Rove Political Group Lied To IRS & O'Reilly Ignored It
By: Steve - November 29, 2013 - 11:00am

Imagine this, let's say James Carville had a political group that raised millions and gave that money to Democratic candidates, then that group was caught lying about who got some of that money, and they did not report it to the IRS. O'Reilly would lose him mind and report on it every night for a week, then do a follow up show or two over the next month.

But when his buddy and regular guest Karl Rove does it, not only did O'Reilly not lose his mind, he ignored it and never said a word. Even though Rove was on his show, he just acted as if it never happened.

Last Monday it was reported how the Karl Rove-linked dark money group Crossroads GPS spent about $11 million more on political activities in 2012 than it disclosed to the Internal Revenue Service.

By comparing tax documents, Kim Barker showed how even though Crossroads justified its social welfare non-profit status by pointing to $35 million in grants it made in 2012 to other non-profits, "at least $11.2 million of the grant money given to the group Americans for Tax Reform was spent on political activities expressly advocating for or against candidates."

This means that Crossroads spent $85.7 million on political activities, not the $74.5 million the group reported to the IRS on its 2012 tax return. It also means political activities made up about 45 percent of Crossroads total expenditures.

And btw folks, O'Reilly never discloses the fact that Rove has a political group that gives Republicans $85 million dollars a year (that we know of) to beat Democrats. And when CNN or MSNBC does not disclose ties of guests to Democratic political groups O'Reilly reports on it and cries foul. So when they do it it's wrong, but when he does it then it's ok.

This is not only bias from O'Reilly, it's hypocrisy and a double standard. Which is business as usual for O'Reilly, who does this kind of thing pretty much every night on the Factor.

The Wednesday 11-27-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 28, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Are you Happy with Your Country? The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: We live in a divided nation. After five years of President Obama wanting to change America and impose 'social justice,' many Americans have had enough. The economy is all wrong and the only reason we are not in a recession is because the Fed is printing money to prop things up. Also, the health care situation is chaotic, to say the least.

In a recent Fox News poll, 73% of Americans say they are 'not satisfied' with how things are going in the country. Part of that is the harsh rhetoric that is being used in the arena of ideas. The far left, now on the defensive, is lashing out, and there is no shortage of anger on the right. The divide between Democrats and Republicans is so great that only a huge event will be able breach it.

We had that on 9/11, when Americans united against the terror attack. And now we have another shock, the impending collapse of Obamacare. If that happens, independent voters will swing to the right and the Republican Party will re-emerge with a powerful mandate.

That will not stop the political hatred, but it will give another political philosophy a chance to turn America around. And so, while Thanksgiving should be a day of reflection, big change may be in the air. Some of us will be thankful if that change happens and some of us will not be.
And what O'Reilly failed to tell you is that the majority of the people are never happy with the direction of the country, even in good economic times, the majority are still unhappy. Because they do not like what all politicians do, which is do what the wealthy and the corporations want.

I went back 4 years and looked at the numbers, and the highest right direction number I could find was 45% in May of 2009, which is still a minority. For example, in October of 2008 it was 7% under Bush. Obama was elected in January of 2009 and by May it was up to 45%, and O'Reilly does not tell you any of that.

From January of 2006 to January of 2009 the highest it ever got under Bush was 32%, and that was in 2006, by January of 2009 it was down to 15% under Bush. So as you can see the majority are never happy, but you would not know that unless I tell you, because O'Reilly ignored it. Not to mention, the economy is doing ok, and would be doing a lot better if Republicans voted to create jobs instead of blocking everything.

Then psychiatrists Keith Ablow and Gail Saltz were on to discuss it.

Ablow said this: "Many people are sour on their own existences, and even depressed because of what's happening in the nation. There is a message from Washington that you are not the master of your destiny, that you need help to make the right decisions and you're going to have to buy things like health insurance even if it isn't the product you would choose. A disempowering message from the government, just like one from a family, is depressing!"

Which is total right-wing propaganda, and that fool should not be allowed on the air, he is a biased hack.

Saltz said this: "There is trouble in the economy, and when people don't have money they feel helpless. People are also frightened about a lot of the violence that is going on right now and what's happening with guns."

Which is also nonsense, people are worried about jobs and making money, they do not care about violence or guns. Then O'Reilly had what he claimed was a reality check, saying this: "Violent crime has been falling for two decades and gun violence doesn't affect most people personally."

Then Democrat Kirsten Powers and Republican Kate Obenshain were on to talk about the Obama administration, and if it is doing enough to promote self-reliance.

Powers said this: "I don't think any president in recent history has promoted self-reliance, and this isn't about government. I just don't think it's the role of the government to promote self-reliance. I was always working, and I agree that's an important thing, but I don't think it has anything to do with the government."

Obenshain said this: "This administration is doing the exact opposite, there is a decreased emphasis on growth and economic opportunity in the private sector. We've seen a massive expansion of the public sector and a massive expansion of dependency. President Obama is embracing a mindset that the government can take care of you."

Then James Rosen and Carl Cameron were on to report on Iran's nuclear ambitions. With no Democratic guests for balance.

Rosen said this: "Iran is now saying that the United States and the Obama administration are misrepresenting the deal, and to a certain extent they are right. They claim this piece of paper effectively concedes to Iran the right to enrich uranium, despite the fact that there have been United Nations resolutions demanding that they stop."

Cameron said this: "It's going to be very difficult to get anything done in 2014. The Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill over the summer, but Speaker John Boehner and House Republicans argue that massive pieces of legislation, like Obamacare, create massive headaches and problems. So they want to break it up into separate bills and the sticking point is always going to be the 'path to citizenship' for undocumented immigrants who are here. There will not be a major deal, there will be a few small steps."

Then Jamie Colby was on for did you see that, she talked about Gordon Jenkins, mayor of Monticello, New York, was recently arrested for drunken driving.

Colby said this: "I called the Mayor, and we talked for 20 minutes. He says this is all a misunderstanding and he keeps getting in trouble because the police don't like him. He won't approve police overtime, he won't increase their budget, and he insists that he was not drunk. But he refused to take a breathalyzer and he has two other misdemeanor arrests on his record."

And nobody cares, it's a local news story that a national tv news show should not even be reporting on.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Music to Your Ears. Billy said this: "When the time is right to put on some holiday music, consider these three albums: "Christmas Collection" by The Carpenters, "James Taylor at Christmas," and "Sending You a Little Christmas" by Johnny Mathis."

Are you kidding me O'Reilly, The Carpenters, James Taylor, and Johnny Mathis? Most people do not even know who they are these days, let alone plan to get their Christmas albums. Oh yeah I forgot, most of your viewers are 80 years old, so they know who they are.

The Tuesday 11-26-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 27, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The Real Cost of Obamacare. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama said the Affordable Health Care Act will eventually make health care less expensive in America. But according to an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, spending on health care will reach almost $3 trillion this year, more than 25% above what was spent in 2007. And it is estimated that health care spending will rise to $5 trillion a year in 2022. So the law makes health care 'affordable' for whom?

There are new taxes on medical equipment, medical insurance companies, charitable hospitals, and drug companies, all of which will be passed on to we the people. The truth is that no one, except those receiving free or subsidized health care from the government, will pay less for health insurance. 28% of all businesses in America say they will drop health care coverage for employees by 2015.

In addition, about 60% of business people believe Obamacare will hurt their bottom line, and a conservative think tank estimates that 80 million Americans who currently have employer health plans could find their coverage canceled. Sorry about all the stats, but you have to know this stuff.

The Affordable Care Act will change your life and my life, and for most Americans Obamacare will make life far more complicated and drive up premiums. More money out of your pocket, fewer doctors available, and businesses cutting back on benefits and hiring. Those are the consequences of Obamacare.
Notice that O'Reilly cites a biased OP-ED in the Wall Street Journal, not a health care expert, or a financial expert. And that is all you need to know, that O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack who sounds like a broken record. Of course health care cost will go up over time, everything goes up over time. That is not what the law was passed to do, it was passed to give 40 million poor people health care, so the more wealthy people are going to pay a little more, but they will also get much better health insurance coverage.

Then 2 Democrats, Mary Anne Marsh and Leslie Marshall were on with their opinions of the health care bill.

Marshall said this: "We have to look at the whole picture. There will be higher taxes for some, but the middle class will not have the burden and lower income people will have access to health care."

Marsh said this: "People who haven't been able to have health care because they have pre-existing conditions or because they can't afford it are going to have it now. So everybody is going to share the risk, everybody is going to share the cost."

O'Reilly said this: "This is redistribution and President Obama should be upfront about that. He's basically telling Americans that he's going to take from them in the form of higher taxes and premiums."

We already know that moron, you seem to be the only person in America who does not understand it. Stop crying about it, and stop repeating this same garbage every night, you are a right-wing fool and nobody cares what you think about it. Move on and report some real news.

Then the right-wing stooge Karl Rove was on to spin the polls. Rove claims the health care fiasco has given Republicans momentum, which of course is music to the ears of Karl Rove. Even though it's not true.

Rove said this: "The decline in Democratic support and the growth in Republican support is seen in all the polls. We don't know what will happen a year from now, but Obamacare is going to continue to be bad news for the Democrats, we've just seen the tip of the iceberg on cancellations. Also, the economy is not particularly good the President's ratings are low, and all these things point toward a lower number in Congress for the Democrats next year. The Democrats are defending seven seats in the Senate in states won by Mitt Romney."

And I predict that a year from now the obamacare website will be working just fine and most people will be happy with Obamacare. So everything Rove said will be wrong, as usual. Let's not forget that Rove was wrong about EVERYTHING in the election between Obama and Romney, he got everything wrong.

Then the right-wing moron John Stossel was on, he described the Plymouth Colony as an early example of socialism's failure. As if he is an impartial judge of that, when he really is nothing more than a biased Fox News idiot.

Stossel said this: "Let's be thankful for private property, because the Pilgrims almost starved. The idea was that the colony would be a commune and everybody would work together, each according to his ability. They didn't grow enough food and they nearly starved, so Governor William Bradford assigned every family a parcel of land and once they owned their own land they worked harder."

Stossel also touted his upcoming Thursday night special called "The Tragedy of the Commons." "If you have a 'common' land, all the sheep herders bring their sheep in until there is no grass left. Same thing with overfishing the ocean - 'the common' sounds nice, but it doesn't work."

Wow, that is some of the dumbest crap I have ever heard. What does something the Pilgrims did a million years ago have anything to do with anything in fricking modern day 2013?

Then Monica Crowley & Alan Colmes were on to talk about a viral video shows students at the University of Colorado consuming vast quantities of alcohol and acting like, well, drunken college students. Even though that is what most college students do, and have done for a million years, it's normal.

The insane O'Reilly asked Crowley and Colmes if the display is related to Colorado's swing to the left. Which should get O'Reilly an award for dumbest question of the year. In fact, the Republicans I know drink more than the Democrats I know. Drinking is not a left or right issue, and it has nothing to do with your political views.

Colmes said this: "A lot of colleges could produce the same video, and this is one of the leading party schools. Another is West Virginia, not exactly a liberal stronghold. So are you going to blame liberals for this?"

Crowley agreed that the public drunkenness is not unusual, saying this: "This goes on in pretty much every university, college kids drink and do drugs and hook up. This is probably a big advertisement for the university because kids say, look at how much fun they're having. I'm not endorsing the bad behavior, I'm just saying no one should be shocked."

Basically they both told O'Reilly he is wrong and it's crazy to even be asking a question about it, let alone devote an entire segment to it on a so-called hard news show.

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Stacy Schneider scrutinized a high-profile case which pits a private company against Obamacare.

Guilfoyle said this: "Hobby Lobby is an arts and crafts store, and they have always defined themselves as a Christian company. They object to the Obamacare coverage of 'emergency contraceptives,' a pill that terminates pregnancy. That's not unreasonable and I believe the Supreme Court will rule that the company can exercise its religious freedom."

Schneider looked at another lawsuit involving conservative groups who say they were harassed by the Internal Revenue Service, saying this: "41 conservative tax-exempt groups are suing the IRS because of this scrutiny they were put under. They're claiming that the federal government promised investigations, but no one has even come to interview them."

Then the biased right-wing stooge Charles Krauthammer was on to of course slam Obama for something else, because that is what he gets paid to do. President Obama is pushing for a large-scale immigration bill, but Krauthammer advised the President not to get his hopes up.

Krauthammer said this: "There is no way they're going to pass it. The only way to pass it would be through very heavy presidential pressure, but he's lost his influence. When a second-term president has low ratings, he's not able to do something of this importance."

Krauthammer also condemned the deal intended to curb Iran's nuclear capabilities, saying this: "This will give us a nuclear Iran, that is sworn to destroy Israel. And it isn't only Israel - the Saudis are apoplectic, they know they've been abandoned by the United States. This guarantees, with Western blessing, that Iran will be a threshold nuclear state."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was not a tip, it was nothing more than a promotion of the O'Reilly books he has out. So I will not be reporting that nonsense.

Florida Election Supervisors Stunned By Voter Restrictions
By: Steve - November 27, 2013 - 10:00am

Florida Gov. Rick Scott's (R) chief election official issued new rules Monday night that could hamper absentee voting, just months before Floridians in the state's 13th Congressional district take part in a special election to replace the late Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R). The seat was held by Republicans for decades, but is now considered a tossup.

The move surprised some election supervisors, who confirmed that Secretary of State Ken Detzner had not consulted them before announcing the change. Under the new rule, Floridians will be prohibited from dropping off their absentee ballots at libraries, tax collectors branch offices and other places and will only be allowed to mail-in their selections or deposit them at local election offices.

Detzner claims that the rule change clarifies established statutory language and establishes uniformity, but some supervisors fear that it could have the effect of suppressing voter turnout.

"I was surprised, to say the least," Ann McFall, Volusia's Supervisor of Elections said. "I just have one office and no 'drop boxes.' Under the new rules, "people who like to save postage and drop it off at an early voting site" could no longer do so.

"Why create a problem when none currently exists?" she asked. "If the Secretary of State were to call me, I would ask why not wait until the winter conference in a few weeks to get ideas from the Supervisors of Elections?"

Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections Deborah Clark had a similar reaction. She told The Tampa Bay Times, "I'm very worried about this. I'm just stunned." Pinellas county has used dropoff sites since 2008 and used 14 in the 2012 general election, when 42 percent of the county's absentee ballot total were left at dropoff sites.

Detzner has a history of limiting voters access. In 2012, the state created a voter purge list full of suspected non-citizens, which was mainly comprised of Latino, African and Asian Americans, who mostly vote for Democrats.

The list was full of mistakes, targeting U.S. citizens because of a misspelled name or outdated address. County election supervisors refused to go along with the purge, and the Justice Department sued over possible racial discrimination. Detzner eventually apologized for the effort.

The Monday 11-25-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 26, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Dangerous Deal? The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Over the weekend President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry told the world that a compromise had been reached with Iran over nuclear weapons. First, the agreement slows down, but does not stop, Iran's development of nuclear weapons. Second, President Obama says this is just the first part of the deal, that more stringent controls will be brought to Iran after six months.

The anti-Obama forces do not believe that will ever happen, but, on the other side, many believe it's good that we are engaging the mullahs. Talking Points believes the USA could have made a better deal. If we had held out for a few more months, the Iranian economy would have gotten worse and we would have been in a stronger position to make Iran give up much more.

But with President Obama in trouble over Obamacare, he wanted to make the deal to demonstrate leadership. But that may not work, as some Democrats don't like the deal and there is now a move in Congress to impose even stricter sanctions.

So there you have it - the deal delays, but does not prevent, Iranian nuclear weapons. The President says a better deal will be forthcoming. On the other side, critics say Iran is being appeased and will cheat all day long.
Then Republican Senator John McCain was on to discuss it, with no Democratic guest for balance.

McCain said this: "There are three factors in developing nuclear weapons. One is the nuclear material itself, the others are the weapons and the missiles and Iran is proceeding apace with those two things. Also, we are looking at the issue of nuclear weapons while Iran is sending 5,000 Hezbollah into Syria and is spreading terror throughout the region. They are responsible for the deaths of Americans and they have cheated and prevaricated for years. The fundamental has to be that they should not have the right to enrich, but if you look at the fine print on this agreement, we have basically conceded that. That's outrageous and ridiculous!"

Then Brit Hume was on with his assessment of the Iran agreement, and no Democratic guests for balance.

Hume said this: "It's a small deal, and it's just not big enough to go very far in any direction. The critics are mostly worried that Iran will cheat and that it will be difficult for the Obama administration to re-impose sanctions that have been lifted."

Hume also said this: "I think this is certainly a welcome development as he seeks to get some of the heat off Obamacare. Presidents making deals with countries we feel are enemies generally meets with the approval of the public, they like to see the President active on the world stage seeking peace. But this is too minor of a deal so far to do much to overcome people's distress at the Obamacare rollout."

Notice that not one Democratic guest was on to comment on the Iran deal, it was all Republicans, with all right-wing opinions. Where is the balance O'Reilly? Where is the no spin zone? Where is the fairness to Obama you claim to have? How is it fair to only have Republicans who hate Obama on to discuss it?

Then Juan Williams & Mary K. Ham were on to talk about President Obama and the immigration issue, urging a "comprehensive" reform that includes a more secure border and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Williams said this: "The Senate has passed a bill that has a ton of money to secure the border. The President says he supports that bill, but House Speaker Boehner is sitting on it, it looks like he's just given up. Most Americans want something done."

Ham said this: "There were a lot of things in Obamacare that he was supposed to follow through on, but he's skipped over various parts of the law. So when you see that the President is not acting on his own signature law, you become even more distrustful about immigration."

O'Reilly said that the President is generally not trusted on the immigration front, saying this: "Nobody believes President Obama will secure the border. They believe he'll give the pathway to citizenship, but nobody believes he'll stop more people from coming in."

Which is laughable, because border crossings are down more under Obama than they were under Bush, and the Obama administration has deported more illegals than Bush did, so O'Reilly is ignoring the facts, again.

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to cry about CNN morning host Chris Cuomo who downplayed the vile slander hurled at Sarah Palin by MSNBC's Martin Bashir. Goldberg responded by taking Cuomo to the media woodshed.

Goldberg said this: "Cuomo is going out of his way to find context in what Bashir meant with his vile comment. This tells me that Cuomo doesn't like Sarah Palin either. He seems to be defending the indefensible or at least trying to understand this comment that is so nasty we're not even saying what it is. Would he try to find meaning if someone made an equally vile remark about gays or women or Muslims? No."

Goldberg also said this: "The president of MSNBC, Phil Griffin, has created a culture where this kind of thing happens all too often."

And O'Reilly said that no one should be surprised by Bashir's remarks, saying this: "He is a smear merchant, that's what he does."

So is O'Reilly, that's what he does, and Hannity does it too, so does Glenn Beck. In fact, half the people at Fox News have said things so bad about liberals they should have been fired, including O'Reilly. Fox News is far worse than anybody at calling people names, but they do it to liberals so it's ok with O'Reilly and the management at Fox.

You guys are massive hypocrites, O'Reilly calls people every name in the book, pinheads, nazis, traitors, and on and on. Hannity does it too, every night. But you never say anything about that, you ignore it then cry foul when someone at CNN or MSNBC does it. Hey jerks, people in glass houses should not throw rocks, think about that you idiots.

Then O'Reilly had one of the worst name callers in America on, after complaining about liberals calling conservatives names. The right-wing idiot who was fired from Fox Glenn Beck was on with his take on the Obamacare mess.

Beck said this: "We were eviscerated for saying this is exactly what would happen, and when America really sees what is going on, they're going to lose their minds. Insurance companies weren't throwing people off the rolls, but this government is forcing people off. What President Obama really meant was, 'If I like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.'"

No idiot, you were slammed for lying about Obamacare and for opposing health care for the 40 million poor people who did not and could not get health insurance. Once the website bugs are worked out and the exchanges are up and running right people will be happy with Obamacare, and you are a fool.

Beck also spoke about his new book, which documents some little-known chapters in U.S. history, saying this: "There are some shocking things in this book. I loved Thomas Edison before I started this, but he was a dirt bag. He was electrocuting dogs and horses to try to push his product. And when you see what really happened at Wounded Knee, our own military lied in court. This needs to be exposed so we can learn from these things."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: You Deserve a Break Today ... or Soon. Billy said this: "Everybody needs an occasional break, so find some way to carve out some time for your own rest and relaxation."

Thank you Mr. obvious, now give us a real tip and tell us something we do not already know.

Fact Checking Fox Finds Propaganda With No Facts
By: Steve - November 26, 2013 - 10:00am

Fox News reported that the Cleveland Clinic was instituting "massive layoffs" due to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, but when asked about the reports, a Clinic spokesperson said this: "We're not."

On November 25, The Daily Caller published an article titled, "Top U.S. hospital laying off staff due to Obamacare."

On Fox Business' Markets Now, host Connell McShane reported on the "massive layoffs."

America's Newsroom host Bill Hemmer claimed that the Cleveland Clinic was going to "shed workers."

Later, during the America's News HQ, Fox reporter Chris Stirewalt claimed that the layoffs "rocked the community there in northeastern Ohio."

Look at that folks, this is how the right-wing media echo chamber works, a so-called news source reports a story that is not true, then the rest of the right-wing media repeat it, even though it's a lie. Their motto is if you say it enough times people will believe it.

The Daily Caller is a biased, dishonest, and partisan news source founded by the right-wing stooge Tucker Carlson, and nothing they report can be trusted. And yet, all those other morons at Fox picked it up and repeated the lies from the Daily Caller.

