he took those babies and snipped their spines to kill them. These children had been born before he killed them and he may get the death penalty."
Then O'Reilly had the totally biased right-wing stooge Charles Krauthammer on to talk about President Obama and the O'Reilly talking points memo.
Krauthammer said this: "There are no specific cuts. The man is not interested in cutting, he wants to 'invest,' which is the new Democratic word for spending. President Obama has a vision of an entitlement state more along the lines of Europe, and in order to enact that vision, he needs control of Congress. Normally a second term president is not interested in the polls or politics, but Obama knows that as long as the Republicans control the House he can't proceed."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Keep the faith. Billy said this: "Because all of us need spiritual nourishment, it's important to set aside at least an hour a week for some form of introspection."
Tucker Carlson Spins His Dishonest Reporting On The Factor By: Steve - March 6, 2013 - 11:00am
In an interview with Bill O'Reilly, Daily Caller Editor-in-Chief Tucker Carlson defended his website's claim that Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) paid women for sex in the Dominican Republic, but he dodged the question of whether the women interviewed by the Daily Caller might have been paid by political operatives to tell their story, as evidence from ABC News and The Washington Post now suggest.
Responding to O'Reilly's question about whether the allegations were fabricated, Carlson stopped short of declaring that the women the Daily Caller interviewed were not paid to tell their story. Instead, he said that he was satisfied that the person who brought this story to the Caller "received no money from anyone," later saying, "Did our source take money? ...The answer is, no, he didn't."
Which was not the question, the question was why did you not report that the woman was paid to say what they did, when it was shown that they were paid to say what they said, it had nothing to do with if your source was paid, you spinning right-wing liar. This is a classic case of a conservative media outlet reporting a story, then when that story is proven to be wrong the conservative spins it and refuses to admit they were wrong.
Here are the facts Tucker will not admit, or report, proving he is a dishonest right-wing hack and to even call him a journalist is an insult to real journalists.
The Washington Post reported on March 4th that a woman who accused Menendez of paying her for sex has now claimed in an affidavit that she was paid to smear Menendez and that her allegations were not true.
ABC News then revealed on March 5th that they had previously interviewed the woman in the Post's article, and that her story, which she now claims was false, mirrored that of the women interviewed by the Daily Caller in November. The Washington Post's Erik Wemple described the ABC report as a "game ender" for the story.
Here are 3 quotes from the ABC News story, that both O'Reilly and Carlson refused to even talk about.
The recanter was identified as one Nexis de los Santos Santana. But in her interview with ABC News before the election, she said her name was Michelle Rodriguez and that she had come forward because Menendez had paid her only $100 of the $500 she had expected. She now says she was coached to make the claim.
"Asked during the interview with ABC News how she knew that the man named "Bob" was a United States Senator, one of the other women said she had put the name "Bob" into a web search site and a picture of Menendez popped up."
Which is also a lie, because when you do a search on Bob, nothing about Senator Menendez comes up, zero.
ABC News reports a troubling degree of sameness among the women's accounts: "Her account of sex with Menendez in the video interview was almost word-for-word the account given by two other women who were produced for interviews about having sex with the man they knew only as 'Bob.'"
In other words, it looks like there was some coaching involved.
And here is the closer, when presented the opportunity to correct the Daily Caller's original reporting, Carlson spent his time with O'Reilly attacking the Washington Post story and dodging the question of whether the women his website sourced to attack a sitting U.S. senator weren't bribed to do so.
He basically gave O'Reilly the runaround, and never once answered the question, or gave a correction, instead he put out some insane spin that his source for the story did not take any money, which was not the question, and had nothing to do with the facts that show the women were paid to lie about the Senator.
Confronted With The Facts O'Reilly Screams BS By: Steve - March 6, 2013 - 10:00am
Bill O'Reilly broke down and screamed at his guest Alan Colmes for identifying spending cuts that President Obama has proposed, shouting at Colmes, "That's bullshit!" and repeatedly claiming Obama hasn't proposed specific cuts to replace the across-the-board cuts known as the sequester.