And now the facts: The Cleveland Clinic is not laying off any employees. Eileen Sheil, Cleveland Clinic's Executive Director of Corporate Communications, said, "There have been several mis-reports and they keep mentioning that we're laying off 3,000 employees. We're not."

Sheil explained that Cleveland Clinic is offering voluntary retirement to eligible employees and that the Clinic is also "working on many initiatives to lower costs, drive efficiencies, reduce duplication of services across our system and provide quality care to our patients."

Sheil continued, "Many of these initiatives do not impact our employees."

Sheil also said that Fox News had been notified of its error and that the Cleveland Clinic requested Fox's future reporting on the issue more accurately present the Clinic's plans.

But of course Fox has still not corrected its mistake. Despite Fox's reporting, Sheil reiterated the Clinic's support for the Affordable Care Act, saying this:
SHEIL: We believe reform is necessary because the current state is unsustainable. The ACA is a step toward that change and we believe more changes will come/evolve as there are still many uncertainties. Hospitals must be responsible and do what we can to prepare and support the law.
And the reason Tucker Carlson and all of Fox News are lying about it is due to President Obama's frequent praise of the hospital. This is what the right-wing media do, lie and spin their viewers to make Obama look bad. Basically one source reports the lie, then all the rest of them repeat the lie and call it journalism. When it's really nothing but lies and right-wing propaganda.

Professor Krugman Does A Fact Check On Obamacare
By: Steve - November 25, 2013 - 11:00am

Here are some facts about Obamacare, facts you will never see reported by O'Reilly or his fill-in stooge Laura Ingraham. Because they are both partisan right-wing jerks who do not want you to know all the facts, they just want you to have part of the facts to make Obama look bad. It's called Republican propaganda, the very same propaganda O'Reilly claims to oppose, even though he spews it out himself.

Notice that NY is doing ok, which is the home State of O'Reilly, and yet he still never reports that they are doing good with Obamacare. He ignores all the good news about Obamacare, and when someone mentions the good news, he cuts them off and calls it propaganda. When they are right, and he does not want to hear the truth, not even about his own State.

-------------------------------------------------------

California, Here We Come?

By Paul Krugman

It goes without saying that the rollout of Obamacare was an epic disaster. But what kind of disaster was it? Was it a failure of management, messing up the initial implementation of a fundamentally sound policy? Or was it a demonstration that the Affordable Care Act is inherently unworkable?

We know what each side of the partisan divide wants you to believe. The Obama administration is telling the public that everything will eventually be fixed, and urging Congressional Democrats to keep their nerve. Republicans, on the other hand, are declaring the program an irredeemable failure, which must be scrapped and replaced with... well, they don't really want to replace it with anything.

At a time like this, you really want a controlled experiment. What would happen if we unveiled a program that looked like Obamacare, in a place that looked like America, but with competent project management that produced a working website?

Well, your wish is granted. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you California.

Now, California isn't the only place where Obamacare is looking pretty good. A number of states that are running their own online health exchanges instead of relying on HealthCare.gov are doing well. Kentucky's Kynect is a huge success; so is Access Health CT in Connecticut. New York is doing O.K. And we shouldn't forget that Massachusetts has had an Obamacare-like program since 2006, put into effect by a guy named Mitt Romney.

California is, however, an especially useful test case. First of all, it's huge: if a system can work for 38 million people, it can work for America as a whole. Also, it's hard to argue that California has had any special advantages other than that of having a government that actually wants to help the uninsured. When Massachusetts put Romneycare into effect, it already had a relatively low number of uninsured residents.

California, however, came into health reform with 22 percent of its nonelderly population uninsured, compared with a national average of 18 percent.

Finally, the California authorities have been especially forthcoming with data tracking the progress of enrollment. And the numbers are increasingly encouraging.

For one thing, enrollment is surging. At this point, more than 10,000 applications are being completed per day, putting the state well on track to meet its overall targets for 2014 coverage. Just imagine, by the way, how different press coverage would be right now if Obama officials had produced a comparable success, and around 100,000 people a day were signing up nationwide.

Equally important is the information on who is enrolling. To work as planned, health reform has to produce a balanced risk pool -- that is, it must sign up young, healthy Americans as well as their older, less healthy compatriots. And so far, so good: in October, 22.5 percent of California enrollees were between the ages of 18 and 34, slightly above that group's share of the population.

What we have in California, then, is a proof of concept. Yes, Obamacare is workable -- in fact, done right, it works just fine.

The bad news, of course, is that most Americans aren't lucky enough to live in states in which Obamacare has, in fact, been done right. They're stuck either with HealthCare.gov or with one of the state exchanges, like Oregon's, that have similar or worse problems. Will they ever get to experience successful health reform?

The answer is yes. There won't be a moment when the clouds suddenly lift, but the exchanges are gradually getting better -- a point inadvertently illustrated a few days ago by John Boehner, the speaker of the House.

Mr. Boehner staged a publicity stunt in which he tried to sign up on the D.C. health exchange, then triumphantly posted an entry on his blog declaring that he had been unsuccessful. At the bottom of his post, however, is a postscript admitting that the health exchange had called back "a few hours later," and that he is now enrolled.

And maybe the transaction would have proceeded faster if Mr. Boehner's office hadn't, according to the D.C. exchange, put its agent -- who was calling to help finish the enrollment -- on hold for 35 minutes, listening to "lots of patriotic hold music."

There will also probably be growing use of workarounds -- for example, encouraging people to go directly to insurers. This will temporarily defeat one of the purposes of the exchanges, which was to make price comparisons easy, but it will be good enough as a short-term patch. And one shouldn't forget that the insurance industry has a big financial stake in the success of Obamacare, and will soon be pitching in with big efforts to sign people up.

Again, Obamacare's rollout was a disaster. But in California we can see what health reform will look like, beyond the glitches. And it's going to work.

Another City Looking At Raising Minimum Wage
By: Steve - November 24, 2013 - 11:00am

And of course O'Reilly ignores it, because he is too busy spinning out the right-wing propaganda on it that says raising the minimum wage would cost the country jobs, even though the studies say the opposite, that if you raise it the economy will improve and jobs will be added not lost. And btw folks, 76% of the American people support it, and yet O'Reilly is still opposed to it. Proving once again he puts right-wing ideology ahead of the will of the people.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- District of Columbia Mayor Vincent Gray said Friday he supports increasing the city's minimum wage to $10 an hour, setting up a possible showdown with the D.C. Council over pay for low-wage workers.

A council committee is scheduled to vote Monday on a bill that would increase the minimum wage to $11.50 an hour, one of the highest in the nation. Suburban Montgomery and Prince George's counties are considering the same wage.

Earlier this year, the Democratic mayor and the council sparred over a bill that would have forced Wal-Mart and other large retailers to pay their employees a "living wage" of at least $12.50 an hour. The council approved the bill but fell one vote short of overriding a mayoral veto. Wal-Mart had pledged not to build three of its six planned stores in the city if the bill became law.

Gray's letter does not say whether he would veto an $11.50 minimum wage if the bill reaches his desk. Democratic Councilmember Vincent Orange, a lead sponsor of the Wal-Mart bill and the minimum wage legislation, said he's confident his proposal has broad support.

The full council could vote on the wage bill as soon as next month. It would increase the city's minimum wage to $11.50 an hour by July 2016, with future increases tied to the Consumer Price Index to account for inflation.

The district's current minimum wage is $8.25, $1 higher than the federal minimum.

San Francisco has the nation's highest minimum wage at $10.74, with Santa Fe, N.M., just 2 cents behind.

Because increases in those wages are tied to inflation, San Francisco is projected to have an $11.22 minimum wage by 2016, according to the National Employment Law Project. The D.C. Chamber of Commerce has also recommended a $10 minimum wage for the district, to be phased in over a 3-year period, with future increases tied to the CPI.

Hey O'Reilly; California Is Getting Out Of Debt
By: Steve - November 24, 2013 - 10:00am

Remember back to 2012 when O'Reilly slammed California for their debt and said they were done, that the State needs the feds to take over because they are so far in debt then can never pay it back. I do, and I also remember saying O'Reilly is an idiot who is wrong, looks like I was right and O'Reilly was wrong.

In November of 2012 O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: California owes an astounding $167 billion. And it's running an annual deficit of about $9 billion, money that can never, never be paid back. And what is California getting for all of that? High school graduation rate; 37th out of 50 states. Per capita income, $44,500. But there is a 10.1 percent unemployment rate. Crime number one, there are more prisoners in California than any other state.

Californians generally embrace big government in just about all areas. I mean when the city council of San Francisco proposes to ban gold fish, you know you have intrusive situation. By the way that same city council finally banned public nudity last week except for permitted festivals or parades. Thank God the Thanksgiving Day parade, not held in the city by the bay.
And now the facts: California Now Has A Surplus Of $2.4 billion, and what a shocker O'Reilly has not said a word about it, NOT!

For the first time in nearly a decade, California is collecting more revenue than it is spending and will finish the fiscal year with an extra $2.4 billion, according to a report released Wednesday by the Legislature's nonpartisan budget analyst.

The good news comes after an era that saw one of the worst budget crises in California history - the fiscal shortfall sank to $60 billion in the 2009-10 budget, the state controller mailed IOUs to vendors in 2009 and state lawmakers slashed programs year after year to make ends meet.

Now, thanks to the passage of Proposition 30 last year and the improving economy, California is looking at surpluses over the next six years - even after the temporary taxes under Prop. 30 expire, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office.

The legislative analyst projected surpluses of $2.4 billion by June 2014 and $5.6 billion by June 2015. Reserves are projected to continue growing to nearly $10 billion by June 2018.

Remember folks, O'Reilly said just last year that they were so far in debt they could NEVER pay it back. And yet, a year later they are running a surplus, and expect to run a surplus for at least 6 more years. Which is 100% proof you should never listen to O'Reilly when he talks about economics or debt. He is a biased hack who can not be trusted to tell you the truth.

The Friday 11-22-13 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - November 23, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Where's the Transparency? The biased far-right hack Laura Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: Senate Democrats, supported by the President, have changed the filibuster rules to limit the rights of the Senate minority party. And now there's a new domination move, this time limiting the right of the people to get an independent view of President Obama while he's conducting official business.

38 of the nation's largest news organizations, including Fox News, have lodged a complaint against the White House for instituting onerous new limitations on photojournalists covering President Obama. Access to important executive branch functions is being shut off so the White House can release its own 'official' video and photos.

Sounds like propaganda, Pravda style. As the press began to turn a more critical eye on President Obama and his policies, the White House has moved more aggressively to limit access and circumvent scrutiny. Call it Obama's 'iron curtain.'

This is a far cry from what Barack Obama promised when he said 'transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.' But look on the bright side - the mainstream press is finally waking up, even if it's four years too late.
Ingraham should know about propaganda, because she puts it out for the Republican Party every day on her radio show and on Fox News. Virtually nothing Ingraham says is true, it's almost all right-wing spin, and I have caught her in so many lies over the last year I lost count.

And btw, notice that O'Reilly has made the far-right propagandist Laura Ingraham his regular fill-in host, proving that he is also a biased Republican, because only a biased Republican would make Laura Ingraham the full-time fill in host. O'Reilly used to try and fool people that he was fair and balanced by using Juan Williams once or twice a year as a fill-in host, but he has given up on that con job.

Then Ed Henry was on, who is among those asking for more access to the President.

Henry said this: "Journalists are realizing that they have to stand up and demand access, whether it's a Democrat or Republican in the White House. The White House claims they are adding more transparency and access by having their own official photographers and videographer. But sometimes the official administration-run media are replacing journalists who go in and ask the President direct questions with our own cameras and notebooks. Independent journalism is being replaced by administration officials who are paid by the White House."

Hey pal, you get what you deserve. Why should the President give your liars and spin doctors more access, you are lucky to get what you have now. If I were the President I would ban all of you from everything, because all you do is sin and lie about what he is doing. President Obama simply wants to improve the country, create more jobs, and give everyone health care. And all you bums do is slam him and lie about him, so shut up and try doing your job in an honest way.

Then the Republican pollster Kelly Anne Conway and Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis were on to talk about the Obama job approval numbers. Which is funny, because when Obama had high approval numbers O'Reilly and Fox ignored them, now that they have dropped suddenly it's a valid topic of discussion.

Kofinis said this: "The poll numbers will stay low for a while, until the American people start seeing some better news about Obamacare. At some point that will happen, there are clearly some positives, and Republicans are not going to win elections by just saying 'Obamacare.'"

Conway said this: "People are starting to see Obamacare for what it is, which is not just a broken website. They're starting to see that this is the government, for the first time in history, forcing us to buy a product that we don't need at a price we can't afford."

Then Ingraham asked political scientist Larry Sabato what lessons can be learned from JFK.

Sabato said this: "President Obama has to try to engineer a comeback, and one way to do that would be to look at the substance of John F. Kennedy's administration, not just the rhetoric. Kennedy was liberal on some things, but his economic policies were generally rather conservative and he believed in a tough posture toward America's enemies. So it was a mixture of philosophies, and that's how to keep a bipartisan coalition behind you."

Ingraham suggested that President Obama would also be well-advised to follow the lead of another Democratic president. "When Bill Clinton got shellacked in the 1994 midterm election, he was humbled and he changed. You do not get that sense from this administration, there's no pivoting."

Then Ingraham said Hillary Clinton is gearing up for a presidential run and most Democrats support her. Which may be the only thing that Ingraham said in the whole show that is true.

Former Clinton advisor Richard Goodstein said this: "She is incredibly well-qualified, as a former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State. Were it not for her position with Russia, we would not be taking chemical weapons out of Syria, we wouldn't have Kaddafi out of Libya, and I don't think we would be in the position of turning back the clock on nuclear weapon development in Iran. She has a lot to be boastful about."

Laura, of course hates her and said this: "Brit Hume recently said that the idea of Hillary Clinton is wonderful, but the reality of Mrs. Clinton is weaker. Look at the 'Arab Spring' and our relationship with Russia, which is closer to China than it was five years ago. She was an amazing global traveler and is very smart, but most countries now have a lower opinion of the United States than they did five years ago. I also think what happened in Benghazi sticks in the craw of a lot of people."

Then Geraldo was on to talk about the so-called "Knockout Game," in which young black males punch random white folks.

Geraldo said this: "In New York they call this 'punch a Jew,' and an arrest was just made hours ago for the latest attack on a Jewish victim. They arrested four alleged perpetrators - three are Latino and one is Asian, so it appears these assailants are not black. But where is it coming from, why is it spreading, where are the dads? I don't think it's boredom as much as it's the quest for notoriety. Their YouTube postings have gotten as many as million views and they suddenly have their moment of fame, their instant of infamy."

Hannity Condemns Filibuster Reform He Supported Under Bush
By: Steve - November 23, 2013 - 10:00am

Sean Hannity called the Senate's passage of filibuster reform a "lawless maneuver" despite having supported it in 2005 under Republican President George W. Bush.

After the Senate voted to change the rules on judicial nominees to allow confirmation with a simple majority vote, Hannity called the move a "lawless maneuver," saying "Democrats break the rules."

But in 2005, under a Republican president and Republican-controlled Congress, Hannity called judicial nominations one of the "specific instances in the Constitution where they call for a supermajority," arguing that it was "unconstitutional to filibuster."

Hannity said this: "There are seven specific instances in the Constitution where they call for a supermajority. I believe it's unconstitutional to filibuster. It is not about advice and consent now to ask for a supermajority on judicial nominations. I believe that is not constitutional."

As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed out, of the 168 filibusters of executive and judicial nominations that have occurred in the history of the U.S. Senate, half have occurred during the Obama administration.

And Hannity is not alone, back when Bush was the President just about every Republican you can name was against the filibuster of executive and judicial nominations. But now they have flipped their position, simply because a Democrat is in the White House now, here are some examples.

In 2004 under George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh said this: "The Constitution Says Nothing About This. The Constitution Says Simple Majority, 51 Votes."

In 2005 the conservative Rich Lowry said this: Judicial Filibusters Are "A Perversion" Of Traditional Checks And Balances And Should Be Eliminated "Through The So-Called Nuclear Option."

In 2005 Karl Rove said this: "We Believe That Fairness Means That [Nominees] Deserve An Up-Or-Down Vote."

In 2005 Bill Kristol said this: "Congress' Role In Approving Executive-Branch Nominees Is To Have An Up Or Down Vote."

In 2005 Pat Robertson said this: "These Filibusters Have Been Unconstitutional. And The Senate, I Just Think The Majority Should Say, `Look, We Want An Up And Down Vote.'"

In 2005 Senator Mitch McConnell was a big proponent of a plan to outright end the filibuster, because out of over two hundred Republican judges that were nominated, a handful were blocked by Democrats.

As Senate whip, McConnell was a key player in the GOP's 2005 effort to change the filibuster rules using -- you guessed it -- 51 votes. As he said at the time, "This is not the first time a minority of Senators has upset a Senate tradition or practice, and the current Senate majority intends to do what the majority in the Senate has often done, use its constitutional authority under article I, section 5, to reform Senate procedure by a simple majority vote."

The WSJ also editorialized in January 2005 that what the nuclear option "should really be called is the 'majority-vote advice-and-consent' option. The aim is to restore the Founders' intent when they gave the Senate the responsibility of confirming or rejecting a President's judicial picks. The Constitution requires a simple majority vote and says nothing about a super-majority of 60 being needed to stop a filibuster." The paper added: "Whether it's nuked or not, the judicial filibuster deserves to be defeated."

And now every one of those massive and corrupt Republican hypocrites are claiming to be outraged that Harry Reid would use the nuclear option to stop their filibusters. When he is just doing what they supported 8 years ago under Bush, proving they are just partisan hacks.

Dow Closes Above 16,000 For The First Time Ever
By: Steve - November 23, 2013 - 9:00am

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed above 16,000 for the first time Thursday, extending a rally that has the blue chip-index on pace for its best year in a decade.

Gains on Thursday came after Janet Yellen moved a step closer to becoming the next Federal Reserve leader and a better-than-expected report on the jobs market boosted sentiment.

Behind the broader push that took the Dow through this latest milepost: seemingly greater confidence in the stock market's ability to withstand a scaling back by the Federal Reserve of the bond-market purchases it has been employing to stimulate the economy.

With Thursday's gain, the Dow has advanced 22% so far this year, putting it on pace for the biggest annual rally since a 25% gain in 2003. The blue-chip index is up 144% from its 2009 low.

And of course O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham (his fill in host) ignored it all, even though he said during the Bush years that the stock market is a measure of how good the economy is doing. As usual, O'Reilly has a double standard, one for when Republicans are in the White House and another one for when Democrats are in the White House.

Under Bush every time the Dow set new record highs O'Reilly reported it, praised Bush, and claimed it showed how good of a job Bush was doing and how it also showed the economy was doing well. Back then O'Reilly said you could measure how good the President and the economy were doing based on how well the stock market was doing.

But of course now that a Democrat is in the White House O'Reilly does not say any of that, in fact, he does not even report it, proving once again that O'Reilly is a biased right-wing hack.

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

The TPM was called: The "Nuclear Option." The biased far-right hack Laura Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: Today the Senate broke 225 years of precedent and voted to invoke the 'nuclear option,' allowing confirmation for most presidential nominees by a simple majority. In other words, the Senate voted to severely limit the use of the filibuster, one of the few tools a minority party has in our representative democracy.

Senate Democrats, led by Harry Reid, have been incensed that their GOP colleagues have blocked three DC Circuit Court nominees. But Democrats were against the 'nuclear option' before they were for it. In 2005, Reid called the filibuster 'part of the fabric of this institution.' And then-Senator Obama said ending the filibuster would lead to more 'fighting and bitterness and gridlock.' This is amazing!

Reid and friends may have won a temporary victory by changing the rules, but they also disrupted the checks and balances within the Senate and ended up throwing gasoline on the brush fire of partisanship. If Republicans take back the Senate on the heels of the Obamacare implosion, Democrats may regret going 'nuclear.'

This rank power grab should make it obvious to all Congressional Republicans that they shouldn't waste time working with Democrats on pretty much anything. Democrats did not operate in good faith on Obamacare, and they are not operating in good faith now.
And of course the biased far-right hack Laura Ingraham failed to mention that in 2005 when Bush was the President virtually every Republican in America supported changing the Senate filibuster rule, including Ingraham herself, and the Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell. She also failed to mention that the Republicans were abusing the filibuster rule, and that half of all filibusters in the history of America have happened since Obama took office.

Back in 2005 Sean Hannity actually said it was unconstitutional to filibuster a Presidents judicial nominees, Rush Limbaugh and Ingraham herself even agreed with him. Now she claims the Democrats are evil for changing the rules, when she supported it when there was a Republican president. And the worst part is that she never told you any of this, like it had never happened.

And it was not just three DC Circuit Court nominees, as Ingraham claimed, it's 75 total, the three she talks about were in November alone. Not to mention, all it does is call for a simple majority to get an up or down vote on that nominee, which is what Republicans called for in 2005, it does not mean they will get the votes they need to be confirmed.

In fact, 30 presidential nominees to executive positions have been filibustered during the Obama presidency, compared with 20 such cases previously in the history of the country. In each of these cases it's not been because they opposed the person... it was simply because they opposed the policies the American people voted for in the last election. And Ingraham never mentioned any of that.

Then Republican strategist Chip Saltsman was on to analyze the rift in the GOP over whether to step up the attack on President Obama.

Saltsman said this: "Barack Obama has failed this country, and he is undermining his authority every day, we just need to let him be himself. Grandstanding is bad, and we've seen the story becoming more about how aggressive Republicans are. When we shut down the government, we initially lost the ability to tell the story of the Obamacare website. My advice to Republicans in Washington is that they should remember that their approval rating is lower than Obama's, and when your opponent is in a circular firing squad, don't jump in the middle."

Then the biased right-wing Obama hating stooge Col. Ralph Peters was on to talk about the United States and Afghanistan brokering an agreement that could leave some U.S. troops in that country for another decade.

Peters said this: "In his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama told us he would fix Afghanistan. We had a disastrous surge, an absolute mess, and now I think he just wants to hang on so it doesn't come apart on his watch. This is his vanity project with a whole lot of money and resources thrown at something that really doesn't work. We are still in Afghanistan because of inertia and because of Obama's ego, he won't admit it's gone down the tubes."

Which is just insane, Bush got us into the mess in Afghanistan and Peters said we should keep troops there forever when Bush was in office. Now he's singing a different tune and blaming the whole thing on Obama. Proving that Col. Peters is a partisan idiot.

Then Gunnery Sergeant Jessie Jane Duff was on to talk about a female Army colonel who is objecting to Army recruiting posters, which often feature attractive women soldiers wearing makeup.

Duff said this: "I was a tractor trailer operator, and I hauled for the Infantry and I got dirty. What it boils down to is that when you're on active duty you should carry yourself professionally. We're not showing up in tube tops, we're not wearing mini-skirts or high heels. I wore camouflage for 20 years and I think this colonel has a complete detachment from what's going on in the field, women are not out there trying to be 'cute' to get a promotion. Nobody would trust us and they would discredit us."

Ingraham ridiculed the colonel's suggestion that homely people should be used in promotional materials, saying this: "What company would ever decide that they won't use attractive people in ads? The men in military ads are pretty good-looking also."

Then Sheriff Grady Judd was on to talk about prosecutors in Florida who have decided not to prosecute two young girls accused of bullying 12-year-old Rebecca Sedwick, who committed suicide in September. Ingraham spoke about the case with Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, who arrested the alleged bullies and may now be sued by their families.

Judd said this: "I complied with Florida law, which clearly says that felons who are arrested, whether they are juveniles or adults, are subject to the public record. That means their photographs and names can be released, which is what we did. But now this defense attorney is saying we shouldn't have done that - he's trying to move the focus away from the fact that a dead 12-year-old was bullied."

Ingraham said this: "The attorneys are saying the charges were false and the girls weren't bullies. He says you rushed out there in front of the cameras because bullying is such a problem. That's their argument."




Piers Morgan Slams O'Reilly On Twitter
By: Steve - November 22, 2013 - 10:00am

During a discussion about Martin Bashir Wednesday night, Bill O’Reilly also took a shot at Piers Morgan for engaging in personal attacks and predicted he'd be fired soon. Morgan almost immediately fired back on Twitter, calling O'Reilly a "flaming hypocrite" for accusing someone else of personal attacks.

When Morgan took notice he tweeted out his response and attacked O'Reilly's ego, saying this:
@piersmorgan - Oh dear. Sounds like I've really annoyed poor old @oreillyfactor ..mate, it's not my fault @megynkelly is the new star at your place.
He then found it more than amusing that O’Reilly, of all people, would take anyone else to task for personal attacks on others, saying this:
@piersmorgan - Got to laugh at @oreillyfactor accusing ME of personal attacks. Guy's made a career out of it. Get over yourself, you flaming hypocrite.
And of course, never missing an opportunity, Morgan threw in a plug for his new book in another O’Reilly slam, saying this:
@piersmorgan - Methinks @oreillyfactor is rather unhappy about what I wrote about him in my new book... to find out what, go buy #ShootingStraight!
What Morgan wrote in the book is that after the first time he met O'Reilly at a Knicks basketball game Morgan said he was a "complete dick."

Tea Party Million Man Rally Had 130 People Show Up
By: Steve - November 22, 2013 - 9:00am

Sensing that the moment was ripe, Larry Klayman sent out the call for revolution. "MILLIONS TO OCCUPY WASHINGTON D.C.," Klayman announced, declaring to the world that his Tea Party-powered "second American Revolution" would gather near the White House in Lafayette Square on November 19 and sweep President Obama from office.

"In conjunction with the masses gathered in Lafayette Park, we encourage millions to occupy parks, sidewalks, public areas, etc., consistent with the law."

Klayman's revolution never quite managed to reach its lofty attendance goals. At its peak, the rally had about 130 people, and half of them were from right-wing media outlets.

The revolutionaries gathered in Lafayette Square consisted of birthers and other conspiracy theorists voicing their opposition to the Obama administration. The protest, organized by Klayman's group Freedom Watch, demanded the "resignations of President Barack Hussein Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and House Speaker John Boehner."

Despite nearly six hours of speeches and some creative hand-made signs, at day's end the three men remained securely in office.

Klayman is a long-time conservative activist who despite indulging in several conspiracy theories (like claiming that President Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen) has remained in a position of influence with some on the right. Klayman recently appeared alongside Sarah Palin and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) at a protest related to the government shutdown.

In his opening remarks to the so-called revolutionaries, Klayman said he suspected Obama would be "hiding under his desk" in reaction to the protest. Klayman said he and the other organizers had assembled "a Gideon's Army of people" to oppose "tyranny," and assured the audience that they had "God on our side" which would ensure eventual victory for the "revolution."

Klayman also announced plans for a future gathering in Philadelphia in order to convene a constitutional convention and elect a president, vice president, cabinet and other officials with the goal of replacing the current government when it either steps down or is overthrown via nonviolent means.

WND founder and columnist Joseph Farah spoke and described the "growing tyranny" in America, adding that "we've heard the litany of high crimes and misdemeanors perpetrated by the occupant of the White House."

Farah dedicated his speech to Miriam Carey, the woman who was shot by police after a high speed chase from the White House to the U.S. Capitol. Farah said the incident was symptomatic of a growing "police state" in America.

Accuracy in Media's (AIM) Roger Aronoff, who earlier this year announced a "citizens commission" to investigate the Benghazi attacks, also spoke. As he had at AIM's event, Aronoff revisited several long-debunked Benghazi-related conspiracies and promoted AIM's ongoing efforts to supposedly uncover the truth.

Washington Times columnist James Lyons (who was at AIM's Benghazi event) spoke, describing the "Obama doctrine" which he claimed "undercuts our friends and allies, leaving them confused and feeling betrayed."

Two congressional candidates also spoke to the audience: Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), who is attempting to mount a comeback to Congress; and Joe Kaufman, a fringe Republican from Florida. Klayman expressed disappointment that "tea party" members of Congress who had been invited failed to show up.

Other speakers at the rally attacked "lazy parasites" on government assistance, a "civil war on Christianity," and the purported ACORN plot in all 50 states that stole the 2008 election on behalf of President Obama.

Some members of the conservative media were covering the rally, including conspiracy theorist Zeeda Andrews, who organized the failed "Truckers for the Constitution" event in October, and frequent Fox News guest Michelle Fields as part of NextGeneration.TV.

And of course O'Reilly ignored it all and never reported on the event, because it makes all his right-wing friends look like insane lunatics.

The Wednesday 11-20-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 21, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: President Obama and a New Jobs Controversy. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The New York Post is reporting that job numbers during last year's presidential campaign were manipulated to the President's favor by people in the Census Bureau. The White House denied any wrongdoing, and Talking Points cannot say with any certainty whether the numbers were fixed. A House committee will investigate, but you know how these things go.

Benghazi was investigated, the IRS was investigated, and so on, but little is ever accomplished. The story reinforces the deep suspicion currently enveloping the entire Obama administration. As Talking Points pointed out, all the chaos is hurting us. The economy is stalled, partly because of Obamacare, and overseas villains like Iran are taking advantage of America's weakened status.

When a President becomes unpopular, unintended consequences affect everybody. The Factor will continue to investigate the jobs story, and if the numbers were cooked criminal charges must be filed. We need to get to the bottom of this, but my question is who will even investigate.
Hey O'Reilly, what happened to you only deal in the facts? If you cannot say with any certainty whether the numbers were fixed, why are you reporting it? You claim to only deal in the facts, then you report right-wing propaganda with no facts to back you up. It's a right-wing rumor folks, and O'Reilly reported on it, breaking his own rule to only report on what he can back up with facts.

Then Democrat Kirsten Powers and Republican Kate Obenshain were on to talk about the alleged manipulation of unemployment stats.

Powers said this: "This is a bit of a conspiracy theory. This is one person out of 7,000 at the Census Bureau and I don't think one person can alter the unemployment numbers. You would have to have an extraordinary number of people to actually do that."

Obenshain, the Republican not surprisingly, put far more credence in the allegation, saying this: "The magic number before the election was 8% unemployment, to get it below that was incredibly important. There is one source who says he is ready to testify that this happened. And if it did happen, it was not in a vacuum, there is pervasive deceit within this administration."

Then Howard Kurtz was on to talk about Martin Bashir, who apologized after making some incredibly vile and despicable comments about Sarah Palin.

Kurtz said this: "It is stunning to me that MSNBC has not suspended Martin Bashir for a substantial period of time, and I would probably have considered firing his butt. Nor has an MSNBC executive said a single syllable to denounce this kind of vitriol, which leaves the impression that maybe it's acceptable."

O'Reilly said this: "They've been on the air for 17 years and they have a long history of vile, vicious, personal smears against conservative Americans. There's a pattern of behavior and NBC News allows it!"

Hey jerks, Fox News hosts do the very same thing, including O'Reilly who calls liberals names every day, but you guys excuse that and never cry about and Fox idiots saying bad things about liberals. They call them everything from communists to Nazis to America Haters, and on and on, but you guys ignore it.

Then Carl Cameron and James Rosen were on.

Rosen said this about Iran: "The negotiations are continuing in Geneva, and I have learned a great deal about what the West is offering Iran. What's being talked about is caps on the number of centrifuges, how much material can be enriched, and what happens to their big nuclear projects. If the Iranians agree to the terms that have been outlined to me, the Israelis won't be happy, the Saudis won't be happy, conservatives in this country won't be happy, and many in the intelligence and military communities won't be happy."

Cameron reported from Arizona, where America's Republican governors are having their annual meeting, saying this: "The governors are trying to take the GOP brand back from their colleagues in Washington. They're making the argument that the government shutdown and a lot of GOP hyperbole has hurt the Republican brand. Republicans have 30 of the 50 governors, and they are far more popular than Republicans in Congress."

Then Heather Nauert was on for the mad as hell segment. South Dakota resident Linda Gardner, for one, is ticked off because of a new school policy. "The school board in Sioux Falls voted down a proposal that would have required the Pledge of Allegiance to be said every day at high school. They voted it down chiefly because they said students don't have time during the day, even though it takes eight seconds!"

Judity Belanger of Massachusetts wrote to complain about her inability to find towels and garments that are made in the USA. "A lot of the problem is labor costs. Our labor costs are about $35 an hour, while it's about $1.36 an hour in China. We can't compete with that, but we're the best in the world at growing soybeans and corn and wheat."

Finally, New Jerseyan Richard Hines took issue with the "Mad as Hell" segment title, suggesting "Mad as a Hornet" would be more appropriate. "'Hell' is a description and not a profanity," O'Reilly exclaimed. "'Mad as a Hornet?' This isn't Nickelodeon!"

Then Juliet Huddy was on for did you see that, she talked about TV commercials that were created to promote Obamacare in some states.

Huddy said this: "$684 million in taxpayer money was used for marketing in 16 states. The ads are trying to be funny and clever, aiming at young people. But people are missing the point, they're not really sure what these commercials are all about."

Huddy also screened Kmart's somewhat suggestive TV ad showing six buff men in their boxer shorts. "I think it's a brilliant and beautiful commercial. Some people are offended but it is airing on television. If those guys are there, I'll go to Kmart!"

Earth to Huddy, those guys are not there, it's a tv commercial.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Steer Clear of the Hate. Billy said this: "Too many media outlets and Internet sites spew hateful and harmful stuff all day long, and we are all better off if we simply ignore the garbage."

O'Reilly & Krauthammer Caught Spinning Income Report
By: Steve - November 21, 2013 - 10:00am

Charles Krauthammer attacked attempts to reduce income equality as only exacerbating economic growth and unemployment. But leading economists have supported government efforts to address inequality, calling it a paramount issue facing the country.

On the November 18 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly and Charles Krauthammer talked about rising economic inequality in the United States. Their conversation, however, quickly devolved into standard right-wing attacks against the efficacy of policies aimed at reducing inequality and building economic security.

Citing a report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), O'Reilly highlighted the "astounding" income gains of the top 1 percent of earners from 1979 to 2007 before turning to blame President Obama for failing to address growing inequality during his administration. Krauthammer joined the chorus, blaming President Obama's expressed concern with reducing economic inequality for actually driving unequal economic growth during his time in office.
O'REILLY: President Obama promotes income equality, but during his time in office the rich are getting richer and the median income for working Americans has actually gone down. Joining us now from Washington, Charles Krauthammer. So why is this happening?

KRAUTHAMMER: It's happening because there is low economic growth. It's what Kennedy said; a rising economic tide lifts all boats. If you're obsessed with equality, as they are in Europe, what you end up with is chronic unemployment.
Krauthammer's claim that efforts to reduce economic inequality have an adverse effect on the economy is patently false. Economist Robert Reich has argued for decades that economic inequality "is bad for everyone," including the very wealthy, because it reduces economic growth potential.

Reich is not alone among noted economists championing policies that reduce inequality as a means to spur economic growth.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Shiller recently told the Associated Press that "rising inequality in the United States and elsewhere in the world" is "the most important problem that we are facing today."

Economist Paul Krugman agrees, saying this: Reducing economic inequality should be a primary policy goal in the United States. In a column titled "Rich Man's Recovery", Krugman argued that the continued concentration of wealth among the very wealthy "undermines all the values that define America."

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz encouraged politicians to address economic inequality in 2013 as a means of unleashing a robust and sustainable economic recovery. Recently, Stiglitz has stated that "inequality is a choice."

Now Krauthammer and O'Reilly are not entirely wrong: a lack of economic growth is leading to a widening gap between the rich and poor. However, their prescription that the economy would recover if only the president would give up his crusade to lift the poor out of poverty contradicts arguments from leading professional economists.

Krauthammer went on to forward right-wing media propaganda regarding the inherent value of lower taxation and reduced regulation. This premise, that "conservative" economic principles are the key to spreading prosperity to all Americans, is particularly puzzling given the quoted CBO report.

The study, which O'Reilly featured to open the segment, covers three decades of economic growth in which Republican presidential administrations led national policy decisions for 20 of 30 years. Republican presidents were overwhelmingly at the helm of policy decisions during a period that O'Reilly stated as witnessing "astounding" gains for the wealthy.

Yet, somehow in O'Reillyworld, it is President Obama who deserves blame for economic inequality in America today.

The right-wing media's predilection with advancing the mantra of lower taxes for the wealthy and reduced regulations for corporations consistently ignores that years of such policies have failed to build shared economic prosperity. O'Reilly and his friends in the right-wing media have no interest in the growing body of economic literature concerning best practices that could both reduce inequality and spur economic growth.

So basically, the Republicans are mostly to blame for the problem, by making sure taxes are lower on the wealthy and that corporate taxes do not go up, etc. And O'Reilly blames it all on Obama, which proves once again that O'Reilly is nothing but a biased right-wing hack.

The Tuesday 11-19-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 20, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The Folks Turning Against Obamacare. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The polling is grim as the President continues to get hammered over Obamacare and a perceived lack of leadership. A Washington Post/ABC News poll says 55% of people disapprove of the way President Obama is handling his job, and 71% want to delay the Affordable Care Act. That's devastating to President Obama's effectiveness going forward.

Talking Points does not say that with any joy; it's sad to see the nation in this kind of situation. There is blood in the political water, and when that happens all kinds of things emerge. For example, the New York Post is reporting that the Census Bureau may have fabricated unemployment numbers just before the presidential election last year.

If it's proved that unemployment numbers were manipulated, there will be hell to pay, although tonight there are reports debunking the story. There is more chaos on the horizon and every American will feel it. We are a country that depends on a robust economy but we don't have it.

The President vowed to make national health insurance mandates work, but so far the law is a disaster. Again, when a president becomes weakened, people take advantage, both within the country and abroad.
Then the biased right-wing Republican Senator Marco Rubio was on, with no liberal guest on for balance.

Rubio said this: "The idea that the federal government should be bailing out insurance companies in order to make Obamacare work, is not something a lot of people are aware of. That alone is testament to why this entire law needs to be repealed, and the sooner the better. This law can not be saved and the question is how long it will take for Democrats to realize that."

Then Bernie Goldberg was on to talk about some young black teens who are engaging in a vicious "game" that involves punching random strangers, trying to knock them out with one blow. It has already led to some deaths across America.

Goldberg said this: "This is savagery, and it is getting very little attention - nothing that we could find in the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the network evening newscasts. But let's imagine that we saw young white kids attacking black people and posting the videos on the Internet. That would obviously be a national news story because it's orchestrated racial violence. But the white liberals in the media at places that aren't covering this are saying, 'We don't want to give any ammunition to those white racist conservatives out there, so let's make believe this isn't happening.'"

O'Reilly added this: "This is a troubling situation and it goes back to the alienation of young black men in this country, primarily because they're angry at not having a family and having a father who abandoned them."

Then John Stossel was on to talk about charity. Why? Who knows, O'Reilly seems to be the only guy who cares what this right-wing loon John Stossel says.

Stossel said this: "All the people who work with the homeless, say we should not give them money. They are almost all scams and you're just helping a guy with a drug or an alcohol problem buy more intoxicants. There are groups such as Charity Navigator that vet charities, and I give to groups that I can personally keep an eye on."

O'Reilly advised viewers to give to local organizations whenever possible, saying this: "Studies show that we are a very charitable people, and that the bottom earners give proportionately more than the top earners. I want people in their home towns to donate locally rather than through these big funds."

Now here is my advice, donate to a local church group called St. Vincent De Paul. They are in almost every city in America and they help people in need. They even helped me in October, even though I do not go to church, they came to my house and talked to me, then they paid my gas and light bill and my cable/phone/internet bill for October. They do not give the money directly, they pay it to the place you owe. So none of it can ever be used to buy drugs or alcohol.

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lisa Giovinazzo examined the case against George Zimmerman, who has been arrested in Florida for allegedly pointing a shotgun at his girlfriend.

Guilfoyle said this: "It's a bad situation for him, he's facing domestic violence and aggravated assault charges. He is also alleged to have choked this same woman three weeks ago."

Giovinazzo turned to Buffalo, where a presumably drunken fan fell 40 feet and landed on another spectator.

Giovinazzo said this: "In sporting events there is a certain risk, but a fan falling on top of you is not foreseeable. I think the team and stadium most certainly have some liability."

Then Monica Crowley and Alan Colmes were on to talk about President Obama's approval ratings, that are dropping.

Colmes said this: "We're talking about only 3% to 5% of the population being affected, and we're not talking about the 80% of people who keep exactly what they have or the people who get better deals. President Obama will be seen through the lens of history as a hero for getting health care for the American people."

Crowley implied that the Obama team may actually welcome the website failure, saying this: "The ultimate objective of all of this is to get us to single-payer, so what you're seeing might actually be a controlled explosion. They're all on the record saying single-payer is the ultimate objective."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Addressing the Address. Billy said this: "On the 150th anniversary of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, it is well worth your while to visit LearnTheAddress.org, which has a wealth of information about the immortal speech."




Insane O'Reilly Still Denies Racism Against Obama
By: Steve - November 20, 2013 - 10:00am

This is so laughable it's insane, O'Reilly is still denying there is racism against President Obama, when it is everywhere, on the internet, at protests, and especially in the Tea Party. Oprah spoke out about it and O'Reilly flipped out, saying she was wrong, when she is exactly right, O'Reilly just ignores it all.

Here is what O'Reilly said Monday night:
O'REILLY: Oprah Winfrey, while in Great Britain, said much of the criticism directed at President Obama is 'because he's African American.' I admire Winfrey, who rose from very humble circumstances to become perhaps the most powerful woman in the world. But she definitely has a blind spot when it comes to politics.

Oprah Winfrey is making an excuse for President Obama by using race, and many other left-wing people are doing the same thing. Some Americans do despise Barack Obama because of his skin color, but the number is insignificant. Legitimate criticism of Barack Obama is not race-centric, it is based on policy.

I have nothing personal against President Obama, but his 'nanny state' play is causing tremendous problems. It is irresponsible of Oprah Winfrey, a woman of influence, to say what she said. The record shows that Mr. Obama is simply a president who is being criticized for some of his policies.
And that's not all, O'Reilly also said this in the next segment with Professor Charles Ogletree:
O'REILLY: You say that the President is under fire in some precincts because of his race. I reject that, it's basically a policy play. Ms. Winfrey is indicting this country for being a racist country that objects to President Obama because of his skin color. That is flat out false!
And you Bill O'Reilly are a fool, Oprah is exactly right. Almost all of the people who hate President Obama are on the right, and a lot of them are racists, that is a fact you will not admit. It has been proven, we have seen it, you just ignore it all and never report on it. Here is a partial list of racism against President Obama in the last 5 years, and O'Reilly never reported on any of it.

Think about that, O'Reilly does not report any of this, then he claims there is no racism against Obama, it's all about his policies, which is just laughable. Here is the list of racism against Obama, and this is only a partial list, I do not have time to list it all.

1) Just 2 months ago at a protest against an appearance by President Barack Obama in Phoenix, Arizona was marked by several instances of racist language directed at Obama. "He's 47 percent Negro," 77-year-old Ron Enderle shouted at one point, later telling the Republic that he was "ashamed" to have Obama as Commander-in-Chief.