Even though Colmes was correct: Obama has proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid as part of his plan to replace the sequester.
During the Tuesday March 5th O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly repeatedly claimed that Obama "refuses" to endorse specific spending cuts, shouting at Colmes, "Give me one damn program he said he'd cut!" even as Colmes highlighted Medicare and Medicaid as two programs Obama has proposed cutting:
Fact: President Obama has proposed $400 billion in cuts to federal health spending, which includes a $140 billion reduction in "payments to drug companies" and a $25 billion reduction for Medicaid and affiliated programs.
Fact: O'Reilly and his right-wing friends in the Conservative media have repeatedly ignored Obama's proposal of specific cuts and revenues to replace the sequester. And when he was confronted with the truth, he got mad and screamed at Alan Colmes, because he had no answer to his dishonest reporting on the issue.
Market Question For The Biased Bill O'Reilly By: Steve - March 5, 2013 - 11:30am
If the economy is terrible (as you claim) and the country is in chaos (as you claim) and President Obama is a bad leader (as you claim) how in the hell did the stock market set a new record high today. The very same market you used to cite to measure the job Bush did when he was President, that you now ignore with Obama as the President.
Answer that O'Reilly, you biased right-wing hack of a pretend journalist.
3-5-13 -- Dow Sails Past Record High
The Dow is back. All the way back. At the opening bell Tuesday, the benchmark index sailed past its all-time closing high of 14,164.53 set Oct. 9, 2007.
In afternoon trading, the Dow Jones industrial average was up 1.1%, or nearly 150 points to above 14,275. It has now erased the 54% loss it suffered in the brutal 2007-2009 bear market. Just two of the Dow's 30 stocks: drug giant Merck and soft drink maker Coca-Cola were trading lower.
And btw folks, for the people that do not know it. Back in 2007 when the Dow hit that record high the Republican George W. Bush was the President. At the time O'Reilly reported it as his lead story and gave Bush credit for the record high, saying wall street loves the Bush policies and that was the main reason the Dow set the record.
Now that it's setting new record highs under Obama, O'Reilly not only did not report it, he did not give Obama any credit for it. But when it happened under Bush he did, proving once again that O'Reilly is nothing but a biased right-wing hack.
The Monday 3-4-13 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - March 5, 2013 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: America is becoming a chaotic country. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: I wrote 'Killing Lincoln' to show Americans what true leadership really is. President Obama is not showing leadership and I encourage the President to take a look back at Lincoln. There's no way on earth that President Lincoln would allow the fiscal chaos we have today.
The President and the Democratic Party must agree to cut federal spending, yet the President resists and now we have automatic spending cuts with a government shutdown looming at the end of this month. The President wants to raise taxes and redistribute income, everything else be damned!
That's not leadership and an honest media should be pounding the President, but instead it is defending him. Speaker Boehner is on the right side of the issue, he wants to cut federal spending. But the Speaker has not appeared on this program and doesn't make his case with any authority.
On the other side, we have Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is like your old uncle at Thanksgiving dinner screaming, 'More gravy!' So we the people are caught in a terrible situation - we have fiscal chaos and no leadership.
My God man give it a rest. Speaker Boehner is NOT on the right side of the issue, and you are a right-wing stooge. Nobody cares what you think about the debt or federal spending, especially President Obama. And the majority of Americans support President Obama, jerk. Obama has cut spending, and would cut it more if the idiots on the right would agree to some tax increases on the wealthy, so report that fool.
And btw, Boehner's approval rating is only 25 percent, and his disapproval mark stands at 49 percent. So how could he be on the right side of the issue, he can't. Not to mention this, Republicans in Congress only have a 27 percent approval rating, while their disapproval rating is at 63 percent. So nobody supports them but you and a few right-wing stooges.
So then the biased stooge Brit Hume was on to agree with O'Reilly and slam the President even more.