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, that is racism Pal. Complaining that the President of the United States is 47% Negro is racism. So deny that jerk!

2) The birther nonsense was total racism, from the Tea Party, Donald Trump, and almost every Republican in America. It was racist, they said Obama was not an American. This would never happen to a white man, and O'Reilly knows it. But he still denies that any of it was racist, when it was in fact 100% racism.

3) In August a state fair in Missouri featured a rodeo clown dressed as President Obama. According to one widely shared account by an attendee, "the almost all white crowd went wild" after announcers asked who wanted to see Obama "run down by a bull." The attendee, Perry Beam, likened the scene to "some kind of Klan rally."

Organizers apologized and politicians from both parties lined up to condemn the taxpayer-funded performance.

"The concept of an angry bull attempting to trample a black man for the amusement of a crowd is neither entertaining nor funny and is not the type of behavior that our taxpayer-subsidized State Fair should promote."

House Democratic Minority Leader Jake Hummel and Assistant Minority Leader Gail McCann Betty said in a joint statement. They called for an inquiry into "whether continued taxpayer funding is appropriate for an event that allows such racist actions to occur."

4) A few years ago we had the Obama Bucks scandal, and Bill O'Reilly never said a word about it. A Republican women's group sent out a newsletter to 200 members that showed Barack Obama surrounded by a watermelon, ribs, kool-aid and a bucket of fried chicken, prompting outrage in political circles.

The October newsletter by the Chaffey Community Republican Women, Federated says if Obama is elected his image will appear on food stamps -- instead of dollar bills like other presidents. The statement is followed by an illustration of "Obama Bucks" -- a phony $10 bill featuring Obama's face on a donkey's body, labeled "United States Food Stamps."

5) At Tea Party rallies they run around with signs that say monkey see monkey spend, that is racism, calling a black man a monkey is about as racist as it gets.

6) Mark Williams, the spokesman of the Tea Party Express resigned in 2010 after writing an incendiary and racially derogatory blog post. The National Tea Party Federation, representing the larger movement, called it an "embarrassment."

7) In 2010 a conservative women's group called the National Federation of Republican Women (NFRW) held their 2010 conference in Charleston, SC, in which attendees were promised "A Southern Experience" by the South Carolina branch of the organization.

Which featured white attendees dressed in Confederate regalia and African-American people dressed as slaves. The individual dressed as a Confederate officer in the image is South Carolina's now-Lieutenant Governor Glenn McConnell, who in 2010 was still just a state senator.

8) Secret Service protection for Obama began after the Senator received a death threat in 2007, when Obama was still serving as then the junior Senator of Illinois and running for president. This marked the first time a candidate received such protection before being nominated. Security was increased early for Barack Obama due to fears of possible assassination attempts by white supremacist or other racist groups or individuals against the first African American major party presidential nominee.

9) The number of Patriot groups, including armed militias, has grown 813 percent since Obama was elected – from 149 in 2008 to 1,360 in 2012. 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.

10) In February of this year Jennifer Olsen, the chairwoman of the Yellowstone County Republicans and a prominent tea party organizer in Montana, is facing scrutiny after posting a racist picture on her Facebook page.

In a post was a picture of a cardboard box with a watermelon underneath it, alongside a caption calling it a "plot to kidnap" President Barack Obama. After the post state Republican Party officials were forced to weigh in.

"In no way, shape, or form do the Yellowstone County Republicans condone nor accept the use of stereotypes by members in either their personal or political lives," reads a statement from John Quandt, Yellowstone County Republican Central Committee vice chairman.

And btw, Christopher Parker, a political science professor at the University of Washington, agrees with Oprah Winfrey that racism is part of the backlash against President Barack Obama.

O'Reilly has ignored all of this and never said a word about any of it. And btw, O'Reilly also ignored the Obama Waffles, the Obama monkey sock puppet, the campaign button sold at a Republican event, that said if Obama wins will he paint the white house black, a racist t-shirt that had a monkey eating a banana, and it said Obama for president on it. And the monkey doll with an Obama sticker on it at the Palin rally.

A teacher was suspended for writing the n-word on the blackboard, It said, "C.H.A.N.G.E. -- Come Help A (N-word) Get Elected."

The leader of a statewide group of college Republicans was forced to resign after posting racially insensitive comments about Barack Obama on the Internet, on his facebook page.

Georgia Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland used the term "uppity" to describe Barack Obama.

The numerous racist statements Rush Limbaugh makes about Obama on pretty much a daily basis. Cal Thomas said Michelle Obama was an angry black woman. O'Reilly himself used the lynching party comment when talking about Michelle Obama. And U.S. Rep. Geoff Davis, a Republican, referred to Obama as a boy.

And that is only about 10% of the racism I have seen against President Obama in the last 5 years, all coming from Republicans. I could go on forever.

O'Reilly ignores it all, then claims there is no racism or hate from the right against Obama. Then he claims he is the only honest journalist on tv and you should only believe what he reports. When that is just ridiculous, and he is more dishonest than any so-called journalist on tv, except for maybe Hannity. O'Reilly is so dishonest he will not even admit he is a Republican, when everyone knows he is.

The Monday 11-18-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 19, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: President Obama & Race. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Oprah Winfrey, while in Great Britain, said much of the criticism directed at President Obama is 'because he's African American.' I admire Winfrey, who rose from very humble circumstances to become perhaps the most powerful woman in the world. But she definitely has a blind spot when it comes to politics.

President Bush was attacked far more viciously than President Obama has been, so is there an 'anti-WASP' sentiment in America? I would like to put that question to Oprah Winfrey, but she has declined to appear on this program. Her statement is even more erroneous when you examine history. President Kennedy was vilified by some because he was a Roman Catholic. The irrational hatred directed toward Kennedy was far greater than what Barack Obama has experienced.

Oprah Winfrey is making an excuse for President Obama by using race, and many other left-wing people are doing the same thing. Some Americans do despise Barack Obama because of his skin color, but the number is insignificant. Legitimate criticism of Barack Obama is not race-centric, it is based on policy.

I have nothing personal against President Obama, but his 'nanny state' play is causing tremendous problems. It is irresponsible of Oprah Winfrey, a woman of influence, to say what she said. The record shows that Mr. Obama is simply a president who is being criticized for some of his policies.
Talk about a political blind spot, O'Reilly is flat out blind. Because it is a proven fact that there is a lot of racism against President Obama, to deny it is just insane. And on Wednesday I will post a blog that proves O'Reilly is 100% wrong and Oprah is 100% right.

Then Charles Ogletree, a law professor and a friend of President Obama was on to discuss it.

Ogletree said this: "I love Oprah Winfrey, and she was incensed about what happened to President Obama with regards to comments about race. He's been attacked by people from start to finish about whether he's a citizen, whether he was born in Hawaii, whether he's a Kenyan. But the reality is that he is a good man and he doesn't let race bother him. He ignores that and tries to do what is best for the country."

And of course O'Reilly vigorously objected to Ogletree's analysis, saying this: "You say that the President is under fire in some precincts because of his race. I reject that, it's basically a policy play. Ms. Winfrey is indicting this country for being a racist country that objects to President Obama because of his skin color. That is flat out false!"

And once again O'Reilly is lying, what Oprah said is that there are people who do not like President Obama simply because he is a black man, and they are called racists. Oprah is not indicting the whole country, she simply stated a fact, that there are a lot of racists who hate Obama because he is black.

Then Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham were on to talk about Florida police who have arrested George Zimmerman for allegedly pointing a shotgun at his girlfriend.

Williams said this: "People will immediately go back and look at the Trayvon Martin case. What we're seeing here is a person who has a lack of self-control, anger issues, and a penchant for using guns to threaten people. People who were upset by the verdict are going to say, 'Hey, I told you so.'"

Ham agreed that Zimmerman will again become a target, saying this: "The issue in the Martin case was that they could not convict him based on the law that was in place. That's what the jury felt. But now he'll go through the system again and those who feel like he didn't get his comeuppance the first time are excited because they'll get another run at him."

Then Brit Hume was on to talk about Robert Gibbs, President Obama's former Press Secretary, who has been critical of the Obamacare rollout, even implying that people should be fired.

Hume said this: "He's just dispensing what I think is quite mild advice. My sense is that he would like the President to recognize more clearly just how damaging this health care rollout has been. People have had a complete reversal in their opinions of President Obama's honesty, which is very bad news for him and his party."

Then Linda Bloodworth-Thomaso was on to talk about the Hollywood types, among them Scarlett Johansson and Will Ferrell, who actively promoted the Affordable Care Act in a TV spot. O'Reilly asked Bloodworth-Thomason whether the celebrities were wise to tout an untested policy.

Thomaso said this: "You can't measure your conscience by how it will benefit your career. People in Hollywood are just like people everywhere, they're decent and hard-working and patriotic. They all have pretty much the same wish, that their children and grandchildren will be able to get affordable health care."

O'Reilly contended that many Hollywood folks have no clue about the policies they promote, saying this: "There is a liberal mindset that is entrenched in Hollywood and can be destructive to the nation. The people in that commercial don't understand what Obamacare is, didn't read the law, and don't understand the unintended consequences of what is being imposed on the nation."

Which is total speculation by O'Reilly, because he has no clue how informed they are about Obamacare, for all he knows they might know more about it than he does. So shame on you O'Reilly for your speculation, especially after you say you never speculate and never allow any speculation. You also claim to only deal in the facts, then you speculate Hollywood folks have no clue about the policies they promote, with no facts to back up your speculation.

Then the biased right-wing hack Charles Krauthammer was on to talk about a new analysis showing that America's income disparity has risen during President Obama's presidency. With no liberal guest on for balance.

Krauthammer said this: "This is happening because there's low economic growth. If you're obsessed with equality you end up with chronic unemployment because the real engine of growth is low taxation and low regulation. That allows the private economy, which is the golden goose, to flourish. But when you over-regulate and over-tax, especially in the name of reducing inequality, you get the opposite effect. And if you allow liberty and free enterprise you will get an improvement in the lot of the poor. But the administration wants to transfer wealth rather than create it."

Which is all right-wing propaganda, it is happening because Bush ruined the economy, the housing market, and almost crashed the entire world economy. Then the Republicans refuse to do anything to help the average working man make more money, like raise the minimum wage. They block everything that helps workers make more, while passing bills that help the wealthy, and it has nothing to do with President Obama.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Very Well Suited. Which I will not report, because it is not a tip of the day, it's just a cheap promotion for the people who make O'Reilly's suits.

Walmart Having Food Drive For Its Own Employees
By: Steve - November 19, 2013 - 10:00am

A Walmart in northeast Ohio is holding a holiday canned food drive -- for its own underpaid employees.

"Please Donate Food Items Here, so Associates in Need Can Enjoy Thanksgiving Dinner," a sign reads in the employee lounge of a Canton-area Walmart.

Kory Lundberg, a Walmart spokesman, says the drive is a positive thing. "This is part of the company's culture to rally around associates and take care of them when they face extreme hardships," he said.

Wow, this moron Lundberg should get the spin of the year award for that one. Saying it is a positive thing that the richest corporate company in America has to hold a food drive for their own employees is ridiculous. Because if you over-paid jerks at Walmart paid them a living wage you would not need to run a food drive for your own fricking employees.

And the need for a food drive illustrates how difficult it is for Walmart workers to get by on its notoriously low pay. The company has long been plagued by charges that it doesn't pay its employees a living wage. In fact, Walmart's President and CEO, Bill Simon, recently estimated that the majority of its one million associates make less than $25,000 per year, just above the federal poverty line of $23,550 for a family of four.

When the Washington DC city council passed a living wage bill requiring Walmart to pay workers a minimum of $12.50 per hour, the chain threatened to shut down its new stores if Mayor Vincent Gray didn't veto the bill.

And of course Gray vetoed the bill.

Walmart's low wages also come at a high public cost. Because low-income workers still need housing and health care, taxpayers end up doling out millions in benefits to bridge the gap faced by many of the store's retail workers.

They have also led to strikes at Walmart stores from Seattle to Chicago to Los Angeles in recent weeks.

Even if the canned food drive successfully gathers enough to help out the Canton store's low-income workers, many of them might not even be able to eat the food on Thanksgiving. Because Walmart is one of a small group of retailers that will open its stores for Black Friday sales beginning at 6 p.m. on Thanksgiving day.

Bill O'Reilly Caught Lying Again
By: Steve - November 18, 2013 - 11:00am

Not only did O'Reilly admit people have a valid criticism of Fox for ignoring the bogus 60 Minutes Benghazi story, he lied about reporting the 60 Minutes false Benghazi report. O'Reilly said he did not report it big, when in fact, he never reported it at all, not one word about the 60 Minutes story was ever reported by O'Reilly or anyone on his show.

And if 60 Minutes had been caught lying about Benghazi that helped make President Obama look good, O'Reilly would have been all over that story, and said it was more proof CBS has a liberal bias. But when they get caught doing a bogus Benghazi story O'Reilly says he will cut them some slack, and failed to report it.

On Sunday morning's Media Buzz, host Howard Kurtz quizzed fellow Fox host Bill O'Reilly on whether he was still anathema to mainstream media, and why he and Fox News didn't cover 60 Minutes erroneous Benghazi report more, given the network's year-long fascination with the story.

"You like to set up this narrative of you vs. media elite," Kurtz said, "and I think you've become more accepted in recent years."

O'Reilly disagreed. "If you look at the reviews of Killing Kennedy, the people who hate me reviewed me, not the movie," O'Reilly said. "That's still there. If I ever fall, they'll be like jackals on my carcass. They hate me, because I represent something that's very feared in America. I made my success outside of the establishment."

Which is another lie, because people hate O'Reilly for his right-wing bias and lies, while claiming to be a non-partisan Independent with a no spin zone. If O'Reilly did not make those claims I would not even be doing this website about him. He is hated for being a right-wing liar, as he claims to be a fair and balanced Independent.

Kurtz asked O'Reilly about the now-retracted 60 Minutes report. "A lot of people are saying, 'Boy, that apology didn't get much attention on Fox News because it doesn't fit their conservative agenda of pushing Benghazi as a big story,'" Kurtz said.

And Kurtz is 100% right, but O'Reilly will never admit that, even though he admits it is a valid criticism of Fox News. While saying he has been fair, as he lied that he did not report it very much, when in fact, he never reported it at all.

"I didn't report it big," O'Reilly said. "Maybe that's a valid criticism against Fox News. I don't run Fox News….Everybody makes [mistakes]. And it doesn't really have anything to do with people's lives. People's perception of Benghazi wasn't changed by Lara Logan's report. They brought in a guy who was a charlatan. He faked them out, he wanted to sell a book, he wanted money. Happens. I feel sorry for 60 Minutes. I think they're a noble enterprise. If I thought they weren't I'd go after them. But I'll cut 'em some slack on the mistake."

Listen folks, that is all BS. I watch the Factor every night and do a review on the entire show. And not once did O'Reilly report on what 60 Minutes did, let alone cut them some slack for anything in the past. He hates CBS and calls them a liberal news network, except when they make a mistake he likes, then he ignores it and gives them a pass, for the first time in his life.

Kurtz also asked if O'Reilly thought the liberal media had gotten more critical of President Barack Obama in his second term.

Which they have, and it kills the spin from O'Reilly that they have a liberal bias, but he still does not buy it.

"They had to," O'Reilly said. "They were losing credibility. The people who apologized for Barack Obama now are losing ratings and readership. They're hemmorhaging. They're going out business. So it was a business decision. But if they could, they'd stay with their guy. They have a lot of emotion tied in."

Said the right-wing hack who works for Fox News and has their #1 rated show, lol. All that is BS, and O'Reilly is spinning like a top trying to defend his lack of reporting on the bogus 60 Minutes story. O'Reilly and Fox News ignored it because they are biased, plain and simple. But Mr. no spin will never admit it, because he is as biased as anyone at Fox and he has to cover for their bias and his own bias.

The Friday 11-15-13 O'Reilly/Ingraham Factor Review
By: Steve - November 16, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: "It's Complicated." The biased and dishonest far-right stooge Laura Ingraham said this:
INGRAHAM: As Congress debated today whether to proceed legislatively to help the millions of Americans who have had their insurance policies canceled, I was thinking about one of the points the President kept making at his press conference Thursday, when he said, 'This is very complicated.' Yes, it is complicated, sir, but are you just realizing that now?

Imagine if the President was as committed to governing and administering these programs as he has been to campaigning! He might have known that they didn't have the right team or technology in place to carry out this grandiose mission of health care reform. The President has apparently learned another important fact during the past four-and-a-half years, that government bureaucracies don't work very well. What a revelation!

That was one of the main reasons Republicans were against Obamacare - most of them understood that once the Washington bureaucracy started to implement the law there would be terrible unintended consequences like policy cancellations, premium hikes, and doctor shortages. Of course, when Republicans made these arguments they were called 'obstructionists' and 'Tea Party fanatics.'

A serious president would have taken the time to objectively examine Republican concerns about such a massive undertaking. A serious president would have done the due diligence and asked the right questions. A serious president would not see this current mess as a political problem to be managed, he'd see it as a national crisis.
Which is just ridiculous, Republicans are only against Obamacare because Obama is a Democrat. When the Republican Mitt Romney put almost the same plan in place in MA. all the Republicans supported it, including the Heritage Foundation who helped write the bill. But when a Democratic President comes out with the same plan for the entire country suddenly all the Republicans (and O'Reilly) opposed it, proving they are nothing but partisan political hacks. And it also proves that Ingraham is a flat out liar.

Then Ingraham talked about Friday's House proceedings, which resulted in a vote to allow insurance companies to resume selling policies that had been in effect prior to the new law. Which all the corrupt Republicans voted against. They complain about it then vote against the bill to fix it, what a joke.

Democratic strategist Ellen Qualls said this: "Democrats in the House want political cover. They voted for Obamacare, they campaigned on it, they won reelection on it, and today's vote was a tortured scream. The Republican bill that was voted on does not have a good faith effort behind it, but some Democrats voted for it because they're scared."

Qualls also said this: "Once the website is fixed, people will be able to get into the marketplace and comparison shop, and they will probably get better plans for less money."

Then the biased conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg was on to discuss the Obama health care fix.

Goldberg said this: "I think this is transparently illegal and unconstitutional, but no court will intervene to stop this. In some ways it's very much like Nixon, who said it's legal if the President does it. But the President doesn't have the right to rewrite the laws. He has basically thrown a grenade into his own law."

Then Democratic strategist Bernard Whitman was on, who defended the President and his proposal, saying this: "I would be delighted to see House Republicans sue to prevent the President from keeping his promise to allow those people who like their plans to keep them. The Supreme Court has been very clear that agencies have broad discretion to insure that the goals of a particular law are fulfilled. I think the President is well within his rights. This is the right thing to do politically, and it's the right thing to do for the American people."

Then Ingraham talked about President Obama's approval rating with former Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

Kucinich said this: "We should all want the President to succeed, and the question is whether Democrats and Republicans can find a way to work together to benefit the American people. But nobody can defend the President's statements during the campaign."

Kucinich, criticized Obamacare for its reliance on insurance companies, saying this: "The federal government is going to give over $1 trillion in subsidies to the insurance companies over a ten-year period. Health insurance is a for-profit industry and the leading companies are making record profits. We have to get back to the basics of having affordable and accessible health care and we should have a not-for-profit health care system."

During a visit to Ohio this week, President Obama praised that state's Republican Governor John Kasich, who accepted additional Medicaid funds as part of the Affordable Care Act. Kasich was on to explain why he cooperated with that aspect of Obamacare.

Kasich said this: "I had a chance to bring money back to Ohio. I'm the CEO of this state and I have the chance to bring $14 billion out of Washington to people in my state who need help. That includes treating the mentally ill and helping them get employment, and the same with the drug addicted. The government was designing a program to take over our whole health care system from the back rooms of Capitol Hill. I don't support that, but there's a big distinction between that and Medicaid, which enables us to bring our money back to fix our problems."

Ingraham questioned whether Kasich was wise to accept the federal largesse: "You're so great on budgetary matters, but this is the federal government spending money it really doesn't have. It's estimated that Medicaid spending will triple in the next ten years. Everyone wants compassion for the poor, but we have a real budget problem."

Then of course Ingraham had to do a segment about racism. When asked about criticism of President Obama, Oprah Winfrey theorized that at least part of it is based in racism. So the biased Fox News contributor Deroy Murdock was on, who strongly disagreed. As he should, he works for Fox, what else can he do but deny it or he will be fired.

Murdock said this: "This is a preposterous and absurd concept, and it's too bad Oprah Winfrey is peddling this sort of stuff. This is not about his color, it's about his competence. He doesn't seem to know anything about 'Fast and Furious,' Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the NSA spying on world leaders. And then two days before Healthcare.gov launched, he was out playing his 147th round of golf. The idea that Obama is suffering disrespect just because he's black overlooks about 225 years of American history and how people respond to presidents with whom they disagree."

Which is just laughable, because there is all kinds of racism towards Obama, it's everywhere, on the internet, at protests, and especially in the Tea party. I have even read racist statements about Obama at big Republican forums on the internet, until the moderator deleted them. And all that racism is from the right, none of it is from the left. That is a fact, but O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends continue to deny it.

Yellen Slams Republicans For Sabotaging The Recovery
By: Steve - November 16, 2013 - 10:00am

Here is another story O'Reilly has ignored and you will never see him report on. It's about Janet Yellen pointing out that Republicans have hurt the economy, for partisan political reasons. Which I keep saying is borderline treason, and a story that O'Reilly will not touch with a ten foot pole, because he is a Republican and he does not want to slam them and make them look bad for what they did, and are doing.

Janet Yellen spoke the truth, and had no problem tackling one of Ben Bernanke's most important jobs: shaming Republicans in Congress for ruining the economy.

Yellen reminded the Republican lawmakers of their sheer terribleness during a Senate Banking Committee hearing on Thursday about her nomination to replace Bernanke as chair of the Federal Reserve when his term ends in January. Republican senators moaned and groaned, as usual, about the Fed's extreme easy-money policies.

So Yellen reminded everybody that Congress has forced the Fed to act by constantly imposing harsh austerity measures on an economy still recovering from a historic financial crisis and deep recession.

"Fiscal policy has been working at cross purposes to monetary policy," Yellen said. "Some of the near-term reductions in spending that we have seen have certainly detracted from the momentum of the economy and from demand, making it harder for the Fed to get the economy moving, making our task more difficult.

"We are worried about a fragile recovery, and a more supportive fiscal policy, or one that at least had less drag, that did no harm, would make life easier," she added.

Yellen was referring to the austerity that has come out of a rolling series of debt crises instigated by Republicans in the past few years, including the deep budget cuts known as sequestration and this year's payroll-tax increase.

Under pressure from Republicans, the federal government has cut spending at the fastest pace since the end of the Vietnam War. Government investment has tumbled to its lowest level as a percentage of GDP since 1948.

This belt-tightening has cost the economy nearly 2.5 million jobs, according to a recent study by the Center For American Progress -- one huge reason this has been the slowest job-market recovery since World War II.

Economists on the right and left agree austerity has hurt economic growth, employment and consumer spending, with executives from Walmart and Cisco among the most recent capitalists to complain about it. The sluggish recovery is also making income inequality worse, Yellen pointed out, depriving poor and middle-class Americans of more and better job opportunities.

Bernanke, himself a Republican, has made it a habit this year to complain about Congress at every Congressional hearing in which he appears. The Fed's monetary policy committee has mentioned the drag from fiscal policy in every one of its policy statements since March of this year.

So Yellen is just keeping up what has become a depressing Fed tradition: begging Congress for help. The problem is that the Republicans in Congress could care less. All they care about is doing everything they can to hurt the economy and slow job growth, so it hurts Obama politically and makes it easier for them to beat Hillary in 2016.

And O'Reilly never says a word about any of it, even though if Democrats were doing this under a Republican President O'Reilly would call them un-American traitors, which he did when Bush was in office. After taking heat for it, he stood by what he said, but he changed it from un-American to say they are bad Americans.

The Thursday 11-14-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 15, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The President Capitulates. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Speaking at the White House Thursday, President Obama once again said that the computer problems and other chaos surrounding Obamacare are his responsibility. The introduction of Obamacare was sold for three-and-a-half years as a magnificent government-imposed program with little downside, which is why many folks are furious.

While the President continued to praise the overall law, he did address that over-selling. But only when powerful Senators in his own party began introducing legislation to deal with health insurance problems did he respond. In order to stop that legislation cold, the President now says this: 'Insurers can extend current plans that would otherwise be canceled into 2014.' That, of course, will cause even more chaos.

How many of you believe re-enrolling in a canceled health insurance plan will be a fun adventure? Mr. Obama said he will not accept proposals that are 'another brazen attempt to undermine or repeal the overall law.' That was a signal to Republicans that the President will veto any attempt to repeal Obamacare. No matter how many problems develop, true believers in the Affordable Health Care law like the President will stand by it.

It's the 'greater good' proposition that even if Obamacare is screwed up beyond belief, it's better than what was there. But all the kings horses and all the kings men might not be able to put Obamacare back together again because it goes against free market principles. More importantly, it depends on an efficient government bureaucracy to implement it.

In this country there is not, nor has there ever been, an efficient government bureaucracy. The question is why some very intelligent people don't understand that. Summing up, we can expect the President and his supporters to compromise on some small things, but not the overall Obamacare program, which they will defend forever. To admit that it is not good for the country would be to admit that big government is not good, and therefore liberalism is not good. That's what this is all about.
And that my friends is a load of bull, social security runs great, medicare runs great, and the military runs great, which are all Government programs. O'Reilly is a Government/Obama hating liar, and this is just more proof.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about her biased discussion with Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the driving forces behind Obamacare. Even though she said she would not have an opinion on her show, she does and she lied. Megyn Kelly is a typical Fox host, biased to the right with biased opinions.

Kelly said this: "This is one of the chief architects of the law, and rather than coming out and coming clean, there was obfuscation at every turn. Ultimately he used the 'blame someone else' trick, including blaming Fox. How is it Fox News's fault? But he did say that he believes the administration should have appointed a CEO to oversee health care and they didn't do it. They didn't have an actual CEO for a major piece of legislation that was remaking one-sixth of the United States economy."

Then Uma Pemmaraju was on to respond to some irate viewers. Californian Dennis Henley, for example, is mad at people who text while driving. "41 states have banned texting," Pemmaraju reported, "and in Alaska you can be fined up to $10,000 and sentenced to a year in jail. On the low end is California with $20 a pop."

New Jersey-ite Samantha Glassford was mad about being penalized for being conservative at a very liberal college. "This happened to me in college as well," Pemmaraju revealed. "I majored in political science and did two term papers for liberal professors who said having conservative views was unpatriotic. I wrote about the welfare state and anti-poverty programs, and they said we don't have a victim society."

Then Laura Ingraham was on to talk about an Obamacare exchange in Colorado that has created a series of ads that glamorize promiscuity and drinking, apparently believing the campaign will lure young people into the program. With no liberal guest on for balance, in fact, no liberal was on the entire show.

Ingraham found the ads insulting, saying this: "The ads were done by two progressive organizations, that do a lot of social media. Their goals are to 'thwart the right-wing agenda in Colorado.' Even though this isn't the federal exchange, I wonder what President Obama would think about this. This is humiliating for liberal women - we're supposed to believe that if you like Obamacare you're willing to hop into bed with any guy."

Then Bernard McGuirk and Greg Gutfeld were on to talk about a new poll showing that a plurality of people prefer a male boss to a female boss.

Gutfeld said this: "I question the whole survey, because it's so heterosexist. Why does it have to be a man or a woman - what about sequential hermaphrodites? The interesting part of this survey is that women prefer male bosses more than men do."

McGuirk contended that age matters more than gender, saying this: "You want someone who's older, avuncular, and paternal or maternal. You don't want someone your age bossing you around. And if it's a woman, you don't want sexual tension. If I want to get bossed around and slapped around by a woman, I'll get a leather mask and I'll go see a dominatrix. Or I'll go home to my wife!"

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Watery Wisdom. Billy said this: "When you're feeling hungry, some doctors say that you're actually thirsty and that a glass of water may well satisfy your craving."

Those doctors would be called quacks, if I am hungry for a Cheeseburger a glass of fricking water will not satisfy my craving. In fact, that so-called tip is so stupid O'Reilly should just stop doing the tip of the day and use the time to report some real news.

Support For Raising Minimum Wage Jumps To 76%
By: Steve - November 15, 2013 - 10:00am

Congressional Republicans have vowed to block any bill raising the minimum wage, even though a new Gallup poll shows that 76% of Americans and 58% of Republicans supporting increasing the minimum wage.

The Gallup poll found that support for raising the minimum wage to $9.00 an hour has jumped from 71% in March to 76% today. Sixty nine percent of those polled support a minimum wage that increases as inflation goes up. 91% of Democrats, 76% of Independents, and 58% of Republicans support increasing the minimum wage.

Which is pretty sad, because they were elected to represent the people, and the majority of the people support raising the minimum wage but they still oppose it.

Democrats (92%) and Independents (71%) strongly support linking the minimum wage to inflation. Fifty six percent of Republicans oppose making the minimum wage inflation proof.

While the American people want a higher minimum wage, Republicans in Congress support getting rid of all minimum wage laws. In an interview with CBS, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said this: "I support people making more than $9 an hour. I want people to make as much as they can. I don't think a minimum wage law works.

We all support -- I certainly do -- having more taxpayers, meaning more people who are employed. And I want people to make a lot more than $9 -- $9 is not enough. The problem is you can't do that by mandating it in the minimum wage laws. Minimum wage laws have never worked in terms of having the middle class attain more prosperity."

Which is just insane, because if you made the minimum wage $9.00 or more it would boost the economy and lower poverty. It would also lower the amount of money the Government would have to pay out to help the poor.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) admitted to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) that he wants to abolish the minimum wage. Elected Republicans are moving in the opposite direction from the rest of the country. They are even out of step with a majority of their own party on the minimum wage.

Republicans are in big trouble on the minimum wage. The elected radical Republicans want to abolish it, while the rest of the country is trying to raise it. This is one of those issues where a pragmatic political party would support a minimum wage increase because opposing it could do serious damage to them in the next election.

However, this Republican Party is ideological. They will never support a minimum wage increase, and voters will need to make them pay at the polls. Democrats need to hammer them over it, because raising the minimum wage isn't just a political issue. It’s the right thing to do for millions of hard working Americans.

And what really gets me is Republicans cry about so many people on food stamps, when the minimum wage is $7.25 an hour and they admit that $9.00 is not even enough to live on. Then they oppose raising the minimum wage, which would lower the amount of people who need food stamps and help the economy. The things they claim to want to do, as they do the opposite.

O'Reilly and the right-wingers call them lazy drug addicted bums that can work but do not, when half of them are disabled, the elderly, children, or the working poor. A lot of them are working, but they do not make enough to live on without food stamps. If they would raise the minimum wage to a living wage of $10.00 an hour (or more) they would not need food stamps.

Notice that O'Reilly has ignored this poll and not reported on it. Even though he claims to be an actual non-partisan journalist who is looking out for you. Proving once again that O'Reilly is nothing but a right-wing corporate stooge who could care less about the average working man or the working poor.

If he was what he says he is, he would be screaming from the rooftops about this poll and calling for a raise in the minimum wage. Instead, he is opposed to it and calls everyone on food stamps lazy bums, when half of them are working, and a lot of them are elderly, disabled, and children.

And btw, I am on food stamps, I was getting $200.00 a month, and it was barely enough to get by on. Then on November 10th I found out out they cut my food stamps by $11.00 a month, so instead of getting $200.00 a month for food, I now get $189.00 a month. They cut my benefits at a time when the price of food, milk, etc. has gone up, which is ridiculous.

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

The TPM was called: Will ObamaCare be the end of modern liberalism? The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There was more bad news for President Obama today - a new Quinnipiac Poll shows that Americans disapprove of his job performance by a 54% - 39% margin. Also, 52% of American voters say the President is not 'honest and trustworthy.' That's a disaster and it is driving all the chaos in Washington.

Now, the bigger picture: Last night on The Factor, Charles Krauthammer opined that the Obamacare debacle may signal the end of the liberal movement. But don't underestimate Barack Obama, who still has powerful allies. The media has been embarrassed by Obamacare, but if things begin to improve that will be trumpeted almost everywhere, as it should be.

Talking Points believes there are a number of good things in the new law, but they can be done in the private sector by targeted legislation. What President Obama will never understand is that the federal government is not capable of running the health care system. The chaos we now have is proof of that.
And that is just ridiculous, Krauthammer and O'Reilly are idiots. One liberal program with a few bugs is not going to end liberalism, and the question is just insane. In fact, a year from now most people might like Obamacare and it will then be seen as a good thing. And even if they never like Obamacare it will not end liberalism. Especially when Republicans are far more hated then Democrats.

Then Democrat Kirsten Powers and Republican Kate Obenshain were on to talk about the Krauthammer nonsense that liberalism's death knell has been sounded.

Powers said this: "Fortunately, Charles is not right about this. This is not the collapse of liberalism, but it has had a major setback. President Obama has been good at making the case for government being part of the solution, not the problem, but this is a setback for the view that the government can be helpful."

Obenshain agreed that trust in government has been cratering, saying this: "When 53% of the American public think that Obama's incompetent, that's an important number. It's not necessarily Obama that is being perceived as incompetent, it's the government."

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

Cameron said this: "21 Senate Democrats are up for reelection next year, and 12 of them have come out in support of some form of Obamacare delay. But Democratic leader Harry Reid in the Senate won't bring any of those bills to the floor unless the President says it's okay."

Rosen said this: "Secretary of State John Kerry was on Capitol Hill today briefing the Senate Banking Committee behind closed doors. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers are straining at the bit to slap fresh sanctions on Iran. But the Obama administration and our foreign allies oppose new sanctions because they think it will poison the atmosphere."

Then Dennis Miller was on for his regular weekly segment, which I do not report on.

Then Martha MacCallum was on for did you see that, she talked about the attention-seeking Miley Cyrus who lit up a marijuana cigarette while accepting an award in Holland.

MacCallum actually praised the young singer's public relations skills, saying this: "She's getting exactly what she wants, and she once said that if she's not getting attention she's not doing her job. Miley Cyrus knows her audience exactly, she is marketing to the teenage girl who is also throwing off that 'Hannah Montana' period of her life and likes the rebelliousness. I do think it's wrong for her to smoke a joint on stage, but I don't see her as a dangerous element."

O'Reilly disagreed saying that Cyrus is a pernicious influence: "This is destructive to children because it sends a message that this is cool."

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Heeeere's Johnny. Billy said this: "One celebrity book worth reading is called "Johnny Carson," which was written by his long-time attorney and friend Henry Bushkin. Carson's deep unhappiness was perhaps rooted in his complete lack of spiritual faith, which serves as a lesson to us all."

How Republicans Rig the Game
By: Steve - November 14, 2013 - 10:00am

Here is something you never hear O'Reilly or any of his guests talk about, because he does not allow it on his show, and he will not report on it, ever. Because he is a Republican and he does not want you to know any of this, as he dishonestly claims America is a center-right country.

Through gerrymandering, voter suppression and legislative tricks, the Republican Party has managed to hold on to power while more and more Americans reject their candidates and their ideas.

This is a long (but great) article that details how the majority of Americans are rejecting Republican ideas, and yet, they still control the House, by gerrymandering and voter suppression. I will post a little of it and then a link to the full article, which everyone should read to see the real truth about why Republicans still have any power at all.

As the nation recovers from the Republican shutdown of government, the question Americans should be asking is not "Why did the GOP do that to us?" but "Why were they even relevant in the first place?" So dramatically have the demographic and electoral tides in this country turned against the Republican Party that, in a representative democracy worthy of the designation, the Grand Old Party should be watching from the sidelines and licking its wounds.

Not only did Barack Obama win a second term in an electoral landslide in 2012, but he is also just the fourth president in a century to have won two elections with more than 50 percent of the popular vote. What's more, the party controls 55 seats in the Senate, and Democratic candidates for the House received well over a million more votes than their Republican counterparts in the election last year. And yet, John Boehner still wields the gavel in the House and Republican resistance remains a defining force in the Senate, frustrating Obama's ambitious agenda.

How is this possible? National Republicans have waged an unrelenting campaign to exploit every weakness and anachronism in our electoral system. Through a combination of hyperpartisan redistricting of the House, unprecedented obstructionism in the Senate and racist voter suppression in the states, today's GOP has locked in political power that it could never have secured on a level playing field.

Despite the fact that Republican Congressional candidates received nearly 1.4 million fewer votes than Democratic candidates last November, the Republicans lost only eight seats from their historic 2010 romp, allowing them to preserve a fat 33-seat edge in the House.

Unscrupulous Republican gerrymandering following the 2010 census made the difference, according to a statistical analysis conducted by the Princeton Election Consortium. Under historically typical redistricting, House Republicans would now likely be clinging to a reedy five-seat majority. "There's the normal tug of war of American politics," says Sam Wang, founder of the consortium. "Trying to protect one congressman here, or unseat another one there." The Princeton model was built, he says, to detect "whether something got pulled off-kilter on top of that."

Did it ever. In Pennsylvania, Democratic candidates took 51 percent of the vote across the state's 18 districts, but only five of the seats. In Wang's model, the odds against Democrats emerging at an eight-seat disadvantage are 1,000-to-1. And Pennsylvania was not alone. According to the Election Consortium analysis, gerrymandering helped Republicans secure 13 seats in just six states – including Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina – that, under normal rules of engagement, Democrats would have won.

This tilting of the electoral playing field was the result of a sophisticated campaign coordinated at the highest levels of Republican politics through a group called the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) – a Super-PAC-like entity chaired by Bush-era RNC chairman Ed Gillespie and backed by Karl Rove.

Shortly after President Obama's first election, the RSLC launched the Redistricting Majority Project (REDMAP) with an explicit strategy to "keep or win Republican control of state legislatures with the largest impact on congressional redistricting." The logic was simple. Every decade following the census, the task of redrawing federal congressional-district boundaries falls (with some exceptions) to the state legislatures.

If Republicans could seize control of statehouses – and, where necessary, have GOP governors in place to rubber-stamp their redistricting maps – the party could lock in new districts that would favor Republican candidates for a decade. As Rove wrote in a Wall Street Journal column in early 2010: "He who controls redistricting can control Congress."

Read the full article here:

How Republicans Rig the Game

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

The TPM was called: Politics in America Getting Even More Bitter. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: With all the trouble over Obamacare, you would think that Republicans would be getting momentum. But Tea Party conservatives, as well as the hard right, continue to reject the moderate wing of the party. So while Republicans are united against Obamacare, they're fighting over ideology.

The scorecard looks like this: The moderate Republican leadership features Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John McCain, Marco Rubio, and Paul Ryan. The Tea Party hard right leadership is headed by Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and Sarah Palin. Both sides are far apart, and the question is whether hard right conservatives will stay home if a non-Tea Party person gets the presidential nomination.

There comes a point where people with strong beliefs have to make a decision - if the Republican Party remains divided, they'll be defeated in the midterm elections next year and lose the presidency in 2016. The situation is exacerbated by the media.

The liberal mainstream media, which despises Republicans, encourages the civil war, while talk radio and some on cable news stoke the fires of conservative ideology by labeling people that compromise 'RINOs,' Republicans in Name Only. With President Obama on the ropes, Republicans have a huge opportunity. But that opportunity may slip away.
And here is what O'Reilly does not tell you, the main reason politics is so bitter now is because the Tea Party has forced the Republican Party to the far-right. And everyone on the far-right hate Obama so they do not want to work with him on anything. They are putting partisan politics ahead of the good of the people, which is borderline treason in my book. O'Reilly even defends it, but if liberals were doing it he would call them un-American traitors, which he has in the past.

Republicans do not care about the people, they only care about using partisan political tactics to hurt Obama politically, in the hopes that it will damage the Democratic Party bad enough for them to beat Hillary in 2016. Which will not happen btw, it's going to backfire on them, especially if they nominate a far-right stooge like Ted Cruz. Hillary will crush any far-right candidate, even with the gerrymandering and voter suppression, she will still beat him. Because the majority of Americans do not support Republican policies.

Then the right-wing stooge Charles Krauthammer was on to discuss it, with no liberal guest on for balance.

Krauthammer said this: "I think this is very much blown up by the liberal media, because it's a dramatic story. But this analysis is wrong because the difference between the hard right and the moderates is really over tactics, not over ideology and objectives. What we're talking about is whether it was a good idea to shut down the government. On objectives, tell me what is the fundamental difference between moderates and radicals? We all agree on limited government, on restoration of individual rights, on liberty being the central ideal, on the restoration of individual responsibility and initiative."

Then the partisan Obama hating right-wing stooge Col. Ralph Peters was on to talk about a deal that would curtail Iran's nuclear capabilities. With of course no liberal guest on for balance, making it an unbalanced one sided biased segment with two Republicans.

Peters said this: "This makes America look weak and foolish. It's pretty clear that European and American diplomats were willing to accept a deal just to have a deal. Iran would give up nothing and we would loosen sanctions. John Kerry flew to Geneva expecting to sign the deal, but the French said, 'No, this is stupid, Iran is not giving up anything.' The bottom line is that you can not give the Iranians a free lunch just because they were willing to talk."

Then John Stossel was on to talk about a case of fraud, the IRS has sent an estimated $3.6 billion in tax refunds to identity thieves. With no liberal guest on for balance, none. All right-wing spin, all the time.

Stossel said this: "People get Social Security numbers, and then they file a phony tax return that say you owe me this much. And the IRS just pays it! There was one address in Lithuania that got 500 refunds, you'd think the IRS would wake up to that. When you have big government programs handing out money, there will always be fraud. Eventually some of these people get caught and prosecuted, but it's a small percentage."

Then Rebecca Rose Woodland and Kimberly Guilfoyle were on to talk about the Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who is complaining about his treatment in prison.

Guilfoyle said this: "He says there are excessive restrictions, that restrict his ability to represent himself. He is kept in solitary confinement and all his communications are monitored. The ACLU is joining Tsarnaev's lawyer in saying these are undue restrictions."

Woodland turned to director Spike Lee, who is being sued by an elderly couple in Florida, saying this: "Spike Lee tweeted an address that he claimed was George Zimmerman's parents address, but it turned out to be the address of this couple. He admits that he tweeted that address. These poor people can't sell their house, they just want to leave!"

And finally the Factor tip of the day that was not a tip, just a cheap promotion for Factor gear on the O'Reilly website.

Scarborough Slams GOP For Obama Hating
By: Steve - November 13, 2013 - 10:00am

With his new book to promote, Joe Scarborough was guest co-host on The View Tuesday morning. And the MSNBC host had plenty to say about the current state of his Republican Party, including the belief that the GOP is "too obsessed" with hating on President Barack Obama.

Scarborough began by laying out the premise of his book, in which he says the GOP needs a new Ronald Reagan figure to lead the party into the future. He said the real problem is that "we've been conducting ideological witch hunts in our party. If you don't agree with everybody on 100% of the issues, somehow you're out."