Hume said this: "His behavior about budget cuts, was some of the most peculiar behavior I've ever seen. A normal president would be trying to reassure the public that this is not a large sum of money compared to the overall budget and would not be turning down the authority to move money around so as to diminish the pain."
Crazy O'Reilly said this: "By his actions, he emboldens the conspiratorialists who say he wants to tank the economy and he wants the capitalistic system to fall apart."
Which is just laughable, and you two right-wing fools should be laughed off the air for saying that garbage. The President wants to fix the economy and create jobs, but the Republicans in the House and the Senate will not let him, by blocking everything he wants to do.
Then Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham were on to talk about 87-year-old Loraine Bayless who collapsed at her California retirement home, a nurse at the facility refused to give her CPR.
Williams said this: "I don't have words for this. It's inhumane and there is no excuse other than someone losing their humanity. The boss at this senior living facility was telling her that they don't provide medical services, so maybe they were in fear of some kind of liability."
Ham said this: "This happens partly because of the litigious nature of our society and the fact that you can be afraid of lawsuits, but our society has to reward people who break the rules and act in humane ways."
O'Reilly laid the blame squarely on the woman who refused to provide medical care to a dying human being, saying this: "You have a choice - you can try to save this lady's life or you can do nothing because your idiot boss says it's against their policy."
O'Reilly also brought abortion into the debate, which is just insane because abortion has nothing to do with it. I also think it was an outrage, I take care of my 89 year old Father so this hit home with me. But I would never sign any paper to not do CPR on my Father. I would want everything possible done to him to try and save his life, and the people that sign those do not do CPR papers are sick in the head if you ask me.
Then the right-wing stooge Michael Brown was on to cry about Colorado not passing Jessica's Law.
Brown said this: "What you're witnessing in Colorado, is this progressive mentality that says evil does not exist, and if it does exist we can change these people and bring them to see the error of their ways. There is this insanity that everybody needs to be coddled and get therapy. If you get outside of Denver, the average Coloradan would say that what's happening is insane."
And that is total right-wing propaganda, because progressives know that evil exists, so this moron Brown is a fool. Notice that no progressive guest was on for balance, so it was nothing but right-wing spin.
Then Daryl Hannah, a vociferous opponent of the fossil fuel industry, was on to say what regular folks could do to get away from using oil and gas. And of course O'Reilly laughed at her and joked his way through the entire so-called interview, because he is a right-wing hack.
Hannah said this: "Many states are participating in a leasing program, so you can lease solar panels and you'll get charged less than your electric bill. In some places wind energy is better and there are alcohol burners that can heat homes. There are a multitude of possibilities."
As for personal transportation, Hannah urged folks to look into alcohol-based fuel, saying this: "Find the most efficient car you're comfortable with, a fuel-injected car, and again you can use alcohol fuel. You can have your own filling station at home."
Then O'Reilly sarcastically promised to at least investigate alternative energy, saying this: "I'm going to take another look at solar panels, but the last time I did the cost was prohibitive."
And I will bet the farm he never does it, and most likely he will just lie about it again like he did last time. In the past he said he does not get solar panels because there is not one company in New York that installs solar panels on your home, then it was reported that there are about 12 of them, so he was caught lying.
Then the right-wing stooge Bernie Goldberg was on to claim there are reports of journalists being threatened and insulted by Obama administration insiders. With no proof, just right-wing speculation.
Goldberg said this: "I don't think Bob Woodward was threatened, but President Obama's aides can be nasty and the President has a thin skin. I just spoke with a network correspondent who said that during Barack Obama's first campaign he was confronted by a top Obama aide who started dropping 'f-bombs.' My theory is that this President and administration have seen the press as their allies, so when some reporter actually does his job and does a tough story, it's almost like he's being disloyal."
Earth to O'Reilly and Goldberg, every President hates the media that writes and reports on them, get a clue and report some real news for once.
Then the right-wing fool Adam Carolla was on, who on his podcast last week, had a tense exchange when he asked California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom why some minorities are frequently poor while others thrive.
Carolla said this: "He's not interested in helping people, he's interested in getting reelected. If he cared about the people he would stop calling people like me a 'racist' and would start focusing on helping his constituency."
Carolla tried to explain why Asians tend to fare much better than blacks and Hispanics in America, saying this: "I went to North Hollywood High School with Jews and blacks and Asians and Hispanics and white folks. All the Jews and Asian kids headed off to UCLA and Cal Berkeley, the black kids went back to the 'hood, and I and the Mexican kids dug ditches and cleaned up garbage on construction sites because we had broken families and no one put an emphasis on education."
What a racist right-wing idiot, and I am sure that not all the blacks went back to the hood, jerk. You are a racist for saying that garbage, and you fit right in on the Factor, because O'Reilly is a right-wing racist too.
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: The No Wheat Zone. Billy said this: "If you want to feel better, cut down on wheat, which bulks you up and is tough to digest."
O'Reilly Lying Obama Had No Plan To Avoid Sequester By: Steve - March 5, 2013 - 10:00am
Now think about this, O'Reilly says he is not a partisan Republicans and he never uses any Republican talking points. So what does he do, he used the Republican talking points that say Obama had no plan to avoid the sequester spending cuts. Folks, this is nothing but 100% pure right-wing propaganda, from O'Reilly and the GOP.
Here is what O'Reilly said Monday night: There Is No Plan From Obama To Avoid Sequester"
Which is a 100% flat out lie from O'Reilly, and here are the facts to prove it. Obama's Been Proposing a Sequester Plan Since December of 2012. Lost in the Republican talking points is the fact that the White House has had a sequester replacement proposal on the table since December.
As Roll Call reported, "The White House proposal that is still on the table from December would add about $600 billion in new revenue and $900 billion in spending cuts, or a roughly 60-40 ratio."
Ratios are moot, however, as long as the GOP continues to stick to its demand for an all-cuts alternative. There was no sign Friday that Republicans were prepared to soften their no-more-new-revenue position.
Republicans (and now O'Reilly) have been claiming that Obama hasn't offered a specific plan, but this also is not true. The White House even published their detailed sequester plan on The White House blog for everyone to see, including O'Reilly, and yet he is still lying that Obama has no plan.
Fact: Obama has a plan. It has been out there for months. The only reason the nation is facing the sequester is that House Republicans refuse to discuss anything beyond their spending cuts only plan. A fact that O'Reilly ignores, and never reports.
The blame Obama spin has once again failed by (O'Reilly) and the House Republicans. Don't believe anyone at Fox News. Don't believe John Boehner, Eric Cantor, or Paul Ryan. The president has a plan. The problem is that House Republicans refuse to act on it. And O'Reilly refuses to report the truth on the issue, because he is a biased Republican that is trying to help the GOP lie about it.
Fox Promotes GOP Talking Points Without Disclosure By: Steve - March 5, 2013 - 9:00am
Over the weekend, Fox News took research and graphics directly from a National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) press release without disclosing their origin in order to attack President Obama's so-called "sequester priorities."
In a Fox & Friends Saturday interview with NRCC chairman Greg Walden, co-host Tucker Carlson claimed that he was "going through a list" of supposedly wasteful federal spending projects and crucial programs that are impacted by the mandatory spending cuts required by sequestration, but did not report where that list came from.
Every single case of the allegedly worthless spending they discussed had previously been highlighted in a February 28 NRCC press release. Later in the segment, Carlson asked Walden, "wouldn't it make sense for Republicans to come up with a list, push that list over to the White House, and publicize that list of pointless programs like this that ought to be cut?" Walden replied, "Absolutely."
Throughout the segment and a second segment Fox aired on-screen graphics that mimicked images included in the NRCC press release in order to criticize what they called Obama's "sequestration priorities."
So basically, Fox took some NRCC propaganda and put it on the air, without telling their viewers that it all came right from NRCC headquarters. And of course O'Reilly and his so-called media watchdog Bernie Goldberg never said a word about it. Now imagine what O'Reilly and Goldberg would say if MSNBC did the same thing with documents from the DNCC, O'Reilly would blow a gasket and scream bloody murder.