Much of the discussion surrounded New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who many view as a possible frontrunner for the 2016 presidential nomination. "The fact is, people that would judge Chris Christie because he hugged Barack Obama, first of all, they're too obsessed on hating Barack Obama," Scarborough said.

He recounted that, as much he disliked former President Bill Clinton, when the president came to his district after a hurricane, he didn't hesitate to hug him. "So Chris Christie hugged Barack Obama, get over it!" he said.

As for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Scarborough said "he has the same problem Sarah Palin has. About twice as many people have an unfavorable opinion as a favorable opinion. we have to figure out how to flip that around."

Scarborough also surprised the hosts when he said he could see himself voting for a Democrat for president. "I mean, if we keep going in this direction, you know, I would," he said. "I haven't had to actually try that theory out yet, and hopefully our party will turn things around."

Finally, Scarborough weighed in on the Affordable Care Act, saying, "I'm not going to endorse Obamacare right here." But, he added, "If you don't like Obamacare, then guess what? Let's actually win elections and we're only going to win elections if we come up with an alternative to Obamacare."

State Minimum Wage Increases Are On The Rise
By: Steve - November 13, 2013 - 9:00am

As usual O'Reilly is out of touch with the average Americans who support higher minimum wage rates from $10.00 an hour to $15.00 an hour. Results are showing that voters in New Jersey and SeaTac, a small town in Washington state, voted to increase the minimum wage through ballot initiatives on Tuesday night.

In New Jersey, the minimum wage, which was set at the federal floor of $7.25, will now rise by a dollar and the state constitution will be amended to include automatic increases tied to inflation. It is now the eleventh state to adopt automatic increases to the wage, standing in contrast to the federal government, where it hasn't risen in four years.

Over 60 percent of voters approved the measure.

While the final results haven't been declared in SeaTac, the town that is home to the airport of the same name, backers are declaring victory with the measure showing a lead. This measure goes much further than New Jersey's and, assuming final results show that it was approved, will be the most generous minimum wage in the country at $15 an hour. The town's previous wage floor was $9.19 for the 6,500 people who work in the airport and elsewhere.

While the minimum wage stagnates at the federal level -- where it would be over $10 an hour if it had kept up with inflation since the late 1960s -- states and local communities have been taking matters into their own hands. Voters approved a raise in Albuquerque, NM; San Jose, CA; and Long Beach, CA in the 2012 election.

Supporters are pushing for higher wages in Alaska, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and South Dakota either through ballot measures or by pressuring lawmakers.

And American voters nearly always approve raises when given the chance by substantial majorities. Raising the minimum wage garners widespread support, with a recent poll showing 80 percent of Americans in favor of an increase to $10.10 an hour, including two-thirds of Republicans and nearly 80 percent of the well off.

While O'Reilly is still opposed to it, as he spews out the corporate propaganda that a living wage will hurt the country and cost jobs. When 80% of the American people support a minimum wage of $10.00 an hour, or more.

No wonder, when the evidence shows that it would give the economy a big boost and offer a lifeline to millions of Americans. The Chicago Federal Reserve found that increasing the wage to $9 would increase spending by about $48 billion and give GDP a 0.3 percent boost.

Several studies have also shown that a raise doesn't hurt jobs and, on the contrary, may even boost job growth. An increase to $10.10 an hour would lift nearly 6 million people out of poverty.

The Monday 11-11-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 12, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: More Troubles for Obamacare. The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: There is plenty of criticism of the Affordable Health Care law, with much of the anger flowing toward the White House. The Obama administration had three-and-a-half years and a billion dollars to launch the law, but the entire thing is a catastrophe so far and no one has been held responsible.

It is safe to say that most Americans do not trust the new law, nor do they trust President Obama to implement it properly. Enter the conservative Project Veritas group, which sent an undercover person to National Urban League offices in Texas. The Urban League is receiving more than $1-million to guide people into the Obamacare system. Some of that taxpayer money is being used to hire 'navigators,' who are there to help you when you call up.

Project Veritas talked to a few of those navigators, who advised undercover 'applicants' to fill out forms fraudulently and lie about their health history. Fraud and deceit! Sounds like a great federal program. Going forward, the President should delay the law for a year so that computers can be fixed and responsible people hired to guide Americans through the new health care maze. There's no threat to a delay of the Affordable Care act. In fact, the program should be stronger a year from now. Right, Mr. President?
Then Mary K. Ham and Juan Williams were on to discuss it.

Williams said this: "We have a 'Hater's Ball' going on here. Everybody is trying to find anything they can on Obamacare, but there is no evidence of widespread fraud or corruption."

Ham said this: "The 'Hater's Ball' has always been populated by more than half of the United States. A lot of people are losing their insurance, so there's not a lot of dancing, there's a lot of sadness. In any giant system fraud can creep in, but in this system fraud was invited over for a keg party!"

O'Reilly accused Williams of simply wanting to redistribute wealth, saying this: "There's always a reason why people are poor in America. But you and your crew, Juan, are saying you don't care what the reason is, that everyone has a constitutional right to free health care. You're willing to overlook all the chaos."

Then Jesse Watters took to the streets to find out how much people really know about the Affordable Health Care Act. Here is what a few folks told him about Obamacare: "I don't understand Obamacare, I don't think anyone understands it" ... "It's going to cost me more money in the long run" ... "The website crash has CIA written all over it."

Watters then summarized his interviews with 20 random people in New York City's Central Park. "Ten people supported Obamacare, five people did not support it, and the other five were confused or intoxicated. We just happened to run into some people who were a little disoriented in the middle of the day."

And I will bet that in a year 17 of 20 people will support it and like it. It's too soon to be taking polls on Obamacare because it has start up problems, and O'Reilly knows it yet he does them anyway, just to make Obama look bad.

Then Brit Hume was on to talk about Governor Chris Christie, who is is being touted as the next Republican presidential nominee.

Hume said this: "It's pretty clear that Chris Christie is interested in running for the presidency. His weakest point is that many conservatives don't think he's one of them. He has to convince them that a guy who can win a lot of Democratic votes is actually one of them. The scene of him with the President after Hurricane Sandy doesn't help him among conservative Republicans - they wonder if they can trust him."

Then O'Reilly asked Bernie Goldberg about Chris Christie's presidential prospects.

Goldberg said this: "It's too early to say he's the front-runner, but he's certainly the flavor of the month. He's on the cover of Time magazine and he's on all the Sunday talk shows."

Earth to O'Reilly and Goldberg, it's too early to talk about any of this. Because the election is 3 years away, we have not even had the 2014 mid-terms yet, morons. Nobody cares, and nobody will remember any of this in 3 years, idiots.

Goldberg also advised Republicans to focus more on winning elections, less on ideological purity, saying this: "Too many people on the hard right, Tea Party people and others, are ideological rigid and say that if Chris Christie is the latest incarnation of John McCain or Mitt Romney, they'll sit home and not vote for him. If they do that, they will help elect another liberal Democrat named Hillary Clinton in 2016. The real 'RINOs' are the people in the Tea Party and the hard right because they have made it clear that their allegiance is not to the Republican Party, but to their particular brand of conservatism."

Then Karl Rove was on to analyze the current state of his Republican Party and its presidential hopefuls.

Rove said this: "2014 is going to be really important for each of these people. Do they go out and bust their posteriors next year to help get other Republicans elected, and do they come up with an optimistic message? The other thing is how much do they grow? Every one of these people has won in a state, but running for president is like nothing they've ever experienced. The question is whether they can grow their skills and talents and political muscle to do things better on the campaign trail."

O'Reilly added that far right candidates will have an early advantage in the nominating process, saying this: "The Republican primaries are stacked toward conservatives, you're going to lose the first few primaries if you're not a doctrinaire conservative."

And here is the funny part, O'Reilly and none of his right-wing friends ever talk about it. If the Republicans nominate a moderate they lose, if they nominate a conservative they lose. So that shows one thing, the majority of Americans do not want any of them, moderates or conservatives. But O'Reilly keeps saying they just need to get their message out better, which is ridiculous, because the more the people get their message the more they oppose them.

And all this happens as O'Reilly claims we are a center-right country, which is also ridiculous, because we are a center-left to far-left country, O'Reilly just can not admit it.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: A Veterans Day Salute. Billy said this: "Try to help our military veterans in whatever way you can, whether by hiring them or by donating to charities such as IndependenceFund.org, which purchases All-Terrain Chairs for severely wounded veterans."

White Texas Republican Wins By Pretending To Be Black
By: Steve - November 12, 2013 - 10:00am

And what a shocker, NOT! O'Reilly ignored the entire story.

A white Republican best known for mailing homophobic fliers to thousands of Houston voters attacking the city's lesbian mayor narrowly won an election to the Houston Community College Board of Trustees after he misled voters into believing that he is African American.

Dave Wilson defeated longtime incumbent Bruce Austin, who actually is black, in an overwhelmingly African American district.

Wilson's campaign fliers were filled with black faces that he admits to simply pulling off of websites, along with captions such as "Please vote for our friend and neighbor Dave Wilson."

Another flier announces that he was "Endorsed by Ron Wilson," which is the name of an African American former state representative. Only by reading the fine print will voters discover that the "Ron Wilson" who actually endorsed Dave is his cousin. And that cousin lives in Iowa, not Texas.

In an interview with a local TV station, Wilson did not deny that he intended to mislead the voters, instead justifying his actions by claiming that "every time a politician talks, he's out there deceiving voters."

And btw, Wilson defeated the incumbent Austin by just 26 votes, so it is highly likely that Wilson’s deceptive campaign tactics helped push him over the edge to victory.

His opponent, Bruce Austin, a twenty-four year incumbent, called the strategy "disgusting." Saying this: "I don't think it's good for democracy and the whole concept of fair play," Austin said. "But that was not his intent, apparently."

Republican Senator Admits Tea Party Is Dishonest
By: Steve - November 11, 2013 - 10:00am

Sen. Mitch McConnell is done playing nice.

McConnell smacked down the tea party in an interview with Wall Street Journal opinion writer Peggy Noonan published Thursday evening.

The Tea Party is made up of people who are "angry and upset at government," the Republican Senate minority leader said, but they've been mislead by their leaders.

"They've been told the reason we can't get to better outcomes than we've gotten is not because the Democrats control the Senate and the White House but because Republicans have been insufficiently feisty. Well, that's just not true, and I think that the folks that I have difficulty with are the leaders of some of these groups who basically mislead them for profit," he said.

When the tea party helped Sen. Rand Paul defeat a McConnell-approved candidate in a Kentucky Republican primary in 2010, McConnell made nice with the Senate's tea party wing and looked to shore up his right flank, hiring a Paul-family friend, Jesse Benton, to run his re-election campaign. A tea partier challenged him from the right, but McConnell leads in polls by 47 points.

Then the shutdown hit and all bets were off -- McConnell quickly became a target when he brokered a deal with Democrats to reopen the federal government without taking down Obamacare.

And the chips fell swiftly. The Senate Conservatives Fund, founded by former South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, slammed McConnell, endorsed his Republican primary challenger, and later began running ads against McConnell.

"So now Mitch McConnell is negotiating the Republican surrender," the group's executive director, Matt Hoskins, said. "He gave the Democrats a blank check back in July when he signaled he would do anything to avoid a shutdown and now Democrats can demand whatever they want. It's humiliating."

The Tea Party Nation withdrew their endorsement of the Senate minority leader in his primary race; the Senate Conservatives Fund endorsed McConnell's tea party challenger. Western Representation PAC, a tea party-aligned group, slammed McConnell in a fundraising email titled "A Parliament of Traitors and Whores."

So, with little tea party support left to lose, McConnell is hitting back. The Senate Conservatives Fund "has elected more Democrats than the Democratic Senatorial Committee over the last three cycles," he told the Journal.

And that race in Alabama, where a birther, tea party activist lost to a conservative business-interest-aligned Republican?

That was a significant election, McConnell said, explaining that Republicans can't govern if they can't win elections. And to win, parties must "run candidates that don't scare the general public, and convey the impression that we could actually be responsible for governing, you can trust us -- we're adults here, we're grown-ups," he said.

But McConnell isn't worried about the primary challenge his tea party opponents are hoping to make more difficult. "I don't wanna be overly cocky, but I'm gonna be the Republican nominee next year," he told Noonan.

O'Reilly Called Out For His Welfare Nation Propaganda
By: Steve - November 10, 2013 - 11:00am

Michael Kirchubel wrote a great article slamming O'Reilly for his welfare nation garbage so I thought I would share it with everyone.

-----------------------------------------------------

Are we, in fact, a welfare nation?

Last week, conservative pundit, Bill O'Reilly blessed America with an article titled: "We are, in fact, a welfare nation," putting forth the theory that there are more people in America today on welfare than have full-time jobs. He tells us that 102 million Americans worked full-time year round in 2011 and compares that with, "nearly 50 million Americans are receiving food stamps, and 83 million are on Medicaid."

However, Medicaid recipients total 62 million, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers for September, 2013, show about 135 million full-time American workers and part-time workers who are happy to be part-time workers. But, numbers are not really the point.

O'Reilly goes on: "I don't want my tax dollars going to drunkards and drug addicts," and suggests that our nation's poor are "layabouts," ignoring the fact that most food stamp and Medicaid recipients are children, seniors, and the working poor. Nationwide, 47% of food stamp recipients are children and 41% are working poor, working for such low wages, that they qualify for subsidies. Whenever we taxpayers must provide food and healthcare to workers, the businesses are paying them less than a living wage, and we are actually subsidizing the owners' profits.

In his article, O'Reilly tells us: "Safety nets for the poor and disadvantaged are a must for any compassionate nation, but encouraging folks to go on the dole when it's not absolutely necessary is disgraceful. That's what the Obama administration is doing. How else can you explain a 40 percent rise in food stamp recipients in just three years…"

Oh, really, O'Reilly? You think President Obama is "encouraging" folks to be poor? Couldn't the actual problem be that lax financial regulations "encouraged" Wall Street bankers to go wild and gut our nation's economy and that "Free Trade Agreements" encouraged corporations to ship good American manufacturing jobs overseas?

47.7 million Americans currently receive federal food subsidies, averaging $133 a month. With new cuts coming from the Republican-run House of Representatives, a typical family of four will now get about $36 per month less, saving taxpayers $5 billion per year.

Compare that to the $85 billion that the Federal Reserve spent supporting the financial industry just last month, just like the month before that, and the month before that, to the tune of $2 trillion, so far.

While Billo and his right-wing-apologist ilk are quick to criticize American workers who understandably continue to struggle in our still-weak economy, they never seem to complain about Congress spending taxpayer money helping financial institutions; utilities; oil and chemical companies; insurance companies; corporate farmers; pharmaceutical and medical products companies; telecommunications industries; security and prison corporations; or aerospace and defense industries.

Not counting the Federal Reserve's contributions, corporate tax breaks and loopholes, non-negotiated drug purchases, no-bid and over-the-top defense contracts, and arms sales disguised as "foreign aid," the federal government spends about $225 billion tax dollars a year on corporate welfare. If the Republicans want corporations to be "people" so they can fund their elections, shouldn't they also be pushing for down-to-the-bone welfare cuts like they do for human people?

O'Reilly also repeats the often-repeated Republican mantra that Democrats want to keep Americans dependent on welfare so they'll vote for them. That's obviously absurdly illogical, but I think I can repair their slogan by changing a few words: "Republicans want to keep corporations dependent on subsidies so they'll continue to give them money for their campaigns."

I've also corrected Billo's ending: Unless the voters wise up, this nation will continue down the Corporate Nanny State road. That path is unsustainable.

No thanks necessary, Bill.

------------------------------------------------------

Great article Michael, it's called journalism and reporting the actual facts, something O'Reilly knows nothing about.

The Friday 11-8-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 9, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: President Obama in a Big Bind. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: President Obama has apologized for not being more direct with the American people about Obamacare. But it was really a nothing statement and he had to do it. With anger growing across the nation and Democratic politicians very worried, Mr. Obama finally admitted some culpability, but no one has been held accountable for the deplorable rollout of Obamacare.

The unintended consequences are just beginning to be felt - every day thousands of us are having to deal with dramatic change and often dramatic new expense. This can not turn out well for the President or the Democratic Party, no matter what they say. But again, Talking Points urges fairness in the reporting on Obamacare, not partisan hysteria.

America is now in the middle of an intense political war between big government people and small government folks. The winner of that war will be the side that tells the truth and states the facts, whatever they may be.
Now that is funny, Mr. partisan bias and unfairness calls for less partisan bias and fairness. I think O'Reilly is senile, or he is just a dishonest fool, or both. Because he has never been fair to Obama, and Fox News is dedicated to slamming Obama no matter what he does. O'Reilly even called for Obama to say he is sorry for the bugs in Obamacare, so he did, and O'Reilly calls it a nothing statement. He is damned if he does and damned if he don't.

Then O'Reilly did a biased one sided segment on it with Jim Stone, a head of a health care consulting firm. With no guest to make it a fair and balanced report.

Stone said this: "We are hearing anecdotal information that physicians are scared, and there is a lot of uncertainty about how this will affect their practices and their income. More than 50% of the physicians we surveyed give the Affordable Care Act a 'D' or an 'F,' so generally they are pretty negative. They don't want to deal with the decreasing reimbursements and increasing regulations, they're fearful of how things are going to turn out for them."

Stone also warned of a possible doctor shortage, saying this: "HHS is predicting that 268,000 physicians will be retiring over the next ten years, but only about 15,000 new physicians are coming in each year."

Which has nothing to do with Obamacare, the fact is a lot of doctors will retire over the next ten years and we have not added enough doctors to replace them. That is the fault of the free market, not Obamacare, people now just do not want to be doctors as much like they did 30 years ago.

Then the biased hack Lou Dobbs was on to talk about the stock market and workers income levels. With no Democratic guest, making it another biased one sided right-wing propaganda segment.

Dobbs said this: "Stocks are up 20% this year so far, but the labor force participation rate has dropped to a 35-year low, and 14% of the country is underemployed or unemployed. The effect of Obamacare is to tax jobs and to create part-time jobs, and I think there is a good case to be made that we are looking at the prospect of civil unrest."

Which is just laughable, and puts Lou Dobbs in the Glenn Beck camp for the insane.

O'Reilly said this about Obama: "His primary goal in life is to redistribute assets and he came into office believing that he was going to make the USA more 'fair,' but he has done exactly the opposite. The fat cats are making more money than ever before, but the workers are making less money."

And that's because the Republicans will not vote to raise the minimum wage to $10.00 or $12.00 an hour, you idiots. Nobody can live on $7.25 an hour, which is why their are so many people on food stamps. Try reporting all the facts for once, not just part of them.

Then the Republican fool Allen West was on to talk about some political observers who say the Republican Party is being dragged down by Tea Party conservatives. West assessed polls showing that a plurality of voters oppose the Tea Party.

West said this: "The numbers reflect the fact that the Tea Party has been demonized. If you were to ask about excessive government spending, onerous taxation, or growing debt, you would see people supporting those positions in a positive way. The Tea Party people should sit down and come up with a platform that says what they are for."

Wrong, idiot! The numbers show that most Americans hate the Tea Party, because they are forcing Republicans to move far-right and support extreme positions. That is why the Tea Party is not popular, because they are a bunch of far-right loons who are out of the mainstream.

O'Reilly told West that the Tea Party is losing the public relations war, saying this: "You're right that the perception of the Tea Party is shaped by a hostile media. There's no spokesperson for the Tea Party, it's fragmented by design, so there's nobody to fight back on the national level to get out the message that the Tea Party isn't a subversive organization."

And as usual O'Reilly is wrong too. The Tea Party is not liked because they are on the far right and they support far-right loons that are out of the mainstream, plain and simple.

Then Greg Gutfeld and Bernard McGuirk were on to talk about the NFL "bullying" situation. With no Democratic guest for balance, just two Republicans.

McGuirk said this: "This incident is not trivializing bullying, this is for real! Jonathan Martin didn't sign up for 'Lord of the Flies' on steroids, he didn't sign up to have these no-neck nitwits leaving voice mails about raping his sister."

Gutfeld turned to Chicago, where "flash mobs" of young people are entering clothing stores, emptying the shelves, and making off with tons of stolen goods.

Gutfeld said this: "Can we officially ban the term flash mob. This is what used to be called 'looting,' and now in cities run by liberals it's called 'exercise' - it's a mix of aerobics and wealth transfer. New Yorkers should look at this and understand that this is what they are electing. Chicago is run by a liberal mayor who cannot control crime, and New Yorkers just elected Bill de Blasio, so this is their future!"

Then the right-wing stooges returned to name the week's most outrageous people and events.

McGuirk went with Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, who has admitted to smoking crack and going on "drunken binges." "He's being unfairly stigmatized for two reasons, because he's overweight and he smoked crack. If he looked like Mitt Romney and he did a couple of lines of cocaine nobody would care."

Gutfeld singled out sports reporter Kevin Blackistone, who described the Star-Spangled Banner as a "war anthem" that doesn't belong at sporting events. "When he goes to a football game, he sees a state of war mongering. Because he's a professor, he sees anything that is considered remotely American or patriotic as silly."

O'Reilly picked the administration of Coachella Valley High School in California, who are known as the "Arabs," have cheerleaders who perform belly dances, and use a sinister looking Muslim character as a mascot. "This mascot was created in the 1920's, but there are no Arabs living there. We're not politically correct here, but the school district superintendent is a pinhead." And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Critiquing the Critics. Billy said this: "When reading a review of a book, movie, or TV show, keep in mind that most professional critics are denizens of the left, which colors their judgment."