And this is not the only time they have done it. Fox News has repeatedly cut and pasted and even parroted GOP materials without disclosing the partisan source of the research. In graphics used for one 2009 segment, Fox News even replicated a typo that had been included in the Republican research document that the network was reproducing without disclosure.
After anchor Jon Scott later apologized for the typo. CNN host Howard Kurtz slammed Scott at the time, saying that the Fox anchor should apologize for repeating "partisan propaganda from the GOP" unsourced. But he never did, and neither did anyone at Fox, not O'Reilly or anyone.
O'Reilly ignored it all, even though he does a weekly media bias segment on his show. Somehow in O'Reillyworld he never seems to find any bias at Fox to talk about, ever, not once.
NRA Trying To Scare Blacks Into Buying More Guns By: Steve - March 4, 2013 - 11:00am
And of course O'Reilly has not said a word about it, because if he did he would be flooded with angry e-mails from his right-wing viewers, who mostly support the GOP and the NRA.
The NRA is increasing its outreach to African Americans with a new campaign that links the Civil Rights struggle and nonviolent resistance to gun ownership, arguing that blacks need firearms to protect themselves from the government.
The video is part of an effort by the gun lobby to grow the organization's appeal beyond a mostly white, middle-class membership and attribute high rates of gun violence in some African American communities to culture rather than the prevalence of guns.
"It's not a gun problem, it's not even a violence problem. It's a culture problem, it's a poverty problem, it's a history problem," Colion Noir says in a video posted on the gun lobby's YouTube channel on Friday:
NOIR: No one wants to fight for their protection, they want the government to do it. The same government who at one point hosed us down with water, attacked us with dogs, wouldn't allow us to eat at their restaurants and told us we couldn't own guns.
The only person responsible for your safety is you. Cops can't always be there. Obama definitely can't be there. Guy telling me to get rid of my guns when I need them the most, isn't my friend, isn't looking out for my best interests and doesn't speak for me or the community that I'm part of.
And this paid black guy (paid by the NRA) is clearly not looking out for your best interests, especially when blacks are involved in more gun crimes than any other group.
Here are some facts: Gun violence kills 30,000 Americans each year and disproportionately impacts communities of color. For instance, blacks are only 13 percent of the U.S. population, but in 2010 (the last year for which data is available) they suffered 56 percent of all firearm homicides.
The gun-homicide rate for black males is 2.4 times as high as that of Latino males, and it is 15.3 times as high as the rate for non-Hispanic white males.
In 2008 and 2009 gun homicide was the leading cause of death among black teens, and the rates of gun-related deaths are highest for black male teens.
Teens living in dangerous communities, where guns are often easily accessible, are stuck in a cycle of violence: those who are exposed to firearms report committing more serious acts of violence than teens who had not been exposed and are more likely to carry concealed firearms themselves, perpetuating the cycle.
More Republican Lies & Hypocrisy O'Reilly Has Ignored By: Steve - March 4, 2013 - 10:00am
O'Reilly sure loves to report on any hypocrisy and lies from Democrats, but when Republicans do it he ignores the entire story and never says a word about any of it, just like this:
Massachusetts State Rep. Dan Winslow (R), one of three candidates for his party's nomination in the upcoming special election to fill Secretary of State John Kerry's Senate seat, won a GOP straw poll Saturday.
He then ended the event on a hypocritical note. After giving his speech to the party faithfuls, Winslow tried to disassociate himself from the event's location, the Danversport Yacht Club, saying this:
WINSLOW: They gave us three minutes to speak today; three minutes is longer than I ever wanted to spend in a yacht club. I am not a tea and crumpets Republican. I am here because there are activists here. I am running a grassroots campaign.
Which turned out to be lies and hypocrisy, because as recently as 2011, Winslow served on the board of directors for the Pamet Harbor Yacht & Tennis Club. And btw, both Danversport and Pamet Harbor Yacht clubs would benefit from HD1965, Winslow's proposed bill to repeal the sales tax on the sale of boats built or rebuilt in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Winslow's attempts to spin himself as from the middle class are not matched by reality. A review of Winslow's financial disclosure filings show he owns two homes and earns more than $160,000 a year. Which is not middle class, middle class is a guy making under $80,000 a year and having one home, that he pays a monthly rent on, or has a mortgage.
Video Shows Cop Lied In Occupy Wall Street Protester Trial By: Steve - March 3, 2013 - 11:00am
And of course O'Reilly ignored the story, even though he does a weekly legal segment on his show, and he covered the Occupy Wall Street protests at the time almost every night. A video shows the cop and the prosecutor lied and the man was found not guilty.
In the first jury trial stemming from an Occupy Wall Street protest, Michael Premo was found innocent of all charges Thursday after his lawyers presented video evidence directly contradicting the version of events offered by police and prosecutors.
So not only did the cop lie, the prosecutors also got caught lying. This is a big story with direct evidence a cop and a prosecutor lied and O'Reilly never said a word about it.
Here is what happened, in December of 2011 at 29th Street near Seventh Avenue in New York, police managed to trap a large number of marchers, kettling them from both sides of the block with bright orange plastic netting. After holding the crowd in the nets for some time, a few people managed to escape, and police rushed in to the crowd with their hands up. In the commotion, Premo fell to the ground and attempted to crawl out of the scrum.
In the police version of events, Premo charged the police like a linebacker, taking out a lieutenant and resisting arrest so forcefully that he fractured an officer's bone. That's the story prosecutors told in Premo's trial, and it's the general story his arresting officer testified to under oath as well.
But Premo, facing felony charges of assaulting an officer, maintained his innocence. His lawyers, Meghan Maurus and Rebecca Heinegg, set out to find video evidence to contradict it. Prosecutors told them that police TARU units, who filmed virtually every moment of Occupy street protests, didn't have any footage of the entire incident.
Maurus knew from video evidence she had received while representing another defendant arrested that day that there was at least one TARU officer with relevant footage. Reviewing video shot by a citizen-journalist livestreamer during Premo's arrest, she learned that a Democracy Now cameraman was right in the middle of the fray, and when she tracked him down, he showed her a video that brought a tear to her eye.
The video prominently shows a cop named Bosco, holding up his camera, which is on, and pointing at the action around the kettle. When Premo's lawyers subpoenaed Bosco, they were told he was on a secret mission at "an undisclosed location," and couldn't respond to the subpoena. And if you buy that I have a bridge to sell you real cheap.
Judge Robert Mandelbaum didn't accept that, and Bosco had to appear at the District Attorney's office for a meeting with Maurus and prosecutors. Judge Mandelbaum accepted that Bosco would likely say on the stand what he said in the meeting, and didn't require him to testify. Bosco claimed, straining credibility, that though the camera is clearly on and he can be seen in the video pointing it as though to frame a shot, he didn't actually shoot any video that evening.
Even more importantly, the Democracy Now video also flipped the police version of events on its head. Far from showing Premo tackling a police officer, it shows cops tackling him as he attempted to get back on his feet. After watching the video, the jury deliberated for several hours before returning a verdict of not guilty on all counts.
This is not the first time someone arrested during an Occupy Wall Street march has gone free after video evidence undercut prosecutors storyline and sworn police testimony. Photography student Alexander Arbuckle was acquitted in May after a livestreamer's footage showed police weren't telling the truth about his arrest.
And O'Reilly never said a word about that story either, he has ignored all the verdicts in every one of the Occupy Wall Street trials.
Speaking after Thursday's verdict, Maurus said the case highlighted the significance of having the press, livestreamers and professional video journalists, present during demonstrations.
"That was really important," Maurus said. "Without that evidence, this would have been a very different case. There are many, many cases that don't have so much video evidence to challenge the police version of events, but in this case, we did."