The Thursday 11-7-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 8, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Excuses, Excuses. The biased right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: The latest claim from the White House is that all the chaos is being caused by health insurance companies. But according to the Washington Post, 'The administration's effort to pin the blame on insurance companies is a classic case of misdirection.' So what is the truth?

If you are a health insurance company, you are now required to offer a bunch of services, such as maternity and newborn care to 90-year-olds. So some companies are canceling the policies because they don't comply with the new mandates. President Obama knew that would happen and he actually wants that to happen because it forces Americans into the Obamacare exchanges to get new policies.

Remember that the goal of President Obama and the Democratic Party is for the government to control the entire health care industry. But the President will never tell us any of that and most Americans are finally wising up to the quasi-socialistic agenda of the Democratic Party.

My analysis is not ideological - in fact, I think some right-wing ideologues are actually helping President Obama by attacking him personally.

We don't do that here and that has frustrated some Factor viewers. But we have been effective in dismantling the Obamacare excuse-making machine. For example, rather than concentrate on the word 'lie,' which polarizes, we have presented fact after fact showing that the new law is chaotic, to say the least. The way to overturn the progressive movement in America is to vote the rascals out, and in order to do that you have to defeat the progressives with facts.
Now that's funny, O'Reilly slams Obama every day and has 90% right-wing guests on who also slam Obama every day, then claims he does not do that and he is not an ideologue, wow! If he is not an ideologue I'm Elvis.

Then the Obama hating right-wing ideologue Karl Rove was on to discuss it.

Rove said this: "The problems are not just with the website, but with the underlying policy. And the problems are getting worse, starting with the fact that thus far we have seen 4.2 million policies canceled. There will be increasing numbers of people losing their coverage, then going to the exchanges and finding out that it will cost them more. The policies require more benefits but have fewer options as to where you get those benefits."

O'Reilly predicted that President Obama's own party will force him to make changes, saying this: "I think there is going to be a revolt, and it's not going to come from conservatives. It's going to come from the Democrats who are in jeopardy of losing their seats."

Then the former Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich was on to discuss it.

Kucinich said this: "I don't see this as a Democrat/Republican thing. The rollout has been a disaster, but an even greater disaster is that you have 50-million people without any health insurance. So we're not going to go back to the status quo where insurance companies were taking one out of every three health care dollars for corporate profits, advertising, stock options, marketing, and executive salaries. We don't need a health care system run by insurance companies. The problem we have is that this is a hybrid system with more of a role for the government, while private insurers are still running things."

Then Laura Ingraham was on to cry about a cover story on newly re-elected New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Time magazine used the headline "The Elephant in the Room."

Laura Ingraham dismissed the idea that Time was mocking Christie's ample girth, saying this: "It's the GOP, the Grand Old Party, and the symbol is the elephant. It was a little tongue-in-cheek, but someone like Christie will see the humor in this."

Ingraham also said this: "If had to say who will be the Republican nominee, it would probably be Jeb Bush or Christie or Scott Walker. When you become the GOP favorite, the calumny begins. Chris Christie will get used to this because the media will pile on him like they did with Romney and McCain."

Then Heather Nauert was on to answer emails submitted by mad Factor viewers. Californian Carole Perry is ticked off because Obamacare supporters have been paying Hollywood producers to put a positive spin on the law.

Nauert said this: "There is a group called the 'California Foundation,' which was started by Wellpoint, a large for-profit health insurance company. They're providing a half-million dollars to help promote Obamacare to writers and producers, trying to get it into their scripts. Wellpoint says it stands to make $20 billion off of Obamacare by 2016."

Another viewer expressed anger about seeing folks using food stamps to purchase lobster at an expensive grocery store. "You can't buy cigarettes or alcohol or dog food," Nauert said, "but you can buy lobster and organic food. Some fast food restaurants will also allow people to use their cards in the restaurants."

And they most likely only do that once a month because you can not afford to do it any more than that, especially after they just cut food stamp money $11 a month for a single person and $20 a month for a couple. I sometimes buy steak with my food stamp money, but I only do it once a month, and only when it's on sale for $5.99 a lb. Then I cut them in half and eat an 8 oz. half a steak dinner once a week. Do you also have a problem with that, jerks.

Then Megyn Kelly was on to talk about the U.S. Supreme Court hearing a case involving prayer at town meetings.

Kelly said this: "The suit was brought by an atheist and a Jew, and is supported by people who like separation of church and state. There is Supreme Court precedent that says you can have a prayer before a legislative session, but the Court now seems to be questioning whether it will live with that ruling it made in 1983. If they don't live with that ruling, we could be at the point where small towns can not open their legislative sessions with a prayer."

Kelly also reported the latest on the school district in New Jersey that had threatened to ban Christmas carols, saying this: "To their credit, they folded. The superintendent decided that you were right and she was wrong, so she reversed the policy and for now kids will be allowed to sing Christmas carols at their winter concert. But the policy is still under review."

Then Jesse Watters headed to the University of Houston, which was singled out as the "least sexy" school in America. Which I will not report on because it is not real news, it's garbage to get ratings.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day that was no tip, just O'Reilly promoting the movie based on his dumb book.

O'Reilly Proven Wrong About Politics Once Again
By: Steve - November 8, 2013 - 10:00am

And one again Bill O'Reilly gets it wrong, proving his bias. Wednesday night O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: "Last night in Virginia Terry McAuliffe, a big fundraiser for President Clinton, was elected governor. But he didn't win by much and the election wasn't supposed to be that close - it was Obamacare that helped the Republican candidate, Ken Cuccinelli."
WRONG! Here are the facts:

The polls show the Obama health care reform law was an insignificant factor in the race.

Let's look at the data from the exit polls:

-- Forty-six percent of Virginia voters said they supported the law, and McAuliffe won those voters by an 88 percent-to-6 percent clip.

-- By comparison, 53 percent said they opposed the law, and Cuccinelli won them, 81 percent to 11 percent. (That suggests that some of the opposition came from Democrats.)

-- While just 46 percent said they supported the health law, that percentage was higher than those who believe abortion shouldn't be legal in all or most cases (34 percent), as well as those who support for the Tea Party (28 percent).

-- And a quarter of Virginia voters said that health care was the ONE issue that mattered the most to them, and Cuccinelli only narrowly won those voters, 49 percent to 45 percent.

Bottom line from these statistics: The health-care law is not very popular, but that unpopularity did not damage McAuliffe. [NBC News, 11/6/13]

The Washington Post's Greg Sargent pointed out that exit polling showed that voters largely did not find health care to be a top issue and, of those who did, only a bare plurality (49-45) supported Cuccinelli:

According to the exit polls, only 27 percent of Virginia voters saw the health law as the top issue, and among them, only a bare plurality (49-45) supported Cuccinelli. Far more (45 percent) named the economy.

Talking Points Memo editor Josh Marshall reported that poll numbers and historical trends dispel the myth that the race was a referendum on Obamacare.

Marshall: "As I said, we're looking at the numbers. The most probative one I've seen so far is from the CNN version of the exit poll. 27% said health care was their most important issue. But the two candidates basically split those voters, with Cuccinelli holding a 4 point margin. In my mind that makes for a pretty thin argument that opposition to Obamacare drove this outcome."

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

The TPM was called: How ObamaCare is Impacting American Politics. The biased right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Last night in Virginia Terry McAuliffe, a big fundraiser for President Clinton, was elected governor. But he didn't win by much and the election wasn't supposed to be that close - it was Obamacare that helped the Republican candidate, Ken Cuccinelli.

In New Jersey, Republican Governor Chris Christie won reelection and had this advice for President Obama: 'Don't be so cute. When you make a mistake, admit it.' Governor Christie is on the mark, President Obama should just admit the fiasco that is the rollout of Obamacare, delay the law for a year, and give the folks a break.

But the President doesn't have to run again, is a stubborn guy, and thinks Obamacare is terrific, so he's not likely to compromise unless there is an uprising in the country. Most Americans don't like Obamacare, but not enough to really bother the White House.

They'll try to tough out the whole thing, despite embarrassing hearings like the one held today. Health and Human Services Secretary should resign, but she will not. Summing up, Obamacare is having some impact on politics, but not enough for the President to make any changes.
O'Reilly is so full of it, in Virginia it was a miracle McAuliffe won, because no Democrat ever wins there, but the biased idiot O'Reilly turns the whole thing around to say McAuliffe should have won big, but did not because of Obamacare, it's bias and ridiculous nosense from O'Reilly.

Then O'Reilly asked Charles Krauthammer if President Obama will eventually relent and amend the Affordable Care Act. Which is just a stupid question, and it will NEVER happen.

Krauthammer said this: "The President is not going to change, he'll hang in there and he'll pretend that it's all going well. But what you have to keep your eye on is the uprising among Democrats who have to run next year. There are already eleven Democrats in the Senate who have signed on to a postponement of the individual mandate."

Krauthammer also said this: "People are waking up all over America, in the hundreds of thousands, losing the policy they liked and the one the President had promised them. How do you get out of that? I don't even know how they undo that."

Then Democrat Kirsten Powers and Republican Kate Obenshain were asked if the HHS Secretary should step down.

Powers said this: "I don't think she should resign, because they're in the middle of a crisis and I don't think it would help. But she has done a bad job and should be held accountable. Maybe once they get through this crisis she'll resign or the President will fire her."

And of course the Republican Obenshain said it's time for Sebelius to go: "When there is blatant incompetence she has to step aside. In the private sector she would have been fired and somebody very competent would have been brought in to replace her."

Then Carl Cameron laid out a few of the prospective bills brewing in the Senate. "Republican Marco Rubio's bill would essentially delay Obamacare for a full year, while Democrat Joe Manchin would delay the penalty for the individual mandate. Another Democrat, Mary Landrieu, wants to put together a bill that would ensure that if you like your insurance you can keep it."

James Rosen turned to the general mood among Democrats in Washington, saying this: "I've spoken to a number of influential Democratic strategists who tell me that the anxiety level is rising rapidly. They are watching Jay Carney's White House briefings, which are becoming increasingly painful exercises, and they're not getting the information they need to go out and fight on behalf of President Obama."

Then Martha MacCallum was on for did you see that, she talked about Toronto Mayor Rob Ford who has admitted that he smoked crack during one of his "drunken stupors." And why this is a story in America is beyond me, because nobody I know gives a damn about what a mayor in Canada did.

MacCallum said this: "He actually got kicked out of a hockey game because he was in one of his drunken stupors, and this happens on a fairly regular basis. He's been accused of groping women and being homophobic and all kinds of stuff. Folks in Toronto are a little embarrassed and the city council wants him to walk away, but they can not throw him out of office under Ontario law."

MacCallum also commented on the Pittsburgh man who believes he is a dog, saying this: "He's part of a larger group, there are people who think they are animals. They're called 'furries,' they have conventions where they all get dressed up in their animal suits."

Earth to Bill O'Reilly, how in the hell is this news? How can you call this a hard news show after reporting this garbage?

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Independence for Wounded Veterans. Billy said this: "Pay a visit to Independencefund.org and you'll learn about good folks like severely wounded vet Nicholas Koulchar, who received his high-tech TrackChair this week."

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

The TPM was called: Broken Promises. The biased and dishonest right-wing stooge Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: It is beyond a reasonable doubt that the President and his administration misled Americans about Obamacare. The President should admit it right now, but he won't. Instead, yesterday he launched into a torturous explanation about health care plans in place before the Affordable Care Act became law.

President Obama is making a huge mistake by continuing to pettifog the issue; the perception now is that he did not tell the truth. When Americans believe they are not being dealt with squarely, they react. You may remember that President Bush the elder said, 'Read my lips, no new taxes.' President Bush raised taxes and in 1992 he lost the election to Bill Clinton.

So President Obama should take note: Unlike 'Fast and Furious,' Benghazi, the IRS, and NSA snooping, Obamacare is a far different deal. Americans are directly affected because they are paying more money. Now let's deal with the 'L' word controversy. Talking Points does not believe President Bush lied when he said he would not raise taxes, he sincerely did not think that would happen.

Most Americans are smart enough to decide whether President Obama lied about Obamacare. My personal belief is that he never read the law, did not understand the law, and did not care very much about the details. Therefore, he said what his speechwriters wrote. But in the end Americans were misled - Obamacare is chaotic and most of us will have to pay more to protect ourselves and our families.

Finally, the President's ardent supporters continue to defend him, and some of the rationalizations are actually amusing. On television, the more the apologists rant, the lower their ratings go. Nobody is buying it. Right now there are a number of pieces of legislation in Congress that would delay Obamacare, which is the best solution. President Obama should give the country a break, fix what's broken, and level with the folks.
And for about the 10th day in a row O'Reilly wrote a biased TPM about Obamacare, which is ridiculous, and he would have never done this if a Republican was in office. When Bush did bad things O'Reilly usually ignored it and defended it, but if he did write about it he only reported it one time, not 50 times. Proving once again how much conservative bias O'Reilly has. Earth to O'Reilly, we got it, we got it the last 9 times you reported on it, now move on to some other news.

The President is not watching you, does not care what you say or what you want, and Obamacare will not be delayed, ever, it is impossible to delay it, no matter how many times you call for it. And you ignore that most people will pay less to nothing, or that Obamacare only applies to 5% of the people.

Then Jonathan Gruber, the MIT professor who helped design Obamacare was on to give O'Reilly some facts.

Gruber said this: "If you look at Medicare Part D, it was actually less popular than Obamacare before it was enacted and now it is widely accepted and popular. We need to take our time with Obamacare, which I believe will be just as popular. The reason we can't delay this comes to the most important and popular part of the law, which is ending the ability of insurers to discriminate against sick Americans by charging the sick more than the healthy. You can't do that without the mandate, and you can't have the mandate without subsidies to make insurance affordable. It all works together."

O'Reilly then asked Gruber to respond to criticism about him being paid $400,000 for his work, Gruber said this: "I was a technical consultant to the Department of Health and Human Services, I have a computer model that helped the administration and Congress structure this law. That model involves a lot of my time and the time of my employees."

So he was paid for his computer model, his time and his work, a-hole. Not to mention this, O'Reilly never points out that Romneycare in MA. was not up and running right for a year, most people complained, and now they are happy with it. These are facts, and yet O'Reilly never reports any of them, all he does is spin out the right-wing propaganda on Obamacare.

Then the biased and dishonest right-wing jerk John Stossel was on to spin the new reports showing that fraud, waste, and abuse are rampant in federal health care programs.

Stossel said this: "The Inspector General just came out with a report, showing that Medicare pays $23 million for dead patients and $25 million to doctors who are dead - somebody is filling out the forms for the doctor who has died. In any of these big programs this stuff is going to happen and HHS admits that there is $60 billion in fraud and waste each year just on Medicare."

WRONG! That number is made up folks, it's an estimate. There are no facts. Stossel doesn't know how much Medicare fraud there is, the IG doesn't know. You don't know. I don't know. The federal government doesn't know. Nobody knows, because Medicare fraud as a whole isn't tracked. That's why when "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft reported on it he said fraud is "estimated now to total about $60 billion a year." Estimated.

"The estimate range in the Attorney General's Q and A was $27 to $90 billion, but that is using National Healthcare Anti-Fraud Association and General Accounting Office estimates on total federal expenditures."

The National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association, a partnership between private insurers and the federal government, says that it "estimates conservatively that 3 percent of all health care spending -- or $68 billion -- is lost to health care fraud."

Then Kimberly Guilfoyle and Lis Wiehl weighed in on a new abortion controversy that pits Planned Parenthood against Texas lawmakers.

Guilfoyle said this: "Texas has some of the toughest restrictions on abortion in the country. For example, unless a doctor has admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles, the doctor can not perform an abortion. Planned Parenthood is suing because this law has forced one-third of its clinics in Texas to shut down. They say it violates the right of privacy."

Wiehl implied that Planned Parenthood may be on sound legal ground, saying this: "You can't make abortions illegal and you can't make abortions so difficult to get."

Then Monica Crowley & Alan Colmes were on to talk about Republican passed voter ID laws and a new report out of Long Island that shows hundreds of dead people are somehow casting votes.

Colmes said this: "This was a clerical error for the most part. There were clerks who misidentified people and used the names of people who were deceased and had similar names. This is not voter ID fraud. Photo ID laws are meant to keep minorities, the elderly, and the young out of the polls and to hurt Democrats!"

But of course the biased and dishonest right-winger Monica Crowley argued in favor of photo ID requirements, saying this: "I voted today in New York City and wanted to take out my drivers license, but they said it's not necessary. According to 'True the Vote,' last year 46 states prosecuted voter fraud cases, and nationally there are 1.8 million dead people still on the rolls and eligible to vote. Voter fraud is real and it's relatively widespread."

Which is a misleading stat, and Crowley knows it. Over the past 10 years Texas has convicted 51 people of voter fraud, according the state's Attorney General Greg Abbott. Only four of those cases were for voter impersonation, the only type of voter fraud that voter ID laws prevent.

Nationwide that rate of voter impersonation is even lower. Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates in the last 3 years, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a Congressional hearing. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas.

Voter fraud is real, but it's very rare. And even if they allowed those illegal votes to be counted, it is so rare it would not have changed the results in any elections, ever. So the Republicans are passing new voter ID laws to solve a problem that is not there.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day. That was not a tip so I am not reporting it. O'Reilly used the tip of the day segment to promote books by 3 people (including himself) who work at Fox News, which is not a tip, it's a cheap book promotion on a so-called hard news show.

Bad News For Republicans: McAuliffe Won In Virginia
By: Steve - November 6, 2013 - 10:00am

O'Reilly and all his right-wing friends said because everyone now hates Obama for all his so-called scandals, Benghazi, IRS, Obamacare, etc. that no Democrat was going to win any elections, WRONG!

The liberal Bill Clinton friend Terry McAuliffe won Tuesday in the conservative state of Virginia, which is almost a miracle. Think about that, Virginia is the home of the NRA and one of the most conservative states in America, and they just elected a liberal to be their next Governor.

McAuliffe defeated Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli on Tuesday to become the next governor of Virginia -- in a race that Cuccinelli had termed a "referendum on Obamacare."

Virginia has historically been a conservative-leaning swing state. It backed every Republican presidential nominee from Richard Nixon through George W. Bush and elected a Republican governor by a 59 to 41 landslide in 2009.

While the state has one of the highest percentages of federal employees, polls showed McAuliffe's lead remained fairly steady before and after the shutdown and Cuccinelli himself dismissed it as largely forgotten factor before Election Day.

Though McAuliffe's principal argument of "putting jobs first" was not controversial and attracted prominent GOP supporters, in campaign ads, debates, and online, his progressive positions were front and center:
Women's Health: McAuliffe seized early and often on Cuccinelli's crusade against contraception, abortion, and women's health clinics. Five separate McAuliffe ads focused on Cuccinelli's support for a radical personhood bill that could have banned all abortion.

Obamacare Implementation: McAuliffe has made his support for Medicaid expansion a major part of his plan and in debates hammered Cuccinelli for his unwillingness to take the billions of dollars available from the federal government for health insurance for poor Virginians.

Climate Science: McAuliffe, a proponent of clean energy and environmental conservation made Cuccinelli's climate-change denial a liability. In debates, campaign events, and a television spot, he hammered Cuccinelli's illegal witchhunt against a University of Virginia climate scientist and slammed Cuccinelli's cozy ties with the fossil fuel industry.

Gun Violence Prevention: In the National Rife Association's home state, McAuliffe made no secret of his strong support for universal background checks for gun purchases. In an October debate at Virginia Tech, site of the 2007 shootings that killed 32 people, Cuccinelli made it clear that he he opposed universal background checks and was proud of his "A" rating from the NRA.

LGBT Equality: Beyond just expressing full support for LGBT equality -- rights Cuccinelli led the fight against as a state legislator and as attorney general -- McAuliffe made LGBT rights an issue.
The fact that historically conservative Virginia backed a candidate who ran on a progressive platform is a repudiation of the conservative agenda and an indication that progressive ideas like marriage equality, women's reproductive rights, affordable healthcare, background checks, and climate change action are all now mainstream positions.

It also shows that Bill O'Reilly is a proven right-wing hack who was wrong. He said that no Democrat will win because Obama is so hated over Obamacare, etc. Proving once again that O'Reilly does not predict what he thinks will happen, he predicts what he wants to happen.

The Monday 11-4-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 5, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: Why are Folks Angry about Obamacare? The biased and dishonest Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: Everywhere I go people are walking up to me venting about Obamacare. The consensus is that we've been let down, sold an important piece of legislation in an unfair way. To be fair, millions of Americans will embrace Obamacare, but many of those people will be getting their health insurance free of charge or for very little money.

Some Americans don't really care that deceit was used in passing the Affordable Health Care law - the New York Times editorialized that President Obama 'misspoke' about the new law. 'Misspoke?' The media, which desperately wants universal health care paid for by the wealthy and working Americans, continues to downplay the problem.

But it is becoming quite clear that many working Americans will pay more, in some cases a lot more, for their health insurance. During Mr. Obama's tenure, take-home pay has gone down, and that's the true measure of the economy. Also, we're getting hammered on higher taxes on just about everything.

So that is why people are so angry about Obamacare - they can't afford to pay more for health insurance. Over the coming months, Talking Points predicts that Americans will become even more furious. And even though he says he doesn't know very much about the many controversies that have beset his administration, this time Barack Obama will be held responsible.
And I predict O'Reilly will be wrong, once they get the bugs worked out on the website and people find out the truth about Obamacare most people will be happy with it. And O'Reilly asked why so many people are mad about Obamacare, it's because Fox News and the Republicans have told so many lies about it to make Obama look bad and hurt him politically.