The Friday 3-1-13 O'Reilly Factor Review By: Steve - March 2, 2013 - 11:00am
The TPM was called: The madness continues in Washington. Crazy O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: After hearing for weeks that the automatic spending cuts, which became reality today, would cause massive suffering in America, the President has changed his tune. He now says there will not be 'an apocalypse," which is very interesting because the President's acolytes were pounding the disaster drum.
President Obama's party tried to scare the American people into pressuring the Republicans to allow Mr. Obama to continue the insane federal spending. The President wants federal spending tht will vastly expand the already catastrophic debt, but the Republicans say, 'Enough!'
Talking Points sees the issue very clearly: You woudn't run your business or your household the way the President's running the country because if you did you'd be in serious trouble. The country is in serious trouble, but the President doesn't seem to recognize that.
In the meantime, a government shutdown is looming at the end of March. Talk about March Madness!
Talk about madness, here it is, a lame biased right-wing cable news host crying every night about what the President does. When it has no effect on anything, and nobody cares what you say. Now that's madness. And btw O'Reilly, Mr. fair and balanced, the Republicans have also been hypocrites on the automatic spending cuts, one day they say it will be a disaster and the next they say it's nothing, but you never report on that.
Then O'Reilly had two biased stooges from Fox on to agree with him, and of course no liberal on for balance. Mike Emanuel and Ed Henry were on to discuss it.
Henry said this: "The White House says there are two pots of money. There's the domestic spending that the President wants more of, and then there's the really big pot of money that is entitlement spending. If the President were here now, he would say that he put about $400 billion in cuts in Medicare and Medicaid on the table and John Boehner walked away from that."
Here are the facts, Obama had a budget cutting plan that would have stopped the automatic spending cuts and the Republicans refused to deal with him, because it included some small tax increases on the wealthy, and that is a fact. Funny how O'Reilly never mentions that, oh yeah, he ignores that because he is a biased right-wing hack.
Emanuel said this: "The frustration for John Boehner and his allies is that Democrat Harry Reid controls the Senate, so why don't Reid and the President get together and do something? In terms of entitlement reform, Boehner will tell you that the President talks a good game but his actions never follow his words."
Which is just laughable, because everyone knows the Senate can not do anything without 60 votes, and the Democrats do not have the 60 votes they need. Boehner is an idiot, who will not deal with the President. Then he blames it on Obama and the Senate, which is insane.
What Boehner is doing is like selling a car, you want $10 grand for it, but the buyer (Boehner) only offers $5 grand, so you say no sale. Then the buyer blames you for not selling the car, it's ridiculous. You can not make a deal with someone if they will not do any kind of a deal.
Then Chris Wallace was on to talk about his interview with Mitt and Ann Romney, which will air Sunday. And of course the Republican Romney went to Fox for the interview.
Wallace said this: "This is the first interview he has done since Election Day. He knows that he lost a race that a lot of people thought he should have won and they blame him. He is keenly aware that he let a lot of people down and he feels a tremendous sense of frustration. I asked him about some things the campaign did wrong, and he took responsibility for every decision."
O'Reilly claimed that Romney could easily be answering to "Mr. President" right now, saying this: "It was his fault that he lost, he didn't do what he had to do to close the deal. He didn't take advantage of the Benghazi situation, he came across as detatched, and he didn't show an urgency. If he had been elected we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now."
Which is all speculation, the very speculation O'Reilly claims he never does. because he has no clue that if Romney would have won we would not be in the so-called mess we are in now, maybe it would have been worse, O'Reilly does not know, and he is not an economist, he is a history major. And I would say that even if Romney had run a good campaign he would have still lost, because Obama crushed him in the electoral vote.
Some polls had Romney ahead at one time, but all the electoral vote count websites (who got it exactly right btw) had Obama way ahead for the entire campaign, which is something O'Reilly is ignoring.
Then O'Reilly had the biased right-wing stooge Lou Dobbs on to talk about Fred Deluca, the founder of the Subway restaurant chain in the 1960's, who now says he could not start the same business today. And who is a Republican, making his statement not only ridiculous, but partisan garbage.
Dobbs said this: "Obamacare kicks in when a company has 50 employees, and there is a $2,000 fine for not providing Obamacare. The penalties are onerous for a small business."
Dobbs also talked about the current level of government regulation, saying this: "Back in 1960, one in 20 workers had to have an occupational licence of some sort, but now it's one in three! There are real and costly burdens on a small business trying to grow."
Which is just laughable, because corporations are setting record profits and the stock market just broke 14,000 on the way to a new record high. Right now in America businesses are doing great, and under Obama they have made more profits than under any other President. O'Reilly and Dobbs are so biased it's a joke, they are not telling you the truth, they are telling you right-wing propaganda.
Then two more right-wing stooges Bernard McGuirk and Greg Gutfeld were on to talk politics. Why, who knows, because nobody cares what these two loons have to say about anything, especially Gutfeld who has a so-called news show that comes on at 3am in the morning on Fox.
Hard core conservatives, are still angry that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie cozied up to President Obama after Hurricane Sandy, and did not invite the Governor to an upcoming convention.
Gutfeld said this: "This story is a joke. The left loves this political infighting, but it's too low to even be called political 'inside baseball,' it's more like 'inside lacrosse.' This is not a big deal except to people who want to paint the Republican Party as falling apart."
Hey Gutfeld, if it's not a big story why is everyone in the country reporting on it, including O'Reilly. It's a big deal because Christie has a 74% approval rating, he is the one Republican in America the majority of people like, and yet he was not invited to speak at CPAC, and that is a big deal because it shows the conservatives in the Republican party are crazy.
McGuirk said this: "This is a mistake and it's a stunning turnaround - he was a Tea Party darling just six months ago, and I don't think anything like this has happened since Hollywood turned its back on Fatty Arbuckle. Christie speaks the conservative language on the biggest threat facing our country, which is the debt and deficit. To throw him overboard is a total mistake, it would be like Fox News disowning Bill O'Reilly because you show a little love to Jon Stewart."
Returning for a second segment, Gutfeld and McGuirk talked about the ridiculous claim that American women are getting chubbier because they do less housework.
McGuirk said this: "This confirms what I've always thought, which is that Zumba classes are no substitute for swinging a mop and washing windows. I would add that there is something attractive about watching a woman clean a house, at least Arnold Schwarzenegger thought so."
Gutfeld said this: "Any activity above sedentary lifestyle will burn calories, that's all they're saying, but they inserted the housework part because they knew the media would pick this up. Women should do more housework, so should men. Housework is the most relaxing thing you can do, I do it all the time, usually in a French maid outfit, and I get $300 an hour."
And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Nice place to visit. Billy said this: "With its sensational weather, Southern California is an ideal spot to visit; with its confiscatory gas and income taxes, along with out-of-sight real estate prices, it's a mighty tough place to live."
O'Reilly Claims We Can Cut Spending To 2008 Levels By: Steve - March 2, 2013 - 10:00am
While downplaying the effects of the automatic spending cuts known as the sequester, Bill O'Reilly argued that government spending should be reduced to 2008 levels -- a proposal that echoes a 2010 GOP plan exactly, that economists said would damage the economy.
On the Friday March 1st O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly called for a rollback of federal spending to 2008 levels.
O'Reilly's idea is almost the exact plan as the 2010 Republican proposal to roll back most federal spending to 2008 levels. That proposal, which was part of the GOP's "Pledge to America," was slammed by most economists.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities wrote that the GOP plan would have "damaged the already weak economic recovery by forcing states and localities to lay off more workers and make even deeper cuts."
The Economic Policy Institute wrote that if such a plan had been implemented, it could have cost as many as 590,000 jobs.
And btw, O'Reilly's suggestion came during a segment in which he joined others in the right-wing media in downplaying the effects of the sequester, which could cost one million jobs.