Remember this folks, it only covers 5% of the American people, 7 million by 2014. The other 95% of the people will not have Obamacare, and the 5% that do have it will be happy once they get it and find out how cheap it will be for what they get. Wait 1 year and see who is right, I predict it will be me and not O'Reilly.

Then Brit Hume was on to comment on the media's recent tendency to report on Obamacare's many deficiencies.

Hume said this: "It isn't just people like you and me who are voicing these criticisms of Obamacare, the mainstream media are in full cry about this. They've been absolutely brutal about the evasions and excuses that are being offered, they're just not buying it. And the more the administration tries to evade and obscure and blame others, the more it feeds the story. This thing is out there and it is rolling."

Which is just more proof O'Reilly and Hume are wrong about liberal bias in the mainstream media, because if they were biased to the left they would ignore the story or spin it for Obama, instead they are hammering him for it, proving they have no bias. Unlike Fox, who always has a bias against Obama no matter what he does.

Then Juan Williams & Mary Katharine Ham were on to talk about Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein who according to O'Reilly seemed confused about Obamacare. Except Feinstein is not confused, O'Reilly is just saying that to make her look bad, because he hates her.

Williams said this: "If you had a plan before March of 2010 when the law went into effect, you're supposed to be able to keep it. But there are minimum standards that a lot of those policies don't meet."

Ham said this: "The promise was that everybody could keep their plans, but that's not the case. A lot of Obamacare supporters like Diane Feinstein now exhibit feigned or true ignorance of what was in the law. She's also sort of flippant about the millions who are losing their coverage. All of this is in the service of dancing around a known lie that the Obama administration told."

The millions that is only 5% of the people. And they will get new plans that actually cover something, unilke the old plans they had that hardly cover anything and can bankrupt them. Ham is a lying right-wing idiot, just like her hero O'Reilly. If they lost their plan it was garbage and did not meet the minimum standards for decent health care coverage, so they should lose it and get a real one.

Then Mark Halperin was on to talk about President Obama's recent popularity plunge. While ignoring the fact that the Republicans are at record low approval ratings, and yet O'Reilly only talks about the Obama approval rating going down.

Halperin said this: "I think it's possible, that the President could end up having a four-year term in which basically nothing happens at a time when the country needs to get a lot done. In the fall of 2011 the President basically decided he would not get anything done, he would spend the last year of his first term attacking Mitt Romney and the Republicans. He thought that when he beat them, he could then move his agenda through. The way he ran for re-election made it more likely he'd win, but less likely that he could govern successfully."

Halperin also said this: "When the President decided to pass health care with only Democratic votes, he put himself in the position of having health care be a constant war. Republicans are not going to want to work with him on health care, particularly after he spent the last quarter of his first term attacking them."

Then the biased right-wing hack Bernie Goldberg was on for his weekly analysis of the overall Obamacare coverage.

Goldberg said this: "The so-called 'mainstream media' have covered the disastrous rollout, but they deserve no credit for finally doing their job. I say 'finally' because in the three years leading up to this very few news organizations told us what was going to happen. They didn't warn us, and that is their job. When President Obama said, 'If you like your health care plan you can keep it' they simply wrote it down. That's what stenographers do, that's not what journalists do. I think the President lied to us!"

So let me get this straight, every week O'Reilly and Goldberg cry about what they claim is liberal bias in the media for being soft on Obama, as they ignore all the conservative bias at Fox, and they ask them to do their job in an unbiased way. So they do their job in an unbiased way and Goldberg says he will not give them any credit for it. Goldberg is an idiot and a fool. Not to mention the irony, having two right-wing biased idiots at Fox complaining about bias, then refusing to credit the mainstream media for not having a bias.

Then Jesse Watters wasted 4 minutes of our lives with his segment about an online publication that said the University of Wisconsin is the "sexiest college in America," Jesse Watters immediately headed to Madison to get the tabloid non-news story, because that is what he does to get O'Reilly ratings.

Here's what a few Badgers told Watters. "Everyone cares a ton about how they look" ... "Sexy people just flock here " ... "It's a sexual cauldron - no homework, no studying" ... "We're all really good-looking."

Back in the studio, Watters reported that Wisconsin students seem to revel in their reputation. "They're very proud of it. It's progressive to be liberal and sexy and open with yourself, everybody is embracing their sexuality."

So how is that news that the American people need to know to make an informed vote, on what O'Reilly has said is a hard news show that is a no spin zone and only deals in the facts? Answer that O'Reilly, you jerk!

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: History Lessons. Billy said this: "Take it upon yourself to teach your children and grandchildren about U.S. history, which often gets too little attention in today's schools."

Writer Calls O'Reilly A Complete Imbecile
By: Steve - November 5, 2013 - 10:00am

And he even mentioned this website in his article. Galanty Miller wrote this for the Huffington Post:

But about Bill O'Reilly...

A study from Fairleigh Dickinson University found that Fox News viewers were less informed than people who don't watch any news at all... which would mean that Fox News is actually making people dumber.

The O'Reilly Factor is the Fox News flagship. I watch the show sometimes. I find it both entertaining and frustrating. I'm probably a little dumber, although that might also be from watching the Transformers movies. I also know people who watch Bill O'Reilly religiously and without irony. These people are not geniuses.

But is Bill O'Reilly himself an imbecile?

O'Reilly spends 59 minutes each night offering his biased, hypocritical opinions, which he calls the "No-Spin Zone." Then he spends the final minute of the show shilling his merchandise. I call that time the "Go-Spend Zone."

Bill O'Reilly was once a high school teacher, a job for which I have much admiration. He writes books with substance. He's a good debater. He has a point-of-view. He has a general knowledge of current events. As an on-air broadcaster, he has a talent for what he does; he's articulate, quick, and likeable. These are smart traits.

On the other hand, he is convinced that there is a "war" on Christmas. And even though the vast majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, O'Reilly is convinced that department stores are replacing "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays" as part of a liberal conspiracy to take down Christianity. Apparently, the pious are upset that we're taking the "Christ" out of Walmart's sale on hair dryers. This is not smart.

There is a website, www.oreilly-sucks.com, which monitors all of O'Reilly's stupid -- and hypocritical and partisan and sometimes ignorant -- views. There is a lot of stupidity there. I think the "sucks" part is a bit harsh, though.

Bill O'Reilly's thought-process exists within a world of his own delusional, self-constructed, self-involved reality of information. And within that world, he is very intelligent. He has the mental aptitude to learn his ridiculous information, he knows his ludicrous information, and he processes his misguided information constructively. It's an impressive combination.

I'll leave it up to you do decide if that makes him an imbecile.

But Sean Hannity is just a complete goofball.

-----------------------------------------------------

For the record, I did not pick the website name of www.oreilly-sucks.com. I was paid a small fee to do this website 13 years ago, not much, the guy basically paid me enough to cover the domain name and the hosting fees for about a year. He paid me a whopping $150.00.

I wanted to call the website oreillyspins.com, but he wanted www.oreilly-sucks.com, or he would not pay me to set it up and run it, so I went with www.oreilly-sucks.com.

Obamacare Victim Now Calls Losing Health Plan Blessing in Disguise
By: Steve - November 4, 2013 - 11:00am

Here is a story you will never ever see O'Reilly report.

When Dianne Barrette appeared on CBS This Morning last week, she instantly became the poster child for all of those Americans whose insurance companies are terminating their plans due to the higher standards dictated by the Affordable Care Act. Now, in an interview with The New Republic, the 56-year-old Florida resident admits that losing her existing health insurance plan my not be so bad after all.

Mediaite's Tommy Christopher debunked much of CBS News reporting in a column that called the segment misleading and revealed the details of Barrette's bare bones insurance plan. "The plan that Barrette paid $54 a month for is barely health insurance at all," Christopher wrote. 'It's part of a subset of insurance that Consumer Reports calls "junk health insurance" (and which even the company that sells it recommends that customers not rely solely upon) and it pays only $50 towards most of the services it covers."

The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn, who cites Christopher's article as an initial source in his piece, takes this approach one step further by extensively outlining the variety of plans likely available for Barrette under Obamacare.

He concludes that given her income, the cheapest plan available for Barrette after federal subsidies are subtracted would cost around $100 per month, or just $50 more than she was paying before and would protect her from bankruptcy, something her old plan did not do.

For $150 per month, her coverage would be significantly more comprehensive.

When Cohn explained these options to Barrette, she responded: "I would jump at it. With my age, things can happen. I don't want to have bills that could make me bankrupt. I don't want to lose my house."

Whereas on CBS Barrette explained how happy she was with her current insurance and asked "Why do I have to be forced into something else?" after learning more about her new options she's singing a different tune.

"Maybe, it's a blessing in disguise," she told Cohn.

Of course, as both CBS News Jan Crawford and The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn both point out in their reports, if Barrette was able to easily and successfully log on to HealthCare.gov she would have been able to discover the information about her new options without a reporter doing it for her.

There are no doubt many more Americans out there like Barrette, who received termination letters in the mail, but, for now at least, do not have the ability to figure out just how Obamacare can help them get better coverage.

Barrette's story does less to undermine the substance of the Affordable Care Act than to underscore how crucial it is that Obamacare's online exchange system starts functioning properly as soon as possible.

Zimmerman's Hometown Bans Guns For Neighborhood Watches
By: Steve - November 3, 2013 - 10:00am

The town where Trayvon Martin was killed back in February of 2012 has created new rules for neighborhood watch participants. Sanford, Florida's neighborhood watch volunteers will no longer be allowed to carry guns, and or to actively pursue someone they think is suspicious.

Trayvon Martin's killer, George Zimmerman, was a volunteer on neighborhood watch in his gated community in Sanford.

Around the time of the shooting, other neighborhood watch members trashed Zimmerman for his actions on that fateful night. "In no program that I have ever heard of does someone patrol with a gun in their pocket," the Executive Director of Citizens Crime Watch of Miami-Dade told theGrio.

A neighborhood watchman added in a Wall Street Journal editorial, "George Zimmerman gives neighborhood watch volunteers a bad name." Even one of Zimmerman's fellow neighborhood watchmen said that Zimmerman should not have had a gun.

A Sanford spokesperson agreed with this sentiment when announcing the laws on Wednesday. "Neighborhood watch was always intended to be a program where you observe what is going on and report it to police," Shannon Cordingly told Yahoo News. "In light of everything that has gone on, that's what we're really going to go back and push."

The new neighborhood watch rules will be rolled out on November 5th.

And of course O'Reilly ignored the entire story, because he supports these cop wannabes like George Zimmerman who run around with guns killing innocent people.

The Friday 11-1-13 O'Reilly/Bolling Factor Review
By: Steve - November 2, 2013 - 11:00am

The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Eric Bolling started Friday's show with the report that only six Americans actually enrolled in Obamacare on its first day. Democratic strategist Julian Epstein downplayed the significance of that number.

Epstein said this: "I'm the first to acknowledge that there have been a lot of problems with the rollout, but the question is whether they will get a sufficient number of people into the exchanges. If you look at the numbers, it's pretty persuasive that they will get enough people. About 45 million people don't have health insurance, so a large percentage of those will sign up for a system where they can get very good and comprehensive health care at rates as low as $100 a month. We are clearly going to get far more than 7-million people entering into this."

Bolling was of course less optimistic about the short-term prospects for Obamacare, saying this: "They said they would get to 7-million enrollees by March, but it doesn't look like that is the case. They're going to have to either delay the individual mandate or delay the fines if people don't have insurance."

Okay, so that is what they will do moron. All you need to know is that this type of health care plan was supported by the Republicans when Romney did it in MA, and before Obamacare was passed. Now they are all opposed to it, for one simple reason, because it was passed by a Democratic President by the name of Barack Obama. If a Republican President had passed the same plan they would all support it, so it's nothing but politics, and frankly I am getting tried of even talking about it.

Then Ed Henry was on to report on the leaked information indicating that very few Americans signed up for Obamacare in its initial days.

Henry said this: "What the White House tried to do today, is blame it on Republicans. But this is data that came in from the administration, this is internal data from the 'war room' at Health and Human Services. If the administration wants to end this, they can release the numbers they have. We know they have numbers they are looking at every day, but they won't release them. In the interest of transparency, it might help them to show the American people where we are."

Earth to Ed Henry, nobody cares but partisan Republicans who want to use the numbers to make Obama look bad for political reasons. If Obama looks bad it will hurt Hillary when she runs in 2016, but she is going to win anyway, jerk.

Then Glenn Greenwald was on, he published the revelations initially put forth by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

Greenwald said this: "President Obama chose to tell the public things that he knew to be false. NSA officials lied to Congress and President Obama has repeatedly misled the public by claiming that the NSA does not invade the contents of our communications. In fact, the NSA is frequently monitoring the communication of American citizens."

And it was done for national security reasons loser, every President does it, including Bush. Then Ric Grenell, who defended the NSA's practices was on to discuss it.

Grenell said this: "The policy is that they are not looking inside specific emails of Americans. The NSA tells us that they are only looking at foreign intelligence coming in. Let's remember that people like Glenn Greenwald have never been on the receiving end of what we call the 'blue sheets,' which are intelligence gathering policies. When you're on the receiving end of intelligence briefings, it's a sobering experience. You're trying to keep America safe."

Bolling argued that the NSA oversteps its boundaries when it snoops on Americans: "I love the fact that they're listening to Angela Merkel's conversations and those of world leaders. But when you go into Americans' phone calls and emails, that's when they violate the law."

And for once I agree with Bolling, but you know what they say, even a broken clock is right once a day.

Then Geraldo was on to talk about the University of California, now headed by former Homeland Security boss Janet Napolitano, who is setting aside $5 million for financial aid to illegal immigrants.

Geraldo, who endorses the UC proposal said this: "In terms of the undocumented students, they graduated high school and they were brought to California by their parents when they were small children. 38% of California is Latino, it's a tremendous demographic and a tremendous voting bloc. Only 900 undocumented immigrants are attending the University of California and they are now eligible for help. Individual states set the tone and tenor of how undocumented immigrants are treated."

Then Bolling played a re-run tape of O'Reilly's recent interview with Reggie Jackson, the Hall of Fame baseball star known as "Mr. October." Which I will not report on, because it is not news, and it's a re-run.

The Thursday 10-31-13 O'Reilly Factor Review
By: Steve - November 1, 2013 - 11:00am

The TPM was called: The Ends Justifying the Means. The biased and dishonest right-wing hack Bill O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: America has entered another dimension. Yesterday President Obama continued his campaign of misleading statements, saying this: 'If you had one of these substandard plans before the Affordable Care Act became law and you liked that plan, you were able to keep it.' But that's not true, you can't keep it. According to the Washington Post, the President's comment rated 'four Pinocchios,' which is deception at the highest level.

So why does the President continue to do this? For the USA to become a progressive nation, the federal government must control key aspects of American life, health care and the economy being the top two. Thus, the end justifies the means. Obamacare will cause many Americans, perhaps most, major inconvenience and higher health care expense. And even though President Obama's propaganda has been exposed, he doesn't seem to care.

Instead of being chastened, he's emboldened. Why? Because the President believes his vision for America, including health care for all, is more noble than any truthful statement. So he justifies his actions even if deceit is involved. Instead of leveling with the folks that national health care will require deep sacrifice from many, he continues to sugar it up.

Barack Obama knows that the Democratic Party and progressive Americans don't really care how he gets there, they just want more government control. If the President has to deceive to do that, so be it. I have studied the man and my analysis of him has been accurate and fair.

I have never demonized the President, insulted him, or tried to marginalize him. He is a committed left-wing man who believes the USA would be a far better place if only we would all listen to him. And he'll say pretty much anything to make his progressive vision come true.
What a joke, almost all of what O'Reilly said about the President is a lie, he slams him every day and has 95% Republican guests on who call Obama every name in the book. His analysis has been biased and unfair, and he disagrees with Obama on everything he does. Not to mention when Bush was in office, O'Reilly almost never said a bad word about him, and defended everything he did. O'Reilly is a biased hack, he just will not admit it.

Then Democratic strategist Christopher Hahn was on to discuss the O'Reilly Talking Points.

Hahn said this: "It's not the President and the Affordable Care Act that are canceling plans. Private insurance companies are deciding that rather than meet the standards in existing plans, they'll offer their customers new plans. The private sector is making the choice to cancel these plans. But I wish the President would stop saying 'if you like your plan you can keep your plan,' he's got to start 'fessing up to the American people. Every politician who tries to sell their ideas accentuates the positive and tries to eliminate the negative."

Earth to O'Reilly, they are canceling plans because they are garbage and do not meet basic health care standards, so that is a good thing. And they will get new plans, that will be about the same cost or a little higher, but they will have much better coverage. And these plans only cover 5% of the people who buy private health insurance. O'Reilly is mostly crying about it because the rich will pay more.

Then Laura Ingraham analyzed how and whether Republicans can take advantage of the Obamacare mess.

Ingraham said this: "When you look at the Wall Street Journal poll that just came out, the President has the lowest numbers of his presidency. But Republican numbers aren't better, so they have to be smart. If it looks like they're just beating up on the HHS Secretary or taking advantage of this crisis, people will say, forget the political party system. Republicans have to start talking beyond the website and beyond policies being canceled. They have to tie this to liberalism and progressivism, this website is a symbol of Obama's failed promises."

And btw folks, O'Reilly and Ingraham do not tell you that it took about a year to get the Romneycare plan ramped up in MA. Then almost everyone was happy with it, so let's wait a year and see what people think of Obamacare then. I predict it will all get straightened out and most people will like it.

Then Heather Nauert was on for what are you mad about.

Illinois resident Marc Silhan is incensed because disgraced and imprisoned Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. will get a taxpayer-supported pension. "He should in theory lose his pension because of the crimes he committed," Nauert explained, "but first he has to apply for a pension at age 62. He could get his pension, an unelected federal bureaucrat will make the final determination."

Kentuckian Richard Noss expressed anger because healthy Americans have to pay for medical bills racked up by those who are obese, out of shape, and addicted. "I absolutely agree with him," Nauert said, "and so many young children are starting to suffer from adult-style illnesses. Some are getting knee replacements and some have hypertension because they're overweight."

Then Megyn Kelly was on with a story out of Kentucky, where one man dressed up as President Obama in a straight jacket for Halloween.

Kelly said this: "Nobody complained, but all 750 employees have been forced to take 'diversity training' so they understand that it's improper to hurt anyone's feelings. The villains here are the lawyers because employers have to worry about someone suing and claiming that they have been 'ethnically insensitive.'"

Kelly turned to Bordentown, New Jersey, where some grade school kids have been banned from singing Christmas songs. "Fourth and fifth graders wanted to perform a winter concert that has some Christmas carols, but some parents suggested that they don't want that. The school district's legal firm determined that religious music should not be a part of the elementary program and the school folded."

O'Reilly warned the district that they may soon have a visitor, saying this: "I'm mad about this, I may have to go down there. Stop taking it out on the kids!"

Then Adam Carolla was on to talk about kids and trick or treats.

Carolla said this: "Kids get bused into our neighborhood to get all the good candy. When I was a kid you'd walk around your own neighborhood, but now in Los Angeles the kids in the bad neighborhood jump in a minivan and go to the good neighborhood to pilfer all the candy. I think the message is, hey, go get more free stuff from the rich guy up on the hill and get used to it, this is going to be your life. I think these kids should stay in their own neighborhood, step over the carcass of a sofa, walk to the front door and find a guy with an ankle bracelet, and get a three-year old candy corn with a cat hair in it."

Which proves Adam Carolla is a giant idiot, because if you are a kid you are going to go to nice areas to get the good candy. Plas it is dangerous and unsafe for kids to go door to door in some neighborhoods.

And finally, the lame Factor tip of the day called: Boston's Diamond Jubilee. Billy said this: "The city of Boston's comeback after this year's terror bombings, capped off by the Red Sox World Series victory, proves again that good always triumphs over the forces of evil."

Which is just ridiculous, as if the Red Sox winning the World Series had anything to do with some kind of payback to the city for the terror bombing. It's insane, and laughable.

Megyn Kelly Proves Her Right-Wing Bias Again
By: Steve - November 1, 2013 - 10:00am

After saying her show would have no bias or partisan spin from her, she has been biased multiple times, and she did it again Tuesday.

Kelly cut away from President Barack Obama's address on climate change in favor of a lawyer from a fossil-fuel-funded think tank, who proceeded to dismiss the science indicating significant manmade global warming.

On Tuesday, America Live interrupted Obama's speech, claiming that the president's statement that "the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it" is "not the full story."

Host Megyn Kelly then interviewed Chris Horner, a Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and American Tradition Institute (ATI) fellow who often appears on Fox News to cast doubt on climate science.

Kelly granted Horner, a lawyer who has no scientific training, nearly as much air time (approximately 4 minutes and 10 seconds) as the President (approximately 4 minutes and 35 seconds).

Kelly and Horner each claimed there has been "no warming" in the last 15 years, with Horner laughably saying "the presidency deserves more than (warnings about climate change)."

However, short-term temperature trends do not undermine the extensive evidence that the planet is getting warmer, largely due to human activity, at a rate that will have significant negative impacts.

Horner has spearheaded an ongoing effort to attack the Environmental Protection Agency and hype the Obama administration's alleged "war on coal," even when no evidence backs him up. Both CEI and ATI have financial ties to Koch Industries and other fossil fuel interests.

An actual non-partisan straight news journalist would have had no opinion on it, and he or she would have had 2 guests on, one from each side of the issue. Instead Kelly gave an opinion, and had just one biased guest on to discuss it. Who btw, was not qualified to talk about it, he is just a partisan political hack.